Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 CITYGI Cui.i.'G"S1 1� No,,,evfT MEMORANDUM March 12, 2012 TO: Manuel Gonzalez, Goncloss Realty, LP — via email: mgonzalez(cDsterlingautogroup.net FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP, Principal Planner Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner SUBJECT: Sterling Auto Group Non -Residential Architecture Review (NRA) Staff reviewed the above -mentioned Non -Residential Architectural plans as requested. Based on the amount and significance of the attached review comments, it may be desirable to schedule a facilitation meeting to discuss them before proceeding to make the revisions. Please feel free to contact us to schedule a meeting. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information by any Monday at 10:00 a.m. for further staff review: One (1) revised set of elevation drawings; and Material Samples as described in the comments. If there are comments that you are not addressing with the revised elevations, please attach a letter explaining the details. Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the applicant has not provided written response comments and revised documents to the Administrator that seek to address the staff review comments contained herein. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments PC: Joe Schultz, Schultz Engineering, LLC —via email: loeschultz84(cDverizon.net Wayne Alderman, Castles Design Group, PC —via email: walderman(cDcastlesdesigngroup. com Case file #12-00500036 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Sterling Auto Group (NRA) — NRA Review 12-00500036 PLANNING 1. Revise the NRA Summary Table on all elevation sheets to state the project is required to meet the gross square feet combination of buildings for the 20K+ standards in Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 7.9.D (exceeds 20,000 but less than 50,000 gross sq) not the 50,000 to 149,000 category that is stated. While the total of all buildings exceed 50,000 square feet, Pavilion Avenue separates the project into two separate buildings plots that reduces the standard to the 20k+ threshold for each side of the street. 2. Revise NRA Summary Table on each elevation sheet to provide the 10% and 25% figures for each fagade (currently they just repeat the total). Also provide the percentages of each material and color used on each elevation as shown in the table in UDO Section 7.9.B.3.c. 3. On each elevation sheet, provide a plan view of the footprint of each building to help provide clarity to the elevations. 4. Revise what is depicted for each elevation on each building and included in its material calculations. As examples on the GMC building: (1) on the West elevation the service canopy is seen though it is about 80 feet back and is better considered solely part of the North elevation and (2) on the East elevation the top of the roof line of the West elevation is shown and appears to be included in the material calculations though it is over 200 feet away and would not be visible. If desired, instead of removing these types of items, you may "ghost" them in as depicted but exclude them from the material calculations. 5. As per UDO Section 7.9.13.2, each elevation for all buildings are required to have two different architectural relief elements for each section of building (45-foot sections for elevations facing a right-of-way and 60-foot sections for the other elevations). Please identify the proposed architectural elements on each elevation. As the full width of a section is necessary to qualify for an additional section, the following amount of architectural relief elements sections were identified: a. GMC building: i. Facing public right-of-way (45-foot sections): West elevation (2 sections), East elevation (2 sections), and North elevation (4 sections) ii. Other (60-foot sections): South elevation (3 sections) b. Collision Center: i. Facing public right-of-way (45-foot sections): West elevation (1 section) and East elevation (1 section) ii. Other (60-foot sections): South elevation (4 sections) and North elevation (4 sections) c. Car Wash building: i. Facing public right-of-way (45-foot sections): West elevation (1 section) and East elevation (1 section) ii. Other (60-foot sections): South elevation (1 section) and North elevation (1 section) d. KIA building: i. Facing public right-of-way (45-foot sections): West elevation (1 section), East elevation (1 section), and South elevation (3 sections) ii. Other (60-foot sections): North elevation (2 sections) e. Subaru building: i. Facing public right-of-way (45-foot sections): West elevation (1 section), ii. Other (60-foot sections): East elevation (1 section), North elevation (1 section), and South elevation (1 section) 6. As per UDO Section, 7.9.D.1, all elevations facing a public right-of-way in a 20,000+ sq ft building plot must consist of at least 25% brick, stone, marble, granite or material fabricated to simulate brick or stone (as determined by staff). This requirement applies to all elevations identified in the preceding comment as "facing a public right-of-way." All the 'other" elevations are visible from a public right-of-way and must contain at 10% of these materials. 7. Provide material samples for the various proposed materials: stamped CMU, aluminum composite material (ACM), and natural slate tile (on Subaru). Please note that once submitted staff will need to determine if the stamped CMU is a concrete product that has an integrated color and is textured or patterned to simulate brick. 8. The maximum metal percentage per elevation is 20%. It appears that a number of the elevations exceed this threshold, please revise. 9. Please be aware that painted concrete by itself is not an approved material. As per UDO Section 7.9.B.3.b, high build textured paint on concrete that is determined to simulate EIFS, hardboard, etc is allowable. Please revise and/or provide a sample so this determination can be made. 10. On the GMC building, label the material of main marquee entrance on West Elevation and include it in the material and color calculations. 11. On the GMC building, it appears the ACM colors are not labeled correctly. ACM1 appears white, but is black on color sample; ACM2 appears black but is silver on color sample. 12. On the Kia building, the metal trim fascia needs to be included in the material and color percentages. 13. Identify the roof color used for each elevation. 14. Please note that colors not on or within the range of colors on the City of College Station Color Palette (metallic colors, etc) are considered accent colors. The maximum amount of accent color per elevation is 15%. 15. As mentioned in the site plan comments, chain link is a type of fencing that has been determined to be visibly offensive can be used only if it is screened. Provide an alternative type of fencing material. 16. Provide a note on all elevation sheets that the signs shown are for illustration only and are permitted separately. Reviewed by: Jason Schubert and Teresa Rogers Date: March 8, 2012 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 CITYGI Cui.i.'G"S1 1� No,,,evfT MEMORANDUM April 5, 2012 TO: Manuel Gonzalez, Goncloss Realty, LP — via email: mgonzalez(cDsterlingautogroup.net FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP, Principal Planner Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner SUBJECT: Sterling Auto Group Non -Residential Architecture Review (NRA) Staff reviewed the above -mentioned Non -Residential Architectural plans as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information by any Monday at 10:00 a.m. for further staff review: One (1) revised set of elevation drawings If there are comments that you are not addressing with the revised elevations, please attach a letter explaining the details. Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the applicant has not provided written response comments and revised documents to the Administrator that seek to address the staff review comments contained herein. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments PC: Joe Schultz, Schultz Engineering, LLC —via email: loeschultz84(cDverizon.net Wayne Alderman, Castles Design Group, PC —via email: walderman(cDcastlesdesigngroup. com Chuck Ellison, The Ellison Firm —via email: chuck(cDellisonlaw.com Case file #12-00500036 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2 Sterling Auto Group (NRA) — NRA Review 12-00500036 PLANNING 1. Though the material percentage calculations have been provided, only a couple of the building elevations have been modified toward compliance in relation to building material. As per LIDO Section, 7.9.D.1, all elevations facing a public right-of-way must consist of at least 25% brick, stone, marble, granite or material fabricated to simulate brick or stone with all "other" elevations that are visible from a public right-of-way containing at 10% of these materials. To qualify toward this percentage, brick may not be painted in order to achieve the "fired brick" appearance. Light colored fired brick may be used. In addition, the proposed simulated brick may not be a painted brick pattern in concrete but is to have an integrated color and textured to truly simulate brick. 2. Based on the above comment, all proposed brick or simulated brick is painted and therefore does not qualify toward the minimum percentage brick/stone requirement. In addition, several elevations do not meet the minimum percentage even if the proposed painted brick or painted simulated brick pattern could be counted toward the requirement. Please revise. 3. On the West elevation of Subura, add the stone percentage to Material Breakdown percentages table for the "masonry" category. 4. The maximum metal percentage per elevation is 20%. It appears that a number of the elevations still exceed this threshold. Please revise. 5. The roofline articulation required in LIDO Section 7.9.B.2 for flat roofs facing a public right- of-way is not being met. I apologize that this requirement was overlooked in the previous review due to the magnitude and degree of comments that were being made. Please revise. 6. The building elevations have been revised and architectural elements added and labeled. Most elevations, however, still do not meet the requirement for two different (types of) design elements for each section of building as per LIDO Section 7.9.B.2. Please note that the recessed entries that are labeled do not qualify as such as they are doors underneath an overhang. Also, there are wall plane projections on the north elevation of the Collision Center and north and South elevations of the Kia building that are not labeled. The following elevations or parts of elevations are still deficient of two different design elements: a. GMC building: i. South elevation — two eastern (right) sections ii. East elevation — both sections iii. North elevation — eastern (left) section b. Collision Center: i. South elevation — all four sections ii. East elevation iii. North elevation — two eastern (left) sections c. Car Wash building — all four elevations d. KIA building: i. South elevation — eastern (right) section ii. East elevation iii. North elevation — western (right) section e. Subaru building: i. East elevation ii. North elevation As discussed with you previously by staff, there are relief mechanisms for the non- residential architecture standards. In LIDO Section 7.9.G, the Design Review Board (DRB) is authorized to consider six different types of waiver/appeal requests through application to them. If a type of waiver/appeal is not authorized through the DRB, an application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) would be the appropriate relief mechanism. In reviewing the above -referenced deficiencies, it appears that only the architectural design elements (comment #6) could be considered by DRB and only if alternative design elements were proposed, not a waiver from having to provide the elements (UDO Section 7.9.G.5). As for materials, it is of our opinion that the proposed stamped CMU or aluminum composite metal panels could not substitute as new or innovative materials or of comparable quality and appearance to required materials (UDO Section 7.9.G.1). It should also be noted that a waiver from the brick/stone material requirement is specifically prohibited in this section. Reviewed by: Jason Schubert and Teresa Rogers Date: April 2, 2012