Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesCOLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 WOLF PEN CREED DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REPORT December 3, 1998 TO: Rick Ferrara, 445 E. Walnut St., Std 131, Richardson, TX 75081 Larry Wells, MDG, 255IA Teas Ave., CS, 77840 Rabon Metcalf, MDG, 2551A Texas Ave., CS; .77840 Todd McDaniels, City of College Station FROM: Design Review Board: Kay Henryson, DRB Chairman Phil Kelby, DRB Member George McLean, DRB Member Chars Ragland, DRB Member James Massey, P&Z Chairman Winnie Garner, P&Z Representative Karl Mooney, P&Z Representative. Others Attending Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator- Jane Kee, City Planner Veronica Morgan, Assistant.. City Engineer Debra Charanza, Staff Assistant Pete Vanecek, Parks Planner Ric Ploeger, Assistant Parks & Recreation Director AEC;EIVED DEL' 4 9 1998 Richard Ferrara Architect, Inc. SUBJECT: College Station Hotel/Conference Center; proposed hotel and conference center to be located in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. (98-437) The Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board met on December 2, 1998 to review the subject project with the object being to make a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning .Commission. These items were previously submitted to the WPC Board on November 4, 1998, but the Board did not feel this project was ready to go forward to the Commission. The following are the changes presented. The berms were removed because of modifications to the sidewalks. Additional landscaping will be added to include continuous shrubbery. Trees will divide the "step-down" parking lot between the hotel and Fire Station. The dumpster location was. moved and additional screenuig will be provided. The dumpster enclosure will be built using the same materials as the hotel. An additional vertical window was proposed to add natural light in the exhibit hall. . Chara Ragland made a motion to look into alternative colors (preferably the green on the materials board) for the window frames instead of the natural aluminum. If the budget will not allow the green it would have to come back to the Board for review.. George McLean seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Home of Texas A&M University ~. s' AGENDA ITEM NO. 3- Center Project located in Schematic Design.. Review of Preliminary Site Plan for the Office/Hotel and Conference Wolf. Pen Creek and a review of the Conference Center Preliminary Senior Economic Development Analyst McDaniel stated that he and Assistant City Manager Brymer are the managers of this project.. He explained that this was a presentation to introduce the Commission to the project and to receive initial feedback from the Commission on the design of the facility, as well as the site plan. The Commission will be asked, at a future meeting,. to consider approval of the site plan and other details of the development based upon the recommendations of the Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board. He introduced Richard Ferrara, the City's architect for the project. Mr. Ferrara explained that the project will exist of three buildings. The Conference Center area would be an approximate 45,000 sq ft meeting ..space (one story building), a 200 room .hotel which will be 8 stories, and a 4 story 80,000 sq ft office building: The site has approximately 930 parking spaces around the property.' The Conference .Center would be a fairly simple building with 3 major classifications of rooms which .include a large exhibit hall, grand ballroom,. the rest (approximately 5000 sq ft) .would be dedicated for break-out meeting. rooms for smaller meetings. The areas would be connected by apse-function area which. would serve as a hallway and gathering space. The. kitchen would be shared with'the conference center and hotel. There is room for future expansion if needed. In both scenarios shown, he explained that the proper way to expand would be on the westerly side of the exhibit hall. He presented the different scenarios for possible expansion. They felt comfortable..that there would be adequate parking even .with possible expansions. It was explained that this project was .targeted toward larger meetings and conferences. 'This facility was not intended to compete with existing meeting facilities. It was pointed out .that no access to the hoteUconference center site would be through residential areas. He stated that preliminary plans include sidewalks throughout the parking areas. Some of these sidewalks could be meandering. Tree surveys were done and there will be tree. preservation implemented.. The only trees actually worth saving were along the outside property line. Most trees on the interior had diseases. and would not be worth saving. The Commission asked questions regarding the future expansion. scenarios, including whether or notfuture parking. may be available. There are still-several tracts available at this time, and even when some are built out in the firture as commercial or multi-family developments, parking alternatives may still be available on the City-owned tracts or through agreements with the Mall. The Commission indicated.. that there needs to be a consideration for balancing the available parking and maximizing the tax base opportunities through thedevelopment of the land,adjacent to the center. The core of Wolf Pen Creek should not be developed as primarily parking lots. Parking ,lots may be convenient, but may be a secondary consideration promoting an active development on the plots indicated as possible parking .sites. There were also concerns that the parking.. would displace the current wooded areas of the District. The Commission expressed the need for the Design Team to continue to emphasize the concept that this facility would be aesthetically consistent with the long-range intent of the Wolf Pen Creek District. The Commission asked about the proposed parking lot lighting. There were concerns that the lights would provide a visual nuisance to adjacent neighborhoods. It was explained that the design and height of the lighting should lessen the impact on the adjacent areas. The Design .Team should be made aware of any lighting standards that have been approved for the district. P&Z Minutes June I8, 1998 Pagel of 7 The Commission also. expressed a desire to see the Design Review Board's. comments incorporated into the future presentation to the Commission. Mr. Ferrara stated that they would be. Mr. McDaniel explained thaf Staff would present this plan to City Council on July 9, 1998. Design work will begin with Council authorization. The Wolf Pen Creek .Design Review Board will make recommendations for the colors and lighting design. Site plan: consideration would be presented to the Commission around October orNovember. The targeted date-for facility opening is July, 2000. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a Master..Development Plan for the Steeplechase Subdivision to be located along the east side of Wellborn Road, south of FM 2818 and adjacent to Southwood Valley Sections 23 and 24D. (98-311) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that this was a proposed infill development containing 64 acres. The plan shows 80 single family lots, 125 duplex lots, a small reserve tract. for future residential development,. 3 acres of commercial development fronting Wellborn Road and 7.23 acres of common space devoted to storm water management on the north side of the development and a small. area for detention on the east side. The. property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. The Land Use plan reflects the area for high density single family development. The applicant's intent is for a mix of single family and duplex development. A rezoning request will have to be considered and any approval of this plan conditioned upon receiving zoning approval. There are 330 to 334 dwelling. units proposed which results in a gross density of approximately 5 dwelling units per acre. Excluding the 7 acres .designated .for storm water management and the reserved' commercial acreage results in a density of approximately 6 units per acre. This density is less than. that shown on the land use plan. The "high density residential" land use classification ranges from 7-9 dwelling units per acre. The density of the existing adjacent single family development is approximately 3 dwelling units per acre. There are no .collectors or arterials shown on the thoroughfare plan needing to be extended through, this 'property. West Ridge Drive and Navarro Drive .will be extended into the property to provide circulation and connection between subdivisions as well as provide access to Wellborn Road.. Ms. Morgan. explained that the applicant presented this master plan to the Parks Board on June 9, 1998 and 'discussed the options of providing a monetary dedication or a land dedication. It was recommended by the Board that the monetary dedication be taken at this time. The developer's intent is for a Homeowner's Association to maintain the 7.23 acre common area along the creek as a detention facility and open space. This area-has street frontage along the extension. of West Ridge.. I:f, at some point in the future the HOA asks the City to take over the maintenance responsibility or the large tract adjacent to the north develops, it may make sense at-that time to look at consolidating property. for a neighborhood or community parkas well as evaluating this. site for a regional detention facility. At this time the Parks Board felt that the monetary dedication was of more benefit to the City. Ms. Morgan explained that .public sewer lines will be extended throughout: this master planned subdivision. Approximately 42 single family .lots will sewer. into an existing I2 inch sewer line located just beyond the small proposed storm water detention facility. The remaining .lots will .sewer into smaller. (6 inch and 8 inch) existing sewer lines. These: lines are currently being evaluated for available capacity by city staff. There is approximately 13.I acres of public right-of--way proposed with this subdivision. West Ridge Drive and Navarro Drive are currently scheduled to be extended. as 39 foot wide collector streets within 60 feet of right-of-way. The remaining residential streets will be the standard 28 foot wide street P&ZMinutes June 18, 1998 Page ? of 7 City of College Station Development .Services P. O. Hox 9960 ~ 1101 Texas Avenue ~ College Station, Texas 77842 ' (409) 764-3570 WOLFP~1V CREEKI7F,SYGN~'[rII~'WBOAR~MM~~B77NG November 10, 1999 TO.• Rick Ferrara, 445 E. Walnut FROM: Design Review Board Kay Henryson, DRB Chair Bill Trainor, DRB Member George. McLean, DRB Member Phillip Kelby, DRB Member Steve. Parker, P&Z Commissioner Karl Mooney, P~cZ Commissioner Joe Horlen, P&Z Commissioner Staff Attending: ~`" Bridgette George, Asst. Development Coordinator Jane Kee, City Planner SUBJECT: WPC Hotel/Corrfference Center -discussion and consideration of the final design and elevations for the facility located at the southwest corner of Dartmouth and Holleman. A DRB meeting was held on October 27, 1999, to discuss the. above mentioned project. Rick Ferrara displayed and reviewed the schematic site plan for the .hotel. He stated that the plan has .not changed much since the last one reviewed by the DRB. However, the entrance closest to Dartmouth/Holleman had moved and parking had changed somewhat at that location. There are now fewer parking spaces up front and near the pool, however they are using parking in the back near the proposed office building. He noted that the construction phasing of part of the parking lot had changed since the office building portion of the project had changed. These spaces would be built with -the hotel and revert. to the other property v~hen the remainder of the parking. towards Southwest Parkway was built. At this time the future parking site will remain wooded. He pointed. out some additional landscaping since the Last plan and that they would like to preserve any trees along Holleman which could be saved. They will. also be including the streef corner in their landscaping. Mr. Ferrara stated the signage did not change and will be the same as shown previously. H'e also mentioned that although there was no flag pole shown, the hotel is planning on having one. Mr. Ferrara provided samples of the proposed building texture and .aluminum trim. He stated that the actual building color samples did not. arrive prior to the meeting, but would bring them to the City for review as soon as he received them. Hoare ofTexas ABM University DRB Meeting George Bush Drive East Bridge October 27, 1999 Pa e2of2 g Commissioner Mooney motioned to approve the amended site plan. DRB Member Trainor seconded and the motion passed 7-0. I DItB Chair Henryson motioned to approve the colors as shown on the drawings presented and to approve the building texture of the sample provided, as well. as the trim samples provided. The motion was seconded by DRB Member Trainor. and passed 7-0. I DRS Member McClean motioned to approve the. elevations as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mooney and passed 7-0. DRB Member. Kelby motioned to approve the flag pole with galvanized bronze or brown rather than aluminum in keeping with thee.. existing lights at the intersection. The motion was seconded by DR13 Member McClean and passed 7-0. ~a-~3~ AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Establishment of .parking requirements for the College Station Conference Center: (98-437) Senior Planner McCully presented the item and stated that the Commission and Design Review Board have had several meetings to discuss the site plan, and before the final layout is submitted to the DRB and the Commission for approval, the architect needs to receive a determination regarding the parking requirements. An interim site plan has been submitted as a part of this request to show you the general layout. At the last meeting of the DRB, the group discussed deleting some of the parking out of the key `focal points and the architect needs to know_exactly how much parking can actually be eliminated.. Ms. McCully explained that enhancing these. focal points and making them more pedestrian friendly will .allow the architect to take advantage of the incentives in the ordinance for some reduced parking. The site plan shows the parking with the ordinance required parking spaces for office, hotel, and. restaurant uses and the architect is requesting that'the parking for the conference center be set at 1 space per 200 square feet. She said that staff would be comfortable supporting this request because it is similar to the requirement used in other cities but also because we've seen previous numbers that show that the peak conference times will not coincide with the. peak hotel and office uses. While shared parking is not being used as an argument for the requested ratio, it does give an added level of comfort that during most times, the parking will be adequate for.the entire development. Mr. Rick Ferrari, Architect: for the project, was present to answerany questions the Commissioner had. Commissioner Mooney moved to approve. the: requested 1 space per. 200 square feet for this specific site. Commissioner Maloney seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Appointment'of Commissioner to the Corridor Overlay Task Force. The .Commissioner were informed that xhis Task Force was Council directed and it included Councilmembers Ron Silvia and Steve Esmond,. Community>. Appearance Committee Representatives Marsha Sanford 'and Gary Sorensen; and Planning and Zoning. Representative James Massey. Another Commissioner would be needed to give adequate representation to the Task Force. This. Task. Force was established to protect major entrances to the City and to make these entrances aesthetically pleasing to growth and development. Commissioner Mooney volunteered to serve on this Task Force. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other Business. Commissioner Maloney expressed his concern for the way Luther and W. Luther are named. He was concerned with. emergency response hese streets. City. Planner Kee said that Staff wound pass this information on to the appropriate department for consideration. Commissioner Kaiser, said that the Commissioner received a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Neville. He was concerned-with. the letter and asked if Staff was. proceeding on this issue. City Planner Kee explained that Staff has met with the concerned parties and is aware of the situation. She believes the letter was sent to the Commission in error. It wasntended for the.Zoning Board of Adjustments. She assured Mr. Kaiser that .this .concern is being 'addressed.. Commissioner Mooney felt that i~t was the Commission's responsibility to assure this is handled. P&Z Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 7 of8 Commissioner .Parker moved to approve the request with. Staffs recommendation that the site is built similar to the style of the Exxon Station at Welsh and FM 2818. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a Site Plan for the College Station HoteVCoference Center, to be located in the Wolf Pen Creek District. (98-437) City Planner Kee introduced Mr. Rick Ferrari, architect for the project. He presented. the site plan and explained. some of the changes made to the plan. The modifications presented were items reviewed by the Wolf Pen Creek. Design Review Board in November and December 1998. The Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board recommended approval- of the site plan with their recommendations as stated in the Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board Reports dated November 4, 1998 and December 2, 1998. This item would have final approval from the Commission but would be presented to the City Council as a courtesy. Commissioner Rife moved to approve the site plan as presented with all recommendations, as stated in the WPC Design Review Board Reports dated November 4 and December 2, 1998. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion,. which passed unopposed (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of an amendment to the Master Development Plan of the Pebble Hills Subdivision, 173.18 acres, :located on the north side. of Green's Prairie Road approximately 1500' from the Highway 6 intersection; and consideration of a Preliminary Plat of approximately 25.57 acres located iq the .northwest corner of the proposed subdivisi~nn. (98-314 & 98-315) Transportation Planner Hard presented the staff report. He highlighted that the revised Master Plan included the following changes to the original plan: 1. An additional 8 acres of commercial zoning to the existing 17 acres. 2. A landscape buffer easement on the future C-1 acreage. 3. A reduction of existing buffer zone of R-5 between the commercial tract and the future Lakeway extension. 4. An alley that extends across the rear of the future R-5 tracts to assure that all access from the R- 5 development will be taken from the alley rather than Lakeway. 5. The relocation of the future Lakeway extension to the east. 6. An additional commercial street hat will extend from Lakeway to the highway 6 frontage road across the south side of the future C-1 and R-5 tracts. 7. The relocation of a residential collector street to the south. Mr. Hard explained that the preliminary plat is for .the future TxDot property, and willl include the majority of the commercial street along the south side. The land uses on that site would include offices, warehousing, vehicle maintenance, and a sign shop. Staff recommended approval of both the Master Development Plan and the Preliminary Plat as presented. P&Z Minutes December 17, 1998 Page 7 of 8 COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REPORT December 3, 1.998 TO: Rick Ferrara, 445 E. Walnut St., .Std 131, Richardson, TX 75081 Larry Wells, MDG, 2551A Texas Ave., CS, 77840 Ration Metcalf, MDG, 2551A Texas Ave., CS, 77840 Todd McDaniels, City-of College Station FR®M: Design Review Board: Ka~~ Henryson, DRB Chairman Phil Kelby, DRB Member George McLean, DRB.Member Chars Ragland, DRB Member James Massey, P&Z Chairman - Winnie Garner, P&Z Representative Karl Mooney, P&Z Representative Others Attending Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Jane Kee, City Planner Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Debra Charanza, Staff Assistant Pete Vanecek, -Parks Planner Ric Ploeger, Assistant Parks & Recreation Director SUBJECT: College Station Hotel/Conference Center; proposed hotel and conference center to be located in the Wolf Pen Creek Comdor. (98-437) The Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board met on December 2, 1998 to review the subject project with the object being to make. a recommendation to the Planning & .Zoning Commission. These items were .previously submitted to the WPC Board on November 4, 1998, but the Board did not. feel this project. was ready to go forward. to the Commission. The following. are the changes: presented. The berms we`re removed because of modifications to .the sidewalks. Additional landscaping will be added to include continuous shrubbery. Trees will divide the "step-down" parking lot between the hotel and .Fire Station. The. dumpster location was moved. and additional screening will be provided. The dumpster enclosure will be built using the same materials as the hotel. An additional vertical window was proposed to add natural light in the exhibit hall. Chars Ragland made a motion to ..look into alternative colors (preferably the green on the materials .board) for the window frames instead of the .natural aluminum. If the budget will not allow the green it would have to come back to the Board for review. George McLean seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Home of Texas A&M University Phil Kelby made a motion to approve all colors on the color pallet. Chars Ragland seconded the motion which passed. unanimously.. Kay Henryson made a motion to approve the elevation on the west side with the two wimdows with art glass. Chars Ragland seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Kay Henryson made a motion to revise the parking area to preserve more trues either by losing spaces or reducing the size of the spaces. Phil Kelby seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Chars Ragland made a motion to approve the double faced .wood fence with portals to allow visibility to trees but with no openings. directly be"Hind the conference center or behind the rear yards of the existing homes; split .face block (instead of plain concrete) retaining wall with :concrete maintenance strip with three openings on Richaxds street and three openings on the double sided fence on Manuel Drive. Also to approve the 2 colors (green stained split faced base and brown stained wood). Kay seconded the motion:which passed unopposed. Phil Kelby made a motion to approve the building sign with green letters for the Grand Hall building as long as the sign is no wider .than the glass in the door; and to approve the Exhibit Hall sign vv~th the standard aluminum colored lettering. George Kelby seconded the motion which passed unopposed, Chars Ragland made a motion to include more native plants instead of the crepe myrtle. Kay I-ienrysan seconded the motion which passed unopposed. Kay Henryson moved to approve the attached building; sign :for the Sheraton hotel as presented. Phil Kelby seconded the motion wluch passed unopposed. Kay Henryson made a motion to have the .lettering on the monument signs fir the hoteUconferences coordinate with the sign on the building, with the direction that the logo would need tb come back for DRB consideration. Chars seconded the motion which passed unopposed. The Board was presented with a conceptual plan for the landscaping-on the northwest corner of the Dartmouth/Holleman intersection. There was discussion about directing pedestrians to use the future traffic light at the intersection to cross the street to walk between the HoteUConferenc~ .Center and the future plaza. There was also discussion about installation of a dashing pedestrian .light in the middle of the block. They suggested using the. brick bands (brownish colored) to cross the sidewalks rather than outline the existing walks (as is done on Texas Avenue). A request was made to coordinate the signage for the park with the HoteUConference Center. Kay Henryson made a motion to approve the conceptual plan ,,for the landscaping at this intersection as presented. Ohara Ragland seconded the motion which passed unopposed. SUBMIT 10 COPIES OF THE REVISED SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING PLAN BY NOON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1998 TO BE Ilti~CLUDED IN THE PACKETS FOR THE PLANNING AI`r?D ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE DECEMBER 17, 1998 MEETING. ^°~ ', j November 11, 1998 WOLF PEN CREEK bESIGN REVIEW BOARD REPORT TO: Rick Ferrara, 445 E. Walnut St., Ste 131, Richardson, TX 75081 Larry Wells, MDG, 2551A Texas Ave., CS, 77840 Jim Allen, Accord Comm., Inca 3833: Texas Ave., Ste. 123, Bryan, TX 77802 Sheila Faye, Accord Comm., Inc. Todd McDaniels, City of CS Tom Brymer, City of CS Rabon Metcalf, MDG FROM: Design Review Board.: Kay Henryson, DRB Chairman Phil Kelby, DR6 George McLean, DRB Charm Ragland,. DRB Winnie Garner, P&Z James Massey, P&Z Chairman Others attending: Jane'Kee, City Planner. Veronica-Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Sabine McCully, Senior Planner Jessica Jimmerman, Staff Planner Jeff Tondre, Graduate Engineer Jennifer Reeves, Electrical Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator SUBJECT: fNo/f Pen Center- Conference Center, Hotel, Office Building site plan details, with additional. specific review of design, materials, etc. of Conference Center. (98-437) The Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board met on November 4, 1998 to review the subject project with the object being to make a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Commission. After lengthy discussion and motions to .approve several individual features of the plan, it was determined by the Board that this site plan and `conference center building design were not ready to go forvvard to the Planning 8 Zoning. Commission with a recommendation for approval. The design architect and applicants}agreed, and indicated additional recommended changes would be made and the entire package resubmitted for consideration at a later date. The following items were agreed upon: The paved areas around the boundary between phases 1 & 2 will be curbed. The screening fence will be terminated where the wood fence for the apartments to the south begins. The sidewalk in .phase 2 wilt be built with the office building and will be the sidewalk to the intersection. The additional parking lot behind the Fire Station will be built if additional parking becomes necessary or when an expansion is made. to the conference center. That lot will have to be reviewed by the DRB before. it is built. The plan will show what the 18 ft. setback is measured from, The "Miscellaneous Details" sheet is in the civil plans. The location of the proposed i0 ft. R.O.W. dedication along Holleman will. be shown. The access easement that has the. 8 ft. pedestrianwalkway in phase 2 is proposed. The 8 ft. pedestrian walkway at Manuel brive will be moved to one side of the street. All Civit Utility Plan_Related Items will be discussed at a separate meeting. of design engineers and reviewing engineers, including the drainage .report and information. .More "people gathering spaces" will be'created at the request of the DRB, especially in an area which would promote pedestrians "being drawn" across the street to the .arboretum. Provide more access to the public art;. make "more green" at the corner and shift the parking. Move the parking away from around thepool area if possible.. i Li htin Chara Ragland made a motion to recommend approval of the lighting submitted (max. 30 ft. high fixture with medium to fight brown w/grayish cast pole with metal halide lamp. Phil Kelby seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Fence Fence preference was given as the double faced wood fence with portals to allow visibility to trees,: but with no openings .directly behind the conference center or behind the rear yards of the existing homes; split face block .(instead of plain concrete) retaining wall Additional information was requested including specifications and information on wood with specific details regarding maintenance costs with different-treatments; longevity of different types of lumber, maintenance cost differences between double sitled and single sided fencing,: split face block base, concrete base with block only on top; concrete maintenance strip with openings for drainage from the yards {because of concerns expressed regarding the possibility of this fence impeding drainage from the residential. lots). Buildin Suggestion was made to add windows on the west elevation and #o take out some parking and add .green areas on the west side. of the building °to make the outside visible to the inside". Bus .Parking The design architect explained that no pace has been designated .for bus parking on this site, but the parks department lot across Dartmouth is being designed to accommodate bus :parking. Si na e Suggested putting the Wolf. Pen Center sign with the silhouette imthe 2 turrets on the conference center. The Sheraton sign would be white in the daylight and lighted red at night with a blue, gray and gold pylon sign. Chairman Henryson said she had no problem with the red since it would be up so high. A decision was reached by all parties concerned that this project was not ready to go forward to the Planning-.and Zoning Commission for finaleconsideration. Thearchitect. agreed to make the recommended changes and gather the additional requested information and resubmit it by the noon deadline on November 23rd to be scheduled for the Design Review Board consideration the week of November 30 (probably Dec: 2). q ,~ . ~. .. F~ n ~' FILE NOTE Wolf Pen Creek HoteUConference Center Case #98-437 DRB Members Present: Kay. Henryson, Chara Ragland, George McLean, .James Massey, Phil Kelby,.Jane Kee and Veronica Morgan. StaffPresent: Natalie Ruiz, Tony Michalsky-& Jennifer Reeves.. Applicant: Chad Grauke & Eva - .Architect's Studio, Larry Wells -Municipal Developmerrt Group, Todd McDaniel. & Tom Brymer -City of C, S. ~, On Wednesday, September 2, 1998 the Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board met to discuss the dimensional site plan and the..parking requirement. The applicant .had submitted a site plan to tie. down the number of parking spaces and dimensions for the site; however, it did not meet all of the site plan requirements in the ordinance:. The DRB agreed to do a preliminary review of the plan with the understanding that a complete submittal (alongwith landscaping, elevations, material samples, etc.) be submitted at a later date. Chairman Henryson moved to recommend that the plan be modified and the following priorities be considered when establishing the parking requirement: _ The DRB will allow the .project to be "oriented to the creek" for the purposes of the incentives provided in the ordinance if a more park-like setting is provided including pedestrian oriented elements such as landscaped areas, pavers, etc. to pull people into the site. The following four areas should be modified and :are listed in order of importance: 1) The corner of Holleman & Dartmouth. 2) The hotel entrance along Holleman. 3) The entrance on Dartmouth, south of the office building. 4) The exhibit hall.-entrance along Holleman. _ If compact parking is provided, it should be near the office building and away from the exhibit ha1L Screening along Richards Street-must be addressed. A solid 6' cedar fence is not acceptable. The screening should be discontinuous and pleasing from the. Richards Street side. Satellite parking. could be considered in areas around the subject. property. .Sites such as the mall, the lot behind the fire station and other areas in WPC could be used for satellite parking instead of covering the 'entire site with parking: __ a> j ~~ °~ Hotel/Conference Center DRB 9/2/98 .Page 2 of 2 Assistant City Engineer. Morgan seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0). Ms. Ragland moved to recommend than the applicant avoid placing. a solid 6' tall cedar fence around the perimeter of the parking area.. The screening of the -development should also take into consideration future maintenance.. Mr. Kelby seconded the motion which. passed unopposed. (7 - 0). The following is a list of concerns expressed by the Board with respect to the site .plan: ~~ Provide some elevations or cross-sections of the view from Richards Street showing the screening, '~ changes in topography, etc. The DRB expressed :concern about a solid 6' tall cedar fence in this area and the view form Richards Street. The screening should be discontinuous and could possibly incorporate vegetation on the Richards Street side. The DRB is still concerned with the corner of Dartmouth and Holleman not being a true focal point and incorporating more pedestrian-oriented elements and drawing people to the site. Some of the f h i lands m r ark-like settin . Some o t e s parking should be ehnunated m this area to provide a o e p g could be consolidated to provide areas of interest and larger green spaces instead of the standard sized island every certain number of spaces. A loadng/unloading area for tour buses should be provided on site. The DRB agreed to allow the conceptual plan to go forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their information only to help in determining a parking requirement. The parking requirement determination is scheduled for the Commission on Thursday, September 17, 1998. at e T omas Ruiz Assistant IDevelopment Coordinator October 22, 1998 I WPC Hote, Conference Center & Office Building Case #98-437 The following is a .list of staff review comments. All of the items listed are technical or ordinance related .except for the ones denoted with.. an "*". The items with an "'k" are ~'~, discretionary items and should be considered by the Design Review Board. Site Plan Related: The phasing of the development is acceptable. as shown with the following conditions: k he 'paved areas' around the boundary between. phase one and phase two must be curbed. .This curb may be a temporary "knock-oil' curb so that it is easily removed when phase two is constructed. If such a temporary curb. is desired, provide details. The screening -fence shown. in .phase two should be installed with phase one if any construction equipment or materials area placed in phase two during. the construction (~,~' of phase one. (This fence must also be extended between phase two a d th adja ent ~" Jefferson Ridge apartments at least to the end of the parking row.) '^'` ~~- ~°~ ;~ ~~ ~'_*_ The DRB has the :discretion to require the cons ruction of'the sidewalk shown in phase two with the development of phase one: --~ ~, c~ov-, G- ~ 1 ~ (~" _*_ Provide' details including color and .material samples of t~e proposed 8" x S" tiles shown ~'` (`'`S P~~~^ on the sidewalk accent detail. _*_ Staff understood that the DRB wanted the additional parking lot on the adjacent Fire Station property installed with phase- .one. Thee. DRB should determine: if this is' a requirement with phase one.:.or a future. phase. If required with phase one, provide layout, dimensions and continue the proposed. screen fence. (Staffs also concerned .with how the additional parking will be added-when there is a 5' retaining wall between the two parking I loos.)....,.. . Is the 16' setback from the parking lot to the prope y li e a minimum "typical"? If so, ~, label~as>;suuch. (.~ , I,~ U~v-~ (~-~t, __ - .. Where is the "Miscellaneous Details" sheet referenced on the site plan? ~ v E _ Clarify the location. of the proposed 10' right-of-way dedication along Holleman Drive. Are the property lines along Holleman Drive pre or post dedication? (There is a label that does not point to ohe actual location of the dedication.) _ Is the access easement that contains the S' pedestrian walkway in phase tw proposed r existing? _* An earlier review of the site. plan requested that. the 8' pedestrian walkway:. at l~lanuel f ,~ Drive be moved to one side of the street and not in the center of the street. Is there design ~ criteria or reasoning. for leaving the access in the center? ti ~~ r ~ ~ y ^~. Review Comments Hotel/Conference Center Case #98-437 Page 2 of 2 Site Plan Related (cont.): How will drainage `and the "ending" of Manuel Street with the access easement be handled? ~ _ Staff to look into future signal plans_at Dartmouth .and Holleman and how they might i impact the subject :property. i ' Civil Utility Plan Related: ~ . j _ Clarify the location of the. domestic and irrigation water meters. ..(There is a note referring to the meters; however, there is not an arrow pointing to the actual location.) The existing 8" sanitary sewer line is being. replaced with a 5" sanitary sewer line. Provide a sewer study justifying: the new line size. With respect to the proposed 20' utility easement for the new sanitary sewer line, wall it be :dedicated by separate instrument? _ Show the location of all Fire Department Connections.. At the intersection of Richards. and Crest, show the curb improvements with whatever '~ curblines, storm sewer and/or flume improvements that will carry; the water to the storm sewer system. (You may show this information on the west half of the grading and drainage plan.) The utility information shown behind the ballroom. area is very difficult to read. Can you ' break them out or go to two sheets like the grading and drainage plan? Comments/Concerns: A drainage report is required that addresses the impact of this. site. The proposed fire lanes .and fire hydrants must be installed and accepted prior to ~ combustibles being stored on site. _ GTE has existing facilities that are in an easement in conflict with the fire lane. (This was discussed with Larry Wells with MDG on September 30, 1998) -Also, need to discuss how the development will be served including conduit .placement and additional easements. Contact GTE Representative Laverne Akin at (409) 821-4723 for conduit placement, telephonerequirements and a future occupancy date, Comments from the electrical department will be included in the civil construction plans. Coordinate electrical- service details, conduit placement and necessary easements with Electrical Operations Coordinator Tony 1Vlichalsky at (409) 764-3b60: !, SUBMIT 10 .COPIES OF THE REVISED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS BY NOON ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1998 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE MEETING ON THURSDAY,. NOVEMBER 19„ 1998. THE MEETING WILL BE AT 7;00 P:M. IN THE CITY .HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 1101 TEXAS. AVENUE SOUTH. ' 1 ,- ` STAFF REVIEW NOTES WPC Hotel, Conference Center & Office Building Case #98-437 The following is a .list of staff review comments:. All of .the items listed are technical or ordinance related except for the ones. denoted with an "*". The items. with an "*" are discretionary items and should be considered by the Design Review Board Site Plan Related: _ The phasing of the development is acceptable as shown with the`following conditions: The .paved areas around the boundary between phase one and phase two must be curbed. This curb may be a temporary "knock-off' curb sa that. it is easily removed when phase two. is constructed. If such a temporary curb is desired, provide details. The screening fence shown::in phase two should be. installed with phase one if any construction equipment or materials area placed in phase two during the constructi®n of phase one. (This fence must also be extended between phase two and the adjacent Jefferson Ridge apartments at least to the end of the. parking row.) _*_ The DRB has the discretion to require the construction of the sidewalk shown in .phase two with the development of phase one. _*_ Provide details including color and material samples of the proposed 8" x 8" tiles shown on the sidewalk accent detail. * Staff understood that the DRB wanted the additional parking lot on the adjacent Fire ® Station property installed with. phase one. The DRB should determine if tl'us is a requirement with phase one or a futwe phase. Tf required with_phase one, provide layout, .dimensions and continue the.proposed screen fence. (Staff is also concerned with. how the additional parking will be added'when there is a 5' retaining wall between the two parking lots.) Is the 16' setback from the parking lot to the property line a minimum..."typical"?' If so, label as such. Where is the "Miscellaneous Details" sheet referenced on the site plan? Clarify the _location of the proposed 10' right-of--.way dedication along Holleman Drive. Are the property lines along Holleman Drive pre: or post .dedication? (There is a label that does not point to the .actual location of the dedication.) _ Is the access easement that contains the 8' .pedestrian walkway in phase two proposed or existing? Please label _* An earlier review of the site plan. requested. that the 8' .pedestrian walkway at Manuel Drive be moved to one side of the street and not in the center of the street. Is there design criteria or reasoning. for leaving the access in the center? ~, .. Review Comments Hotel/Conference Center Case #98-43.7 Page 2 of 2 Site Plan Related (cont.): How will drainage and the "ending" of Manuel Street with the access easement be handled? _ Staff to .look into. future signal plans at Dartmouth and Holleman and how they might impact the subject property. Civil Utilitv Plan Related _ Clarify the location of the domestic and irrigation water meters... (There is a note referring to the meters; however, there is not an arrow pointing to the actual location.) _ The e~sting 8" sanitary sewer line is being replaced with a S" sanitary sewer line. Provide a sewer study justifying the new line size. _ With respect to the proposed 20' utility easement for the new sanitary sewer line, will it be dedicated by separate instrument? Show the location of all Fire Department Connections. _ At the intersection of Richards and Crest, show the curb improvements with whatever curblines, storm sewer andlor flume improvements that will .carry the water to the storm sewer system. (You may show this. information on the west half of the grading and drainage plan.) _ The utility information shown behind the ballroom area is very difficult to read. (:an you break ahem out or go to two .sheets like: the grading. and drainage. plan? Comments/Concerns: ® A drainage report is required that addresses the impact of this site.; The proposed .fire .lanes and fire. hydrants must be installed and accepted prior to combustibles being stored on site. GTE has existing facilities that are in an easement in conflict with the fire lane. {T'his was o discussed with Larry Wells with MDG on September- 30, 1998.). Also, need to discuss how .the development will be served including conduit .placement and additional easements. - Contact GTE Representative Laverne Akin. at {409)' 821-4723 for conduit placement, telephone requirements and a fixture occupancy date. _ Continents. from the electrical department will be included in the civil construction plans. Coordinate electrical service details, conduit placement and necessary easements with Electrical Operations Coordinator Tony Michalskyat (409) 764-3660: SUBMIT 10 COPIES OF THE REVISED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS BY NOON ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1998 TO BE .INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE MEETING ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER. 19, 1998. THE MEETING WII.L BE AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 1101 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH. r Phil Kelby made a motion to approve all colors on the color pallet. Chara Ragland seconded the motion which passed unanimously: Kay Henryson made a motion to approve the elevation on the west side with the two windows with art glass. Chara Ragland seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Kay Henryson made a motion to revise the parking area to preserve more trees either by losing spaces or reducing the size of the spaces. Phil Kelby seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Chara Ragland made a motion to approve the double faced wood fence with portals to allow visibility to trees but with. no openings directly behind the conference center or behind the rear yards of the existing homes; split face block (instead of plain concrete) retaining wall with concrete maintenance strip with three ..openings on Richards street and three openuigs on the double sided fence on Manuel Drive. Also to approve the 2 colors (green .stained split faced base and brown stained wood). Kay seconded the motion which passed unopposed. Phil Kelby made a motion to approve the building sign with -green letters for the Grand Hall building as long as the sign is no.wider than the glass in the door; and tc approve the Exhibit Hall sign with. the standard aluminum colored lettering. George Kelby seconded the motion which passed unopposed. Chara Ragland made a motion to include more native plants instead of the crepe myrtae. Kay Henryson seconded the motion which passed unopposed. Kay Henryson moved to approve the attached.building sign for the Sheraton hotel as presented. Phil Kelby seconded the motion which passed unopposed. Kay Henryson made a motion to have the lettering on the monument .signs for the hoteUconferences coordinate.with the sign on the building, with the direction that the logo would need to come back for DRB consideration. Chara seconded the motion which passed unopposed. The Board was presented with a conceptual plan for the landscaping on the northwest corner of the Dartmouth/Holleman intersection. There. was discussion .about directing pedestrians to use the future traffic light at the intersection to cross the street to walk between the HoteVConference Center and the future plaza. There was also discussion about installation of a flashing pedestrian light in the middle of the block. They suggested using the brick bands (brownish colored) to cross the sidewalks rather than outline the existing walks (as is done on Texas Avenue). A request was made to coordinate the signage for the park with the HoteUConference Center. Kay Henryson made a motion to approve the conceptual plan for the landscaping at this intersection as presented. Chara_ Ragland seconded the motion which passed unopposed. SUBMIT 10 COPIES OF .THE REVISED SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING PL AN BY NOON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1998 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PACKETS -FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE DECEMBER L7, .1998 MEETING.