Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Miscellaneous
COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960. 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 November 11, 1998 Mr. Richard Ferrara, AIA Richard Ferrara Architect, Inc. 445 East Walnut Street, Suite 131 Richardson, TX 75081 RE: Guaranteed Maximum Price Information and New Timeline for Development Review Dear Rick: Based upon our conversation this morning, I understand that you wilt provide the Wolf Pen Creek, Ltd. '(DalMac) with the final kitchen layout; the furniture, fixture, and. equipment estimate;. alt outstanding information relative to the plumbing; and the completed grading: and drainage plans by no later than Friday, November 113, 1998. This information will then allow DalMac to prepare the .guaranteed maximum price estimate. To that end, please submit a letter to DalMac by no later_than Friday, November 13, 1998 .with all information.. requested by DalMac to .develop the Guaranteed Maximum Price. Please copy me on that letter. . Thanks for your cooperation and hard work on the conference center desicln. Tom and. f thought you did an excellent job in presenting: the design development drawings to the Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board. As for development review, the new timeline is as follows: November 23, 1998 Submit revised site plan package (with revised civil where applicable) December 2, 1998 Wolf Pen. Creek Design Review Board December 7, 1998 Resubmit final .revisions per DRB Home of Texas A&M University g °~' Letter to Rick Ferrara g November 6, ..1998 Page 2 December 17, 1998 _ Planning and Zoning January 14, 1998 Presentation to the City Council As part of your .November 23, 1998 submittal, you will need to resubmit the following items: • 16 copies of the revised Architectural Site Plan and Civil Site Plan; • 3 copies of any civil information that changes; • 1 ~ colored version of any of the elevations that change (i.e. the west elevation); and • 16 copies of the revised landscape plan. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, `~ ~. mac' Todd E. McDaniel .Senior Economic Development Analyst cc: Tim White, WPC,. Ltd. Tom. Brymer, Assistant City Manager Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator ,~ October 22, 1998 Mr. Larry Wells MDG Civil Engineers '2551 Texas Avenue South, Suite A College Station, TX 77840 Larry, Today I had a most unpleasant.conference call with Tom Brymer and Todd McDaniel. 'To say that Tom Brymer is both upset and disappointed would be a generous understatement at this point. He and Todd both expressed extreme .displeasure at the state of the drawings delivered to City Hall.. Additionally, they were both upset that the drawings had been delivered too late to allow neither them or I to have adequate time to review them. Both Tom and Todd know that you are more than aware of the city's requirements for site plansubmissions, and-feel that their staff's time was wasted preparing the covenants contained below. Toddreiterated that the complete package: must be into City Hall on Wednesday, October 28th, and that they fully expect that I have adequate time to reviewthe plans prior to submittal. Below is therevisedschedule: October 28th ~ Submit siteplan package (with civil) November 4th Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board November 1 ltn Resubmit site plan package with revisions November 19th P&Z This will allow us to present this project to the City Council by the end of the year. Note that Todd is adamant that this project be presented to the City Council before years end and failure to meet these submittal dates will not be tolerated. Comments: L Portions of plan are hard to read, the site plan submital must be broken down into the following 4 sheets. Sheet #1 RFA's site plan Sheet #2 Grading (existing/property) Sheet #3 Utilities (existing/property) Sheet #4 Flood plain/way (existing/property) 2. Site plan must reference landscape plan. 445 East Walnut Street /Suite 131 R~chardsdn, Texas. 75081 N:IWORDDOCSIPROJEC71980351Lnrry Wefls rn drawings.rloc 214/470-0171 Fax 714/fiAn-7991 Mr. Larry Wells October 22, 1998. Page 2 3. Show phase line for parking onsite plan.. 4. Detail of parking lot lighting 5. Compact car and creek .orientation and be prepared to discuss. 6. Provide detail of pedestrian connection at Manual to Dartmouth connection 7. Show fire lanes 8. Provide fire lane details and pavement details 9. Provide sidewalk details (brick & concrete) see attached detail 10. Provide dumpster screening detail. 11. Cable transformer, provide screens. 12. Include gross square feet for hotel and office building on the site plan. 13. Water & sewer ledged providing domains GPM & GPD on utility site plan. 14. Show meter locations on utility site plan. 15. Provide fire flow analysis. 16. On utility site plan -show easement on existing sewer line and proposed location of line after relocation. 17. Show fire hydrants on site plan and utility site plan. 18. Indicate zoning on subject and all surrounding tracts. 19. Provide pedestrian access easement from Manual to Dartmouth along connecting sidewalk. Larry, many of the items requested to be added could have. easily. been added to our site plan that we provided to you in electronic format.. Additionally, some of the requested information was already included on my plan, and why this information failed to be included on your plans is beyond me. Please respect the city's comment and use our site plan as Sheet #1 of a four sheet submittal. I have attached a fax from Todd McDaniel listing staff comments for further clarification. Please feel free. to contact Todd if there are any questions regarding these comments. Mr. Larry. Wells- October 22, 1998 Page 3 Please begin revising the drawings inunediately'and deliver a review set to me on Monday so that I can review these drawings and respond and allow you to revise and submit on Wednesday. This may require. either flying or driving the drawings up, and the City. has made it very clear that they have. no intentions on reimbursing any additional costs to recover from what they corisideryour failure to deliver the package on time. It is imperative that you get this project back on track. I am particularly concerned about the grading and drainage. as these items can be time consuming to resolve and time is a luxury we no .longer possess: s 10/22/98. 14:44 F:11 409 696 2058 ~ CITE' OF CS ADSII\/LEG:~L 1~j002 ~. /~ ~ ~I3dt~ ~t ~ ~ ,October 19, '1998 ~p i 1i ~~' y ~U Portions of the plan are illegible or hard to read. Please put the grading plan (existing & proposed), the utilities (existing & proposed) and floodplain and floodway locations (existing ~ proposed) an separate sheets -and remove them from the site plan (sheet 1 of 2). ~~2. The site plan submitted does not indicate any details of this median which must be planted, set with pavers or stamped, dyed concrete (other than gray). Please add details or note referring to appropriate page v~ith details. C~wt~- c~-eta~u-~ k~r`as~t~P~ ;~ .The understanding staff had was that the D.R.B. wanted this parking eveloped with the first phase. Please show phase lanes and include it in the limits of the developed area. Alf phases to meet al! ordinance requirements, including temporary curbing as an example.: v /4. Show the meandering sidewalk on the site plan. (as previously approved by D.R.B.). aa ~"~"• ~~ Provide details of parking lat lighting. ~t~ W~ .:--~~' 6. Be .prepared to present support for using the carnpact car incentive (creek r ~ rientation) at D.I~.E, meeting. . f.`] ~ Show dimensions from property line to parking lot curb. Landscape reserve area is 2d feet, with paving for a maximum of 7 cars between landscaped Islands within that 24 feet. --5~- ruE (~P2e~ -=~"•' v /8. Tabulate the parking required and the parking proposed and include fable. V /9. Provide detail of pedestrian connection. between end of Manuel Street and Dartrnouth Street. -~ «~~'~~10. Sho~ryr the location of the screening fence on the site•plan. ,~s y'~- ~ Show the potential additional R.O.Vb'. (up to 10') to be dedicated at the time ,,,,,~~ of Holleman ~nnoening. Also, be prepared to present and. explain the terms of -''"'c the dedication agreement to the Design Review Board. / 12.. Draw and label fire lanes, provide fire lane and avem t details P ~~. \. 13 Provide sidewalk details 14. rovide dumpster screening details.;~~ ~® 10/22/98 14:45 FAQ 409 696 2568 CITF OF CS aDIIIti/LEGAL 1~j003 .. r~ . .~ IG~Q~', _~ ~ • ~e.u.~ 15. Show transformer locations with screenirt d tails. t'0 e/ 16. Show distances to adjacent and opposite driveways, especially to those at the driveway near the southeast corner of the property along Dartmouth. ~~ ~17. Show the gross square footage of each building on the site plan.~C~° ~ do ~ . ~o*~' 18 Provide a water and sewer legend indicating. demands in gpm and gpd tk~++---E ` respectively, on the utility site plan.. to ~ °`' sue` e~h ,.... 19. Show meter locations on the utility site plan. f~`,-' N'` 21 Identify`the°symbot (square) behind the dumpster on the western side of the ice building. ~},r.~Y is 'S'1~'r ~ Show the easement over the existing sewer line and also show the proposed location of the. line after relocation. (on the utility site _plan} 23 Show fire hydrants on site plan and utility site plan. ~ ~-r,~, *24. Provide fire flow analysis. • 25. Include zoning~subjec# and abutti;?g parcels.. 32. An access easemant for the sidewalk through the McGill property uvi(l be .required. *a\/iust be completed prior to permit application. ;Shirley Volk -_ Re: Conference Center_ Plans .,._ ............. _ _ . g From: Veronica Morgan Ta SVOLK~City of College Station.City Hall, Tom Brym... Date: 1/13/99 3:SOPM Subject: Re Conference Center Plans. the last set of plans i saw was reviewed by elrey and went back to mdg on 12/15/98....todd was supposed to have called mdg recently (last week, i believe) to ask for a copy of our redlines. he needed or wanted them for some reason, v »> Shirley Volk 01/13/99 11:18AM »> I checked with Lance & Cari Warren and found out that Lance had worked with Rick and briefly reviewed a one-page plan which_consisted of how fire walls could be built and things of that nature, but Rick has not submitted any rea/ plans for review to date. As far as the civil plans including drainage, water, sewer, etc., anything we had received has been returned to MDG some time ago and to my knowledge they have not submitted the revised plans. 1 am copying this mail to Veronica so she can comment because sometimes engineering firms submit plans directly to her and I don'f find out about them Nntil later. CC: Natalie Ruiz \\\ i _.. ~'i r'i ~ -.y ~.. _.._ ... ..ry f _ _ _.... a .... _.. x^ -+ '; , ~ n _, _ '_ ~ ,.: - - ~ t. ~ } ~~~ 7 .! ,. <" ~ _.. ' t . . /< ~ '. _ . r; , ~~., a~ ~ ~ S T fr~ ~.,~ _ _ ~ ~~ w ~~ ! ; ryi. ~ ~ ~ _ ..~ ~ ' r 1, n ~ _ ,: ~ ,r~ , ~.t t , I t; ~ ; ~ ~ ;~~~n n ~ ~ r --~ :, ~~ t ~- ~ ~., V - ..1 _ ~ . ~ ~' T ~~, ,~~ . __ __ .. _.. ;1 _ i. , __ ,. Y n, `_, :% _. ~`._.. ~~ ~ i a ~~ ~ l~ ~'~ / I ~ ' / <_ ~ s I ~ s ,±~a ~' ~ t ~l L ~, h ~ t , ~, ~ , r .. ` i i ,. r .. L y\ ~ ~ t..1 .~ ,n 'y ~ ., .~ 4 t ~ ~ ~. ~ + u ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ i ~ t n _ ~ t _ ~ n. ' L ._ c. ~ :: ,. ~ ~ ~.. fly fh l ~ ~ ~ e 1 ~ r ._ ~ P g.. ., iI ,. _ .~ ;w ~~ ~ h ` -,~~ _ ~ _. ,t ? ~, ~ t; ,,e __ , ~ , ~°~ r . %t r <~ j j, ~ a ~' k ~ ~F - .. f ,_ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ I Ei ~. ~~, ,. ~,~~~~~`~k.../ t h' ~ p-.zc ~/ f~ ~~~ ~ L. ".~,d i ~ 5 _ !_a 3 C, ~°~ `c~~, _. A M _ ''°~ ._ . 9 ~ P` ` f, \ 9; P Y - +61 ~A,I~_..~,~~p _ _ .J ~ ~ f k J ~ }" aj . •, / /1 ~~ y ~. E._ ~ ~°` , ~ ~ i j7 .. _ `a , ~P~# ~~+' ' i yl te. .. ~ s ~ .. ~. ., ~ _. P ~ ~ ~ ' .. ~'~ F~ - ~' v i ~ ;' ' _. v j ' , _.. ~ .. - - ~ -. F - ~ .. i~ -4 i ii ~ _ ... .. ~ ~ ~~ ,. ..~ A .; .- _ . r~ ~ r ~ . - ; ~. " ~! _ ~ ~ .~ , . ~„ i~ ~~ ._ ~" _. Q ~ s ~ , w E~ V: t ~ ~ ~ q jj( ~ yi ,e , I1~ .., ~ ,..' . ~ ~ r o'~ y __ ~~ 8 F` e 4 •~ ~~ ~ ,~ .~ a'~>,-.,, ,,'1 1~ ,. rt S„..' ms _ ` "~ ,~.. _.. i 3 ~_ _ _... _ ~. __. Cy jam„ ..:. ~. _._ ~ ~~ _ r ~ __ '; ~ 'i I _ }~ ~ ,~ ~ _ __ ~ ~~ - z ~~ ° ° `~'~ .j~C ` . .. ~ t ~ -. i i ` t a1 I F .~' t _ •_ ~ ~~ i `~ , ," i ~ ~ _ k<; , ~ 1 ~;~: ~ ~ e ~ ,. ~~ v ~ _ f,,c~..~.„s .. _., _ ;t , ~ ~ '- - r r1 > ~ ~~ ~ ,: i v 5 Shirley Volk ..Re:_Site-Plan .....:..... ..:..:....:. . ....::.:: --------. :........ -----:....:.. .. Page ~ 1 From: Tom Brymer To: JCALLAWAY~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITY HALL Date: 10/20/98 1:47PM Subject: Re: Site Plan. agree, you're right. »> Jim Callaway 10/20/98 01;34PM »> Sinee Todd has talked to various staff about this, I assume that you are up to date. I suggested to Todd that future submittals be made through him or you so that the. project managers are aware of what is submitted and so-that we don't get different plans from he various consultants. )assume that you, as project manager, would want to review the various plans before they are submitted. i »> Tom Brymer 10/19/98 01:56PM »> Yes, except it did not have site civil info on it. What's up? »> Jim Callaway 10/19/98 01:30PM »> Did you or anyone on the Hotel -Conference Center Project Management Team review the. site plan that MDG submitted. prior to it being submitted to us? I I~w ~~~ ~' - SEP-24-98 431 e~'F3 P'M F2IGHpF2D. FERRARR~. ARGH 972680'391 P'. 01 Richard Ferrara Architect, Inc. FAX 1lIEMORANDUl11 Sepietnber 24, 1998 To: All Clients, Consultants and Kcy Contacts Froth: Rick Ferrara Re: New E-Mail addresses In an effort to upgrade our ser<<ices to our clients, we have recently installed a new ISDav Line and expanded our e-mail capabilities. The main address for general correspondence is rfa cc;(7ash.net. After September 21, 1998 the rfa_inc a.,swbcll.net address will be unusable. Please update your browser software to insure that future correspondence is routed correctly. Richard Ferrara Rick Ferrara Ross Conway Robert R<3n11rcL .lohntiy Hopper Mike Williams RFA P i atvlers {JetTy Sylo and Scott Rogers) Tatty Yount Thank you rferrara~i). (1 a sll .net r~ci~fIash.net rconway a~llaslt.nct ramirezr a:,flash net >~ ct~rr~nash.nct mikelw~`Ilasl~.net rfa lan(a~£lash.nct tottyl~ fiash.riet 445 East Walnut Street /Suite 131 Richardson, Teaas 75081 972/470-0171 : Jane Kee -Site Plan/Design Development. Timeline (Correct timelme~! . :.:::::::::::::: ...r _ Pager .. From: Todd McDaniel To: internet:cgrauket~arkitex.com, internet:rickf~swbe... Date: 9/4/98 10:57AM Subject: Site Plan/Design Development Timeline (Correct timeline)! Rick, based upon our conversation this afternoon,. the following is the timeline for submittal and review of site plan/parking calculations; final dd and site plan: September 9, 1998: Updated site plan is due to development review staff (to include all changes per staff/drb). Also need revised parking calculations for P&Z consideration. September 17, 1998: P&Z review of updated site plan/parking calculations. October 6, .1998: Final Site Plan 8~ Design Development due to Todd and Tom. October 14, 1998: Final Site Plan & Design Drawings due to development review staff (to include all technicalissues,. materials, colors, landscaping plan,. signage plan, etc.... talk to Shirley if you have questions about what needs to be submitted). Week of October 19, 1998: Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board. October 27, 1998: All changes per DRB due back to dev. review staff for P8Z Packets. November 5, 1998: P&Z review of Final Site'Plan and DD. November 12, 1998: Presentation to City.Council Rick,. you will need to be at all of these meetings and function as the point man! Thanks and call if you have any questions. Todd CC: Jane Kee, :Sabine McCully, .Shirley Volk, Tom Bry... Shirley Volk Site plan comments Hotel/Conf Center ..........:.: .....:. .....-----:...~:.~:. :..:..:: :::.----~~.....:........::.:.::..:.:.._..:::~------- Pale:.:. From: Jim Callaway To: Sabine McCully,. Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan Dater. 10/20/98 1:59PM Subject: Site plan comments- Hotel/Conf. Center. I have researched the agreement between the City and the Hotel Developer re ROW dedication. 'The a reement calls for the developer to dedicate ug t0 10' additional ROW when: Holleman is widened. It 9 also. provides that the future dedication does not count against heir setbacks, etc. 'Given that the dedication amount is indefinite and does not relate to setbacks, i am removing reference j #12 from the staff comments. i ~. ,per.°, ~. `~~ ~~ October 19, 1998 a c~l v' _ . ~ ~ 1. Portions of the plan are. illegible or'hard to read. Please put the grading plan (existing & proposed), the utilities (existing & proposed) and flpodplan and ffoodway locations {existing & proposed) on separate sheets and remove them from the sita plan (aheet 1 of 2). 2. The site plan submitted. does not indicate any :details of this median which must be planted, se# with pavers or stamped, dyed .concrete (other than gray). Please add details or note ,referring to appropriate page with details. 3. The understanding staff had vvas that the b.R.$. wanted this parking developed with the first phase. Please show phase'lines and include it in the limits of the developed area: AN phases to meet all ordinance requirements, including temporary curbing as art example. 4. Showthe meandering sidewalk on the site plan (as preciously approved by D,R.B.). 5. Provide details of parking lot lighting. 6.' Be prepared to present uppart for using the compact car incentive (creek orientation) at D.R.B. meeting, 7. Show dimehsions from: property line to parking lot curb. Landscape reserve area is 24 feet, with paving for a maximum of 7 cars between landscaped islands within that 24 feet..; ;, `~ '~ ,,,~ .,~ , ~ 8. Tabulate the parking required and the parking proposed and include table. 9. Provide detail of pedestrian connection between end. of Manuel Street and Dartmouth Street. 10. Show the location of the screening. fence on the site plan. 11. Show the potential additional R.O.W. (up to 10') to be dedicated at the time of Holleman. widening. Also, be prepared o present and explain the terms of the dedication agreement to the Design Review Board. 12.. Draw and label fire lanes, provide fire lane and pavement details 13. Provide sidewalk details o1a~ % 14. Provide dumpster screening details.; w Y v ~ A 15. Show transformer locations with screening details. 16. Show distances t© adjacent and opposite driveways, especially to those ai: the-driveway near the southeast corner of the property along Dartmouth. 17. Showthe gross square footage of .each bui ding on the site plan. *18. Provide a watei-and sewer legend indicating demands in gpm and gpd respectively, Qn the utility sife plan. *19. Show meter locations on the utility site plan. 21. Jdentify the symbolsquare) 'behind the. dumpster on the western side of the office building. 22. Show the easernent over he existing sewer line and. also show the proposed location of the Fine after relocation. (on the utility site :plan) 23. Show fire hydrants on site plan and utility site plan.. *24. Provide. fire flow analysis. 25. Include zoning or subject and abutting parcels. 32. An access easement for the sidewalk through the McGill property will be required. *Must be completed prior to permit application. Shirley Volk - Re: Fwd .Platting of City s Conference Center Property Rear. Setbacks/Screening :Regmts :::..:..:..:: ............Page:1. From: Jim Callaway To: SVOLK@City of College Station.City Hall, Veronica... Date: 5/12/98 4:43PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Platting of City's Conference Center Property--Rear Setbacks/Screening Regmts All who need to discuss this can. come in group to my office. »> Shirley Volk 05/12/98 12:28PM »> If they are going to get rid of any covenants and restrictions, it needs to be "vacate" & "plat". If Harvey still maintains that's what those notes are rather than conditions of zoning which have since gone away, then it needs to be "vacate & plat", and. you are correct. Guess 1 still don't know what was actually decided. Maybe Jim can shed some light on this. I don't want to go back to Tom for fear of more miscommunications. »> Veronica Morgan 05/42/98 12:15PM »> shouldnt it be "vacate and. plat" rather than "replat" .. i realize that i may be being picky but this communication is how we get into trouble. thanks v CC: Jane Kee, Natalie Ruiz,. Paul Kaspar Shirley. Volk.-:Re parking behind fire station #1 _... _ ._..._.-------~--........._.. ....: ....:.............. . ......: . .......... Pa9.e.~. From: Tom Brymer To: Sabine McCully Date: 6!18/98 41:56AM Subject: Re: parking behind fire station#1 Thanks Sabine, let me discuss this with our architect and get back with you. »> Sabine McCully 06/15/98 03:36PM »> at a recent meeting where we discussed the proposed conference center layout, the question arose as to whether or not the rear yard of the fire station could be converted from. a buffer area to a parking lot. i looked through the file and there was no specific conditiomassociated with that rear area. however, the staff report and presentation did point out that a 45' buffer area and a 60' building setback were going to be maintained. adding the parking lot would constitute a substantial site change which needs pnz consideration: it can be considered either as an amendment to the fire station. use permit or with the pnz consideration of the conference center. addition of parking would not constitute an encroachment into the 60' setback because the structure would be at grade. it is also possible to still maintain a 15' buffer as shown on the original plat (there are more than 7Q' between the exiting development and the buffer - a circulation aisle with two rows of parking would take up only 63'). my .recommendation is to :proceed with the future parking shown and to maintain the 15' buffer with either natural vegetation or new plantings. CC: Jim'Callaway, Rick Ferrara, Shirley Volk, Todd ... T~ LLEGE S co P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 .August 5, 1998 Mr. Rick Ferrara,'AIA Richard Ferrara Architect, Inc. 445 East Walnut, Suite 131. Richardson, Texas 75081 Dear Rick: As required in the Contract for the Design of the College Station Conference Center between the City of College Station and your firm, please allow this letter to serve as formal notice and authorization to commence work on Phase 2 -the Design Developmenf Phase of the Conference Center Project. In addition to having .this letter .serve as .authorization to proceed with Design Development, I would ike to review several. issues that will' need to be addressed during the Design Development process. At present, the soils testing is on dine and that information should be available to your team within the next few weaks. As for the issue of the abandonment of the Richards Street right-of-way, the City will coordinate with Mr. Larry Wells of MDG. Also, the project site plan will need to be approved by the Planning... and Zoning Commission. at some point during the Design Development Phase. I believe you have received a site plan approval check list with some :additional information from Mrs. Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator for the City. As previously discussed, the P&Z wily establish the parking requirements at the time they consider site plan approval. Your 'team will need to provide the P&Z with documentation .explaining.. your rationale behind the total number of parking spaces. depicted on the site plan. If you have .any questions about these or other conference .center design issues please call 1 look forward to working with your team on this phase of design. Sincerely, ~• Todd E. McDaniel Senior ED Analyst cc: Tom Brymer, Assistant City Manager Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Home of Texas A&M University August 6,1998 Mr. Tim White Senior Vice-President of Program Mgmt. Dalmac Investments 111 W. Spring Valley Rd. P. O. Box 83.0160 Richardson, TX 75083-0T60 Re: City of College Station's Acceptance of Conference Center. Schematic Design/Authorzation to Architect for. D&D Drawings Dear Tim, This is to advise you that under Step 4 of the timetable in Exhibit H of the agreement between the City,of College. Station and the Wolf Pen Creek Ltd., that we are. approving the schematic design .for the conference center. Further, we have authorized our architect to proceed with the next phase {Step 5) on this'timetable, preparation of design development drawings.. `This step is to take up to b0 days and thus, should be concluded not later than October 6, 1998. Also, I would appreciate another update on how the Wolf Pen Creek Ltd's efforts to obtain financing for this project are progressing. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this project. I look forward to hearing from you regarding yourproject financing efforts. Sincerely yours, ~G~ Thomas E. Brymer Assistant City Manager cc: T dd McDaniel, Sr. Eco~ Dev. Analyst hirley Volk, Development Coordinator Rick Ferrara,. Richard Ferrara Architects o:admin:twd&d.doc P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue .College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764-3510 June 19, 1998 Mr. Tim White Senior Vice-President of Program Mgmt. Dalmac Investments 111 W. Spring Valley Rd. P. O. Box 830160 Richardson, Texas 75083-0160 Re: City of College Station's Review of Conference Center Schematic Design Dear Tim, This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 15, 1998 containing your recommendation, following your review of the schematic design, that the City of College Station move forward on its review of the schematic design for this project. As indicated in the email I sent you yesterday, Exhibit H of the Project Agreement gives the City 45 days for this phase of the review which would end on July 30, 1998. Accordingly, we have begun that phase of review. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this project. Sincerely yours, Thomas E. Brymer Assistant City Manager cc: Todd McDaniel, Sr. Eco. Dev. Analyst Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Rick Ferrara, Richard Ferrara. Architects o:admin:twschem.doc P. O, Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764-3510 :Shirley Volk Fwd__Re WPC Conf Genter Page_.1.. From: Shirley Volk To: Tome Brymer Subject: Fwd: Re: WPC Conf Center I haven't been ignoring you., but I wanted to get information from Sabine, who is the reviewing staff member forthis project to date. She has also indicated that whatever is proposed by the designers will be supported by staff if it is similar to the schematic site plan, I would suggest that whoever presents the item to P&Z for consideration to include some informationfrom "the industry" to back up the parking ratios used for the conf center. The hotel and office each have parking requirements listed in the coning ordinance. Does that help you? i ', .....................:....:.::P.:.:,..:...::.: Shirle Volk Re WPC Conf Center a e 1 :. .:::::..... X:.:....:::...'::::.:......... ... .............:.:.. ---.: ... ----...........-::.--:::..---------::::-:...::...~.::g:::::::.: From: Sabine McCully To: SVOLK@CITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITY HALL Date: 6/25/98 4:39PM Subject: Re: WPC Conf Center yes, the parking for the conference center portion of the site will need to be established by pnz. they can ~ do that as a part of approvingthe project when it goes back to them. pnz never set a requirement for anything -they are going to set general guidelines but i decided to throw out the conference center part cause the pnz said that each individual auditorium would be different and i generate different parking demands. »> Shirley Volk Q6/25/98 03:26PM »> Sabine, do we still need to go to P&Z for a parking requirement for this project, or is what is proposed on the schematic drawing what is required by ordinance? I guess I never did .understand if they decided 1 space per 4 seats was o.k. for a conference center or not! Actually,. even if they did, that wouldn't apply to this conference center anyway, would it? i Shirle Volk - Re ,Fwd WPC Conf Center .. age ~ From: Rick Ferrara <RickF~swbell.net> To: Tom Brymer <TBRYMER~ci.college-stationax.us> i Date: 6/29/98 7:26PM '~ Subject: Re: Fwd: WPC Conf. Center Tom, I spoke #o someone in the planning dept.. Friday (sorry the name escapes me.,. I'm at home} Shirley was i out when. I call..... (it may have been Sabine who I talked to...) 1 was told that we would have to go before the P & Z to have THEM establish a parking requirement. I found. this odd since most city's allow the Chief bldg.. official to review uses that_are not in the city's ordinances and determine the required parking ration. At any rate I followed this up with Todd today and he told me that we would. not be going to P 8~ Z d to have them set the standard, but would be including our parking calculations as part of our site plan. Please note that we have been aware that the city does not have the criteria in the zoning ord. and contacted the planning dept: quite awhile ago to determine how er were to proceed. We got ratios for the meeting rooms and .pre-function-areas, and were told. to not park the support spaces. This is how we calculated the numbers that told us that we would be cross parking-the 100+ parking spaces that we've been quoting all along. Additionally we have used The Urban Land Institutes (ULI)' guidelines for shared parking to determine ~ just how much parking can be shared given our mixed uses (Hotel, Office & Conference Center). Based ,~ on our research we feel that the number of spaces we are projecting to be shared are with in their guidelines.. I need to confirm all these .calculations and will present an analysis to show the calculations. Todd suggested that rather than go and have to research "like facilities" that we research other cities parking requirements and put together a list showing how others park a use such as this. I doubt we'll find too many cities with "conference Centers" but we should be able to find similar uses. With our planning Library containing dozens and dozens of difference cities code books I`m sure (or at least HOPE) that we can put a pretty good list ', together: ~ One thing to keep: i mind..... we've said all along that we're going to provide as much parking on the site ~~ as possible, and I've done all l canto insure that the parking layout is as efficient as possible. if for some s reason we were. forced #o provide additional parking (ie.... staff says we're short and we must "find" 20, 50 or 100: -more spaces). I can: see this being a real problem with DalMac. I'm not sure what the solution would be, and let's hope that our calc's satisfy everyone..... As you are aware, the bradgets on all 3 buildings are tight and there are no feasible option to add structured parking for the hofel and :office building. I've-already set our planning group to work on this and will forward cur results ASAP. Thanks #or the help, .Rick Ferrara r Tom Brymer wrote: Rick, take a look at Shirley's email regarding establishing a .parking regmt for the Conf. Center. What do you think? Do you--have enough information where we could take it before She Commission? Since this definitely affects the site plan, it seemed we should .discuss it now. Thanks. Torn, I'm getting a copy of the set of schematic drawings I borrowed.from you tomorrow, so l'll return them then. In the meantime, one thing that still .needs to be done, and can be done either with. the next review of the real site plan, or• before and that is to get P&Z to establish a :parking requirement.... for the __ .. ;:Shirley: Volk :Re .Fwd..WPC Conf..Center..:.....:;.,.::..,..::::::::.:.:.::::::: :...:.::::.....:.:~:::::.----:~::.~.....:::::::...:..:::... -Page 2. s conference center. We have one established for the office building and for the hotel, but we don't have a standard requirement: for conference centers. You. mighf want to get that done before the site plan is finalized (or not) -the choice is yours. Whoever makes the presentation for the applicant must bring some type of documentation from a like.facility to convince them that wha# is being proposed will be enough. The different hours. of operation, ete., can be part of the presentation. f > ~ > I know Ric touched on that, and even pointed out that there could be overFlow parking on the parks' proposed lot, but if that's part of the presentation, a date of completion of that lot should be included. I: > > As l hear more from the reviewing staff, l'II .pass it on to you & Todd. l !,': Ili. ~i~ '; I I ', ~~I '~ i w From: Rick Ferrara <RickF~swbelhnet> To: Tom Brymer <TBRYMER~ci.college-station.tx.us> Date: 6/25/98 8:41 PM Subject: Re: Conf. Center Design issues Tom, Here are a few thoughts concerning the items below...... Tom Brymer wrote: > Rick, this is a response from Todd and I .regarding. your faxes of 6122, 6/23,. and 6/24/98 as well as your emails to me of 6/20 and 6/23198. > 1. Regarding the extra storage,. just as a reminder as to how that became an issue, you mentioned to me your concern that we might not have enough storage. as did Dick Forrester of our CVB. Although I don't have a problem with your asking DalMac's estimator to cost. our this add'I storage, my preference would be to first get with Joe DePalma and see if he thinks the current storage is adequate, and if not, how much do we need. As for your 6/23 fax on this .issue, the project agmt sets out the Conf. center minimum room sizes and they wilt remain sized according to that agmt. Of course, we still need a functional facility with enough storage, hence my recommendation to talk to DePalma about this. I've. forwarded drawings to Joe Depalma for his review and distribution to people w/i his organization. will set up a mtg. w/ him once he has reviewed the design and has his comment ready to go over. I'm aware that the agreement has the room sizes listed, but. if Joe comes back with. a need for more space . ~ ~p. I'm not sure where we can get it without adding sf. (and hence cost) to the project. My goal is to firy~t try to determine. the storage needs and then how to get it in the job and bring the job. in on (to the best of my ability) budget. There's not a-lot of "fluff' to take out of the design..... but we'll work on it once we know how much (if any) additional'space we need..... > 2. Regarding the parking behind. the fire station- this is not a "do or die" issue with us. It would be a "nice to have" that t think could. be a bid alternate. ~.., I think that's a great idea...... is there any chance that the cost of this parking{or aportion of it) could be ~~; ~~' shared with the. Fire Department ? > 3. Some of the things on page 2 of your letter to Tim White dated 6/22 should be design considerations for the developer. These include the walkway between the hotel and pkg lot-and from the pkg lot to the office bldg. _.- ~' Your correct.... they are..... l just wanted him to know ALL. we talked about..... ~ > 4. As for sidewalk treatments, we would :recommend that you: pursue the P8Z Commission's recommendation that would use a meandering design for sidewalks wtih some type of alternative material (this :might be less expensive and. provide for some unique landscape treatments) The. meandering walks will not: be less expensive (more ..material, .more forming, harder to do.....) as for `;;' alt. materials l don't know of anything that's cheaper than concrete..... t think they are a great idea, and I *hope* that we can get them in the job w/o INCREASING the cost. I went back and looked at our original presentation package and we DID show them then, and I've .had them added to our current site plan. 5. As for the Manuel Drive to Dartmouth pedestrian access, we agreewithyou that it may be necessary for you to design the screen fence in such a way so as to force pedestrians to the right anted corner of the sidewalk, ~ Seems like a good idea..... what do you think about us locating the code required screen fence on the ~~ parking lot.. side of the :N/S portion of the walk from- Manuel to the 90 degree corner. This would ...::.. .:.:.... ....:::.. ... :..........:............. ...-........ .....-- - ....................... ..............:. P 9 .::::..:::.:.....: `Shirley Volk Re Conf Center Design Issues effectively :put the sidewalk on the exterior side of the project until the students made the 90 degree tum. ~ Then the shortest park is straight to the street. This would allow us to avoid building TWO expensive fences, and I think would' be nicer than having them walk between two fences, which would-make them feel like Cattle (kind of .like LQNGHORNS...) ~ > 6. The add'I restrooms #hat the WPC DRB noted as a concern- we'd like to know what Joe DePalma ', has to say about this before we go much further with them. I'll ask him, we did check the plumbing fixture counts and we are above code required min's. (Bldg. code) and very very near (in some cases-over) the recommendation in the plumbing codes. Typically the plumbing code chart has been increase with "potty parity" in mind, but generally it is NOT the code that bldg. inspection uses. We"re using. it as a benchmark, and I will be adding a few urinals in the men's '! rooms and afew -more lays. The woman's restrooms are already FILLED with toilets (almost 20 of ~~~ them): 1Ne'll keep an eye on this. issue, but #'m afraid. adding a separate set of restrooms, even if we make the ones we've shown a bit smaller, wilt add more cost to the project. I'll get with. joe Depalma on this, and I'll report back. > 7. As for the power pole, .the City's policy is that the developer is to pay for the relocation of overhead utilities. We have asked. our Public Utilities Dept. for a rough estimate of the cost to relocate the overhead electric Itne to the southern perimeter of site. There is already a pole at each end of the property, this is a "mid" span pole, I think that we'll only need to move it 40' or so. Note that they'll have to take a bit of extra care as the city ran their sanitary sewer line very near the pole location. This may involve a bit of extra cost as this pipe may need to be exposed. prior to drilling.lf they give us a price does that mean that they'll do the work ?Can the GC hire a utility contractor as an option ? > 8. Finally, on the rear setback, as I said in my 6/23 email to you, the 9.0 ft setback is something you can count on, we just have to make sure P&Z is aware. of it. Also,. I'm emailing again my 5/12 eamil on this subject so you can iet Larry Wells know what our research. indicates and the conclusions we've reached. Yes, I got your email, thanks Also, son't forget locations for publicart on the conf. center site. No problem there., we'll show them, I think it would be wise if you discuss this matter with Tim White. suspect that the partnership may want to establish maximum sizes and the right to approve the prmposed "art" prior to installation....... we want to make sure we don't get any "art" that might offend. a major tenant in the office building or something that simply offends all of us (I hope this wouldn't happen in CS, but hey I remember some of the "art" in that town a #ew miles SW from you! Thanks for everything. Rick Ferrara, AIA i CCt City: of College Station.City Hall(TMCDANIEL,SVOLK,_.. . :::..:::::.:.::::::,.::,.::..,.:.:.., ..,K..- ..v.,.,:.:....~..:..~ :.:.. `:Shirley Volkr- Conculsion of Cit Review of Schmatic Design, Approval of Same,_ Aufhonze DD Drawings:...._r.:: _.„_,..,_,_,.....,Page..„ From: Tom Brymer To: Tim White Date: 7/23/981:04PM Suaject: Convulsion of City. Review of Schmatic Design,. Approval of Same, Authorize DD Drawings Tim, I'll foilowup this up with a letter, but let this serve as notice under Exhibit H of the Project Amgt with the WP Partnership of the City's conclusion of its review of the conf. center schematic desing (step 4 of Exhibit H). We had until 7/30/98. under this step, so we're giving you, the developersome 'time back". Rick Ferrara has been notified. by separate. letter by the City to proceed with DD drawings on the conf. center. Haw's the partnership's obtaining of financing .going? Please update me on this. Thanks. CC: Jim Callaway, Rick Ferrara, Sabine McCully, Shi... From: Tom Brymer To: "RickF~swbell.net"~Cityof College Station.SMTP I~ Date:. 6/23/98 9:05AM ~~,i~ Subject: Re: parking behind fire station #1 II Todd talked to Sabine. The 9.t) ft buffer is something. you can count on, we'll just have to make sure the ~~ P&Z is aware of this: FYI- it's not a deed restriction, but was a regmt of earlier zoning the property had, ~'Ii but that zoning has changed. As far as the other issues you raise,. I'll get back with you after I've had a i chance to review the memo to Tim you copied us on. Thanks. »> Rick Ferrara <RickF cLDswbell.net> 06/20/98 11:44PM »> Tom , This is in Follow up on parking behind the fire station..... From our previous conversations, I understood that the 15' buffer behind the Conference. Center could be reduced, but required removing (or modifying) the deed restrictions. After a conversation with Todd , and I be ieve Sabine, we agreed that the buffer could be 9'. If this is NOT the case, the dedication of the 10' RQW could be in danger as we are VERY tight in the north /south site dimension. Also, the 60' building set back Fine should not be a problems as parking. lots are. typically not considered structures. We have begun CAD'ing the Conference. center and will know. more by the end of this week, but I WEED to know if we can count on the buffer being 9'-0" -or- that we must hold 15'. 1 can't see why we couldn't go to 9'-0" on both sides of the property fines (if indeed there will be a,property line dividing the City's land_.... Another consideration.,... we've got to be careful in adding cost to the job, and I'd like DalMac to telll us how much thi lot is going to add to the job, the estimate does NOT include this add. I'm drafting T'im White a memo, and will give him the alternates that various people have expressed an interest in. These: include: 1. A separate pair of restrooms 2. Additional Storage (I need to know how much.,..) ure arkin of around 240 s aces...... note he existin owerline willlimit the size of the 3. Struct p g p ( 9 P ' parking deck and we will loose the spaces underthe ramp, which will hurt the overall count) Also i:here ~, is a sewer line in the area, and it will have to be relocated, he viability of which must be reviewed by the civil eng. The. ability to maintain code min.. slopes may come into play. 4. Additional sidewalks, and possibly arr upgraded texturing of all the walks, possibly with some color. ~, I'II copy you and Todd on the memo. Thanks, .Rick Ferrara Sabine McCully wrote: > (looked through the file and there was no specific condition associated with that rear area. however, ~i :.~:;...:::: ..Shirley VcK Re parking behind fire station #1 ...... .......: ---...... ..,. .:...: '...,......::.::: --..... Page.2_ ........... m the staff report and presentation. did point out that a 15' buffer area and a 60' building setback were going i to be maintained. adding the parking lot would constitute a substantial site change which needs pnz ~ consideration. it can be considered either as an amendment to the fire station use permit orwith the pnz consideration of the conference center. > Addition of parking would not constitute an encroachment into the 60' setback because the structure would be at .grade. it is also possible to still. maintain a 15' buffer as shown on the original plat (there are i more than 70' between the exiting development and the buffer - a circulation aisle with two rows of parking would take up only 63'). my recommendation is to proceed with the future parking shown and to maintain the 15' buffer with either natural vegetation or new plantings. CC: Sabine McCully, Shirley Volk ~, I COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960. 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 June 15, 1998 Mr. Tim White, Senior Vice President Dal-Mac Construction/Development P.O. Box 830160 Richardson, Texas 75081 Dear Mr. White: As discussed, Section 9.2 of the Project Agreement between the City ar~d Wolf Pen Creek, Ltd. ("Developer") requires that Developer must obtain a Development Permit by June 1, 1998. After a review of where the City is in the design/development process for the Conference Center, I must request that WPC,' Ltd. obtain a Development Permit for the site by no later than June 29, 1998. The total cost for the Permit is $400.00 (a $100.00 permit fee and $300.00 for infrastructure inspection). The City agrees to split the cosfi: of the permit with your team. Please find attached an application for the Development Permit. The application must be sealed by the project engineer and signed by the contractor (in this case the developer). At this time the .permit will only apply at the lowest level (a clearing .permit). If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call Sincerely, ~~~~~ Todd E. McDaniel Senior ED Analyst cc: Tom Brymer, Assistant City Manager Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Natalie -Ruiz, Assistant Development Coordinator c:\hotel\confer~\tw61598.doc Home of Texas A&M University Shirley Volk Step No 4, Exhibit H of Project Agmt Cit~r Review of Conf Center Schemafic Design ` r : Page_.1 From: Tom Brymer To: Tim White Date: 6/16/98 4:54PM Subject: Step No. 4, Exhibif H of Project Agmt- City Review of Conf. Center Schematic Design Tim, I got your faxed: letter of 6-15-98 regarding the developer's review of the Conf. center's scherrnatic design. Since you indicate that at this point a recommendation that the City of CS proceed with our internal review of the schematic design., that's. what we'll do. This is step #4 of the prjct agmt which gives us 45 days for this review. It is to be concluded by July 30th. I'll follow this email up with a letter that 'i states this as well. I CC: Jim Callaway, Rick Ferrara, Shirley Volk, Todd.... ~i ,~,e ,d.~ ~' ~ .~; -~.yna~ ~ .. _finiriav Volk - Re. New Development in College. Station Week of 11/23/98 ..._.._ _. ._._.._.___.r....____.Page.1. From: Tony Michalsky To: SVOLK cLDCITY OF COLLEGE STATION,CITY HALL Date: 11/24/98 4:50PM Sub'ect Re: New Development in College Station Week of 11/23/98 J j Loupot's Bookstore {98-447) No Comments Final (replat) Plat (98-245) No Comment. Parking Lot Plan, Hotel Conference Center (98-437) Developer installs electrical conduit & pours concrete transformer pads per city specs and design. Developer is responsible fior 20% of the cost of electric service. Need electric load data and service voltage requirements for each service. Will need easements for electric infrastructure as installed on private property. Need to show existing electrical lines along property line backing up to the Crest Lots, along Dartmouth and along Richards St. »> Shirley Volk 11/23/98 04:40PM »> Received 14/23/98 Loupot's Bookstore -Facade, signage, color, etc.,. renovations at the existing Loupot Bookstore located at 335 University (98-447) Final (replatLPlat -changing Lots 4, 2 & 3 Block 4 McCulloch Addition. subdivision located at the corner of Phoenix and Alabama.. into 2 lots (98-245) Parking Lot Plan. -WPC Hotel/Conference Center & Office Building located at the SW corner of Dartmouth & Holleman (98-437) ~, ATTENTION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF -Please review the above projects and return your comments to me by 5 p.rn. Wetlnesday, November 25. A formal Northgate Review Board meeting is scheduled to review the Loupot's renovations at 10:00 a.m, on December 2,1 1998 in the City Hall training room. A format WPC'Design_Review Board meeting is being scheduled to review the Hotel/Conference Center at 40;30 a.m. on December 2, 1998 in the City Hall Training Room. Please contact me at 764-3570 if you have any questions.. Thank you. Shirley J. Volk,, Development Coordinator 41 /23/98 ::Shirley Volk Re. timeline ....:...... ...: . ...:.:.......... .. Page: ~: From: Tom Brymer To: Harvey Cargill, Jim Callaway Date: 1 /9/98 2:16PM Subject: Re: timeline Here's the way it's looking right now (subject to change depending upon how negotiations go): Review Schedule (as owner) 1. Schematic review (conceptual site plan): Jan. 12'98 2. Staff review of prelim. plans : end of Feb. 'p8 3. WPC Design Review Bd review of prelim. plans: end of Feb 98 4. Council Review of Prelim.. Plans: 1st Council mtg in March 98 »> Jim Callaway 01/09/98 08:27AM »> I have gathered the info to put together a timeline from a development review perspective. To make this meaningful, I-need to plug in some of the timeframes for our review as the owner. Any response to my previous emaiF re: plans for internal/Council review? Any projected date for receiving plans? CC: Elrey Ash, Shirley Volk, Todd McDaniel • °YO/14/9b 49:58 °x`409 764 34.96 ~ t ,~.,~. DEVELt~PAfENT SACS X042 ~~ do C ~ ~,~~.~~~.~~~~ ~~ t,[~~ c~clc~~~ FOLI~~ CC3~'1tiS (~F SI'T E PLAN" li AFL RE'4~ft;W M:rNil'-!rIUM lrtEQUIREMIENT`S Z~'t7~ SC'>cF ~'LAI'~ I~R.CfF+~~ALS A,LL G TY t7-~DiNAN~E~ BUST SE MET rlv~I~uziv~ BUTT NC3T LiialI`ir'~I~ T~ T&iL F~LL~WING: ~t~' 1. Sheet size - 24" x ~~" I/~" 2. T"tte block to include: ~) NB,i!'le, 2dclr~ss, lc~catic~t7, attd le~si description ~) I~Tasne, address, and telephone number. of applicant ~.) I`latne, address, a~~d telephone number of devetoperJowner T~iame, address, artd telephone number oEarchitectfangin~c~cr ,` >~ate ~~sub~ttal .~ "1°ata.i site area ~`7 3, Ownership and currant zoning of parcel and at1 abutting parcels. ~'~ ~ ~. A key map (teat necessarily to scale). S, Scala should lie largest standard engineering scale poasibte on sheet. ~b. Prc~uide a nt~rth srx4w. _,~."'7 sf~9. Tr~po~raphy, mat gradit~ plate, arYd ether pertit-ent drainage in~formati~n. (If ptatt has too .much /~' inCorrnatiran, show dtairtage on Separate sheet.) ~`"' 6a'~ 8, Ail existing attests, drives, buildings, and water urscs on or adjacent tt~ ttae proposed project site. ~~. Locate lOQ yr. flaodplain or djacent to the proposed praje~ct site, note if th+~r n;ne era the site. ~~ t~l~. Location and size pi'existing utilities ~''tttan or adjacent to the proposedpraject~ site. ~1. Prc~pcrsed ltisanx type, end size Qf the following: Buildir~s snd structures v (~~=Street parksag areas with parking spaces drawan, tabulated, arad dimensiarted ,.?c.) SidewaltGS /'d-} Co~non,~pen spate Sites )'Bites for solid waste. eontaincrs ~~(-,a ~r~itp,H,r''q ~~f ~ 12. I~roposed streets, drives, ant! Curb .cuts. For eaala ~roposF;d euVurla .out (in+~ludi.~g d~wevsrays, streets, alleys, etc.) locate existin curb cuts i e of the 5tr etertr_irt$ separratic+n distances be xis utg an proposed curb cuts. Indicate dtiYeway oat iLn$th as measured in the Driveway t7rdinanc~e. ($ee Ordic~a,ncc 1961 f'ar driveway location aaad des rcc~wremezrts.;! ~~`ik G~ l ~. 'l"lre total nixrrtber df residential buildings and units to be can~structed ors the lz~~o~vsed. project site. ~l~l~l" Landscape plan a,s required in .Section 11 rf'tlte caning Orditaanca (see C~rdiraatace It 1 X638.3 "1'he landscaping ptar- can ~~ shown on a separate sheet ~taa xnuah iradvr~nntion is on ttxe original site plan. Attempt to reduce ar;etimi~nate,p~antings in easemcttts" Is~lude infatmaticn. an the plan. sttclf as. /~a)' cxistirrg landscaping to remain ' , /6) required point caiortlatians ~ ; tom} proposed new planten~s with points earned.. /~~- Nl~ ~ 1 ~~ Indio~te unit type number of bcdracrms,). /~ 1`t- ®' lt;. The derssaty ofrlwelling units pe~c acre of the praposod prc~ject- l~[ I7. ~°he gross square fac~tage of buildings and tt~e proposed use of cash build~,g. Go~vP. ~.KTt1(2. ~ CQ~/oo0 s~ ~ l~n'Pl/L.. Ioly/o©o ~ o~t=tGE i3c.~JG ~ Q,©~c~o ~ ~ `10/14/S8 p$:57 ~'4Q9 r"64 x496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS ~~'~'~ ''.. 2~~ ~~~8. t,~eSi~Aate number afparlcira~ spaces lequircd by ordinaracC azid pravidetl by praposaF. ~ ~ ~'~ ^9 l9. dhow dimensit~r~s to sire and iocate alt structures, parking spaces, drip+e6, curb oats, parlurag islands, and setbacks. ~'' © 20. Are there impact fees associated with this developn:tent? CI 21. Provide a water sanitssy sewer legend tc~ include water demands (nurairnutn! rnaxianuare and average demands in gallons per. minute). and sewer .loadings (maxirritin% de~tttareds in gallons per day}, ~~ 22. Shaw all raster locations. Nletcrs must be located in easeanents ar R,.~.W. (city will si.~c meters.) 7'he fallot~ing art typir.a[ standards foi• Plart Develapcnent established bey Qrdinsttece ar Pnti~~: 1. Building separation is a minimum a#` l5 t~et. _V~Gd 2. Building setbacks are auttined is C~rdira€~nce 1638, ~on,ing Qrdinaaac~e. Table t! {Sec. 7, p. 3~)- ~~ 3. Miaairnum parl~ing space is ~3' ?~ 20',: yr on a perimeter roi~v~ 9' ~ 18' with a 2' overhang, ~4. Nl'irvnnurn drive width is ~3' withhead-ire parlring ar 20' vvithaut parking. 5. I~ised laradsc:aped islands, {~„ raised curb) of s minimum of ] 8Q sq. fi. a,re lac~atcd at bath cads of cveay parking row. Additionally, ISO sq. fl. a£ lar~dseaping far every 1 S iatteriar parl4ng, spaces must be /~~- provided. i~ 6. Streetscape carraPliance is rewired which involves specaaY plaattings alc~r-g streets apcc;i#ied ire tka~ pity's Strettscapc l'lart. ~~ t~ 7, A 6" raised curb is required araurad all edges of all darts o£ all pawed area witht-ut exception. {'To ~~~~ 7 include islands, planting areas, aGCess ways, dumpster locations, utility pads, .etc.) Curb detail._to b~ t° pa~?~a_vge~d _by City Br~~ineer. No e~€ceptians will be~made far areas designated $s "reserved f'ar future' ~F~ S. V~healstops may be required. on interior rows longer than It} .spaces +~r in special situations. 9. Sidewalks are required at tianc of development if property has frontage on a street sh~awn coax the ~~ 5. ~ • sidewalk i~iaster f+laa or it the Projd+ct Review Cc~mstuttee determines the necessity. frR.eFer 1xa Section 10.E of tkae Zonieag Cf'rdinsnce). ,. ~~ ~1~D..C.aaatians a#`dumpsters shalt be sash that dumpsters acre n'tat nsibte from streets. Gates aze discourage~f 1 scrT_ ~ ceni'ng from I~,.t'~.'dt-. is requir~i. ~~I I . kl.ealthy, native trees aver 6" in eaIip~er should be retained wherever possible. ~'~ ~1~. l°ire lanes of a r~unirnum of 20 feet zri width with a minimum height cicss~ttce of 1~4 fit must be esta.biighr,~( if any structure of any type is more there ISO feet from a public street ar highway. /~ ~13. Any structure in any mooning district other than l?.-l, R-1Aw ar R-2 must be l~rith~ ~Ot3 feet of a Errs hydratat a.s rncasurEd along a public street ar sioc~ a,n approved fire lane as the hose i`~ laid offthe truck. .~ l~l#. Fire hydrants must b located an "the same aide of" a major street as s proje~.~, area sltal! be in a lacatiaat .approved by the (:ity~ngineer. . _ ~., n ~~15. k`ire hydrants must be operable and accepted by the ~ity and drives must have an all wes.tlaer' sure before combustibles can be brbught an arty site. ~~ E~' 1~6. A twenty fear foot setback from ~,d~.W. to curb cif parking lot. is required. Pslrkingymay be alicad tat this area. up to a maximum a#°7 contiguous spaces. l7. All p must ineluda irrigati6i,ysy~a~xs i'cr lalac~lska$. liii,~udivn mfrs aze separate frcuri tl~ regular vrater ~~,~~~~ ,systems t'ar buiidings a~ must i>e sized srdin8ly and ac~ludc backflaw prevcndc~n prign. Ce'N~pLiaN"f' (YL-f2i~t'taN SYST~ivt WILD- t3~ ~'t2c~11~~; p~4uOIN~ October 26, 1998 A R C H I T E C T Jane Kee City Planner, City of College Station 01 r^ex.~ s T -.~rl,~r` c n„ th College Station, Tx. 77840 Ke: Wolf Pen% Conference Info Dear Jane, ~" ~' r - ' ~, . ~ ~ , , This came into the office last week and I thought you might be interested - one in the conference, and two because it is ,in the Austin. Convention Center where my Texas Society 'of - Architects Convention was given. If you haven't seen his building/location it would be a good one to see and compare with the proposed the College Station project due. to its` proximity to Town Lake and the hotels/recreation/green, belt -- situation there. One of the nicest parts of the-:building i~, ~~~~~ in its relation to ~ creek that runs through the site. The main corridor to the seminar rooms is glazed and overlooks.a' roof terrace which, in turn, overlooks the creek/park area.- It does a great deal to bring the "outside in" visually as _ well as providing an exterior space for smokers,:et,c.'between meetings. It is a possibility which I think has 'been overlooked completely in the plan that .came last week. ~-" ti~;•.<<~ ye~i::~~.~ _~n~~,:2r~~s :.,~:Gu~ t~i~ Vc~S ~~1i ti"lcat, °,~as iica7..iv~C~-- -- although _1 realize it is being changed- _ 1) If only five trees are being salvaged from the eri ire` site, every effort should be made to preserve these - particularly since four are together and in a pr-ominant location in front of the hotel/conference center. I have been to the site and these are beautiful trees and .huge. As designed currently the parking/sidewalks would probably cause them to die in their present location. " i ~. KAY HENRYSON, AIA 7607 EASTIvIARIC DR. SUITE 245 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 (409)693-8283 2) Continuity of sidewalk/path through property from the Amphitheater side. and across to future .Arboretum. I think this connection, particularly to the proposed Holleman plaza is very weak - should be a major pedestrian way large enough for benches, trees etc - almost to the extent of being an outdoor seating/seminar area/place to wait for bus loading etc. 3) Transportation - With increased traffic on Dartmouth and Holleman plus the proposed bike lane, I think there needs to be a bus pull-out area...somewhere on this property for. the A & M buses and the transit system. We need to look ahead to public transit to this area to reduce the vehicle load. I also do not see any good loading area for tour buSPS nr.: the hotel or conference center site. for groups I would forsee going to the campus, Bush Library, .football. game, Me~~sina Hoff, etc. in conjunction with seminars/conferences. 4) Dumpsters - The only one I see by the office building is in the worst possible location as far as visibility from the lawn for public art, sidewall~s between office/hotel/park and at a main exit to the office building re: odors, etc. My experience with dumpsters and offices is-that they are usE~d by the cleaning service primarily, not by tenants - and cou=Ld be farther away from the building proper - I also did not see any designation for trash .removal from the Conference Center/Hotel. Perhaps the ROW that is no longer used for Richards Street, located behind the truck docking area would be a possibility? The retaining wall in that location would help reduce .trash blowing bacl~ into the residential area, I think, and could be easily serviced and screened in that location. 5 ) I think the four parking spaces adjacent to the Yiotel pool should be removed and area landscaped :along the pedestrian walk between the office/hotel. They are alre<~dy a problem due to bac.kina into a main r~ad~~~al, . 6) Signage: doesn't the city have someone lined up t:o do graphics for the conference center that involves a looo or something relevant to Wolf Pen Creep - not just big lett:ers? Page 3 7j Design, in general - I'm disappointed that. there hasn't been more imagination used to incorporate the "essence" of WPC and to bring the park setting image/landscaping further into the structures through glass ( at a height one can see to the Arboretum) and into the common areas leading to the exhibit hall and seminar areas. Perhaps with the full plans, there is more there than is apparent from the building outline - I hope so. Has it been considered to add any seminar spaces on the second level between the hotel and conference center? Seminar rooms with windows and an outdoor roof terrace w/ trees etc . could be a phase 2 expansion possibility if the structure was dealt with. now, and not force expansion into already existing parking areas. "Wolf Pen Creek Conference Center at the Arboretum" sounds like a fun place to have a conference - College Station Conference Center sounds boring - that's a bit how I feel about the design at the moment . There is so much. potenti~~l to give these buildings character and as the flagship project in the district where the city has input, I think that this is what they need to demand from the design professionals that are hired, not just enclosing the right amount of space for the minimum amount of money. Part of the success of this project will depend on marketing and the ability to show that we have something other conference centers do not- that ours is in some way unicrue and desirable. Although these are my thoughts without input from the rest of the board, pass them on as-you see fit. Thanks... Sinter y, Kay en son, AIA „:. Shirley Volk -WPC Review ... age 1 From: Todd McDaniel To• Tom Brymer Date: 12/2/98 4:13PM Subject: WPC Review FYI, Rick and I met with the WPC DRB this morning. Everything went well. Rick is making final changes to the site .plan and landscaping plan per direction from the Board. These dots. are due back to Shirley on. Wed. Decmber 9 at noon:. Rick will fed ex 10 folded and finalized site plans. Mark Ferguson ' (the landscape arch..) will bring 10 folded and finalized versions of the landscaping plan. Rick will also forward one revised version. each of the colored. renditions of the landscape plans. These submittals put us in place to go to the P&Z on December 17: Also,. Jane. and I discussed the signage package for the project. We concur that the package is going to need to go for a variance.. Jane, could you see that we get. on the ZBA's schedule? Thanks. Give me a call if you have any questions. Todd CC: Shirley Volk ° _ ._~.`~ __ __ ___ FILE NOTE December 1, 1998 Staff reviewed the revised site plans submitted on 11/23/98.anal used.the Site Plan prepared by Municipal Development Group as the official plan which a contractorwill build from. The following comments are offered following the staff review of the plan designated as Revision D prepared by MDG and of the colored up sheets submitted by Rick Ferrera. 1~ Lnclude a note somewhere that temporary curbing will be placed along the phase Tine. This curbing must be in place prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of any building in phase one, and can be broken off when Phase II is built. ~ Show the proposed location of the signal at Dartmouth/Holleman intersection. 34 Label the 8 ft. pedestrian walkway as a "proposed easement". This easement .must: be dedicated. before a Certificateof Occupancy is issued on any building. 4` A resubmittal of a fencing proposal or any information requested... regarding the fencing has not been made.. 5;~ Regarding building elevations: See New Soufh Elevation submitted. Which option is preferred? One island area has been added. 6~, Signage? Did not see a resubmittal addressing Design Review Board comments ~~a . -___ November 11, 1998 WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN 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., Inc. 3833 Texas Ave., Ste. 123, Bryan, TX 77802 Sheila Faye, Accord Comm., lnc. Todd McDaniels, City of CS Tom Brymer,-City. of CS Rabon Metcalf, MDG FROM: Design Review Board: Kay Henryson, DRB Chairman Phil Kelby, DRB .George McLean, DRB Chara Ragland, DRB Winnie Gamer, P&Z James Massey, P&Z Chairman .Others attending: Jane Kee, City Planner Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Sabine McCully, Senior Planner Jessica Jirnmerman, Staff Planner Jeff Tondre, Graduate Engineer . Jennifer Reeves, Electrical Shirley Volk; Development Coordinator SWBJECT: Wolf 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 forward to the Planning ~ Zoning Commission with a recommendation for approval. The design architect. and applicant(s) 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 will 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 DR6 before it is built. The plan will show what the 16` ft. setback is measured from. .The "Miscellaneous Details' sheet is in the civil plans. The location of the proposed 10 ft R.O.W. dedication along Holleman will be shown. The access easement #hat has the 8 ft. pedestrian walkway in phase 2 is proposed. .The 8 ft. pedestrian walkway at Manuel Drive will be moved to one side ofthe street. All Civil 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 comer and shift the parking':. 'Move the parking away from around the pool area if possible. Lighting Chara .Ragland made a motion to recommend approval of the lighting submitted (max. 30 ft. high fixture with .medium to ligh# brown w/grayish cast pole with metal halide lamp.. Phil Kelby seconded the. motion which carved 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; longe~ityof different types of lumber, maintenance cost differences between .double sided 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 residentiallots). Buildin Suggestion was made to add windows on the west elevation and to 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 space 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 withthe silhouette in the 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 tfiis project was not ready to go forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission for final consideration. The architect agreed to make the recommended changes and. gather the additionat 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). December 3, 1998 Mr. Tim White Da1Mac 111 W. Spring Valley Richardson, TX 75081 ~~v C~ ~ J ~`~ ~~ ~ -Z~~ ~ Re: .WPC. Design Review Board Meeting #2 RFA Project No.: 97034.02 Tim, ~ ~ ~ U ~ 1998 As you are aware, I spent all of December 2, 1.998, in College Station attending the second of two. Design Review Board (DRB) meetings. This. meeting concluded DRB's review of the entire site and design issues relating to the Conference Center. The following is a list of items resolved by the DRB which should be addressed as part of the GMP. The DRB approved. the material pallet for the Conference Center with the exception that they, want an Add Alternate for the window systems to have all the window mul:(ions doors'and related metal panels to be Kynarpre-finish members with a dark green finish in lieu of the "base bid'' anodized aluminum. They understand that this may not be in the budget, but want to evaluate the possibilities to upgrade this item. 2. The, DRB passed a resolution that the west elevation of the Exhibit Hall should have two (not one) vertical windows and that the windows should have "art" glass as opposed to standard float glass. We will revise the elevation and suggest some suitable glass types. 3. The trees and ground cover located behind the. Conference Center is to be removed from the project and ground cover and/or wining plants of an equal value are to be planted on the Richard's Street side of the fence. 3. The wood fence. was accepted with the following conditions: A. The wood must be a "high" quality cedar (No. 1 spec) sealed and stainedl, double and single sided as indicated on the site plan. B. The retaining wall is to be split fare CMU to match the building and where no retaining wall exists, there is to be a concrete. maintenance strip level with the ground. There is to be a total of 6 grilled. openings in the fence, 3 in the portion of the double side fence in Richards at the end of the Conference Center lot, and 3 along the sidewalk leaving from Manual Street. The fence shall be stained light brown with the gridwork at the openings stained green. 445 East Walnuf'Street /Suite 131 Richardson,' Texas .75081 972/470-0171 Mr. Tim White December 3, 1998 Page 2 4. We were asked to continue to study the islands at the existing four trees to remain near the hotel entry. The request was to remove approximately 5 parking spaces so as to increase the likelihood that these existing trees have a better prospect for long term survival. As the current site plan. does not have any surplus parking spaces, :this will involve looking. at reducing the width of the "compact" parking spaces from 9'-0"' to something less than 9'-0". Note while the city code. allows. spaces as narrow as 7"-6", I will be attempting to reduce the width only as required to remove these 5 spaces, plus the 4 spaces currently. shown by the hotel pool.. Additionally, it was later requested that we remove 1 or 2 additional. spaces at the fence at Richards Street, and possibly one at the Exhibit Hall.. This brings the total reduction to approximately 12 which means that a minimum 96 9'-0" compact spaces must be reduced'. to 8'-0". 5. The signage for the Hotel and Conference Center as well as the Office and Project Monument.. signs were approved with the following exception: A. The Conference Center sign is to be designed (by others) to incorporate a logo (or .logos) and shall be titled as per the direction of the Convention Center staff. B, The wording on the Conference Centerpylon sign is subject to "A" above. G The."C" project identity sign (not the "C" alternate) was approved. The monument for the office building was approved in concept, but all office building signage will be subject to full DRB review when the office building is submitted. Note that during .the DRB that the city staff noted that the sign package did not meet the city requirements and would need a variance,: and that the DRB's approval would be conditional to the variance. The fact that the sign package requires a variance has been known and discussed by me and Todd, Tom and various other staffinembers for quite some time. At issue. is the number of signs and the "reader board" on the Conference Center pylon sign. I will discuss the details of this item with' Todd McDaniel, and as sign. variances are not part of our base services am hopeful that Todd can prevent this varianceon behalf ofthe city without a special trip by me. If a special trip is required, we will need to discuss the sharing of the additional services between the city and the partnership. Again, I am hopeful that this item can be handled by the city, but will keep ,you posted: ~~ Mr. Tim .White December 3, 1998 Page 3 We have begun making the necessary revisions to the Site Plan and Landscape Plans and must have revised drawings to City Hall by noon Wednesday, December 9th. I will copy the entire team with revised drawings. Th o , ~~ Rick Ferrara,. ..A. Vice President Cc: Joe DePalma - DePalma Hotel Corp. Jim Allen.- Accord Commercial, Inc. Chad Grauke -The Arkitex Studio Larry Wells- MDG Civil Engineers Mark Ferguson -Landscape Architect Greg Bullard- Dal-Mac/Houston Bob Owensby -Dal-Mac Todd McDaniel- College Station WPCORBMtg. N2 r-~ Richard Ferrara Architect, Inc. December 10, 1998 Mr. Todd McDaniel College Station 1101 Texas Avenue P. O. Box 9960. College Station, TX 77842 Re: Minutes of December 2, 1998, WPC. DRB Meeting RFA Project No.: 97034.02 Todd, ~~~ 1 ~ 1999 ,~L . ~ ti ~ ~,/ ~, ~ ~~ 1 /F'~G I received the minutes of the December 2"d WPC Design Review Board on December 9, ]1998, the day after we sent you the revised drawing. Below are a few items I thought needed clarification. 1. The.second paragraph states "additional landscaping will be added to include continuous shrubbery". The plans presented already had continuous shrubbery. The motion was to "relax" the look by varying the shrubs in layout and species. We substituted plantings and may have added soYne, bu± a request to add additionallandscaping was not made clear in the meeting. 2. In the second paragraph it states that the dumpster shall be the same finish as the hotel. This is not correct. The dumpster which is part of office project will match the office building. 3. The third paragraph states that if the window budget will not allow the green mullions that this item must come back for DRB review. As I recall if the colored mullions were not in budget and we specified something other than anodized aluminum then we must come back for DRB review. Please clarify. 445 East Walnut Street /Suite 131 Richardson, Texas 75081 972/470-0171 Mr. Todd McDaniel December 10, 1998 Page 2 4. The second paragraph on the second page references the art glass. We have begun looking into this but as art glass varies greatly in price, it will not be in the GMP. 5. The fourth paragraph mis-states the colors of the fence. The fence is to be stained brown, with the vertical and horizontal numbers of the trellis elements stained green. The split face block retaining wall is to bepre-finished to match the building, and is not stained. 6. The eighth paragraph states that there was a motion that the lettering on the monument sign for the hoteUconference center coordinate with the building sign. This is not correct. The motion was that the lettering (and logo if applicable) on the conference center pylon sign should match the yet to be designed sign and logo to be attached to the conference center. No mention was ever made. to modify the Sheraton sign. Please review these items and call me to discuss. Cc: Tim White Joe DePalrna WPC DRB Minuies.doc ~.~ ~~~~ Attachment `Shirley Volk WPC Conference Center Pa e 1 From: Shirley Volk To: Todd McDaniel Subject: WPC Conference Center Todd: Following our visit this a.m. I made an inventory of the various bluelines we have in our files and turned up the following: 1. Preliminary Site Plan - March. 25, 1998 2. Schematic Site Plan -August 21, 1998 3. Schematic Site Plan -September 8, 1998 4. Schematic Site Plan- October 6,.:1998 5. Schematic Site Plan -November 6, 4 998 6. Schematic Site Plane -December 4, :1998 7. MDG -Civil Site - {Sht 1 or 2) C?ctober 16,.1'998 (Sht 2 of 2}.April 16, 1998 8. MDG -Civil Site -October 28, 1998 Utility -October 28, 1:998 Grading/Drainage -October 28, 1998 Grading (East 1/2) -October 28, 4998 9. MDG -Civil Site -November 23, 1998 10. Landscape L1.1-1.4- No Date 11. Landscape 1,1.1 - 1.4 - No Date ...(but received for DRB 10/21) 12. Landscape L1.1-1-4 -November 20, 1.998 13. Fence Detail -December 4, 1998. j~ Signage (sheets 1-6) -October 6, 1:998 Then, of course, we have the colored up renderings and. the materiaF & color sample board which we took to P&Z on December 17, 1998. , , That's all we have now, Any other planswe have received (i.e., civil for infrastructure) we have marked up and returned to MDG for revisions. They will be expected to return the marked:: up set with the revised set so we don't have to conduct a complete review again. You mentioned that you had,. on several occasions, submitted 1S copies of the plans and you are correct. However, we only keep one copy for our files and the rest are distributed to those. reviewing bodies (DRB & P&Z). Ifi you need for us to have copies made of what we have in our files, please let me know as soon as .possible because. we wilt have to ga outside City Hall to have the copies made, so it will take some time and manpower to,get that done. Keep in' mind. that if we do copy what we have in our files, they will all. be marked up because they. are the reviewed copies of plans. The only. ones we have which are not marked on are the colored copies which were mounted on boards for display at various meetings. Let me know if we can help. -Have a Merry Christmas. CC: Jane Kee, Jim Callaway,. Natalie Ruiz ............. -:. ..::..k .............. -- Page 1 ' Shirley Volk Conference Center From: Shirley: Volk To: Todd McDaniel Subject: Conference .Center. j Todd, I have a copy of the MDG (civil) site plan dated 11/23,. but I've sent the rest of those civil drawings back with redlines. MDG has them and is currently making those changes. We don't keep copies of redlines, but rather send them back with directions to return them with the revisions when submitted. That's what they will do. i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commis 'on FROM: Jane R. Kee, City Pl r RE: Hotel/ Conference Cente 'te DATE: December 10, 1998 This project is located on the southwest corner of the Dartmouth / Holleman intersection in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. Plans indicate a first phase to include a 200 room hotel and 2,500 S.F. restaurant with a 69,000 S.F. conference center. Phase 2 will include an 80,000 S.F. office building to be built as a second phase. The P&Z determined a parking requirement for the conference center several months ago. Those minutes are. included in this packet. The Design Review Board has met twice to xeview this project. Their report is included in your packets. Revised plans were submitted and staff has reviewed these in accordance with DRB motions. Plans reflect. motions made by the DRB. attachments:. Location map P&Z minutes -parking determination - 9-17-98 DRB review notes - 11-4-98 DRB review notes - 12-2-98 Architectural site .plan Landscape plans Fence details Elevation drawings available at meeting FACSIMILE COVER SHEET CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue .South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone (409)764-3570 /Fax (409)764-3496 Date: November 22, 1999 # of pages included cover: 2 If you did not. receive a complete fax, please call our office immediately for a new transmittal. TO: Larry Wells FAX: .693-4243 _ COMPANY: Municipal Development Group RE: Hotel/Conference Center platting Questions. FROM: Natalie Ruiz PHONE: (409)764-3570 COMPANY: City of College Station _ REMARKS: ^ Urgent ~ For your review ^ Replay ASAP ^ FYI LOOK WHAT I FOUND! ! ! Attached is a copy of an a-mail outlining what we're doing in terms of platting,. A preliminary plat will .not be required as lon~as we get the information we normally would with a preliminary plat, with the "Vacating & Final Plat". Sabine was not aware that this decision was already made. Please let Rick know about this change in plans. Let me know if you have any questions. _ Thank you, Natalie From: To: Date: Subject: Tom Brymer Elrey Ash, Harvey Cargill, Jane Kee,. Jim. Callaw... 5/12/98 11:45AM Platting of City's Conference Center Property--Rear Setbacks/Screening Reqmts OK, after much discussion and some miscommunication on my part, here's the decision point we've reached on the platting.of the City's conference. center property, the- 60' rear setback, and the 15' viisual screening line: !. the property was zoned commercial in 1984 and that's when the 60' rear setback and 15' visual screeing line regmts were established. 2. when the property was replatted in 1988 these regmts were shown on that plat as notes, but they are not conditions of platting. Rather, they are the zoning regmts which were established in 1.984. 3. when the property was rezoned: in 1997 from commercial to WPC'. these zoning related regmts (the 60' setback and the 15' visual screeining line) were removed or superseded by the WPC zoning restrictions. 4. we are going to replat the. City's. property along with the the developer's property for the hotel and office building. After discussing these facts with Jim and Harvey ,this is the consensus position. Please let me know if you have questions about it. Thanks to all who have spent their time on this question, and I apologize for any miscommunication regarding. the background on this property's zoning and platting history that may have created. I think we are-on the right track now. I will send this information to Richard Ferrara and Larry Wells. Larry Wells will coordinate with Shirley regarding the platting on this. CC: Rick, Ferrara, Sabine McCully, Veronica Morgan .d.: ~ { MEMORANDUM ', TO: Planning and Zoning Commission `~ ``~~~~` .FROM: Sabine 1V~Cully, Senior Planner D~" DATE: September 10, 1998. RE: Establishment of parking requirements for the College Station Conference .Center The Zoning Ordinance provides parking requirements for most land uses. In cases where a use is not listed, the Planning and Zoning Commission has .the authority to set a requirement, either on a site-by-site basis,: or for the entire use classification. The proposed development is to be located on the southwest corner of Holleman and Dartmouth in the Wolf Pen Creek District. Rick'Ferrera, the architect that has contracted with the City to .prepare the plans, has received comments that were discussed at the most recent DRB meeting. The DRB requested that. the .site design include deletion of parking spaces in key focal points of the site. The.Board would entertain recommending a lower parking requirement to accomplish.. more pedestrian-oriented site elements. Some members noted .that additional parking could be accomplished in other less visible areas, such as the area behind the Fire Station. In response to these. and other comments, the architect is redrawing the site plan. The resubmitted plan will need to return to the`DRB for review before the final site plan cc-mes before the Commission.. An interim draft site plan will be available for the Commission to see the areas that were discussed by the DRB. The architect has submitted a revised parking study to support a parking requirement of 1 space per 200 square feet of conference center use.. The. other uses on the site already have parking requirements established for them .under the Zoning Ordinance. The parking ratio suggested is comparable to the parking requirements for similar uses in other Texas Cities. In addition, the previous parking` study showed that shared parking is possible and that peak conference center times tend to coincide with lower parking demands of other uses. Staffwould therefore recommend approval of 1/200 for the conference center. o:\group\deve_ser~stfrpt\98-437.doc ~ ~~lG` _, , ~ ~~ _~, ~;~ r ,. ~`~ ~~ Wolf Pen Creek Conference Center ' -Parking Calculations Project Overview This project. consists of three buildings including a four story,. 80,000 sq. ft. office building, a 200 room, 112,800 sq. ft. hotel and a 69,000 sq. ft. conference center with approximately 46,000 sq. ft. of rentable meeting space, plus 2,800 sq. ft. ofpre-function space. The preliminary site plan shows approximately 877 parking spaces for the entire project. Per city code, .the required number of parking spaces is as follows: Phase One Hotel: 1 space per room x 200 rooms = 200 spaces RestaurantBar 2,500 sf. at 1 space per 65 sf. = 39 spaces Total Hotel 239 spaces Conference Center 69 000 sf at 1 space~er 200 sf 1= 345 spaces Total Required Parking Phase One 584 spaces Phase Two Office Building: 80,000 sf at 1 space per 275 sf 291 spaces Total number of spaces required: Total number of spaces shown: Number of surplus spaces: Conference Center Parking Requirements: ' 875 spaces 877 spaces 2 spaces As the City of College Station does not specify a required parking ratio for conference centers, we were. asked to research. other cities requirements for this or similar uses. We reviewed the development ordinances of numerous cities in North Texas and cornpiled a list of the results. While we found few cities that specifically listed-conference centers and/or exhibit halls; we did find other uses such as convention centers and auditoriums that we feel represent population .densities similar to those anticipated. The results of our study showed a range from 1 space per 100 sq. ft. to 1 space per 700 sq. ft. with the average being 1 space per 211 sq. ft. After completing this analysis we proposed that the conference center be parked at 1 space per 200 gsf. ' The 1 per Z00 sf. Requirement is based on analysis of similar types of uses in various north Texas cities. A copy of this comparison is attached. IINT SERYERIADMINIWORDDOCSIPROJECT1980351RevisedWPCParkingCalculaHons.doc ~ ~;: , Shared Parking When we;originally presented this project we were aware that the City. did not have a specific requirement for parking, As such we prepared and presented the site plan and noted that approximately 96 spaces were "cross parked° (or shared). To substantiate this sharing of parking,: our office undertook a complex series of calculations based on peak demand needs of the hotel and office to determine the amount of parking that could be shared due to the dissimilar needs of those uses. After all this complex analysis was done, we were notified that the 1 space per 200. gsf. noted above was acceptable to staff. Additionally code allowed office buildings to be parked at 1 space per 275 gsf. rather than: l space. per 250 gsf. Based on this, our site plan has adequate parking without introducing the concept of shared parking and so this topic has. not been included in this review. Other Parking Options As par of our schematic design phase RFA, Inc. was asked to prepare a conceptual expansion plan and explore potential areas that additional parking could be obtained should the project be expanded. This report identified numerous options which included: 1. Adding a small parking lot south of the existing fire station. 2. Adding sparking lot west of the existing fire station. 3. Adding a parking lot across Holleman. 4. Utilizing the proposed-future parking lot planned for the Amphitheater site across Dartmouth. 5. Utilizing the existing parking available at Post Oak Mall which the city already has an agreement to utilize for special. events. It was and is our opinion that should the conference center require additional parking- due to expansion of occasional seasonal peaks that there are several alternatives available to satisfy these needs. Modifications to the Site Plan Since the last submittal of the site plan tothe City, we have presented the site plan to the Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board. As part of their review they requested the deletion. of a number of parking. spaces reducing the count from 914 to 877. Conclusion After completing all of the above revised analysis I feel that the proposed parking is adequate to meet the needs of this project for the majority of the year. It is inevitable that there will be events that may result. in some need for overflow parking, but based on the above, it is my belief that these events will be relatively rate and, when they do occur, there are adequate alternative parking solutions available. It seems impractical to base parking on the absolute worst case scenario, when there are viable means of relief as an option. IIlVT SERYERIADMIMWORDDOCSIPROJECT198035~RevisedWPCParkingCalculationsdoc t. ~ For a complete description of these options,. please refer to my detailed report "Conference Expansion P ing Study dated August 24, 1998. w__.~..= Rick Ferrara, .I.A. Vice Preside Attachments: IINT SERVERIADMINIWORDDOCSIPROJECT198035~RevisedWPCParlingCalculationcdoc WOLF PEN CREEK-CONFERENCE CENTER EXEID3IT 1 Parking Requirement Comparison The following. is alist of code requiredparking ratios for various types of facilities similar to the conference center. We were unable to locate any other city that specifically identifies conference centers in any development ordinance, but have listed here uses that are similar. Convention Facilities Garland, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Dallas, Texas 1 sp/700 gsf Auditoriums Theaters Places. of Public Assembly Fort Worth, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf of Ballroom plus 1 per employee Cultural Centers Carrollton, Texas 1 sp/400 gsf Fraternal Organizations Carrollton, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Frisco, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Coppell, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Public Assembly Hall w/o fixed seating Arlington, Texan 1 sp/100. gsf Granbury, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Frisco, Texas 1 sp/100 gsf Communitti Center Coppell, Texas 10 sp + 1/300 gsf Dance-Hall Grand Prairie, Texas 1 sp/100 gsf Granbury, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Frisco, Texas 1 sp/100 gsf Coppell, Texas l sp/100 gsf Exhibition Hall w/o fixed seating Granbury, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Frisco, Texas 1 sp/100 gsf The average of the above requirement is 1 space per 21 l gsf and based on that we feel that the 1:200 gsf most commonly sited above is a reasonable ratio for this use. N.•IWORDDOCSIPROJECT1980351parking requirement comparison.doc h._. 5.a ~ T- ~ o 1 1 '-r ~ ~~ ~-~ K 1 V 1'"IHKL r GRKHrt KH HK4H -7 1 C.4 L'' bL~77 1 i Wolf Perr Creek Conference Center Parking Calculations Project Overview F'. b2 This project consists of three .buildings including a four story, 80,000 sq. ft. office building, a 200 room, 112,800 sq. ft. hotel. and a 69,000 sq. ft. conference center with approximately 46,000 sq. ft. of rentable meeting space, plus 2,800 sq. ft. of pre-function space. The preliminary site. plan shows approximately 914 parking spaces for the entire project. Per city code, the required number of parking spaces is as follows: Office Building: 80,000 sq. ftI 250 320 spaces Hotel: 1 space per room x 200 .rooms = 200 spaces Restaurant/Bar 2,500 sq. ft. at 1 space per 65 sq. ft. = 39 spaces Total 239 spaces Conference Center. (Method # 1~: 1 sp. per 100 nsft of meeting and pre-function spaces, 48,800 nsf = 488 spaces Total number of spaces required: 1047 spaces Total number of spaces shown: 914 spaces Number of shared parking spaces (at 1 sp. Per 100 nsf): 133 spaces Conference Center (N[ethod #21: 1 sp. Per 200 gsf , 69,000 gsf per 200 = 345 spaces Total number of spaces required: ~ 904 spaces Number of SURPLUS spaces: 10 spaces ~ The 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of meeting and prefunction spaces was provided to 1tFA, inc. by the city during the ~rojcct and has been used here simply for purposes of comparison. The 1 per 200 gsf requirement is based on analysis of similar types of uses in various north Teas cities. A cop}• of this comparison is attached. AUG-24-'~~i 11 :~k9 Af•7 RICHARli. F=ERRARFtH. ARCH '372b;=sGJ2'~91 r'- a-=~ WPC Parking Study Shared Parking Page 2 of ~ Based on a study conducted. under the direction. of the Urban Land Institute (LTL.1) by $arton- Aschman Associates, Inc., we have reviewed the parking requirements of this project and determined. the following: Peak Demand Reauirements without shared narking: The: following calculations are the number ofparking spaces as suggested by the ULI study. The calculations are intended to illustrate the maximum number of parking spaces required if each building was built as a separate project. Hotel 1.25 spaces per occupied room ZSO max spaces Office 3.0 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. 277 max spaces The following .calculations are .based. an charts from the Barton-Aschman ULI .study, and combine the office building and hotel parking needs.. These charts are attached at the end of this report and are: Exhibit 6: Office Parking Accumulation Exhibit 14: Hotel Parking Accumulation For the purposes of determining the peak demand we studied the morning, midday and evening requirements and then determined that the mid-morning peak was the worst case, and therefore the governing factor. All four calculations are below: Morning Reauirements (8:00 A.M)' Office =.3/1000 sq. ft. * 67%) _ 186 spaces Hotel = i.25 * 200 rooms * 67% = 168 spaces 3S4 spaces Midmorning Reauirements (9:DO AM.) Office = 3/1000 sq. ft. * 95% °, 228 spaces _ * * o (' Hotel - 1.25 .200 rooms S S /o ,y ~~ s aces worst case " ~ w ~ r '' + Midday Reauirements Office = 3/ 1000 sq. ft. * 100% = 277 spaces `~ Hotel = 1.25 * 200 rooms * 30% _ - __ 1~~ ,,: -- ~ ~~;,~ _ '-' -` 3~2 spaces Evening Reauirements Office = 3/1000 sq. ft. * 10%_ 28 spaces Hotel = 1.25 * 200 rooms * 100% = 250 spaces, 278'spaces Parking shown per site plan 914 spaces IIM_Sls7tVF.RUDblIMWORDDOCSIPRQ/ECT1980331WPC parktny study.dx HUG-L4-7t3 11 ~1 HI.1 K1L:HHKL. ttKKfiKIdH. FiKI:H 7 f1Oki 1_nc771 1-' l~4 WPC Parking Study Page 3 of 4 Based on the above, the peak parking requirements will occur at 9:00 A.M., when the of'Ftce building is at 95% occupancy and the hotel is at 55%, hotel declining to 30% by mid-day. This peak demand requires 366 spaces of the 914, resulting in 548 spaces being available for the conference center at this mid-morning peak Based on 548 spaces (worst case scenario) being available for the conference center this yields a parking ratio (based on gross sq. R.) of: 69,000 gsf/ 548. spaces = 1 space per 126 gsf based on usable square feet of meeting and pre-function spaces: 47,800 usf/548 spaces = 1 space per 87 usf Both of these ratios provide more parking .than the 1:200 gsf, or 1:100 usf referenced previously in this document. Mixed Use Daity anct Seasonal Variations It should be noted that when considering: the ,parking :demand for the office building and hotel that the ofl;ce building has a very tow weekend demand, while the hotel's weekend demand will be somewhat lower (5-10% assumed) during the week than the. above calculations reflect. .The attached chart, Exhibit 14, showing 'Hotel parking accumulation is assuming a more urban setting than in this .project. Regardless of this, we have utilized the percentages in the published data. Seasonal .variations will also provide more favorable results. Based on the attached Exhibits I S & 16, there is a .seasonal offset between convention peak demands and hotel peak demands. Typically, the peak convention season is May .and June, when the hotel wilt be at only 90% of it's peak demand. Conversely, during the traditional hotel peak demand months of July and August, convention attendance drops to approximately 50% of its peak demand. Even when accounting for the unusually high occupancy rates associated with the fall Texas A&M football season the data appears favorable to our conditions. The offsets in seasonal demands for the conference center and the hotel should provide an additional margin of safety. IWT S6Rt'&7t1~fDAT/MWORDDOCSIPRGUF.C719803SIWPCyorkinpr(u~doc t-lUh-14-7ri 11 ~L.. Hl'I WP'C Parking Study Conclusions Pagc 4 of 4 Based on both of the above methods .for determining the amount of required parking combined with the analysis of the shared parking, I feel that the parking provided for this mixed use project is adequate for the majority of the year. It is inevitable that there will be events that may result in some need for overflow parking, but based on the above, it is my belief that these events will be relatively: rare and, when they do occur, there are adequate alternative parking solutions available. It seems impractical to base parking on the absolute worst case senario, when there are viable means of relief as an option. For a complete description of these options, please refer to my detailed report "Conference Expansion Parking Study" dated August 24, 1998. ~,~ F~~ Rick Ferrara, AIA Vice President August 24, 1998 Richard Ferrara. Architects, Inc. 445 E. Walnut St. Suite 131 Richardson, TX .75081 Attachments: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 14 Exhibit IS Exhbit 15 f< 1 l.: H Fi K L F- t K K t-I t-: t-: F-i . t-t K ~.~ H '~ f :~ b o rJ :~ '~ '~ 1 '°-'-r, /J ~ IWT S~R~?:7tUnMlMR'ORDOOCSIPRQ/EC719B033~ifTCparklnYsdidl'.doc HUG-14-9ti 1 1 :5.5 Hf•7 R I CHHRL. FERRi-7 FLF{i-7. i-1r{L:H 9716Y..bL771 WOLF PEN CREEK-CONFERENCE CENTER EXHIBIT 1 Parking Requirement Comparison P. bo The following is a list of code required parking ratios for various types of facilities similar to the conference center. We were unable to locate any other city that specifically identifies conference centers in any development ordinance, but have listed here uses that are similar. Convention Facilities Garland, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Dallas, Texas l sp/700 gsf Auditoriums Theaters, Places of Public Assembly Fort Worth, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf of Ballroom plus 1 per employee Cultural Centers Carrollton, Texas 1 sp/400 gsf Fraternal Organizations Carrollton, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Frisco, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Coppell, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Public Assembly Hall w/o fixed seating Arlington, Texas l sp/100 gsf Granbury, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Frisco, Texas 1 sp/100 gsf Community Center Coppell, Texas 10 sp + 1/300 gsf Dance Hall Grand Prairie, Texas I sp/l00 gsf Granbury, Texas. 1 sp/200 gsf Frisco, Texas 1 sp/100 gsf Coppell, Texas 1 sp/100 gsf Exhibition Hall w/o fixed seating Cranbury, Texas 1 sp/200 gsf Frisco, Texas 1 sp/100 gsf The average of the above requirement is 1 space per 211 gsf and based on that we feel that the 1:200 gsf most commonly sited above is a reasonable ratio for this use. IINT~SERI•~'RWDMINIWORDDOCSIPROJECT1980351parkirlg requirement comparfaon.doc HUIa-1'+-7b 1 1 ~`+ ri i•i tc 1lV HfiKL F tF1KFi f{F11-1 iRl_ H '37268@2551 P - b7 EXHIBIT 6 OFFICE PARKING ACCUMULATION 1C z c E U I C7 f a 0 H x W a a ~. `;;' 1 ":;`~ ~~~{~.. ' r':`~9 ~]2'S ;rw,'::! ~: :d~~;. -.z~!g ssj ::a:~.~ .as~~. •;~~ ,;~ =~~~;~:_ '~,~~~ ..~~~ 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ~ 10 NOON ~~ WEEKDAY IiOUR OF THE DAY - -- -SATURDAY _ ~t~ 15 HUU-L4-75 1 1 ~~+ Hf•i K l l._ HFfKL F tKKi-iKKfi FIKI:H `J~ f LtG ti ~JG7`J 1 P b8 EXHIBIT 14 HOTEL PARKING ACCUMULATION--GUEST ROOMS AND EM PLOYEES . .. ~ loo .. - ~ - - . _ .. , , 0 :. .: ~ rr 30 _ -. : ,,. _. - - _~ w a , . . - - - '•~` .. . ~ ~ . ,a,~~: ~-f 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NOON "--WEEKDAY HOUR OF THE DAY "- --SATURDAY 25 1-i Ul.,-L~-`JL 11 `.}~ F1 M. R.L L:H i-1KL.H tF<t[1-iK K~-i HKL.:H EXHIBIT 15 MONTHLY VARIATION IN HOTEL. GUEST ROOM occUPANCY 100 90 x SO z ~ 70 w 60 a 0 50 H z 40 a w a 30 20 10 :~:_:~. WEEKDAY SATURDAY . :.'f.~r ~-.C.B'4 ... '`.x' ~. 5726802591 P ~^'~ 27 ~~ JAN FEB MAR. APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ri L~L~-14-•~ti 1 1 : ~~ Hi•i K 1 L:HiiKL. f tKKHKKH. HKt:H 7 fLC¢ib L7`J 1 F l b _ EXHIBIT 16 MONTHLY VARIATION. IN HOTEL CONVENTION ATTENDANCE 1 H 0 a 0 w V W a is JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC FILE NOTE December 1, 1998. Staff reviewed the revised site plans submitted on 11/23/98 and used the Site o merit Grou as the official ian which a unci al Devel p Plan i•e ared b M p p p p p Y contractor will build from. The following commends are offered following the staff review of the plan heets designated as Revisron D prepared: by MDG and of the colored up s submitted by Rick Ferrera. 1. .Include a note somewhere that temporary curbing will be placed along the phase line:. This curbing must be in place prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of any building in phase one, and can be broken off when Phase II is built. 2. Show the proposed location of the signal at Dartmouth/Holleman intersection. 3. Label the 8 ft. pedestrian walkway as'a "proposed easement". This easement must be dedicated before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued on any building. 4. A resubmittal of a fencing proposal or any information requested regarding the fencing has -not been made. 5. Regarding building elevations: See :New South Elevation submitted. 1Nhich option is preferred?...One island area has been added. 6. Signage? Did not see a resubmittal atldressing Design Review Board comments. C ~ ~~ `( ,~~ ~ ~ ., ~~ "' ~ ~'`' ~. r-~ Richard Ferrara Architect, Inc. October 20, 1999 Ms. Natalie Thomas Ruiz City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Re: Wolf Pen Creek DRB Submission Dear Natalie, Project No.: 97034.02 Attached you will find the following 30" x 42" colored drawings for. the Wolf Pen Center hotel submission for our presentation on October 27th at 8:30am: 1. L1.0 schematic site plan 2. A200 first floor plan with landscaping 3. A220 typical and top floor hotel plans 4. A400 north elevation 5. A405 south elevation 6. A410 east and west elevations I also have included nine (9) sets of reduced black and white drawings for your distribution to the board. It is my understanding that the material pallet board for the conference center is still at city hall. The hotel finishes will be identical, to the materials shown on this board with the addition of one material. We are trying to secure a color and texture sample, and will overnight it as soon as it comes in. Thank you for all of your help. RF/lcs Attachments cc: Tim White/DalMac Bob Ownby/Da1Mac DRB submission letter.doc 445 East Walnut Street /Suite 131 Richardson, Texas 75081 972/470-0171 r.,.,. n~nicon nnni HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING (OPTIONAL) IS81TE PLAN CHANGED? APPLICANT SUBMITS. APPLICATION, FULLY DIMENSIONED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN, WITH MATERIALS, ELEVATIONS,,ETC. TO PLANNING DIVISION (WEDNESDAY, NOON) JOINT STAFF REVIEWTO DISCUSS AND RESOLVE ANY STAFF QUESTIONS (FRIDAY, 9:00 A.M. STAFF PREPARES AND POSTS AGENDA FOR WPC, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (FRIDAY, 5:00 P.M.) STAFF NOTIFIES APPLICANT; P&Z COMMISSIONERS, CITY DNISIONS,AND UTILITYCOMPANIES OF P.R.C. (MONDAY) D.R.B. PUBLIC MEETING HELD; RECOMMENDATION DETERMINED (WEDNESOAY,A.MJ 7-10 DAYS SUBMITREVISED SITE PLAN, MATERIALS, ELEVATIONS,.ETC.. 10 DAYS BEFOREP&Z MEEYING BY NOON ON ANY OF DEADLINES ON SHEET ATTACHED. TO P&Z WITH RECOMMENDATION FROM D.R.B. 1St OR 3fd THURSDAY APPLICANT SUBMITS3 COMPLETE SETS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PLANS, INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS, DRAINAGE PLANS, ETC.., WITH REVISED SITE PLAN ON 7ST PAGE, TO DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR ELECTRICAL I PLANN#NG!^ I I BU D NG I I I TARGET 5 DAYS DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR EVALUATES AND CONSOLIDATES THE INFORMATION. (INFORMS DEPARTMENTS OF CHANGES ANDRESOLVES DIFFERENCES INTERNALLY) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR. RETURNS SET OF PLANS TO THE APPLICANT 1 APPLICANfiSUBMITS 3 COMPLETE SETS OF REVISED PLANS, PLUS REDLINED SET OF PLANS TO THE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR AND MAKES PERMIT APPLICATION TARGET 5 DAYS I, YES PERMITISSUED MINIMUM IN HOUSE REVIEW TIME = 32 DAYS WITH OPTIMUM CONDITIONS AND'EXGELLENT PLANS .~.,.-,. r.,~-~ .T~,.~~~ u , , ~;i ~~ ~~ C~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~~~ ,,, Certect;lzes• ?_ 1 ~~9 _:_ _ _ _ ~_ _ _ ...~ Mr. Toni Brymer C1TX OF COLLEGE STATY01~1 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 _ -_ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ r~~ Y' 6661 C 0 ~I a ~ ~ ~wlL O ,8 '" ~~ 1 ~ °~'~ ~I/rU 1. ~f ~. RE: Update on Walf Pen Creek Hotel and Conference Center Project No. 98035 and 97034.02 Toni, This totter is to give you a general overview of where we stand on the Wolf Pen Creek Hotel and Conference Center. • Currently we are working on the Design Development phase (DD phase) of the Hotel, and anticipate a pa'eliminary release of the DD package on 24 September, 1999. with a final DD package release on 14 October, 1999. Both structural at~d mechanical have been released to begin their work for the DD phase. • 1 have talked to Arkitex Studio and 1VIDG alerting them to the status of our work and have requested a platting schedule from MDG. • I have alerted Arkitex Studio that we will be authorizing them to proceed as soon as the structural engineer has finalized the structural connection details between the Hotel and Conference Center. I will instruct Arkitex Studio to begin work as soon as they can work it into $ieir schedule and will ask for an 80% review set delivery dale. As per previous conversations, given the complexity of the Hotel, the production of the Conference Center Construction Documents is not a critical path item. We also .need to have the hotel interior designer on board prior to completing the. Conference Center Construction Documents. • DePaLna has identified their interior designer of choice and is in the process of attempting to finalize an agreement . We have provided drawings and have responded to questions from this group. We will be actively niceting with them as soon as they are hired and released by DePaltna. 445 Easi Walnut Streel /Suite i31 s~,,,,_99~,.~,,.;f„~.e„~. Richartlson, Texas 75081 972/470-0171 Fax: 972/680-2991 r ' - ~ ~' -'3 '~ k[7 '~ ~.7. H C'1 - li l [~ Fi F-1K L t- ._ r: , -: H 1~: r~:. m H K ~_ ~ ~..., r ~_. , ._, y ; .._. _. _ . s -ox~Ided a ~~::et~aatic _ ~~. .:,°~ii~~~ ~} _ _ ,. ~ - ~• t r . ., - - - - n~ack~~ e ~._.~<; ~Jt tatl.ll ~i; ~tii~SiLi. 7rie,i ,~wF2. e_ c; _ .;£F : [in.. 0(1 _ .1 r znt; P I' ... a - ~1~` '-_ -'-' s ~ SC;IT~~:L:i~ z. .~; :.11 t.;Ii L,YLP~'~ Z~G.,_o( _ ~ i_". .~'.''.., ,i.' _~li~. j riiittG11ii21G i~dltlo ~~l.,in fn ~r'h~~~rr}n `215 i4~~nfinn 1.11 1~ `C; ~ WC=~'" bUt -.t~ ,,i tt o _ __ r..,. t:~;.c~ t17e project to Design Reviet~Boarcl once Shc~,~toii i. as ~.x;,>rove:': Ile schematic design. I Llndf',I'Star1C~ that a n11211tllutn Of twQ weeks notic¢~ „S r~~'.11:!':° tf~" ~.:;i:ed'.l~sl~ l~e~ign I~?S:Te'F,~ l~t~ard r13S='~'-tltlgS. We have prepared a dimension control plan suitable for Dallvlac to turn over to the civil engineer for their use in developing the legal descriptions required to deed the portion of the developers tract (on which 'the Conference Center building sets) to the City. Additionally, they will use it to develop the legal description for the lot on which he Hotel will set, for the Lender. I hope this information is of assistance to you, if you have ar~y questions please feel free to contact me. Sincere RF/ty