The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondence Trey Fletcher- RE: Valley Park F ations From: "David Hillman" <dhillman@southcorprealty.com> To: "'Graham Martin' <gmartin@drewrymartin.com>, "... Date: 1/20/2006 9:04 pm Subject: RE: Valley Park Elevations CC: "'Gary McHale"' <mchale.eng@verizon.net>, "'Ben... Graham: Looks very well thought out. I know meeting all the sections of the College Station code is proving to be a challenge. Kirk, what do you think about the cost? Graham, have you checked with Trey Fletcher to see if the form liner brick is ok in lieu of real brick? If Ron or Bill have no objections to this design, I would bounce if off of Trey. We can set up a webinar with him if you like...he was very cooperative with that forum last time we went over this. Ron, Bill and Steve, any comments? Original Message From: Graham Martin [mailto:gmartin@drewrymartin.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:51 AM To: David Hillman; Bill Sisson; Ron Mills; Kirk Springer; Trey Fletcher Cc: Gary McHale; Bengie Daniels; Mike Drewry; Steve Duncan Subject: Valley Park Elevations Attached for your review and comment are proposed elevations and entry plans with planters, and sections to show difference between Tilt-wall entry with awning and appendage wall(4" projection)with openings. The main facade of building 1 is 7,260 square feet. The glass storefront in this facade is 2,000 square feet or 28%. The concrete tilt-wall in this facade is 72%. The painted form liner brick 3'high wainscot and panels over the glass storefront in this facade is 26%. The percentage of materials for building 2 is the same. Each appendage on building 1 is 21% of the main facade. Each appendage on building 2 is 30% of the main facade. The tilt-wall appendage frame will shade the storefront in the wall 4' back. A painted corrugated metal deck on cantilevered steel tubes that are centered on the mullions below will shade the storefronts on the walls between the appendages. 6'wide planters will be aligned with the face of the appendages. 10'and 27'wide walks will divide the planters at the doors. There will be 4 storefronts on the NW corner of building 1, each with an awning as described above. There will be 5 storefronts on the East end of building 2, each with an awning as described above. Please call if you have any questions. Graham Martin ,r Trey Fletcher- 370126-floor ph^ & elevations 10.06.05.pdf Page 3 u u__uru ulfu � NORTH-WEST ELEVATION SOUTH-EAST ELEVATION I ��}�y{ u� UL __L_L_ hii+i , i a ,gam, NORTH-FAST ELEVATION '5fl 7 7 17 7 I`^ 1 1f SOIITH-WEST ELEVATION 0 20' 40• ' 40' • oRewnv,..iwFnnVALLEYPARK/C'OLLEGESTATION `GALE: 1" = 40' .�,., ('RELIMINAI<1 ELEVATIONS 51111.01,10-' 10.of).05 Trey Fletcher-370126-floor OP- &elevations 10.06.05.pdf Page 1_j * IDD_0. —— L ITE ANALYSIS 7 NOTE- ALL DIMENSIONS ARE T SITE AREA 3.9 ACRES TO ❑LT0I DE OF BUILDING 171:35 S NORTH Cr)BUILC1N3 AREA 30,000 SF. COVERAGE 17.53/ BUILDING AREA 2:.000 S- 0 20' 40` 8D' COVERAGE' 12.270 0I BUILDING AREA TOTAL' 01000 S.F. O COVERAGE TOTAL 29.80 '/. SCALE' I" = 40' < }.._ 30,000 S.F. — F- _ FLEX WPIREHOUSE 30' X 5b' BAYS C7 c 16" C�_EA1B HEIGHT BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS . § +------- OCCUPANCY. S-I, S-2, F-1. 1-2 O CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE II 0 -- a 1 ESFP SYS EM cL i ]--.--.-. ---- 2l c'-D• I a I I I I I I +- - a g 1 1 aLIJ00 SII SI!F. I FLEX WARE OUSE 30".X 50 BAYS I I 1 16ELEAR HEIGH- 1 I 3 T I I I I I i I I I I 1 I 1 ; s Trey Fletcher-370126-floor pIP' & elevations 10.06.05.pdf Page 2 !, Li LJ L_Ju __ru ,L_i LJLJ P k#11 I IIS ! I!I NORTH-EAST ELEVATION SOT WEST ELEVAS ION — _U 1_1_1 9'' . ::17 o, eve :': :y: :°' :°: :49 Iri,i1111 4Z Ig'g SOUTH-EAS"f ELEVATION NORTH-WEST ELEVATION 0 20 40 80 DIIEW gYli�< VALLEYPARK COLLEGE STATION TCHLE. 1 = 40' • �sa PilN PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS BUILDING I 10 06 Trey Fletcher-facade exhibit 11-'19-05.pdf Page 1 HARVEY MITCHELL_ p ARKWAY )- - i-,[, FM 2878 TtN I'AGA4DE = fie,i —__ --- --- _ NoW71d FRcq-P6 iF 6W 1 ' to011(0 - - - ----------- —x�. __ — - 11-1670 I] �. 1= +-0 1,-;---7------;"--m ' ' ----- ----NIrLrr'_- 4E-_��J 2- yi°/7t0 ry,'"`.'401 .Q Rid4 II.: 55 QL4r+E Gr•F 1-0,E5 INT NAtN Fite-I-PE- o ®� i ^:F4 �. -.� lr wr grLt ft t 'i �.4i+/ngRD TO I— ._.a . . It 1 2 LOH t�itNb r 13tr11 TIGN(q 5 f14il�lJ WE 1 - itt -t a-fir ry o 1- 1 7 .E Mt() Tl F¢CQDf.' - 7 ly x , '"! f •onl*wt7i vtl-plis* . -nfAT Ioi HY Pu>' � , r ,+ �1 1= ` �1 2 905 'pat ID'IT J 'o fists 1'• to WIT4 511f rlr,er I gp p/.QL. I- Ill r i rJ rµl I a a 11 17.05 VALLEY PARK A T I T h N PROPOSED SITE PLAN 0 40 100 200 300 Trey Fletcher- Re: Emailing: arti' "lation option 11x17.pdf Page 1 From: "Graham Martin" <gmartin@drewrymartin.com> To: "Trey Fletcher" <tletcher@cstx.gov>, "David Hi... Date: 11/29/2005 1:55 pm Subject: Re: Emailing: articulation option 11x17.pdf CC: "Bengie Daniels" <bdaniels@drewrymartin.com>, "... Steve, Trey, and David, I have attached an exhibit that addresses the offsetting planes. We are having to respond to offsetting planes because our combined buildings of 51,000sf are being developed on one building plot. The evaluation of facade articulation should be of the same combined buildings. The north facade of the combined buildings is no more prominent than the east facade, as all of the front parking and walk to either building is the same. In this perspective, no more than 33% of the main facade is in the same geometric plane. I assume this logic was used in the site plan approval. Steve, I think that projecting any of the building's facade will encroach on the landscape areas too much. If we recess part of the facade instead, then we will have reduced the area of the two buildings below 50,000 sf and didn't need to worry about this issue anyway, even if we had been a single box! I suggest that the contractor and developer compare the cost difference between reducing the size of the buildings to 49,999 sf or projecting 60 ft(middle 2 bays)of the facade that is determined to be the main building 4 ft towards the parking lot and having 240 sf more but no landscaping. Neither solution would benefit the project or College Station. Excuse my persistence, but I would hate for the buildings to be misinterpreted. Also attached are elevations of both buildings and a colored elevation which represents both buildings. Trey , If you are not in agreement, please give us a time when you will be available to discuss this issue on the web. Thanks, Graham Original Message From: "Steve Duncan" <sed@pkengineering.com> To: "David Hillman" <dhillman@southcorprealty.com> Cc: "Graham Martin" <gmartin@drewrymartin.com>; "Trey Fletcher" <tletcher@cstx.gov> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:29 AM Subject: Emailing: articulation option 11x17.pdf > dave/graham, trey: > here is what i think is required. either projected out or in at 4' > minimum... > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< > Steve E. Duncan, P.E., V.P. > Pledger Kalkomey, Inc. - Consulting Engineers > 7020 Coyote Run, Bryan, Texas 77808 > 979-731-8000 (voice), 979-731-1500 (fax) > sed@pkengineering.com > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.362/Virus Database: 267.13.10/186 - Release Date: Trey Fletcher- Re: Emailing: art—dation option 11x17.pdf Page 2 > 11/29/2005 >