Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence (111111)11,1611111111 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning err Development Services January 11,2006 Mr. Dan Muniza Sr.Vice President Construction New Plan 3901 Bellaire Blvd. Houston,TX 77025 Dear Mr.Muniza, The purpose of this correspondence is to confirm the content of our conference call Monday regarding the Culpepper Plaza RDD Overlay Zoning District request.The following were participating in the call: Trey Fletcher,Joey Dunn, Kim Foutz and Charles Wood,City of College Station;Veronica Morgan,Mitchell& Morgan;and,Dan Muniza and Robert Scott,New Plan. In the course of the conference call, staff comments pertaining to the application were reviewed. Staff is committed to recommending approval of the application provided that the following elements are integrated into the 'new section' of the development as agreed upon by New Plan on Monday: • Embellishment of the pilasters • Embellishment of the end caps • Proportional exaggeration of the height of the parapet wall above the entry area While the site plan, landscape plan,and façade elevations are being revised to reflect staff comments,it is understood that the RDD Overlay only provides relief for parking and landscaping standards not to exceed 50 percent,and that any variances or deviations sought with regard to the Non-Residential Architectural Standards(Section 7.9)would be considered by the Design Review Board(DRB)prior to the processing of the rezoning. Staff is committed to expediting this process so as not to further delay the rezoning process significantly. Based on conversations with Veronica yesterday,the optimal scenario for proceeding with revised elements and elevations is as follows: Revisions Design Review Planning&Zoning City Council Date Received By: Board Date Commission Date January 305' February 10t February 16th March 9th Economic Development staff has committed to payment of the fees associated with your DRB application. Should you have any questions,or need further direction,please advise. Sincerely, '67 9414 Joey unn,AICP Director of Planning&Development Services C: Trey Fletcher,Kim Foutz,Charles Wood—City of College Station Veronica Morgan,Mitchell&Morgan Robert Scott,New Plan P.O.BOX 9960•1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION •TEXAS•77842 979.764.3570 www.cstx.gov Message Page 1 of 1 Trey Fletcher - mtg to discuss comments on culpepper rezoning From: "Veronica Morgan" <v amitchellandmorgan.com> To: "'Trey Fletcher' <Tfletchergacstx.gov> Date: 12/29/2005 9:21 AM Subject: mtg to discuss comments on culpepper rezoning CC: "'Charles Wood' <Cwoodgacstx.gov>, "'Kim Foutz"' <kfoutz(acstx.gov> Trey, i need to set up a meeting with you once you return from the holidays to 1. discuss some of the landscape comments on the culpepper project and 2.per a telephone conversation with kim...to discuss with you and charles and/or kim the building elevations and their status as to meetinging/not meeting the nra standards. kim expressed a concern that the building elevations do not have enough substance or extras to warrant staff support of the rdd rezoning. She felt like that is what newplan promised.... i want to sit down and talk to you guys about that so that i can understand what it will take to garner support for the rdd rezoning and really the intent of the rdd rezoning category. apart from the culpepper project i would like to understand how the staff intends to use the rdd zoning district. i think i must have misunderstood what the rdd is there for. i believe the intent was to encourage redevelopment of an older property by giving them incentives, i.e reduced requirements from what other new developments would have to do,so that they will redevelop. This way we redevelop within our already developed boundaries and it supports growth management by supporting redevelopment over the development of new sites anyway if you can call or email me when you return. thanks Veronica Veronica J.B. Morgan, PE, CFM Mitchell & Morgan, LLP 511 University Dr. E., Suite 204 College Station,Texas 77840 p: (979) 260-6963 f: (979) 260-3564 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this e-mail or any of its attachment(s)is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,please immediately notify the sending individual or entity by e-mail and permanently delete the original e-mail and attachment(s)from your computer system. DISCLAIMER: This data is authorized"AS IS"without any warranty as to its performance,accuracy, freedom from error,or as to any results generated through its use, including without limitation,any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. You assume the entire risk as to the results and performance of this data. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\tfletcher\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\43B 3AAA... 1/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Trey Fletcher - 05-222 Culpepper Plaza RDD Overlay request From: Trey Fletcher To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com Date: 12/15/2005 11:20 AM Subject: 05-222 Culpepper Plaza RDD Overlay request CC: Bridgette George Veronica, My assessment of the drawings submitted for this application with regard to Section 7.9 of the UDO is as follows: 7.9.0 -The south end elevation of Section One has only one architectural element(pilasters). Need another element within the 69' section, repeated twice. 7.9.0 -The "new" section elevation of Section Two only shows pilasters on the flanking ends. Like the above reference, another repeating element must be shown every 45'. 7.9.0 - Only front elevations have been provided at this time. Issues regarding "all other facades visible from a right-of- way" have not been reviewed. 7.9.D.3 - All facades visible from the street shall have only brick...or tile below thirty inches from the ground surface. 7.9.E - Provide building colors, charts, etc. Colors shown in front elevation appear to indicate compliance. 7.9.F - Pedestrian'/ Bike Circulation Facilities (this will need to be provided in conjunction with the formal site plan submittal) 7.9.H.1 - Parking Lot setback is not met along Texas Avenue. I�1 - Elevations (front) of the primary structure comply. 7.9.I.3 - Requires double the minimum landscape points of that required for developments of less than 50,000 SF. The minimum allowable tree size is 2" caliper. The total points proposed are less than a quarter of the total required. Related to Sec. 7.5 also, the landscape table does not account for the streetscape requirements within Sec. 7.5.D.3. Again, this is an assessment based on the plans/drawings submitted and formal site plan comments will be issued for this project upon submittal of a complete site plan application following the application pending for the RDD overlay. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding the same. Thanks, Trey Gam-,•,. : .e ; ;r c er / C4,...,,.( „�. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\tfletcher\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\43A 1518C... 1/6/2006 Page 1 of 1 Trey Fletcher - 05-222 Culpepper Plaza RDD Overlay request From: Trey Fletcher To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com Date: 12/15/2005 11:20 AM Subject: 05-222 Culpepper Plaza RDD Overlay request CC: Bridgette George Veronica, My assessment of the drawings submitted for this application with regard to Section 7.9 of the UDO is as follows: 7.9.0 -The south end elevation of Section One has only one architectural element(pilasters). Need another element within the 69' section, repeated twice. 7.9.0 -The "new" section elevation of Section Two only shows pilasters on the flanking ends. Like the above reference, another repeating element must be shown every 45'. 7.9.0 - Only front elevations have been provided at this time. Issues regarding "all other facades visible from a right-of- way" have not been reviewed. 7.9.D.3 -All facades visible from the street shall have only brick...or tile below thirty inches from the ground surface. 7.9.E - Provide building colors, charts, etc. Colors shown in front elevation appear to indicate compliance. 7.9.F - Pedestrian / Bike Circulation Facilities (this will need to be provided in conjunction with the formal site plan submittal) 7.9.H.1 - Parking Lot setback is not met along Texas Avenue. 7.9.I.1 - Elevations (front) of the primary structure comply. 7.9.I.3 - Requires double the minimum landscape points of that required for developments of less than 50,000 SF. The minimum allowable tree size is 2" caliper. The total points proposed are less than a quarter of the total required. Related to Sec. 7.5 also, the landscape table does not account for the streetscape requirements within Sec. 7.5.D.3. Again, this is an assessment based on the plans/drawings submitted and formal site plan comments will be issued for this project upon submittal of a complete site plan application following the application pending for the RDD overlay. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding the same. Thanks, Trey file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\tfletcher\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\43A 1518C... 1/3/2006 From: "Veronica Morgan" <v@mitchellandmorgan.com> To: 'Trey Fletcher"' <Tfletcher@cstx.gov> Date: 10/10/2005 4:26:57 PM Subject: FW: RDD Overlay zoning Fyi... Veronica J.B. Morgan, PE, CFM Mitchell & Morgan, LLP 511 University Dr. E., Suite 204 College Station, Texas 77840 p: (979) 260-6963 f: (979) 260-3564 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential information and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this e-mail or any of its attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sending individual or entity by e-mail and permanently delete the original e-mail and attachment(s) from your computer system. DISCLAIMER: This data is authorized "AS IS"without any warranty as to its performance, accuracy, freedom from error, or as to any results generated through its use, including without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. You assume the entire risk as to the results and performance of this data. Original Message From: Kim Foutz[mailto:kfoutz@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 2:43 PM To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com Cc: dmuniza@newplanexcel.com; rscott@newplanexcel.com Subject: RDD Overlay zoning The RDD site plan (which includes the waivers) is approved with the RDD zoning. The approval is done by the P&Z followed by City Council approval. There will be an ordinance adopting the RDD zoning; this ordinance will include exhibits (RDD site plan & building elevations). The RDD site plan should include preliminary engineering as described in the UDO. It should also depict where the landscaping will be and indicate what percent of landscaping requirements is being met. The landscape provisions in the NRA are eligible for reduction. The RDD site plan should also include preliminary engineering for the parking and indicate what percent of parking requirements are being met. Again, the parking provisions in the NRA are eligible for reduction. OSBORN &VANE ARCHITECTS October 17, 2005 To: Dan Muniza,NewPlan Excel Robert Scott,NewPlan Excel Veronica Morgan, Mitchell &Morgan, L.L.P. Ed Wong, Wong &Associates Molly Hitchcock, City of College Station Joseph Dunn, City of College Station Kim Foutz, City of College Station Trey Fletcher, City of College Station Raymond Suarez, Osborn&Vane Architects From: Al Osborn, A.I.A. ,avi Osborn &Vane Architects Re: Culpepper Plaza Redevelopment College Station, Texas Project No. 05090 The following are notes taken at our conference call meeting Thursday, October 13, 2005 regarding the project referenced above. 1. Kohl lease isn't final. 2. Owner would like to acquire rezoning even if Kohl's doesn't come in. 3. Kohl would like delivery in April 2006. Realistically it would need to be in late 2006 for an opening in spring 2007. 4. Documents ready by November 7th and into Planning & Zoning December 8th to be ready for January council agenda. 5. Must have RDD approval before building permit can be issued. Possible to submit for permit prior to approval by RDD but must have engineering drawings. 6. Building elevations and landscape design appeal important for council approval. 7. New council members are pro-development. 8. All driveways exist. No new drives proposed therefore no TxDOT approvals will be necessary. 9. Proposed small parcel at rear being purchased from neighbor at rear. Does not necessarily need to be rezoned with new shopping center property. There is an easement with water line that would have to be relocated. 10. Would like leniency in NRA standards for Pods 1 and 2. 2000 Bering Drive Suite 410 Houston,Texas 77057 713 7815262 713 7815347 Fax Page 1 of 2 Members American Institute of Architects OSBORN&VANE ARCHITECTS g 11. Elevation of main building only—full length however. No elevations of rear walls necessary. State that smaller building will have similar design treatment. 12. No elevation of pad buildings necessary. 13. Since Kohl will not commit design time until a lease is agreed to, we do not know what they would want in the way of a front elevation design. We will submit the shopping center design with the understanding that it may have to be modified somewhat after they present something. 14. Our goal is to have rough elevation studies by October 24th. City staff will do brief review of these with initial comments before final presentation November 7th Please notify me if there are any corrections or additions to the notes above. Cc: Richard J. Vane, Osborn &Vane Architects Page 2 of 2 KKE Arahi'CecCs,Inc. l ,�:�� 300 first avenue north minneapolis, mn 55401 612/339-4200 612/342-9267 fax Thi www.kke.com LTotal Pages Dateitime From architects Fax Transmission 3 w/coy. 02/08/06 Andrew Centanni re-4.4A Fax= Telephone Pel -- Y' -tY'�U -R. 979/764-3496 612/758-7486 City of College Station,TX Fax Planning Dept. 612/339-5088 [Kohl's] Project Number Project: Kohl's-College Station,TX KKE 0604.4822.01 Copy Mailed Subject Due Diligence Report No Crissy, If you could please fill this out and fax back to me at your earliest convenience I would appreciate it. Please call if you have any questions. • Thank you, Andrew Centanni 'Z. . l, 74%0 i Project Manager KKE Architects (ti V1/l W -114 ,j,/,/ k Fid l'7 b ti►'t The information contained in this facsimile is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual recipient identified herein.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication In error,please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address by mail.Thank you. minneapolis las vegos Irvine pasadena expanding the vision S^" l d tiL5 'ON 90H 'S '23J Can Fire Sprinkler drawings be submitted separately by the Contractor? ©Yes 0 No If yes,what is the process and how many sets?(1)One set sent to City of College Station Fire Marshals office. Is a Sprinkler Room or a Fire Pump room going to be required? 0 Yes ❑ No If yes,can it be combined with the electrical equipment? ❑Yes ❑ No If yes, does the room require an exterior access door? 0 Yes 0 No Plumbing Department Review What code do you use to determine the number of toilet fixtures required? 0 Building ® Plumbing LI Other Comments: Fire Department Review Who is the authority having jurisdiction? OCity ❑County ❑Other Is this project located in a restrictive fire zone or district that would impact the design requirements? D Yes ❑ No Once the fire sprinkler contractor is selected,shop drawings are prepared and submitted to your office for review prior to fabrication or installation. Is this acceptable? El Yes 0 No If no, Are approved sprinkler plans required before a building permit is issued? ❑Yes RI No Comments: Is a lock box or"Knox Box"required? ©Yes D No (if yes,ask for an application signed by the Fire Marshall.) Comments/Location: Locate toward the front of the store 3'-0"above grade min/6'-O"max. Verify final location w/Fire Marshal prior to installation. Prefers recessed design. Is a Fire Control room required? ❑Yes 0 No Comments/Location: F.D.will not require separate room. Want system toward the front of the store Fire Review Comments Planning Department Building Design Requirements Will plans have to be submitted to the planning department for approval? pi Yes ❑ No /��) if yes,what needs to be submitted for approval?Civil/Ext. Elevations / �. ���•l ?e C.':" t1/4.r, wo1� `€�d cjric — P G5 4-4 Can you send me an application or submittal requir ment packet? %Yes ❑ No tiff 1‘., l Do you have any ordinances or requirements for any special design or material features? (1'es LINo e' If yes,what are they? 4k—G:T)cw 1„1. Are there any other review boards or commissions that require approval? 'Yes ❑No If yes,what are they? F_C ) Oar P2 ;►tit -- p.t-2. CGS p� / YtaK►\,a i)(Zj3ClJe hi..,vIrN bj�/ ./ How is this Development zoned?C , Is this development under a PUD? C"1-471t1 6`-wle"4-4-4- ❑Yes No Do the general requirements and specific zone requirements apply to this development? 'Yes ❑No Architect's Due Diligence Report Page 6 of 8 Kohl's—College Station,TX KKE No.0604.4822.01 Date 1.19.06 • Z d 17LS 'ON Wb'ti8 :6 9002 '8 '83d Are there any PUD criteria for this project? U Yes,No If yes, Are there any Architectural Design Guidelines or Criteria that will be applicable to this development? es 0 No if yes' See Sec. .�.y AA- 1u U c) How does the building approval process work? Staff review 0 N/A ffis 0 No Staff review only 0 N/A.2 es 0 No Architectural Review Board(Staff) 0 N/A pl'es 0 No IF 'Jet Planning Commission(Board) 0 N/A .8 Yes D No {�.6v.wi City Council(Bd.Of Commissioners) 0 N/A,0'Yes 0 No MzrJ, Neighborhood Meeting .18N/A 0 Yes U No Historical Board of ReviewN/A 0 Yes 0 No Other: D Yes 0 No How many staff review meetings are generally required before the Board of Commissioners meeting? How many times does a project typically go before the Planning Commission? rot✓ s t tic, P ct,t4-y—Aj Does a project generally go before the Board of Commissioners once?No More? N0 Can we get a copy of the applicable zoning requirements and Architectural design criteria? Yes ❑No If no,why not? Are there any ongoing processes that would add to or revise the zoning ordinances for building design related issues? OfYes 0 No If yes,what are other issues of concern and/or comments: '6,tt4L' `? t U TEA f civ, (c�% ftvl tc v o General Screeninq Requirements Are there ordinances or regulations requiring screening of the loading dock or ground mounted equipment? )iYes 0 No if Yes' g�� S.ec 1.; M^IOSel Pitiei Do you have any other screening requirements? if yes, S Efr, S 'i.c i3v f Liahtina Requirements Do you have any ordinances or requirements regarding exterior lighting restrictions? Yes ❑No If yes, Sd.T10N '7- (U OvTgvpP- L1G.wn&) 5---awOAYu)S Planning Review Comments cc wy 0 arc. U t caK% CCtao,j,C. -l') 1 4k 'b 1f- Of Pox, Ce- F--pp m s-r tcsuL' Architect's Due Diligence Report Page 7 of B Kohl's—College Station,TX KKE No.0604.4822.01 Date 1.19.06 E •d tics 'ON AJ E :6 9002 .g '83J