Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/2018 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review BoardDesign Review Board January 26, 2018 City Hall Administrative Conference Room 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 26, 2018 11:00 AM Administration Conference Room 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas, 77840 The City Council may or may not attend the Design Review Board meeting. 1. Call to Order. 2. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes.  December 18, 2017 3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider waivers to UDO Section 12- 7.10.C.4 ‘Building Materials’ and Section 12-7.10.C.5 ‘Building Colors’, and Alternative Compliance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 12-7.10 Non-Residential Architectural Standards for HEB No. 3 located at 11675 FM 2154. Case #AWV2017-000044 (A Helton). 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider proposed signage in the Wolf Pen Creek District generally located at 614 Holleman Drive East. #WPC2018-000001 (LGray). 5. Possible action and discussion on future agenda items – A Design Review Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 6. Adjourn. APPROVED: By________________________________ City Manager I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on January 19, 2018 at 5 p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By_________________________________ City Secretary This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder With an Openly Carried Handgun. “Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly” Codigo Penal §30.07. Trespasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. “Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre” Page 1 of 3 Minutes Design Review Board December 18, 2017 11:00 AM Administrative Conference Room 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas, 77840 Board Members Present: Mary Edwards, William McKinney, Susan McGrail, Elizabeth Natsios, Jane Kee Board Members Absent: Valerian Miranda, Troy Smith Staff Present: Planning Administrator Justin Golbabai, Senior Planner Alaina Helton, Staff Planner Jade Broadnax, Permit Tech I Tiffany Romero, Staff Assistant Deborah Grace-Rosier AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order. Chairperson Kee called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve absence requests.  November 10, 2017 - Jane Kee  December 18, 2017 - Valerian Miranda Board member McKinney motioned to approve the absence requests. Board member Natsios seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes.  November 10, 2017 Board member McKinney motioned to approve the meeting minutes. Board member Natsios seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider a change in building colors in the Wolf Pen Creek Design District, for Fazoli’s located at 400 Harvey Road. Case # WPC2017-000002 (J. Broadnax) Staff Planner Broadnax presented the item to the Board. She stated that the applicant was proposing that the majority of the building will be Sycamore Tan with the tower colored Tucson Red and a slight accent color of “Ponder” - a light gray. All proposed colors are Page 2 of 3 similar to approved color palette swatches. The awnings are proposed to remain the same green color. The applicant stated at the meeting that they were planning to remove the shutters. Staff Planner Braodnax stated that the applicant was told in the project review if shutters are removed the entire building must come into NRA compliance. There was general discussions amongst the Board. There was general discussions amongst the Board concerning the shutters. It was decided when making the motion to include the condition “with our without the shutters” to provide the applicant the option to remove them. Board Member McKinney motioned to approve the new paint colors with or without the shutters. Board Members Natsios seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Presentation, possible action, and discussion to consider an Alternative Compliance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 12-7.10 Non-Residential Architectural Standards for The Yard at Caprock Crossing for Buildings 1 and 3 of their site plan generally located at 1551 Green’s Prairie Road West. Case # NRA2017-000049 (A. Helton) Senior Planner Alaina Helton presented the item and stated that the applicant is requesting an alternative compliance approval to the overall requirements of the Non-Residential Architectural Standards for Buildings 1 and 3 on their site plan. The application seeks to demonstrate that the overall design addresses unique circumstances to the property by “embracing the industrialness” of the surrounding area and complimenting the adjacent electrical transmission lines and industrial land use. She ended her presentation and said the applicant is currently not requesting alternative compliance on Building 2 but may do so with a separate application at a later time. There was general discussions amongst the Board. Jesse Durden, with Caprock Texas addressed the Board and gave them an overview of the surrounding Caprock Crossing Development and the context of this proposed site. There was general discussions amongst the Board regarding concerns of maintaining the look of the proposed metal panel’s long term. Mr. Durden told the Board the metal that is being proposed is the best there is and the colored panels will last for many years. Board Member McKinney motioned to approve the requests as presented. Board Member Natsios seconded the motion. Page 3 of 3 There was general discussions amongst the Board. Chairperson Kee called for the vote. Motion to approve passed (3-0-2) Board Members Edwards and McGrail abstaining from the vote. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Possible action and discussion on future agenda items – A Design Review Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to p lace the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There were no items presented. AGEND ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 11:56. APPROVED: _________________________________ Jane Kee, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________ Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Assistant Page 1 of 5 Design Review Board January 26, 2018 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD for College Station HEB Store No. 3 AWV2017-000044 REQUEST(S): Waiver to UDO Section 12-7.10.C.4.a.1, 2 and 4. Building Materials: Request for a waiver to allow the substitution of building materials, and utilize smooth-face Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) in lieu of stone or a non-aggregate material to simulate stone. Waiver to UDO Section 12-7.10.C.5.a. Building Colors: Request for a waiver to exceed the maximum ten (10) percent permitted for accent colors utilized on a façade. Alternative Compliance to the Non-Residential Architectural Standards for the accessory car wash and fuel kiosk structures. LOCATION: 11675 FM 2154 ZONING DISTRICT: GC General Commercial APPLICANT: Mitchell & Morgan PROJECT MANAGER: Alaina Helton, Senior Planner ahelton@cstx.gov STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Waiver Requests. Page 2 of 7 Page 3 of 7 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY As stated in Section 12-7.10.A of the Unified Development Ordinance, the intent of the Non-Residential Architectural Standards is to: 1) Protect and enhance the character and quality of non-residential buildings and associated site elements in the interest of the general welfare of the City; 2) Establish minimum design parameters for the appearance of non-residential buildings, including heightened standards for more visible and prominent areas of the community; 3) Not limit architectural creativity or prescribe a specific architectural style; and 4) Provide a balance between the community’s economic and aesthetic concerns. WAIVER REQUESTS The Unified Development Ordinance grants the Design Review Board (DRB) the authority to hear and decide requests to deviations to the Non-Residential Architectural Standards. Specifically, Section 12- 7.10.E states: “The DRB shall approve waivers or appeals found meeting the intent and general purposes of the standards as it is recognized that unique and unforeseen design circumstances exist in application of the standards. Financial hardship may not be considered in the review or determination of a waiver proposal.” ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE The Unified Development Ordinance grants the Design Review Board (DRB) the authority to hear and decide proposals for alternative compliance to the Non-Residential Architectural Standards. Specifically, Section 12-7.10.D states: “The Design Review Board (DRB) may authorize variation to the overall requirements of the Non- Residential Architectural Standards through application from a licensed architect for an alternative compliance approval that would allow innovative or visually interesting design or to address unique circumstances not otherwise permitted through strict adherence to this section. Such requests must show reasonable evidence that the purposes of the requirements as set forth in this section were maintained and the additional design flexibility afforded does not provide a means to permit design of lesser quality.” BUILDING MATERIAL WAIVER REQUEST – ITEM SUMMARY: Staff approved an NRA application for this development in November of 2017 which met all City requirements . The applicant is now requesting a Waiver to UDO Section 12-7.10.C.4.a.1, 2 and 4. Building Materials, to allow the substitution of a smooth-face Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) in lieu of stone or a non-aggregate material to simulate stone. The applicant believes this particular CMU is similar and comparable in quality and appearance to the limestone depicted on the NRA application approved by Staff. A comparison of these two building materials is shown below: Page 4 of 7 CRITERIA: In order to promote quality construction and visually interesting non-residential structures, the UDO specifies minimum architectural standards that include building materials and architectural elements to achieve this goal. DRB may review and grant approval of substitutions of building materials if the applicant shows that: a. The building material is a new or innovative material manufactured that has not been previously available to the market or the material is not listed as an allowed or prohibited material herein; b. The material is similar and comparable in quality and appearance to the materials allowed in this Section 12-7.10; or c. The material is an integral part of a themed building (example 50s diner in chrome). Staff believes that the applicant has met Criteria b., and that the proposed smooth-face CMU is visually similar to the approved cast limestone. Based on these criteria, the Design Review Board can act upon the proposed request in one of the following ways: 1) Approve the request as proposed 2) Approve the request with conditions 3) Deny the request BUILDING COLOR WAIVER REQUEST– ITEM SUMMARY: Staff approved an NRA application for this development in November of 2017 which met all City requirements . The applicant is now requesting a Waiver to UDO Section 12-7.10.C.5.a. Building Colors, to exceed the maximum ten (10) percent permitted for accent colors utilized on a façade. The applicant has stated that these are franchise colors utilized for corporate branding. The applicant seeks to utilize blue and red accent paint colors that exceed the 10% maximum allowed per elevation. Examples of this color scheme are shown below: Page 5 of 7 CRITERIA: In order to promote quality construction and visually interesting non-residential structures, the UDO specifies minimum architectural standards that include building materials and architectural elements to achieve this goal. DRB may review and grant approval of alternate colors on each facade if the applicant shows that: a. The applicant is a franchised and/or chain commercial use to be developed as a single detached building (not integrated into a multi-tenant building); b. The proposed colors/materials are part of its corporate branding; and c. The applicant provides all of the alternative color/materials schemes the chain or franchise has used. HEB is a franchised commercial use. The subject development, College Station No. 3, is under construction and will be a single detached building. The proposed red color is part of HEB’s corporate branding, and the proposed blue color is a part of HEB’s new curbside service branding, which has specifically been utilized by the franchise to market this particular service. Based on these criteria, the Design Review Board can act upon the proposed request in one of the following ways: 1) Approve the request as proposed 2) Approve the request with conditions 3) Deny the request ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUEST – ITEM SUMMARY: In addition to the requested waivers previously mentioned above, the applicant is also requesting that the Board consider an alternative compliance approval to the overall requirements of the Non-Residential Architectural (NRA) Standards, specifically for the car wash and fuel station buildings serving College Station HEB No. 3. These buildings are also included in the waiver requests mentioned above, and this alternative compliance request is in addition to those waivers. Page 6 of 7 CRITERIA: In order to promote quality construction and visually interesting non-residential structures, the UDO specifies minimum architectural standards that include building materials and architectural elements to achieve this goal. The Design Review Board (DRB) may authorize variation to the overall requirements of the Non-Residential Architectural Standards through application from a licensed architect for an alternative compliance approval that would allow innovative or visually interesting design or to address unique circumstances not otherwise permitted through strict adherence to this section. Such requests must show reasonable evidence that the purposes of the requirements as set forth in this section were maintained and the additional design flexibility afforded does not provide a means to permit design of lesser quality. While the proposed building designs meet most of the requirements, the proposed building materials are not compliant with the adopted standards, specifically requirements for minimum amounts of fired brick, natural stone, marble, granite, or concrete product to simulate brick, stone, marble, or granite. The building materials provided on the proposed elevations include EIFS, and split-face CMU around the base of the structures, which is limited to 75% per elevation of the UDO. No masonry (brick, stone…) or simulated masonry materials are provided. The applicant states that the proposed alternatives are more complimentary to the primary structure, and provide for a more visually interesting design than what would be allowed under the requested waivers to the alternate building materials. A comparison of these accessory structures is shown below: Car Wash Page 7 of 7 Fuel Station As the intent of the Design Review Board’s alternative compliance process is to offer an approval option that allows architects and the Board the ability to discuss overall visions and individual design decisions, dialog does not have to be limited to non-compliant design elements. Based on the criteria, the Design Review Board can act upon the proposed request in one of the following ways: 1)Approve the request as proposed 2)Approve the request with conditions 3)Deny the request SUMMARY: In summary, there are three requests being presented to the Design Review Board as outlined below: 1.Waiver to UDO Section 12-7.10.C.4.a.1, 2 and 4. Building Materials: Request for a waiver to allow the substitution of building materials, and utilize smooth-face Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) in lieu of stone or a non-aggregate material to simulate stone. 2.Waiver to UDO Section 12-7.10.C.5.a. Building Colors: Request for a waiver to exceed the maximum ten (10) percent permitted for accent colors utilized on a façade. 3.Alternative Compliance to the Non-Residential Architectural Standards for the accessory car wash and fuel kiosk structures. SUPPORTING MATERIALS: 1.Waiver Application 2.Alternative Compliance Application 3.Letter from Applicant 4.Waiver Elevations 5.Alternative Compliance Elevations 6.Site Plan 7.HEB Approved Building Materials & Colors 433'-4" Horizontal Facade Articulation Primary Facade per 12-7.10, C.3.a.1 = 433'-4" 33% Allowable maximum on same plane = 144'-5 1/4" 88'-0" Maximum single plane = 144'-5 1/4" Actual = 88'-0"Roof and Roofline Design per 12-7.10, C.10.e.1 = 433'-4" 66% Allowable maxium = 288'-10 1/2" 155'-4"50'-8"68'-0" Maximum same elevation = 288'-10 1/2" Actual = 68'-0" + 155'-0" + 50'-4" = 274'-0" Maximum same elevation = 288'-10 1/2" Actual = 68'-0" + 155'-0" + 50'-4" = 274'-0" Maximum same elevation = 288'-10 1/2" Actual = 68'-0" + 155'-0" + 50'-4" = 274'-0"6'-4 3/4"WELDED WIRE MESH GATE EL 130'-0" EL 116'-0" EL 134'-0" EL 100'-0" EL 120'-0" EL 130'-0" EL 134'-0"RELIEF ELEMENT #6,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANEFINISH FLOOR TOP OF WALL TOP OF WALL T.O. WALL T.O. WALL T.O. WALL T.O. WALL 6'-0" HIGH FENCING COMPRISED OF STEEL TUBE FRAMING AND 2"X2" WELDED WIRE MESH, VINYL NETTING (TENNIS COURT SCREENING) ON FENCE BEHIND MESH, TYPICAL 6'-0" HIGH FENCING COMPRISED OF STEEL TUBE FRAMING AND 2"X2" WELDED WIRE MESH, TYPICALRELIEF ELEMENT #1,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #2,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #3,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #4,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #5,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #7,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #8,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #9,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #10,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #11,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #12,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #14,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #15,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #13,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #16,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #17,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #18,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #20,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #21,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #19,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #22,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #23,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #24,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #25,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #26,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #28,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #27,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #29,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #30,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANECMU-2 CS-1 CMU-2 CS-1 CS-1 CS-1KALWALKALWAL DOORS AND GLASS DOORS AND GLASS Building Materials per 12-7.10, 4.f USE OF MATERIALS ON FRONT ELEVATION - SOUTHWEST Total Square Footage: 13,583 S.F. Material Area in Square Feet Percent of Overall Split Face CMU/ Cast Stone 4,510 S.F.33.2% Stone-like material - CMU-2*4,927 S.F.36.3% EIFS 630 S.F.4.6% Painted CMU**40 S.F 0.3% Steel 810 S.F.6.0% Kalwal 1,143 S.F.8.4% Doors and Glass 358 S.F.2.6% Welded Wire Mesh***1,165 S.F.8.6% TOTAL 13,583 S.F. *Submitted to comply with Section 12-7.10, E.4.a and E.4.a.1 **HEB Corporate branding per section 12-7.10, E.2.b ***Welded Wire Mesh per section 12-7.12, B COLORS ARE APART OF THE HEB CURBSIDE BRAND STEEL COLUMNS WITH MASONRY VENEER TO 6'-0" HIGH, TYPICAL 6'-0" HIGH FENCING COMPRISED OF STEEL TUBE FRAMING AND 2"X2" WELDED WIRE MESH 6'-0" HIGH FENCING COMPRISED OF STEEL TUBE FRAMING AND 2"X2" WELDED WIRE MESH 6'-0" HIGH FENCING COMPRISED OF STEEL TUBE FRAMING AND 2"X2" WELDED WIRE MESH VINYL NETTING (TENNIS COURT SCREENING) ON FENCE BEHIND MESH WELDED WIRE MESH GATE WELDED WIRE MESH GATE WELDED WIRE MESH GATE 327'-4" Horizontal Facade Articulation Primary Facade per 12-7.10, C.3.a.1 = 327'-4" 33% Allowable maximum on same plane = 109'-1"94'-8" Maximum single plane = 109'-1" Actual = 94'-8" Roof and Roofline Design per 12-7.10, C.10.e.1 = 327'-4" 66% Allowable maxium = 218'-2" 172'-8" Maximum same elevation = 218'-2" Actual = 172'-8" SCREEN WALL FOR COMPACTOR LIGHT FIXTURERELIEF ELEMENT #1,TYPE C: COLUMNEL 134'-0" EL 130'-0" EL 120'-0" EL 100'-0" EL 126'-0" EL 113'-4" TOP OF WALL TOP OF WALL FINISH FLOOR TOP OF WALL T.O. WALL T.O. WALLRELIEF ELEMENT #2,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #4,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #5,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #6,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #7,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #8,TYPE C: COLUMNRELIEF ELEMENT #9,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #10,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #11,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #12,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #13,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #16,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #17,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #3,TYPE B: CANOPYCMU-2 CS-1 Building Materials per 12-7.10, 4.f USE OF MATERIALS ON SIDE ELEVATION - SOUTHEAST Total Square Footage: 9,837 S.F. Material Area in Square Feet Percent of Overall Split Face CMU/Cast Stone 3,432 S.F.34.9% Stone-like material - CMU-2*4,543 S.F.46.2% Painted CMU*1,437 S.F.14.6% Doors and Glass 425 S.F.4.3% TOTAL 9,837 S.F. *Submitted to comply with Section 12-7.10, E.4.a and E.4.a.1 **HEB Corporate branding per section 12-7.10, E.2.bRELIEF ELEMENT #15,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #14,TYPE B: CANOPYCOLORS ARE APART OF THE HEB CURBSIDE BRAND DOORS AND GLASS STONE / CMU EIFS EIFS-1 PAINT COLORS PT-A ALL EXPOSED STEEL TO BE PT-A UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE CAST STONE CS-1 PT-C CMU-1 CMU-3 CMU-2 CMU-4 CMU-5 2002 EAST 6TH STREETTULSA, OK 74104918.587.2282 | F 918.587.2285WWW.SELSERSCHAEFER.COM© 2017 Selser schaefer Architect, Inc1 2 3 4 5 6 A B C D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 SHEET NO:DATE:CONSUL.PROJECT NO:SCALE: AS INDICATED12/7/2017 10:43:02 AMCOLLEGE STATION 3 #746EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA109.08.17R17.00611675 FM 2154COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 1/16" = 1'-0" A1 FRONT ELEVATION - SOUTHWEST 1/16" = 1'-0" C3 SIDE ELEVATION - SOUTHEAST N.T.S. C6 EXT. FINISH LEGEND Legal Description: Being a part of Lot 1, Block 1, of Jones Crossing Development. Architect: Shane Aaron, AIA Selser Schaefer Architects 2002 East 6th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104 P: 918.728.6395 E: saaron@selserschaefer.com Owner/Applicant: Sam Briggs HEB Grocery Company 646 South Flores Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78204 P: 210.938.0723 E: briggs.sam@heb.com Roan Gardner HEB Grocery Company 946 Quintana Road San Antonio, Texas 78211 P: 210.938.6919 E: gardner.roan@heb.com COLORS ARE FOR REFERENCE CODING ONLY AND DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL COLORS. REFER TO MATERIALS BOARD FOR COLORS COLORS ARE FOR REFERENCE CODING ONLY AND DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL COLORS. REFER TO MATERIALS BOARD FOR COLORS Waiver Elevations 433'-4" Not a Primary Facade per 12-7.10, C.1.c Elevation does not face a public or private right of way SCREEN WALL FOR COMPACTOR LIGHT FIXTURE EL 120'-0" EL 126'-0" EL 109'-4" TOP OF WALL TOP OF WALL EL 100'-0" FINISH FLOOR TOP OF WALL LIGHT FIXTURELIGHT FIXTURELIGHT FIXTURELIGHT FIXTURELIGHT FIXTURELIGHT FIXTURELIGHT FIXTURELIGHT FIXTURE CMU-2CMU-2 CS-1 Building Materials per 12-7.10, 4.f USE OF MATERIALS ON REAR ELEVATION - NORTHEAST Total Square Footage: 12,049 S.F. Material Area in Square Feet Percent of Overall Split Face CMU/ Cast Stone 4,889 S.F.40.6% Stone-like material - CMU-2*6,532 S.F.54.2% Painted CMU**413 S.F.3.4% Doors and Glass 215 S.F.1.8% TOTAL 12,049 S.F. *Submitted to comply with Section 12-7.10, E.4.a and E.4.a.1 *HEB Corporate branding per section 12-7.10, E.2.b COLORS ARE APART OF THE HEB CURBSIDE BRAND Horizontal Facade Articulation Primary Facade per 12-7.10, C.3.a.1 = 304'-8" 33% Allowable maximum on same plane = 101'-6 1/2" Roof and Roofline Design per 12-7.10, C.10.e.1 = 304'-8" 66% Allowable maxium = 203'-1" Maximum single plane = 101'-6 1/2" Actual = 91'-4" Maximum same elevation = 203'-1" Actual = 152'-0" 304'-8" 152'-0" LIGHT FIXTURERELIEF ELEMENT #1,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANEEL 109'-4" EL 126'-0" EL 134'-0" EL 130'-0" EL 116'-0" EL 100'-0" TOP OF WALL TOP OF WALL T.O. WALL T.O. WALL FINISH FLOOR T.O. WALL 91'-4"RELIEF ELEMENT #2,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #3,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #5,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #4,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #6,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #7,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #8,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #10,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #11,TYPE A: WALL INDIFFERENT PLANERELIEF ELEMENT #9,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #12,TYPE B: CANOPYRELIEF ELEMENT #13,TYPE C: COLUMNCMU-2 CS-1 Building Materials per 12-7.10, 4.f USE OF MATERIALS ON SIDE ELEVATION - NORTHWEST Total Square Footage: 8,798 S.F. Material Area in Square Feet Percent of Overall Split Face CMU/ Cast Stone 3,489 S.F.39.7% Stone-like material - CMU-2*5,109 S.F.58.0% Doors and Glass 44 S.F. 0.5% EIFS 156 S.F.1.8% TOTAL 8,798 S.F. *Submitted to comply with Section 12-7.10, E.4.a and E.4.a.1 CMU CMU-1 EIFS PAINT COLORS CMU-3 CAST STONE CS-1 CMU-2 EIFS-1 PT-A ALL EXPOSED STEEL TO BE PT-A UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE PT-C CMU-4 CMU-5 2002 EAST 6TH STREETTULSA, OK 74104918.587.2282 | F 918.587.2285WWW.SELSERSCHAEFER.COM© 2017 Selser schaefer Architect, Inc1 2 3 4 5 6 A B C D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 SHEET NO:DATE:CONSUL.PROJECT NO:SCALE: AS INDICATED12/7/2017 10:44:19 AMCOLLEGE STATION 3 #746EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA209.08.17R17.00611675 FM 2154COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 1/16" = 1'-0" A1 REAR ELEVATION - NORTHEAST 1/16" = 1'-0" D1 SIDE ELEVATION - NORTHWEST N.T.S. D6 EXT. FINISH LEGEND Legal Description: Being a part of Lot 1, Block 1, of Jones Crossing Development. Architect: Shane Aaron, AIA Selser Schaefer Architects 2002 East 6th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104 P: 918.728.6395 E: saaron@selserschaefer.com Owner/Applicant: Sam Briggs HEB Grocery Company 646 South Flores Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78204 P: 210.938.0723 E: briggs.sam@heb.com Roan Gardner HEB Grocery Company 946 Quintana Road San Antonio, Texas 78211 P: 210.938.6919 E: gardner.roan@heb.com COLORS ARE FOR REFERENCE CODING ONLY AND DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL COLORS. REFER TO MATERIALS BOARD FOR COLORS COLORS ARE FOR REFERENCE CODING ONLY AND DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL COLORS. REFER TO MATERIALS BOARD FOR COLORS Waiver Elevations Waiver Elevations Waiver Elevations College Station 3SB12/07/2017Not to ScaleEIFS-1Color to match CMU-2 Similar to Sherwin Williams6078 Realist BeigePT-ABehr Paint Similar to Sherwin WIlliams 6229 Tempe StarCMU-4Smooth CMU, Painted BEHR Custom Blue PaintSimilar to Sherwin Williams 6788 CapriCMU-2 (Stone-like CMU, selectedto simulate Cut Stone)Headwaters smooth faceIsland Sand #300 CMU-3Headwaters split face CMULimestone Buff #713 CMU-1Headwaters split face CMU Walgreen Brown #721GlazingKalwal - 2 3/4” Wall PanelsWhite Exterior and InteriorScreening with NettingSame as below but with Black85% Blockage UV RatedPolyethylene Netting behind Wire (Artist’s Rendition)Screening2” x 2” Galvanized WWMGalvanized Steel Tube FrameGlassPPG Solarban 1” Clear Low ECast Stone CS-1Advanced Cast Stone, Inc. Classic White dry tampCMU-5Smooth CMU, PaintedGlidden AO296 O’Hara#19YR 14/629Similar to Sherwin Williams6868 Real RedCS-1 (see below)HEB CurbsideCurbside Brand ColorsPT-CBehr HEB Red - HEB Fuel Brand ColorSimilar to Sherwin Williams 6868 Real Red SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:Architectural Submittal - Exterior MaterialsWaiver Elevations Alternative ComplianceElevations Alternative ComplianceElevations College Station 3SB12/07/2017Not to ScaleEIFS-1Color to match CMU-2 Similar to Sherwin Williams6078 Realist BeigePT-ABehr Paint Similar to Sherwin WIlliams 6229 Tempe StarCMU-4Smooth CMU, Painted BEHR Custom Blue PaintSimilar to Sherwin Williams 6788 CapriCMU-2 (Stone-like CMU, selectedto simulate Cut Stone)Headwaters smooth faceIsland Sand #300 CMU-3Headwaters split face CMULimestone Buff #713 CMU-1Headwaters split face CMU Walgreen Brown #721GlazingKalwal - 2 3/4” Wall PanelsWhite Exterior and InteriorScreening with NettingSame as below but with Black85% Blockage UV RatedPolyethylene Netting behind Wire (Artist’s Rendition)Screening2” x 2” Galvanized WWMGalvanized Steel Tube FrameGlassPPG Solarban 1” Clear Low ECast Stone CS-1Advanced Cast Stone, Inc. Classic White dry tampCMU-5Smooth CMU, PaintedGlidden AO296 O’Hara#19YR 14/629Similar to Sherwin Williams6868 Real RedCS-1 (see below)HEB CurbsideCurbside Brand ColorsPT-CBehr HEB Red - HEB Fuel Brand ColorSimilar to Sherwin Williams 6868 Real Red SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:Architectural Submittal - Exterior MaterialsAlternative Compliance Elevations REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION JENIFER PAZ, SENIOR PLANNER 10/30/2017 **for Alaina Helton** REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING DIVISION ERIKA BRIDGES, EIT, GRADUATE CIVIL ENGINEER II 10/30/2017 Approved Site Plan College Station 3SB11/22/2017Not to ScaleEIFS-1Color to match Sherwin Williams6078 Realist BeigePT-ABehr PaintColor to match Sherwin WIlliams 6229 Tempe StarPT-BColor to match Sherwin Williams6078 Realist BeigeST-2Coronado Stone ProductsFrench Linestone, Country BeigeCMU-3Headwaters split face CMULimestone Buff #713 ST-1Coronado Stone ProductsManufactured StoneBelgia Castle pattern - Brookside colorGlazingKalwal - 2 3/4” Wall PanelsWhite Exterior and InteriorScreening with NettingSame as below but with Black85% Blockage UV RatedPolyethylene Netting behind Wire (Artist’s Rendition)Screening2” x 2” Galvanized WWMGalvanized Steel Tube FrameGlassPPG Solarban 1” Clear Low ECast Stone CS-1Advanced Cast Stone, Inc. Classic White dry tampCMU-6Headwaters smooth face CMUWhite Limestone #700 SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:Architectural Submittal - Exterior MaterialsREVIEWED FORCOMPLIANCECITYOFCOLLEGESTATIONPLANNING& DEVELOPMENTSERVICESPLANNINGDIVISIONAlaina Helton, Senior Planner11/29/2017Approved Building Materials Design Review Board January 26, 2018 Page 1 of 3 WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD for Experience BCS Sign WPC2017-000001 REQUEST: To review the design criteria for a new attached sign in the Wolf Pen Creek Design District. LOCATION: 614 Holleman Drive East, generally located at the intersection of Dartmouth Street and Holleman Drive East. ZONING DISTRICT: WPC Wolf Pen Creek Design District APPLICANT: Tony Upton of Sign Pros PROJECT MANAGER: Laura Anne Gray Staff Planner lgray@cstx.gov Design Review Board January 26, 2018 Page 2 of 3 Design Review Board January 26, 2018 Page 3 of 3 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY: The City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Appendix A, Section 12-2.5.A states, “A Design Review Board is hereby established by the City of College Station for the purpose of enhancing the City's ability to review sign, building, and site design issues, including architectural issues as specified in this UDO, by bringing expertise from the community to bear on these issues in designated design districts.” As part of this purpose, UDO Appendix A, Section 12-2.5.D.2 grants the Design Review Board with the power and duty to “approve or deny any sign materials and colors in the Wolf Pen Creek District.” Appendix A, Section 12-5.8.A.11.c, “Design Criteria” of the UDO further clarifies that the Design Review Board shall evaluate all proposed signage in the Wolf Pen Creek Design District according to the following criteria: 1) Every sign shall be designed as an integral arc hitectural element of the building and site to which it principally relates. 2) Every sign shall have good scale and proportion in its design and in its visual relationship to buildings and surroundings. 3) The colors, materials, and lighting of every sign shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which it principally relates. 4) The number of graphic elements on a sign shall be held to the minimum needed to convey the sign's major message and shall be composed in proportion to the area of the sign face. 5) Each sign shall be compatible with signs on adjoining premises and shall not compete for attention. 6) Identification signs of a prototype design and corporation logos shall conform to t he criteria for all other signs. ITEM SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to install an attached sign on behalf of Experience Bryan College Station. The proposed sign would be directly mounted to the building over the entryway of their tenant space at the “Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek” and illuminated from within. The proposed 65- square foot sign would be approximately 4-feet tall by 16-feet wide and constructed of aluminum with acrylic push-thru lettering. With the exception of needing to be approved by the Design Review Board, this proposal meets all required sign regulations per the City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance. DESIGN CRITERIA REQUEST OPTIONS: Based on these criteria, the Design Review Board can act upon the proposed request in one of the following ways:  Approve the request as proposed  Approve the request with conditions  Deny the request Design Review Board January 26, 2018 Page 4 of 3 SUPPORTING MATERIALS: 1. Application 2. Aerial 3. Proposed Sign Design C R E S T S T STERLING STMANUELDRRICHARDS STH O L L E M A N D R E DARTMOUTH STRICHARDS STC R E S T S T HOLLEMAN D R E STERLING STDARTMOUTH ST This product is for informational purposes only and has not been prepared for and is not suitable for legal, engineering, construction, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of certain geographic features. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the City of College Station as to the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or timeliness of the information contained herein.The City of College Station assumes no responsibility for any private or commercial use, misuse, reliance, or interpretation of the information provided herein, or any loss resulting therefrom. Date Created:COCS MAP ´ 0 0.040.02 Miles Proposed Sign Location Experience BCS Sign - Case WPC2018-000001 FILE SALES REP HA DESIGNER TU DATECLIENT 2112 William J. Bryan Pkwy., Bryan, TX 77802 P: 979-774-0100 | F: 979-774-0120Experience BCS / Kindra 614 Holleman Dr E., CS, TX 979-260-9898 / Kindra@experiencebcs.com experience-bcs_exterior_illuminated.ai Experience Bryan College Station - Exterior Attached Sign Option 1 1 of 2 12/18/2017 ©2017. SIGNPRO BCSTHIS DRAWING WAS CREATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF SIGN PRO BCS. IT IS NOT TO BE COPIED IN PART OR WHOLE WITHOUT PERMISSION. SIGN PRO BCS WILL COLLECT A MINIMUM OF $300 IF THIS DRAWING IS PRODUCED BY ANOTHER COMPANY. 192”9.5” .375” 49” Stucco Wall ~150’ Business Frontage SPECIFICATIONS FOR FAB AND INSTALLATION: · Illuminated, curved pan sign · Quantity: one (1) · Face Type: Aluminum · Mounting Method: Direct Mount · Acrylic Push-Thru Lettering 65.3 sq/ft proposed Return Detail 179x13.6” 61.6x17” 24.7x23.3” 2” Building Exterior 9.5” Paint colors: PMS 202c PMS 422c Matthews White Sign Location ~150 ft. business frontage FILE SALES REP HA DESIGNER TU DATECLIENT 2112 William J. Bryan Pkwy., Bryan, TX 77802 P: 979-774-0100 | F: 979-774-0120 Experience Bryan College Station - Sign Location 2 of 2 ©2017. SIGNPRO BCSTHIS DRAWING WAS CREATED BY AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF SIGN PRO BCS. IT IS NOT TO BE COPIED IN PART OR WHOLE WITHOUT PERMISSION. SIGN PRO BCS WILL COLLECT A MINIMUM OF $300 IF THIS DRAWING IS PRODUCED BY ANOTHER COMPANY. Experience BCS / Kindra 614 Holleman Dr E., CS, TX 979-260-9898 / Kindra@experiencebcs.com experience-bcs_exterior_illuminated.ai12/18/2017