Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/2021 - Agenda Packet - Design Review BoardCollege Station, TX Meeting Agenda Design Review Board Phone: *888 475 4499 and Webinar ID: 939 9652 6387 Internet: https://zoom.us/j/93996526387 The City Council may or may not attend this meeting. May 14, 2021 11:00 AM 1101 Texas Avenue  College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Page 1 *The City uses a thirdparty vendor to help host the meeting and if the callin number is not  functioning access will be through the internet link only.      1.Call meeting to order and consider absence requests.        2.Hear Visitors.     Speaker Protocol: An individual who wishes to address the Design Review Board regarding any item  on the Regular Agenda, shall register with the Board Secretary prior to 9 a.m. on the day of the  meeting. To register, the individual must provide a name and phone number by calling 979.764.3743  or emailing tromero@cstx.gov prior to 9 a.m. To submit written comments to the Board, email  tromero@cstx.gov and they will be distributed to the Board. Upon being called to speak, an  individual must state their name and city of residence, including the state of residence if the city is  located out of state. Speakers are encouraged to identify their College Station neighborhood or  geographic location. Each speaker's remarks are limited to three (3) minutes. Any speaker  addressing the Board through the use of a translator may speak for six (6) minutes. At the (3) minute  mark, the Board Secretary will announce that the speaker must conclude their remarks.    3.Agenda Items     3.1.Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes. February 26, 2021 Attachments:1.February 26, 2021 Page 1 of 37  Design Review Board Page 2 May 14, 2021 3.2.Presentation, discussion, and possible action to consider Alternative Compliance to the Unified  Development Ordinance Section 7.10 Non­Residential Architectural Standards for Costco  Wholesale located at 4321 State Highway 6 South. Case #NRA2021­000011  Sponsors:Rachel Lazo   Attachments:1.Staff Report 2.Letter from Architect 3.Elevations and Renderings 4.Material Board 5.Conceptual Site Plan 6.Conceptual Landscape Plan 7.Line of Sight Exhibit 3.3.Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the January 10, 2014 decision of the  DRB as it relates to the building orientation and access of the St. Mary’s Catholic Center, which  is located at 300 Nagle Street and zoned NG­2 Transitional Northgate. Case #SP2021­000005  Sponsors:Rachel Lazo   Attachments:1.Memo 2.Staff Report (2014) 3.DRB Minutes (2014) 4.Preliminary Master Plan (2013) 5.Site Plan (2021) 6.Letter from the Architect    4.Discussion and possible action on future agenda items.     A 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.     5.Adjourn.     Adjournment into Executive Session may occur in order to consider any item listed on the agenda if a  matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion.                                                     I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the website and at College Station City Hall,  1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on May 7, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.     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) 764­3541,  TDD   at  1­800­735­2989,  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. Page 2 of 37  Design Review Board Page 3 May 14, 2021 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. Traspasar 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   Sub­Capitulo   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 3 of 37 Minutes Design Review Board February 26, 2021 11:00 AM Phone *888 475 4499 and Webinar ID: 964 8719 8407 Internet: https://zoom.us/j/96487198407 Board Members Present: Jeremy Osborne, David Hebert, Ray Holliday, William McKinney and Susan McGrail Board Members Absent: Luke Marvel Staff Present: Director of Planning & Development Services Michael Ostrowski. Assistant Director Molly Hitchcock, Senior Planner Rachel Lazo, Economic Development Manager Aubrey Nettles, Staff Planner Brandi Tedrick, Staff Planner Derrick Williams, Planning Technician Robin Macias, Staff Planner Jesse DiMeolo, and Admirative Support Specialist Kristen Hejny AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order. Chairman Osborne called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors No visitors spoke. AGENDI ITEM NO. 3.1: Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes. • February 14, 2020 Board member Holliday motioned to approve the minutes. Board member McKinney seconded the motion, which passed (4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.2: Presentation, discussion, and possible action to consider Alternative Compliance to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 7.10 Non-Residential Architectural Standards for the Kelsey-Seybold Call Center located at 1150 Copperfield Parkway. Case #NRA2021-000001 Senior Planner Lazo presented the item to the Board. Board Member David Hebert arrived at 11:13 a.m. Applicant, Jeanette Shaw, presented to the Board, and was available for questions. Board Member Holliday requested clarification on articulation requirements. Page 4 of 37 Senior Planner Lazo confirmed that the projection must be four feet or greater. Board Member Holliday stated that it is possible to project a few feet with tilt wall and asked if this was an option for the design. Ms. Shaw stated that this would bring in additional costs. Chairman Osborne asked if adjacent buildings are tilt wall construction. Senior Planner Lazo stated that adjacent buildings are not tilt wall construction. Board Member Holliday expressed concerns for architectural element protrusions and asked if more stone could be used on the building. Ms. Shaw explained that more than 1/3 of the façade is stone, but accents could be modified. Senior Planner Lazo explained the reasoning for alternative compliances being heard by the Board. Board Member McKinney asked for the percentage of difference from the prescribed architectural standards allowable and being requested by the applicant. Senior Planner Lazo stated that as part of the alternative compliance process, staff did not review for deficiencies from the standard ordinance requirements. There was general discussion amongst the Board. Board Member McKinney motioned to approve the request as proposed. Acting Chairman Osborne seconded the motion for discussion purposes, the motion failed (2-2-1), with Board Member McGrail abstaining and Board Members Holliday and Hebert voting in opposition. Assistant Director Hitchcock explained that a vote of at least three members for a motion to carry is required. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the Board can make a second motion, or with the original failed motion the applicant will be required to resubmit designs for consideration. Board Member Holliday suggested dressing the building with additional veneer stone or brick to add value to the building and community. Ms. Shaw asked what façades would be required to have additional veneer. Board Member Holliday stated that elevations seen from the street. Chairman Osborne stated that he is comfortable with the additional veneer only on the front of the building. Board Member Holliday would like the applicant to propose dressing up the architectural elements along the front of the building. Mr. Holliday suggested the wainscot brown brought up higher Page 5 of 37 above windows, dressing the façade a little more in exchange for not articulating the form of the building. Chairman Osborne suggested additional relief or feature along the north elevation. Board Member Hebert suggested stone and a sunshade along the front to allow for future expansion. Economic Development Manager Nettles stated that this is an Economic Development project working on bringing jobs to the community. Ms. Nettles also stated that expansion is expected. There was general discussion amongst the Board. Board Member Holliday motioned to approve the design with changes discussed including additional stone and sunshades on the front and sunshades on the east elevation of the building. Board Member Hebert seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: 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. There were no items presented. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 11:47a.m. APPROVED: _________________________________ Chairperson, Jeremy Osborne ATTEST: _________________________________ Kristen Hejny, Administrative Support Specialist Page 6 of 37 Design Review Board May 14, 2021 Page 1 of 3 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Non-Residential Architectural Standards Alternative Compliance for Costco Wholesale NRA2021-000011 REQUEST:Alternative compliance to the Non-Residential Architectural Standards LOCATION:4321 State Highway 6 S ZONING DISTRICT:GC General Commercial APPLICANT:Risa Yuki, MG2 Corporation PROJECT MANAGER:Rachel Lazo, Senior Planner rlazo@cstx.gov ITEM SUMMARY: One story big-box wholesale facility approximately 160,534 square feet in area, located on 18.6 acres near the intersection of Corporate Parkway and State Highway 6 S. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant’s emphasis on architectural relief through alternating types of building materials, colors, and landscaping, provide scale-appropriate visual relief along the large façades of the proposed big-box facility. The standard architectural relief elements listed in UDO Section 7.10 are intended to provide visual interest along facades within view of a public right-of-way and maintain uniform aesthetics throughout the City. With such a large facility strict adherence to the Ordinance would likely result in the appearance of cluttered facades and make it difficult for the development to construct in line with their corporate branding. By using natural and built features to break up the façade, it would add visual interest and achieve a complimentary aesthetic which blends with the character of the overall community. Staff recommends approval of the Alternative Compliance Request. Page 7 of 37 Design Review Board May 14, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Page 8 of 37 Design Review Board May 14, 2021 Page 3 of 3 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY As stated in Section 7.10.A of the Unified Development Ordinance, non-residential architectural standards are intended 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. 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 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." Based on these criteria, the Design Review Board can act upon the proposed request as follows: 1) Approve the request as proposed; 2) Approve the request with conditions; or 3) Deny the request. STANDARD CRITERIA: In order to promote quality construction and visually interesting non- residential structures, the UDO specifies minimum architectural standards to achieve this goal. Non-residential building projects in the GC General Commercial zoning district that wish to go through the staff review process would need to comply with the following standards. 1.Horizontal Façade Articulation (wall plane projections or recessions) Façade articulation of at least 4 feet in depth is required on the first 2 stories of primary facades over 200 feet in length, with not more that 33% of any primary façade on the same plane. 2.Building Entry Design All public entrances on a building are to feature a protected entry though the use of an awning, canopy, porte-cochere, recessed entry or the like. 3.Architectural Relief (Canopies, awnings, wall plane projections, columns, pilasters, cornices, recessed entries, balconies, etc.) The first 2 stories of a façade facing a public street have to have at least 1 architectural relief element for every 25 feet. There have to be at least 2 different types of relief on the façade, with no element consisting of more than 50% of the required elements. Design elements can be grouped, but there should not be more than 75 feet of façade without a relief element. Page 9 of 37 Design Review Board May 14, 2021 Page 3 of 3 4.Roof and Roofline Design On buildings 3 stories or less, the horizontal line of a flat roof or parapet along a primary entrance façade and along any façade facing a minor arterial thoroughfare (or higher classified street), shall vary up or down by at least 2 feet so that no more than 66% of the roofline is on the same elevation. When required to articulate, the parapet roof line shall feature a will-defined cornice or other element to visually cap the building along the roofline. 5.Building Materials After the 86th Texas Legislature passed H.B. 2439 in 2019, the City may no longer regulate building materials allowed by the International Building Code in the GC General Commercial zoning district. Materials that are presented as part of an alternative compliance process may be considered. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE: 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, focusing on what the architect and building owner are trying to achieve without a focus on non-compliant design elements. The architect for the project has provided a letter regarding the request, which is attached to this report. The applicant states that with the composition and variety of materials and detailing provided, this building meets the design intent of the Non-Residential Architectural Standards outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance. SUPPORTING MATERIALS: 1.Letter from the Architect 2.Elevations and Renderings 3.Materials Board 4.Conceptual Site Plan 5.Conceptual Landscape Plan 6.Line of Sight Exhibit Page 10 of 37 April 17, 2021 Rachel Lazo Senior Planner, CFM Planning & Development Services City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Re:Costco Wholesale - New Warehouse and Fuel Facility College Station, TX Project Number: 19-5375-01A Subject: Alternative Compliance Approval Request Dear Rachel: Costco Wholesale intends to develop and operate a member’s only retail warehouse, approximately 160,534 square feet, which includes a pharmacy, liquor sales, butcher, deli, bakery, optometry services, tire sales/installation within the main building footprint and a fueling station in College Station. The approximate 18.67-acre site is located between State Highway 6 and Midtown Drive south of Cregor Lane. This property is zoned General Commercial. The location of this project is unique in that there are two Primary Facades, one to the west, State Highway 6 and one to the east, Midtown Drive. Additionally, as this project location is situated between two right-of ways, the north and south facades are also visible, however the west ends of the building are greater than 400 feet from the State Highway 6 right-of-way. In the design of this project, the intent was to create a cohesive design incorporating depths of landscaping throughout the parking fields and along the north facade providing a foreground to the building. Additionally, a berm with evergreen landscaping along Midtown Drive provides screening of the transformer and compactors (closed system that is accessed from the interior of the building). The proposed warehouse design is a timeless solution utilizing a mixture of modern, traditional and sustainable materials in a warm color palette of browns, buff, red/browns and grays. Materials used include high quality, recycled, architectural rib metal panels with high insulative values, a mixture of integral color split and smooth face concrete masonry units to ground the building, steel accent channels, sectional glass doors and decorative trellises. The fuel facility canopy design takes cues from the warehouse and incorporates the architectural rib metal panel at the fascia, with cornice and trim in similar colors creating a strong visual connection to the warehouse. The small controller enclosure housing the mechanical and electrical controls for the fuel facility is comprised of smooth, insulated panels in a neutral grey-beige to compliment the fascia color. Page 11 of 37 Page 2 of 2 The building design developed incorporates horizontal and vertical articulation, architectural relief through texture, color and materials with incorporation of detached trellis elements to create visual interest. We believe the design proposed meets the intent of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Section 7.10 Non- Residential Architectural Standards, however it does slightly vary from the UDO, therefore we are requesting variation from the Ordinance. Due to the interior floor layout, wall plane projections and recesses are difficult to achieve without impacting the operations. Also, due to the length of the building, the spacing of the architectural relief meeting the letter of the Ordinance renders the elevations busy, therefore our solution incorporates relief elements further distances apart. Our solution to articulation and interest include the following: The entry canopy is the focal point of the site and is situated at the SWC of the building. The main entry and exit are recessed and protected with an arcade providing depth and shade. The building is grounded with integral color split-face CMU at varying heights, 4’, 8’ and 15’, with full height pilasters framing the signage areas at varying depths of 4”, 8” and 12”. At the higher CMU base areas, the building is detailed with smooth-face half-height CMU, creating 1- foot recesses that mimic the entry canopy arcade. There are two colors of architectural rib metal panel, Metallic Champagne and Mistique Plus, which are attractive buff/tan and grey colors with a very low sheen. This metal panel consists of 80% recycled content with the associated batt insulation comprised of 55% recycled content. 2-foot minimum parapet height changes occur at all parapet steps with an exception at one location, the loading dock wall, as we maintained this parapet 1 foot taller to screen roof top units. These parapet steps are further defined with a taller cornice at the higher parapets. Detailing with soldier coursing occurs at the top of the pilasters and along the 8’ and 15’ high building base. Detailing at the entry canopy includes the use of medium bronze steel accent headers. The tire installation openings are accented with the use of sectional glass doors with steel accent headers above. 2 three column detached decorative trellis elements compliment the façade to provide depth and shadowing along the north and south facades. The columns are comprised of light, warm grey integral color, split-face CMU, topped with solider coursing and a steel trellis finished in a medium bronze color. In addition to the color elevations and perspectives, a site section along Midtown and a landscape plan have been provided for referencing the cohesive design concept. We believe that the proposed building elevations meet the intent and spirit of the Unified Development Ordinance through the use of texture, color, materials and landscaping and respectfully request a variation to the Ordinance. Should you require any additional information regarding this matter, please contact me at 425.985.6366. Thank you. Sincerely, Risa Yuki Principal c:Costco Wholesale: Diana Salazar Page 12 of 37 APRIL 15, 2021 PROJECT# 19-5375-01 PG: COLLEGE STATION, TX 1 ‘DEEP RED’ CMU: 1962 SF ‘DEEP RED’ CMU: 2,406 SF GLAZING: 500 SF ‘DEEP RED’ CMU: 1,928 SF ‘MISTIQUE PLUS’ ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL: 4,049 SF ‘MISTIQUE PLUS’ ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL: 3,800 SF ‘MISTIQUE PLUS’ ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL: 4,178 SF ‘METALLIC CHAMPAGNE’ ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL: 3,910 SF ‘METALLIC CHAMPAGNE’ ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL: 3088 SF ‘METALLIC CHAMPAGNE’ ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL: 4,784 SF ROOF LINE CMU COLUMN “DEEP RED” METAL TRELLIS ‘MEDIUM BRONZE’ METAL TRELLIS ‘’MEDIUM BRONZE’’ RECESSED - CMU ‘’DEEP RED’’ACCENT METAL “MEDIUM BRONZE” SECTIONAL DOOR “MEDIUM BRONZE” CMU STEM WALL “DEEP RED” CONCRETE SCREEN WALL ’NATURAL FINISH” CORNICE/ COPING “MEDIUM BRONZE” ACCENT METAL “MEDIUM BRONZE” 3 1 42 31’-0” T.O COPING 31’-0” T.O COPING 33’-0” T.O COPING 30’-0” T.O COPING 29’-2” T.O COPING 33’-0” T.O COPING 31’-0” T.O COPING 33’-0” T.O COPING 31’-0” T.O COPING 31’-6” T.O COPING 31’-0” T.O COPING 29’-0” T.O COPING 33’-6” T.O COPING 33’-6” T.O COPING 31’-0” T.O COPING 33’-0” T.O COPING 31’-6” T.O CORNICE 31’-6” T.O CORNICE 3’-6” AFF T.O WALL B A A A SIGN TABLE QUANTITY 1 3 B COSTCO WHOLESALE 7’-0” C 6’-0” C 375 SF 280 SF TOTAL SIGN AREA: 375 SF 840 SF 1215 SF A COSTCO WHOLESALE IDENTITY SIGN SIZE AREA (EACH)TOTAL SF 1 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1” = 20’ 2 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1” = 20’ 3 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1” = 20’ 4 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1” = 20’ 5 SIGN PACKAGE A - 6’ ‘C’ SIGN - 280 SF B -7’ ‘C’ SIGN - 380 SF CMU PILASTER “MEDIUM GRAY” CMU HALF HEIGHT PILASTER - “DEEP RED” CMU HALF HEIGHT PILASTER “DEEP RED” ARCHITECTURAL RIBBED METAL PANEL - VERTICAL “MISTIQUE PLUS” ARCHITECTURAL RIBBED METAL PANEL - VERTICAL “METALLIC CHAMPAGNE” ARCHITECTURAL RIBBED METAL PANEL - VERTICAL “METALLIC CHAMPAGNE” ROLL UP DOORS - GRAY STANDING SEAM ROOF “MEDIUM BRONZE” COPING “MEDIUM BRONZE” CONCRETE WALL “NATURAL GRAY” ACCENT BAND “COSTCO RED” ‘DEEP RED’ CMU: 3,351 SF ‘MISTIQUE PLUS’ ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL: 3,225 SF ‘METALLIC CHAMPAGNE’ ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL: 7823 SF CONCEPT WAREHOUSE ELEVATIONS Page 13 of 37 APRIL 15, 2021 PROJECT# 19-5375-01 PG: COLLEGE STATION, TX 3 FRONT CANOPY PERSPECTIVE Page 14 of 37 APRIL 15, 2021 PROJECT# 19-5375-01 PG: COLLEGE STATION, TX 4 NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE Page 15 of 37 APRIL 15, 2021 PROJECT# 19-5375-01 PG: COLLEGE STATION, TX 5 TIRE CENTER PERSPECTIVE Page 16 of 37 APRIL 15, 2021 PROJECT# 19-5375-01 PG: COLLEGE STATION, TX 6 SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE Page 17 of 37 APRIL 15, 2021 PROJECT# 19-5375-01 PG: COLLEGE STATION, TX 7 SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE Page 18 of 37 APRIL 15, 2021 PROJECT# 19-5375-01 PG: COLLEGE STATION, TX 8 NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE Page 19 of 37 Page 20 of 37 Bridge Bridge FL FL FL FL FL BC BC Std 4' Diam Mh 60" Winged Headwall 10' Std. Rec. I n l e t - 6 0 r c pMIDTOWN DR IVE S T A T E HW Y . 6 ( R OW V A R I E S )vv REMAINDER ACREAGE 22.94 AC. 8 1 1 24 13 29 16 54 18 28 12 33 42 40 40 22 14 3 REGIONAL DETENTION POND (CONSTRUCTED BY COSTCO) 28 30 28 30 26 8 5 25 40 23 31 38 46 46 ENTRY EXIT OPTICAL EXAM FUEL DELIVERY TRUCK PATH WAREHOUSE RECEIVING TRUCK PATH UTILITY EASEMENT RECEIVING FIRE DEPT ROOM (IF REQUIRED) TRANSFORMER COMPACTOR UNDERGROUND TANKS CANOPY CONTROLLER ENCLOSURE TRANSFORMER SPEED BUMP CONDUIT FROM FUEL TO WHSE SPEED BUMP ASPHALT WALKWAY 30'30'5' 36 ' 40 ' 40 ' 40 '10'18'30'9'64'64'24'18'5' 18 ' 30 ' 64' 64 ' 70' 20 ' 20 ' 24' 18 ' 24 ' 20' 18 ' 24 ' 24 ' 18 ' 20 ' 30 ' WATER EASEMENT 15 '572'-11"STORM EASEMENT NO BUILD EASEMENT OFFSITE GRADING PERMITTED TO COLLECT RUNOFF OFFSITE GRADING PERMITTED TO COLLECT RUNOFF DRIVEWAY 307'250'180'155'FLOW LINEFLOW LINE NEW DECELERATION LANE NEW DECELERATION LANEFLOW LINE CART CORRAL, TYPICAL ADA PATH, ASPHALT WALKWAY 64'64'64'9'64'76'20'152'-10"45 ' 60 ' OHP EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE FUTURE DISPENSERS STORM EASEMENT2' 8' 30 ' 30' 40 '68'-6"130'45'REMOTE FILL PORTS 62 ' 64 ' 70 ' 18 '20'24'4 LANDSCAPE BERM36'14 CREAGOR LANE TO BE ABANDONED, NOT IN USE 30' 5' © MG2, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from MG2. COSTCO WHOLESALE CONCEPT SITE PLAN C O L L E G E S T A T I O N , T E X A S A P R I L 0 7 , 2 0 2 1 4321 STATE HWY 6 SOUTH COLLEGE STATION, TX 19-5375-01 APRIL 07, 2021 CONCEPT SITE PLAN DD11-12 0 40'80'160' 1" = 80'-0" COLLEGE STATION, TX PARKING DATA: 10' WIDE STALLS MAIN LEVEL PARKING PROVIDED: ACCESSIBLE STALLS BUILDING DATA: CLIENT: JURISDICTION: COSTCO SITE AREA: ZONING: NUMBER OF STALLS PER 1000 SF OF BUILDING AREA: PROJECT ADDRESS: TOTAL PARKING: # # PROJECT DATA COSTCO WHOLESALE 999 LAKE DRIVE ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 SITE DATA: INCLUDES: 4321 STATE HWY 6 SOUTH COLLEGE STATION, TX 18.67 ACRES (813,281 SF) CITY OF COLLEGE STATION GC NOTES: EXISTING CONDITIONS TO BE FIELD VERIFIED. NET SALES FLOOR TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA: NET MECHANICAL / FIRE INCLUDES: NET VESIBULE BUILDING ENVELOPE 160,534 SF 2,459 SF 5,113 SF 2,188 SF 150,774 SF 820 STALLS 803 STALLS 17 STALLS 5.10 STALLS Page 21 of 37 Page 22 of 37 APRIL 15, 2021 PROJECT# 19-5375-01 PG: COLLEGE STATION, TX 9 HIGHWAY 6 PERSPECTIVE Page 23 of 37 APRIL 15, 2021 PROJECT# 19-5375-01 PG: COLLEGE STATION, TX 10 MIDTOWN DR PERSPECTIVE Page 24 of 37 Page 25 of 37 Planning & Development Services  1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960  College Station, TX 77840 Office 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM May 5, 2021 TO:Members of the Design Review Board FROM:Rachel Lazo, Senior Planner, Planning & Development Services SUBJECT:St. Mary’s Catholic Center Item: Presentation, discussion, and feedback regarding the January 10, 2014 decision of the DRB as it relates to the building orientation and access of the St. Mary’s Catholic Center, which is located at 300 Nagle Street and zoned NG-2 Transitional Northgate. Summary: Staff is seeking clarification from the Design Review Board on if the currently proposed side entry meets the intent of the condition of a secondary entry and that the site plan as shown meets the spirit of the preliminary master plan. Background: On January 10, 2014, the Design Review Board considered a waiver to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 12.5.8.B.4.a.1 “Building Orientation and Access” to allow the primary entrance façade for a future St. Mary’s sanctuary to orient towards Nagle Street instead of Church Street. The Board approved the orientation towards Nagle with the condition that a secondary entrance be oriented to Church Street and that the site plan be approved as shown in the preliminary master plan. The site plan was submitted for review in February 2021 showing a church that did not orient at an angle on the lot as depicted on the preliminary mater plan from 2014, but staff felt it met the waiver granted for the orientation to Nagle Street; though in addition, the design of the building and access into the building changed. Staff believes the conditions of the secondary entrance and the spirit of the preliminary master plan are being met through the proposed plans. The proposed secondary entrance to Church Street is less architiecturally significant than was shown in 2014, but is shown in the area of a landscaped plaza area with a statue. Other elements of the Master Preliminary Plan at this location have shifted locations but remain, such as the porte cochere and bell tower, and some elements have been removed as the rest of the master plan for the St. Mary’s campus has altered over the years, such as the “New Admin Bldg”. Preliminary plans for large, multi-phased development are often adjusted as time passes and new ideas or needs are realized. The site still reflects a large sanctuary building for the corner of Church and Nagle Streets. Attachments: 1.Staff Report (2014) 2.DRB Minutes (2014) Page 26 of 37 Planning & Development Services  1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960  College Station, TX 77840 Office 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 3.Preliminary Master Plan (2013) 4.Site Plan (2021) 5.Letter from St. Mary’s Catholic Center architect Page 27 of 37 Design Review Board Page 1 of 3 January 10, 2014 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD for St. Mary's Catholic Center 13-00900267 REQUEST: Waiver to UDO Section 12-5.8.B.4.a.1, Building Orientation and Access, to allow the primary entrance façade for a future St. Mary’s sanctuary to orient towards Nagle Street instead of Church Avenue. SCALE: 3.185 acres LOCATION: Lot 2-R of the Ramparts Subdivision, generally located at 300 Nagle Street ZONING DISTRICT: NG-2 Transitional Northgate APPLICANT: Christopher Craig, Jackson & Ryan Architects PROJECT MANAGER:Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner trogers@cstx.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the waiver with the condition that a secondary entrance be oriented to Church Avenue. In addition, the waiver should be conditioned on the approval of the site plan as show in the preliminary master plan. Page 28 of 37 Design Review Board Page 2 of 3 January 10, 2014 Page 29 of 37 Design Review Board Page 3 of 3 January 10, 2014 ITEM SUMMARY: The request is to allow the primary entrance façade for a future St. Mary’s sanctuary to orient towards Nagle Street, in lieu of Church Avenue, as required by the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). ITEM BACKGROUND: St. Mary’s Catholic Church has created a preliminary master plan for their future expanded Northgate campus. As part of the master plan, the church is proposing a new sanctuary at the corner of Nagle Street and Church Avenue where their existing surface parking lot is currently located. The primary entrance façade of the proposed sanctuary is designed to orient towards Nagle Street. The UDO states, all buildings that have right-of-way frontage on Church Avenue must orient their primary entrance façade towards Church Avenue. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a waiver to allow the primary entrance façade of the sanctuary to orient towards Nagle Street instead of Church Avenue. The lot was replatted in 2002 and a site plan for the future sanctuary has not yet been submitted for review. REVIEW CRITERIA: Building orientation and access: According to UDO Section 12-5.8.B.14 “Waivers,” the Design Review Board (DRB) shall review waiver requests for certain deviations from the standards of the Northgate Districts. Relevant to this case, the DRB may allow alternatives to the requirements related to building orientation and access when physical characteristics limit the site or provide for unique orientation and access opportunities. The request is to allow the primary entrance façade for St. Mary’s proposed sanctuary to orient towards Nagle Street instead of Church Avenue, as required by the UDO. The applicant has stated, “complying with the primary entrance façade towards Church Avenue does not allow St. Mary’s to instigate, observe, and sustain the history and tradition of orienting a Catholic church’s main entry towards the west and alter towards the east. This traditional orientation is the crux for the St. Mary’s proposed new master plan.” This property is zoned NG-2 Transitional Northgate, which is intended to serve as a transition from suburban-style commercial development to high-density, mixed-use development. The regulations have been designed to aid mixed-use development, pedestrian circulation, and redevelopment with an urban character. The primary façade orientation requirement is required to help ensure a pedestrian friendly environment in close proximity to primary roads within Northgate including Church Avenue. Due to the unique location of this site at the intersection of two roads in Northgate, Nagle Street and Church Avenue, staff believes the intent of the ordinance would be met if the primary entrance façade is located on Nagle Street and a secondary public entrance is provided on Church Street. This will also allow the unique orientation of the sanctuary’s primary entrance towards the west as desired by the applicant while keeping access via Church Avenue. Page 30 of 37 Design Review Board Page 4 of 3 January 10, 2014 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the waiver with the condition that a secondary entrance be oriented to Church Avenue. In addition, the waiver should be conditioned on the approval of the site plan as show in the preliminary master plan. SUPPORTING MATERIALS: 1.Application 2.Preliminary Master Plan Page 31 of 37 Page 1 of 2 Minutes Design Review Board January 10, 2014 - 11:00 a.m. Administrative Conference Room ~ City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas, 77840 Board Members Present: Acting Chairman Bo Miles, Don Hellriegel, Steven Schloss, Hunter Goodwin, Bill Mather, and Marsha Sanford Board Members Absent: Lindsay Bertrand, Jason Kinnard, and Susan McGrail Staff Present: Principal Planner Jason Schubert, Staff Planner Teresa Rogers, and Staff Assistant Deborah Grace-Rosier AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order. Acting Chairman Miles called the meeting to order at 11:03 a.m. AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Consideration, discussion and possible action on absence requests . • Lindsay Bertrand Mr. Mather motioned to approve the absence request. Mr. Schloss seconded the motion, which passed (5-0) AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Consideration, possible action and discussion to approve meeting minutes October 5, 2013. Mr. Mather motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Schloss seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Building orientation and access for St. Mary’s Catholic Church located at Lot 2-R of the Ramparts Subdivision, generally located at 300 Nagle Street in Northgate District. Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner, presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting a waiver to UDO Section 12-5.8.B.4.a.1, Building Orientation and Access, to allow the primary entrance façade for a future St. Mary’s sanctuary to orient towards Nagle Street instead of Church Avenue. There was general discussion amongst the Board. Page 32 of 37 Page 2 of 2 John Clements with Jackson & Ryan Architects gave the Board an overview of proposed development. Board Member Marsha Sanford arrived to the meeting Mr. Mather motioned to approve the request with staff’s recommendation that a secondary entrance is oriented to Church Avenue and the waiver should be conditioned on the approval of the site plan as shown in the preliminary master plan. Mr. Goodwin seconded the motion, which was approved (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a waiver request to reduce the buffer requirements for the Wellborn Business Park located at 3808 McCulloch Road. Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner, presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting an appeal to the UDO Section 12-7.7 Buffer Requirements. There was general discussion amongst the Board. Hunter Goodwin motioned to approve the requests to waive the fence requirement on both the southern and western property lines, maintain a 15-foot buffer yard to include plantings on the western property line, and maintain a 15-foot buffer yard along the southern property line with additional plantings added to create 100% opacity with existing vegetation. Mr. Mather seconded them motion, which passed (6-0) 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 place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. Jason Schubert, Principal Planner, reminded the Board that if they were up for reappointment today was the last day to submit their application. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn The meeting was adjourned 11:55 a.m. APPROVED: Bo Miles, Acting Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace-Rosier, Staff Assistant Page 33 of 37 Page 34 of 37 ALIGN ALIGN ALIGNALIGNALIGN ST. MARY'S CHURCH FF = 346.00' = 100.00' CHURCH AVE.NAGLE ST.10 SPACES + 4 HC SPACES16 SPACES16 SPACES19 SPACES19 SPACES19 SPACES18 SPACES16 SPACES35.00' ~ N 46°00'49" WL=114.57' CHORD=113.57' ~ N 54°10'14" E R=248.95' Δ=26°22'09" 111.00' ~ N 40°59'11" E 54.25' ~ N 67°21'21" E L=89.51' CHORD=88.67' ~ N 62°35'00" E R=188.97' Δ=27°08'20" L=89.37' CHORD=88.54' ~ N 62°36'19" W R=188.97' Δ=27°05'46"241.47' ~ N 49°02'44" W6 0.8 4' ~ S 84°4 5'00" W 246.05' ~ S 41°16'41" W 441.81' ~ S 48°42'06" E62.13' ~ N 41°10'45" E VARI ABLE WI DTH UTI LI TY EASEMENT20 FT. UTILITY EASEMENT 15 FT. UTILITY EASEMENT 10FT. UTILITY EASEMENTFUTURE STATUE ENTRY PLAZA EQUIP. YARD EQUIP. YARD 1290.02 1290.02 0240.42 0220.10 0220.10 2650.17 1290.02 2650.17 3210.25 0220.02 0220.02 0220.020220.06 3210.33 3210.14 3210.26 3210.09 0220.01 0240.01 1290.026' - 0"21' - 0"9' - 0"14' - 6"30' - 10" 10' - 11" 23' - 10" 38' - 0" 23' - 10" 10' - 11" 6' - 1" 115' - 0"10' - 7" E J NO PARKINGEXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT MAX. SETBACK 75' PER 2014 VARIANCE 10' MIN. SETBACK 8'-6" MIN. SETBACK 134' - 0"29' - 2"25' - 6"14' - 6"12' - 6"24' - 7"145' - 1"MAX. SETBACK 135' PER 2014 VARIANCE R 25' - 6" R 11' - 6" E J E J E J E J E JE JE JR 7' - 0" R 2' - 0" R 32' - 6" R 11' - 6" R 32' - 6"R 19' - 6" 7' - 0" 24' - 0" 7' - 0"7' - 10"7' - 10"6' - 0"20' - 0"14' - 6"6' - 0" R 18' - 6" 8' - 0" 8' - 0"18' - 7"6' - 0"2' - 6"17' - 6"4' - 0"22' - 9"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"35' - 10"2' - 6"45' - 0"10' - 6"51' - 0"10' - 6"25' - 0"21' - 2"6' - 0"19' - 6"8' - 0" 34' - 5" 25' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"12' - 6"12' - 6" 12' - 6"12' - 6" 25' - 0" 12' - 6" 12' - 6" 25' - 0" 12' - 6"12' - 6" 12' - 6" 12' - 6" 25' - 0"12' - 6"12' - 6" ALT. 2 AS1.2 6 E JE JE JE JE JE JE J2650.17 3230.57 2650.17 3230.57 3230.38 E J E J R 24' - 0" 12' - 10 1/2"E JE J 3290.02 3290.02 3290.02 3290.02 NO PARKINGNO PARKINGNO PARKING3210.09 3210.09 3210.14 3210.09 E J2650.212650.212650.212650.21 1010.471010.47 AS1.2 7 3210.37 1010.33 3210.34 1010.33 3210.33 AS1.2 1 AS1.2 10 AS1.2 83210.09 3210.093210.09 3210.25 2310.02 3210.25 3210.253210.25 3230.38 3290.02 2650.17 E J E J E J E JE J4' - 6 " 3340.09 PROPERTY LINE LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION LIMIT OF C ONSTR U CTIO N LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTIONST. MARYS PARKING LOT PROJECT SEPARATE PERMIT APPLICATION /RE: 12 AS1.3 NOTE: PAVERS SHALL RUN PARALLEL TO CURVE OF SIDEWALK IN RUNNING BOND PATTERN. /RE: 12 AS1.3 NOTE: PAVERS SHALL RUN PARALLEL TO CURVE OF SIDEWALK IN RUNNING BOND PATTERN. 1290.05 QTY: 4 1290.051290.05 QTY: 6 3210.36 3210.36 SITE LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION EXISTING TO REMAIN CONCRETE PAVING (RE: CIVIL) PRECAST CONCRETE PAVERS OVER CONCRETE BASE (RE: CIVIL) HOLLAND STONE BY PAVESTONE 7-13/16" x 3-7/8" x 2-3/8" COLOR: RIVER RED PATTERN: RUNNING BOND CONCRETE SIDEWALK (RE: CIVIL) PRECAST CONCRETE PAVERS OVER CONCRETE BASE (RE: CIVIL) HOLLAND STONE BY PAVESTONE 7-13/16" x 3-7/8" x 2-3/8" COLOR: LIMESTONE PATTERN: RUNNING BOND NOTES FOR CITY REVIEWER EXIT EXIT DOOR / EXIT DISCHARGE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE RAMPARTS, LOT 2R, ACRES 3.185 TOTAL SITE AREA: 71,222.92 SF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER DEMANDS WATER DEMANDS: MINIMUM: 0 GAL./MIN. MAXIMUM: 108 GAL./MIN. AVERAGE: 27 GAL./MIN. MAX. SEWER LOADINGS: 110,880 GAL./DAY FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENT: 3,750 GPM. BASED ON FIRE CODE TABLES B105.1(1) & B105.1(2) REDUCED FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENT: 1,875 GPM. BASED ON FIRE CODE TABLES B105.1(1) & B105.1(2) VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE ALL SITE AND BUILDING AREA TABULATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR OWNER AND GOVERNING AUTHORITY REFERENCES ONLY. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THEIR OWN QUANTITY AND AREA CALCULATIONS. AREA TABULATION KEYNOTES 0220.01 EXISTING TREE 0220.02 EXISTING LIGHT POLE 0220.06 EXISTING CONCRETE CURB 0220.10 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 0240.01 REMOVE EXISTING TREE 0240.42 REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING DAMAGED LIGHT POLE WITH NEW POLE PROVIDED BY CITY; EXISTING CONCRETE BASE AND EXISTING FIXTURE ON TOP OF POLE TO BE RE-USED 1010.33 POLE MOUNTED SIGNAGE - "H.C. PARKING ONLY" 1010.47 POLE MOUNTED SIGNAGE - "STAFF/CLERGY PARKING ONLY" 1290.02 GROUND MOUNTED BENCH 1290.05 U-SHAPED BIKE RACK 2310.02 GAS METER 2650.17 LIGHT POLE AND FIXTURE ON CONCRETE BASE 2650.21 LIGHT BOLLARD 3210.09 CONCRETE SIDEWALK (RE: CIVIL) 3210.14 CONCRETE PAVING (RE: CIVIL) 3210.25 BRICK PAVING UNIT 3210.26 BRICK ADA WARNING PAVER 3210.33 4" PAVEMENT MARKING (DIAGONAL STRIPING AT 2'-0" O.C. TYPICAL) 3210.34 H.C. PAVEMENT MARKING 3210.36 DIRECTIONAL PAVEMENT MARKING 3210.37 WHEEL STOP (6'-0" LONG). DRILL AND DOWEL INTO PAVING 3230.38 DECORATIVE METAL FENCE 3230.57 SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL SYSTEM 3290.02 TREE WELL / TREE GRATE 3340.09 CONCRETE FLUME (RE: CIVIL)BRW PROJECT NUMBERCOPYRIGHT © 2021BROWN REYNOLDS WATFORD ARCHITECTS, INC.DRAWN BYDATECHECKED BYRH, MWAS, JH, SF, JT, DP4/14/2021ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 220022.00AS1.1300 NAGLE STCOLLEGE STATION, TX 77840ST. MARY'SCATHOLIC CENTERNEW CHURCHPLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN NO.REVISIONDATEPage 35 of 37 May 7, 2021 Design Review Board City of College Station 1101 Texas Ave College Station, Texas 77840 ST. MARY’S CATHOLIC CHURCH - SECONDARY ENTRANCE CLARIFICATION Members of the Design Review Board: Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter. We are so excited about this new church for St. Mary’s Catholic Center and the lasting impact it will have on Catholic students at Texas A&M, permanent parishioners, and the City of College Station as a whole. We can’t wait to move forward with construction, but we still have at least one hurdle to get past. We are seeking clarification from you on the sufficiency of our secondary entrance along Church Ave. After many years of master planning, fundraising, and other campus improvements, St. Mary’s moved forward with design of their new church building in early 2020. At our pre-application conference in April of last year, we were informed of a previously granted waiver that applies to the project. Based on the 2014 preliminary master plan (by Jackson & Ryan Architects), it allowed the primary entrance to orient towards Nagle St instead of Church Ave, under the condition that a secondary entrance be oriented towards Church Ave. The preliminary master plan showed a secondary entrance centered on the south transept but otherwise was not clearly defined. The master plan has seen numerous updates since 2014. The church has rotated from a true east/west axis to an “Aggie” east/west axis, aligned with the Northgate street grid and surrounding context. The overall size of the church is smaller and more intimate. As a result, a secondary entrance centered on the transept no longer meets the functional goals of the project. What we have proposed is an entrance into the side chapel on the south side, which we believe satisfies the requirement for a “secondary entrance” (i.e., an entrance to a building that is subordinate to the primary entrance). After reviewing the language of the original waiver during the site plan review process, the planning department felt the configuration was too different from the original preliminary master plan and that they could not approve it without further consideration from the Design Review Board. The secondary entrance to the side chapel is a stile & rail paneled wood-look door with glass, just like the main entrance doors. It has brick paver sidewalks leading up to it with a circular feature dedicated for a future statue surrounded by landscaping. While it may not be as prominent as what the preliminary master plan appears to show, it is not meant to be because that is not what’s best for the project in its current form. From the early stages of design, St. Mary’s has expressed a strong desire to encourage parishioners to use the primary entrance as much as possible. This is to limit disruption to the mass by latecomers but also because of the ceremonial and spiritual aspects of preparing one’s self to approach the presence of God with reverence and awe by ascending the front steps, passing through the Narthex, entering into the Nave, and so on. A secondary entrance that is treated relatively equally to the primary entrance would counteract that goal. Placing an entrance at the south transept would displace the confessionals currently located there. It would lead directly into the main seating area and would cause significant disruption to the mass, especially considering the orientation of the pews. Regardless of where the secondary entrance is located, it will open out to the back side of the Aspire high-rise (with its parking garage entrance, equipment yard, and Page 36 of 37 MAY 7, 2021 SECONDARY ENTRANCE CLARIFICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 dumpsters) and the side of the Frontier Communications building (with its blank brick wall and back alley). For this reason, it is not desirable to celebrate the secondary entrance by treating it relatively equally to the primary entrance. By rotating the orientation of the building from the previous master plan (which had its primary entrance much farther up Nagle), we have made a deliberate effort to engage Church Ave with the primary entrance by having the entry plaza clearly visible and easily accessible from the intersection of Church & Nagle. This supports the goals of St. Mary’s by encouraging use of the primary entrance and also the goals of the City by engaging pedestrians along Church Ave. We understand that one of the goals of master planning efforts for the Northgate district was to encourage pedestrian traffic along Church Ave, as opposed to the traffic-heavy and more dangerous University Drive. In this regard, the “primary entrance orientation” requirement in the UDO seeks to make Church Ave visually appealing and engaging for pedestrians. We believe we have thoroughly embraced and supported this goal. Architecturally, the church has a complex geometric form featuring a dome, bell tower, and rose window - all visible and prominent along Church Ave. The almost all masonry facade is highlighted by intricate brick and cast stone detailing and stained glass windows. The sitework features lots of green space and landscaping. Brick paver sidewalks are angled in such a way to encourage pedestrians to veer off the path and explore various site features such as a ten commandments monument, relocated from its former place along Nagle Street. Also, a statue will be installed to commemorate a group of corpsmen who had to walk all the way to downtown Bryan to attend mass on Sunday before St. Mary’s existed. In a future phase, a contemplative rosary garden will be built in the southeast corner of the site. Again, we sincerely appreciate your consideration. We hope you can see the great benefits this new church will bring to the Northgate area, and we hope you are willing to approve this proposed secondary entrance, so as not to compromise the functional and spiritual goals of the project. Respectfully, Daniel Pesek, AIA Director dpesek@brwarch.com 979-694-1791 Page 37 of 37