HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/2003 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review Board AGENDA
Design Review Board
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Training Room
1101 Texas Avenue
Tuesday, August ust 19 2003
10:00 AM
Aeenda Item No. 1: Driveway Appeal: Discussion, consideration and
• possible action on a driveway/curb-cut at 403 Texas Avenue South to
accommodate the development of a proposed Sonic Drive-in. (03-162).
Aeenda Item No. 2: Discussion, consideration and possible action of
sign changes at Jin's World Cafe located at 110 Nagle Street in Northgate.
(03-163).
Aeenda Item No. 3: Adjourn.
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any
request for sign interpretation services must be made before the meeting. To make
arrangements call 979-764-3517 or(TDD) 1-800-735-2989.
•
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Brett McCully, P.E. Date: 8/14/03
E-mail: bmccullyCcstx.gov
For
SONIC DRIVEWAY COONER & TEXAS AVE(DVWY) (03-00500162)
Purview: As per the Unified Development Ordinance Article 2, Section 2.4.D.4,
The Design Review Board shall hear appeals to decisions of the Development
Engineer regarding driveway applications.
Item information: The Applicant has requested a driveway/curb-cut to access
Texas Avenue from the property located at 403 Texas Ave S., at the corner of
Cooner, to accommodate the development of a proposed Sonic Drive-in. Texas
Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial. Cooner is classified as a
Zoning District: C-1
Location: Southeast corner of Texas Avenue and Cooner Drive. Across Texas from
the University Towers and Hampton Inn, and across Cooner from the Super 8 Motel.
Applicant: Mitchell and Morgan, LLP for Greg Lee, Sonic.
Item Summary: Staff received and reviewed a request for a new driveway onto Texas
Avenue for this site. Staff denied the request based on failure to demonstrate that this
driveway is required (as opposed to desired), failure to demonstrate that traffic
movements related to this driveway will not decrease safety on Texas Avenue, and
failure to meet all four adjacent drive spacing requirements for a major arterial. Since
this denial, Staff has also received a more detailed site plan indicating a throat depth that
does not meet the required minimum. This item is the appeal of the denial of this
driveway application based on these criteria.
Item Background: Texas Avenue is within TxDOT right-of-way. The City reviews
TxDOT permits within the City limits prior to submission to the Area Office. The
driveway must meet City ordinance or explain why to the Area Engineer prior to approval
by TxDOT. However, even if the City approves the permit, TxDOT can deny it.
The subject location is a highly trafficked portion of Texas Avenue. With no median
separating north and southbound traffic, the area is currently subject to 40 MPH traffic,
left turns into prolific driveway openings, pedestrian traffic and gridlock due to signal
timing. Safety concerns have been raised by a request for an additional driveway
opening that would generate numerous additional turns from both directions to and from
Texas Avenue traffic at this location.
ADDeal #1
UDO Section 7.3.C.2.d states:
I,I
"When a commercial or multi-family development abuts more than one public street,
• access to each abutting street may be allowed only if the following criteria are met:
• It is demonstrated that such access is required to adequately serve driveway
volumes and will not be detrimental or unsafe to traffic operations on public streets.
The Development Engineer or his designee may require the submittal of a traffic
study that demonstrates that such access is required.
• The minimum requirements for corner clearance for commercial or multi-family
driveways are met."
While Staff understands that all commercial uses desire direct access to adjacent highly
traveled roadways, it has not been demonstrated that such an access is required to
serve volumes from this site. Examples of successful restaurants in similar situations
that have shown that direct access is not required are the El Chico restaurant at Texas
and Holleman and both the Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonalds at Texas and
Southwest Parkway.
Staff is also concerned about adding a significant amount of turning movements to this
already congested location. Staff believes that the additional conflict points, in such
close proximity to the other existing drives will decrease the safety level of Texas
Avenue in this location. While right-in/right-out drives have only been marginally
effective here in College Station, the applicant is requesting a full service drive which
would allow turning movements in all directions.
Armeal #2
UDO Section 7.3.C.3 includes criteria for allowing new driveways with respect to existing
adjacent driveways and streets. Based on the locations of existing driveways, it would
be impossible to meet all the spacing requirements for a driveway on Texas Avenue.
The LIDO required spacings, and the spacings that would result from the requested
driveway are shown below.
Criteria Reauired Distance PCODosed Distance
Opposite Left 125 20
Opposite Right 400 28
Adjacent Left 350 63
Adjacent Right 350 127
Staff remains deeply concerned that the new driveway will cause a reduction in motorist
safety by compressing too many turning movements into too small an area. Of particular
concern is the opposite right criteria, which is specifically intended to avoid dueling head-
on turning situations like that found on Texas Avenue, just north of Southwest Parkway
between the driveway to Compass Bank and the main entrance to the Kroger Center.
ADDeal #3
UDO Section 7.3.C.7 includes criteria for minimum distances between the curbing on
public streets and the first point(s) of conflict within a site layout, known as throat length.
This is intended to allow vehicles to be completely removed from the public roadway
traffic lanes before an internal parking 'gridlock' halts progress.
• This distance varies based on roadway classification, with the required distance in this
case being 55 feet. The site plan was submitted with an effective throat length of 49
feet. Due to the obvious desire not to impede traffic on Texas Avenue, and the nature of
interior parking and pedestrian movements within this particular in-car service
establishment, Staff believes that should a driveway be allowed by appeal, that the
minimum throat depth be maintained.
Staff Recommendations
Due to the access available from Cooner, and the potential use of the adjacent joint
access driveway serving the adjacent parking areas, Staff believes that the site can be
successfully developed without a direct driveway to Texas Avenue. Therefore Staff
Recommends denial of all appeals.
If, at some point, TxDOT constructs a median within Texas, Staff would be willing to
review the situation in the light of the resulting reduction in turning movements.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Application
3. Copy of driveway plan
4. UDO portion
5. Mitchell & Morgan Letter dated 7/7/03
•
J
Q'
�Q.
ICY,
,{SIS
cy3
i1
• 't
t
c I
t
J I
I
July 24, 2003
Bridgette George
2 0 City of College Station
Development Services
PO Box 9960
College Station,TX 77840
rya
Re: Sonic at Cooner and Texas Avenue
ed Cd
Dear Bridgette,
Z
C
A fco Cd
Cl,
We have reviewed the comments that were made by the Staff for the Sonic at
LU 4� Cooner project. We have decided to appeal the decision made by Staff to the DRB
Cd on behalf of our client Greg Lee with Sonic. Given the property size constraints,
we believe that the driveway design proposed allows for safe and convenient
traffic control, handling, and vehicle queuing on site. Please forward our original
Ui submittal letter which explains our position on the driveway to the DRB along
G: Ui with our original plans. Please let us know if you have any questions and when the
Ca DRB meeting will be scheduled.
LM
0 c rely,
c rely",-','
M fa
ri a
A
m a JB
0 Veronica Si4J.B. org n� P.
Managing Partner
> Cc. File 0V
Greg Lee, Sonic
Mary Makins, Bank of America AV
. 0J
.J eqqT John Clark, John Clark&Associates
Z -Sao
(9 U)
Cc
0
Fm
C 0 In en
W U) NU) at N
40 X Z K"
U C o+fn
= Vag
'F4 vOOOO
v
- -- - -
Article_7_ General Developrnent Standards
Section 7 3 Access Manoyementand Circulation
Permit. Anoff-siteparking agreement may berevoked by the
parties tothe agreement only i[ off-street parking is provided on-
site pursuant to Section 7.2, Off-Street Parking Standards orifan
Alternative Access and Parking Plan is approved by the
Administrator.
c. Bicycle Parking: The Administrator may authorize reduction in the
|
number ofrequired off-street parking spaces for developments oruses
�
that provide bicycle parking or that make special provisions to
�
accommodate bicyclists. Examples ofaccommodations include bicycle
�
lockers, employee shower facilities, and dressing areas for employees.
7.3 Access Management and Circulation
A. Location of Existing and Planned Multi-Modal Routes
Any proposed development shall take into account the location of existing and
�
planned multi-modal routes (i.e., bikeways, pedestrian ways, and transit
routes) and provide pedestrian and/or vehicular connections to the route(s)
within oradjacent hothe development.
B. Easements
1. Street Access
No use shall be permitted tmtake direct access to a street except as
allowed in this Section.
a. Local Streets: All residential uses may take direct access to local
streets. Nonresidential uses shall not take direct access to local
� streets, provided that any lot located within a nonresidential
subdivision or any parcel adjacent to a street within a nonresidential� �
subdivision may take direct access 10 the local street internal to the
-w� subdivision, and provided that any corner lot abutting a local street
and anarterial orcollector street mrfreeway may take access tothe
local street if such access is required by the highway governmental
authority having jurisdiction.
b. Minor Collector Streets: No single-family dwelling, townhouse, or
duplex shall take direct access to minor collector streets except when
no local street isorcan be made available orwhen the residential lot
has at least 200 feet of frontage on the minor collector street.
c. Major Collector Streets: No single-family dwelling, townhouse, or
duplex shall take direct access to major collector streets.
d. Arterial Streets: No single-family dwelling, townhouse, or duplex
shall take direct access to arterial streets.
d. Shared Driveways: The Development Engineer may require a shared
driveway at the time of platting, development, or redevelopment of
the affected lots.
2. Cross-Access Easements
a. If parcel is to be developed for any nonresidential land use, a cross-
access easement shall be provided by the property owner to adjoining
properties that front on the same street and that are, or may he,
developed asnonresidential land uses.
b. Cross-access easements shall be situated parallel to the street right-
of-way line abutting both parcels. The property owner shall maintain
access easements.
7-z]
Unified Development Ordinance 6/13/03 City of College Station,TeXas
'
Article 7. General Development Standards
Section 7.IAccess Management and Circulation
c. The property owner shall provide appropriate documentation of good
faith effort toextend the access easement through all immediately
abutting properties. If such an afhz|t fails, the portion of the easement
onthe subject site shall be developed and designed toensure future
connection tothe neighboring properties.
| d. Where a cross-access easement is granted, no permanent structures
or parking that would interfere with the proposed access shall be
permitted in the easement. Some improvements such asmedians and
parking islands may be constructed within an access easement if it has
been demonstrated that adequate circulation and cross access hos
been accomplished, and that all applicable standards of this UDO have
been met.
e. The Development Engineer may waive the requirement for an
easement ofaccess required above inthose cases where unusual
topography orsite conditions would render such an easement ofno
useable benefit to adjoining properties.
f. The Development Engineer may approve the vacation ofaneasement
of access in those cases where adjoining parcels are subsequently
developed with a residential use.
C. Driveway Access Location and Design
1. General
a. It shall be unlawful for any person to out, break, or remove any curb
or install adriveway along a street except as herein authorized.
Openings |nthe curb may beapproved by the Development Engineer
for the purposes ofdrainage.
b~ It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, alter, extend/ permit,,
or cause to be constructed, altered, or extended any driveway
approach which can be used only as a parking Space or area between
the curb and private property.
c. This Section shall be deemed to be supplemental to other Sections
regulating the use of public property, and in case of conflict, this
Section shall govern.
d. Adequate sight distance shall be provided fora passenger motor
vehicle making a left or right turn exiting from a driveway. This
determination shall bemade bythe Development Engineer.
e. The specifications and guidelines set forth inthis UDOare tobe
applied todriveways providing access to commercial and multi-family
developments. Single-family and duplex residential driveways are
excluded from this policy unless otherwise indicated. '
f. As determined by the Development Engineer, engineering judgment
shall override the required dimensions set forth in this Section if
warranted byspecific traffic conditions.
7~14
Unified Development ordinance 6/13/03 City oyCollege Station,Texas
Article 7. General Development Standards
Section 7.3. Access Management and Circulation
2. Location of Driveway Access
a. In making a determination as to the location of driveway access, the
Development Engineer shall consider:
(1) The characteristics of the proposed use;
(2) The existing traffic flow conditions and the future traffic demand
anticipated on the development and the adjacent street system;
(3) The location of the property;
(4) The size of the property;
(5) The orientation of structures on the site;
(6) The number of driveways needed to accommodate anticipated
traffic;
(7) The number and location of driveways on existing adjacent and
opposite properties;
(8) The location and carrying capacity of intersections;
(9) The proper geometric design of driveways;
(10)The spacing between opposite and adjacent driveways;
(11)The internal circulation between driveways; and
(12)The speed of the adjacent roadway.
b. Driveway access to arterials shall not be permitted for parking or
loading areas that require backing maneuvers in a public street right-
of-way. Driveway access to collector streets for commercial or multi-
family developments shall not be permitted for parking or loading
areas that require backing maneuvers in a public street right-of-way.
c. One curb cut shall be allowed for access to single-family and duplex
residential tracts. Alternative access configurations, including circle
driveways, may be allowed upon approval by the Development
Engineer.
d. For corner tracts, access to residential tracts shall be taken from the
lesser street. Access notes on plats shall supersede this requirement.
The determination as to the lesser (or greater) street shall be based
on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) criteria for functional street classification.
e. No cuts through a left-turn reservoir of a median shall be permitted in
order to provide for left-turn movements to driveway approaches.
f. Driveways in right-turn lane transition areas shall not be permitted.
The right-turn lane transition area is defined as the taper and
deceleration/acceleration length.
g. When a commercial or multi-family development abuts more than one
public street, access to each abutting street may be allowed only if the
following criteria are met:
(1) It is demonstrated that such access is required to adequately
serve driveway volumes and will not be detrimental or unsafe to
traffic operations on public streets. The Development Engineer
or his designee may require the submittal of a traffic study that
demonstrates that such access is required.
(2) The minimum requirements for corner clearance for commercial
or multi-family driveways are met.
7-15
Unified Development Ordinance 6/13/03 atV of coll"e station,Texas
Article 7. General Development Standards
Section 7.3. Access Management and Circulation
3. Spacing of Driveway Access
a. Application of the driveway access location and design standards
requires identification of the functional classification of the street on
which access is requested and then applying the appropriate spacing
requirements. The City of College Station streets are classified as
follows and defined in Article 11, Definitions:
(1) Major Arterial;
(2) Minor Arterial;
(3) Collector; and
(4) Local Street.
b. Major arterial, minor arterial, and collector streets in the City of
College Station are indicated on the Thoroughfare and Transportation
Improvement Plan. The functional classification of any street in the
City not indicated as an arterial or collector street on this plan shall be
determined using the functional street classification defined by the
most recent edition of the AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets.
c. Driveway access spacing shall be measured from the centerline of the
proposed driveway pavement to the nearest edge of the roadway of
the adjacent or opposite driveway or street as indicated in the
illustration below.
JIQ
X Opposite Left X
W r
Ui (125-)
J_K I --I Opposite Right
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Adjacent Left Adjacent Right
C
Wr
ao
d. A minimum of 125 feet shall be required for opposite left driveways for
all street classifications.
e. If the centerline of an opposite drive is less than 15 feet from the
centerline of the proposed drive, the drives form an intersection and
the minimum spacing requirements shall apply for the closest drive.
f. Spacing of Adjacent Driveways
(1) Adjacent drives shall be located no closer than the spacing
requirement in the table below. The Development Engineer or
his/her designee may allow adjacent driveway spacing less than
the spacing requirement below If It Is determined that favorable
conditions exist under peak traffic conditions.
(2) On divided streets with raised or depressed medians, It is the
City's policy to align other streets, alleys, private roads, and
driveways on either side of the median openings. Therefore,
when locating such an intersection, it shall be assumed that this
type of Intersection will exist at median openings and other
7-16
Unified Development Ordinance 6/13/03 CttV of College station,Texas
6
N-z
07-July-03
Spencer Thompson
Development Services
g' c City of College Station
2 c o 1101 Texas Avenue South
a z College Station,Texas 77840
(979)764-3570
_ 5 `= Ret Driveway Permit for Sonic at Texas Ave. and Cooner Street
Dear Spencer,
c c , Enclosed are three(3)blue lines and a driveway permit application for Sonic located at the corner of
Q Cooner and Texas Avenue.
LU
— As we last discussed,Sonic would like to obtain two driveways for this new site,one on Texas
C > :5 ev
W u =) Cd a Avenue and one on Cooner Street. The site is very small and onsite circulation would be extremely
difficult with only one driveway. In our last discussion a point of discussion was the proposed
grading of the driveway. The concern was that it not be an extremely steep climb into the site similar
to the Richard.Smith driveway located just to the south of this location. As you can see on the
W drawing,we have flattened the grading of the driveway to allow patrons to enter the site from Texas
O td Avenue without significantly reducing their speed. This,along with the 30 foot curb return radius on
. G. the ingress side of the driveway and the 55 foot throat depth to the first point of conflict,will help this
W = driveway fimdion without significant impact to the through traffic on Texas Avenue. This is all in
LM spite of the fact that the driveway does not meet the separation distance as stated in the City of
o °- College Station Driveway Ordinance.
The drive as we have proposed and red by ordinance is as follows:
�Y�"� p Pow �
M v ri
c� a► Required Spacing (ft) Proposed Spacing(ft)
C n Opposite Left 125 20
i
� Opposite Right 400 28
> Adjacent Left 350 63
Adjacent Right 350 127
a et
J N eAlthough we do not meet the required driveway spacings,we have attempted to locate the driveway in
Z hthe best location possible. We have pulled the driveway as far away from Cosner Street as possible.
t Because Cooner carries more volume than the Richard Smith driveway,we felt that the maximum
OG separation should occur between Cooner and the proposed Sonic driveway.
o to
�.. This lot is so small that you cannot locate a single driveway in accordance with the driveway
D
Ai ordinance,including Cooner Street. In addition,onsite circulation for any business on this small lot
.�
&1 9 en will be difficult with a single driveway. These difficulties stem from this lot being located in an older
J 33 %p subdivision and we are attempting infill development. As with any small infill development if there
W •••N were no provisions made originally for crass access easements with adjoining properties,if is
_ ?' h extremely difficult to consolidate driveways. A complicating factor on this particular site is the lack
C of depth to the property. Significant offers to purchase the single family lot behind this site have
occurred but the owner is unwilling to even discuss the option of selling the property. Without this
�j extra depth,the onsite circulation is difficult without the two driveways. Cross awess easements
ffJJ
when this property was originally platted would have allowed for more consolidation of driveways and
safer ingress/egress and onsite circulation. Without cross access or sufficient lot depth,siting driveway
locations for a small infill lot are a compromise at best.
The questions as we see are twofold:
(1) Can this lot be successfully developed with only one driveway?
and
(2) If two driveways are required for successful development and onsite circulation,
where are the best locations?
We believe that the answer to the first question is no and the answer to the second question is as we
have proposed them.
We firmly believe that having two driveways on Cooner only places more risk on the traffic turning
from Texas Avenue onto Cooner. If two driveways are allowed on Cooner Street,one will be
extremely close to the Texas/Cooner intersection. This will slow traffic on Texas Avenue as drivers
turning left onto Cooner will not only watch northbound Texas Avenue traffic but also any cars exiting
the site heading west. If a northbound vehicle on Texas Avenue turns right onto Cooner,they too will
have to watch the exiting site traffic as they turn. Given this situation,it would be preferable to have
the second driveway on Texas Avenue as it has been proposed. If in the future,TxDQT places a
median in Texas Avenue in front of this property the Texas Avenue driveway would again be the
preferable driveway as opposed to a second driveway located too close to the Cooner/Texas Avenue
intersection.
We appreciate your consideration of our request. As always,if you have any questions,or should need
any further information from us,please do not hesitate to call..
ly,
Veronica J.B.Mor P. .
Managing Partner
Mitchell&Morgan,LLP
Cc:Greg Lee,Sonic
i
Permit to Construct Access Driveway Facilities
on Highway Right of Way
Fom►1066 (Rev.12-96)
Pre*i vembns we obsolete_
To: Hwy. Permit No.
Control Section
The Texas Department of Transportation,hereinafter called the State,hereby authorizes err D-(,,ghii5 LL C
hereinafter called the Grantee, to (re) construct an access drive the hi�hw�y right of way abutting highw
na.+`SOS (o in PS County,located� 5
Subject to the following:
1. The Grantee is responsible for all costs associated with the construction of this access driveway.
2. Design of facilitie shall be as follows and/or as shown on sketch:
All construction and materials shall be subject to inspection and approved by the State.
3. Maintenance of facilities constructed hereunder shall be the responsibility of the Grantee,and the State reserves the rich,
to require any changes, maintenance, or repairs as may be necessary to provide protection of life or property on c
adjacent to the highway. Changes in design will be made only with approval of the State.
4. The Grantee shall hold harmless the State and its duly appointed agents and employees against any action for persoru
injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of this permit.
5. Except for regulatory and guide signs at county roads and city streets,the Grantee shall not erect any sign on or extending
over any portion of the highway right of way,and vehicle service fixtures such as service pumps,vendor stands,or tank-.
shall be located at least 3.6 meters (12 feet) from the right-of-way fine to ensure that any vehicle services from these
fixtures will be off the highway.
6. This permit will become null and void if the above-referenced driveway facilities are not constructed within six(6)month;
from the issuance date of this permit.
7. The Grantee will contact the State's representative
telephone ( ) at least twenty-four(24) hours prior to beginning the work authorized b;
this permit.
Texas Department of Transportation
Date of issuance District Engineer
The undersigned hereby agrees to comply with the terms and conditions set f in this permit for construction of an access
driveway on the highway right-of-way.
1
Signed: (Props r es representative)
Date: V-n
■
-`--•�+,, Ifo, _.. .-
.o
r
,i
.r� :%
{.,,,,,,�,�r
__.....
..
�.
. _
�.,. �
y
1 ~
#'lid
i 1
w.......vr
'+
t
��'r�, w�-. cars-►s
t
t
i-
. , �,
�. � ,, ,.}
� i
.;
s�
�,; .r"_..�{ ��
� �1 � � �t
� t
4 "'�
k
i{
� ��� �� t��
� _ �. �
M
E
�� � alt\�
Y
��' � � �
.�,N ;
.��'A
r
F
4 •
i
�� T
{{ �
l8
y, i
. :
�;�
�,
!�� `
i�t
h ,� t Y. � �
� ,. .7 ,, lA.�',
yi
t �.
! � ar � 1
l,. �.` ��
�,.� f
fi
. r
•+ �;• - 'fir • �r �� � � . '��� Yt,�, ,�' .,1;• . .
.•A a
SII
E1
•
r
WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT •
Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Date: 07-23-03
E-mail: jreeves@cstx.gov
For
JIN'S WORLD CAFE (SIGN REVIEW APP) (03-00500163)
In the design districts (including the WPC, NG-1, NG-2 and NG-3 districts), all
substantial maintenance (including but not limited to rehabilitation, facade work,
and , change of exterior materials or other construction, including the
replacement or alteration of signs) shall be subject to the design district building
and sign review process.
Zoning District: NG-2 Commercial Northgate
Location: 110 Nagle Street
Applicant: Jin Gangshaw, Business Owner
Item Summary: The applicant is requesting permission to change out the existing free
standing sign face for a new one (existing freestanding sign = 4' x 6' = 24 sq. ft.), as well
as replacing the attached signage with a 32' x 4' (128-sq.ft.) attached sign.
NG-2 Commercial Northgate only allows attached signs. In limited circumstances;
(Section 7.4).
However, in this case the freestanding and attached signage was installed prior to the
Northgate Sign Regulations and would be considered grandfathered
Item Background: Item Background: The "Northgate Design Guidelines" provides
guidance on the placement and design of signs as follows:
§ Signs should relate in placement and size to other building elements.
§ Signs should not obscure other building elements such as window, cornices, or
decorative details.
§ Sign material, style, and color should compliment the building facade.
§ Individual shop signs in a single storefront should relate to each other in design, size,
color, placement on the building, and lettering style.
§ Wood or metal is recommended.
§ Illuminated plastic signs are strongly discouraged.
§ Letters exceeding 14" in height are discouraged in pedestrian oriented areas.
Issues/Items for Review:
1. Sign
'i Attachments:
• Application •
• Site location map
• Photos of the existing freestanding and attached signage.
• Photos of the proposed freestanding and attached signage.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO. 03-IL0 3
DATE SUBMITTED D Q 3
DESIGN DISTRICT BUILDING & SIGN REVIEW APPLICATIO
1P
Design Review Board
(Check one) ❑ NG-1 NG-2 ❑ NG-3 ❑ WPC
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Application completed in full.
✓ $200.00 Special District Application fee
Ten (10) folded copies of facade details (including signage) with dimensions. (for Facades only)
Ten (10) folded copies of sign details with dimensions. (for signs only)
Color and material samples.
If attached signage is proposed, provide ten (10) copies of a building elevation showing sign
placement.
Date of Preapplication Conference: p p
NAME OF BUSINESS JillS 6de_rr/C
ADDRESS / /o A(h q J'dr.Q
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ReJ_?t a<<rE-41t_
PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY A-f
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY
APPLICANT'S INFORMATION:
Name 4-fiCCl)ujrl�
Street Address
City Co ff zf' 7
t�qi crx State 7.�1' Zip Code �7
E-Mail Address 9
Phone Number G7S .S-7.'- Fax Number ul 9 - 2 Z/161_
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name OA/W /-
Street Address 7o ,6'- E_ Zg�
City ' ''State Zip Code
E-Mail Address
Phone Number 2 —atc-z-o Fax Number 6c
DESIGN-I.DOC 7/1/2003 1 of2
r
r
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR CHANGES �u��z � Q
AND/OR
❑ ATTACHED SIGN ❑ FREESTANDING SIGN
Square Footage SIX - 12 S$ Square Footage (
All applications must be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Once a meeting is scheduled, the applicant
will be notified of the date and time so that he can be present to discuss the proposal with the Board. The
applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto
are true and correct.
7�
Signature of Owner, Agent or Applicant Date
DESIGN—LDOC 7/1/2003 2of2
22 9 o� r Fep
8�� 343121 20
10
11
u 2 4 19 12 rs
O� C3f1vlQGl 1 18 5 6 ���� q 1817 , '3
4 J cp<<
1 7 �� 15 1 FBF
w fi� 6 § 8 16 9 1 q�
e
,
o� 4 1 4 J X X Q19m@ lax
24 23 ' 1
, �� s rloo.J M[�OdCG3�04�
I 15 11 13` �pL 8 \ J
A 26 { a 11 14 �� c ' 9 T100.4
A 15
B p�� 10 16��
19 110
�7 18 0� 1J $ > T100.5
E 0 12 X01 14 i
0 �9 8 — 16 0ie\h
8 1l 7 15 /6 l lv1 p �@ 1-R T600.1
6
11 � 5 18 F NG„# �ti1
9R 5 4 9 14 sr 4 )g sr
2 �8 1516 9s1'F � 2 2� 1-R T60 �
6 17 .}sT ) 8 9
/
18 7400 ��3 5 1
� 9 4 1g 7
' G4, g1 \ ) 2 1 ', 20 co 6 11)1 TJ00 s,
7 ) r 2
6 J 6 i21 gGF`�P 1 p�p� 7'8 J 2 14 X
4 6 5 5 14 sl 6 9� � !
6 7 4 I 5 44�� � c1p
l0A
2 4e, 2 5 8 g
F
�1
2 3.�, 1� 4 3 '\1 °o - 8
?? i s 6
9?p1 ,� I , 1617 ?'9�0654 ! 1415 �aG� e-
12 18 ti✓ 3 16 �O
)0
9 ?4 J 8 .,, ,420 2223 , 1! �� 4C MIG )' lam
7 6 5 521128 1 do 19/817 2 2 76 J4p [v1a�ICG3�a4�
k, 4 79 sf, 16 P7 12 10 do
9 1 a fors
20 7 8
4 1 10 15 rr I 4 �p
1 T 18 7 � ws
9 0 SGP
I 0 9 141 16
8 17 2 4
5 t F
c�B 76 119 1 4,?6,
Ci College Station, Texas JIN'S WRLD CAFE case: DRB
.I I D ELOPMENT REVIEW _ ,_--. -Iy�_ -- —.--�-- ---- ___ —_____I�, 03-163 - -
ryf-
a 5t
' •s'`"r
t
{
i
{
yr+x
IC+ lC-(1••
xnk`, ipl y !v
t �_ I � S •jJ .rt•.„ 3.��
Cvu
xta L
MR
4
r
IL
' -3
deliver 91-011
G
healthy pan-asian cuisine
,r pan ,a,i1ro �. .
��.� ,� � �� ` •�� .. ithy yep �g . -
hea
�Y
irjy � mak,. l