Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/12/2004 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review Board Amended Agenda • College Station Design Review Board Friday, March 12, 2004 City Hall Training Room College Station 1101 Texas Avenue Embracing the Past,Exploring the Future 11:00 a.m. 1. Call to order. 2. Consider absence requests. George McLean 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from February 13, 2004 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from February 27, 2004. • 5. Discussion, consideration and possible action on a concept plan for Allsize Storage, a mini storage complex, zoned PDD, at 3101 Texas Avenue South. (04-46 JP). 6. Discussion, consideration and possible action on proposed signs for A Ka Sa Ka Sake Bar, zoned NG-1 and located at 113 College Main on the 2nd story. (04-43 JP). 7. Discussion and consideration of future agenda items. 8. Adjourn. The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Deborah Grace- Re: March 12 DRB Page 1 From: "GEORGE F. MCLEAN" <gmclean@csisd.org> • To: "Deborah Grace" <DGRACE@cstx.gov> Date: 3/4/2004 9:51:22 AM Subject: Re: March 12 DRB Deborah sorry but i will be out of town on the twelth of march • • Minutes Design Review Board February 13, 2004 11:00 AM Board Members Present: Scott Shafer, Stanton Ware, Alan King & Bill Trainor. Board Members Absent: Dr. Phil Tabb, Richard Benning& George McClean. Staff Present: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planner Jennifer Prochazka, Planning Intern Lauren Harrell. Others Present: Chad Grauke, Shawn Keenan&Joe Bendetti. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 Call to order. Mr. Shafer called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider absence requests. Board Members absent: Richard Benning g, George McLean & Dr. Phil Tabb. Absence requests were not turned in. No vote was taken. AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Discussion, consideration and possible action to approve meeting minutes from January 23,2004. Mr. King made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Ware seconded the motion which passed unopposed(4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Discussion, consideration and possible action on facade improvements for Logan's on Campus located at 201 College Main in Northgate. Second Review(03-320). Staff Planner Jennifer Prochazka presented the list of issues that the DRB identified as needing to be addressed. The Board discussed the items and made the following motions: Signs: Mr. King made the motion to approve open channel, exposed neon for both signs and no plastic covering. Mr. Trainor seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4-0). 4 Watts & Patio Areas: Mr. King made the motion to add lights (approximately 5 or 6 on Patricia Street and an equivalent number for the College Main elevation) that are in the same style as the lights found at the McAlister's Deli on University Drive. They will be green. The height should be somewhere between the tops of the windows and the top of the wall. The umbrellas will be green & white. There will be approximately 6 metal mesh tables with stackable chairs that will probably be green. Mr. Trainor seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). Landscaping: Mr. King made the motion to approve the tree grates as submitted. The removal of the existing shrubs for the patio extension was approved. The brick and fence detail were approved with a fence height between 40"-48". Each tree must be irrigated by irrigation run off of Logan's water meter. Mr. Ware seconded the motion, which passes unopposed(4-0). Materials: Mr. Trainor made the motion to approve all materials as presented. The metal channel for the neon will be green for both the signs and neon strip running around the building. The neon will also be green. The bike rack and railings will be black. The railing on the upper level must be a minimum 48". The bike parking will be located along College Main underneath the southern most window and not in any landscaping. Mr. King seconded the motion, which passes unopposed(4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion and consideration of future agenda items. There were no items discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Adjourn. APPROVED: Scott Shafer ATTEST: Deborah Grace,Staff Assistant y i Minutes Design Review Board February 27, 2004 11:00 AM Board Members Present: Scott Shafer,Alan King , George McLean& Richard Benning. Board Members Absent: Dr. Phil Tabb, Stanton Ware & Bill Trainor. Staff Present: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planner Planning Intern Lauren Harrell& Assistant Development Review Manager Bridgette George. Others Present: Danny& Kern Brightwell. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 Call to order. Mr. Shafer called the meeting to order. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider absence requests. Dr. Tabb Bill Trainor Stanton Ware Mr. Benning made the motion to approve the absence requests. Mr. King seconded the motions, which passed unopposed(4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Consider absence requests from the February 13, 2004 meeting. Dr. Tabb George McLean Richard Benning Mr. King made the motion to approve the absence requests. Mr. Shafer seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion, consideration and possible action on the addition of a walk-in cooler and fagade changes for Zapata's Cantina expansion at 215 University Drive West in Northgate. (04-31 JP). Planning Intern Lauren Harrell presented the staff report. She told the Board that the • applicant is proposing to open the old Bill's Barbershop as a bar. The existing front entrance will be closed to public access and will be for employee use only. The exiting windows will be "blacked out". Two additional doorways leading to the patio on the west side of the bar are proposed. Staff suggests that it may be possible to redesign the interior bar area so that the existing front entrance and windows can retain their original function, The applicant is also proposing the addition of a walk-in cooler on the east side of the proposed bar located between the bar and Shadow Canyon Nightclub, behind the existing iron fence. The applicant is proposing to apply a cedar plank fagade and a Spanish tile roof to the cooler. Staff suggests that it may be more aesthetically pleasing to require that the walk-in cooler be located behind the permanent structure so that it is not visible from University Drive or require that the cooler be screened from University Drive by tall, dense shrubbery behind the iron fence. The Northgate Design Guidelines suggest that color and design be consistent with the surrounding block or area. The Guidelines also suggest masonry (stone or brick) and that other materials be similar in character to those used in other areas of NG-1. The Guidelines also state, there where wood is used, it should be protected by a water sealant. The applicant is not proposing any other fagade,changes or signs at this time. Mr. Benning made the motion to approve the proposed location of the walk-in cooler, finish it with CMU painted to match the existing building instead of proposed cedar planks and the last 6-8-feet after the cooler must be landscaped to screen the area Mr. King seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). Mr. McLean asked the applicants to make sure the condensate line for the cooler is placed in the sewer system. Mr. King made the motion that the front entrance on University remain in the fagade but not used as an entrance. The windows may not be "blacked out'' as proposed, they must be designed with displays and some visual penetration into the bar. This may be approved at staff level as long as the proposal meets the recommendations. Mr. McLean seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion and consideration of future agenda items. There were no items discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mr. King made the motion to adjourn. Mn Benning seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). APPROVED: Scott Shafer ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PDD CONCEPT PLAN STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka Date: March 5, 2004 E-mail: jprochazka@cstx.gov For ALLSIZE STORAGE (PDD) (04-46) A Concept Plan shall be required prior to any development of property zoned Planned Development District (PDD). Zoning District: PDD Planned Development District Approved Land Uses: Maximum height of 2 stories and the following uses: • Art Studio/Gallery • Educational Facility, Indoor • Health Care/ Medical Clinics • Mini-Storage Warehouse (with an accessory living unit) • Offices • Personal Service Shop • • Printing/Copy Shop • Radio/TV station/studios (no towers) • Retail Sales and Service. Location: 3131 Texas Avenue South Applicant: S.F. Sanders Item Summary: The proposal is for the development of a self-storage complex with an accessory office and living unit for on-site management. The plan submitted is more detailed than what is required for Concept Plan review. This is only a review of the items required by the "Conceptual PDD Site Plan Minimum Requirements." Approval of this Concept Plan does not imply site plan approval or approval of specific site elements shown on the plan. The purpose of a PDD at this location is to restore an agreement between the owners of the subject property and the adjacent Mile Drive neighborhood, and limiting uses next to an established neighborhood that may experience cut-through traffic as a result of development of this property. In 1987 a greenbelt and access easement were platted on this property as a requirement of the 1987 rezoning that came out of an agreement between the subject property owners and the Mile Drive residents. The greenbelt reserve and adjacent access easement serve as a 70-foot buffer from the residential property for future • structures, including parking, on this site. The PDD zoning was approved with the understanding that this buffer would be retained. Administrator Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the concept plan with the condition that the parking shown in the access easement is relocated to an approved area on site. Also, the gate will have to be positioned to allow for others to access the access easement without going through the gates. This access easement was platted as the sole access to the property located to the east of the subject property; this easement must remain clear for access to the adjacent property. Staff has concerns with the location of the currently platted access easement. The current location of the access easement does not meet the City's throat depth requirements and may pose a safety concern. An alternate access point should be considered with this concept plan. Minimum Requirements: Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the minimum requirements for this development shall be those stated in the Unified Development Ordinance. Items for Review: Parking Areas and location Building location & use Location of artificially lit areas Access to the site • Circulation within the site Buffer areas • Other special features Attachments: 1. Application 2. Small Area Map 3. Concept Plan 4. Staff Review Comments-Concept Plan Review 5. Planning &Zoning Commission minutes from January 15, 2004 FOR OFFICE, ONLY CASE NO. SE j / DATE SUBMITTED D-Df� O4' - /dI�- CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FOR PDD / P-MUD PDD-H (Housing) PDD-I Industrial PDD-B Business P-MUD MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS X Application completed in full. X $200.00 application fee. X Ten (10) copies of the Concept Plan in accordance with Section 3.4.1) of the UDO. X Written legal description of subject property (metes & bounds or lot & block of subdivision, whichever is applicable). X Concept Plan Information sheet completed in full. lV A Proof that the Greenways Manager has reviewed and approved your conceptual plan. N/A Proof that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has reviewed and approved your conceptual plan. Also 6ahwW— DAG G 1 pdnf of Arehl1 ec rev jI 6160fais W 9 &A0W� vfXec /G'vri 4 gv yrA'V . Date of Required Preapplication Conference: S.4wf-r As POP 4.va w dmogr9wArca APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: Name(s) S. F. Sanders • Street Address 9455 Kemp Road City Brvan State TX Zip Code 77845 E-Mail Address Phone Number 979.268.4052 Fax Number (same as Dhone number) PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name(s) Gatewav Joint Venture. Hays Glover. Managing Partner Street Address 4444 Carter Creek Pkwv#109 City Brvan State TX Zip Code 77802 E-Mail Address halover(twin.com Phone Number 979.260.9777 Fax Number 979.260.9712 This property was conveyed to owner by deed, dated 08/05/1985 and recorded in Volume 814 Page 376 of the Brazos County Deed Records. General Location of Property: Texas Avenue at Deacon Address of Property: 3131 Texas Avenue South. College Station TX 77840 Legal Description: Lot 2. Block A& Lots 1 &2. Block B: Haney-Highwav 6 Subdivision Total Acreage: 5.700 acres Existing Zoning: PDD Requested Zoning: PDD Present Use of Property: Vacant ,Proposed Use of Property: Mini-Storage Buildinas CONCEPT PLAN INFORMATION •Purpose and intent of proposed development, as approved by the City Council as part of the PDD zoning: the development of a mini storage warehouse with an accessory live-in unit List and explanation of the land uses approved by the City Council as part of the PDD zoning: Approved land uses include an art studio. indoor education facility, mini-storage warehouse with an accessory living quarter. offices. personal4*eto shoos. printina or copy shops. radio or TV station or studio without towers. and retail sales and services What is the range of future building heights: a maximum heiaht of two (2) stories Please provide a general statement regarding the proposed drainage: The Drainaae system will conform will the Citv of College Station's DPDS. Detention will be handled on site with a detention pond. List the general bulk or dimensional variations sought: N/A If variations are sought, please provide a list of community benefits and/or innovative design concepts to justify the request: N/A (Please note that a "complete site plan" must be submitted to Development Services for a formal review after the "conceptual" plan has been approved by the Design Review Board prior to the Issuance of a building permit—except for single-family development) ■ The applicant has prepared this application and supporting information and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto afe true and coned. IF APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A POWER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER. Sigre of owner or applicant Date 6/13/03 2 of 4 This checklist must be submitted with the application. All items must be checked off or a memo provided explaining why they are • not. CONCEPTUAL PDD SITE PLAN MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (ALL CITY ORDINANCES MUST BE MET) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: ✓I A key map (not necessarily to scale). V2' Title block to include: ✓Name, address, location, and legal description. ✓Name, address, and telephone number of applicant ✓Name, address, and telephone number of developer/owner(if differs from applicant) ✓ Name, address, and telephone number of architectlengineer(if differs from applicant) Date of submittal ✓Total site area Y<( North arrow. y4"�-100-year floodplain and floodway (if applicable) on or adjacent to the proposed project site, note if there is none on the site. • 5. Show the approximate location of the following: vOarking areas ✓Building sites and an indication of their use ✓Artificially lit areas '74 Open spaces/conservation areas ✓Greenways YStreets and access Or Parks N/&Schools VArTrails v6uffer areas (or a statement indicating buffering proposed) ✓Other special features N/M. Approximate accessways, pedestrian and bikeways. t4tpW. Common and open space areas. • 6/13/03 3 of 4 - ,� 15\ I 11N( s� 6� r .o` d 11 14 0 4 F+9 o IS I 15 gFsr o 1 119 LT 10 A2 0 0 16C 116 19 19 1 A R C-1 JO 131 o`F p 3 4 XK 15 �♦ JJ -q e 2� K ` J4 1 JS T1J 9 C 1 re 'n H WOOD e `q1 16 _AZA IA R - 1 `19 7 ` m 6`q 8 f 2 �A 0 71JA � `q rn 1 �PiA 3433 B 1 C.S.L. \ e� '6q '2 3!029 ''�>ol o' O 5 A 778P gcocK 1 / R- 1 /41 m ERS 10 28 wl TO p 1 T a0t� ,) y p SIJ 7 2 �` r I. 0 r „ 26 o J •'. c a1 15 IR 0 0 J 8 6 D£ 23B no A2Re� d ?i 4t, 41 ) r 23A ,� `DB2 .' m A -0 4,; 44e ) 7 GMS 6 22 'a N P PAR 2�D 3119 V1 5 4O Rf • 171h 24 15II" 1rF 9L 1 140 IO 1J11 OV TH WOWD 14 H011RS '21I s „ , ,5 ; VALLEY EY" 14 6R R& D a a 10 16 1J 40 � e' NSM RF 4R .11) R 1 1 t 8 1I8R p IRA or V.e 8 fi 103 104 81 9 R JR 19 `o'' 11 101 Q 1700 105 to 106 1 10 107 � 1R � J ti 100 _ � � 1 86 99 s� 09 2R 1 1 X87 981�gti !IO JR U W 13 7 4 88 97 ��ay l i l O� A Y v+ I Q c 74 .a 9 a 85 ^ 89 5p 83jJ 91 94 5 6R 8 y c 82 a oq 8 070 Ira ? 81 r�gti�%� 93 D I5R1�`� > 73 80 - R-6 9R 79 '� 14Ri`� �e`'� X58 69 j' 75 78 1 7C 55 55 U 56 59 CD 6 F 76 q� 1 1 0`� 18 2A° 41 j� 7 � �5 771 4 /1\414I,.42 51 so �a 11C� I0111-000 DA of OPMENT REVIEW aS �� 04-46 (�S.F. WDERS C NCEPT • MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS January 15, 2004 7. Public hearing, discussion and possible action on a Comurehensive Plan Amendment. from Medium Density Residential to a Non-Residential classification for the area south of the Bernadine Estate Subdivision and bound by the East Bypass Frontage Road at Deacon and Texas Avenue South; and a Rezoninq for Lot 2, Block A and Lots 1 and 2, Block B of the Haney-Highway 6 Subdivision consisting of 5.69 acres generally located near the Northeast corner of Texas Avenue at Deacon from C-3 Light Commercial to PDD Planned Development District. (03-319 and 03-307) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the Staff Report. She • explained that the public hearing is being held for both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Rezoning which will require two motions and actions by the Commission. She pointed out that the Land Use Plan currently designates this property as Single Family Residential and that Staff would support a plan amendment to Retail Neighborhood to include not only the property for rezoning, but also the property to the northeast of this. She added that the rezoning request is for 5.69 acres not including the A-P tract to the northeast and that the request is from C-3 to PDD for the development of a mini storage warehouse with an accessory live-in unit. Ms. Prochazka reported that the subject property has had numerous commercial rezoning requests, all which have been contentious and that five such requests were denied before the existing commercial zoning was approved in 1988. She explained that with the 1988 rezoning, an agreement was reached between the Mile Drive residents and the current property owner which included a greenbelt between the residences and the subject property which is not platted and a less intense commercial zoning district of C-3. Mini-storage Warehouses were a permitted use at that time. However, this has recently been • removed from the C-3 zoning district with the adoption of the UDO. Because this property has been the subject of many . rezoning hearings in the passed, Ms. Prochazka stated that a neighborhood meeting was arranged by the Staff to give the property owner the opportunity to talk to the Mile Drive residents allowing them to present their views and to get feed back from the residents. At the meeting, the residents mentioned several uses that they would like to exclude from the PDD that are still included in this rezoning request. They include dry cleaners, restaurants, utilities and cell towers. The neighbors also expressed an interest in placing a maximum height of two (2) stories on any development on the property. Ms. Prochazka stated that Staff has compiled a list of uses using the original 1988 agreement and the opinions of the current residents from the meeting with them. She pointed out the comparison sheet of the original 1988 agreement, the proposed PDD and Staff's recommendation. She added that Staff recommends approval with a maximum height of two (2) stories on any development and the following land uses: art studio, indoor education facility, mini-storage warehouse with an accessory living quarter, offices, personal photo shops, printing or copy shops, radio or TV station or studio without towers, and retail sales and services. Also, Ms. Prochazka explained that • Staff views the purpose of the PDD in this particular location as restoring an agreement between the owners of the property and the Mile Drive residents and for limiting uses next to an established neighborhood that may experience cut-through traffic when this tract develops. Chairman Shafer wanted clarification on the two actions required by the Commission for this project. He opened the public hearing. Jim Jett, 5004 Congressional, representing the land owners, stated that there were three (3) uses excluded from the list that were not specifically mentioned in the meeting between the owners and the residents that he requests are added back into the list of uses; animal care facilities, government facilities and health care clinics. Commissioner White clarified the three items and that it would be in the best interest of the owner, to add them back to the list of uses, keeping the subject property marketable for any future developer/owner. Ms. Prochazka further explained the list of uses and why the three were not included on the list. She reiterated that the reason the Staff is recommending the PDD zoning is to bring the subject property back into the original agreement made in 1988. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner White motioned to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. FOR: Shafer, White, Hall, Trapani, Davis and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the rezoning with Staff's recommendations. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. FOR: Shafer, White, Hall, Trapani, Davis and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams. Commissioner Davis asked how Mr. Jett's concerns could be addressed. Ms. Prochazka stated that the rezoning would need to be amended. Further discussion ensued regarding the greenbelt preserve and the adjacent access easement. Commissioner Davis amended his motion to include the two uses that would not be included on the list of uses with the PDD rezoning district; animal care facilities, and health care clinics. Government facilities would be allowed. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. The motioned carried 6-0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, Trapani, Reynolds, White and Hall. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams • STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS - Concept Plan Review Project: ALLSIZE STORAGE (PDD/P-MUD) - 04-00500046 PLANNING Please Note: This is only a review of the items required by the "Conceptual PDD Site Plan Minimum Requirements." Approval of this Concept Plan does not imply site plan approval or approval of specific site elements shown on the plan. 1. FYI: since there are no dimensional variations sought, the site plan will have to comply with all requirements. 2. The gate will have to be positioned to allow for others to access the PAE without going through the gates. 3. A parking area will not be permitted within a PAE. Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: February 27, 2004 • NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, • must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. 2a2 r =MOM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Procli Date: March 5, 2004 Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov For AKASAKA SAKE BAR (DRB) (04-43) All sign proposals in the Northgate Districts shall require a review by the Design Review Board (DRB). Zoning District: NG-1 Historic Northgate Location: 113 College Main, 2nd story Applicant: Bonanza Sign Company Item Summary: Sign The applicant is proposing three new wall signs. The proposed signage will be attached signs for the A Ka Sa Ka Sake Bar located on the second story of the structure at the southwest comer of College main and Patricia Street. The applicant is proposing a 3 - 2' x 10' aluminum signs located on the west side (facing the Promenade), the north side (facing Patricia St.), the east side of the building (facing College Main). Item Background: Kyoto Sushi, located on the bottom level of this building, had signage approved in 2002. Issues/Items for Review: 1. Signage • Type • Design • Placement Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Sign Details milli 11 uuum FOR OFFICE USE ONLY a,1. CASE NO. 04' 4�; DATE SUBMITTED —0 • DESIGN DISTRICT BUILDING & SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Design Review Board (Check one) NG-1 ❑ NG-2 ❑ NG-3 ❑ WPC ❑ Ov Staff Review Only 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: Irl 1I, NAME OF BUSINESS �'�A�SR KW S hKrc- P>A� ADDRESS I eo(Le-� nd -�i bnr, nn cs U Gvrnt4-^- O •LEGAL DESCRIPTION LG- (o ; �l O�,k- OrW, lbb)�, PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY fear PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: n � aal- 5-71eo ' Name Pia. �.. Spy�s H-C*1 r tb0 no-n Z.0- P 14me, Street Address r j . Q LW y E . City State 0,041� Zip Code 1+84 co E-Mail Address Phone Number Fax Number PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name Street Address 41 to lRy-Oc7ksi nom, W-. City KM Rl� State fix Zip Code E-Mail Address Phone Number ql Q- 3q&+ t457 $ Fax Number { —sboz • 8/13/03 Page 1 of 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR CHANGES V'LlOTZD - > WkT` ( c Pre-o 0-Uus L� app wed AND/OR ATTACHED SIGN ❑ FREESTANDING SIGN Square Footage Square Footage All applications (except Overlay district 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. Signature of Owner, g Agent or Applicant Date • 6/13/03 Page 2 of 2 ■ J 2 1516 F ��J6 � o0 1112 13 0 21 3 22 2 8 14 7 o s moi_ 0 2J 24 no �o 18 0 25 oJ 1726 12 10 `SOI 4J 16 27 I� LOT 1 0 15 ro BLOCK 6-1 0� 14 ` 9 20 76 8 ?? 4 ?J �. 4TS �3 16 JJ 17 X 2, , �J 18 15 0 7 �s 6 0 0 J- s� X09 o0 2 12 0 19 o0 20 o� PJ � �O�C 21 0 o O I � c 22 �G o 1 Y2 , 5 QPM 5 o Who AKASAAKE BAR Ci f College Station, Texas II ca : Rs D OPMENT REVIEW �II IIIm04-43 • PROPOSED SIGN PROPOSED SIGN • PROPOSED SIGN •