The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/14/2004 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review Board File Copy Agenda College Station Design Review Board Friday, May 14, 2004 Administrative Conference Room College Station City Secretary's Office Embracing the Past,Exploring the Future 1101 Texas Avenue 11:00 a.m. 1. Call to order. 2. Consider absence requests. Scott Shafer Dr. Tabb 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from April 23, 2004 4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a concept plan for South • Hampton Subdivision located south of Nantucket Drive between SH-6 west frontage road & Harper's Ferry Road. (04-83 JP). 5. Consideration, discussion and possible action concerning future plans for public staging/restrooms in Northgate. 6. Consideration, discussion and possible action concerning pedestrian level signs in Northgate. 7. Discussion and possible action 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. 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. r • Minutes Design Review Board April 23, 2004 11:00 AM Board Members Present: Scott Shafer, Alan King, Richard Benning & Stanton Ware. Board Members Absent: Dr. Phil Tabb, Bill Trainor& George McLean. Staff Present: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planner's Jennifer Prochazka, Molly Hitchcock&Jennifer Reeves, Others Present: Joe Schultz, Wallace Phillips & Jessica Jimmerson. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 Call to order. Mr. Shafer called the meeting to order. • AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider absence requests. Dr. Tabb George McLean Mr. Benning made the motion to approve the absence requests. Mr. King seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). Mr. Trainor was absent and did not submit an absent request form. The Board did not consider his absence. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from March 12,2004 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 a concept plan for Castlegate Section 6 located on the North side of Greens Prairie Road,just west of Castlegate Drive. (04-49) Staff Planner Jennifer Reeves presented the staff and report and told the Board that the developer wishes to continue the development as it was originally envisioned and implemented in the previous Sections 1-5 of the Castlegate Subdivision. The Planned • 1 Development District is the only available district that provides for the meritorious modifications of the regulations. Mr. Benning made the motion to approve as submitted. Mr. King seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion, consideration and possible action on the rehabilitation of front faVade changes to Antonio's Pizza by the Slice located at 108 College Main located in Northgate. (04-21) Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock presented the staff report and told the Board that the proposal is to change the black the on the building and paint the trim around the windows and doors to match the signage and/or interior colors. The property is considered Medium Priority by the Northgate Historic Resources Study. The UDO requires properties with such designation to be treated using methods and materials in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The the at the entry is considered distinctive, character-defining feature of the building. Depending on the age of the the and previous finishes for the fagade, removing and replacing the tile is not in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Jessica Jimmerson spoke representing the owner and stated that they would like to refurbish the building with tile to match the color of the trim. The color proposed for the trim would be green, red or maroon. Mr. Shafer asked what is the timeline for installing the sign that DRB approved in September of 2003. Ms. Jimmerson replied that they are waiting for the approval of all other fagade changes before installing the sign. Ms. Hitchcock told the Board that two flood lights have been installed on the canopy to shine on the sign and they have not been approved by the Board. She suggested that they address the issue. Mr. Benning stated that he thought it looked great. There were continued discussions concerning the tile. Mr. Shafer stated that he is in favor of leaving the building as it is. This building has historic character and the more you change it the more you loose the character. The tile is an integrated part of the building. Mr. Ware added that there is so much opportunity to put graphics in the window and even cleaning the bricks would be a great improvement. Ms. Jimmerson asked the Board if they would be open to the tile being resurfaced in some way that would not damage the tile and later could then be returned to the original state. The Board was not in favor of that idea. • Mr. King listed items that the Board would like the owner to consider. —consideration of paint color for the trim —no change to tile color —clean the brick —work with the windows to lighten the look —consider signage within the windows space Ms. Jimmerson asked if they would consider neon signage in the window. Mr. Benning replied that he sure would. The remaining members also agreed. The Board discussed pedestrian level signage that hangs from awnings. Ms. Jimmerson asked if they could have one at each door. The Board felt one would be sufficient. Mr. Shafer encouraged the owner to do a clean treatment of the windows at the top so it is consistent across the front. Mr. Shafter asked that the Aggie Buck banner be removed. Mr. King made the motion to table the item and allow the owner to consider the requests of the Board Mr. Ware seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). • AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion and action to appoint a Board Member to serve as Acting Chairman for the meetings of May 14, May 28 & June 11. Mr. King offered to serve. Mr. Shafer said he would have a Planning & Zoning Commissioner also attend in his absence. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion and possible action on future agenda items— A Design Review Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement for 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. Mr. Benning asked to add an item to discuss the public staging/restrooms in Northgate Mr. Ware asked to add an item to discuss pedestrian signs in Northgate. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Mr. Benning made the motion to adjourn. Mr. King seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0). • APPROVED: Scott Shafer, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant • • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PDD CONCEPT PLAN STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka Date: May 7, 2004 E-mail: jprochazka@cstx.gov For SOUTH HAMPTON (04-83) A Concept Plan shall be required prior to any development of property zoned Planned Development District(PDD) or Planned Mixed-Use District(P-MUD). Zoning District: PDD Planned Development District Approved Land Uses: Single Family Residential, with an average lot size of just over 1/4 acre, Buffers, and Landscape reserves. Location: 16.399 acres, generally located south of Nantucket Drive between State Highway 6 and Harper's Ferry Road Applicant: Phyllis Hobson, Nantucket, Ltd., property owner • Item Summary: The developer wishes to continue the subdivision as it was originally envisioned and implemented in the existing South Hampton Phase I. This property was originally zoned PDD-H in 1997, but the zoning expired in 2003. Staff sees the purpose of this PDD as reinstating a previously approved plan. The proposal includes 40 single-family lots with an average lot size of just over 1/4 acre. Changes from the previously approved PDD-H zoning include a street connection to Nantucket Drive, a minor collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. The developer is proposing the standard R-1 setbacks, with the exception that lots that backup to Nantucket Drive will have a rear setback of 50' (10' from the buffer). Fencing for each lot will be on the home side of the buffer strip and the buffer will be left in its natural state with additional plantings encouraged. Lots that have drainage easements on the rear of the lot will have a setback of 10' greater than the drainage easement. Parks and Recreation Board Recommendations: Recommended fee in lieu of land dedication due to the size of the project. Greenways Program Manager Recommendations: N/A Administrator Recommendations: The administrator recommends approval of the plan as submitted. Review Criteria: 1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding area; • 2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this Section; 3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will not adversely affect adjacent development; 4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a homeowners association; 5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities; 6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area. 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 for R-1 Single-Family Residential. Attachments: 1. Application • 2. Small Area Map 3. Concept Plan 4. April 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO. 477 C3• DATE SUBMITTED — CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FOR PDD / P-MUD R(PDD-H (Housing) ❑ PDD-I (industrial) ❑ PDD-B (Business) ❑ P-MUD MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Application completed in full. $200.00 application fee. r� Ten (10) copies of the Concept Plan in accordance with Section 3.4.D of the UDO. Written legal description of subject property (metes &.bounds or lot & block of subdivision, whichever is applicable). ✓ Concept Plan Information sheet completed in full. Proof that the Greenways Manager has reviewed and approved your conceptual plan. Proof that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has reviewed and approved your conceptual plan. Date of Required Preapplication Conference: DL�p �o, 7ZOD3 APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: Name(s) i U-J , — -Ph U.i -' Street Address �- City AP 4iavi State Zip Code E-Mail Address (.lis C�Svr� la,., ,1 • �vn Phone Number -S7---55' Fax Number -0 2- PROPERTY OWNER'SINFORMATION: Name(s) NlaP:6C� eA '5M S&aATi" &J NYC-- X14 FbP-&2 fI 0ISIML OW Street Address I (a 1n i;� l�,n'of Es 4 S9.u-�f )A City i State -:a Code 1?4�0_ E-Mail Address is106-oLIAl" -pO�� Phone Number -S73S Fax Number 9�4 -m'S Z This property was conveyed to owner by deed, dated 2 ACRA 5 and recorded in Volume Page of the Brazos County Deed Records. I 7/-, � Z Vo(.S31 P . 3152 t(A;110b vol.gq-Z'1 P;. 73S General Location of Property: Dc11 D� a.t1 I-ures.,�t S4 4, u1FRperS Address of Property: ax�ku1[ -Drive- Legal D,riye_Legal Description: _�� art-�a� d �y►,��PS Total Acreage: 77qy G(GI�Q Existing Zoning: Requested O Requested Zoning: = Ma A llpV tq eul Present Use of Property:_J&_ ✓1-- • Proposed Use of Property:`�irojQ_-�GcvY1C concept plan rcview08/04/03 1 of 4 CONCEPT PLAN INFORMATION Purpose and intent of proposed development, as approved by the City Council as part of the PDD zoning: i�, 0, , 'rpm SiA 9 J cow ux i'liq 56n C tau 40 Ae al-, hn List and explanation of the land uses approved by the City Council as part of the PDD zoning: U5P- -6r W5 dr.V&Pmen+-., �akn,'Wd qVIOG -GtM,,-L O-P �a4h-.. U-1 , i,oclude, landsca-ae, r erJes arief I What is the range of future building heights: I -15 1 Please provide a general statement regarding the proposed drainage: (see 0-4&C hc,4 List the general bulk or dimensional variations sought:-65ee If variations are sought, please provide a list of community benefits and I or innovative design concepts to justify the request: L—dM=.aWL v-peseA vpe 4�iS bLU4. v)�Ain j'�ip que AA Ae V i eml of A i s JenyeA ppni P jkwe-O.V%A.. 5v�to- -4eId v SC rx-seros w( 6A,> IWO AM -Vil-2- �kn-b&" ih2wieww., -tvc (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 are true and correct. IF APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A POWER OFA VEY STIA MENT FROM THE OWNER. !1'?f tf�G�; �C T�j 11 ILhz //�Z Si atureofrorapplicaml Dat e 5160M-W-fr, D(,OVWW- PAM' /4/91 M 2454 69LkE41-S7WT1QV T)( concept plan revie 8/4/2003 . .2 of 4 • Nantucket,Ltd. (16.399 acres) CONCEPT PLAN INFORMATION, continued Please provide a general statement regarding the proposed drainage: A storm sewer system will be constructed to control the drainage in accordance with the City of College Station Drainage Ordinance. Nantucket Lake serves as a detention facility for the entire Nantucket/South Hampton development. On-site detention facilities may not be necessary if the storm water runoff can be discharged through existing drainages to the lake. A drainage report will be provided to verify compliance with the City of College Station Drainage Ordinance. List the general bulk or dimensional variations sought: Setbacks will be the standard R-1 zoning distance setbacks except for lots which back up to Nantucket Drive. These lots will have a rear setback of 50' (10' from the buffer). Fencing for each lot is restricted to the home side of the buffer strip. Buffer strips shall be left in their natural state, and additional plantings are encouraged. Lots which have a drainage easement along the rear of the lot will have a setback of 10' • greater than the drainage easement. These easements and setback dimensions will be determined at the time of platting. • I ° J1 J s 6 f 1 Zo F o T sT MISTY U g I F I / ROCK J C'S' B J5R JI s A -0 \ LAKE A -0 JPEb 'S' e XX u ` A -0 —C E ' KENS I ' - J ....:..:..:.::..... a s INST ._.. ,__ -_ / NUG '`< 6 1 _..:,. (R Lot J-R 6 Zr' s F q :f. 1 A -0 _ . - _- _ . RW , 1 6 NARPER.S FERRY (al I-R 7 'm B - __ J RD °n 7 ' ROCK 6 8 A -0 n ` IJ 8 Q H ® 12 . 9 MMER C` 1 N T1 1 K 11 , 10 11 y J 2 ROCK 71 `p Rork 1 8 9 6,Ick J9f� el r9 I ( ! 5 J <4 20 A -0 y�Cy rf I 6 � N T' �,p. s s s 11 S J J ! 1 J sp 1 i 8 £ 5 sC p 5 w �c Z^p p K J I N C T / � S 2 1 H r0 I I ,621 W1INCity of College Station, Texas Case: CONCEPTQWj DE OPMENT REVIEW III SOUT MPTON III 04-83 MINUTES U S ISO Regular Meeting • Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. College Station — Council Chambers, College Station City Hall Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shafer, Commissioners White, Hall, Reynolds, Davis and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Trapani. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Maloney and Hazen. CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Economic Development Director Foutz, City Planner Kee, Assistant Development Manager George, Assistant City Engineer Smith, Graduate Civil Engineers Cotter and Thompson, Mapping Technician Griffin, Staff Planners Prochazka and Hitchcock, Planning Intern Harrell, Senior Planner Fletcher, Staff Assistants Grace and Smith, Assistant • City Attorney Nemcik, and Action Center Representative Kelley. Chairman Shafer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Reaular Aaenda. S. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for South Hampton, consisting of 16.399 acres generally located south of Nantucket Drive between State Highway 6 and Harper's Ferry Road, from A-O Agricultural Open to PDD Planned Development District. (04-82) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the Staff Report. Ms. Prochazka stated that the applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to continue the development of South Hampton, a single-family subdivision and that Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning. Ms. Prochazka explained that the PDD-H zoning that was established in 1997 expired in 2003 and the zoning reverted back to A-O. She stated that Staff views the purpose of this PDD as reinstating the previously approved land uses in the original PDD-H. Ms. Prochazka explained that the uses requested are for 43 single- family residential lots, buffers and landscape reserves, similar to those developed in South Hampton Phase 1. If the zoning is approved, the lot configuration and street layout will go before the Design Review board for approval. Finally, Ms. Prochazka pointed out that the request is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. • Commissioner White asked about the life of a PDD zoning district. Ms. Prochazka explained that under the UDO, the zoning does not expire but rather the concept P&Z Minutes April 15, 2004 Page 1 of 2 plan, which has a life of one year. At a later date, an ordinance establishing an expiration date of two years was added to PDD zonings. This particular PDD expired • two years from the date of that ordinance. All PDD zonings that predated that expiration ordinance expired August 2003. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Since no one spoke, Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Williams motioned to approve the rezoning. Commissioner White seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. FOR: Shafer, Williams, Hall, Reynolds, Davis, and White. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Trapani • • P&Z Minutes April 15, 2004 Page 2 of 2