HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/2004 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review Board Agenda
College Station Design Review Board
Friday,July 9, 2004
Administrative Conference Room
College Station N City Secretary's Office
E►nbracM the Pa%E*on%g the Adwe 1101 Texas Avenue
11:00 a.m.
1. Call to order.
2. Consider absence requests.
— George McLean
—Alan King
3. Discussion, consideration and possible action to approve meeting minutes
from June 25, 2004.
4. Discussion, consideration and possible action on fagade changes to
Antonio's Pizza by the Slice located at 104 College Main in the Northgate
Design District. (04-21 N"
5. Discussion, consideration and possible action on a concept plan for Spring
Creek Gardens off SH-6 near Greens Prairie Road. (04-114 N"
6. 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.
7. 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.
veru ian uiduu-Re: juiv u utas meeting Page 1
From: "GEORGE F. MCLEAN"<gmclean@csisd.org>
To: "Deborah Grace"<DGRACE@cstx.gov>
Date: 6/29/2004 10:42:27 AM
Subject: Re: July 9 DRB Meeting
Deborah Sorry but i have another doctors appointment on jury 9th at m.d.
anderson and i can not change the appointment.
•
•
F Deborah Grace-Re: July 9 DRB Meetinq Pa e 1
From: "alan"<alank@cox4ntemet.com>
• To: "Deborah Grace"<DGRACE@cstx.gov>
Date: 6/28/2004 6:16:46 PM
Subject: Re:July 9 DRB Meeting
nope
-----Original Message
From: "Deborah Grace"<DGRACE@cstx.gov>
To: <debbief@archone.tamu.edu>; <alank@cox4ntemet.com>;
<benning4@cox-intemet.com>;<gmclean@csisd.org>; <sshafer@rpts.tamu.edu>;
<stanton@stantonware.com>; <trainor@tca.net>
Sent: Monday, June 28,2004 1:47 PM
Subject:July 9 DRB Meeting
>I am contacting you know because I will be on vacation all next week.
>Please let me know if you can attend this meeting. If I do not hear
>from you Susan Hazlett will be calling you next week. Susan will be
>handling the meeting for me. Thanks much.
>"No matter how little money and how few possessions you own, having a
• >dog makes you rich."
> —Louis Sabin
>Deborah Grace><>
>Staff Assistant
>City of College Station
> Development Services
> 1101 Texas Avenue
>College Station,Texas 77840
>979-764-3570 Main
>979-764-3784 Desk
>979-764-3496 Fax
>dgrace@cstx.gov
>www.cstx.gov
>College Station. Embracing the past, Exploring the future.
•
Minutes
Design Review Board
June 25, 2004
11:00 AM
Board Members Present: Alan King, Scott Shafter, Dr.Tabb&Bill Trainor
Board Members Absent: Stanton Ware,George McLean&Richard Benning
Staff Present: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace,Staff Planner's Jennifer`
Reeves&Jennifer Prochazka,Planning Intern Crissy Perez
Others Present:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 Call to order.
Mr. Shafter called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Consider absence requests.
George McLean
Stanton Ware
Richard Benning
Mr. King made the motion to approve the absence requests Dr. Tubb seconded the
motion, which passed unopposed(4-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to
approve meeting minutes from June 11,2004
Dr. Tabb made the motion to approve the minutes Mr. King seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed(4-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Discussion of changes to the Northgate Ordinance.
Kim Foutz discussed what changes are being considered. She stated that the Northgate
Ordinance will be taken separately to DRB and to the Planning&Zoning Commission.
Ms. Foutz asked the Board to give her feedback on NG-2.
DRB Minutes June 25,2005 Page 1 of 3
• Mr. King stated there is a significant outcry and need from the Northgate users for public
restroom facilities. Ms. Foutz replied that they have and will continue to ask Council for
funding. She has also encouraged them to contact the Parks Board.
Mr. King stated that in the past the dissemination of information to the Northgate
Merchants has not been as good as hoped. Ms. Foutz stated that they would be sure to
pass along the information once everything is finished.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration, discussion and possible action on fagade
changes to Wells Fargo Cyber Bank located at 321 University Drive in Northgate.
(04-126).
Crissy Perez, Planning Intern, presented the staff report and told the Board that the
applicant is proposing the following changes to the building:
►move storefront out to sidewalk
► the door and exterior walls will be same as existing material
The existing door of the building is currently recessed from the majority of the fagade
and the surrounding building. The applicant is proposing to extend the door so that the
storefront is uniformly aligned. The proposed changes are in accordance with the
Northgate Design Guidelines.
The applicant is not proposing any changes to existing signage.
The Board discussed the site plan and proposed fagade changes.
Mr. Shafer stated that he understood the project is small, but he did not feel that the
applicant provided very good information about what they wanted to do. Ms. Perez
stated that they did contact the applicant asking for a picture and the drawing is what they
sent.
Mr. Trainor made the motion to approve the facade changes as presented. Mr. ging
seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO 6: 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.
No items were discussed.
. DRB Minutes June 25,2004 Page 2 of 3
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6:, Adjourn.
Mr. Sing made the motion to adjourn. Dr. Tabb seconded the motion, which passed
unopposed(4-0).
APPROVED:
Scott Shafer,Chairman
ATTEST:
Deborah Grace,Staff Assistant
DRB Minutes June 25,2004 Page 3 of 3
HIGHLIGHTS NORTHGATE ORDINANCE CHANGES
Previous UDO chanter.
• Commercial now allowed in all three districts
• Maximum setback
• Minimum of two story development with 1:1 FAR ratio
• Dimensional table
• Holding status- all other changes were reserved to be handled by future revision
DRB Feedback:
• Need DRB feedback on proposed provisions
• Need DRB feedback on how far we want to go with making NG-2 fit the overall
district philosophy. Currently permissive,but not required.
Uses•
No changes except NG-2 may develop under NG-1 standards(encourage TND)
DRB Review
Projects conforming to all the requirements do not go to DRB -predictability.
Projects that do not conform 100%must go to DRB for specific variances.
Examples:
• reduction in the floor to area ratio
• increase or decrease of setback requirements.
• increase in distance requirement for shared and/or off-site parking.
• decrease in residential parking requirements
• alternatives to landscape/streetscape standards for existing structure(s)
• alternatives to building design standards
• relief from sip requirements
• increase in the square footage allowed for a single retail establishment
• reduction in the number of dwelling units required per acre
• increase in the%of nonresidential square footage allowed in NG-3
• interpretations on building materials and colors
• waiver in parking lot dimension requirements
• allow office as a first floor, ground level use(on Church Ave)
Additional Use Standards
NG-1:
• Buildings fronting on Church,University, and College Main(from University
to Church),must be designed to accommodate 100%of its primary fagade as
ground level retail/restaurants. Office allowed with DRB approval.
• On all other streets,a minimum of 50%of the ground floor shall be
nonresidential.
• • Free standing retail is prohibited.
• Maximum allowable area of a single retail establishment is 5,000 square feet.
NG-2:
• Minimum number of dwelling units/acre: 26
• May be reduced by DRB to 18 units/acre if includes nonresidential uses that
occupy 30%of the total square footage
NG-3 Residential
• nonresidential use(s) permitted to occupy all or part of square footage of the
ground floor if remaining s.f is residential,but no more than 34%of total s.f
of building
• maximum of 5,000 s.f single retail establishment
• Free standing retail is prohibited
ParkinC;
• Located at side or rear of building only
• Screened-wall,opaque fence,berm, landscaping options
• • Non-residential:No minimum spaces for NG-1 and NG-3
• Residential-75%of spaces under regular requirements for NG-1 &NG-3
• Reductions in spaces-DRB review,parking study,limit on reduction
• No interior islands in NG-1 &NG-3
• In NG-2,must meet all regular code requirements unless building under NG-1 use
and standards
• Bicycle parking standards,design,and number
Landscaping
• None required in NG-1 and N - ...streetscape and street trees required
• Landscaping and streetscaping r uired in NG-2 unless developed under NG-1
standards
Streetscane
• Benches-design standards(color,design)and number required
• Street lights-design standards(color,height,illumination) and spacing required
• Street trees-tree wells or masonry above ground planters,spacing 251, 3" caliper,
maintenance, irrigation, City approved species list
Siefts
• No proposed changes,with intention of addressing in future
• Currently, attached only signs are allowed in NG-1 &NG-3
• Currently,NG-2 is attached signs only but can be C-1 sign standards
• Sidewalks:
• Required along both sides of all right-of-ways.
• Stamped,colored concrete
• may be located in the public right-of-way.
Eln the event that sidewalks exist prior to development or redevelopment,the
sidewalk must be upgraded to meet all standards.
•
10 m width on University Drive and Church Avenue
•
Vin width on First Street,Boyett, College Main, and Nagle streets
• 6'width on all other streets
• located directly adjacent to the back of curb
Buildine Design
• In lieu of,not in addition to Non-Residential Architectural Standards in Section
7.9
• Nonresidential structures-60%transparent on the ground floor fronting a public
right-of-way(between Y-8").
Building Facades:
• All visible facades include features similar/complementary to the front fagade
• Fagade Articulation/Architectural Relief:
Maximum of 20' of horizontal and/or vertical distance of exterior wall shall be
permitted without facade articulation/architectural relief for any facade facing a
street, sidewalk,or public area.
• Minimum of two design elements: canopies,projections or indentations,
vertical expression of structural bays,pilasters,columns,bay windows,
balconies that extend from the building,recessed entries, stoo s, rches,
arcades,awnings,boxed windows,
• Reflective glass &metal not permitted,except metal awnings and roofs.
• Wood and metal are permitted for building accents not to exceed 10%of
fWade s.f.
• Continuous "ribbon"window systems and glazed curtain walls not permitted.
Glass shall be clear or tinted,not reflective.
• Exterior building colors other than earth-tone shall be permitted on accent
details only. No neons and florescents. Earth-tone colors include browns,
• natural greens,creams, and dark reds.
• • Roof colors shall be earth-tone.
• Building materials: fired brick,poured-in-place concrete(specifically
excluding concrete block that is visible to the eye),split face concrete,Exterior
Insulated Finishing System(EIFS), stone, stucco. No aggregate concrete
materials,=or unfinished concrete block are specifically prohibited.
At least fifty(5001e)percent of the exterior cladding, excluding door and
window openings,of all exterior walls fronting,or visible from public streets
shall be brick or natural stone construction.
• Canopies/Awnings:
Colors- earth-toned in color. Bright neon or fluorescent colors shall not be
permitted except on lettering.
Materials-Canopies/awnings shall consist of cloth, canvas,or standing seam
metal material.
• The primary fagade of all buildings shall front a public street unless the
primary facade fronts a plaza,green,or courtyard. All buildings that have right
of way frontage on Church Avenue shall orient its primary entrance facade
toward Church Avenue. All buildings that have right of way frontage on
University Drive shall orient its primary entrance facade toward University
Drive.
• • Parking structures fronting the public right-of-ways of Church Avenue and
College Main(from University Drive to Cross Street) shall be designed to
accommodate ground level retail. This ground level floor may also be used for
office or civic uses.
Maximum frontage of parking structures along any one block face shall be 200'
• Steel parking garages and steel guard cables on garage facades are prohibited.
Outside storage/Outside sales:
Design standards;made of same material as building; size limitations
Buffering_
Not applicable
Dimensional standards
• Increase maximum setback to 12-15'
• • Only allow single story with certain conditions&approval of DRB
r
i
NG-1 NG-3 WPC
Minimum Lot Area None None 2,400 SF
Minimum Lot Width None None 24'
Minimum Lot Depth None None 100'
Minimum Front Setback None None 25'
Minimum Side Setback None None None (A)
Minimum Side Street Setback None None IS'
Minimum Rear Setback None None 1S'
Maximum Setback from a Right-of-Way (B) None
Maximum Height None None None
Minimum Height 2 Stories (D) 2 Stories(D) None
Minimum Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) 1 (E) 1 (E) None
II
J
r
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
I'I STAFF REPORT
for
ANTONIO'S PIZZA BY THE SLICE (SDSP) (04-021)
Project Manager: Molly Hitchcock Date: July 9, 2004
E-mail: mhkchcock@cstx.gov
In the design districts (including the WPC, NG-9, NG-2, and NG-3 districts), all substantial
maintenance (including but not limited to rehabilitation, fagade 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-1 Core Northgate
Location: 104 College Main
Applicant: Steven Reeves, Business Owner
Item Summary: This property was presented to the Design Review Board on September 23,
2003, where a 32 sq.ft. sign was approved for the front fagade recess. On April 15, 2004,
requests to change the and trim colors to maroon, green, and/or red were tabled. Board
members recommended that the property owner reconsider trim colors, not change the tile,
clean the brick, work with the windows to lighten the space, and window signage. The Board
also responded positively to the idea of a single pedestrian sign.
At this time,the applicant is again requesting to rehabilitate the front fagade of the building by
changing the the color and repainting the door and window trim to red, green, or maroon. Also
proposed is an approximately 5 sq.ft. neon window sign and two 10 in. x 5 ft. wooden
pedestrian signs.
Item Background: This property is considered Medium Priority by the Northgate Historic
Resources Study. The UDO requires properties with such a designation to be treated using
methods and materials in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation. The Standards state:
1. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
2. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
3. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature,the new feature will match
the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
• The tile at the entry is considered a distinctive, character-defining feature of the building.
Depending on the age of the file 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.
Additionally, the Northgate Design Guidelines recommend that the color scheme for a building
should consider the context of the entire block or area as well as creating a coordinated color
scheme for the building. The guidelines also suggest that bright colors should be reserved for
accents only. if replacement of the tile is approved, these guidelines should be considered as
an appropriate finish color for the entry is discussed.
Proposed color samples will be available at the meeting.
Items/Issues for Review:
1. Removal and replacement of tile
2. Door and window trim color
3. Window signage
4. Pedestrian signage
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
3. DRB minutes from April 23, 2004
4. Proposed elevations
5. Sign graphics
•
lo's Design a
District Buildinnd sign Re TlicLA ation-Revised.doc PaLe�
222.
FOR Off=0)(Ly
CASE NO.
DATE susunnm
DESIGN DISTRICT BUILDING & SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Design Review Board
(Check one) X NG-1 NG-2 NG-3 WPC Ov
Staff Review Only
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Application completed In full.(Revised)
$200.00 Special District Application fee(Previously submitted)
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)
_X_Color and material samples. (Previously submitted.)
If attached signage Is proposed, provide ten (10)copies of a building elevation showing sign
placement
Date of Preapplication Conference:
NAME OF BUSINESS Antonio's Pizza by the Slice
ADDRESS 104 College Main
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Boyett,Block 2,Lot 4,5
PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Restaurant
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY Restaurant
APPLICANTS INFORMATION:
Name Steven Reves–Business Owner
Street Address 7610 Post Rd.
City N.Wriaston state Rhode Island Zip Code 02852
E-Mail Address steverftantonlost)lzzas.com
Phone Number 401-583-0166 Fax Number
PLANNER'S INFORMATION:
Name Jessica Jimmerson–Plannina and Land Use Solutions
Street Address 3211 Westwood Main
City Bryan State TX Zip Cade 77807
E-Mail Address J10DIUSDIannina.com Tlease email staff comments,etc.),
Phone Number 224-4340 Fax Number 775-5107
6/13/03 Page I of 3
Sion B!Ae��WAwlicatlon-Revised.doc Page 2
Melissa-Rod' -Akon16s" and 2eFs
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name Dam Hornak,
Street Address 242QLWoolsev Canvon Rd.SPC 44
CRY Canoqa Park State CA Zip Code 91304-1174
E-Mail Address
Phone Number Fax Number
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR CHANGES
Antonio's has two different steps they would like to take to rehabilitate the storefront and two additional types
of signage they would like considered.
Storefront
1. Antonio's would like to clean up front of building by repainting door&window trim green,red or maroon to
match signage and/or interior colors. Mention was made at the previous DRB meeting of whether to Include
the drainage downspout,awning and supports In the color change. While open to the possibility U the DRB
feels It Is necessary,at this time Antonio's would prefer to concentrate on changing just the door and window
trim colors.
2. Having seriously considered the feedback received from the DRB at the previous meeting Antonio's still has
concerns about the look and condition of the black file along the storefront and requests the DRB allow
replacement of the black the with another color tile,such as green,red or maroon,to match the color of the
door and window trim.
Antonlo's has taken several steps to Improve the look and condition of the file,Including hand scrubbing. The
fact remains that many of the tiles are chipped,cracked or broken and in need of repair or replacement.
Understanding the Historic designation of the building and the necessary consideration of The Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation,Antonio's Is not requesting to change the layout or overall character of
the storefront. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation do allow for replacement of the
damaged ties with a like or similar material. Antonio's Is simply asking to change the color of the tile. This will
not substantially change the feel of the storefront.It will however refurbish and help to unify the look of the
storefront,similar to the rehabilitation done to the adjacent Campus Photo Building several years ago.
Note:
A. Also recommended at the previous DRB meeting was the replacement of the damaged front windows. The
business owner has pursued this option and has ordered new glass. The glass company is studying the
options available to physically replace the glass. The method of Installation of the existing glass may not allow
6113/03 Page 2 of 3
tion Revised.doc
lleliers-Antonio's besi ri District Buildri and Si n Review 1lca
for removal and replacement without additional damage to the file base.
B.The owner is considering the replacement of the transom windows.He would,however,like to concentrate
on the changes already proposed.
Signage
9
1. Antonio's would like to supplement the signage by adding a neon light spelling out Antonio's on a diagonal
In the upper portion of the center window.
2. They would also like to pursue the DRB's suggestion of using pedestrian oriented signage under the
awning perpendicular to the building,similar to others in Northgate. They are requesting one at each end of
the awning.
❑ ATTACHED SIGN AND/OR ❑ 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.
Mav 21g.2004
Signature of Owner,Agent or Applicant Date
6/13/03 Page 3 of 3
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties(1995),Natio... Page 1 of 2
lips Technical Preservation Services
for HISHRIC BUILDINGS National Park Service
for lour HWodc
The Secretary of the hrtedor's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,1995
Standards for Rehabilitation
~� REHAMILITATION I5 DEFINED AS
the act or process of making possible
a compatible use for a property
through repair, alterations, and
additions while preserving those
portions or features which convey its
historical, cultural, or architectural
values.
M1111
UMMMAN
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new
a Wskins use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials,
w Mot Mit Dt features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
M�itiNtClt 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and
M E-f1�Ai{ preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of
features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a
property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical
development, such as adding conjectural features or elements
from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in
their own right will be retained and preserved.
S. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction
techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a
property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than
replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires
replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will,match
`the old In design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be
undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that
cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place.
If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial
relationships that characterize the property. The new work will
be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the
historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the Integrity of the property and its
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/secstan5.htm 8/27/2003
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties(1995),Natio... Page 2 of 2
environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be
undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed In the future,
the essential form and Integrity of the historic property and Its
environment would be unimpaired.
REHABILITATION AS A TREATMENT. When repair and replacement
of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions
to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when Its
depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate,
Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment.
i
http.//www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/sbcstaa5.htm 8/27/2003
AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Discussion, consideration and possible action on the
rehabilitation of front fagade 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 file at the
entry Is considered distinctive, character-defining feature of the building. Depending on
the age of the file and previous finishes for the fagade, removing and replacing the file
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 the 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
the 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.
i
Home of Texas A&M University
R:VinTRTZLTR\PRODVZ2004UP0009564.DOC
Apol 15,2004
•
Ms. Jimmerson asked the Board if they would be open to the the being resurfaced in
some way that would not damage the file 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 tie 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).
•
Home of Texas A&M University
R:\HnTR\PZLTR%PROD1PZ2004%P0009564.DOC
April 15,2004
. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
PDD CONCEPT PLAN
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Molly Hitchcock Date: July 9, 2004
E-mail: mhkchoock@cstx.gov
For
SPRING CREEK CS DEVELOPMENT(CPDD) (04-114)
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, open space, and land buffers
Location: 4300 SH 6 South, approximately%mile north of Greens Prairie Road, west of SH 6
Applicant: Wallace Phillips for Spring Creek CS Development, CS
Item Summary: The adopted purpose and intent of this PDD is"a single family residential
• community with amenities that provide for an enhanced quality of life". The applicant has proposed
52 residential lots on 9.698 acres (5.36 dwelling units/acre)with 0.719 acres of common areas that
will be used for traffic calming, landscaping, drainage, and pedestrian connectivity to the adjoining
neighborhood. The concept also shows the extension of a residential street(Whispering Creek)
from Spring Creek Townhomes into and through the proposed development with a landscape
easement on one side. Landscaping is also proposed along Spring Garden Drive (the ability to
plant in the right-of-way will require a Public Improvement in the Public Right-of-Way Permit).
Homes will vary from 15 to 35 feet in height. The subdivision will utilize existing drainage facilities.
The applicant has requested that the following residential dimensional standards be considered
with this concept plan:
Required Requested
Front setback 25 ft. 20 ft.
Side setback 7.5 ft. 5 ft.
Lot area 5000 sq.ft. 4500 sq.ft.
Lot width 50 ft. 45 ft.
A modification to the required block length will also be requested, but as it is a variance to a
Subdivision Regulation, it must be decided by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The DRB
may make a recommendation on this item.
Parks and Recreation Board Recommendations: Land has already been dedicated through
the Castlegate Subdivision.
• Greenways Program Manager Recommendations: N/A
Administrator Recommendations: Staff recommends approval 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. June 10, 2004 City Council minutes—Not ready at time of packet preparation—may be
available at meeting.
•
FO OFM ICE UI
CASE-11 -I
DATE SUBMITTED.4--
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FOR PDD / P-MUD
PDD-H (Housing) o PDD-I (industrial) o PDD-B(Business) 0 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 3.4.13 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.
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.
Has not been submifted to Greenewajeor Parks.
Date of Required Preapplication Conference: March 1. 2004
APPLICANT'S INFORMATION:
Name(s) Sprina Creek CS Develourrient. Ltd.—Wallace Phillips
Street Address 4490 Castleaate Drive City Colieqe Station
State Texas Zip Code 77845 E-Mail Address
Phone Number (979)690-7250 Fax Number(979)690-1041
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name(s) SDrina Creek CS Development. Ltd.—Wallace Phillips
Street Address 4490 Castleoate Drive City Colleae Station
State Texas Zip Code 77845 E-Mail Address
Phone Number (979)690-7250 Fax Number(979)690-1041
This property was conveyed to owner by deed, dated AUqust 29. 2003 and recorded In Volume- 5583
Page 120 of the Brazos County Deed Records.
General Location of Property: Y2 mi. North of Greens Prairie Rd. W. of SH 6
Address of Property: 4300 State Hiahwav 6 - South
Legal Description: See Attached metes and bounds
Total Acreage: 9.698
Existing Zoning: A-0 Requested Zoning: PDD
Present Use of Property: Aqricultural/Sinale-family residence
Proposed Use of Property: Sinale-family residential
6113103 Page 1 of 1
CONCEPT PLAN INFORMATION
epurpose and intent of proposed development, as approved by the City Council asart :of the PDD zoning:
9
The purpose and intent of this Planned Development District is a Sinale-familv residential community with
amenities for an enhanced auality of life.
List and explanation of the land uses approved by the City Council as part of the PDD zoning: Sinale-family,
residential. open saace and landscape buffer.
What is the range of future building.heights: 15 to 35 feet
Please provide a general statement regarding the proposed drainage:A*Yrn SGOe,+r5Y5km tai 11 bt
ca+n41'rke+eA-to Coro 1-IW, dr+v rnaep-Crorn 4ht JeVe(verif artcl OkiSc{1ar%e.44io ruh or i
*We ft4inAruino a.(ou-te4 adjc&rA+}o 4k s{-mtk. A drainasa re{w + wM be pwvtcjed��SeG klc
List the general bulk or dimensional variations sought: Buildina setback line distances. block lenath.lot size
and dimensions. See attached list of Meritorious Modifications.
If variations are sought, please provide a list of community benefits and/or innovative design concepts to
Oustify the request: See attached"Justification for PDD Zonina".
(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 OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER.
4-_Z3-off
Signature of owner or appli t Date
A-o Verify-}he propose4 c(eve(mpm.eQf- i,6 ;n comP(iO4M wi-Ni 4-he G+y
• o� C,ot1®a�e Sk«,k�vn bra.��a�e 4rd�na,ncl� •
6/13/03 2 of 4
VQ
�i , �►►.0► a
,4F '.W
��','� ,-� �� fit►.'!!;y, � �
41- 11
y�.
�...�� •