HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/2008 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review Board File Copy
( AGENDA
"" "' C "� �" �'� 11" DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Friday, April 25, 2008, 11:00 a.m.
Administrative Conference Room
College Station City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Call to Order
2. Consideration, discussion and possible action on Absence Request.
• Nancy Sawtelle - March 24, 2008 meeting
3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting Minutes.
• March 24, 2008
4. Presentation, possible action and discussion for a waiver to Building Design
Considerations for Historic Properties in the Northgate Districts for the Corner Bar
located at 401 University Drive. Item # 08- 00500043 (CH)
5. Presentation, possible action and discussion for waivers to the Building Design
Considerations for Historic Properties and to the Sidewalk Standards in the Northgate
Districts for the structure located at 106 College Main. Item # 08- 00500079 (MR)
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding recruitment and appointment of
new Design Review Board members. (MH)
7. Possible action and discussion on future agenda items - A Design Review Board Member
may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific
factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation
shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent
meeting.
8. Adjourn.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 551.071; possible action.
The Design Review Board may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and
contemplated litigation subject or attorney - client privileged information. After executive
session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney - client
privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Design Review Board
meeting, an executive session will be held.
Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the Design Review Board of the City
of College Station, Texas will be held on the Friday, April 25, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. at
the City Hall Administrative Conference Room, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station,
Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda
1
Posted this the day of , 2008 at p.m.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By
Connie Hooks, City Secretary
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said
Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at
City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website,
www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at
all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on , 2008 and remained so
posted continuously for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said
meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station
City Hall on the following date and time: by
Dated this day of , 2008.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of , 2008.
Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas
My commission expires:
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any
request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To
make arrangements call (979) 764 -3517 or (TDD) 1- 800 - 735 -2989. Agendas may be
viewed on www.cstx.gov.
2
4 rtrill11111111
CITY OF COLLEGE S IxI'1oN
Plafao ing cy Development Ser`eir
Minutes
Design Review Board
Monday, March 24, 2008
City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
11:00 AM
Board Members Present: Chairman John Nichols, Ward Wells, Alan King, and Hunter
Goodwin
Staff Present: Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Senior Planner
Jennifer Prochazka, Staff Planners Crissy Hartl and Lauren
Hovde, and Staff Assistant Nicole Padilla
Others Present: Mike Logan, Barry Ivins, and Andrew Hawkins
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order.
Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Presentation, possible action, and discussion for a waiver to
Building Design Considerations for Historic Properties in the Northgate Districts for
the Corner Bar located at 401 University Drive. Case #08- 00500043 (CH)
Crissy Hartl, Staff Planner, presented the item stating that the applicant is requesting waivers
from the building design standards for historic properties to create a rooftop bar to the Sparks
Building located in Northgate. The applicant has proposed to use the roof as a bar and
seating area for their customers which will be guarded from the edge of the building by a 50"
tall metal rail.
Andrew Hawkins, the applicant's architect, answered questions in general about the
building's current and proposed structure.
Hunter Goodwin, Alan King, and Ward Wells expressed concern about the proposed use of
stucco on a historic building and suggested that the applicant propose an alternate material
3
that would create a better transition in material from the original building to the new roof
area.
Board Members entertained a possibility of creating a parapet to discourage people from
climbing over the metal railing near the edge of the building. However, Molly Hitchcock,
Planning Administrator, explained that staff had originally discouraged the applicant from
pursuing a parapet because in the future a rail could be removed to get back to the original
structure of the building, whereas creating a parapet would permanently alter the building.
Hunter Goodwin motioned to postpone action on the item requesting that the applicant come
back to the Design Review Board with design changes that particularly address the material
being proposed, demonstrating as much character and style that can be provided, bordering
the beams that would be facing the street. Alan King seconded; motion passed (4 -0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding sign
details and building colors for Grand Station Entertainment, located at 2400 Earl
Rudder Freeway South in the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District. Case #08- 00500023 (JP)
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the item stating that the applicant is requesting
to repaint the building using Beguiling Mauve (SW 6269) and Sensational Sand (SW 6094),
install four (4) building signs, and a new face for the existing freestanding signage.
Alan King expressed concern about the current color of the building and the building's high
visibility from State Highway 6.
Board Members expressed further concern that the Beguiling Mauve (SW 6269), because it
is such a light color, would bleed into the brick color and emit a more pinkish hue. They
proposed using a deeper color, suggesting the use of Soulmate (SW 6270), to enhance the
contrast of the colors on the building.
Alan King motioned to approve the Sensational Sand (SW 6094) as the base color for the
building, deny the use of Beguiling Mauve (SW 6269), but approve the use of Soulmate (SW
6270), approve the two colors as submitted for the four (4) building signs plus white, and
approve the newly proposed backlit channel letters or the box as it was originally submitted.
Hunter Goodwin seconded; motion passed (4 -0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Possible action and discussion on future agenda items — A
Design Review Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not
been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing
policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject
on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
Molly Hitchcock, Planning Administrator, stated that an Agenda Item will be created for the
next meeting to discuss the current status of the search for new Design Review Board
Members.
4
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Adjourn
Hunter Goodwin motioned for adjournment. Ward Wells seconded the motion; which passed
(4 -0).
Meeting adjourned at 12:23 a.m.
APPROVED:
John Nichols, Chairman
ATTEST:
Nicole Padilla, Staff Assistant
5
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Crissy Hartl, AICP, Staff Planner Report Date: April 17, 2008
Email: chartl @cstx.gov Meeting Date: April 25, 2008
For
CORNER BAR (DRB) (08- 00500043)
Zoning District: NG -1 Core Northgate
Location: 401 University Drive
Applicant: Barry Ivins, Business Manager
Item Summary: The applicant is requesting waivers for relief from the building
design standards for historic properties to add a rooftop bar to the Sparks Building.
Item Background: This item was first presented to the Design Review Board on
Monday, March 24 The applicant is proposing a building plan which would utilize the
roof of the Sparks Building, located at the intersection of College Main and University
Drive. The applicant was given direction on how the building elevations should be
revised. The revisions have been submitted for the Design Review Board's review.
The revised building plan includes the construction of a brick veneer structure on the
roof as well as a seating area for customers, which will be guarded by a 50" tall metal
rail. The 2006 International Building Code requires a minimum of 42" guard. The
applicant has proposed to recess the guardrail 2' from the building edge and use a paint
color from the City's approved color palette, which resembles the color black. The
building elevations also include a new exposed steel structure at the base of the addition
which will border the entire roof line of the building. It has been determined that the
building structure will not be visible from the rights -of -way of the surrounding streets, and
is therefore not a part of the subject waiver request.
According to Section 5.6.B.3.b Building Design Considerations for Historic Properties -
Standards, the rehabilitation of historic properties, are subject to the following standards:
1. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. Distinctive
materials or features and spatial relationships that characterize a property shall
not be removed or altered.
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.
Issues /Items for Review: In relation to the rooftop fencing, the Design Review Board
may grant relief from the building design standards for historic properties if they find the
proposed building additions generally conform to Section 5.6.B.3.b Standards and the
historical appearance and architectural character of the building are preserved.
Home of Texas A &M University
6
Supporting Materials:
1. Application
2. Draft minutes from March 24, 2008 (included in packet)
3. Copy of proposed building plans and elevations (included in packet)
Home of Texas A &M University
7
- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
/1 ce - -d ��
CASE NO.: �/� ^��----'
2��"�
DATE SUBMITTED: �� �� �, 8
CITY 0F COLLEGE STATION / /1,/l/ —
m"""ng /er
'+upp�'^���
/
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD �^ �
APPEALS & WAIVERS ��PPU APPLICATION ���
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
0/ Application Fee
' Application completed in fuJi
Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation
dnamhnga, sign details and floor plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of
any extra materials required.
Date of Preapplication Conference:
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Barry |vins
Street Address 401 University Dr. City College Station
State TX Zip Code 77840 E-Mail Address
Phone Number 979.22O.6999 Fax Number 979.680.9898
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name Shelton Familv Partnership Edo Fred Sheltoni
Street Address 35O1GiUonAvenue City Dallas
State TX Zip Code 75205 E-Mail Address
Phone Number . Fax Number 214,526.2366
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
Address 401 University Drive
Lot 1.2.3, part 4 Block 8ubdivimionBoYett Subdivision
Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision
CURRENT ZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NG-1
/\PPEAL/WA|VBR REQUESTED: (Circle One)
NRA Requirements iNorthgate Requireme Buffer Requirements
Driveways WPC Parking Site Plan Review Criteria
Krenek Tap Corridor Overlay Distrrct
Other:
Explanation uf appeal/waiver request. Definition of what maintains the h\atVriccharacter ufthe
building facade.
Applicable Ordinance Section Wavier 5.6.14.a— Requirement 5.8.6.3.b ,
Page 1c*2
8
GENERAL APPEALSANA1VER REQUEST
The foliowing specific variation fram the ordinance is requested:
The proposed railing (required by code) can be placed near the edge of the existing wafl plane and
not be considered as detracting from the "historic" facade of the building. It can be clearly
represented as an alteration to the facade and not part of the original facade.
The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other than
financial hardship is/are:
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
Setting back the railings & structures to be aut of view from the surrounding streets/right of ways.
An acceptable material for the railing that would allow it to be placed at or near the edge of the
faade and stffl maintain the historc" character of the facade.
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits
attached hereto are tru ttached hereto are correct and comptete.
L .A. �� » � / Ai. 1 »�� ��. �� , i��� ��:~ ^«��� ����
4.ignad v e and Tit Date
`
Page xofz
9
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Matt Robinson, Staff Planner Report Date: April 15, 2008
Email: mrobinson @cstx.gov Meeting Date: April 25, 2008
For
106 COLLEGE MAIN (AW) (08- 00500079)
Zoning District: NG -1, Core Northgate
Location: 106 College Main
Applicant: John T. Rhodes, RAI Designs, Inc.
Item Summary: The applicant is requesting waivers for relief from the building design
standards for historic properties and to the Sidewalk Standards for Northgate in order to
renovate the facade and add an additional doorway to the structure located 106 College Main
(Hookah Station).
Item Background: The applicant has proposed a renovation of the front facade of Hookah
Station, an existing night club located at 106 College Main in the building that was formerly
occupied by Holick's. According to the Northgate Historic Resources Survey, the subject
property was originally built in 1931 and is listed as a medium priority property for preservation.
The proposed renovation of the facade includes the removal of the recessed entry to create a
flat storefront with an additional doorway. The existing front facade consists of a single recessed
doorway with display windows on each side. According to Section 5.6.B.3.b Building Design
Considerations for Historic Properties Standards, the rehabilitation of historic properties are
subject to the following standards:
1. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. Distinctive materials
or features and spatial relationships that characterize a property shall not be removed or
altered.
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.
In addition, according to Section 5.6.B.8 Sidewalk Standards, all proposed development,
redevelopment, rehabilitation and facade projects in Northgate shall also include upgrading
sidewalks to meet the current standards. Sidewalks along College Main are required to be 10
feet wide and they must be constructed of colored brick pavers as approved in the College
Station Design Standards: Northgate. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the sidewalk
improvement requirement to allow the property owner to continue with the existing 8'6"
sidewalk.
The applicant is not offering any alternatives to the requested waivers above.
10
Issues /Items for Review:
1. As to the request to change the front facade of a building that is prioritized for historical
preservation, the DRB may provide relief from the building design standards for historic
properties if the proposed building improvements or additions generally conform to Section
5.3.B.3 Standards and they preserve the historical appearance and architectural character
of the building.
2. As to the request to maintain the current sidewalk and not provide additional width,
the DRB may provide relief from the sidewalk width standard when bringing an existing
sidewalk up to current standard where existing physical conditions prohibit the sidewalk
expansion.
Staff Recommendations:
1. Staff believes the proposal to remove the recessed entry into the 1931 building will greatly
diminish the historic character of the property. The recessed entry is a feature that was
appropriate for the time period in the 1930's. Removal of the recessed entry would remove a
distinctive feature and a spatial relationship that characterizes the property. While
alterations may be acceptable to rehabilitate a property for a compatible use, the standard is
that the historic and architectural character of a property will be retained. We recommend
against any waiver that would alter the storefront of the building.
2. Under the condition that the recessed entry to the building remain, Staff agrees that
additional sidewalk width should not be required. If the applicant is granted a waiver to
change this distinctive element of the facade, then the historical significance of the lower
front facade is compromised and could be redesigned to accommodate a greater sidewalk
width. Under this situation, Staff would recommend the whole sidewalk width be required.
Supporting Materials:
1. Application
2. Copy of proposed elevation / site plan
3. Current site photos of 106 College Main
4. Historic Photo provided at meeting
11
fk#0"" FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO.: 0 ( 15 -7 1 6 1
DATE SUBMITTED: 31 c ‘
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Piannrng & Development Semmes q\2-C.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1
APPEALS & WAIVERS APPLICATION
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
/ 50 Application Fee VA
IV Application completed in full.
_ Additional materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation
drawings, sign details and floor plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of
any extra materials required.
Date of Preapplication Conference: 3 2 7 0
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Z3, r P3
Street Address 1 1 4 CO 64,- rck- 1 %<:;) 0 3 City 0 a 11
State Te)(4%iS Zip Code "7 ??C) Z E-Mail Address j1,hodeSPe-ot S. 0 0 )1
Phone Number '7q - '& Fax Number 4171- g9 4 -3 3
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name Melfk e d r
Street Address City
State Zip Code E-Mail Address
Phone Number Cl 7 7'+ 0 C.) Fax Number
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
Address lOt CoU
Lot Block '27 Subdivision
Description if there is no Lot, Block and Subdivision
CURRENT ZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
APPEAL/WAIVER REQUESTED: (Circle One)
NRA Requirements ateRequirem Buffer Requirements
Driveways WPC Parking Site Plan Review Criteria
Krenek Tap Corridor Overlay District
Other:
Explanation of appeal/waiver request: Chim-er- - 1%) rc r? a
ne4 j-st cAff40
Applicable Ordinance Section: T. & 3 1, , 6, s.
Page 1 of 2
12
GENERAL APPEALS/WAIVER REQUEST
The following specific variation from the ordinance is requested:
The specific variations to the ordinance 5.6.B.3.b that we are requesting is for the
owner to be allowed to clean up and renovate the front facade facing college main. In
doing this we are also seeking a request to ordinance 5.6.8.8 and allow 8'-6" relief
instead of 10%0 as stated in the ordinance. This entails removing the existing storefront
glass and restoring it to more closely resemble style or architecture pre 1970. Color
schemes and all architectural elements will follow the Unified development Ordinance.
The unnecessary hardship (s) involved by meeting the provisions of the ordinance other
than financial hardship is/are:
There are a couple of hardships that the current building owner faces. The first and
most important in my opinion is the great fire hazard that exists during peak operating
times. Crowd control and allowing a smooth flow of pedestrian traffic does not exist
very well at the present time. Secondly the exterior of the building has been neglected
for several years. Due to this the rotting wood and dilapidated features brings down the
entire aesthetic quality of the Northgate businesses.
The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible:
I do not see any alternatives that would protect the well being of patrons and allow
the appearance of the building to still fit the architecture style of the Northgate area at this
time.
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and
exhibits attached hereto are true, correct and complete.
. „a6/3/..ric:
gnature and itle
Date
)44 3— 3 i -0
13
1 U
Z
W
O
g ,1 $ /) 1 '
7 1 b ra • .. n Zvi
, .' O O ;41'
;II 1 11 ■ . Y i yy gg " � F ��
11 u z
e�
E-
k.
1.
r . w
° gg mH O n
r�1
N
, / r ___ , -,
r .,,,....„,\\,, \‘‘....„.....,...
i\
--1 V v
V .
22
K Q 4 ci
�` - t t ,1 I ®_ -- - QQW re
1 , n u o 2 W
�. 1a 9 ° a a m
' - 1 , W m LL Z m O
}�
ni
5222 0 z 0 0
ifiiiil • � I - z 4 0 p w w o
d W W } LL w LL C
p Z
w N a Z 1W-I o u.
U
re W W J _i
i 14 oo3 ii j l —{I l F-. 88 J W 11 J Z
11 � ® 111111 11"ni 0 � Z ON a W
� N % W 3
p
J Z ° M .--1 2 (O ,- fO 3 W
} (� rr tj =wN
' i W ��O
i O ' p •UU (.i3
ii\
Ili
(.50 II \
ZZ
N9
6m
1
i z Slog. i'
It E
8 1 I LL 0 i i i¢
1 4 e
106 College Main Photos
q�tll s
1 Hlla � d � IIII II I I II I
�� I I " t kiIII I�I�IIIIIu I�
d 010 � � II II�XIIP II sll w
i vv'
.,
I '' q
w ]14+.41 �
1 e4uhlf ha P fin P ✓rrUet
„ . aw ' y
o
II 4
HI
3
„,',"., '
sr r r« ' h 4 lal I N I I � .x ■. a � ' #� , d r T 7 ” '� � ^� � ��,� 4�� °�n4�f *I , ` rr '.
I"ye ;. r z 1 flxp X I II I I d"lu C. lax
�r s 4 I I wyM r I I � . ;) � I � nak 11 I� � w
15
tiltilltt
�I
" F
,� III, '-- �•G
:. ,i k ,'h �'� FHI , l 'io , w-.` r Yll'II I *., °m s w
r I � a . ��� y G qV . ,,4 1 —
II � , � � I,�II h 1 , ,„ r ta;?,, ,, � ° v, I III . , i 7 i , "
n
WI
.
3
r yam; , '„ ' Inn g .'
; I l II '601IrI ,,; . , , WMIIIN,r� A."s ' g ',../1.'''' a
16