Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/2008 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review Board File Copy AGENDA "`coo `1 si'11" DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Friday, June 27, 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 Requests. • Nancy Sawtelle - May 23, 2008 meeting 3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting Minutes. • May 14, 2008 • May 23, 2008 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding building design, building materials and colors, and sign details for Sonic restaurant, located at 512 Harvey Road in the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District. Case #08- 00500113 (MR) 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding variances to Section 7.9 Non - Residential Architectural Standards of the Unified Development Ordinance related to building materials and architectural elements for Texas Roadhouse restaurant, located at 1601 University Drive East. Case #08- 00500126 (LH) 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, June 27, 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.ciov. 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.aov. 2 G rir a 11 CITY OF COI .l_f G E: STATION Planning & Draxlopmeni .Car icts Minutes Design Review Board Wednesday, May 14, 2008 Administrative Conference Room 1101 Texas Avenue 11:00 AM Board Members Present: Chairman John Nichols, Ward Wells, Hunter Goodwin, and Alan King Board Members Absent: Nancy Sawtelle Staff Present: Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Senior Planner Jennifer Prochazka, Staff Assistant Nicole Padilla, and Customer Service Representative Christina Court Others Present: Tara Norsworthy, McCoAd Signs AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order. Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 11:08 a.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Possible action and discussion to approve meeting minutes for April 25, 2008. Alan King motioned to approve the meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Hunter Goodwin and passed (4 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding freestanding sign details for Washington Baptist Church, located at 1801 Texas Avenue South in the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District. Case # 08- 00500081 (JP) Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the item stating that the applicant would like to install a freestanding sign that includes a maroon base and cabinet and a white sign with red vinyl letters. Tara Norsworthy, Applicant, stated that the sign proposed is very similar to the sign that was originally erected for the church in the late 1950's. 3 Board Members expressed concerns with the color and materials of the sign and its relation to Section 5.6.A.11.a of the Unified Development Ordinance stating that every sign must be designed as an integral architectural element of its building. Board Members also expressed concern with the Applicant's proposed use of the white sign face with red vinyl letters. Hunter Goodwin motioned to approve the item with the conditions that the face color of the proposed sign be changed from white to ivory and that the face graphics be changed from red vinyl to maroon vinyl to match the maroon cabinets and base of the sign. Ward Wells seconded the motion; motion passed (4 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding recruitment and appointment of new Design Review Board members. (MH) Molly Hitchcock, Planning Administrator, answered questions in general from the Board Members regarding the general requirements to become a Board member. Ward Wells and Hunter Goodwin briefly discussed their search and recruitments for potential applicants and their qualifications to the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 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. No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn Alan King motioned for adjournment. The motion was seconded by Ward Wells; motion passed (4 -0). Meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m. APPROVED: John Nichols, Chairman ATTEST: Nicole Padilla, Staff Assistant 4 Groes MINUTES Cirv» C;t�ut� i st�iw� DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Friday, May 23, 2008, 11:00 a.m. Administrative Conference Room College Station City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas Members Present: Chairman John Nichols, Hunter Goodwin, Alan King, and Ward Wells Members Absent: Nancy Sawtelle Staff Present: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner; Molly Hitchcock, Planning Administrator; Bridgette George, Development Coordinator Visitors Present: Mark Lindley, Keith Malone, Natalie Ruiz 1. Call to Order Chairman Nichols called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. 2. Consideration, discussion and possible action on Absence Requests. • Nancy Sawtelle - May 14, 2008 meeting Ward Wells motioned to approve the absence request. The motion was seconded by Alan King and passed unopposed 4 -0. 3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a revised site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations for The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek, a mixed -use development consisting of 8.34 acres, located at 614 Holleman Drive East in the Wolf Pen Creek District. Case #07- 00500247 (JS) Jason Schubert, Staff Planner, informed the Board that the applicant was proposing some revisions to the site plan conditionally approved by the DRB in November. He stated that one proposed change was moving the retaining wall further south, just north of Manuel Drive with a 4 -foot wrought iron fence on top. The new proposal will have the buildings all on one level instead of having a retaining wall step up in the middle of the site. The second proposed modification includes several changes to the building design. The applicant is proposing to change the flat roof to a pitched roof for all but Building 3; changing a portion of the brick veneer to stucco and changing some of the brick veneer and stucco to fiber cement siding; and the final building design modification includes changing the parking garage from steel construction with stucco panels to concrete construction painted like stucco. The third proposed 5 modification is changing the brick pavers to a stamped dyed concrete that would match the brick pavers that were originally proposed and approved. Mark Lindley, project developer, informed the Board about some of the challenges he has encountered in developing the property and that the project was nine million dollars over budget, and hence, the request for the proposed changes to the approved site plan. He then reviewed the requested changes to the site. Mr. Lindley was asked about the landscaping and informed the Board that no changes were being proposed to the landscaping. Keith Malone, Architect, also reviewed the proposed changes to the site plan stating that some of the amenities will remain as originally proposed, but that the changes being requested will look similar to the original design but will help reduce the cost of the project. Hunter Goodwin motioned for approval of the retaining wall being moved further south just north of Manuel Drive. Alan King proposed an amendment to the motion to include the 6 -foot wrought iron fence on top of the retaining wall. Mr. King voiced his concern over the small amount of room between the fence and building and the possible drainage issues. Mr. Lindley stated that there would be sufficient drainage on the site. Chairman Nichols asked if all the units were one story or multi- stories. Mr. Lindley stated that there were a few multi -story units, but that most of them were one story. Mr. Goodwin amended his motion to include the 6 -foot wrought iron fence if the fence was also serving as the security fence for the project. Ward Wells seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 4 -0. Mr. Schubert clarified that the main body of Building 3, the building facing the Dartmouth Street and Holleman Drive intersection, as well as the townhome -style units south of Manuel Drive, will remain with brick and stucco as previously approved. Buildings 2, 5, and 7, and the portions of Building 1 facing Holleman Drive and Building 6 facing Manuel Drive are being proposed to change from brick to stucco. Building 4 and the portions of Buildings 1 and 6 that are not facing a ROW, are being proposed to change from brick and stucco to fiber cement siding. Mr. King motioned to approve the facade materials as proposed, including the material changes to the garage. Mr. Wells seconded the motion which passed unopposed 4 -0. Mr. King voiced his concern of allowing the modification from brick pavers to stamped concrete in the Wolf Pen Creek District since there is such a difference in the two materials. He stated that he understood the economic issues dealing with the project, but still wanted to voice his concerns. Mr. King also voiced his concern regarding setting the precedent in the area for stamped concrete instead of brick pavers. Chairman Nichols commented that the subject area is a signature corner in Wolf Pen Creek and that the Board does not have to approve the modification request on this item. 6 Hunter Goodwin stated that he did not feel that allowing this modification would set the precedent for other development in Wolf Pen Creek. Ward Wells and the rest of the Board discussed their concern of approving this modification request without having any type of color samples or patterns to review. Mr. King motioned to approve the modification of brick pavers to stamped dyed concrete in the pedestrian plaza area and sidewalks, with the condition that no permits be issued for construction of the plaza area or sidewalks until the color samples and pattern details are brought back to the Design Review Board for approval. Mr. Wells seconded the motion, which passed unopposed, 4 -0. 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding recruitment and appointment of new Design Review Board members. (MH) Molly Hitchcock, Planning Administrator, distributed a list of recommendations which suggested changes discussed by Councilman James Massey and the local AIA Chapter of the proposed ordinance amendment regarding membership of the Design Review Board. Ms. Hitchcock asked for further guidance on the recommendations. Mr. Wells suggested removing the word "registered" because a person cannot call themselves an "architect" unless they are registered. Mr. King commented that landscape architects have licensing requirements similar to architects; therefore this position should mirror the wording for architects. Mr. Hunter asked whether members had to live in the City limits to serve on the Board. Ms. Hitchcock informed the Board that it was preferred, but not required. The Board discussed the importance of broadening the language regarding developers or land owners in design districts to include business owners. Ms. Hitchcock informed the Board that she would propose broadening the architect member to include a previously registered architect, architect registered in another state or Emeritus Architect. She stated that the developer /land owner member will be broadened to include a business owner, resident, or individual employed within a design district. Ms. Hitchcock also mentioned that she will be proposing to change the language requiring that at least two members be owners of property or a business within a design district to requiring that just one member being associated with a business within a design district. 5. 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. No future agenda items were proposed. 6. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 12:37 p.m. with no opposition. APPROVED: John Nichols, Chairman ATTEST: Nicole Padilla, Staff Assistant 8 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN DISTRICT STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Matt Robinson, Staff Planner Report Date: June 18, 2008 E -mail: mrobinson @cstx.gov Meeting Date: June 27, 2008 For SONIC DRIVE IN #3792 (SDSP) Item: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding building design, building materials and colors, and sign details for Sonic restaurant, located at 512 Harvey Road in the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District. Location: 512 Harvey Road Applicant: Greg Lee, Sonic Operations Item Summary: The applicant is requesting to modify the existing Sonic elements to reflect standard Sonic colors. The following changes are proposed: • Replace existing front canopy and install a new 40' arched canopy at the front of the restaurant with fabric color SW 6108 "Latte "; • Installation of a new aluminum arched tower at top of restaurant, with yellow supports and blue LED lighting; • Replacement of the existing neon canopy fascia with a new fascia containing LED star accent lights utilizing standard Sonic colors of red and yellow; • Adding cultured stone wainscot at the rear and lower portion of the building; • Replacement of the existing freestanding sign face with new Sonic logo and standard colors; • Replacement of existing green picture board frames on sides of building with blue picture board frames; • Painting and patching of existing stucco with SW6091 "Reliable White" color; • Installation of new neon attached signs utilizing red and yellow neon. Building design and all materials, building colors and signs within the Wolf Pen Creek district must have approval from the Design Review Board. All signs reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board will require the submittal and approval of a sign permit application in order to receive a permit to install the signs. Administrator Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the proposal to change the previously approved green elements to the standard Sonic colors of red, yellow and blue. In addition, Staff recommends denial of the LED and neon lighting utilizing the colors of yellow and blue. These recommendations are consistent with previous decisions made by the Design Review Board in 1998 and 2002 that denied the use of the standard Sonic colors of red and yellow. Item Background: This Sonic restaurant was originally reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning and Zoning Commission in 1998. The first proposal to the DRB utilized the standard Sonic Colors and was denied by the DRB because the board did not feel 9 that the proposal met the purpose and guidelines for the Wolf Pen Creek District. The Board was then presented with images from a Sonic restaurant in Missouri City that utilized green in place of the standard Sonic colors of red and yellow. This green was approved for the various building details and signage that are currently in place at this Sonic location. In addition, the Board requested that all yellow be removed from the signs and replaced with a white or cream color. In 2002, the DRB heard another request to utilize the standard Sonic Colors at this location. This request was subsequently denied on the basis that the current conditions were already approved at the time the restaurant was built. Issues /Items for Review: 1. Building Colors — Reliable White and Latte are approved colors on the City's color palette. All other colors are considered accent colors and do not exceed the maximum allowed usage of 15% per fagade. The Unified Development Ordinance offers the following guidance to the Design Review Board when considering building colors: • Section 5.6.A.8.h states that colors shall be harmonious and that only compatible accent colors shall be used. 2. Building Design — The proposed canopies and tower addition are in compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance. The Design Review Board should use the following guidelines when considering building design: • Section 5.6.A.8.a states that architectural style is not restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. • Section 5.6.A.8.b states that buildings shall have good scale and be in harmonious conformance with permanent neighboring development. 3. Building Materials — The proposed canopy and stone materials are in compliance with Section 7.9 Non - Residential Architectural Standards. The Design Review Board should use the following guidelines when considering building materials in Wolf Pen Creek: • Section 5.6.A.8.c states that materials shall be selected for harmony of the building with adjoining buildings • Section 5.6.A.d states that materials shall be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and the design in which they are used. Buildings shall use the same materials, or those that are architecturally harmonious, for all building walls and other exterior building components wholly or partly visible from public ways. • Section 5.6.A.e states that materials shall be of durable quality 4. Signage — The proposed signs are in compliance with Section 7.4 Signs of the Unified Development Ordinance. The Design Review Board should use the following guidance when considering signs in Wolf Pen Creek: • Section 5.6.A.11 a. Every sign shall be designed as an integral architectural element of the building and site to which it principally relates b. Every sign shall have good scale and proportion in its design and in its visual relationship to buildings and surroundings. c. The colors materials and lighting of every sign shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which it principally relates. d. The number of graphic elements on a sign shall be held to the minimum needed to convey the sign's major message and shall be composed in proportion to the area of the sign face. 10 e. Each sign shall be compatible with signs on adjoining premises and shall not compete for attention. f. Identification signs of a prototype design and corporation logos shall conform to the criteria for all other signs. Attachments: 1. Application 2. Building elevations 3. Photographs & Sign Details 4. Material & Color samples (available at meeting) 11 % (Ok i rk% FOR O `` • E •• LY CASE NO. 7 rt. DATE SUBMITTED di/IPD". C OF COLLEGE STATION 1 l'Imrtmg DervInrmrot Sir et WOLF PEN CREEK BUILDING & SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Design Review Board MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Application completed in full. ✓ $200 Special District Review Fee • Ten (10) copies of facade details w h dimensions. ✓ Ten (10) copies of sign details with dimensions. ✓ Ten (10) copies of the building elevation showing sign placement (if attached signage is proposed). SS)' .9I EC(v.97 v' Color and material samples. Date of Preapplcation Conference: NAME OF BUSINESS SCYCICt . L &C. 3i' 2 ADDRESS 5I . WANct itoact Co lAf S Ct tSvl 7 "Y YjL4CJ LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY E>eiSfir DiNt. ‘,w‘ fls� t c�urc rt'c PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY 6S1h ni De►\tt. (Y1 fic,cif6twati (' APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: Name el(' P Street Address 1' LQ`61 61 'wx{ f ?O City CoVf__L . State I>c Zip Code ' 1-1 S y S E -Mail Address Phone Number COG - - 71 l- lql 3 7 5 Fax Number Cr - r - K-( • q 0 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name L"1�, Street Address taty%t \ t c_-4t_ Hw4 `30 City Cotta 9' Ska.ttc t State ' T>c Zip Code E -Mail Address Phone Number 0 11 0 1 - 11 Ll • I c atc Fax Number Chq ' l - ?LJ ° 9txi l Page 1 of 2 319 2 12 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR CHANGES NIP u) 90 A f Owl Cancps c1 -pv frc area. Ntu) but Int) FrAc,cifIl CALInr1 bets hn5 Drivr in cottv-vii Th Lr L t °Sta! siars (kk ttruc4 ni 1LQ. OttAi e oxinst ?ci P pieta I b PiCkUreapar CiS budAirvi_w ;ON __AND/OR o ATTACHED SIGN FREESTANDING SIGN Square Footage Square Footage All Wolf Pen Creek 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. $ -C - Ce Sign. ur of Owner, Agent or Applicant Date Page 2 of 2 13 • 4 -. k d . F . t t S.� N. +r r I \ 1.,. , \ it'!rii. ; ,,,,..4 5 ,,,,,,,..1 i .,:,, '''''''',, :i '''''' s F I .+ � 1 i� ` 1 Y , "�- 1 .: ; -.. J. 4- ; ,? 1 k � x i '-4:;i- „ Lil I s 4 y 4 . 541106 � • . \ \ 2 ! } , 1 a „441 \ d. - \l \ i . \ 1 \ / \ \ . m© : I . � x � ' ! ' \ \f ] } ,. w R � . r : % 1 4.1 J <x< . \ » \.- -.. £ ,o : \\ ,/ A © d ? . a .v a - � , 4r, <� © - : « . .. \ /Z ! / 4t . � ' ' =�' 1 1 e i . ' - _ - . � e oh ,, , aiii a y a45g4t Pat .. d A $; �.Y+ $n y �` k J C ,, f _ i - pia ti s • c.t yet +d aS� u"`a 3 fi� 4t f #, 9' Y ti # i -t� po' sk.. I! R � • , x . _ ,, �� v �+. �x' a` `" '... l'.'"-':::'... ,l'''' ''''. tAr ':'''''.''''''',..' i ii N x y ¢} s i � ,� , 4 1. 't' ,3I t il ,-; 1 ,i'''. ;. ` ? j7 t� , a � G ` i s al 1' d 4 +, P } ,� :X 7 a - d Y� ��..^� "'� , k. Q P �, - ' 1 4 ? .�,� " : „,ppp i t y i r� f '�f m ? a� { ' p M t4{ rv' ai 's i? T, , ' , § +T,TY pan. ` a• 3 1 d'' � a 1 , , itill''ei'i , ' : , ::" , , l ' , "!,, , : : °: , i , , : t o- ' S4 .y n / A l ki q 01'1 1 ♦; , I w ` sir , . mt il 1 ,, .t.. • 11...0 Io . RIP MI '' ''' , t ''';' ,1 , I ,...... 1r M ,- 1 „. . � } r - , 00 ' 111111111111111111 , . ,, 1 e''' ` . III "y �-•. r 3 / wM IF ! i , i . ..- , / • ri. a, ,. ,, „„, .. t, X N ro ‘1 cn $ o 0 A c r 28" v m 3 C Z of 1 -I c) 4 m-{m °�yR�i , -5,t ,e s r ' I 1 n - r ,2 � a r'r 4 '2:11 -,::-,:::, '' : , m r M N ° Q D 3 CA T Q Z n DC = Z7o m ^� m -cn Z ° m „„ w Z °m —n 1 2 r0 7:1 0 71 3 0 > ” V m m .. ° n O w O 32 1!2" 43 ri 2 Z wo m ' � " �" Z A V Y W co °D A n • l t- ' ''-' '''' ' --' -- j >4 i tt Y b zs d a " "'a` a 4k ,,a t 4 � .; k a Eck- 4 as `3`� Tike;, t.$ "b. 1 f� , j�9 � ! '~ ova . , , ,. a y x ,, ' o''''',Z-fl.,fitiv,,,,,,,, 4 - y d 0 '1' , ' s Sa , ai '� a ss.�^& ;�u4, y ~ f ;1s ` 'xv nip e �`A "b .: � ' v°ax r ff.,- ; s s f '''''i;1:''si:,:tiii',7,g,;.,.'1,-.!i'll:"5::::;1',;!:::,:-:i-,':, m s M . v k ) • .. . ... , NW 1r , ';,'-..i.. , : :: ;.:' 0 r rte. - - a'- 1 .F P a s l Ei • t 1 ' ` 1 r . r'r 'jk P' h 4 ', "* ' :' ,- ' ,4 ,1, , ..- - 4`" t t$"E '1 3 ?�. ccV T'k4 f .. P `Y S .' t ` its E. +;ems k fi ��pH"A � h � r •` R 'M F k . x�> F gig_: t , fir. t kr £ � ti � 'a ° Lc e v st v.. U mo� =� T CO) — o w V/ ��a 0 EM I � ^ t = a c < a o a Z 70 m o CD m o N ' _� W O vn o C,., 2 ° m ^ ! 1 I i - ' Z z t 9 1 5 � q n a _.1.- g rn G, 0 a a o m °z o F. m m Ln ° ,,,g'S an S Ln s` o 2sT_ z Z a o ° + +m au --4 0 1 ° nn 8m N _7,, r, S ,.,o o n -o co ° 4 o N £ N o OS n o m __ = r-■ C� N G7 su m � a n O r , ° , -0 0 0 00 C c v v v e"...1 r;v •C -i rr.,v o inn 7 0 J \ a ,_ n D m _ a s O = Z °° A _ K _ �/ ^7 - -0 o-- -0 O^ a ZE w N - I� �� y r m O^ PJ VI m r n in rn Z ), a O� ° o O Z fli: - un v v in in z m y o a o m o 0 3 c nN °o mm��oa = ��O'°�zr N_1 r _ri _ H H z �o� ° 7. r r -I _ m m k, r", m Z- 3.- 0 N .0 z r1 H e �f O r m z - ._. O r --, m = a v m T O v Z = 0 = a^ v m z o 0 o a W a Z m v z o m ° � * � z --, ° o r, "' 7, a C D 6/l r--- C m V', X. s V. P-,.. o•C r-n o c-, 70 = v, ^ o v _ - m O oN3 ON - t _ y _ z O w r m O �Pico9 ° Q p v, = { „ Z --0 ® Z 1... — i.n to a _ =nm . 8m°on2gg 0 z ^° o a o 0 a _ A o 0 rin 9ACyo c . - vo m $Eg a r n m x yam,, s +9 o �, � _ 4 ' ` "' ��` g " ' ' � y r - •- 7.- , f sT-.., l a s . -,-;tt..;:;;tz-t$I'14k!..t'Si:l44f.'i,;?pi-f14*f;24:.:PX:''[:':?::Z'''':'''' i . "711 Imimil."1,' V ' ' ' '' d x t t issiF" , I at. - , - ar ' 5 y ....< 7 _. _... ,.. ..... ,.... '- $ �`U . FRES 1 E ti - " , .-:, --- 2 ,.., . . . . - f" k. ''siLr II * • • „ , , siorA. .,..,.. -- , f.../i!ifilli p i 14 1 '' -- - - , . ' ** -.•'. 6j ' ' rr414111119116' 1 ' ' --" ,;•'''''''.... 1 . ....._ ..... 'fl Ahl 41 ''' < • '''••- ' 4 . . • ,,. 2 Z- MN, 1 4 � .9, I �K y � w, .� . . a: .. \ . ^2 N4 1, • : _ \ . . § �\ .. . . � . . S e t INST SHT LB WA/AC FORMED HALF CIRLCES o , dD L ----------4 -%%%%ll14-- Step 1 -Open all Postergrip rails on Lightbox. Angle brkt Step 2 ® Concrete I - Remove Graphics and Diffuser. Anchor 13- 15/16" . ''---''----- i -- V t \. t y b - 1 9 L— / Concrete 13- 15/16" L oosen Lightbox �_` Anchor I mounting Hardware E 1 Step 3 Angle Step 4 - Measure from the Top of Lightbox brkt - Loosen Lightbox mounting up 13- 15/16 ". Make sure this is centered. hardware. -Mark line. This line is for the top of Angle bracket. -Hold Angle bracket in place and use pre - drilled hole to mark the center. - Repeat for using Bottom of Lightbox. -Use a 5/32" Carbide- Tipped Concrete Drill Bit and Drill Half Circle a hole 1 -1 /2" deep. - Fasten Angle bracket using 1 -1/4" Concrete Anchor. *DO NOT OVER TORQUE. �� - Repeat for Lower Angle bracket. ■1 Back of Lightbox Self Drill Q DETAIL A Screw SCALE1:8 '---"4----' ----- \�\ I I 11 11 \ Self Drill Step 6 Screw ----------... Step 5 -Hold Half Circles in place. -Place (1) Half Circle on Top. Make sure to center Half Circle -Re- tighten Lightbox mounting Hardware. on Lightbox. -Use Self Drill Screw to fasten the Half Circle -Tuck the lip from the Half Circle behind the Lightbox. to the Angle bracket. -Repeat for Lower Half Circle. *DO NOT OVER TORQUE SCREW. - Repeat for lower Half Circle. iii Il I l 'ill.i'lli kil cn Step 7 „ - >. c - Replace Diffuse and Graphics. ''•y +.. -Close all PosterGrip rails on Lightbox. '^ ND Marketing Displays international, 38271 West 12 Mile lined Farmington Hills. MI 48331 -3041 800.2284925 SK -04498 CO A 3 , `r Q o . ,, ate'` � � c..., . . h rn M3N .. T X Q ac v , w 41... ^+ M 3 N c� r) o y T vs l ir 4601, . . v.y ..� 1.1 ..., 00... ,:p 04 " ..... t M+ A , riri Ar .., c, ... , - - i, !.. _ _ 1` - j � X 31 ' /11_ .* . dr° a 1 k + - _ am s i r � t t C 0 • ovum 3"..fr. ::a „Mr. B140I10'A3 t u°u a ,epa ha an ro.a +.n 3 we 'aoO N -aSOia e.vli; v iooi -IN41 ur�n.S,w VNI 411119 r .1.4.... 3931107 CC I ,; . ” ...4 ••7DdS NUU Kw. Yl01ib .i 4 0V00 A3�•ytM CIG Xn '1.1.10 nnrwlao' ,II . �• , “ :;y _irately wwwiw-w. _ , . .+ . WUMYw G Q manna am nala� 11Na ON nouwomo MOS N — 31AOm4 DIWOS 3 6 4 4 ; `D c ,o i H ;a ga t7) 1 Illei > ; y - ,6g s a o� s s S § g ac 3' !' 8 ! 1 1 qi:lii 1 ill Pli : - Mi g!1;:! •r pp ” l 1 11 "0 2 y a ;":'-:^' It i l iiiiIiig 1 111;41i 1 1 101111W 1 111;411 1 17- O it a 0 3gl 1 $ 8 R ( LU n Mill 41 A 01 4:1 w N �a � " r � � Le y X ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 f �� 0 K l: h. 1 41 -e? : ' jjj ya ®\ . . .1 1. ;s Q 11,111111141PtiI: a O 1111 G 1 r. E ��' \ i ; : ! I � S. O f I d 1 k On . -A VN ip t U . '3 i ! .Jft:: i � H O O 0 1,.,....; s ; © l M MO! 3 ; g .. 1 -. fi I b ; il $ O a a - lo :9 ' . 0 1 r 1 ' I. p l a 9 � . 9 , , j B a o F .,. S 444 b '.� i 1 C I '' Li X5 . u Q I11!: :R 9 _ M :Y a i .o.n 0 ff o , L y l R I R Or o i i a VVV ® 1 ant 4 Y o 11 �� — ■ , — r ' j g Y .- --- -- - 0 MI ' J .7 R p 34 �Yl:i•p�Y / 0 754 7 .,e 1 — � 3 Y g °'f 5 m � i ' g g.i0 :i ,j i �}I 9icy IS I s 5 a a s 4'1 1111A r a <3 � °'§ Y s q „ 1' � R " 0 i a�� R 4s R 4 rte` ®Z i 1 $1114 1 g R p� F @ WI 1 7 ,_ . RR .Y. -P!Y / Itr [1: re !!It4 , ;:i . 1 L is Ir..7'I > ;2; Q u • ®—I w 2 > us w w g W J :,1491 : ., F' - — V g or....... 0 Y - s Y. Y I ' 0 z 9 ILA - \ 9 is.: Vie. i 0 1 etr 94 NWT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Lauren Hovde, Staff Planner Report Date: June 20, 2008 Email: Ihovde(a..cstx.gov Meeting Date: June 27, 2008 For TEXAS ROADHOUSE ADDITION (08- 00500126) Item: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding building materials and alternative architectural elements for Texas Roadhouse Restaurant, located at 1601 University Drive in the Overlay District. Zoning District: C -1 General Commercial and OV Overlay Corridor District Location: 1601 University Drive East Applicant: Angel Robinson, Greenberg Farrow Item Summary: The applicant has proposed a 433 - square foot addition to the southeast corner of the existing Texas Roadhouse building. The proposed addition continues the existing architectural style and building theme, which requires several variances to Section 7.9 Non - Residential Architectural Standards of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The original building was approved in 1999, prior to the adoption of non - residential architectural standards. Section 7.9.B.3 Materials limits the use of cedar siding to 30% of any facade and requires a minimum of 10% of each facade to consist of brick or stone. The applicant has requested to use only cedar siding in order to continue the theme of the existing restaurant. Additionally, the applicant has requested to vary from Section 7.9.B.2 Building Mass and Design, which requires a minimum of two different design elements on each of the two facades of the addition. The UDO allows the Design Review Board (DRB) to consider alternatives to the elements listed in Section 7.9.B.2, but does allow the DRB to waive the requirement in its entirety. The applicant has presented the following architectural relief elements for the Board's consideration: East facing Elevation: 1. A roof overhang of 18 inches 2. A building projection greater than 4 feet (from the existing structure) University Drive Elevation: 1. A roof overhang of 18 inches 2. A metal hip roof The items for review include: 1. Architectural character 15 • Materials- cedar siding • Architectural elements- alternative elements suggested Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Copy of elevations 4. Variance Request Letter 5. Alternative Elements Letter 6. Photos of the existing structure (available at the meeting) 16 (Wir:C444 IC E USE ONLY , CASE NO.: F°R / a I tra107 DATE SUBMITTED: ..... CITY OP COLLEGE SIA 110N , 1p Planning 6 Drivlopowne Serovei DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEALS & WAIVERS APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: $150 Application Fee __. Application completed in full. Atesual materials may be required of the applicant such as site plans, elevation drawings, sf§ii and floor plans. The Zoning Official shall inform the applicant of any extra materials required. Date of Preapplication Conference: APPLICANT/PROJECTAVIANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name AO*/ r &4/(§t C h-- Street Address # 1 P 1 ...if Zia g--b City A iA m State it Zip Code ,1 17)3 E-Mail Add ress r-vwxvi Phone Number 14 4-41 Ver) Fax Number Pig -h5- .?,e)/ sr e krkt PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name hi APF 711AfriZA e ( U Street AdOress ni/ city y State ft- Zip Code i . E-Mail Address Phone Number Fax Number LOCATONRFZ'ROFERTY: te _ tdw Address I t* IAA I (./ CAI af4i au, lc, otiv /ark_ /A, - /146 7 C/ t I tt Lot Block Subdivision Description if if there is no Lot, Black and Subdivision k) A CURRENT ZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: APPEAL/WAIVER REQUESTED. (Circle One) Re Uirwtq_mats.--) Northgate Requirements Buffer Requirements Driveways WPC Parking Site Plan Review Criteria Krenek Tap Corridor Overlay District Other: Explanation of appeal/waiver request: •_ II et (. Applicable Ordinance Section: It e t Page 1 of 2 17 3 s' - z e = e c II vN' _ e W a N F il y o #�' e I i e 1 O W VJ CA > I _ Q � MC e _ z G e� _2 o Il w _ _- C o a ml= w ws r ° �eC j y ° �u H _ F- F y .0 s W 1 H 1 2. W Q O W D W a0 YI ' C o aga 3 W O O W N z O � a r L W ali C .-e C ag w W W a SI X I ***. ( d4) r V 3 I� 1 ______ / , ,__ - ,,,,, , - ,, 11 ' ;1 0 1, > . , , \ m1 8 ...i i 1 — el 0 11 11 1 1 ii J 31 A 3 €A - -. -O -.S. 0 -.01 r • F ab b 6 a 1 0 1 11 1 ii - 11n.._ .2 • Al M .�j O I ,0 .b 1 I g i • I R \t J fr , _ I v g - \ 111'muullrl.. 1 • C4 Ta 111 ‘ & g ' ; i01 21 .! ? Il i ..1, :lb M T H a CC R a 1 f i 1 5 li s 0 ILI ‘73