Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout000715763.4 Approved the Minutes from the Regular Meeting held on October 4, 2001. 3.5 Approved the Minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on October 18, 2001. 3.6 Approved the Minutes from the Regular Meeting held on October 18, 2001. 3.7 Approved a Final Plat for Woodlake Subdivision, Section 2, Phase 1, consisting of 2.25 acres, located on Calument Trail. (01-220) 3.8 Approved a Final Plat for Nantucket Cove consisting of 3.6 acres located at 1503 Andover Court. (01-221) 3.9 Approved a Final Plat for Alexandria, Phase 4-B, consisting of 36 single family (0.20 ac. Avg.) lots on 9.8 acres located north of Barron Road and west of Alexandria Phases 4-A and 2-B Subdivisions. (01-19) 3.10 Approved the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, Section 10, Chapter 9 of the City of College Station Code of Ordinances. (01-229) REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consider request(s) for absence from meetings. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. None. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning of 111.46 acres, known as Sections 7-13 out of the Castlegate Master Preliminary Plat and located east of the existing Castlegate Sections 2 and 3, from A-O, Agricultural Open, to PDD-II, Planned Development District - Housing. (01-212) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the Staff Report. Ms. Jimmerson stated that she recommends approval of the rezoning with the condition that an additional temporary vehicular accessway be provided to the proposed sections of the development until Victoria Avenue can provide access to the City's street system. She explained that the PD District is the only available district that provides for the deviations and modifications of the regulations that allow for the developer to continue the development as it was originally envisioned and implemented in Sections 1-4 of the Castlegate Subdivision. She added that the majority of the surrounding property is zoned A-O and vacant, with the remaining property part of the existing Castlegate Subdivision already zoned PDD-H. Ms. Jimmerson pointed out that the rezoning request has been evaluated based on compliance with the City's goals and objectives as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, other adopted master plans, and on current conditions surrounding the property. The area is shown to be medium density, single family and has collectors running through the property. She expressed concern regarding full access to the development and explained that until State Highway 40 is constructed, all of the existing Castlegate Subdivision, as well as the proposed sections, will take P&Z Minutes Arovember 8, 2001 Page 2 of 8 access from one minor collector. However, an emergency accent point is currently available. Ms. Jimmerson pointed out that two access points are required in the new UDO. She reported that all the infrastructure is adequate and exists or will be installed with the development of the project. Ms. Jimmerson discussed the proposed uses and stated that the Parks Board approved the proposed park areas and that the developer is likely to exceed the ordinance requirements. She added that the developer has been working with the Greenways Manager to finalize plans for dedicating a 5.3-acre greenway area as well. Commissioner Kaiser asked what the time frame was regarding the emergency access and a new accessway and why some developments are allowed to continue building with only one access point and others are not. Ms. Jimmerson said that there is about a 5-7 year wait until the access roads on State Highway 40 are in place. She explained that Staff is limited in their authority under the current regulations, but because this development is a PDD, Staff is able to negotiate benefits for both the City and the developer. She added that Staff will require that with the development of the very first lot the additional accessway is to be made available. Chairman Floyd opened the public hearing. Joe Schultz, of 3208 Innsbrook Circle, representing the applicant, stated that the rezoning is to continue with the development that is already taking place there. He explained that the PD District zoning was chosen so they could take advantage of the meritorious modifications allowed. He also stated that they are trying to meet the current market influences and demand with this portion of the development. The parkland requirements have been achieved with the first two parks. There will be approximately 800 lots in this development. Commissioner Kaiser asked Mr. Schultz about access out of the subdivision in case of an emergency, Mr Schultz explained that Castlegate Drive is available and can accommodate the anticipated traffi° prior to Victoria Avenue or State Highway 40 being completed. Additionally, Mr. Schultz explained) that all of the existing four sections of the subdivision have two accessways in and two accessway: ow,. Chairman Floyd clarified that the applicant does not have an issue with building an emergency accessway that will provide for emergency vehicles Mr. Schultz stated that they do not. The developer, Wallace Philips, 5010 Augusta Circle, stated that the accessway for emergency vehicles is grated, available and will accommodate emergency vehicles. Chairman Floyd closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hawthorne motioned to approved with the conditions as stated by Staff. Commissioner Trapani seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning for 2.70 acres located at 3101 Longmire Drive from C-1, General Commercial, to C-2, Commercial- Industrial. (01-235) Staff Planner Reeves presented the Staff Report. Ms. Reeves opened by stating the Staff recommends approval. The applicant hopes to develop a sign company. This location will provide the applicant with a unique access to the by-pass. The property is shown on the Land Use Plan as Industrial R&D and has developed as Light Industrial and Retail Regional, which complies with the Land Use Plan. Staff believes the impact of the C-2 zoning will have a minimal effect on the traffic in this area. P&Z Minutes November 8, 2001 Page 3 of 8 Thursday, December 6, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas Pledge of Allegiance Invocation Consider request for absence from meeting Presentations: Historic Home Plaque #61-802 Hereford 1C onsent Agenda 9.1 Discussion and possible action on the minutes for City Council Workshop and Regular Meetings, November 15, 2001. 9.2 Bid Number 02-16 Discussion and possible action on the purchase of 14 Gemini Headliner overhead , responsible_bdder meeting mobile video stems for polce_patrol_vehicles. Recommend award to the_lowest specifications, Decatur Electronics, Inc., in the amount of $51,016 Funds available and budgeted in the Police Department Patrol Division's Operating Budget. 9.3 Discussion and possible action on Contract 02-041: Professional Services Agreement with Joe Orr, Inc., for professionalland surveyor services for the Parallel Water _Transmission Pipeline Project Phase 11. The contract amount shall not exceed $150,000.00. 9.4 Discussion and possible action on an Advance Funding Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportat o~TxDQTT fair the construction of sidewalks around the_perimeter _of the main campus of Texas A&M University (TAMU) on George Bush Drive, Wellborn Road, and University Drive. Regular Agenda 10.1 Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an ordinance levying assessments against various__pel.- s and their property for the payment of a part of the cost of Dartmouth Drive from its' current termination south of-,Southwest-Park--way to-Krenek Tap Road. 10.2 Public hearing, discussion and possible action on an amendment to the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district pertaining to dedication and development of the minimum reservation area. Public ibleaction on_ a an 111.46 acres known as Sections 7-13 out of the Castlegate Master Preliminary Plat and located west of the existing Castlegate Sections .2_and_3, from A-O Agricultural Open to PDD-H_, Planned_Development District for Housing. (01-212. 10.4 Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning_located_ at 31.01 Longmire_ Drive from C- _l General Commercial to C-2 Commercial Industrial. (1-500235). 10.5 Public hearing discussion, and possible action on a rezoning for 1000 Southwest Parkway East from A-P Administrative Professional--to-C- I General Commercial. 10.6 Presentation discussion, and possible action on the 2001 Gainsharing Distribution. 10.7 Discussion and possible action to aproye a_ resolution of the City of College Station,_Texas,__apontn-th-e City's representative on the Brazos County Appraisal District Board of Directors for a two-year term commencing_on_January 1, 2002; and_.proyiding an effective date. 11. The City Council may convene the executive session following the regular meeting to discuss matters posted on the executive session agenda for 12/06/2001. 12. Final action on executive session, if necessary. 13. Adjourn If litigation issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Council Meeting an executive session will be held. APPROVED: Assistant City Manager Glenn Brown I certify that this agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the Municipal Building, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas on December 3, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. City Secretary Connie Hooks This 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. Agendas posted on Internet Website http://www.ci.college-station.tx.us, Cable Access Channel 19 and The Eagle. Mayor Lynn McIlhaney Mayor Pro Tempore Larry Mariott City Manager Thomas E. Brymer City Council James Massey Ron Silvia Winnie Garner Dennis Maloney Anne Hazen Agenda College Station City Council Workshop Meeting Thursday, December 6, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 1. Discussion of consent agenda items listed for Regular Council Meeting. 2. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding a report related to senior facilities and programs in College Station.--This isa_continuation item_from May_10.200.1.. 3. Joint Meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for discussion and possible action regard strategic_p. lanning, Council vision statements, and, Board goals and objectives. 4. Council Calendars Christmas in the Park Lighting Ceremony, 11/30, Central Park, 6:30 p.m. City Council Workshop & Regular Meeting, 12/6, 12/20 City Council/Planning and Zoning Commission Joint Meeting - UDO, 12/14, 9:00 a.m. 5. Hear Visitors (5:45 p.m.) (A citizen may address the City Council for three minutes on city related issues not scheduled on the posted agenda. An information form is provided at the register table and should be completed prior to 5:45 p.m. and given to the City Secretary. The City Council will receive the information, ask city staff to look into the matter, or place the issue on a future agenda for discussion). 6. Executive Session will immediately follow the workshop meeting in the Administrative Conference Room. Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 551.0711; possible action The City Council may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the City Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed: 1. Cause No. 43,098-85, Brazos County - Bryan v. College Station 2. Cause No. 96-03168, Travis County - Bryan, et al. v. PUC (intervention) 3. Cause No. 97-02587, Travis County - Bryan, et al. v. PUC (intervention) 4. Cause No. 98-13391, Travis County - Bryan, et al. v. PUC (intervention) 5. Cause No. 96-06940, Travis County - Bryan, et al. v. PUC (intervention) 6. Cause No. 97-07000, Travis County - TMPA v. PUC (intervention) 7. Cause No. 98-11817, Travis County - TMPA v. PUC (intervention) 8. Cause No. GN002343, Travis County - San Antonio v. PUC (intervention) 9. Cause No. GN002513, Travis County - San Antonio v. PUC (intervention) 10. Cause No. 49,367-CCL2, Brazos County - Wilkerson v. College Station 11. Action No. 01-98-011056-CV, Court of Appeals Gold v. College Station 12. Docket Nos. TX96-2-000 and TX96-2-001, FERC - College Station, applicant 13. Cause No. 52,434-361, Brazos County - College Station v. Wolf Pen Creek, Ltd., et al. 14. Cause No. 28,765, Grimes County, Harold & Rosealice Trant vs Grimes County, City of College Station and City of Bryan Personnel {Gov't Code Section 551.074}; possible action The City Council may deliberate the appointment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of public officer. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following public officers may be discussed: 1. City Attorney's Evaluation 7. Final action on Executive Session, if necessary. APPROVED: Assistant City Manager Glenn Brown I certify that this agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the Municipal Building, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas on December 3, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. City Secretary Connie Hooks This 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. Internet website http://www.ci.college-station.tx.us, Cable Access Channel 19 and The Eagle. Agenda College Station City Council Regular Meeting summarize them, they are in place to insure that a proposal meets the intent of the comp. Plan. With two exceptions, I will not go into them specifically unless you have questions. First I would remind the commission that the public hearing will be the oportunity to determine if the proposal will be detrimental to the surrounding property owners. And second, H. Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the minimum requirements for each development shall be those stated in the Subdivision Regulations and the requirements of the most restrictive standard zoning district in which designated uses are permitted. Modification of these standards may be considered during the approval process of the PDD. Staff will use the R-1, R-1A and R-IB districts as the baselines for each section as is appropriate. The applicant may request modifications to the standard requirements for: street pavement widths and design standards for collectors and residential streets, sidewalk requirements for collector and residential streets, building setbacks, minimum lot areas and dimensions, with special consideration for those lots that are located adjacent to the floodplain or greenway areas, reduced residential speed limits, and limiting on-street parking in residential area. PD Review Criteria (Sections 7.25G, H & I of the Zoning Ordinance): The Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council shall not aRprove a planned deyelopment if it finds that the proposed planned development: (Staff comments are in italics.) 1. Does not conf rm with applicable regulations and standards established by this ordinance; Staff has reviewed the proposal nd found it i compliance. 2. I not comp tible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites or with uses internal to the PDD, in terms of use, building hei ht, bul and scale, density, setbacks and open spaces, landscaping, drainage, or access and circulation features, within the stan ards stablished by this section; Staff found the proposal to be compatible with existing and permitted uses in the area. 3. Poten 'all creates unfavorable effects or impacts on other existing uses in the area or potential permitted uses in the area that cannot mitigated by the provisions of this section; There are not any adverse impacts anticipated that cannot be 4. Advers I \nh cts the safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic ebly expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the area 96 nng existing zoning and land uses in the area; Staff found that the safety and convenience of those in th aruld not be adversely impacted. 5. Fails to bly protect persons and property from erosion, flood or water damage, fire, noise, glare, and simi ar hs r impacts; Provisions exist in the ordinances to reasonably protect from the adverse affects of the bov6. Ad erselcts t ffic control or adjacent properties by inappropriate location, lighting, or types of signs; or W to limit the adverse affects of the above. Pr visiot in th ordinances 7 II be dental to a public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in t e vicinr reasons pecifically articulated by the Commission or City Council. The public hearing will be the pportur the Com ission to determine whether the proposal will be detrimental to the public health, safety, , or will be terially injurious to those in the vicinity. Does no erally comply th the policies adopted in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of College Station. Staff found the proposal in compliance. The Pdd proposal was also evaluated based ont eh policy paper. The paper mentions 21 examples of design elements that should be encouraged with a PDD. Of those, this proposal includes; ❑ Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access, ❑ Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources ❑ Good connectivity within the development as well as connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and thoroughfares ❑ Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access ❑ Preservation of significant tree stands ❑ A mix of residential densities and housing styles O:IGROIJPIDEVE RUE Iprojectslcoversheetsl2nd Castlegate Rezoninglcastlegatesection7 13presept.dor~ t Page 2 of 3 md~ V. V04- 1 f V, A LmnLLJ . cwu%~A rns 4 Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning of 111.46 acres, known as Sections 7-13 out of the Castlegate Master Preliminary Plat and located east of the existing Castlegate Sections 2 and 3, from A-O, Agricultural Open to PDD-H, Planned Development District for Housing. (01-212) Applicant: Greens Prairie Investors SAM ~a 1IlP Peal p--ewe-project, I am recommending approval of the rezoning with the condition that an additional temporary vehicular accessway be provided to the proposed sections of the development until the east-west collector (shown as Victoria Ave.) can provide access to the Ci y's street system. '.e 1 6Y / (Mktd W ~ /l t_c~ t 4 a'41 rW ~C / The concept plan for the project states that, "The purpose and intent of this Planned Development District is as a single family integrated residential community with amenities that provide for an enhanced quality of life." The PD District is the only available district that provides for the deviations or modifications of the regulations that allow for the developer to continue the development as it was originally envisioned. As always, this rezoning request has been evaluated based on compliance with the City's goals and objectives as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, etc., as well as on current conditions surrounding the property. Current conditions generally considered include, but are not limited to, changes in development trends or patterns since adoption of the Land Use Plan and the ability of existing infrastructure to support development. For PDD rezoning requests there are two additional steps to the evaluation process, first based on the specific criteria listed in the ordinance and second, based on the PDD paper that was adopted at the same time the ordinance was amended. This is the first case to be submitted since the district requirements have been revised. he use roposed are single family residential from estate lots to patio homes and parks, open space and greenways. omp.\-Land Use Plan shows the area as med. Den. Single family. At the time of preliminary p a staff will evaluate the proposed density and ensure that it is in compliance with the approved MDP and Master Preliminary Plat. This proposal is in compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan. However, staff does have some concern over when the proposed streets will be able to provide full access to the development. Until SH 40 is constructed, all of the existing Castlegate Subdivision, as well as, the proposed sections will take access from one minor collector, Castlegate Dr. The existing Castlegate Subdivision sections are comprised of 390 lots. Because of safety concerns for all neighborhoods, the Commission and Council are requiring in the new UDO that subdivisions with more than 50 lots provide 2 access points to the existing street system and that those with more than 250 lots have a provision for a future third access point. Because this is a PDD rezoning request the City has the ability to work with the applicant on this issue. Therefore, staff is recommending that an additional temporary vehicular accessway be provided to the proposed sections of the development until the east - west collector (Victoria Ave.) can provide access to the City's street system. The other necessary infrastructure, water, sewer, drainage etc. was found to be of adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. When reviewing the proposal in light of the specific criteria listed in the ordinance, I found the proposal to meet or exceed the requirements. To O:IGROUPIDEVE SERUESIprojectslcoversheetsl2nd Castlegate Rezoninglcastlegatesection7 13present.doc Page 1 of 3 Existing A-O Agricultural-Open: PURPOSE: This district includes lands within the corporate limits of the City, which are not subdivided and are relatively undeveloped. This district is designed to promote order, timely, economical growth and to recognize current conditions. It is a reserved area in which the future growth of the City can occur. PERMITTED USES: ■ Single family dwellings ■ Mobile Homes, located pursuant to an approved location permit as provided in Section 7.911. (As amended by Ordinance No. 2257 dated August 12, 1997.) ■ HUD-code manufactured homes, located pursuant to an approved location permit as provided in Section 7.911. (As amended by Ordinance No. 2257 dated August 12, 1997.) ■ Barn, stable for keeping private animal stock. ■ Country club (publicly or privately owned). ■ Crop production. ■ Farm. ■ Truck garden (including greenhouse for commercial purposes). ■ Golf Course. ■ Home Occupations. ■ Pasturage. ■ Poultry production (non-commercial). ■ Riding academy (private). (As amended by Ordinance No. 2211 dated September 26, 1996). Proposed PDD-H, Planned Development District- F PURPOSE: The Planned Development . accommodate proposals for the same or similar developed as integrated units such as offices, com, service centers, shopping centers, industrial uses, re, developments or proposals where any appropriate combinat, uses which may be planned, developed or operated as integral It, use units either by a single owner or a combination of owners. i, PDD may be used to permit new or innovative concepts inland utilization not permitted by other zoning districts in this ordinance. It may also be used to permit developments that existing districts do not easily accommodate. While greater flexibility is given to allow special conditions or restrictions, which would not otherwise allow the development to occur, procedures are established to insure against misuse of increased flexibility. The PDDs are appropriate in areas where the land use plan reflects either the specific uses proposed in the PDD or where the land use plan reflects mixed use as a land use category. PROHIBITED USES: The following uses are not allowed in any PD District: • Sexually oriented enterprises ■ Mobile or manufactured housing PERMITTED USES: Any use permitted in the residential zoning districts. R-1 R-14 R-1B. Single Family Residential: ■ Single family dwellings. ■ Home occupations. R-2, Duplex Residential ■ Duplex dwelling units. • Single family dwellings, built under the restrictions of District R- IA. • Home Occupations. R-3, Townhouse • Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of District R- IA. ■ Townhomes. ■ Home occupations. R-4, Apartment/Low Density ■ Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of District R- IA. ■ Duplex dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R-2. ■ Townhouse dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R-3. ■ Apartment(s) and apartment buildings ■ Convalescent homes. ■ Home occupations. ■ Parking lots associated with other permitted uses in this district. ■ Rooming and boarding houses. R-5 Apartment/Medium Density and R-6, Apartment/High Density ■ Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of District R-IA. ■ Duplex dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R-2. ■ Townhouse dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R-3. ■ Apartment(s) and apartment buildings. ■ Convalescent homes. ■ Home occupations. ■ Dormitories. • Parking lots associated with other permitted uses in this district. ■ Rooming and boardinghouses. 01-212 Green Prairie Investors, 4490 Castlegate Drive Rezoning ON General Development Information 1. The potential land use for this development is single-family residential consisting of typical single-family lots as well as "estate" and "patio home" lots. 2. The single family dwellings will have an allowable range of building heights from 15 to 35 feet. 3.A storm sewer system will be constructed to control the drainage from each section. A detention facility for the Costlegate development has been constructed downstream of this development. A dronaae report will be provided to verify the proposed development is in compliance with the approved FEMA drainage study. 4. Modifications or variations to the City of College Station Standards may be requested for the following items: -Street pavement width for collector and residential streets -Sidewalk requirements for collector and K residential streets -Building setback line distances -Minimum lot size and dimensions 4 Summary Comparison of College Station Subdivision Standards and the Proposed Planned Development District Standards for Castlegate Sections 7-13 COLLEGE STATION REQUIREMENTS STANDARDS PDD-H STANDARDS STREETS ROW Collector: 60/70' Collector: Castlegate Drive: 60' Victoria Drive: 70' Residential: 50' Residential: 50' Residential: 50' Cul-de-sac: 50' Pavement width Collector: 38' Collector: Castlegate Drive - 36' (BC-BC) Victoria Drive - 38' Residential: 27' Residential: 24'(Sections 7&8) - may be private streets Residential: 27' Cul-de-sac: 24'(Sections 7&8) - may be private streets Residential: 27'(Sections 9-13) Cul-de-sac: 27'(Sections 9-13) Speed Limits Collector: 30 MPH Collector: 35MPH Residential: 30 MPH Residential: 20MPH(Sections 7&8) Residential: 30 MPH 30MPH(Sections 9-13) Cul-de-sac: 20MPH(Sections 7&8) 30MPH(Sections 9-13) Parking Collector: No Restrictions Collector: No Restrictions Residential: No Restrictions Residential: Parking One Side(Sections 7&8) Residential: No Restrictions Cul-de-sac: Parking One Side(Sections 7&8) Cul-de-sac bulb: No Parking (Sections 7&8) (Sections 9-13): No Restrictions Curb Type 6" Vertical 6" Vertical: Victoria Drive 4" Mountable: Castlegate Drive & All Residential Cul-de-sac Length 600' 600' Cul-de-sac Geometry 40'R Pavement ROW 50'R Sidewalks Collector Streets: Both Sides of Street Residential: 1 side of Street Residential: Cul-de-sac - None UTILITY EASEMENTS Side: 7.5' on each lot 40'R Pavement 48'R Pavement w/ Island Radius of 15' ROW=50'R Collector: 8' Concrete Path on 1 side of Street Residential: None Cul-de-sac - None Side: 5' on each adjacent lot for a total width of 10' (Sections 8-13) COLLEGE STATION REQUIREMENTS STANDARDS PDD-H STANDARDS 3UILDING SETBACK LINES Front: 25' Rear: 25' Side: 7.5' Side Street: 15' Zero Lot Line Construction: 15' Between Building Slabs TYPICAL LOT SIZES COLLEGE STATION Front (Sections 8-13) 1U' Front (Section 7) 30' Rear (Sections 8-13) 20' Rear (Section 7) 25' Side (Sections 8-13) 5' Side (Section 7) 15' Side Street (Sections 8- 13) 15' Side Street (Section 7) 30' Zero Lot Line Construction: 10' Between Building Slabs STANDARDS: PDD-H STANDARDS: R1-13 Zoning Section 7 - "Estate Lots" - 20,000 S.F. to 50,000 S.F. Lots Lot Size: 8,000 S.F. (min) Lot Width: None Lot Depth: None TYPICAL SIZE R-1 Zoning Section 8 - Patio - Lot Size: 5,000 S.F. (min) Lot Width: 50' (min) Lot Depth: 100' (min) Section 9, 10, & 11 - SF - R1-A Zoning Section 12 & 13 - Patio - Lot Size: 4,000 S.F. (min) Lot Width - None Lot Depth - None 55'x110' = 6,050 S.F. 55'x120' = 6,600 S.F. 50'x110' = 5,500 S.F. MINIMUM SIZE 150'x100' = 5,000 S. F. 150'x110' = 5,500 S.F. 150'x80' = 4,000 S.F. Existing A-O, Agricultural-Open: PURPOSE: This district includes lands within the corporate limits of the City, which are not subdivided and are relatively undeveloped. This district is designed to promote order, timely, economical growth and to recognize current conditions. It is a reserved area in which the future growth of the City can occur. PERMITTED USES: ■ Single family dwellings Mobile Homes, located pursuant to an approved location permit as provided in Section 7.9H. (As amended by Ordinance No. 2257 dated August 12, 1997.) ■ HUD-code manufactured homes, located pursuant to an approved location permit as provided in Section 7.911. (As amended by Ordinance No. 2257 dated August 12, 1997.) ■ Barn, stable for keeping private animal stock. ■ Country club (publicly or privately owned). ■ Crop production. ■ Farm. ■ Truck garden (including greenhouse for commercial purposes). ■ Golf Course. ■ Home Occupations. ■ Pasturage. ■ Poultry production (non-commercial). ■ Riding academy (private). (As amended by Ordinance No. 2211 dated September 26, 1996).