Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/16/2006 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning Commission_ FILE COPY • Ct'~t Q~ CaLt~~~ S~r~~~©N nGnraiag c~1~ee~rlopnr~nr ~,~,~ AGENDA Workshop Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 5:30 PM. Council Chambers, City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 1. Call the meeting to order. 2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. 3. Presentation, possible action and discussion on an item to update the Commission on the status of items within the P&Z Plan of Work (see attached). (LS) • 4. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an update to the Unified Development Ordinance, Sections 7.1 General Provisions and 7.8 Solid Waste. (TF) 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 3.15 Administrative Adjustments. (JR) 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.2 Off-Street Parking Standards. QP) 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.3 Access Management and Circulation. (TP) 8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings. :• March 23, 2006 ~ Joint Workshop with City Council, 3:00 p.m. :• Apri15, 2006 ~ Dedication ceremony for John Crompton Park, 5:30 p.m. • April 22, 2006 ~ Dedication ceremony for Wolf Pen Creek Trail . Systems and Earth Day presentation and related events. ~.. 9. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning • 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. • • 10. Adjourn Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission, College Station, Texas will be held on the Thursday, March 16, 2006 at 5:30 P.M. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. Posted this the day of March, 2006 at CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Connie Hooks, City Secretary By I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 March _, 2006, at 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 , 2006. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of , 2006. Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request fir cirm intPrnrPtivP ePrcri~P meet F+a marlP 4R hnnre hPfnrP the mPPtinrr T~ makP • ~ITk' QF ~()LL~GE S'T.ATIbN Pfaxnir~ trlkarfopn:enr Srrvicn AGENDA Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, College Station City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Hear Citizens. At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to address the Commission on planning and zoning issues not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. The citizen presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate • time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will receive the information, ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda for discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.) All matters listed under Item 2, Consent Agenda, are considered mutine by the Planning and Zoning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary and final plats, where staff' has found compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All items appmved by Consent are approved avith any and all stafi'recommendations. There will not be separate discussion of these items. If any Commissioner desires to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda it will be moved to the KegularAgenda forfurther consideration. 3. Consent Agenda. 3.1 Consideration, discussion and possible action on meeting minutes. • March 2, 2006, Minutes -Regular Meeting Regular Agenda. 4. Consideration, discussion and bossible action on reauest(sl for absence from • Harold Strong ~ March 2, 2006, Workshop & Regular Meeting • • Bill Davis ~ March 16, 2006, Workshop & Regular Meeting • Ken Reynolds ~ March 16, 2006, Workshop & Regular Meeting 5. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a project proposal for the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program. (KF) 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on variances to Section 12-I.7 (Cul- de-Sacs) and Section 12-K.2 (Block Length) for Indian Lakes Phase X; and presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Indian Lakes Phase X, consisting of 41 lots on 79.71 acres, located southeast of the intersection of Indian Lakes Drive and Chaco Canyon, in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Case #06-500035 QP/CC) 8. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding a possible recommendation to City Council regarding streetscaping in the Ciry of College Station. Case #06- 500049 (KF) • 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a replat for Ponderosa Place Section 2, Tract E and Lot 1, Block 20 of Ponderosa Place Section 4-A, consisting of 2 lots on 5.29 acres located at 3850 State Highway 6 South, generally located north of the Rock Prairie Road exit. Case #06-500022 (TF/JN) 10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning for 3850 State Highway 6 South, consisting of 1 lot on 1.678 acres generally located north of the Rock Prairie Road exit, from C-2 Commercial-Industrial to C-1 General Commercial. Case #06-500018 (TF/LB) 11. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Replat of Bald Prairie Lots 4&5 and a Final Plat of Edelweiss Gartens Phase 7 consisting of 50 lots on 10.715 acres located off of Eagle Avenue east of Brandenburg Lane. Case #06-500032 QR/Jlv) 12. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.4, Non-Residential Dimensional Standards. Case #05-500023 QP) • 13. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an • • 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 14. Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Article 11, Definitions. Case #05-500023 QP) 15. Adjourn. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission, College Station, Texas will be held on the Thursday, March 16, 2006 at 7:00 PM. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. Posted this the day of March, 2006 at CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Connie Hooks, City Secretary By I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 March _, 2006, at 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 , 2006. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of , 2006. Workshop Agenda 3 Presentation, possible action and discussion on an item to update the Commission on the status of items within the P&Z Plan of Work. (LS) • • L` ~ ° a ° o o ° R, ~ r~ .~ o rV N `o C N o ~ U ° '~ ~ ~ '~ as a \ c ~ ~ ~,,a w w A ~ ~ ~ O O _ v ~ c R' . '' ~' . w ~ ~ ~ o ~ „ .o c ~ .. ~ ~, ;~ o ~ a a g p ~ ,~ ~ N ~ ~ 0 U o U ,v , a z ~ a a~ rro a, ° o, ~ Q o ~ U o :yb ~ ~o w o ~ ~ n 'C a U N ,--i ' i. O C ~ U 5 A N N ' O ' ~ o a~ o ~ GC ' ~ ~ o o U 'r ~ ' ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ e o ~ ~ ~ • O ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ y ~ ~ ~ N r ~ ~ ~ C~ o ~ ~ a a ~ a ° ~ ~ Vl CZ ~ C1 01 ~ O/ ^~' ~ ~ N O ~ v ~ ¢ U 8 U U ~ ~ a a °1 ~ d a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a+ U ~ ~ ~ ~ y ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~a ~~ ~~ .~,~" t~I~ ~ p v U .. v~ fi a s o v U° •o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ `~ o Ts ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~o~ ~~ ~~ yo p ~ ~ u Q ~ v o ~~ v ~ o~ ~~ ~•y ~ o ~ ~ a U y"~ ~ ~~ ~ Ux ~ o U;5 ~' ~ U y ~ ~~ . a ~.~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~. a .. ~~ a U ~~ o ~~o ~ ~ s ~ o •~ ~ v ~ go o . o ~ .a a qp~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ w a ' .rs ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~. p; °' ~~' ~ ~ on ~' °' ' 5 ~ ~ ~ p3 Aoo a ~ ~i, 3~ H~U ~ ~~.~ ~ 5 ~c~ as ¢ ~ ~ ri N M ~ ~O l~ cg co J a 'd' 0 a • • b ~ ,ti ~c ~c ~i a~ G N ~' N ~ ~ O • pp C U a i i ~ on ~~ a o ~a •~ A O a. ] ~ '~~ c . ~ 0 `~~' ~~~c a a ~ ~ ~,o~ ~ ~ y~ ~, a~•~ v~ +-~ Y U N ,~ ,~ a ~~ w O p Z ~3 ~ v, ~ ~ ~ ~i a~ ~ a~ o a Y ~ ~ ~ a a y o ~' ~ 'G .. ~ N , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ o " : ~ a' ~ `~ `~ ~ ~ •~ S 9 '"~ 0 3 r i it ~ obi ~ ., a~i + ~ ° ~ 'D 3 ,.., ~" a. ~ v O „ o» ~ O a ~ O w U ~ G U ~ " `i' ~ ~ Q o >C~~ ~ pa ; CO •• ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~, a ~ o ~ ~ •~ ~ ~~ •~ Q ~ Q •a o ~, o 0 0 ~y~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~y~ a O ~ o o `~ W o o~ `~ o 0 0 `~ 0 0;~ U pip U a U a U a U p, ~ p o ~ a o ~ a o ~ a o ~ , ~ , .N .N .~ .~ O a b °~' °~' N :~ ~~ ob b a~ ~ °b b °'~ ~ °b b ao ~ °b b ag p ^ ~ o ~ w ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3'd ~ ~ ~3'd ~ ~ :: U ~'e~ o U ~'ob o U ~'a'b o U ~'eb o p ~~~~ ~~~b ~~~~ ~~~b ~ a ~ W ~ U ~ ~ a F ° O ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ o .~ ~ ~ ~ ~b ~~ .~ c ' ~ A : •~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ a oi a Y o •a O a a~ ~ U , o , o~ °~° ~ a n o ~ •~ .~ o 0 o i . a ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ] ~ ~ ~ w U~' O wa A Ain Aa ' k,i7.A w 00 N M 'c}' N ~ V7 cS iii J S. 0 N Ci a • C7 • a~ 00 c o ~ o 'p~' o 0 O^ N ~ O N O p O O O ono O N O o~0 O f ~ V ^" N ~ w ~ ~ .-~ N a ~ W : ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q ...~ ~ O h ,a ~ ~b ~ O N a ,li .V+ H O ~ N a ~ , y ,~ +~ ~ ~ ~ p a~ ~o O ~ ~~+ O ~ Z ~ . ~ 0 , ` ~ ~ + ~ ~ ° ~U c GCl = ~ 0 ~ ~a o N Z A 3~ `o' ° 8 ~ ~~ ~ • .D Q j `~ o • ~ °~ ~ N • U ~ y ~~ a U Vi U o N ' N ~ .,~ ~ .~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~3 a s ~ w y o ~, ~. ~ ~w O ~ H U U ~ °» ~ ~ ~ ~; Q ttx.c..,, ~4 H ~ ~ W `~ [~.zc,, AG ~ y V ~ ^N a ~° ~ Y ~ ~ a „~ a a a a a a C y ~ y U U U U U U V~ ^" .~ ~ o V c ~ w .~ H ~ ~, O W '^' W ~ °' ~ c c o ~egn . a `a on q ~ . U o ~ „~ ~ Lti. o 'R ~ ~ ?,~ a o ~ ~ a i ~ a a .~ •^y C/~ d w. O ~ U ~ O V .O. y y y ~ ~ ~ r' ~ O O y W .-. .., ~.. O Q~ 'L'" „~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ U -orb g' ~ ~ ~~ ~a ~°:~ v ~ 1^~1' N~ A _ y ; y U 1.y ~i c°q ~, c ~ ~ 'o }. w° U ~ on ~ y a~ ~ ~ a an a~ ~ 'b o v a 4. ~ o y ~ '~ on ~ ~ a ,°[ ~ .. U ~ o ~ i ao ? 3 ~w ~a ~~ a a ~ A3 x ~ ~ 4 '- w o ~ H c o ~d oo ri ~., d PU 04 U U U ._.; A cp J 0 m a • • VJ VJ a ~ 0 ~ ~ V a ~ N N z z , ~ C a cV N ~ O b ~ O .C ti ~ ~ , ~ id ,- , v ~ ~ A ~ ~ a i 0 ~ 'G ~ N a ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ •~ '5 A O y ~ O N O Z N ~ •-'~ ~ ~ 'G Q 'C C ~ n y ~ w °~ °~ • c o a. ~ ~ ~ c ,~ ~ ~ ~ b ~'' ~, ~ b w N ~ ~ C ~ O ~x a 0 ~x p • ~ U v~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CK •y ~ se a „"~ .y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ° o Ci .a a ~ ~ ~ .y „ ~ 3 U O .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U c ~ y ~ > ~,~ ~b~~~ 3 ~ ~ ~ Eti W~UQa w a ..,~ a °~ ~ N° p a ,~ ~ •N ~ L O ~ ~ r C ~' $ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ N x ti ~ a k, N :~ ~ ~ z w ~ U ~ H A ~, "V O ~ ~i . b ~ O~ ~'~~~ ~ ~ ~ y ' `' ~ ° ~a •~ .~ a v ~ v, P~~. O p a obi ~ p q v .~ ~ `~ cd~ .~ N . ~°t7UUU Zw° c •~ ~ a ~ N O~ ~ ti O O ~ A A ~ U U ° o `8 J a v 0 m a Workshop Agenda 4 Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an update to the Unified Development Ordinance, Sections 7.1 General Provisions and 7.8 Solid Waste. (TF) ~ ~~~~~~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM C7 DATE: March 6, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Trey Fletcher, AICP, Senior Planner THROUGH: Joey Dunn, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: 2005 UDO Annual Review, Article 7 At the direction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at the January 5, 2006 meeting, the Annual Review of the UDO has been divided into several smaller policy issues for consideration. The following background information has been prepared for your review prior to the formal consideration of amendments to several subsections of Artide 7 at the April 6, 2006 P&Z meeting where the following are the policy issues involved: ^ Section 7.1.D.3 "Features Allowed within Required Yards" to clarify that structures that require building permits may be subject to additional regulations and allow porches to extend into front and side street setbacks on a limited basis. ^ Section 7.8.C "Minimum Requirements" changed to Section 7.8.C "Guidelines" to allow City staff more discretion with the standards for solid waste services, wam property owners that dumpster screening should be located outside of utility easements, clarify that special standards do not apply to small-lot single family but instead apply to townhouses, and to provide guidelines for 300-gallon side loading automated containers. Attachments 1. Section 7.1.D.3 (Redlined) 2. Section 7.8.C (Redlined) • Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.1. General Provisions 1 ~ ~J • Article 7. General Development Standards The following general development standards shall apply to ail zoning districts, except where expressly stated to apply to, or exclude, specific districts. 7.1 General Provisions A. Health and Environmental Safeguards No machine, process, or procedure shall be employed on any property in the City, in which: 1. Emission of smoke, dust, or noxious, toxic or lethal gases are detectable beyond the perimeter of the property; 2. Materials are stored or accumulated in such a way that they may be carried by rainwater in natural drainage channels beyond the limits of the property, which are noxious, toxic, radioactive, contain oil or grease, wood, cellulose fibers, hair, feathers, or plastic, or have a pH factor greater than ten or less than five; 3. Vibration is discernible beyond the property line; or 4. Noise above the ambient noise level is discernible beyond the property line. B. Minimum Requirements 1. No building plot shall have lower or less stringent standards or dimensions than those prescribed for respective zones in this UDO. 2. No building permit or development approval may be issued for a lot that does not meet the minimum lot area requirements of this UDO except as provided for in Article 9, Nonconformities. 3. In the absence of public water or public sewer, no building permit shall be issued until the lot meets ail applicable requirements of this UDO and the Texas Department of Health and Environmental Control. Aseptic system that has been approved by the Brazos County Health Department may be permitted if an exception to sewer service has been granted under Chapter 11, SeCtlOn 2 Of the COLLEGE STATION CODE OF ORDINANCES, a5 amended. 4. Utilities using land or an unoccupied building covering less than 1,000 square feet of site area shall be exempt from minimum lot area standards. C. Visibility at Intersections in all Districts Within a triangle defined by the property lines and a line joining two points located 20 feet back from the intersection of the property lines, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, or allowed to grow in such a manner as materially to impair vehicle drivers' vision at intersections. In addition, for commercial and multifamily driveways, a visibility triangle defined by the curb lines and a line joining two points located 20 feet back from the intersection of the curb lines shall apply. Fences, walls, and/or hedges may be permitted in visibility triangles provided that such fences, walls, and/or hedges do not impair vision from three feet to six feet above the curb. Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 7-1 City of College Station, Texas • Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.1. General Provisions • Per Ordinance No. 2753 dated September 23, 2004 ~_ 1 Visibility Triangle -pnw~rtv iine- cwbline - street D. Required Yards (Setbacks) i. Purpose i~ Intent a. Setbacks are measured from the property line; b. On lots with approved rear access, the rear setback shall be measured from the nearest boundary of the access easement or alley; c. No structure that is taller than eight feet in height and that has a roof structure that completely or partially blocks the view to the sky shall be • located within the required setback area unless specifically allowed herein; d. No part of a yard or other open space required in connection with any building, building plot, or use for the purpose of complying with this UDO, shall be included for any other building, building plot, or use as part of a yard or open space; and e. Where an existing block was created by an approved plat prior to July 15, 1970, a new (infill) single-family dwelling unit shall use the adjacent lots to determine the appropriate front yard setback. The new dwelling unit shall be set no closer to the street or farther back from the street than the nearest neighboring units. 2. Reduction for Public Purpose a. When an existing setback is reduced because of a recent or pending conveyance to a federal, state, or local government for a public purpose and the remaining setback is at least 50 percent of the required minimum setback for the district in which it is located, then that remaining setback will be deemed to satisfy the minimum setback standards of this UDO. 7-2 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas Article 7. Generel Development Standards Section 7.1. General Provisions • b. For the purposes of this subsection, such conveyance shall have occurred within one year immediately proceeding submittal for site plan approval, or be anticipated to occur within one year of site plan approval. 3. Features Allowed Within Required Yards The following features may be located within a required yard but may be subject to additional regulations applied herein: a. Trees, shrubbery, or other landscape features, excluding gazebos or _ other similar structures that require a building permit; ~ . Deleted: partially cover the view skyward b. Fences and walls; --- c. Driveways; d. Sidewalks; e. Utility lines, wires, and associated structures, such as power poles; f. Mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units, pool pumps, and similar equipment; g. Uncovered porches, uncovered steps to building entrances, and uncovered patio decks; h. Covered porches that are open on three sides, m~,y extend uD to six feet' - - Formatted: Bullets and N~rnberNg (6'), includinq_eaves, into anv reauired front or side street setback: i_Openwork fire balconies and fire escapes may extend up to six feet into any required rear setback; • j_Sills, belt courses, cornices, buttresses, chimneys, flues, eaves, and other architectural features may extend up to 18 inches into any required yard; k_Balconies or decks located more than eight feet from the ground may project up to six feet into the required front yard; 1_Accessory structures that do not require building permits; t, r~Bus stops that offer shelter from the elements. Such shelters may be located within a front or side street yard. Shelters may be located within a public right-of-way if a Private Improvement in Public right-of- way permit has been duly issued; and n_Swimming pools and hot tubs without shelter. E. More Than One Principal Structure on a Lot or Parcel 1. In any single-family or duplex residential district, no more than one structure housing a permitted principal use may be erected on a single lot or building plot. Per Ordinance No. 2753 dated September 23, 2004 2. In all other districts, more than one structure housing a permitted principal use may be erected on a building plot. Yard and other requirements herein shall apply to the building plot. 7-3 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.1. General Provisions • F. Fences Fences of wood, chain-link, or similar material, and less that eight feet in height, and fences of brick, stone, concrete, or similar material, and less than six feet in height, shall not be construed to be structures, nor shall they require a building permit. G. Building Plot 1. Building plot refers to all of the land within an area defined by the Administrator that consists of one or more platted lots for a single development. Such determination shall be made at the platting stage or at the time of site plan. 2. In the event that two or more lots are under single ownership and the existing structure does not meet the required yard setback, both lots shall be construed as the building plot. 3. The Administrator shall determine the building plot using the following criteria: a. Contiguous properties that consist of less than two acres and have one or fewer frontages on a street classified as a collector or higher on the current Thoroughfare Plan will be consolidated and defined as one building plot for the purposes of signage; b. Contiguous properties that develop according to a common plan or design for similar or compatible uses, which singularly or in phases, is treated as such for site plan review purposes including signage; or c. Contiguous properties that as determined by the Administrator need to be consolidated for ease of access, reduction of the proliferation of signage along the public right-of-way, or other public health, safety, or general welfare reasons. • H. Height 1. Building Height Building height refers to the vertical distance measured from the finished grade, or the base flood elevation where applicable, and the following points: a. The average height level between the eaves and ridge line of a gable, hop, or gambrel roof; b. The highest point of a mansard roof; or c. The highest point of the coping of a flat roof. 2. Single Family Protection a. With the exception of NG, RDD, and P-MUD districts, no multi-family or non-residential structure shall be located nearer to any property line adjacent to asingle-family use or townhouse development than a horizontal distance (B to C) of twice the vertical distance (height, A to B) of the structure as illustrated in the graphic below. 7-4 Unined Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas • Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.2. Off-Street Parking Standards • ~~~~~~ \ \ ommercial \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ 13 sbp~lWldNp Building \ \ \ j 50' \ \ \ \ C ,..: BIB 100' -' - 25'---J House b. No additional multi-family or non-residential structures shall penetrate an imaginary line, illustrated by the inclined plane in the graphic above, connecting points A and C. c. Calculation of the height limits shall be to the highest point of the structure. Equipment such as satellite dishes and heating and air conditioning units may be installed on top of buildings provided that they are screened from horizontal view and included in the height limitations. d. Unless otherwise stated in this UDO, the height limitations herein shall not apply to any of the following: 1) Utility structures such as elevated water storage tanks and electrical transmission lines; 2) Architectural elements such as flagpoles, belfries, cupolas, spires, domes, monuments, chimneys, bulkheads, elevators, or chimney flues; or any other similar structure extending above the roof of any building where such structure does not occupy more than 33 percent of the area of the roof; or 3) Residential radio/television receiving antennas. I. Public Address Systems Public Address Systems shall not be audible to an adjacent residential use. 7.2 Off-Street Parking Standards A. Purpose The purpose of this Section is to establish the guidelines for off-street parking seas consistent with .the .proposed land use to:. ~ _ . - oeieeed: spaces 1. Eliminate the occurrence of non-resident on-street parking in adjoining neighborhoods; 2. Avoid the traffic congestion and public safety hazards caused by a failure to provide such parking,~reas; and _ _. Deleted: spaces 3. Expedite the movement of traffic on public thoroughfares in a safe manner, thus increasing the carrying capacity of the streets and reducing the amount of land required for streets, thereby lowering the cost to both the property owner and the City. B. Off-Street Parking Spaces Required ~-s Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas • Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.$. Solid Waste • 3. Any canopy tree removed or otherwise destroyed by the willful act or negligence of the property owner, tenant, or contractor shall be replaced by a tree of the same or larger caliper. H. Appeals i. Appeals of the terms of this Section, with the exception of Section G, Maintenance and Replacement, shall be to the Design Review Board (DRB). 2. An appeal shall be made within 30 days of the date of the notification of the decision by filing with the Administrator a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. 3. The DRB may authorize on appeal alternative buffer standards for a specific property or a waiver to the Buffer Requirements of this Section when such standards or variance will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to unique and special conditions not normally found in like areas, a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance by the Administrator would result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of this Section shall be observed and substantial justice done. . '" 7.8 SOlld WBSte Furtnattcd: Bullets and Numbering A. Purpose • It is the purpose of this Section to establish the guidelines for the provision of solid waste collection in all developments within the City of College Station where curb service will not take place, in order to: i. Provide for the safe and efficient collection and removal of waste from commercial and residential developments; and 2. Reduce nuisances associated with waste collection containers. B. Responsibility The City shall make the final determination as to the appropriate collection system; however, it is the responsibility of the developer to ascertain the appropriateness of the proposed collection system. Staff will endeavor to accommodate applicants to the extent equipment, efficiency, and policy allow. - Deleted: Minimum C. 11 lin - - Requirements ~. ~The_following, shall _be., onsidered minimum standards . - Deleted: In all cases, t Deleted: requirements i. All dumpsters shall be screened. Screening shall be at least as tall as the ~ Deleted: held as dumpster(s) and may be achieved through the use of buildings, fences, or walls. Plant materials may be used to supplement required screening. Dumnster screens should be located outside of utility easements ProRerty ' - - ~~~~ BodyIndent4 owners with dumpster screens located within utility easements are hereby warned that they will be responsible for the replacement of the screens if it becomes necessary to remove them for utility construction and/or maintenance. 2. Multi-family developments shall provide the required pad and screening for one eight-yard dumpster per sixteen dwelling units. ~-ss Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas • Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7?~. Drainage and Stormwater Management • C7 3. Townhomes not served by approved, accessible alleys, shall provide the - loeieted: single-family xequired_pad and screening for one eght-y_ard dumpster per sixteen (16Z _ _. _..- - devebpments with a lot width of dwelling units. less than 50', 4. The interior clearance (inside the screen) dimensions for a single 300-gallon container enclosure shall be ten feet (10') deep by ten feet (10') wide. 5. The interior clearance (inside the screen) dimensions for a single (one eight-yard) dumpster enclosure shall be twelve feet (12') deep by twelve feet (12') wide. 6. The interior clearance (inside the screen) dimensions for a double (two eight-yard) dumpster enclosure shall be twelve feet (12') deep by twenty- four feet (24') wide. 7. Bollards and other such devices shall not be set within the minimum width dimensions noted above. 8. All required containers and dumpsters pads shall be constructed of six inches (6") of steel-reinforced concrete. 9. All required containers and dumpsters shall be screened by means of an approved six-foot (6') high opaque device on a minimum of three sides. Depending on visibility to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, a gate may be required for all enclosures except 300-gallon side loading automated containers. Gates shall have a minimal width of twelve feet (12;) when _ _ -- open, shall swing 180 degrees from the closed Dosition, and shall utilize a - positive locking mechanism while in the open position. Three hundred- ciallon side loading automated container enclosures shall be oven on the side facing the collection point. The open side cannot be facino the pubic right-of-wav. Materials may be dictated by the terms of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or the Design Review Board (DRB). 10. The ingress, egress, and approach to all dumpster pads shall conform to the fire lane requirements. 7.9 Drainage and Stormwater Management This Section is reserved. Any reference to this Section shall apply to Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances, Flood Hazard Protection. 7.10 Non-Residential Architectural Standards Deleted: ft. Inserted: ft.) when open, shall swing 180 degrees from the closed position, and shall utilize a positive locking mechanism while in the open position. Three hundred-gallon side loading automated container enclosures shall be open on the side facing the collection point. The open side cannot be facing the pubic - - - Formatbed: Bullets and Numbering A. Applicability The design standards of this Section shall apply to development, redevelopment, and facade changes to all non-residential buildings located in any zoning district with the exception of the M-1, M-2, R&D, NG-1, NG-2, and NG-3 districts. All buildings shall be subject to the following standards. This applies to single tenant buildings, multiple tenant buildings, and any grouping of attached or stand alone buildings and associated„,~,ad sites. . - Deleted: out parcels _. Exemptions: Churches • - - - Formatted: Body Indent 3, No bullets or numbering 7-56 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas • Workshop Agenda 5 Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an update to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 3.15 Administrative Adjustments. (JR) • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner THROUGH: Joey Dunn, Director of Planning & Development Services • SUBJECT: UDO Annual Review, Article 3.15, Administrative Adjustments At the direction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at the January 5, 2006 meeting, the Annual Review of the UDO has been divided into several smaller amendments for consideration. The following background information has been prepared for your review prior to the formal consideration of amendments to Article 3, Section 15 Administrative Adjustments: Currently Article 3, Section 15 gives the Administrator the authority to give an Administrative Adjustment up to 10% from any numerical zoning standard set forth in Article 5 (District Purpose Statements and Supplemental Standards), Article 6 (Use regulations), or Article 7 (General Development Standards). The Administrative Adjustment was put into place to legitimize minor deviations from the Ordinance that the Zoning Board of Adjustments deem to be de minimis. The intent was to correct minor errors after the site had been constructed and not provide general relief from the Ordinance. This amendment will permit developers to apply to the Administrator for an Administrative Adjustment only to those requirements set out in Sections 5.2, 5.4 and 5.7 of the UDO. All other requests for a variance to the UDO will be heard by the Zoning • Board of Adjustment. Article 3. Development Review Procedures Section 3.15. Administrative Adiustment ~ - - ------__. _. .-_..__.. ._... __. .. __. ----------__... _.___. _._-. _F , Deleted: 3.15 p 'e• Deleted: 3.6 • 3.15 Administrative Adiustment ~ Deleted: Administrative AdJustment A. Purpose `. ~~ Inserted: 3.15 Administrative adjustments are specified deviations Insarcea: Administrative Adjustment from otherwise applicable development standards where Applicatlon development is proposed that would be: Submittal Deleted: Design District Site Plan Review i. Compatible with surrounding land uses; Staff Review Completeness 2. Harmonious with the public interest; and Review 3. Consistent with the purposes of this UDO. B. Applicability The Administrator shall have the authority to authorize Administrator adjustments of up to ten percent (10%) from any~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ----- _ - Deietea: numerical zoning dimensional standards set forth inS~ction 5.2 standard Residential Dimensional Standards. Section 5.4 Non-Residential Dimensional - ~ Deleted: Articles 5, 6, or 7 Standards. and Section 5.7 Desion District Dimensional Standards of this UDO. Any adjustment request greater than ten percent (10%) shall be treated as a variance handled by the Zoning Board of Adjustment subject to the requirements of Section 3.16, Variances. C. Application A complete application for an administrative adjustment shall be submitted to the Administrator as set forth in Section 3.1.C, Application Forms and Fees. D. Review and Action by Administrator The Administrator shall review the application and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application based upon the criteria below. A written • decision including affirmative findings on the criteria set forth below shall be sent to the applicant. E. Administrative Adjustment Criteria 1. To approve an application for an administrative adjustment, the Administrator shall make an affirmative finding that the following criteria are met: a. That granting the adjustment will ensure the same general level of land use compatibility as the otherwise applicable standards; b. That granting the adjustment will not materially or adversely affect adjacent land uses or the physical character of uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development; and c. That granting the adjustment will be generally consistent with the purposes and intent of this UDO. 2. In the event that the Administrator finds that the applicant has not met the above criteria, the applicant may request that the application be forwarded to the Zoning Board of Adjustment as a variance request subject to the requirements of Section 3.16, Variances. 3-39 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas • Workshop Agenda 6 Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an update to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.2 Off- Street Parking Standards. (JP) ~ ~~~~~~ City of College Station Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 3, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning 8~ Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner THROUGH: Joey Dunn, Director of Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: UDO Annual Review -Off Street Parking Standards -Surfacing & Curbing • At the direction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at the January 5, 2006 meeting, the Annual Review of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) has been divided into several smaller amendments for consideration. The following background information has been prepared for your review prior to the formal consideration of amendments to Sections 7.2.F-H at the April 6, 2006 P&Z meeting. Staff has created Site Design Standards that include standard details for commercial and multi- family site development. The Site Design Standards are a compilation of details that meet the standards already set forth in the UDO. The Site Design Standards will be available to our customers both in hard copy and on-line. Section 7.2.F "Requirements Apply to All Parking Areas" to reference the City of College Station Site Design Standards. Section 7.2.G."Surfacing" to reference the City of College Station Site Design Standards for requirements for off-street parking area surfaces and to consistently identify the Administrator as the person with the discretion to allow for alternative drive surfaces and to specify surfacing requirements. Section 7.2.H "Curbing Required" added to include references to the City of College Station Site Design Standards for curbing specifications and to identify when temporary curbing may be appropriate. Attachments: • Redlined Copy of Sections 7.2.F-H Off-Street Parking Standards Article 7. General Development Standards Section ~ Off-S,,~reet Parking~t~n~iari~ . • BuHdl:q INTERIOR PARKING 2. All end islands must be raised at least six inches and curbed, with the majority of the area of each island planted or treated with enhanced paving. The soil within the planted area shall not be compacted or stabilized and shall be contiguous with the soil at the natural grade. E. Interior Islands 1. All interior islands shall be evenly distributed throughout the interior of the parking area. ~ 2. For every fifteen 15 interior parking spaces, 180 square feet of • landscaping must be provided somewhere in the interior rows of the parking lot. Interior island areas may be grouped and configured as desired provided that circulation aisles remain clear and the minimum island area is not less than 180 square feet. Interior islands may have sidewalks through them. ,P',~ 4;,., ,. ,.t \ . 3. End island areas that exceed the minimum required may be counted toward the interior parking island requirement. 4. All interior islands must be raised at least six inches and curbed, with the majority of the area of each island planted or treated with enhanced paving. The soil within the planted area shall not be compacted or stabilized and shaii be contiguous with the soil at the natural grade. Deleted: 7.3 Inserted: 7.3 Deleted: 7.4 Inserted: 7.4 Deleted: 7.10 Deleted: Traffic Impact Analysis Deleted: Traffic Impact Analysis Inserted: Traffic Impact Analysts Deleted: Non-Residential Architectural Standards Inserted: Traffic Impact Analysis F. Requirements Apply to All Parking Areas Every parcel of -and hereafter used as a public parking area, excluding overflow ~ Formatted: Indent: Left: s3 pt parking for churches, including commercial parking lots, and parcels used for open-air sales lots shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the requirements in this Section and as described in the Citv of College Station Site Desian Standards. • ~-a Unified Development Ordinance LOT =~.~ ~J ,$, `` _ ~'' ~ G1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ PARKING SETBACK Street 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7~? Off-S,,~Pr g~Parking_,Stan~i~r~s n: 4i• . .. • G. Surfacing ~~ 1. General ++': ,', 2. All surfacing of off-street parking areas shall be constructed of ~~ ,' either asphalt or concrete as described in the Citv of College Station . Site Design Standards. Alternatives to the standards may be ~~ ag,Droved by the Administrator if it is demonstrated that the materials and design are equal or superior to the requirements in the Standards. AL1_off-street. parking_areas_shall be graded to.draln and maintained so as to dispose of surtace water accumulated ` ~• within the area. Parking spaces shall be so arranged and marked so • as to provide for orderly and safe parking of vehicles.Non-Public, ~ `, All-Weather Drive Surfaces . _ __ Temporary or permanent drive surfaces that are required for emergency access or turnaround for emergency vehicles must be constructed to function under all weather conditions. To accommodate a project during construction, phasing, or permanent installation, drive surfaces that do not meet the requirements for permanent pavement surtaces may be allowed at the discretion of the P,dministr~tor for the specific_conditions stated _ _ _ -- __ below: ----- - ---------- Deleted: 7.3 Deleted: Traffic Impact Analysis Inserted: 7.3 Deleted: 7.4 Inserted: 7.4 Deleted: 7.3 Deleted: Traffic Impact Analysis Deleted: Access Management and Circulation 1[mserled: Traffk Impact Analysis Inserted: Traffic Impact Analysis Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: below Deleted: described in the City of College Station Standard Specifications for Construction, Part VIII Standard Details. Variances to the standards shall be approved by the Development Engineer. Deleted: ~ Deleted: Development Engineer a. Temporary All-Weather Surface (During Construction) A structure under construction must be accessible by an all-weather drive surface_as specified in the City of College Station Site Design _ Standard. This tem~orark all-weather surface must be reworked or Deleted: Standard Spedficatlons replaced to meet the permanent pavement standard as described in the for construction, Part vile City of College Station Site Design Standards prior to issuance of a standard Details Certificate of Cccupanc~ b. Semi-Permanent All-Weather Surface (During Phasing) • In cases during phasing of a large project, emergency access and turnarounds often must be added as a temporary measure until additional phases are constructed. These emergency access areas may consist of permanent pavement surtace as specified in the City of College Station Site Design Standard. When the additional Dhase is Deleted: Specifications for constructed these areas must be removed or reworked to meet the conswdton, Part VIII Standard permanent pavement standards as described in the City of College Details Station Site Design Standards. c. Permanent All-Weather Surface (Permanent) In some development scenarios, an emergency access or turnaround must be constructed to meet emergency access purposes and is not required for public traffic, service vehicles or sanitation vehicles. In these cases, the area required for emergency access only may consist of permanent pavement surface as specified in the City of College Station Site Design Standards. ~ Deleted: Standard SpedficaGons for Construction, Part VIII H. Curbing Required ~' Standard Details. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering i. General The perimeter of all paved surfaces shall be curbed as described in the City ` " " Formatted: BodyIndent4 of College Station Site Design Standards Alternatives to the standards may be approved by the Administrator if it is demonstrated that the Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 7-9 City of College Station, Texas • Article 7. General Development Standards I Section 7.Z Off-~~~egt Parking S$~n~~rd~ • ~:: '~°.; . ., materials and design are equal or superior to the requirements in the `°` Standards. 2. Tem og rary Curbing ~ '1 A temporary curb may be permitted in lieu of the minimum standard stated ~•' City of College Station Site Design Standards, at the discretion of the Administrator, when a project is phased in such a way that a permanent. monolithic curb may preclude development of future phases or limit access to a recorded private or public access easement adioining.properties. Wheel stops shall not be permitted as temporary curbing. Temporary curbing must have the appearance of permanent curbing and shall be temporarily attached to the pavement surfacing below and meet the minimum standards for dowelled in curbs as described in the Citv of College ' Station Site Design Standards. I. Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required In computing the number of parking spaces required, the following rules shall govern: Deleted: 7.3 Inserted: 7.3 Deleted: 7.4 Insertdd: 7.4 Deleted: 7.10 Deleted: Tragic Impact Analysts Deleted: Traffic Impact Analysis Inserted: Traffic Imoad Anahrsis Deleted: Non-Residential Architectural Standards Inserted: Traffic Impact Analysis I Formatted: Bullets and Nurnberirm I ~ Formatted: Body Indent ~ _ - - Formatted: Bullets and NumberMg 1. Parking requirements based on square footage shall be based upon the gross floor area, unless otherwise stated. Service areas such as mechanical rooms, restrooms, and closets shall be included in the calculation of "gross floor area" for determining required parking spaces. 2. Where fractional spaces result in computing required parking spaces, the required number of spaces must be increased to the nearest whole number. 3. The parking space requirements for a use not specifically listed shall be the same as those for the most similar to the proposed use, as determined by the Administrator. • 4. Whenever a building or use constructed or established after the effective date of this UDO is changed or enlarged in floor area, number of employees, number of dwelling units, seating capacity, or otherwise, parking requirements shall be met on the basis of the enlargement or change. Whenever a building or use existing prior to the effective date of this UDO is enlarged, the enlarged building or increased use shall then and thereafter comply with the parking requirements set forth herein. 5. In the case of mixed uses, the parking spaces required shall equal the sum of the requirements of the various uses computed separately. This includes the parking requirements for uses such as private schools, day care centers, soup kitchens, and computer centers located on property used for religious worship. Per Ordinance No. 2753 dated September 23, 2004 6. Where requirements are established on the basis of the number of seats, such requirements shall be based on the seating capacity as determined by the Building Official. 7. Where amanufacturing/industrial use has more than one working shift of employees, parking shall be provided to accommodate overlap requirements during transition periods. 7-10 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas. L` Workshop Agenda 7 Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an update to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.3 Access management and Circulation. (JP) • ~/~ City of College Station Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 3, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner THROUGH: Joey Dunn, Director of Planning & Development Services • SUBJECT: UDO Annual Review - 7.3 Access Management & Circulation (Driveways) At the direction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at the January 5, 2006 meeting, the Annual Review of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) has been divided into several smaller amendments for consideration. The following background information has been prepared for your review prior to the formal consideration of amendments to Section 7.3.C.7 at the April 6, 2006 P&Z meeting. The changes proposed to Section 7.3.C.7.c-f will align the driveway standards in the UDO with those in the B/CS Design Guidelines, adopted in 2005. Existing graphics in the UDO for this section will be replaced to reflect proposed amendments and available when this item comes to the Commission in Regular session. ^ Section 7.3.C.7 "Geometric Design of Driveway Access" to change acceptable curb return radii for residential from 2.5'-10' to 3'-10', and from 20'-30' to 25'-30' for non- residential; to identify the Administrator as the person whom may require a larger radii; to change the range for a residential driveway approach width from 10'-28' to 12'-25'. Attachments: ^ Redlined Copy of Section 7.3.C.7c-f "Geometric Design of Driveway Access" • Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.~, Access Management and Circulation) _._.. , Deleted: 77 3 ~`: ' y^; . Inserted: 7.3 stnst '~~''` ImerESd:7.4 Channsllzed ~ Deleted: Traffic Impact A Right-Tum Lan • ~, Daleibed: Traffic Impact A ~ ,Inserted: Traffic Impact , ~ street ~ Deleted: Non-Residential m Architectural Standards Radius Clearance (~1 l~ m Inserted: Traffic Impact , so zoo E 7s 2so c 100 27s lV 1 drive c. When the requirements of the previous two tables cannot be met due to lack of frontage and all means to acquire shared-access driveways or cross-access easements have been exhausted, no commercial driveway approach may be located closer to the comer than 75 feet on collector streets, 100 feet on minor arterials, and 120 feet for major arterials. This measurement shall be taken from the intersection of property lines at the corner. When these requirements can not be met due to lack of frontage, the driveway may be located such that the radius will begin at the farthest property line. • 6. Shared Access a. A joint private access easement may be required between adjacent lots fronting on arterial and collector streets in order to minimize the total number of access points along those streets and to facilitate traffic flow between lots. The location and dimensions of said easement shall be determined by the Development Engineer. b. A private cross-access easement may be required across any lot fronting on an arterial or collector street in order to minimize the number of access points and facilitate access between and across individual lots. The location and dimension of said easement shall be determined by the Development Engineer. 7. Geometric Design of Driveway Access a. All driveways shall meet the City of College Station's Standard Specifications for Street Construction. b. Curb cuts for driveways shall not be permitted in the curb return of an intersection. c. The curb return radii for driveways intersecting at right angles with the roadway and without a deceleration lane shall be as follows: 7-zz Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas • ~J • Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7~. ,Access Management and Circulation _ I q~. c : . FS•~ 1) Curb return radii for residential (single-family, townhouse, and •5 duplex) driveways shall be between hre feet_and en_feet ~3,-10'j_'.,',~•,, as shown in the figure,OpQv~._ Flaretype i-esidentfal.driv_eway_s_ ', ', ~•, - -- must also adhere to these dimensional criteria. ~!, ',' ,'. 2) Curb return radii for commercial and multi-family driveways shall `; vary betweenxwenty-five feet and hirt feet 25'-30' as shown in ~~,, the figure below. When special traffic conditions exist, the ~ ' ,', dministrafior ma re uire lar er curb return radii u to 50 feet ~i~,, ,~.~.. Y .. q ....... 9 .......... ..... P.... ,. ,~ . . 3) Curb return radii for drivewa~ type~s~not included in 1 or 2 '~A1'1,,,,, ( ) ( ) above shall be determined b the ministrator. _ _ d. The maximum width of residential driveway approach, measured at the ' property line, shall not exceed feet in width, while the minimum width shall not be less than ~2 feet. ~ ,' ~,~ e. The maximum width of commercial and multi-family driveway approaches for two-way operation, as measured at the property line. •. shall not exceed 36 feet, except that the minis r r may.. issue .............. ._ ~,~',',;1~~, permits for driveway approaches greater than 36 feet in width on major streets to handle special traffc conditions. The minimum width of ' commercial and multi-family driveway approaches for two-way operation shall be not less than 24 feet. f. The combination of two driveways for residential circular drives shall not , exceed ~5 feet. ~ ' _ _ .,• g. The angle of driveway approach shall be approximately 90 degrees for two-way drives and between 45 degrees and 90 degrees for one-way drives. h. A minimum driveway throat length shall be required to allow traffic entering the site to be stored on site, avoiding a queue of traffic onto the adjacent roadway causing delays to the through traffic stream. The driveway throat length shall be defined as the distance from the street to the ftrst point of conflict in the driveway. Minimum driveway throat depths are provided in the figure below. For more intense uses (i.e., retail shopping center) a minimum throat depth of 130 feet will be required. Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 7-23 City of College Station, Texas Deleted: 7.3 Inserted: 7.3 Deleted: .47 '~Ine.rtea: 7.4 Deleted: 7.3 Deleted: Traffic Impact Analysis- \ Debted: Traffic Impact Analysis Inserted: Traffic Impact Analysts Deleted: Access Management and Circulation Inserted: Traffic Impact Analysis Deleted: <sp> Formatted: Bullets and Nisnbering Formatted: Tabs: 81 pt, List tab + Not at 126 pt Deleted: two and one-half Dabbed: 10 Deleted: below. Deleted: 20 Deleted: 25 irnerbd: 2s Deleted: 30 Dabbed: Development Engineer Deleted: <sp> Deleted: Development Engineer ' Deleted: 28 Deleted: 10 Deleted: De Deleted: 28 C~ Consent Agenda 3.1 Consideration, discussion and possible action on meeting minutes. March 2, 2006, Minutes -Regular Meeting • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d' Developmrnt Srrvica • MINUTES Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, College Station City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Shafe 'ssioners Dennis Christiansen, Bill Davis, John Nichols, and Ken Reynolds. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissione arsh ford and Harold Strong. ~ CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS P N PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVI S' Planners Lindsay Boyer, Crissy Hai and Jennifer Prochazka and Trey Fletcher, Senio ~ ant City E Civil Engineer Carol Cotter, Transpo ti er Ken Assistant Director Lance Simms, De ~ pm Staff Assistants Jessica, rand Deb . ~ race. OTHER CITY F P Action Center Revres ti 1. Cook. ?F PRESENT: Staff Senior Planners Jennifer :lan Gibbs, Graduate e, Director Joey Dunn, ~r Bridgette George and City Attorney Carla Robinson and to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. 3. None Regular Agenda. .s time. . 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from Consent Agenda • John Nichols ~ March 2, 2006, Workshop Meeting • Marsha Sanford ~ March 2, 2006, Workshop & Regular Meeting • • Marsha Sanford ~ March 3, 2006, Planning and Development Services Department Forum Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the absence requests. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0). • -of--way these v and there • 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Ma Plan for Aggieland Business Park consisting of 117.48 acres located Raymond Stotzer Parkway (FM 60) at the northwest corner of F d Jones Road in the City's extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). ase 6-500020 (T~ AMENDED Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presente a aster Plan. fated that the item can be approved, denied or ap d with onditions tha ' terial in context. Mr. Fletcher stated that no e c ere received garding the item. Commissioner Christians motioned to rove the Master Plan. Commissioner Nichols sec emotion, 'o passed (5-0). 6. Public hearing, presentation, p~ Indian Lakes Phase I into Indian sib and ,'scussion on a replat of k a nsisting of 44 lots on 14.78 o e inters on of Indian Lakes Drive and ~50 2 (JP) ~ AMENDED Se Planner, p fed the replat of Indian Lakes Phase az ances granted in August 2005 will allow de ent in e ETJ. The variances included decreased de ed of widths, and utility easements. She stated that aria gr the plat is in compliance with the subdivision the eliminary plat that was approved last month. Ms. ded approval of the replat as presented and stated that ~ se ral phone calls received in opposition to the replat. ichols motioned to approve the replat. Commissioner econded the motion, motion passed (5-0). acres, genes Arapaho Ri Jennifer Prc N. Ms. _Pr 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning for Lot 1, Block A of the Haney-Highway 6 Subdivision, 1.2 acres, from C-3 Light Commercial to C-1 General Commercial located at 3129 Texas Avenue South in the general vicinity of the intersection of Texas Avenue, Deacon Drive and the Highway 6 frontage road. Case #06-500021(JP) Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the rezoning and recommended differences between C-1 and C-3 zoning uses, stating that she felt the C-1, General Commercial, allows several uses that may not be appropriate in that • location because of the size of the property, the traffic issues and the adjacency to Mile Drive. Matt Willis, 104 Mile Drive, College Station, Texas. Mr. Willis spoke in opposition to any of the uses in C-1. Mr. Willis spoke specifically to the rental of vehicles which have been addressed with the property owners in the middle. 8. 9. • • Charles Taylor, 1602 Panther Lane, College Station, in favor of rezoning the property to C-1. Commissioner Nichols motioned to den Commissioner Davis seconded the motion, tip Public hearing, presentation, possible ; amend the Unified Development Ordi This item was pulled from the aged Public hearing, presentation, possible amendment to the Unified Develo zoning districts. (JD) Joey Dunn, Director, ga boundaries of Northgat NG-2 was the co erc' is the higher- reference to uublic ustLl1U~ I erged in T 1, 2006, access T ordinance Northgate ve a p on the it arizing the zoning e. He ial No idential ut pr arings iewe ' wed n ' not occur. Mr. Dunn stated that the draft that the their packets was unveiled and available for public ago. Mr. Dunn ed the proposed changes for the Ordinance Amendment for Northgate. S e of the changes included information from the TIP Strategies, Inc., report. Other changes reviewed were as follows: • Site plan approval process • Additional use standards • Standards for historic properties • Building design standards .•. n,.._t:., ~_ ~...., a ...a.. to G-1 the historic Northgate, rth t th 'onal Northgate, and NG-3 p on of rthgate. Mr. Dunn spoke in ocess tating that in the first part of 2005, there held orthgate at Traditions Dorm. The time to look at a list of standards. In e Parks and recreation Advisory Board and with the City Council. In November 2005, it nual update in order to try and adopt it by Mr. Taylor spoke request. an ordinance to • Urban streetscape • • More signage options •3 Regulate outside storage and display •3 Waiver process Larry Haskins, 1700 George Bush Drive, College Station, Texas. Mr. Haskins who was representing, Culpepper Family Limited Partnership, stated that prior to the proceedings to the Planning and Zoning Commission there had only been one public meeting after the presentation of orthgate draft. He stated that in Molly Hitchcock's presentation to ommission about four weeks ago, there was a statement made that been an absence of development in the area. Mr. Haskins stated that of correct and that the area was fully developed but there ha abse f redevelopment in the area; with the exception of the pr rty known as the Lot, half of it has yet to be developed and the Ci onside ' g that as th ent for their conference center. Mr. Has ' s ed redevelopm is a very difficult task and that it is much more com d than development. He also stated that the City has mad xtraordinary in ents within Northgate. Mr. Haskins stated that all of tho stments to ave been confined to the NG-1 sub-district; none have e in the ub-district. He stated that NG-1 and NG-2 are distin dist se different purposes, they • have different ba ands, and sizes ery different. He also stated that most peo park in si of their estination. He stated that the ordinance offer bjective a roach to regulation that is much more preferable to a 'ecti a proach. askins stated that the problem was that when the Ci e the pressure relief valve as being the D Boa ere is other actual pressure relief valve in theory that is me c be rezoned as a redevelopment district. He ,~ d that the p m oth of those concepts was that the project had to b y designe both orizontally and vertically to make a presentation befo e Board. r. Haskins stated that if you are talking about a large develop t, that u are talking about large dollars that someone is being asked to ri f the board makes a suggestive finding against you then it is all for none. r. Haskins stated that is not an easy decision to make, but that he would m ch prefer if there were things that could be done to make the Ordinance a little better. Mr. Haskins spoke in reference to changes that he would recommend for the Northgate Ordinance Amendment. His recommendations were as follows: • Do not impose more stringent redevelopment standards on Northgate than those applicable to the rest of the City. Delete the changes to Sectzon 9.3 • (Page 9-7) from the proposed Amendment. • Do not exclude potentially desirable occupancies within NG-2 by limiting the allowable ground floor area of a single retail establishment to • less than 25,000 square feet. In Section 5.6.B.2.e.2 (Page S-2), increase the maximum allowable gross jZoor area on the ground floor to 45,000 square feet. :• Do not exclude potentially desirable occupancies within NG-2 by prohibiting single-tenant buildings. Delete Section 5.6B.2. e.3 (Page S-2) from the Amendment. • Under the Amendment, building transparency re ' ed clear glass; glass block and other semi-transparent materi not fulfill the requirement. Do not discourage bank, thea drug store or night club uses by imposing an excessive transpare r ' ement. Mod Section 5.6.B.4.b.1 (Page S-4) by reducing the n ry en a~ade percentage of transparency requirement from SO% to d the of ade percentage of transparency requirement from 30% to %. • Do not hamper efficient land s rohi ' ' g parking 200 feet of Church Avenue and University A parking ro s perpendicular to Church Avenue and .University Drive by 'ng Section 5.6.B.6.a (Page S-Ito allow individual parking es of not more eventy-fzve feet (including drive- way) in length parallel to C e or Unive ve. • Do not attempt to for eco ! easible development by • requiring um of ry b gs for all new construction within In place o e minimu 20 story requirement in Section 5.1 (5.7? e 5-16 , uire a mini wall height of twenty feet. • Until the a r to expec me need for South College pedestrian tion, no edevelopment flexibility by requiring a m b set bac from South College. Delete the maximum building ck re t applicable to South College from Section 5.1 (5.7?) (Page 5-16 . • o not cur the use of drive-through windows with NG-2. Specify 'n/thru dow as a permitted use, as opposed to being subject to Specific Use Sta s, in Section 6.2 (Page 6-1) Use Table. Alternatively, delete the "whol erneath a habitable structure" requirement from Section 6.3.E (Page 6- 3). • Clearly specify when buildings have "Frontage" on a particular street. Applicable to Section 5.6.B.2.e.1 (prohibited ground floor usage), 5.6.B.4.a (building orientation), and Section 6.2 (set backs). Specify that a building has frontage on a street if the building is located within 150 feet of the street, and there is not presently, or being developed in conjunction with the subject building • another building between the subject building and the respective street. 711 University Drive, College Station, Texas. Mr. Watson stated that he agreed with most of the things that Mr. Haskins stated previously. He stated that • Citibank was concerned about the following items. • Single-tenant buildings are a concern of Citibank Texas. If there are alterations made to the building where the 25% is exceeded, then Citibank will have to find a tenant to share the building that is totally occupied now. C7 .;. The transparency issue is a concern, the glass that would arise from this. The property of Citibank fronts both on therefore there will probably not be enoy~ Drive-through facilities are also a client feels that if drive-in facili ' will be taken away from the ci ' the parking. He stated that e issue. He stated that he felt would restrain anyone and as a result the build that he would like to see stated that his conventence ~ issue on lfhe parking changes to a building site 'tions to the buildings ed. Mr. Watson stated y other iti he was concerned about was on University Drive and South College oriented to one of the right-of--ways e stated that he thinks that this is in to add Church Street to this portion. section 5.4. "If a building has frontage on college Avenue". Mr. Dunn stated that Mr. Avenue to this section. • Co ner Nic s asked that staff respond to the concerns brought before the Co 'on .Haskins and Mr. Watson. Mr. Dunn stated that in his presentatio askins mentioned that the project had to be totally designed both horizo y and vertically before approval is given. Mr. Dunn stated that staff felt that if standards were met, it would make the process a little easier. He stated that staff felt that there was flexibility in terms of timing. He stated that ultimately this would call for elevations, as is the case throughout the City with regards to non-residential architectural standards. Mr. Dunn stated that he would be glad to take a look at the square footage issue of 25,000 vs. 45,000 in terms of minimum square footage. The recommendation regarding the prohibition of single-tenant buildings; this came directly from input at the the security concerns and University Streets; ~r any parking. it was an issue about mixed use and what was actually encouraged and how to encourage mixed use in the district • Commissioner Shafer asked what the grandfather possibility was on that issue. Commissioner Shafer asked if that was a problem as long as Citibank was the owner and operator of that building. Mr. Dunn replied that it was not a problem, but the issue would be the percentage of redevelopment and tear down/rebuild is 25%. He stated that he did not believe that general maintenance was affected. Mr. Dunn also addressed the comment regarding drive-through capabilities stating that there are ral drive-throughs, approximately four or five that exist, just in the -2 ar a. He stated that grandfathering would allow for them to remain a maintained, but the question was what would trigger them not ha ' the throughs anymore. Commissioner Davis asked how many si is are G-1 and NG-2. Mr. Dunn stated that he did not know staff could find tha rmation and get back to the Commission. Mr. Dunn responded to the reco n egarding e two-story requirement. He stated that staff was goin k to the intent to get greater bulk and that the Design Re Board can w the two-story requirement. He stated that staff was lookin ter densi area. Mr. Dunn then commented regarding recomme ~ ati ~ ~ ber sev ,stating that the setback • is 100 feet, it is the greatest setb Northgate area. He stated that going Brea 00 feet ma ow for evelopment for some existing structures ay b 0 or 300 t from the roadway, it does not prohibit that from g th ay and th ~ ere is a possibility of ending up with suburban type p ted tha taff felt that this would allow one row of 1 kin . ented on the recommendations regarding e-thro tatin t staff did go from prohibiting it all together to wing it un b d again, the existing drive-throughs would be Mr. asked i e Commission wanted staff to respond to Mr. Haskins Commissioner Nichols asked how the 25% was calculated from the existing building. Mr. Dunn stated that the total square footage of the building could be two floors, not just occupied space. He stated that the heated square footage is used. Commissioner Nichols stated that he would like to see that relaxed a little bit and depend on the Design Review Board to deal with some report that ould be done and brought back to Commission. Commissi er asked if this was slated for the end of March to go to City Council. .Dunn stated that was correct, that it was a quick turn around process. • of these issues that may occasionally come up. Regarding the 45,000 vs. the there are not good properties in the City of College Station that would be attractive for a Whole Foods or somebody that wanted a bigger dimension and • an easily accessible area where lots and citizens could get in and out of. He stated that he understood that would be prohibited in the NG-1, NG-2, and NG-3; but that it does not prohibit it from being in the City of College Station. He also stated that if the City was attractive enough to a potential business that they would be able to find other places that would be more feasible for them to locate to anyway. Mr. Nichols stated that if you would go back to the vision of the council, which is what is driving this, he feels that endments are very much true to that. Mr. Nichols stated that maybe w o relax the 25% to 50% maybe that would help. P P interest without being completely transp t into the buildi e asked if the transparency meant looking complete to the ' tenor of the .Lance Simms, Assistant Director, stated th t c be a ssed by sho 'ndows of sort and there were ways around it witho ing totally transparent to the building. ,~ Commissioner Shafer. spoke in reference to iss transparency. He stated that it seems like that there were o t co 'fain edestrian Co ' sinner N ols asked if in Northgate, if the non-residential archite stand s do not exist, so there is not a Unified Development Ordinanc area because they were exempt with the idea that the Northgate ance Amendments would be coming forward. Mr. Dunn stated that C 'ssioner Nichols was correct. Commissioner Reynolds stated that this area has received quite a bit of attention and there has been a great deal of work that has gone into the Northgate Ordinance Amendments as part of it. Mr. Reynolds stated that comments were heard that express sentiment that there may be obstacles that will be established by doing this that could impede the development that is • wanted in that area. He stated that he is not for establishing another body to .-~,t,+.,,,, +1,;,- 1-,,,+ +L,,,* 1, ,, ,1:.1 F „1 ~1-.,,+ ;~ ,~ ,.~ .....,,7,,.,~ ~1,,.,- ,.`-,,, 1„~~ 1,.,,1_ 1. ,, ~,.1_,,., „~ created by doing this. Commissioner Reynolds stated that he did agree the majority of things probably are minor, but that there are a few that may be a • little more critical when more time is spent looking at them. Commissioner Nichols motioned to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the amendment of the Unified Development Ordinance regarding Northgate zoning districts with one change to Section 9.3.a.2. this refers to the percentage of the building that changes would trigger the whole building to coming into compliance. He stated that the redevelopment issue should be changed 25% to 50%. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion otion passed (3-2). Commissioners Nichols, Davis and Shafer w vor; Commissioners Christiansen and Reynolds were opposed. 10. • Commissioner Christiansen i Reynolds seconded the motion, Scott Shafer, Chairman Planning and Z adjourn. • Regular Agenda 4 Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from meetings. City of College Station Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers • Request Submitted on: ~ ~o Name: --_Ll~~~~~ n r ~{ald~~I ~1L~zy ~ ~~~~ o This request shall be submitted to Lisa ~,indgren one-kveek rip or to the meeting date. I will not be in attendance at the meeting of: ~„ for the reason(s) specified: ;.Lisa,. Lin ren - Absence.Request, for. March 16th. Workshop .and,Regular Meeting, .. : _: P e 1 • From: "Bill (George W.R.) Davis" <bill(~pianoplace.net> To: "'Lisa Lindgren'" <Llindgren~csbc.gov> Date: 3/3/2006 5:07 pm Subject: Absence Request for March 16th Workshop and Regular Meeting Lisa and fellow commissioners. I will be in Connecticut March 11-19 and will not be able to attend the March 16th Workshop or Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bill (George W.R.) Davis, RPT 1006 HoR St College Station TX 77840-2621 (979) 695-1475 www.pianoplace.net • • • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Development Services Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name Ken Reynolds Request Submitted on Date: March 6, 2006 • ~~-~ Signature I will not be in attendance at the meeting of March 16, 2006 for the reason(s) specified: (Date) Family travel o:counciUabsenreq.doc C~ Regular Agenda 6 Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a project proposal for the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program. (KF) . MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner Date: March 7, 2006 Re: Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program -Project Proposal On November 1, 2005, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) issued a Call for Projects for funding through the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program (STEP). This program, which was established with the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient -Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), provides for opportunities to contribute to the livelihood of communities, the quality of our environment, and the aesthetics of our roadways. Projects that are selected will receive a cost reimbursement of up to eighty percent (80%) through this program. The projects must qualify under one or more of the following categories to be eligible: • Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists • • Provision of safety and education activities for pedestrians and bicyclists • Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites • Scenic or historic highway programs • Landscaping and other scenic beautification • Historic preservation • Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities • Preservation of abandoned railway corridors • Control and removal of outdoor advertising • Archaeological planning and research • Environmental mitigation • Establishment of transportation museums The City of College Station staff recommends that the Bee Creek Crossing Bike and Pedestrian Improvement Project be supported by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for submittal to the STEP program. The intent of this project is to provide abicycle/pedestrian connection between the Longmire Drive corridor and the College Station Bike Loop. The detailed scope of this project may include: • Bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Bee Creek • Shared user path connecting bridge to existing sidewalk on Longmire Drive • Bike lane striping between Valley View Drive and FM 2818 • Bicycle/pedestrian improvements for the intersection of FM 2818 / Longmire Drive including: • o Curb and gutter • o Sidewalks between FM 2818 frontage roads (connecting existing sidewalks along Longmire Drive) o Pedestrian refuge islands • Bike lane striping between FM 2818 and Airline Drive • Landscaping enhancements along the corridor The Bee Creek Bridge project was selected as a high priority project by the Bike and Hike Task Force in 2005. When presented to City Council, they agreed with the prioritization of this project, given that bicycle/pedestrian improvements must be made at the FM 2818 / Longmire Drive intersection in conjunction with the bridge project. City Council will be considering a resolution to support this project at the March 23, 2006 council meeting. Staff is looking for a recommendation to City Council from the Planning and Zoning Commission on whether this project should be supported. If you have questions or comments prior to the meeting, please feel free to contact me by phone (979.764.3556) or a-mail (kfogle®cstx.gov). • • • W d aA ~ ~ y d ' A ~O 3 ~ ~ ~. m ~ 3 R. N ~,l 1-• I • ~L m ~ ~~ A ,` t ~t r __~~rr ~' __: _ d a V. ~.,iE~811[) .~""""^" p,~, C~tinp ipwcaa pp~; ~ ~. ..n4~4ti~ ~p!~119 ~ . ~° Rou4a, f?r~7us.d ~+ Llu+a. FxiRtMg ~~ Lhrte, ~roposeti ~~+, , r~ Regular Agenda 7 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on variances to Section 12-I.7 (Cul-de-Sacs) and Section 12-K.2 (Block Length) for Indian Lakes Phase X; and presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Indian Lakes Phase X, consisting of 41 lots on 79.71 acres, located southeast of the intersection of Indian Lakes Drive and Chaco Canyon, in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction.. Case #06-500035 (JP/CC) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Planner Report Date: March 3, 2006 Email: igrochazkaCa~cstx.gov Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500035 Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on variances to Section 12- 1.7 (Cul-de-Sacs) and Section 12-K.2 (Block Length) for Indian Lakes Phase X; and presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Indian Lakes Phase X, consisting of 41 lots on 79.71 acres, located southeast of the intersection of Indian Lakes Drive and Chaco Canyon, in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Applicant: Travis Martinek, agent for Smiling Mallard Development, LTD., property owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat if the Commission supports the Variance request. Item Summary: This item is for consideration of a variance to Section 12-1.7 • Cul-de-Sacs, and Section 12-K.2 Block Length; and a preliminary plat for a new section of the Indian Lakes development that continues the general pattern of large lot single-family development in the larger subdivision. The proposed lots range in size from 1.03 acres to 3.47 acres. Section 12-1.7 of the Subdivision Regulations states that the maximum cul-de- sac length is 2,000 feet in length. Tallulah Trail is proposed to be 2,143 feet in length; the requested variance is 143 feet. Staff recognizes several alternatives to the requested variance: there may be opportunity for connection to the east into unplatted property (future Indian Lakes phases) that is under the same ownership, and there may be possibility of creating a loop by connecting Tallulah Trail to Matoska Ridge. Section 12-K.2 of the Subdivision Regulations states that the block length shall not exceed 1,500 feet in rural residential subdivisions. In blocks over 800 feet in length, the Planning & Zoning Commission may require access ways to facilitate pedestrian traffic movement. One of the proposed blocks in the subdivision, the south side of Indian Lakes Drive, is 1,756 feet in length, requiring a variance of 256 feet. The Subdivision Regulations Section 5-A state that "The Commission may authorize a variance from the regulations when, in their opinion, undue hardship will result from requiring strict compliance. In granting a variance, the • Commission shall prescribe only conditions that it deems not prejudicial to the • public interest. In making the findings hereinbefore required, the Commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of the land involved, the existing used of the land in the vicinity, the number of persons who will reside or work in the proposed subdivision, the possibility that a nuisance will be created, and the probable effect of such variance upon traffic conditions and upon public health, convenience, and welfare of the vicinity. No variance may be granted unless the Commission finds: 5-A.1 That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; 5-A.2 That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; 5-A.3 That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this chapter; and 5-A.4 That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter." Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows most of the land in the ETJ to be developed at a rural density (very low density residential • development with agricultural and support uses). The City does not control land use in the county, but does share platting authority. Indian Lakes Drive is shown on the Thoroughfare Plan as a major collector. Both the Brazos County Road & Bridge staff and City staff would like to see a connection into the property to the south that is labeled on the plat as "McFarlane, Unplatted 1,213.54 Acre Tract." While this is a large property with access to other public roadways, the portion that is adjacent to Indian Lakes is separated from the remainder of the tract by a very large floodplain, making access to the tract from another direction unlikely. The Subdivision Regulations state that "where adjoining tracts are not subdivided, the arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall make provision for the proper projection of streets into such areas." Staff believes that because the adjacent portion of the 'McFarlane Tract' may be precluded from access from other directions that a street should project into this area. Staff and the applicant agree that the most appropriate location for this street connection would be at the most southern point of Indian Lakes Drive where this connection could be made directly onto the collector without increasing traffic along residential streets. This connection will be required when that phase is platted. If the variances are granted, the plat will be in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations. • Item Background: A Master Development Plan was approved for the Indian Lakes Subdivision in 2002. This area was shown as "reserved" on the Master Development Plan. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the Preliminary Plat. The options regarding the Preliminary Plat are: ^ Approval ^ Approval with Conditions ^ Denial Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application 3. Variance Request Letters 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat (provided in packet) • • ,, ,•.`I I I I I I •• i ~ •. I I I • :u ~ ~ `'A.,,,~`''~ GEC '•, ~ I I I i _I _1 _I T: -.. '~ Z ti I I I I •...\, T. 1 ., I - , ~ ~ -•._:.., : _:• - •• i I FBI ~'a\s.. ~ '~'{~I _. ~ t i~ 1 ~ ,•~ I ~ ,_ i ~ I •~ ~ ~ T •\ i . - T _ _ L _ -_" ' + ~; ;,.,' • ~ ~ - -~ III ~ `~ << M -I / ~ ''~ - - - `:•• : ':.• ~~~ T'T'Y"~, _ _ _ - -I - ~ ' ~ r~ i~~• Itll II ~" I ' _ I ~ I ~? ,~a •~~ I I 1 + %, _ _ - i ~~ i~ - .. ~ • .~ f ' --- I ~. + •.~ ~.- . ~ ice' I `~ ~ ~ ,t~' '~ - -1 I > :rY ..- ~ ~ I _ -i mss: yx%: ' ! ~ ~ ~ ~_ t .s'.,• ~~-5~_ ==w'~Y:-~ ~.rf^•,:..,-' " .dam"•'' ~ ~ I /-~~~-L 1 "r ~ ' I I I I ~' '~"~ ~ " ~~Yy '.V ~'-D•-._ r <~:t7il•~~/ ~. `fit' W %~:~ i of •r.'<.", \.. _ i,• ~ . •.; ~ : J,Y~ / / r'` ~ / ' / '' ~ ~,, ~ '~ , n ,~~ >' ~• //f/ ~~~ /~y, 4 FOR OFFyICE~USCE ONLY PdZCASENO.•t Al- ~TJ • 17Vk7E 8UB1a1'fED• PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION ~ The fdlowing Items must txa aubmiltsd by an estebMshed filing deadflrte date for P 8 Z Commisslon oor>sideratlon. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: X Flling Fee of 5400.00. X Variance Request to Subdiviskxt Regkdatlons - 3100 (if apppcable) X AppNcatlon completed in fuN. X Thirteen (t3) fdded copies of plat. (A revised mylar original must be submittetl after staff review. ) WA One (t) Dopy of ttre approved Master Plan N appUcablo. X A copy of the attached checktlet with ap items checked off or a brtef explanation as to why they are not. WA Rezoning Application if none k~rerps is proposed. WA Parkland Dedicatlon requirement approved by the Parks 3 Recreation Board, please provide proof of Date of Pr+eappllcation Conference: Unknown NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Villages o/ Indian Lakes Phase X SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION: End ollndian !_ekes Drive beyond future Phase 8 APPUCANT/PROJECTMANAGErt'S INFORMATION (Primary Goofed for the Project): Name: Travis MarW-ek Street Address: 3808 East 29'" Street, Suite 100 City: Bryan State: Texas Zip Code: 77802 E-Mail Address: trevls~darkewyndham.com Phone Number. (979) 84ti-4384 Fex Number: (979) 848-14Bi PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must txj identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners): Name: SmBing Mallard Development, Ltd. Street Address: 3808 East 29'" SfrleG Suite 100 City. Bryan • State: Texas Zip Code: 77802 E-Metl Address: bevis~k4arkewyndham.ccm Phone Number. (979) 848-4384 Fax Number. (979) 848-148f ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name: McClure & Browne, Inc. Street Address: 11Xi8 Woodcreek Drive, Suite 103 City: CoNege Station State: Texas Zip Code: 77845 E-Mail Address: mlkom®mcclwebrowne.rxxn Phone Number: (979) 893-3838 Fax Number: (979) 893-2564 wig i~~ • Total Acres Of Subd+viabn: 78. i , R-O-W Acreage. f 0.55 Totaf # Or lots: 4t Number Of lots By Zoning DlatAc:t: WA • Average Acreage Of Each Reakfentlal Lot By Zoning DlsMcl: WA Fbodplaln Atxeege: 0.00 Parkland dedkation by acreage or fes7 WA A statement addressing any differences between the Preliminary Plat and approved Master Plan (K appNcatrle) Nona Requested variances to subdivision regulations d reason for same: Sea ATTACHMENT A Requested overslu partidpation: None Parkland Dedication due prior to flling the Final Plat: ACREAGE: # of Acres to be dedicated # of acres in floodpiain # of acres ~ detention # of acres in greenvrays IOR FEE tN LIEU OF LAND: # of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $ (date) Approved by Parks 8 Recreation Board The applicant has prepared this applkatlon and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are dve acrd correct. The undersigned hereby requests approval by the City of Copege Station of the above identified plat and attests that al! respective owners have been identified • on this application. TraNs Mardnek Date Design & Consbuction Manager WI3A13 : of Z • INDIAN LAKES PHASE 10 -PRELIMINARY PLAT VARIANCE REQUEST • The Developer la requestinD a Variance consideration far the following items: Aocording to the Subdkrisfon Regulatbra {Chapter 9. 3eetbn 12-K.2, Bbck Lengths). subdlvisfons aro rtrquked to plat dodta with bngd>s rat b exceed 1,500 LF. The Developer Is requsstktg a Variance to d» SubdNisbn IRegtrlations to aNow for a dodo bngtl- of 1,756 LF. or a 258 LF Vananee along the south side of Indian Lakes Drive from Mojave Canyon DrNe a Matoska Ridge Drive. The Developer wotdd Nks to rwte drat the Proposed street layout meals tiro requirements astabtislted by the Brazos Cotxrty Subdivision Regulations. No Variance for dodo bngth b required by &azos County. Reaoonse to Subd{vislon Reatrlstbns. Section S Variances: 5-A.1: The Developer is requesting the dodo bngdi variance in order to adequately accommodate the foNowirp: • Geographic Conditions -The proposed extension of Indian Lakes Drive Continues east-west across en umamed stream, connecting Phase 8 and Phase 10. This unnamed stream is wbjax to the envtronmental mklgellon and protection requirements imposed by the sutxtivaion's united States Chan Water Act, Section 404 Water Quality Permit The Developer, in their efforts ro provide a bt configuration that maximises buddatde area, has positioned lots so as ro allow the environmentally protected areas ro be heated in the rear of lots as much as possible. Thb arrangement rat only albws for beder environmental protectbn for the designated areas. but also allows tot owners a benefit from the addPoonal separation from their bade fence neighbors. In dang this, and malntalning the 1-acre plus la size requirement for a rural wbdivisbn, the Developer has been placed widdn a skuatbn that requtres a Variance a the existing block length requirements. • Sheet ASpnmsM = In order to provide aCOess to the portion of Phase 10 north of Indian lakes Drive and south d the pipeWrs righla~of-way. the Deveoper crceted Semirab Point. Based on topographic conditions, the location of Seminole Point b ilmked. Even at its current location a considerable about of earthwork wiU be required !o provide for buidabb and accessible bts. To provide adequate separation between road Intersections erxi help facNkate tratf~ movement, the Developer believes that the proposed bock length (1,756 LF) provides for a better separation between Semiotic Point and Matoska Ridge Drive, approximately 400 LF ~ separation. If the Developer chose to meet the existing dock length requaements of 1,500 LF, then the street separation would only be approximately 150 LF. Ths 150 LF would not provide (a adequate street separation. Additionaly, k would bs very ditfkwk a cwnbine Seminole Point and Matoska Ridge DrNe Into one tlxougtrstreet at dre proposed 1,500 LF bbck length due ro difficult topographic conditions ro the north of the pipeline rights-of-way. • tt is the poaNbn of the Developer diet the proposed street layout beder addresses existing ropography conditons and street alignment and intersecibn separation issues than other altematNes. 5-A.2: The bash of arty tend use regulations b to provide a method to Inwro that the pudic good is met in every new development wkhin the community. ff a devebper is wilting to create a product that provides adequate street and drainage in a mamer that more appropriately addresses and utilizes the existing site conditions, and provides a suit~le quality of fife for its inh~itants, as is the case with the proposed wb~visfon, then the intent of land use reputations has been met To deprive a devebper, who wishes to meat the intent of land use regulation but in a way slightly Page 1 of 2 • INDIAN LAKES PHASE 10 -PRELIMINARY PLAT dllferent then standard procedure, of tl1e abYNy b tum their vision into reality is a denial of the devsbper's "enjoyment of s substantial property right.' • S-A.3: With the proposed development, tlrs Developer Mkards b provkh adsquste streets. draktags, suitable access t« emergency vehicles, Provide a qualify of IMa desirabb b Its inhabitants d Nte subdivisbn, and aeala • p-oduct corrobtsnt witlf the tend use d the surraxrdkg Property. Based on tt>is, tlw proposed wDdivlsbn 1M1 not bs dstrimanw b the public treallh, satey, «weNere, « Injurious to oMrsr properly in the area' 5-A.4: The proposed development "vrHl not ttavs the effect of prevsMing Mte ardery aubdlvisbn of land kr the area' primarAy due to its bcation within a parent tract that has been previously subdivided IMo a land use type eomplimentary to the protwsed developmerk. Additional development within the area is curreMy Heirtg developed In an 'orderly fashion mainwninp consistency with the rasfdentlal land use type initlaly planned for the area. • Page 2 of 2 .7 INdAN LAKES PHASE X PRELIMi..~-RY PLAT -ATTACHMENT A VARIANCE REQUEST • The Developer Is rogtrestkg a Variance conciderotinn for the foNowing item: SdII~G.~ Accorcling b the Subdivision Repuletbns (Chapter 9, Sectlon 12-1.7, CtA-deSacs). subdlvisbla aro requked b plat a~4de-sacs wUh Isnpths not to exceed 2,000 LF. Ths Developer b raquestiny a Variants b U-e Subdhrlsion Regulations ballowfor a ctA-ds-sac krplh of 2,1.9 LF, or a 143 LF Variance. Rwoonw to liubdivlslon Reaulali~nstteeNon 5. Varianc•a: trA.1: The Deveoper is requesting the cuFde-sac iengU- variance in order to aooommodale the fogowing: Topogrephy, Orahiege, artd Exlstlny Sib CondiAions -The cxtl-de-sac that this Variance Request b eddrassgrg, TaUublt TraN, b positioned b provide acoass b rsaiderdial bts planned betvreen two str~ma/drainage arses protected under the dsveiopmenee Udted States Chan Water Act SeGlon 404 Water QuaIIN Permit. Orre protected area k Iabebd as H.O.A.'Common Ares E on the PreNmNwry Plat and the other b asst of tlts proposed plat area. Based on the ragrrirements of the 5eetion 404 permit, Urs Developer is rostrkted from carving roads and access paints ttrouph the protected areas. FuAhertnore, the exstng topography and general slope of the land provides best far a street that runs generaNy narth- soutn and drains track b the stream area b the southwest of ti,e proposed plat area. The Developer intends b use the exktbg slope of the land as much as possible b provide for efficient street and ditch drainage. The street layout presented provides for an efflNdenl dispersion of water from tiro roadways b the adjacent streams. Other optitxx would requ're more channeling and additional destruction to existing vegetation end wUdlife habitat • Streef AHgrurtent -The proposed layout provides to a moro organized aNgranarN of street Inteisectforts. The street layout presented limits the amount o/ strexst Interaedlons. Altemets plans b reduce fhe cul~de-sac length wa~ld retµrire an additiaral street Intersection and an addiUorml point of traffic cordlk4. • ARarkefabiity o/ Lots -Based on the existing site condRkxrc, the proposed plan better creates lots that are marketable b potential residerka d the Development. Ttrc lots are positoned to provide eatable home aRea, taking kao account exhting terrain and drainage channels. k is the posR(on of the Developer that fhe proposed street layout baUer addrosses existkg bpogrephy/dreinaga conditions, street alignment cor>eertn, and creates moro marketabe Iota than other altemaUves. • 5-A.2: Tire basis of any land use regulations Is b provide a method b insure that the public good is met in every new development drittsn the community. h a developer k wAling b creWS a product Mnat provides adequate streets and drainage in a marxter that moro appropriately addresses and utUines the existing site conditions. and provides a suitable quapty of IYa for ds inhaEiaMa, as fs the case vMh the proposed subdivision, then the trNSnt of land use rsgulafbns has been meL To deprhre a developer. vrfw wishes b meal the intend of land use regulation but to a way aNgNUy different than standard proceduro, of the atx7ity b Gun their vision into reality is a denial of tine developer's "enjoyment of a substarntial property right.' 5-A.3: Wlih the proposed development, the Developer Intends b provide adequate street, drainage, suitable access fo- emergency vehidee, provide a quafily of Ilte deskabb b tine inhaatants of Ure subdivision, and create a product consistent witir the land use of the surrounding property. Based Page t of 2 • INDIAN LAKES PHASE X PRELIMI~.HRY PLAT-ATTACHMENT A on flue, db proposed subdlvialon 'vNlt not be detrimeMai to db public hedth, safety, or wrelFare, or Injurious to odor properly in des area.' • 5-A.1: The proposed devdupment ~iAl not have tM etleet of prevenWp the ordsry subdiNslon of knd M the area` prknarly due b its tooatlon wNhln a parent tract that has bean prevbusy subdivided lobo a land use typo campYmarifery b the proposed daveloprnsrM. Additional development wMlun die area N axrorMly bekip developed in an 'orderly teatiion mairNeirunp cansistsrwy wNh d,a resMeritlal hrrd use type initiaNy planned for the area C Page2of2 • Regular Agenda 9 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a replat for Ponderosa Place Section 2, Tract E and Lot 1, Block 20 of Ponderosa Place Section 4-A, consisting of 2 lots on 5.29 acres located at 3850 State Highway 6 South, generally located north of the Rock Prairie Road exit. Case #06-500022 (TF/JN) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Crissy Hartl Report Date: March 10, 2006 Email: chartlC~cstx.gov Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500022 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a replat for Ponderosa Place Section 2, Tract E and Lot 1, Block 20 of Ponderosa Place Section 4-A, consisting of 2 lots on 5.29 acres located at 3850 SH 6 S, generally located north of the Rock Prairie Road exit. Applicant: John R. Clark & Associates, land manager for the owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the final plat. Item Summary: This item is for consideration of a commercial replat for Ponderosa Place, Section Two, Tract E and Lot 1, Block 20 of Ponderosa Place Section 4-A. The property is located along the State Highway 6 frontage road, north of the Rock Prairie exit. This plat is in preparation for commercial development on the proposed Tract E1 R. No site plans have been submitted for • this property. After the original plat was approved in 1982, there was an illegal subdivision between Lot 1, Block 20 of Ponderosa Place Section 4-A and Tract E of Ponderosa Place, Section Two. Where the 10' private access easement was originally shared by the two properties is now entirely owned by Lot 1. This replat reflects the current ownership of the access easement. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Retail Regional. The original Tract E has 719.21 feet of frontage on the State Highway 6 frontage road, a Freeway on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. The newly platted lot, Tract E1 R, will retain 369.23 feet of frontage. There is currently a driveway located between Tract E1 R and Tract E2R that will provide access for both lots. Any future driveways will be in compliance with TXDoT's minimum separation standards and the City of College Station's driveway separation standards. A 20' and 30' private access easement also runs behind the properties. Item Background: This property was annexed in 1980 and subsequently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. The property was rezoned from A-O Agricultural Open to C-2 Commercial-Industrial in 1983 and platted in 1982. Tract E2R, and Lot 1 R of Block 20 are developed as commercial-industrial centers. • • Budgetary ~ Financial Summary: None requested at this time. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the final plat. The options regarding the final plat are: ^ Approval with conditions; ^ Approval as submitted; ^ Denial; ^ Defer action only at applicant's request; or, ^ Table only at applicant's request. INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: This property is supported by a 12-in public water main which runs along the eastern property line adjacent to the south bound State Highway 6 Access Road. Sewer: This property is supported by a 6-in and 8-in public sanitary sewer main which run along the western property line. • Streets: This property will take access off the south bound State Highway 6 Access Road. Off-site Easements: None known at this time. Drainage: This property is located in the Bee Creek Trib. "A" drainage basin. Flood Plain: None on-site Oversize request: None known at this time. Impact Fees: None Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application 3. Copy of Final Plat (provided in packet) ~~ U ~: ~, V r ` / `© ', ` 1 ~1' ' ` `\ ~ ' '' . ` ~ ~ `'• a , , ~ :~ ~ ~ .: •, ~~ 4 \ '~'~ w ~ / ~5 A i• ~M .. ~ ` ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ ;.~,r ;I'- ~ "•m .. ~ .~• • ~ 7"~`J ~~. ~ `~1 . I. \ rt \ . ~ . •S ~' ~ ,~ `` `":, LU .,'r~~` ~ ` ,`~ a ~~~`, ~ ~ - -'' `` ,. 1~~ \~ ~/ •t~ •~ .•' ,, ` / -' .>'~ ' ' ` ~ ` ` ~`,M• ,~ ~ ~ y C7 • 1~ CirrY aF Cat,>Li~ STi~zzorr rvn ur ~ CA8E NO.t ~I4TE 13tJBMnTEO: ~.~. FINAL PLAT APPLICATION ~' (i~heck ane) ^ Miner ~] Amending ^ Flnal ^ yacat[ng ®i~eplat {~aoo.oa>< [ii~oo:ooi {iNao.oo) {sAOO.oo} ticiloo.oop 'Includes pubMc haarMp fee Is this plat [n the ETJ? ^ Yes ®No __ Tht following items must be submitted b]! an fsbttbl9stisd fillnla deadline delta for Pik Commission consideratioo. MINIMUiN SUBMITTAL RECiItJIREMENTS: x Filing l=ee (see above) N~7TE: Multiple Sheets - ~5a.00 per additional sheet ~ Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $10O tiff applicable) n!~ pevelopment Permit Application Fee of $200.Q4 ijif applicable). ,,, Infrastructure lnspecti4n Fee of $fi00.00 (applicable if sny public infrastructure is being consfi.icted) . ~c gpp~atian corn~eted in fu11. Copy of original deed restriotionsJcavenants for rapists ~f applicable). ~ Thirteen (13) folded copies ofi- plat. ~ signed rnylar original must be submitted after staff review.) ~ 4ne ~i) copy of the approved Preliminary Plat andlor one ~i) Master Plan (if applicable}. x Paid tmc certificates from City of College Station,. Brazos County and College Station I.S.D. ~ A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. nla Two {2a copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat r~ applicable). n!a Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Pants & Recreation Board, please provide proof of Date of Preapplication Conference: none NAaAE dF SLi8i3lVISlON Reolat of Tract E -- Ponderosa Place Section Two SPECIFifED LOCATION OF PROPC7SED SUBDIVISION {Lot & 61ock~ 500' north of northwest comer of Rock Prairie Rd and Texas Ave APPLlCANTIPR0,1lwCT ldiANAGER'S IhIFORMATIdN (Primary Contact for tMe Project}; Name .1ohn R Clark & Associates Streei Address 382$ S. Collece Avenue City BKvan State ( Zip Code _ 7713Qt E Mail Address iohn~3iohnclarkcom Phone Number 979.268-t38~40 pax Number 979-2 &8841 • PROPERTY OIIMNER'S INFORMATION (ALL, owners must be identified. Please attach err additional sheet for multiple owner}: Name Ruth Tavlor Estate clo Tamrrw Khan Street AddfeSS 326 Palm Drive City Marlin :Stale TX Zip Code 7668'1 Phone Number ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S ItVFQRMATIQN: E-Nell Address Fax Number Name Kiino Ensaineerind a Survear[tte Street l~ddress , , 4'10'1 S. Tsxas Ave. Buns A~ City Bruan Do any deed restrictions or avvenams exist for this propertyT Ye9 No ,~_ • Is tl»ra o t•rnporary blan[cat eaitBrnent on this property? If so, please provide the Volume and Page. # -T Acraaye ~ Total RropertY 8.30 Total # of lib R 4-W Acreage none Exbtirsp Ursa: Number of Lots By zoning Diatrtct ~_ / t' 1 1 ~ 1 Averega Acreage Qf Each Residential Lot By Zoning DiStrld: nta J 1 1 1 Floodplain Aareaga Wane A staterner~ addrassiing any diiyenences between the Final Plat and approved Master Plan andlor Preliminary Plan (if applicable): Na Requested Variances Ta Sutxfivlsion Regulations ~ Reason For Seme: Wane Requested Oversize Patticipartian• rw Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public. nla Streets • Sidewalks ,__ Sanitary Sewer Linea water ones Channels Storm SeMrers Bike Lanes 1 Paths Parkland Dedication due prior #o filing the Final Plat: ACREAGE: nla Propo~ Use: # of acres to be dedicated ~ $ development fee # of acres in tloodplain # of acres In det~antion OR # of acres in greenways FEE IN LIPU OF LAND: # of Single-Family fhurellin~ Units X ~#a~6 ~$ (date) ~-py~rvved by Parks ~ Recreation Board NpTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILINQ. 7?~e apppCerrt rigs pnspared ft~is appllcatlorl ar~d Qerlr6es thal tho fools ah~d hererrr at~d exl~ifa alteGled hersal are-tree, and oorrrple~e 7~+e arrd~erai~red Hereby ~gWaa#a appr+aVat Dy the ~Y of Cotie~ S1F ofd abov~s-Fdent+~ed tlnel plat anal adtest$ ~-+et title r+atrc+esc d~a n~ arrrerd any caverravys dr r+~strk~iora"s esa4 wntr, ll~lS prat Signatu and Title -1c~,n ~ Dale • Regular Agenda 10 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning for 3850 State Highway 6 South consisting of 1 lot on 1.678 acres generally located north of the Rock Prairie Road exit, from C-2 Commercial- Industrial to C-1 General Commercial. Case #06-500018 (TF/LB) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Crissy Hartl, Planner Report Date: March 1, 2006 Email: chart)@cstx.pov Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500018 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning for 3850 State Highway 6 South consisting of 1 lot on 1.678 acres generally located north of the Rock Prairie Road exit, from C-2 Commercial- Industrial to C-1 General Commercial. Applicant: Josh Isenhour, John R. Clark & Associates Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Item Summary: The applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to develop it as a commercial development. Most commercial uses are only permitted in the C-1 General Commercial district. The properties to the north and south are zoned C-2, Commercial Industrial, and the properties to the west are zoned C-2, Commercial-Industrial and C-1, General Commercial. The properties to the north and south are developed as a • mix commercial and light industrial uses. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates this property and surrounding properties as Retail Regional. State Highway 6 is a Freeway on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. Item Background: This property was annexed in 1980 and subsequently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. The property was rezoned from A-O Agricultural Open to C-2 Commercial-Industrial in 1983 and platted in 1982. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted; 2. Recommend denial; 3. Table indefinitely; or, 4. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map • 2. Application • ILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE AND FAC Water: This property is supported by a 12-in public water main which runs along the eastern property line adjacent to the south bound State Highway 6 Access Road. Sewer: This property is supported by a 6-in and 8-in public sanitary sewer main which runs along the western property line. Streets: This property will take access off the south bound State Highway 6 Access Road. Off-site Easements: None known at this time. Drainage: This property is located in the Bee Creek Trib. "A" drainage basin. Flood Plain: None on-site Oversize request: None known at this time. • Impact Fees: None NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 2-28-06 and 3-28-06 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 3-16-06 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 4-13-06 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 6 Response Received: One inquiry call • lam ._aL'=•~J iL ~ `~ ', ly .;j3=^" .,~{~i~' .:~a:i ;:_ •: l~`•. ~1:~"~,,I~ •~-: :~.a ~!~ .ICI Ii-•- .-'67`s~• ~ .••'~1 »: - ~.c - ~ 1. r~ "' - . `~ ~ - ""n}riJ -.~ `-i" ~;~••• ~`•, ~ •i Ir~l ~ / ~ • ~ 1 a. e. '(-, Y !'ri."r ~•. : <~. AIL- •`:, i~ -~ ~ ~- r w . ,+ ~ ~:, .,~, \\ :,~} .` ., ~ ~+, :' ~l`. ••`. • •~ i ~~' '.•~. ~./ 1- : V . r'~• r111` 1.`~ / F K l a AIL : ~: \ ,. ~ ,-~ . .~ ~ s=~ ~\ • ,% A" { , '' ~ +• ~ V. 1 , •1: \ 4 ': .. `~~y J ~ ' ^\,~• if ':r ;.•, 1 @ r • i ~ <. :t ~;~ ~ / Zu! ~ +~ ' 1 ' +. ~I I / \ ~~'~ % ., ~ I ~ /. ~~ \ I~ ~ + 1:1 ! 1, ~ ~ ~. '; ~' .•. T I i ~:: :. 1 / a: ` . y / n : V r '1.. r ~~+.". ~ - ~:I~;•,• ;\ "1 N ~~. ~ i \~~~ \J \~ \ ' L II ' ~~'r , ~~ ~ U. t~l ~ g" ~ `•1 fL-I j n r~ ~~ '•`•n ^ 4aJ ~1 ~, ^ o + ~' ~+ z u' IG;~ - r ; :~`f ~~ ~ 1' ~ ~ ~ l:° i~ j 1 • ~c 1•. \ . ,+ l' . ~ 1 ~ a r + •~ • ~ -+ ~rlr• ~ 1 ak.~•F+~ ~.RS~ J-" NYC •.'~n-+,!'~: {~.~ ~« S,~ i<.: ~ : c,^ti r`1 ~`'{l,''/~1.. ., ~~irl•<1 .• ),/1r,~)~J~,I~•~f4~`~\}ti< a• e-+. ~:~,Ayiat~^,, ;+ yly~~r~,~ IG'V:,a •,,r a 1. • ', ••-~L.;its I 1 ~ `~1~ -~< ~'."~e~r \ ,•r `~ •'.~ u \~`~ 'r` ~~ + a"~l. •,~' ~.y ;, A Y_ -I,, ..: 'ititi~' ~ -i~ : •H> ~~ ' ~ • \:'~ • •.•1 ! Y i ,+~^ ~~ '~7 `v" ' \ a r I •. ^_ s "'L .•~~,-+-8 i%~ ~, ; '4~ ~ + < ~>~ \ 1 ; ryr,'~rR'~ y~ ,~~YV ~''-: ~3t~•"{/.v+M ;•y:.':~ ~•~,~:~`: a~ ~ !-. LLC: ••' •~ ~~:•r.;.'•g~ 's~+ ~ .+~a"`J3~v ~ ~ t~;S'~ /. Ii,~N.. Is ~ 1 ,. 1 ~ :r- ~' 1 • -1 _I ', ~ ,~ .+i~ 1°%- :- :''e~;`* i ;° +• 1{ 1 • : : rr Ta ~N • ~.6 A ! F, a. :. 1 '1 ~ ., I 1 • 1 iy Y r , :r-•: ~ aC _:±:•} +q k X11 r : rl = ~ ~ _ 1 1 yt: 1 ' ~ 5 \ + ~h 1 ~' < f \, F a ^-1 ~ 1 ,1.. ,.. ~.+:~`"~ y E,C- :-1 :a r 91fil Jtltl .~ 5 • ~r >~~~ `m + " ..Y !:1 - e•`.;i~r_,.4 -N.IAr4`~-, ,.. ~...,r s,. ~-'~~. __. ~•'Ip-,I .. -+I-1 1•_1 _ ,. .~~- ~~;•"`".~•.w ~r,.;~l`i ~ IN !~~~ < t?{ ~ T a_rll ~• 1 1 iS cal ?'~, ,v;,i r 1; 70 _1 V Z 0 ~W~y Y. W MJ U }~~ ~~ i W a W t • _ ?an a3 %'~uG li: ~~ HM• ~_t';iERJET 'Ak ~_ p ::Ir+s~asa M1i~iai ir7U2t~Yi47 eetili/~ i9~~.@JU °• e5a .~ • ~~ ~~-_ Y nASe.ua~rt~_ • t~~ ~ • YtYNiNCi MAt~ iAlVIENi»ilEh~T ~RfZONI~Qj LIPPUCATI~N ~ a Qe~1bn br isxa~fng is denied E1-1tve Oily (:axe. erglfleT aapacullo.lbh ncaM~!p e!-eK rros baflle4 wllAln~ a 1~d c1 i8C days +rom tha ds~ W denl0l, 'aott~yt with uarrei~ellwl v~ 1he r'~hmn~ry ~ ZamAg Cornmtseiot- a .O~~+cil. S11s i~oltoMring Hems nas l be aubrnllted by en astabfeJned fling deadh'ee bale tot .:nrl~iQe-atlgn: .~~ppfeaNan ewr~ed in fuN ,•,,,,t'i609.D0 ~Plit.pon Ise ~ Two t~ copes of a fl+ny dlmnnsioned msR an 2~ x aEs'' p'Fer shawln~ ~ ~. ~t+w e~xa.~; n. [.egeldbsain0or dates of p~eposed char~~; c. Prosere t+anFng. d. zaMnp ctASSifiaa~on of an sbun~ryg lanc+: 9rc1 e. A11 pubUC ind prlvals aX and eaaemanrs bOUlydi~ and intsrasciin~ subjegl ~ered. .,,_ WPittan kyal description ~vcwproperfy ;mates ~ bands eu IGI ~ Wock of s~lvtelon, w~ichwer le lruortmetlon sheet oe+rptuted m Np. ~ CAO (dY~tll1loy at G1& {ahp} dlpit319a €7ats ~ Rtquirrr~d Prasppflcattian Confeeehce _~. n u~r•.._ /fit .?oe A~Pi'LIi:~,1~R''S INFORMATigN: Si~w Add-sv ~~ 5,.~. ~ e~ _ Cdr . ~` ~~_ __~ . Statr .~~.....- ~ Cod+ ~TgoJ £-4~.~lhtldress __ iM~ F a~..G.~.,~ ~.v~ P'hcne ~fumbe~ C i~TT}rTf 8~d8i~0 Kax Nrrrnber ~I'Z~Le PRaPERTY OU1thtlrR'S INFOR149ATl~hi: ~ .~ !tarn, ~~~~r ~~~'~S~C~~' _ rYe~~ ~a ~ esc-- 3trsrrt AdOress ~ ~d ~~,~m [~. City ~~ f ~- ...~~. S~6e ~~ zfp Gore ~~~~ _ ESN Ad~teBS -______ Pherno I~k~eK _Fa: Nu(r1b~r , _ `_ T1~is lit~operl~ wets Corwelf~ 11b OhNnar tay d6t~ dated !~•f_3e ~i s~Q~Ar,~ rr•p~zded ':'1 ~f~ Falpe ~ of Ih++ fBrs~oa CautyEy neap R $co rde. ('s®'elb[OI LoCado+1 Gr i'r+opll~Ay.L~r~_ ~ ~dr~{~. ie~ ~tt~ ~.~~ /~ra~-r7•i ~~rr L:a~'.~F. Ad'.~SS I~f Prtnpetly' ~i C+ T I~bfS Prr_y~i.ny ~ ~~ J~r~i~ ~~~+._•~u~ t ~ . . '++y4I.~D'6;tX1P[lo'1 aaa~'ro~~~~e'i ~'o'~ ~ C~Qf~.~.e/-.rC. 1 ~7,~r' ArJnegtr-Ttla- Pto~rrty: _ /_ d.7~ ~_ J:~dslit~ZnnlnQ ~ Prn~aed 7or~+g:~._.f~ Present lJav ~f Pro~efh:. „ ~ .'~.,~ •v _ ~_ , prapassd I.~s of preype'!ft~-_ _ ~.,.., e+,zo1 ~erp , •± x • ±.I aM!Irir3lRS!lMSle~alCC i~i2iA6y11 QI.rJRIO! ~¢~ llfw P. WO I, ,' REZp1~1[r1~3 811IPDICi1Nl31NFORMA17Ql~ 1 •~ U,}at lhq tlxe aAa ti cr cnanylr G ~onsltloru 4n Ih~ a:~aer ar h ih/r City r-•rlcJ+ mnlc# ffils xan r c~at~e ne~elSary. p.3 ~a IhdiC01~ NF. K1trer of Ito: thls ~o~a chance fs;a acw~d ants wl~h tfi~e Cornpr~ehensFis Plan. 1f If Is noa, axpr4tin Mry Iha Plan Is fioorrect .3„'oal~.~s,~.a ij Ia1 46~ace. ~3if~:.. ,f{,. ~i-T~Nt~jlL~L 4.t .. • 31 Ust ar:Y oltrar nrasans to srrpporl this za+e charge. The epp~'eanl has ~ra;p tired arcs ~~ and sr.~pai-~r~ +~r~rrnabon and certta'18~i tJ~t file tBcts afarod herea-i, and exfHaits atfar,~ed ftefato sia Nus avid ~rrract ~F.4W~ICA'!!ON ~S ~~LED BY ANYO MP O7frER 7NA N TIiV~ OWlV~R ~~ TN6 PRt~R7"Y, AF'iPLlC~k rtON A+dtJST' BE . aCCOnfF'ANrEp BYA P'O~ROFr47TORA1PYSiAT~Ar1€N; f~~C?hf THE~71A7~FR. r ~~ 1R1-V d fore }or applPSa~l ~ ~~ enstra - ~ ~'~.~ raw.a~ • Regular Agenda 11 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Replat of Bald Prairie Lots 4&5 and a Final Plat of Edelweiss Gartens Phase 7 consisting of 50 lots on 10.715 acres located off of Eagle Avenue east of Brandenburg Lane. Case #06-500032 (JR/JN) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner Report Date: March 2, 2006 Email: jreevesCg~cstx.gov Meeting Date: March 16, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500032 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Replat of Bald Prairie Lots 4&5 and a Final Plat of Edelweiss Gartens Phase 7 consisting of 50 lots on 10.715 acres located off of Eagle Avenue east of Brandenburg Lane. Applicant: Steve Arden, Developer Owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat and Replat as submitted. Item Summary: This item is set for a Public Hearing because a section of the subject property involves a Replat of a portion of the Bald Prairie Subdivision. The original plat for Bald Prairie was filed in 1973. All proposed lots meet the minimum standards of the Subdivision Regulations and are being platted to meet R-1 standards as allowed by the UDO. • Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows this area to be Single Family Medium Density. Eagle Avenue is shown as a Minor Collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. Item Background: The subject property was annexed into the City of College Station City Limits June of 1995 and was rezoned from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 Residential Single Family in March of 2005. Bald Prairie Lots 4&5 were platted in 1973. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: Park Land dedication requirements are being met with land dedication. Park Land Development fee for this phase will be $358 per dwelling unit or $17,900. These fees will be due at the time the plat is filed. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the final plat. The options regarding the final plat are: ^ Approval, or ^ Denial Supporting Materials: 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map 2. Application • 3. Copy of Final Plat (provided in packet) i:'t:.' .:'..~ w';!f~.Y ~`. Y?/~,:4`~~)i~' ; ~yII~~~r~•:f,i;3+~\:~ +:' ~- - ~3~- sSi %"t•~ij :f-,.,7~ '~}:v .F: ~>~ is 'SS Y >.a ~. ~ r.. i . ,,. fi '`pit; ''~i M.Y; , i% ,, '.y~i1• ,~ ~~ 11J1j. •4>~~C.. rv "^• 4 . Pig -', ~ :.rc,.,. .:.f:.Y~ + .~+:q ~ ~~-3•:' ~i~t ._K%' : / '_ y { . v '1!' ''•S. Fr; / . , v yak, • i / qi ^ a ., c (t /' •i,.. ~ i~. ~r ` i ~j .~t"'y. .~aaf:. "-,r'Zf is ~~.:•~ ` ~ , Y,'.r#l~',...C"" _.i)'>. / •~~ ~ ~'js ~ of 6 e ~,1 ~ Y r V /. .. _ ~.i~~~t{,/ „I .~'•~, a.~ry. •`.'y ,~.~~ ;V "~}a ,itr X~:~, A\..•xr~yr 76! iR~ ~~ Y - t~A. J °\\'r TT _~'T,~jyw. 11^ 'mil y~, ~ Y~ , Nor ~ •~!~ r' r•• • ; j ~Ry'."•~• ~± .~r: yh K.\'i :``~• \ t° `rw ~jX~a •~S% <~:'I'•L~'f~'. i•r i'•~t~^ ~ '` / ,: t .C•"•• l r ~: ~ is M' Y. { ~-'• r •\, ~ i •a 1' fi ~r ~ L'a~j:`•`/yi w ~ ~ f' 11i ,~.k~' ,C la Y ~,,w ~t';"t'.f ,. ~•, QTY '•, i . s •~ , r ` 1 `M}y~Cj.6T> ,i ~~ Y ~,r(A~~ ~y~" 4v ~' ~~.~: 1. ` ~e: x a~%'! ` ~ ~1 i . Y.•~e'~rtt+,~it ~tri 4'~~4~c ~yr~r.•: ~; ~ ~„~ ~~• ,, a~ ,Y~„+~~t:~i'~ap , CV i~~, s.~r ;•!,Z'> . i r k - ~lrw ~1 f •~~A`~. /-.~/=~e~~, J. COS -'F. va, i r -+~fyj •'riV~ i~'. f<r Fi ,1~ r~ .,,l i••: '•s ~~t~k4i i..~31 !." \` ,r'\WI f , i\ ril~air ~ Y.s r.ih= J~s'~•~ x~t•Y ~= a.r '•y~wJ r. il~r~` 'Y~rT i ~ ! ~~, Yi 4rv ~rLc1. •' \ ~ ..~ ~'Jt x~ : i• r f1 r J :. I~ i ; / ` '' ~y(rt 3t rig •~'. ~<i '''~.; ~ Ve.,. ~ _, ,y/r; ? / ~/ r ;,r~r i ~•.• .r a `~,Cl .,:s.r ? <,~'~,rz,,; t•~i. '~,c /'` r' i / ~ -I r~ ~ a tests _ `_ ,`., \ _-:~ ~~tirwY"`JF~ i'„i,~t••„~:~~r:~ '..~y;r,~'~ -i ~/ rl / / * ~ 1 .,. •. ;; r ~ '~ ~..a~~.~•,ya~, J`f\.` `~=ti;.: = 1~1~•e ~ /% Jul ~•'~~..` 1. / LL L+ f~, \.~•~ ~, +ryj r LSTy~ ~:, •~~ro.rN; J. ,, f' /j r•; - '~., : sf- f :~•/'~"\ ~r._r>cx ~ty:;;vi yI a_:/•' i' -i}=/':' et~v~ ~''~S!i rf ,%'• ~rr• V~ :\ N-; •.~t ,r ~~. ie. t~•C~fni•aY Y.WX ..-!, 37 ~~ai. ..V ~`: qd.' .~ .~ ~{ ,i•~_a ti dAJ 3{,~~l~ M+.•.~• a /; '~.~ , rli "`.~• -,N-~ ep >r f' Fr ~v ~~ W !e~ ? ~` Ju~~~~e~ '~~~5 ~j • r LJ ~- •K ~ ` ~K : ~ ht ~~~ lr • /f~ /r ~`'y, ~ ~'\ =a~ Rt \ s~ wC`'v`s~ ~ry ,?,d v~,~s'~, ,:~'v : l ~ y ~ ~ :yL\ rJC irr' ~ ~ • ~'Me y ,~:' ^f.\ :`tr, ~ a .x91+ ~.. ~ ~ /~`e~ f ~ • $ r i~•. `~ n ! : 'riy ~ /•f; >,~h 'Yj`;~ %'°+ y}~y. ~tr~~' `a ~ f' ~ ~' /i sy• w• _• , ~ x, s~:. T~ v i _r \ Pi - F's d ~~. 'r, • ~ t ~ ?.. ~:y+t~ . ~ / } t" '~, : ,,;f ~~ ,~`~ a ~• ~~~1u ~~~i'~i. y~'ae:,.~~w~~~~!>.•j s'r~,¢~' fv,•y~• i.~;'a"`t'.,,~ ~~i'c'.> ~~ ~!:?~'~:~,ia., ', ~ r.:• r ' • i~ hL.a ' i t•~ _"\ ia~ ~9. '(~t. :,\a.`• I"J 'a'..` .. 4• ~ / . , ~ ~~~ ~~ y~i:1~9'F \9~,.~ ~„,*Y t. y p.•~_ D W ~~ ~< L r . ` ~ 7 ~y 4t 3 • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Development Serviar • (Check one) ^ Minor ^ Amending ®Final ^ Vacating ^ Replat (ssoo.oo~ (saoo.oo~ (saoo.oo~ (saoo.ool (ssoo.oo)• 'Includes public hearing fee Is this plat to the ETJ? ^ Yes ^ No FOR OFFICE USE ONLY P8Z CASE NO.: v1• DATE SUBMITTED: ~~ ~~-- 1C.t..tJ FINAL PLAT APPLICATION The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P&Z Commission consideration. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: X Filing Fee (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets - $55.00 per additional sheet N!A Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $100 (if applicable) X Development Permit Application Fee of $200.00 (if applicable). X Infrastructure Inspection Fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public inftastructure is being constructed) X Application completed in full. NIA Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable). X Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review.) One (1) copy of the approved Preliminary Plat and/or one (1) Master Plan (if applicable). X Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station I.S.D. X A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. X Two (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable). NIA Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of Date of Preapplication Conference: NAME OF SUBDIVISION SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot & Block) R. Stevenson League. A-54, COllege Station. Brazos County. Texas APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name Mr. Steve Arden. Edelweiss Gartens Venture Street Address 311 Cecilia Loop City College Station State Texas Zip Code 77845 E-Mail Address 'steve(c~brazoslandrealtv.com Phone Number 979-846-8788 Fax Number 979-846-0652 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners): Name (Same as above) ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name McClure. ~ Brovv~e E~Aineerina/Surveying.,,, Inc. • Street Address _1008 Wood_creek_Drive_ City College Station 6113/03 1 of 5 ' Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? Yes No X • Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume and Page # Acreage ~ Total Property 10.715 acr@s7otal # of Lots 50 Lots R-O-W Acreage 1.80 acres Existing use: Vacant Proposed use: Residential Number of Lots By Zoning District 50 / R-1 Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: 0.18 acres/R-1 • Floodplain Acreage NOri@ A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and approved Master Plan and/or Preliminary Plat (if applicable): ~~ Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Same: None Requested Oversize Participation: NOne Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: 1480 Streets 1130 Sidewalks 1933 Sanitary Sewer Lines 1608 Water Lines -0- Channels 1036 Storm Sewers -0- Bike Lanes /Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to flling the Final Plat: ACREAGE: # of acres to be dedicated + $ development fee # of acres in floodplain # of acres in detention # of acres in greenways CSI 7 FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: # of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $ (date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Board NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. The applicant has prepared this application and cert~es that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete. The undersigned hereby requests approval by the City of College Station of the above-identfied final plat and attests that this request does not amend any covenants or restrictions associated with this plat. • Si attire an` Title ~~ ~~sEl,~~,-~~ Date 6/13/03 ~ ~ ~~~~ • SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT INFORMATION Application is hereby made for the following development spedfic site/waterway alterations: Subdivision construction in the South fork of Lick Creek Draina~te Basin ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I, ,design engineer/owner, hereby acknowledge or affirm that: The information and conclusions contained in the above plans and supporting documents comply with the current requirements of the City of College Station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and its associated Drainage Policy and Design Standards. As a condition of approval of this permit application, I agree to construct the improvements proposed in this application according to these documents and the requirements of Chapter 13 of the College Station City Code. Property Owner(s) Contractor CERTIFICATIONS: (for proposed alterations within designated flood hazard areas.) A. I, certify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is designated to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100 year storm. • Engineer Date B. I, certify that the finished floor elevation of the lowest floor, induding any basement, of any residential structure, proposed as part of this application is at or above the base flood elevation established in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study and maps, as amended. Engineer Date C. I, Jeffery L. Robertson P.E. ' ~~ ,rt~„~ the alterations or development covered by this permit shall not diminish the flood-canying capacity. ,t• ' yq ing or crossing this permitted site and that such alterations or development are consistent with r •r.i~men f th~.Cr~r of College Station City Code, Chapter 13 concerning encroachments of fl ys and of fl ,.f............~3eEFfrSOtt ,,/ ~ 94745 ;~ ~ -- ~~ 7 Gb S En ' ar `'~,.!C~~.~/~7~ ,. Date ~'~~,~'rlrrLr'r4 ~]W r D. I, ~L{'1•,~~~~~~~~~~C~i- that the proposed alterations do not raise the level of the 100 year flood above elevation established in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study. Engineer Date Conditions or comments as part of approval: In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in aty streets, or existing drainage • facilities. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Cnninnnr inr •'hn nhn~ro nesme~rl nrnionl All of •hn nnnlinnhln nnrlne nnrl nrrJinnnnnn ni 1•L.n /'`ii.r nF (~r.lln r.n CM-i.... .. L...11 6/13!03 3 of 5 Regular Agenda 12 Public action, amendment to the Unified hearing, and discussion presentation, possible regarding an Development Non-Residential Ordinance, Section 5.4, Dimensional Standards. Case #OS-500023 ~~) • J'`~ City of College Station Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Crissy Hartl, Staff Planner THROUGH: Joey Dunn, Director of Planning 8~ Development Services • SUBJECT: UDO Annual Review, Artide 5.4, Non-Residential Dimensional Standards Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.4, Non-Residential Dimensional Standards. Item Summary: At the direction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at the January 5, 2006 meeting, the Annual Review of the UDO has been divided into several smaller amendments for consideration. The following background information was presented at the March 2nd workshop meeting. At that time, the Commission made no recommended changes to the amendment as presented. The amendment is now ready for your review for formal consideration of amendments to Section 5.4 Non-residential Dimensional Standards at the March 16, 2006 P&Z meeting. In office and commerdal zoning districts, minimum lot sizes for individual developments are 24'x100'. Because of the site requirements for non-residential projects (setbacks, parking lots, landscaping and streetscaping, etc.), the developability of such small lots seems unlikely. It is proposed that these non-residential zoning districts have minimum lot sizes that are more realistic for development. The proposed dimensions are as follows: • A-P, Administrative Professional and C-3, Light Commercial - 50'x100' • C-1, General Commerdal and C-2, Commerdal-Industrial - 200'x200' • No changes to M-1, Light Industrial, M-2, Heavy Industrial, or R&D, Research & Development • • Current Non-Residential Dimensional Standards: • A-P C-1 .- C-2 C-3 . . M-i M-2 R&D Min. Lot Area None None None None None None 20,000 SF Min. Lot Width 24' 24' 24' 24' 100' None 100' Min. Lot De th 100' 100' 100' 100' 200' None 200' Min. Front Setback 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 30' Min. Side Setback A B A B A B A B A B A B 30' B Min. St. Side Setback 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 25' 30' Min. Rear Setback 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 30' D Max. Hei ht C C C C C C C Proposed Non-Residential Dimensional Standards: A-P C-1 .- C-2 C-3 . . M-1 M-2 R&D Min. Lot Area 5,000 SF 40 000 SF 40 000 SF 5,000 SF 20 000 SF None 20 000 ' F Min. Lot Width 50' 200' 200' S0' 100' None 100' Min. Lot De th 100' 200' 200' 100' 200' None 200' Min. Front Setback 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 30' Min. Side Setback A B (A B A B A) B A B A B 30' B Min. St. Side Setback 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 25' 30' Min. Rear Setback 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 30' D Max. Hei ht C) ~ (C) C (C) C C C C, Regular Agenda 13 Public action hearing, and discussion amendment to the Unifi Ordinance, Section 7.9, possible regarding an ed Development Non-Residential Architectural Standards. Case #05- 500023 (JP) presentation, ~ ~~~~l,~ City of College Station Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 3, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner THROUGH: Joey Dunn, Director of Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: UDO Annual Review -Non-Residential Architectural Standards Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Article 7, related to Non-Residential Architectural Standards. Item Summary: At the direction of the Planning 8~ Zoning Commission at the January 5, 2006 meeting, the Annual Review of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) has been divided into several smaller amendments for consideration. This item, the Non-Residential Architectural Standards, was discussed at the March 2, 2006 Workshop meeting. At that time, the Commission recommended that a graphic be added to further illustrate the concept of a "facade faang a right-of-way." The proposed graphic is attached to this memo and will be included in the final ordinance language for approval by the City Council. In October 2004, the City Council adopted an ordinance that established aesthetic controls for non-residential developments, the Non-Residential Architectural Standards (NRA). This is the first review and amendment to the NRA since its adoption approximately 17 months ago. The proposed changes are in response to issues that have been identified by both customers and staff during implementation and enforcement of the ordinance. This section has been reorganized into a forrnat that is easier to understand-including a summary chart at the beginning of the section and reorganization of the standards by building/building plot size in a cumulative manner. Because this is the first review of the NRA, there are several grammatical changes and overall word-smithing of the section. The following are the policy issues involved: ^ Section 7.10.A "Applicability" to clarify that the non-residential architectural standards apply to all non-residential development, redevelopment, and facade changes. • • Section 7.10.6 "Standards for All Non-Residential Structures": graphic added to summarize the requirements of the non-residential architectural standards, to define what fagadesface aright-of-way, and to define what constitutes aright-of-way. A graphic was also added to help darify when afacadefaces aright-of-way. ^ Section 7.10.8.2 "Building Mass and Design" to remove requirements for front building facades and have them apply to all fagades facing aright-of-way. ^ Section 7.10.8.3 "Building Materials" to darfy that existing buildings may utilize non- conforming building materials for maintenance purposes, but any material change or replacement of more than 10% of the total area of all facades shall require material and color compliance; to establish a minimum percentage of surface area that must utilize a required building material; to darify which concrete products are allowed; to restrict reflective glass on all facades facng a public right-of-way; to add an exception to the reflective glass limitation; and to add a restriction against unbuffered painted steel panel siding and galvanized steel use from residential areas. ^ Section 7.10.8.5 "Pedestrian/Bike Circulation 8~ Facilities" to include a standard for how much area is needed for a bike rack and to only allow the racks to be anchored to the ground. • Section 7.10.8.6 "Parking Lots" to clarify that drive aisles are considered part of parking areas. ^ Section 7.10.D "Additional Standards for 20,000 S.F. or Greaten' to set a minimum percentage of surface area that must utilize a required building material and to remove the requirement fora 30-inch band of specified material at the base of buildings. • Section 7.10.E.1 "Building Mass and Design" to remove requirements for front building facades and have them apply to all facades facing aright-of-way for 50,000 sq.ft. or greater buildings/building plots. ^ Section 7.10.E.3 "Landscaping" to define minimum tree well requirements and to • allow for unlimited substitutions of non-canopy trees for canopy trees against a building. ^ Section 7.10.E.4 "Pedestrian/Bike Circulation & Fadlities" to set a standard of brick pavers or stamped dyed concrete for required walkways in parking lots for 50,000 sq.ft. or greater buildings/building plots. ^ Section 7.10.E "Additional Standards for 150,000 S.F. or Greater" to increase the minimum area for a plaza from 200 to 500 sq.ft., clarify that the area of a plaza can not count towards parking lot island requirements, remove the option of vegetation shading as a minimum component of a plaza, set a minimum percentage of surface area that must utilize a required building material, and require parking areas to be screened by berms. • Section 7.10.G "Variances -Design Review Board" to increase the amount of an allowable variance from 75% to 100% of the total percentage of a standard. ^ Section 7.10.H "Submittal Requirements" added to define what information is needed from the developer at what time in the development process. Attachments: ^ Redlined Copy of Section 7.10 Non-Residential Architectural Standards ^ Graphic Related to "Facade Fadng a Right-of-Way" C7 Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.9. Drainage and Stormwater Management • • 3. Townhomes not served by approved, accessible alleys, shall provide the ; Deleted: Single-family ,fequired_pad and screening for one eght=yard dumpster Qer sixteen J,~1 _ _ _; - ~ developments with a lot width of dwelling units. less than so', 4. The interior clearance (inside the screen) dimensions for a single 300-gallon container enclosure shall be en.feet j10'~,deep,~y en feet j10')„wide.. _ 5. The interior clearance (inside the screen) dimensions for a single (one eight-yard) dumpster enclosure shall be welve ..eet (1?;,~,deep twelve .., feet (12'lwide. 6. The interior clearance (inside the screen) dimensions for a double (two eight-yard) dumpster enclosure shall be welve feet_j12'.)_deep,b-„y. went - four feet (24~_wide. 7. Bollards and other such devices shall not be set within the minimum width dimensions noted above. 8. All required containers and dumpsters pads shall be constructed of six inches j6")_of steel-reinforced concrete. 9. All required containers and dumpsters shall be screened by means of an approved six-foot j6`)_high opaque device on a minimum of three sides. Depending on visibility to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, a gate may be required for all enclosures except 300-gallon side loading automated containers. Gates shall have a minimal width of twelve feet j12~whgn open. shall swing 180 deorees from the closed Dosition. and shall utilize a positive locking mechanism while in the open position. Three hundred- aallon side loading automated container enclosures shall be open on the side facing the collection point. The open side cannot be facing the Dubic right-of-way. Materials may be dictated by~he terms of a Conditional Use _ Permit (CUP) or the Design Review Board (DRB). 10. The ingress, egress, and approach to all dumpster pads shall conform to the fire lane requirements. 7.9 Drainage and Stormwater Management This Section is reserved. Any reference to this Section shall apply to Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances, Flood Hazard Protection. 7.10 Non-Residential Architectural Standards Deleted: io~~ Deleted: x Deleted: 10 Deleted: 12 Deleted: Deleted: ` Deleted: 12 Deleted: 12 Deleted: x Deleted: 24 Deleted: ft. Inserted: ft.) when open, shall swing 180 degrees from the closed position, and shall utilize a positive locking mechanism while in the open position. Three hundred-gallon side loading automated container enclosures shall be open on the side facing the collection point. The open side cannot be facing the pubic '~ . Deleted: under Formatted: Bullets and Numbering _ - - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering A. Applicability The design standards of this Section shall apply to development redevelopment, and facade changes to all non-residential buildings located in any zoning district with the exception of the M-1, M-2, R&D, NG-1, NG-2, and NG-3 districts. All buildings shall be subject to the following standards. This applies to single tenant buildings, multiple tenant buildings, and any grouping of attached or stand alone buildings and associatec(,pad sites. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Deleted: out parcels Exemptions: Churches - - -Formatted: Body Indent 3, No bullets or numbering 7-56 Unifled Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of college Station, Texas C7 • • Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards B. St~lndards for All Non-Residential Structures The following table summarizes the Non-residential Architectural Standards for the City of College Station: Facade Standards 3 0 c 'u 3 - 2 elements of architectural R. no mor t n RJ no mor than relief every 45 feet R - R - °33 /o on - 33% on - same Ply n same plang 2_elements of architectural r I' f v f - R - - R - - R - - R - No more than 66% of roonine at same elevation R - H ~ ~ - B i k bl °/ Rif 10°/ R i ~~~~ !0% R if r c . stone, mar e. l f ° 1 / visib vii I ° re uired ° vii I granite. fi e or speci ied concrete product ~ fro~ri ROW 25% R from ROW. 2 5 /o R. if visible from RR~ 0 / from. ' RONL 75% max: 100% Stucco. EIFS. specified allowed w/ 2 concrete product colors. if under 75% max 5. OOOs.f. W dar idin 30% max Smooth face, tinted concrete blocks 10% max fl ~~ $~ $Sf°/4 % Re ective glass max 100% max 1 0% max 100% max 100% Stainless steel. chrome. standing seam metal. premium grade architectural metal 20% max Painted steel panel siding I Rear of buildino only if not visible from ROW parkiand~reenwav or residences Accent Colo~per facade 15% 35% 10% ~% ~0' sidewalk along facadesidewalk along facade _ _ R _ R _ Pedestrian walkway R R Bic c Arkin s c s 4g 4 R $ R ~R - - - - - - - 7-5~ Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas Deleted: , 100% under 30" R Deleted: , Deleted: 100% under 30' R Deleted: , Deleted: 100% under 30" R Deleted: , 100% under 30' R If visible from ROW Deleted: , 100% under 30"Rif visible from ROW Deleted: , 100% under 30" R K visible from ROW C~ Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards • • Parkins Concept for more R. Additional R ndard I Pubilc space or plaza R 500 S.F. min. Landscape _ _ Double pts Double ots Lqg wells _ _ R _ R _ Minimum tree size 2" caliper s caliper R =Required 7-5 Unfl 1. Required Screening All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view or isolated so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way or residential district within 150 feet of the perimeter boundary of the subject lot or tract, measured from a point five (5') feet above grade. Such screening shall be coordinated with the building architecture, materials, colors and scale to maintain a unified appearance. Acceptable methods of screening are: encasement, parapet walis, partition screens, brick/stone/masonry walls or fences. Detention ponds shall be screened using berms, shrubs, brick/stone/masonry walls or a combination of these to achieve a 3-foot high screen above the visible perimeter of the pond's finished grade. Deleted: R Deleted: W Deleted: R Deleted: W Deleted: R --- ~_ Deleted: W Formatted: Bullets and Numbering No screening is required for retention ponds designed to also serve as year round water features. 2. Building Mass and Design ` In order to rovide visual interest. the first two 2 stories of an fa ade _ _ •`, P , __e_m_- - - - - - _~) - - - - - -_.~.~L._S_____ facing a public ric]ht-of-wav shall use architectural relief every forty-five horizontal feet (45') ~iy incorporating_a minimum of two (2) iff rent design _, ~ ~ , elements within each forty-fve foot (45'1 section from the,pption _ below. _ _ _-:'- ' III other fasades,~hall incorDOrate a minimum of two j22 different desion _ _ ,- - elements within each .sixty. foot (60') ectlon as described above. Wall •, sections less than forty-five feet (45') or sixty feet X60') res ecp tively shall '~`, also be required to provide the two (2) different design elements. '(,'. no ies erman n corative awnin r wind w ccom ani b overhanas• Wall plane projections or recessions with a minimum of four foot (4') ' ~~~`~. depth;, °' Pilasters or columns: Recessed entries, stoops, porches. or arcades: '•, ~~, '~ Balconies that extend from the building; or Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Body Indent 4 - Deleted: The geometric plane of the front or main building(s) facade on the Deleted: feet to provide viwal interest - Deleted: following Deleted: Deleted: canopies, wall plane projections or recessions with a minimum of four (4') depth, vertical expression of structural bays, pilasters, columns, bay windows, balconies that extend from the building, recessed entries, stoops, porches, arcades, boxed or bay windows, permanent decorative awnings, and or windows accompanied by ' overhangs. Along a Deleted: visible from aright-of- ' way, there Deleted: be some architectural relief or wall recession or '~ projection every Deleted: feet ' Deleted: herein Deleted: public for public use. ** = When a oronerty does not have frontage on a public right-of-wav. the primary entrance facade Qf the building(s) will meet the standards of a "facade facing a public,~ght-of,wav."_ WINAOWB A~VNING3 A.RCADE3 Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards • Min. 2' • Boxed or bay windows. As represented above, on buildings three (3) stories or less, the horizontal line of a flat roof (or parapet) along~yn .facade facinga public right-of-way,., shall vary by a minimum of two feet (2')~up_or_down so that_no-more than _.____ sixt -six rc n 66% f the_rooflne is on the same elevation. - ~~ Y e e t( )? - _ _ _ 3. Building Materials All buildings determined to be.a single_building_plot by the Administrator -- shall have materials and colors that are similar and complement each other architecturally. This applies to all stand alone~nd g~~ site buildings,. _ regardless of their use. All exterior facades of ad sit .building must meet _ -. the requirements for a fac,~de facing a public right-of-wax,: All buildings. -~ shall employ architectural, site, and landscaping design elements that are integrated with and common to those used on the main/primary buildings or structures on site. These common design elements shall include building materials associated with the main/primary structure. In the event that a,.. _ _= l . - pad site~r_non-primary buildings) is developed before the primaryJmain_ 1 building(s), then all other buildings, with the exception of stand alone restaurants, shalt have materials and colors that are similar and complement each other architecturally to the building constructed first. Roof or Parapet Existing buildings may continue to utilize materials other than those listed Formatted: Bullets and Numbering below provided that env material replacement is for maintenancepurposes only and the existing material is continued Any material chance or replacement of more than ten percent (10%) of the total area of all facades shall require that all building materials and colorspe brought into _ - Deleted: shall compliance All other materials are.prohibited unless agthorized herein or ~ - shall be brought Into bathe Design Review Board (ORB). When determining area herein, compliance. windows and doors are included. ••, ~~: ~ a~The following applies only to the first two (2) stories of all buildings. All Formatted: Bullets and Numbering building facades that are visible from a ublic right-of-way shall have at least ten percent (10%) of the surface area of the fadconsist of,pne_ _ _ - Deleted: a minimum or or more of the following building materials: 1 fired brick ~ - Oersted: r 2) Natural stone _._ _ _ _ rrormattea: Bullets and NumberNg 3) J~larble _ _ _. _ _ __ _ Deleted: n - 4~ .granite -------------- -- ----- - - Deleted:m 5) Tile ~ ' Deleted: g ~_Any concrete product so long as it has an integrated color and is ~ ` ~~~~ t textured or patterned (not aggregate material) to simulate brick. Unifled Development Ordinance 9/23/04 7-59 City of College Station, Texas C7 Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards C7 • stone. marble, or granite. or covered with brick, stone, marble, granite or tiler - _... _.. - Stucco, EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems), hardboard, ` concrete products as described in Section 7.10.B.3.a.6 above, reflective glass, certain metal products described In this section below, and cedar siding are allowed on~,ll faSades_subject_to_the_following limitations;. _ _ ~_Stucco, EIFS, high build textured paint on concrete to simulate the appearance of EIFS. hard _board~ or_any_material equivalent in .._ _. _ _ appearance and quality as determined by the DRB, shall not cover more than seventy-five percent (75%) ofd facade.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2LWood or cedar siding shall not cover more than thirty percent (30%) of any facade. 3L,Smooth face, tinted concrete blocks shall only be used as an accent and shall not cover more than ten percent (10%) of any facade. 4) Reflective glass, shall not cover greater than. eighty. percent, (80%) '.,, - - " of n fa _ade_facin a ubllc ri ht of-wa and ma cover one ~..1L _ _c 9 p 9 Y _ _ _ _ ._Y ~....~.~_ .. _ hundred percent1100%~ c„~f any other facade. Exemption: When ~ `. ~. calculations are provided by a licensed professional engineer or '`~ architect verifying that energy code compliance cannot be achieved ';. without the use of reflective glass, there shall not be a limit on the use of such material. The calculations shall be approved by the Building Official and comply with the International Energy Code, as adopted and amended by the City of College Station. ~_Stainless steel, chrome, standing seam metal and premium grade '•. ` architectural metal may be used as an architectural accent and shall not cover greater than twenty percent (20%) of any facade. ~_Painted steel panel siding and galvanized steel is allowed on the •• rear facade of buildings when the facade is not visible from aright- of way, parkland, greenway. or any residential area; provided _ _ _ _ ---- -- however, t~these_materiais_mav be used ifthe facade,js_ ~, screened from adjacent properties. This screening shall be installed regardless of adjacent property zoning or use and in no " way shall this Section diminish the requirements for Buffering required in Section 7.~._Plantings, fences, or walls which meet the _ _ ... _ specifications established in Sections 7.7,F~.2 or 7~F~3_with _ _ _ _ _ _ _ substitutions allowed as provided for in Section 7,~Fw4_are_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ permitted screening materials and methods. Use of these alternative building materials shall count toward the required `~,~ percentages of materials as described herein. 72_Galvanized steel and painted steel are allowed on doors, including roll-up doors. 8) Metal. standing seam metal, architectural metal or steel may be used as a roof and or canopy/awnings with no limitation on percentage. c. All architectural submittals shall provide elevation drawings for each facade and a material legend (see sample legend below) for each facade. 7-60 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas Deleted: or material fabricated to simulate brick, stone, marble or granite Deleted: All other materials arc prohibited unless authorized hereto or by the Design Review Board (DRB). Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: visible unscreened Deleted: concrete products as described above, Deleted: the overall Deleted: <#>Buildings less than 5,000 S.F. may use one hundred percent (100%) EIFS, Stucco, hardboard, or concrete products as described above, but only If it is painted or tinted with a minimum of two (2) cobrs to avokl monotony. Formatted: Outline numbered + Level: 6 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Stag at: 1 + Alignmer~ LeR + Aligned at: 100.8 pt + Tab after. 126 pt + Indent at: 126 pt Deleted: the front Deleted: be used Deleted: on Formatted: Bullets and N:rnbering Deleted: or Deleted: if Deleted: are used, then Deleted: must be Deleted: 6 Deleted: 6 Deleted: 6 Deleted: 6 r~ Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards .7 Area in Sauare Feet ^.-----.._.....-----_ _---------__.._..------..._....-----_-----...----....__..........._i 4. Building Colors a_,All building faSades and roofs shall consist of only colors from the color ', palette approved by the City Council,. as amended by the DRBt and maintained in the Office of the Administrator. All other colors shall be considered accent colors and may be used on no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the faSade on which the accent color is applied ~ ; b. Neon, metailic_~except_copper and silver_metallic colored_roofs)_and_ _ _ _ _ fluorescent colors are prohibited on any facade or roof. ' ~~ c_When applying brick, colors normally found in manufactured fired brick ' are permitted. All colors of natural stone are permitted. ~' Building and roof color requirements apply to all new buildings, ~. redeveloped buildings, and facade work. Color samples shall be submitted for approval to the Office of the Administrator. • e~Existing buildings may continue to utilize colors that are not from the approved color palette provided that repainting is done for maintenance purposes only and the existing color is continued. Any color change on existing buildings shall be brought into compliance with this ordinance and color samples shall be submitted as provided herein. 5. Pedestrian /Bike Circulation Sc Facilities a_Each building shall provide a facility capable of storing a minimum of four (4) bicycles. The area Drovided for such a facility shall be approximately fifty-five square feet (55 sq.ft.) in area.,a,~~roximate„~ly nine feet by six feet (9' X 6'), or as approved by the Administrator. Deleted: or b_Facilities shall be separated from motor vehicle parking to protect both bicycles and vehicles from accidental damage and shall be sufficiently separated from building or other walls, landscaping, or other features to allow for ease and encouragement of use. This separation shall be a minimum of three feet (3'~. Bicycles _may be_permitted on, sidewalks. or ~ ~ - - Deleted: feet other paved surfaces provided that the bicycles do not block or intertere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. . C~_Bicycle facilities shall be constructed so as to enable the user to secure a bicycle by locking the frame and one wheel of each bicycle parked therein. Facilities must be easily usable with both U-locks and cable 7-61 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas Deleted: <#>Single buildings or combination of buildings of 20,000 S.F. or greater shall have a minimum of twenty-flue percent (25%) (calculation shall be based on the area of the Flrst two stories of the front or main building(s) facade) brick, stone, marble or grenite or a material fabricated to simulate brick or stone (not splR face concrete masonry) on the front or main facade(s). All facades visible from the street shall have only brick, stone, marble, granite, tlnted split face masonry blocks or file below thirty (30'~ inches from the ground surface. <#>Metal, standing seam metal, architectural metal or steel may be used as a roof and or canopy/awnings with no IimitaGon on percentage. ~ Metal or hardboard may be used as a structural material as long as it is not visible. Formatted: Bullets and Nunberk~g Fonnattad: Bullets and Nrafnbe-rN~g Deleted: ; n Formatted: Bullets and Numbering .7 Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards • • locks and support the bicycle frame at two points. Facilities shall be anchored securely to the ground, _ _ _ _ _ , -' 6• parking_Lots .............. . .. . ~, These requirements are in addition to and not in lieu of the requirements established in Section 7.2. Off Street Parking Standards. Deleted: or building Deleted: <#> Traf6e Impact Analysis This section establishes requirements and procedures pertaining to traffic impact analysts (TIA) for non-residential developments. These requirements are Intended to inform the applicant of the City's expectations, expedite the City staff's review process of TIA reports, provide standard criteria for evaluating development proposals, and establish equitable mitigation and cost sharing pollcies.>) The TIA is Intended to develop public/private partnerships to coordinate land use and transportation facility development. Both the City of College Station and the land developer share in the responsibility to rnnsider all reasonable solutions to Identified transportation problems. <#>purpoael This process is done simultaneously with the submittal of a site plan. The goal of this study is to look at a specific development of known size and use and to determine the effect of that use on the existing roadway system. It uses existing traffic volumes and assumes the existing roadway configuration to be used for analysis. This process shoukl ensure that the roadway system is adequate to accommodate the proposed use and may recommend mitigation measures necessary to ensure effkJent traffic flow around the proposed site (as based on Intersection and roadway levels of servke).~ <#>Objedhre~ A TIA fs intended to define the immediate impacts of the ~ proposed development an ,,, 1 Deleted: is , .~~~~ Deleted: i Deleted: n the front of 'Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: This additional setback requirement shall not apply if the proposed building(s) resides In an existing overlay district. Deleted: feet Deleted: square feet Deleted: square feet a_Where parking Ar drive aisles are located twe the building. h~ ', public right-of-way there shall be a minimum ten foot (10~ setback from the up blic right-of-way Tine to the parking area or drive aisle. LZIn order to break up the parking lot area and minimize visual impact, one of the following parking concepts is required on any parking lot with ':I greater than one hundred twenty (120) parking spaces. Parking ,1I concepts shall be approved by the Administrator provided that it meets one of the following minimum criteria. Pedestrian ways are allowed 'll within the below-described areas. iZ_Concept 1 -Every one hundred twenty (120) parking spaces shall be a separate and distinct parking area connected by driving lanes ',{ but separated by landscaping strips a minimum of eight (8') feet 1 wide and the full length of the parking row. Where pedestrian ,~ facilities are located within landscape strips or where vehicles ~i would overhang these strips, the strip shall be a minimum of ten ~ feet (10')~vide; or, '~ .. _ ,~ 2),_Concept 2 -For every one hundred and twenty (120) parking ' spaces, an 1800 square foot landscaped island shall be installed ~ .i~ (Landscape Pods). Such island(s) shall be located internal to the ~ ~', parking lot and shall be located so as to visually break up each one ', .;~ hundred twenty (120) parking spaces. The landscaping square ~; ;r footage calculation for parking lots greater than one hundred ~ .y twenty (120) parking spaces shall be pro-rated at fifteen square ' '~ feet (15 sq.ft.) Af landscaping..per parking space; or, ~` ~LConcept 3 -For every one hundred twenty (120) parking spaces, '~~ an additional 1,800 square feet of landscaped area shall be , added/distributed to the interior row(s) end island(s) located ~, closest to the right-of-way line (i.e. in conjunction with the ~ ~~ ' minimum setback creating a double row of landscaping) but in no ' ~, ;' event shall the additional landscaped area be located farther than ~, ': , one hundred feet (100') from the right-of-way frontage. The ' ' ~~~ landscaping square footage calculation for parking lots greater than , •~ '+: ,. one hundred twenty (120) parking spaces shall be pro-rated at ~ '"~ fifteen square feet (15 sa.ft.),pf landscaping per parking. space. _. _ '', ~,` ~,. ,~ ~~~ `. ~ ,~ .i ,~ ,, 7-62 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas ~~ Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards • • l PROPODEO BUILDING I ~ 3 i .. •~~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ .~ ' ': ~ i r- ~ ~ t .r ~, .,1 , ~ ,. ~, t ~ °:; ,. ~ r r . (/,.~~ '.-t' ~ ~~ 7 . s , -t. I~ . ^ ~ X t~ ~ ~ .t;. ~ it (~, r '~ +vr^'~ " t tit ~ r ' { r MEDIAN PROP09ED BUILDING i w.~ `,~ ` ~ ,- .. r _ ~ r ~ r. O ~ ~~ ~ :'i ~9 CONCEPT 2 LANDSCAPEDIBLAND 1800 SF i 'E STRIP/ PROPOSED BUILDING ~~ ~ i • T"S -~ !Y T ~ ' Ali ^~. 1~ `tom ~ar~ i ~, .. ` / ~ ~ I f ~~ ! 1 t PROPOSED BUILDING t 1 ` 1 i ~y L ~- CONCEPT 3: INTERIOR ROW -~-~ 1 BQO SF PER 12O CARS :LANDSCAPE BUFFER Interior island area requirements, as required in Section 7.2, may be consolidated into end islands, landscape strips, and landscape pods. Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 F Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 7-63 City of College Station, Texas • Article 7. General Development Standards Sedlon 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards • • Shopping cart storage spaces shall be identified on the site plan. These spaces shall not be located in landscape islands or any areas designed for plantings or pedestrian or bike access. C. Standards for less than 5,000 S.F. A single building or combination of buildings less than 5.000 rocs s uare feet in area. whether connected or not. but determined to be a single buildingpiot, may use one hundred nercent (100%) EIFS. Stucco. high build textured aint on concrete to simulate the a{~pearance of EIFS. or hardboard, but only if it is painted or tinted with a minimum of two (2) colors to avoid monotony. Deleted: s ` Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Body Indent 3 Deleted: ~ D. Additional Standard fQr ~Q~QQQ ~,~1 ?!' ~,~eater_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ In addition to the standards set out in Section 7.10.6. the following shall ap{11v •' to any single building or combinations of buildings of 20 000 gross square feet in area. whether connected or not. but determined to be a sinole building p~,l3uildino M~>;erial ~ ~4ny f~~~ig f~ina a Dublic right-of-wav shall have a_ _ _ _. _~ minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) jcalculation shall be based on the area of the first two (2) stories of any single building{s) fa~a~), brick. stone. marble granite or a material fabricated to simulate brick or stone (not split face concrete masonM. ~ ~ ._ ~ , E. AdditjQp~! ~1{~,Odards f~ ,~Q,Q,Q,~ ~,F. oF~rg~ter In addition to the standards set out in $ection~.7.,~Q.B and 7.~Q.Q. the _ _ _ _ _ following shall apply to any single building or combinations of buildings of '. '•. 50,000 gross square feet in area<or greater whether connected_or_not~ but _ _ __ determined to be a single building plot._ __ _ _ ` '••• ' i. Building Mass and Design Facade articulation (wall plane projections or recessions) is required on the ~•. +'''.~~' first two (2) stories of~n)(_fa5ade facinq a public riclht-of-wav. No more _. _ _ ,,.. than thi o ~- _ - - - - - - rty-three percent (33 /o) oti,g_ny facade facinq a public right-of-wav ' ,.,,, shall be on the same continuous geometric plane. Restaurant a i are • •, ',~.•~, ,, excluded from this articulation requirement but are required to provide ~,~ , ',•'•, architectural relief as provided.~n theprevious Section 7.10.(3. Wall plane _ _ _ ~,`:.`, •. projections or recessions shall have a minimum depth of four feet (4'),. _ .;; 2. Building Colors Accent colors may be used on no greater than ten percent (10%) of the facade on which the accent color is applied. 3. Landscaping ``, These requirements are in addition to and not in lieu of the requirements •'~'. established in Section 7„~._Landscaping_and_Tree Protection._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ':'~. a. The minimum required landscape points for a site shall be double (2 x `, ~~ minimum landscape points) of that required for developments of less than 50,000 dross square feet in area,, The..minimum allowable tree_size ~~. ', is two-inch (2"),caliper. Stl-eetscape point regwrements remain the ' . `, • same and shall count toward the landscape point requirement. ~.,` • ', b. Tree wells are required along fifteen percent (15%) of the linear front of env facade facino a Dublic right-of-wav„and shall include a minimum of_ ` one (1] canopy tree for every required six feet (6') in length Non- canoov trees may be substituted in the tree wells Drovided that the 7-64 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas Deleted: ~ Building Materials Inserted: ~ Inserted: Building Materials Any facade facing a public right- of-way shall have a minimum of twenty-five percent (2596) (calculation shall be based on the area of the first two Formatted: rbnt: Not Italk Formatted: Font Not Ftalk Formatted: Font Not Italic Deleted: <#>All facades visible from the street shall have only brick, stone, marble, granite, tinted split face masonry blocks or file below thirty (30'7 from the ground surface. Formatted: Bullets and N:snberMx~ Deleted: this Deleted: 9 Deleted: S.F. Deleted: developed as one Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Body Indent ~ Deleted: the front or main building(s) Deleted: the Deleted: front or main building(s) Deleted: out-parcels Deleted: herein Deleted: feet Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: 5 Deleted: S.F Deleted: Inch Deleted: the main building(s) facade • Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards number required shall be doubled,,.This landscaping shall count toward_ _ __ 1 _ - Deleted: Each tree well shall • the overall landscape requirement. include canopy trees. Each tree well shall be a minimum of six feet (6') square. Tree wells may be at grade or may be raised a maximum of,~hirty inghgs (~0"1 jn _ _ - ueleted: 3 feet height, so long as the soil is contiguous with the soil at grade. If the ~ ~ ~~: 30 tree wells are located within interior Darkina islands, then the islands shall not count toward the required interior parking islands as described Inserted: 3o in Section 7.2.E Interior Islands. ~~ c. All landscaping strips, islands, pods, and areas used to segregate the one hundred twenty (120) space parking areas as provided for above under "Parking Lots" must include canopy trees or structural shading. This requirement shall not apply to auto sales lots. 4• pedestrian /Bike Circulation 8c Facilities_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~, -" a. b. • There shall be designated connections among primary buildings and,gad , ', sit s for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Locations for sidewalks and ` bicycle parking facilities shall be provided and shown on the site plan. Pedestrian walkways may be incorporated into the landscape strips separating parking areas only if the strip is ten feet (10'~ in._wi_dth..__ ~ '. In centers with multiple tenants, one or more facilities capable of storing eight (8) bicycles shall be placed in clearly designated, safe, and convenient locations, such that no tenant entrance is farther than one hundred fifty feet (150 from a bike facility. c. Pedestrian walkways shall be a minimum of five feet (5'),wide. _ . _ _ Pedestrian walkways shall connect public street sidewalks, transit stops, parking areas and other buildings in a design that ensures safe Deleted: <#>The substitution of two (2) non-canopy trees for one (1) canopy tree Is not allowed for more than fifty percent (50%) ~ the overall canopy tree requirement. Massing of trees is allowed. ~ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: out-parcels Deleted: feet Deleted: feet pedestrian use. When the walkwav is within a parking lot area, it shall be clearly designated usino brick Havers or a stamped dyed concrete pattern. d. There shall beaten fo t 10' sidewalk alon the full. fronts e_of_an - Deletes: foot facade facing a public right-of-way,._ Tree wells and planter_boxes_shall _ - Deleted: the primary building be placed along this walkway and in a manner that does not obstruct facade pedestrian movement. Bike parking facilities are allowed in this area. Vehicular parking or cart storage is prohibited. Outside display is allowed but only if it does not occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of this area and meets the requirements of Section 7.1,2.6. This _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - Deleted; 1 requirement does not apply to developments meeting the definition of a pad site. - - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering F. Additional Standards for 150,000 S.F. or greater In addition to therStandards set out in Sections 7.~O.B, 7.1Q.D4 and 7.1.O.E, the -- Deleted: above following shall apply to any single building or combinations of buildings of 150,000 gross square feet in area,nr greater, whether connected or not but _ _ _ _ _ - _ determined to beasinole buildingplot._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. i. Each development shall contain a plaza developed as an integral pa1-t of the _ _ ....... development and not less than ive hundred square feet (,BOO .f ~n_ _ _ _ _ area. This area shall not count toward required Darkino islands or area ~ - requirements of a parkino concept as described in 7.10.6.6.b.,This area_ .- _ _ shall incorporate a minimum of three (3) of the following: Seating components* 7-65 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas .7 Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards Structural shading* -Deleted: or vegetative Waterfeatures* Decorative landscape planters* Public Art* Outdoor eating accommodations Hardscape elements at entrances and within the parking area such as decorative pavers, low masonry walls, FI_ock towers etc. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ .. -Deleted: public art, *These public areas may be located within the parking landscape areas. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 2. All facades facing a public Right-of Way shall have a minimum of fifty percent (50%) brick, stone, marble, granite, or a material fabricated to simulate brick or stone (not split face concrete masonry). ~_ _ - - ' Formatted: Bullets and Numbering The minimum allowable tree size is two and one hai -inche 2.5"lcaliper. _ __ .. _ _ ~~, 4. All parking areas must be screened from the public Right-of-Way using ~ Deleted` inches berms. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering - - ~ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 5. Accent colors may be used on no more than five percent (5%) of the faSade on which the accent color is applied. G. Variances -Design Review Board (DRB) The DRB may grant a variance from the standards contained in Section 7~0 of , - Delecea: g up to one hundred percent (100%,),.of the total percentage. permitted for the . _ - Deleted: 7596 following: i. Substitutions of building materials if the applicant shows that: a. The building material is a new or innovative material manufactured that has not been previously available to the market or the material is not listed as an allowed or prohibited material herein;~r_ _ -- _ _ _ _ - - Deleted: and • b. The material is similar and comparable in quality and appearance to the materials allowed in this Section 7.~O;,gr _ _ _ ___. ____ _ - Deleted9 c. The material is_ an integral part of a themed building (example 50's '~ ~ : and diner in chrome). ~• ~ - - Deleted: <#>No variance shall No variance shall be granted to requirements for brick or stone on buildings ~ . ~ granted to requirements for brick or stone on buildings twent thousand 20.000 ross s uare feet in area or reater. Y ( .19 4 9 twenty thousand (20,000) Financial hardship shall not constitute a basis for the variance. square feet or greater; ands <#>Financial hardship shall not ` 2. Alternate colors or materials on each facade if the applicant shows that: , constitute a basis for the •~ vartance; ands a. The applicant is a franchised and/or chain restaurant to be developed as Formatted: Bullets and Numbering a single detached building (not integrated into amulti-tenant building); and b. The proposed colors/materials are part of its corporate branding; and c. The applicant provides all of the alternative color/materials schemes the chain or franchise has used. 3. Alternative materials on faSade work that does not involve an expansion of an existing building as defined in Section 9 of the UDO or constitute redevelopment if the applicant shows that: 7-66 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas • Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards a. The materials allowed in Section 7.~.Q cannot be utilized without a I , - Deleted: 9 • structural alteration(s) to the existing-building;-and - - - - - - - - - - - - -' b. A licensed professional engineer or architect verifies in writing that a structural alteration is required to apply the permitted facade materials to the building. c. The DRB may grant a variance of up to 100% from the facade articulation or roofline standards herein if the applicant shows that it is not financially or structurally feasible. Deleted: Screening must be 4. r4lternatiyes to the options for s~r~enirag listed in Section 7~0. B may_ be _ _., _ _. - ~ provided in accordance with considered. Section 7.96. _ - I Deleted: 9 5. Alternatives to the options listed in Section 7.10. B. _may be considered _ 1 _- ;9 for approval provided that the alternative incorporates a minimum of two (2) architectural relief elements with spacing as required under Section ~, _ .... ...... ~ - Deleted: 9c 6. The DRB may approve the following alternative parking lot concept as follows: a. The area of a landscaped plaza may be credited toward the area(s) required for parking lot landscape concepts in Section 7,~,Q.B.Ca,provided _ ~ . - Deleted:9 _ that each of the following conditions are met: ~ ' Deleted: H3b 1) A minimum of three,buildings must be_clustered around a plaza;. ~ . _ _ _ _ . pew; out-parcel and 2) The area of the plaza and associated landscaping/water features/fountains shall be no less than 1800 square feet for every one hundred twenty (120) parking spaces; and 3) The clustered buildings may not be physically separated by parking spaces. The area of the landscaped plaza shall only count toward parking spaces • located directly behind the clustered buildings and plaza. The point of orientation for determining what is "behind" the clustered buildings and plaza shall be from the adjacent street with the highest rating on the Thoroughfare Plan. All other parking spaces shall meet requirements established in 7.10.B.fifor minimizing visual impact of parking spaces. _ _ __ _ ,1 _ - Deleted: 9 The landscaping square footage calculation for parking lots greater than one ~ ~ Deleted: H hundred twenty (120) parking spaces shall be pro-rated at fifteen (15) ~ Deleted: 3b square feet of landscaping per parking space. 7-67 UniFled Development Ordinance 9/23/04 Ciry of College Station, Texas • • Article 7. Generel Development Standards Section 7.10. Non-Residential Architectural Standards 7. Alternate colors on a facade if the applicant shows that: a. The applicant is a franchised and/or a chain business to be developed as a single detached building (not integrated into amulti-tenant building); and b. The proposed colors are part of its corporate branding; and c. The applicant provides all of the alternative color schemes the chain or franchise has used. H. Submittal Requirements 1. When non-residential architectural standards are applicable, submitted site plans shall include the following, in addition to other site plan application requirements: a. Accurate building footprint(s2;, b. Mechanical screening details; c. Detention pond screening details;, d. Location and number of bicycle parking facilities; e. Parking lot configuration in compliance with 7.10.H, Parking lots, if applicable (120 parking spaces or more);, f. Additional landscaping requirements. if applicable (50,000 sauare feet and greater): g. Lacation of pedestrian walkwax§, if applicable {,50 000 sauare feet and rester h. Traffic Impact Analysis, if applicable f5 000 trips per day or greater); Formattnd:l9ulk~s and Numbering j and 7-68 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas • ~ax~wim o~.ra wr cater Article 7. General Development Standards Section 7.11. Outdoor Llghting Standards • i. Location and details of public plaza and amenities if ap IID 'cable (150 000 souare feet and greater) 2 When non-residential architectural standards are applicable submittP~ building plans shall include the following in addition to other building permit application reouirements: a Scaled building elevations for each fat;ade depicting the foilowing_ 1) Required architectural relief and 2) Location of building materials. b. Accurate building footprint(); c. Sample building materials and color details; and d. Table of vertical square footage and percentage of building materials for each facade. 7.11 Outdoor Lighting Standards It is recognized that no design can eliminate all ambient light from being reflected or otherwise being visible from any given development; however, the following requirements shall be followed to the fullest extent possible in order to limit nuisances associated with lighting and resulting glare. All lighting within developments other than single-family residential and duplexes shall meet the requirements of this Section. A. Site Lighting Design Requirements i. Fixture (luminaire): The light source shall not project below an opaque housing. No fixture shall directly project light horizontally. 2. Light Source (lamp): Only incandescent, florescent, metal halide, mercury • vapor, or color corrected high-pressure sodium may be used. The same type must be used for the same or similar types of lighting on any one site throughout any master-planned development. 3. Mounting: Fixtures shall be mounted in such a manner that the projected cone of light does not cross any property line. B. Specific Lighting Requirements .... Formatted: Bullets and Nixnbering -~Wrmatted: Bullets and Numbering - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering i, fa~ade_and flagpole lighting must be directed only toward the facade or flag _~-' and shall not interfere with the night-visibility on nearby thoroughfares or shine directly at any adjacent residential use. 2. x411.lighting fixtures incorporated into non-enclosed structures (i.e., yas_ _ _ _ _ pump canopies, car washes, etc.) shall be fully recessed into the underside of such structures. 1 7.12 Outdoor Storage and Display A. General Outdoor storage and display is allowed in nonresidential districts in accordance with this Section. Any merchandise, material, or equipment situated outdoors and visible from the public light-of-way or adjacent properties shall be subject 7-69 Unified Development Ordinance 9/23/04 City of College Station, Texas - Deleted: Residential Protection StandardsWithin 150 feet of any residential zone, building- mounted and aerial Ilghting fixtures shall be of a design such that the Tight source (luminalre) shall not project below an opaque housing. No such fixture shall directly project light horizontally. Deleted: Canopy Area Llghting Formatted: Bullets and Numbering • ~. cs~~ e-h ~u~iaing riot r ^ ^ ern L.._..~.._..~.._.._..,.. Public Right Cif Way - indicates 25Q/o or snore of facade faces a right. of way. ~ r ~ ~Y sa~ti~~~Y~wwYw^~~w~r~~~~ww~wwirY~~YrYYw~a~~~~~~~Y~~~~~~~ n ~v, c~ O Regular Agenda 14 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Article 11, Definitions. Case #05-500023 (JP) • ~/f City of College Station Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 2006 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Crissy Hartl, Staff Planner THROUGH: Joey Dunn, Director of Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: UDO Annual Review, Article 11, Definitions Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion regarding an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Article 11, Definitions. Item Summary: At the direction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at the January 5, 2006 meeting, the Annual Review of the UDO has been divided into several smaller amendments for consideration. The following background information was presented at the March 2"d workshop meeting. At that time, the Commission made no recommended changes to the amendment as presented. The amendment is now ready for your review for formal consideration of amendments to Article 11, Definitions at the March 16, 2006 P&Z meeting. Non-housekeeping items in this section include changes to the definitions of "building plot," "clinic," and "hospital." The following information reflects the proposed changes to each definition: Building Plot or Premises: All of the land within a project, whether one or more lots, developed according to a common plan or design for similar or compatible uses, that may have shared access or parking, and that singularly or in phases is treated as such for site plan review purposes. The determination of the boundaries of a building plot shall be made as the first step in the site plan or project review, unless such determination has previously been made at the time of plat approval. For development not subject to site plan review, the building plot or premises shall be the exterior boundary of any included lots, in the event that the structure sits astride two or more lots. In the event that two or more lots are under single ownership and the structure does not meet the required side yard setback, both lots shall be considered the building plot or premises. Demolished sites located in larger parking lots that may not have previously been considered • • part of a larger building plot, will be considered part of the plot if access is shared with the site. Clinic: , . A facility operated by one or more physicians, dentists, chiropractors, or other licensed practitioners of the healing arts for the examination and treatment of persons solely on an outpatient basis. • Hospital or Sanitarium: A building, or portion thereof, used or designed for the medical or surgical treatment of the sick, mentally ill, or injured persons, primarily on an inpatient basis, and including as an integral part, related fadlities such as laboratories, outpatient fadlities, or training fadlities; provided that this definition shall not include rooms in any residential dwelling, hotel, or apartment hotel not ordinarily intended to be occupied by said persons. C7