HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
MIN.UTES
Plflnning .and . Zoning.. Commission
CITY.OF..COLLEGE.STATION,... TEXAS
7:00P.M.
February 6, 1992
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairperson Sawtelle, Commissioners Esmono, Hall, Colson,
Hawthorne .and Smith.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
City Planner Call~way, Senior PlannerJ{ee, ~l~nning Technician
Thomas, and Assistant tothe..CityEngineerMorgap~
Approval of the minutes from themeeti11gof January 16, 1992
Mr. Colson moyedtc) approve the minutes of themyeting of January 16, 1992 ias presented. Mr.
Hawthorne~~coflded th.emotion,whichpassed, ..llnopp.osed. ... (6.. ~O).
AGENDA~N9.i2:P1iijlichearingt()<C(:)~ider.. aconditionaluse.permit fequest by George
Sopasakist()allow Jl.tu1ori8.l center. to . be loc;1ted. at301.BPatricia m.the < Northgate zoning district.
(92-700)
PlanningAssistantfuel1~~l presented.th~ staf,fteport andinfotllled the Commission that staff
discu~sed.the. parkingsihlatioIl \Vith.the applicant. ...The. property is zoned C-N]G Northgate, whose
usesqo n9thave~pecifilJparking.. requifements..Jnstead, the Ordinance gives, the Project Review
Comrnitteeqiscretion . t9 reque~t additioIlaL parking.. be provided. In order to al1alyze the impacts of
this use,. however, staff looked · at existing parking requirements for shopping cyoters in other parts
of the City. Using a ratioofl space per 150 square feet, the Genter isshor~sevenspaces of its
parking need. If this center was located ina .C-l district, it\Vou~d Ileed to! providt. 32 parking
spaces. Building Official Coy perry inspected the parking lot before. the Golllmitteemeeting and
determined that the lotj')foyides 25 parkingsp~ces. . The .. applicant Co nteI1d s th~t there has. not been .
apaJ.'king problem attn~ center because of its proximity to campus draws pedestrian clfstomers and
because twoofthethreeotherleasespapesaretake out in nature. Th~Bui1qi?g cody will restrict
the number oli9c~tlpaIlts ~or .this lease. space to 30 people, including. instructorsj. ,PlanniI1g expressed
some.concerRTegardingpossible congestion clue . to overlapping hours. Thirty.;.ppe property owners
within 200' of the subject property werenotifieclwith one inquiry. I
ChairpersonS,awtelleopened the pub lic . hearing.
Applicant George Sopasakisapproached. the Commission and. explained that tij9 center is targeting
freshmen. and. sophom{)re stlldyl1tswhose ... coul"sesar~entry . leveL math,. physics : and chemistry. The
classes are planned topeam~il1lum of 1 hqllr andA5 minutes with a 15 mi~Weinterval between
class~s. The proposed location has been chosen Iflainly because of itsproximit)' to the Texas A&
M pniversity campus and because it offers a parking facility.Qver 50% of I the tutoring center's
students will be. either walk insor bicycling to the location. . Mr. Sopasakis concJllded that the center
will be primarily operating during the faUal1d spring semesters; however, if I there is a need for
summer school.tutoring,the center would like to provide these study services.
Mr. Smith questioned the applicant with regard to providing a bicycle rack or some other method of
parking bicycles. Mr. Sopasakis stated that there is a covered entrance where they could be stored.
If, in the future, the parking of bicycles becomes a problem, he will provide a parking rack.
Chairperson Sawtelle closed the public hearing.
Mr. Colson explained that he was in favor of any codes that limit occupancy loads, especially in the
Northgate area. He moved to grant a conditional use. permit to allow a tutoring institution to be
located at 301-B Patricia in the Northgatezoningdistrict. Mr. Smith seconded the motion which
passed unopposed (6 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Public..hearing to consider a rezoning request by AncoCorporation of Lot
14, Block.Tofthc..University Park.ll subdivision, located along the University Drive Corridor, from
A-PAdministrative,Professional to .CBBusiness. Commercial (92-101)
Senior Planner Kee presented the staff. report suggesting that A-P zoning is preferable on this
property to preserve the block of A-P separating two currently zoned blocks of retail commercial, to
avoid possible negatiYe impacts on adjacent developed residential lots and to achieve compliance
with the Future Land Use Plan. The City's Future Land Use Plan shows a consolidated block of
office commercial uses adjacent to a consolidated block of medium density residential uses along the
north side of University between the two retail commercial areas at the ends. The university Drive
Report stated that, liThe existing land uses reflected on the land use plan on the north side of
University from Tarrow east to Spring Loop.ar still appropriate".. Currently the zoning configuration
on the norther frontage of University is reta.ilcommercialatthe ends with alternating A-P and R-4
districts in between. This pattern of alternating A-P and R-4districts is not particularly desirable
and the previous .U niversityDrive study. recommended rezonings to eliminate this ttsandwichingtt
effect. This tlsand~iching"effect will be continued with this rezoning. Although the C-B district is
different from C-l in that some C-l uses are not permitted, it is a commercial district and was
designed as .such. It does allow uses that could have negative impacts such as noise, lights, food
odors and traffic on the adjacent developed residential lots. rhe A-P district does not allow the
retail and restaurant uses .allowed in C-B. Staff does not feel that C-B zoning on this property
would adversely affect the recommendations of the University Drive Report because of the
protection yielded by the Overlay District, it is just not the preferable zoning taking gall planning
as peets in to consideration.
Chairperson Sawtelle opened the public hearing.
J. O. Alexander, representative of the applicant, Anco Corporation, approached the Commission
and stated that he was under the impression after the University Drive property owners meeting,
that all properties along this corridor. would be.. rezoned..toC-B.Thereis no immediate particular
use for the property; however, eventually the property will be developed, maybe into an office
building. He would like to improve the property value and have a .wider variety of uses other than
an office building.
Mr. Colson agreed and. stated that the proposed C-B zoning would give the applicant more flexibility
in developing the property.
Paul Clark, representative of the owner of the adjacentR-4 tract to the west, approached the
Commission and stated that he had no objections to the proposed rezoning.
Chairperson Sawtelle closed the .public hearing.
P & Z Minutes
February 6,1992
Page 2