HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous
Mr. Carl E. Tishler
206 Grove
College Station, Texas 77840
Will represent petitioners at the public hearing of the Planning
and Zoning Commission relating to the matter of the request for
a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Parenthood Clinic to be
located at 201 Grove Street, College Station, Texas 77840.
July 10, 1981
We oppose the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation
of a medical clinic to be located in the existing house at 201 Grove Street
(Lots 28, 29 and 25 feet of Lot 30 in the West Park Addition) for the
following reasons:
1. The establishment of any commercial project would be detrimental to
the quality of life in the West Park Addition because it would establish
a precedent for commercial development.
2. Grove Street is not suited for establishment of a medical clinic
especially when other alternative locations better suited for such a
commercial establishment are available such as: the professional
activities area as shown on the College Station Master Plan, an area
zoned for apartments or a location in the neighboring area already
zoned commercial such as the lots facing Jersey Street. This is an
especially important consideration because 201 Grove Street (Lots 28,
29 and 25 feet of Lot 30 in the West Park Addition) is an interior
lot not a corner lot.
3. Collector or arterial streets are usually associated with areas of
commercial activity. The existing street is but 30 feet wide, thus
it would not accomodate the increased traffic or parking associated
with a medical clinic.
4. The neighborhood aspects of the West Park Addition are especially
important since the neighborhood is moving from a marginal to a more
stable residential area of College Station. Owner proprietorship is
increasing as is the number of children in the neighborhood.
Increasingly, people are improving their homes--allowing commercial
development would not encourage these trends.
WE, the undersigned, oppose the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for
the operation of a medical clinic to be located in the existing house at
201 Grove Street (Lots 28, 29 and 25 ft. of Lot 30 in the West Park Edition).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Name
Address
Date
1-80 .:3,1 uf7.t->
/f-'?~ f;
I di./ $~
7~? ~Y?
1- f -fj
7/1/f/
7/c; ~I
~u
:L I ~
~ UL-- ~ r
J
/(
( I
'/
~j~
Q C ~1r~,,~
'(
7/9/ iT I
I
7 /u --y/
dQ~ GkbJg
WE, the undersigned, oppose the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for
the operation of a medical clinic to be located in the existing house at
201 Grove Street (Lots 28, 29 and 25 ft. of Lot 30 in the West Park Edition).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Name
Address
Date
~
~"~c.. ~~\\..u.~"
'to/ HI6N~~,}J" (~6NII~)
,
~O \ ~~~~
02D5 ?U.Ld- t.S'.
J:.t j C. S..
~
7 ...J fJL. J I
~~~\
u1.. 7 PI
8/
.
/
--..."
WE, the undersigned, oppose the granting of a. Conditional Use Permit for
the operation of a medical clinic to be located in the existing house at
201 Grove Street (Lots 28, 29 and 25 ft. of Lot 30 in the West Park Edition).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Name
Address
Date
~ ft1~ -tVor<r
) ef6 r?~
d-cJ& W~LV
3e).::j- 81~&LkWt\ C 5. ((JJJflt01--/q /81 ColltenH-ic.,kerWCf/f
~ f) 7 Ie; c6-e )/ iz.. ( ) Cj /8:1 ~ y~ PA y"ft
, \ t I
lp ,~ vJ d' to cr-rn g&. 1 - 9 - 8 \ ~o chL \\ldos.b
30 .
JOIIN5
302. ApEor'!
7 - q- fl ~l(5S (/..It\;l1PIO~
(PI s- Ii r' it I Cvn:-{ S.
2,. U~~ f'.3. ~~1/
~ Co. s 7A~~
WE, the undersigned, oppose the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for
the operation of a medical clinic to be located in the existing house at
201 Grove Street (Lots 28, 29 and 25 ft. of Lot 30 in the West Park Edition).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Name
Address
Date
r.:ifi dJ..{!..' C~
'/~j~ /;I~
o .. ( ;J
<-r.n,,:rn~ -z", 1..-;;;',
3DI Rd'eidj
7/7/Sf
Lyd/l-.) S/7If/er
.
(,
~~(./?.P/2/'L--A\'_.P 1)< 'JYVL~~CO /-I/G/fL p//JD
i/ /1
So/ //Oc-r' / /}/
4"/.>/~/ Terry Shlple\'
?- 1:2.. -ll
? -/;} -@ /
~
t.
MEMORANDUM
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION. TEXA.S 77840
July 7, 1981
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning & Zoning CommIssion
Jack Wagner
Project Review Committee:
Al Mayo. Director of Planning ~
Asst. Director of PlannIng, JIm Callaway
Director of Capital Improvements, Elrey Ash
P & Z CommIssioner, Roy Kelly
Project review - Planned Parenthood of College Station
~ol
G- YO U ~
The P.R.C. met on July 7, 1981 to review proposed site plan. The P.R.C.
recommends denial for the following reasons:
@
()
(jJ
CY
;.
"-:
(1) Ordinance 850 requires 23 parking spaces, only lO~ 2b 11
provIded on site; ''-
(2) ~Seven f those s aces access off rivate rear drIve -
unimproved condition;
(3) Three other spaces off site "donated" by Unitarian Church
are unacceptible;
~
...~
.-
(4) Residential area does not need a "semi-commerclaP' use"'"
intruding int~neighborhood.
\l\~
~_~,--=3>
ct~J
J ~ \- ," ",,\'...,v (,--' \
,
C dar) et>\.i'( k ~ 1 ;l",
\~
('
'\.
l.~~r>-~"'
\ .....
A. \ 'i:
~/ '~J~&'
,/; Jl:; ."t-
, '!' ,I
{" -{
. I
....~.' I. "
J ,. ~
..
" ,
I,. ..
~.~
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
July 23, 1981
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council \~
Jim Callaway, Assistant Director of Planning ~~
TO:
SUBJECT:
Petition for Hearing of Grievances - Jackson W. Wagner
In the above referenced petition, the applicant for a Conditional Use Permit
for the operation of a Planned Parenthood Clinic cites three "inequities" in
this case. One "inequity" cited is the staff recommendation given to the
Commission. I have reviewed this petition and the tape of the meeting. Based
upon this review, I have the following comments to offer:
1. Status of the alley in question
The applicant cites an incorrect assumption as to the ownership of
the alley behind the proposed site being pertinent to the issue.
At PRC review of the proposal the alley was incorrectly identified
as a private drive by the PRC (report attached). However, it was the
condition of the alley, not its ownership, that was the basis of the
negative recommendation with regard to the alley. This recommendation
was the result of an on-site inspection by members of the PRC on
July 7, 1981.
2. Required Parking
The applicant cites an "unsubstantiated conclusion" that the property
did not permit provision of the required parking for the use intended;
that this did not pertain to the Commission; and that reference to a
pending variance request served to bias the Commission.
With regard to the number of spaces, the staff statement was, "The
proposed number of parking spaces does not meet the requirements of
our Zoning Ordinance." It was also pointed out that the question of
the number of parking spaces provided is not a question for the
Planning & Zoning Commission to consider. A variance request had been
submitted to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and the action of that
board would determine the number of parking spaces which would ul-
timately be required for this project if a use permit was approved.
Section 10-C.2.3.(a) of Ordinance 850 requires that a proposed con-
ditional use meets all minimum standards established in the Ordinance.
It was pointed out that the minimum parking requirements were not met.
The status of a variance request is important since failure to receive
the variance would require a substantial change in the site plan.
Memorandum
Mayor and City Council
July 23, 1981
Page 2.
Findings of the PRC were not intended to be unfair or inequitable. The PRC
reviewed the site plan in accordance with the requirements established in
the Zoning Ordinance and made recommendations to the Commission. The PRC
did incorrectly state that the alley to the rear of the subject tract is a
drive. Discussion of this error with the staff members of the PRC (City
Engineer Ash and Director of Planning Mayo) concluded that the condition
of the alley, not the ownership is the issue.
It is regrettable that Dr. Wagner feels that staff perpetrated an inequity
in this case. However, the proposed site plan was reviewed by the staff
in accordance with the City's existing ordinances and policies and the findings
of that review were forwarded to the Commission.
jk
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVE1'.'lJE
COLLEGE STATIO:'\:, TEXAS 77840
July 7, 1981
MEMORANDUM
TO:
PlannIng & ZonIng Commission
Jack Wagner
FROM:
Project RevIew Committee:
Al Mayo, Director of Planning ~
Asst. Director of PlannIng, JIm Callaway
Director of Capital Improvements, Elrey Ash
P & Z CommIssioner, Roy Kelly
SUBJECT:
Project review - Planned Parenthood of College Station
The P.R.C. met on July 7, 1981 to review proposed site plan. The P.R.C.
recommends denial for the following reasons:
(1) Ordinance 850 requIres 23 parking spaces, only 10
provided on site;
(2) Seven of those spaces access off private rear drive -
unImproved conditIon;
(3) Three other spaces off site "donatedll by Unitarian Church
are unacceptible;
(4) Residential area does not need a lIsemi-commerctal" use
intrudIng into neighborhood.
City of College station
POs[ OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE sr..'mON, TEXAS 77840
July 10, 1981
MEMORANDUM
FROH:
Jim Callaway, Asst. Director of
P1~nm~
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit Request
Planned Parenthood
The site plan for the proposed Planned Parenthood Clinic at 201 Grove
was referred to the Project Review Committee on July 7, 1981.. The
P.R.C. has recommended denial of the request (P.R.C. report enclosed).
We have received several complaints from area residents who are opposed
to this request. Neighborhood reaction at the public hearing should
aid in determining the compatability of the request.
..~.
" t:=. c: E.:h/ e.p
7/7..0/fjJ
1/ :;-$-
PETITION FOR A HEARING OF GRIEVANCES
. ~. . ~'fiJ
~Y~7
This recounting of events as summarized below is not intended to contain
verbatim quotes but may be substantially confirmed by a comparison with the
transcript of the ~eeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on the evening
of July 16, 1981 should the City Council so desire.
I feel compelled to call to your attention three significant inequities
(should the term lIinjustices" be too harsh) that were perpetrated in this case.
I view these as major concerns not just because our application was denied but
because of their potential devastation of any future applicant for a Conditional
Use Permit who, as I.did, might expect an objective evaluation in a setting
where the "rules of the game" are established by some consistent protocol.
OBSERVATIONS:
1) The staff recommendation to the Commission was for denial based on a
number of assumptions, the first of which was incorrect. It was stated that
the alley behind the property in question was a private driveway and not an
alley belonging to the city. A further statement contained the unsubstantiated
conclusion that the property did not permit provision for the required parking
for the use intended although the staff reminded the commission that, indeed,
any consideration of the parking requirements really did not pertain because
at a subsequent meeting a request for variance to the parking requirements was
being sought by the applicants.
2) Conduct of the hearing. The proponents for the proposed Conditional
Use Permit were given ample opportunity at the outset to present the core of
facts pertaining to their case and, in turn, the opponents of the proposal
were likewise given the opportunity to be heard. During his presentation, the
major spokesman for the opposition, however, made a flagrant error on an
-2-
important issue in stating that the plan, as presented, would require people
using the facility to back out into Grove Street in order to leave the premises.
The statement was in direct contradiction to the earlier defined proposal as
presented by the applicant. His remarks in this regard went unchallenged, if
~
not unnoticed, by the Commission.
The applicant waited until the end of the opponent's presentation,
including questions and answers from the Commission, and then, with raised
hand, was refused the opportunity to refute this error, being motioned into
silence by the Chairman of the Commission. This attempt to be recognized from
the floor was repeated again after all the opponents had spoken and was again
denied and the hearing was closed.
3) Deliberation by the Commissioners.
The first Commissioner to speak (with self admitted record of having
opposed request for conditional used in the past) suggested that, in view of
the fact that the ordinance is in existence to provide for such conditional
use and in view of the facts pertaining to the specific and unique nature of
the proposed use, that a favorable decision should at least be considered.
The next Commissioner to respond felt compelled to "remind the Commissioners
that this is not a burning issue being decided here tonight"!
The third Commissioner to speak allowed that it was a "difficult decision"
but it was his opinion that our needs could be met elsewhere and he stated
further, in essence, that perhaps it is time the Commission adopted a more
protective position regarding our single family residential neighborhoods.
The second Commissioner to speak then returned with a questioning of the
position taken by the applicant concerning statements made relative to growth
of the community and its impact on the use proposed, concluding his remarks,
by saying "S0 I am inclined to go along with Wes".
-.
-3-
The fourth Commissioner's response began with "I have a philosophical
conflict with-----". His discussion continued on in the same vein.
The fifth Commissioner to speak had an in depth awareness of the nature
and integrity of the applicant organization and so, not surprisingly, was
~.
supportive but, more importantly, she addressed the objective criteria that
had been introduced by way of specific provisions to the conditional use
staing that she "would be the first to recommend action to discontinue the
permit if provisions were violated".
The sixth Commissioner made no comment.
The last Commissioner to speak saw the proposed use as "no threat to
the community from the standpoint of traffic problems" (nor apparently, on
any other grounds). However, the essence of his stated view which followed
was that if his children lived on that street and were subjected to the comings
and goings of numbers of total strangers he would find such a situation trouble=
some.
CONCLUSIONS.
With respect to:
1) Staff Recommendation. I submit that opening statements made by staff
in the context of recommendations to the Commission for denial (or support)
for a Conditional Use Permit should be true statements of fact as opposed to
statements based on "vague recollections", "hunches" or other sources of
possible missinformation.
Statements favorable or otherwise concerning pending action on requests
for variance related to a Conditional Use Permit are clearly before the fact
and can serve no purpose other than to bias the Commission) making objectivity
needlessly difficult if not impossible. To make such a statement, only to state
in the next breath that it really has no relevance to the hearing, seems
preposterous.
-4-
2) Hearing Protocol. From attending just two meetings of the Planning
and Zoning Commission, there is one inescapable conclusion to be reached:
either there is no established set of guidelines for the conduct of public
hearings or, if such exists, it is not followed consistently. The opportunity
to be heard more than once for either the proponent or the opponent would
appear to depend on the aggressiveness of either or on the inclination of
the Chairperson. In a situation where one party is able to make grossly
false allegations that go unchallenged or unrecognized by the Commission, the
lack of provision for the opposing party to refute the same is in no way
equitable.
A set of procedural guidelines, hopefully uncomplicated, and readily
available to parties appearing before the Commission would go far toward
minimizing the inequities that currently arise on occasion and would, in my
view, help to promote better government in College Station.
3) Objective vs. Subjective Evaluation. At present, our city ordinance
provides for the conditional use of property zoned as residential for a variety
of other compatible functions. One would expect that decisions that must be
made in determining whether a proposed conditional use is appropriate to any
given neighborhood would be based on an objective analysis of any such request.
Such objective criteria would not be difficult to define or recognize. Emotional
issues, on the other hand, which probably usually run a bit high in such situa-
tions should not be confused with reason nor should they be the basis for
interjecting subjectivity and personal preference into the evaluative decision
making process.
To state, in effect, that it may be time to be more protective of our
residential areas (as did two dissenting Commissioners) and to vote accordingly
in the absence of any objective reasons I interpret to mean that,in their view,
conditional use in a single family neighborhood is no longer a viable option.
-5-
When those deciding the outcome have "philosophical" differences or feel
compelled to prioritize a request on the basis of whether or not it constitutes
a "burning issue" I must ask where objectivity of any sort may be detected in
their reasoning.
When a decision maker openly admits to the absence of any obvious negative
impact of a proposal on the neighborhood in question but expresses personal
concern based on the effect an analagous situation might have on his children--
then I would have to ask what conditional use could conceivably be viewed as
acceptable and in which neighborhood?
I must submit that the lack of objectivity exercised in reaching a collective
decision concerning our request for a conditional use permit is inconsistent
with fairness in the governmental process. Therefore, I would ask that the
City Council review the request for conditional use at its next meeting on the
13th of August, 1981.
Respectfully submitted,
.:J~ ~f~
Jackson W. Wagner
JWW: j g
~ ~~, \-'-~ 1- -
G"" I~"" C\I"'J ~_5~.. '\
Vx.r._ s.LW y~,,~ ~~r-'Jc'--~~<:J<-'s.
1. --S t" ~~~
s k~~s
" 10Q ,..) -\
~k~)
0\ ~"~vv~\e~ C^-IL~'t~ A\fL',-~~{
-\-~'-'\ ,~~ff- /y\O\ J~ )r-) '-0 V v '<. ~ * ~S~'V 111 ~ { ~ (1<-'
" '\J rV '" vS ~ ~ f G t- C1i / I ~ 1""""" '\' ~ c.. ~ ___ J
+lx~J ~/{~'1 ),J b~~~ ~L~~ lov~~1 .
{s~'i( ~~~ R~ '('0 r\: \ ~~ (v~ ;.-v c-.:. <> ,'Y' ~ r_.i ~ ~~
/1Ict \olAS~S fev ;V,)",rl..)~ Y-'f''-c.A1.~t'''J~~~Q---.I~
CO"" J I L t l'() ,,v 0 t t7\./1 ~'1 .W C'\c~ Y ~"'\ j eN, /\J~ ~
~AI~o yv-'(<- ~ t'lS'Sc.J~ \'7 {1'1)r' V~: ~W-.)~ j /- &"/\ /~y ,
d. ~ ~ ~.,j ['V 'q. J ~ ^' f k'\. ^" ~ -- 01 ~.~ \: '- '" -.J \ c. C> c-I \.-~,-..; J s
t\",-~ ..s{"j(-.s -lA ~j &I ....J /' ,^~--S u to -~ ko\.J te'\ -\. q. j c: o..v cl v S / tJ ____Ie
tl~ ~ '\(>"0 't ~.r\-..\ ~~j f'Va~ ~fl..I"~'-\-'~ ,t'C~\,3':C ~
tV' V\5t. \f ~1 ~~ y-' J ~\S '- ~V\. V-"':r"\I ~ .~ r ~ CAS '-
~ ~, . IV" -~"J \rV\'lV<)l~J" . t, .J J -\-kA s tJf jt~l~ )
-O~ ~~s ht'-\ r1 0 /" ~ \ ~v cv-J ~ ~ ~ ~4.
,,,^ ~ ~t~~ \ ~ ~ c--...v--'S ~ 0 t q..... V" ~ €I'J ~-S. \-. ~ >-
^ V (;'- Y '-CA,-l Q..." ~ 1, -.S -L ~ 'Q. _ \ /
~ sk\-."j \\~ \l", ~,.~""~[",,,~\'v
6 ~ ~ ""V 'r~'-t"'J" --S ~,,~~~ o~ ~ .Ale t- /iI\..~" \.-.
~ v ~~v~... ~~~c..\-.f. 0 "\ c>~.y ':t0l....... j..v \ C).rd,
;)... ~~~ ,s~l \~~ l~ ~ q\,) ~~~~N c+-\-L.
Al~ N\ \,,,,, 0 '\- ~QV' \<.-;'" \ -S ~~ ___...:;. \? ". v ~ J~ J
I ~ Al0 ~ '" "< "..J '1 fA.. ~ \J ~c, \'-0 Nt-. y \L-
\. \~N r"\J \.~ \ 0... N J ~~ rV ,.-v \ <=-..-.; ./'V\f\I\ I ~ I ~ N
--to c...ceNS"J.~y "" A IJO'-v~,,--J,-~ Y-'Q..,? u ,~t
~~s. \o~,,('-' .s~\oM,+l~~ ~ \-~, 2-.orv \.....j
~~"('J. 0\ f\~ \ '-J~~"")~~ ~ ,CAr" J ~s w;l(
~ ~ ~\., -t-l\.. \ ~ S' u '< ()- t -{{~ /v 1..;,,,1 Iv ~ r eJ l'
~ " ( ~.\ ,... J .~r'->\. ~ ~ J' tv k \ ~ h w ~ \ \ v \ \ ~.'""'-C\.~, I .,
"L ~ 'V ~ i.J \ v~ j ,oJ{. -\l:) ~'-^IV \ ~ ~-J ~,f
0... t.A S. ~ ~ ~ y ~,A ~ \ t:t YI\ '" \...~) ,