HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
MINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
PlanningandZon i ngColomiss ion
STAFF PRESENT:
Cha.irmanBroch>u, Memb ersMoore,Col son,Wend leI'
and Stewart
Memb.ers.Dresser, Saw.telle.& Dresser;... also
C0l1I1Ci.l Liaison
Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer
Pullen, ....AssistantCityAttorney Banks and
Planning Technician Volk
t
--meeting of August 6, 1987.
Mr. Colson made amotion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Moore seconded the
motion which carriecfbyavoteof 3-0-2 {Wendler & Stewart. abstained}.
A.G~ENDA ITEM NO.2: Hear visitors.
Noone spoke.
AGENDA. ITEM.. NO. 3: 87-706: . Apublic.hearingonthe.question of
granting a.Conditiona1UsePermitfor.8parking1ottobe
constructed on Lots 21 &<22 Block 12. Boyett. Estates subdivision
(northwestcorn.er of Church & Boyett streets}, anR-6 High
Density Apartment zoning district. Applicants are DonR.Ganter
& Bill Scarmardo.
Mr. Callaway explained thisrequestisforaconditiona.l<usepermitto locate a
parking(~lot . inanR-6zoneonthenorthwestcornerofBoyett & Church. Thisparking
lot is proposed for the free use of the public during the day,for the use of the
church on Sundays, and for the use of patrons of the nightclub (thec aDverted Campus
Theater) in the evenings. He described areazoningan.d land uses, adding that th~
Land Use Plan adopted by the City Council shows medium density residential to the
north and east and commercial to the south and west.
Mr. Callaway went on to explain that tIle. site plan for this lot in the Northgate area
was reviewed by the P.R.C. which recommended approval with a note to the Commission
to make a determination concerning screening along the north and westpropertyl~nes
adjacent to the residential uses. He went on'. to explain that when the site plan' for
thechangeinusefortheCampustheaterwasreviewed,theapplicant had included a
proposal to develop this. lot into parking for that nightclub, and became a part of
the P.R.C.approval of the nightclub. The City Council has recently ruled that
parking lots are to. be considered as conditional uses, and therefore this request is
now before the Commission.
There were no questions, so the public hearing was opened. Mrs. W.O. Reed came
forward,statedshe.lives in Dallas, but. owns property within 200 feet of this
particular lot, and had not received notification of this public hearing but her
brother had and had n.otifiedher.
.
).
Mrs. Reed stated she is against having anymore beer joints .ornightclubs in the
area, and she is against this parking lot. . 8hesaid there is no need for a. parking
lot and especially this one which is so close to the church. She stated there are
enough parking lots already, and she is against.... it .especially.because it's .free. to
serve a... tavern.
the Plans for the lot include its use. as a free public parking
lot1;'or part of the time.. He asked Mrs. Reed forclarificbtion as to if what she has
stated is that she is againstthis.lotbecauseshethinks1there is already enough
parking in. the area.
Mrs..Reedrepliedthat is the reason,. but also she i~ against it because it is in an
R~6 zoning district.
Mr. Colson explained the ordinance. has recently been chang~dbythe Council to make
parking. lots Conditional Uses to be considered in any zoning district.
't
Jack Boyett came forward and stated the previous Councils had always said there would
never. be a parking lot inaresidentialarea... He wentontosaythereiis parking on
certain streets in that area all the way to Bryan, and "we" have all t~eparking we
need wi thoutthis lot. He added that it seems unreal to him that anyol1l.ewouldtear
down aresidence.across from a church and put in a lot,since the chur~~es already
have trouble with vandalism and people using their parking lots.
Mr. Boyett went on to say he and his sister own a house across the street from this
lot. which will soon be torn down. Mr. Brochu asked Mr. Boyett if he has any plans
for that lot after the house is razedandMF. Boyett said he has no plans for the lot
at all.
Mr. Boyett saidthat....theman...buildingthelot..being . considered at this. meeting will
never leave the lot open free to the public, and it will put Mr. Skipper Harris who
has a connnercialparkinglotout ofbusiIless. .
Mr. Brochu stated the Planning and Zoning Commission has.. been given theauthori ty to
attach certain restrictions on Conditional Use Permits, and on this parking lot,which
would guarantee that the lot wouldbeafreepllblicparking lot.
Mr. Colson asked Mr.' Boyett if he owns the commercial parking lot run by Mr. Harris
and Mr. Boyett stated he does own a small interestin.it~but his sister has the
majority interest in that property. .
Barron Rector, a member of>.A&M Presbyterian Church who also serves on some Board
there .came forward, and stated . that he isrepresentingbotll himself.. and the church.
He asked how many parking spaces would be on the lot. 'Mr..<Callawayreplied the s~te
plan sh.ows31spaces..Mr.Rector then asked if. the parkingl.ot has anything to do
with the conversion of the Campus theater. to a nightclub aD@Mr.Callawayexplained
that at the time the Campus theater planswerereviewed~ . the applicant included a
proposal to develop this parking lot in conjunction with that project.
Mr. Rector identified various parking lots in tIle area, including the church' s
parking lot, and stated they are all filled.at night now w~th people who are not
participants in cllurchactivitiesand are causing great pro~blems and expenses to the
church. He went on to say, in this respect, a free ,parking lot could help relieve
the parking problems and be helpful in the area, ...but31 spaces would not help much.
P&ZMinutes
8-20--87
Page 2
He went on.... to>state that the church coIlsidersthisparkinglotapotential for
furthering abuse to theareaand.as such, an <.additional detriment to the church. He
then explained some ofthe<problems thechurchhas>had.
Mr. Brochu asked him ifhethinksthechurcn would. benefit by the additional spaces
on .... Sunday and Mr. . Rector said he does not see . th~tthechurchhasanovercrowded
parkinglotat.....the church now, but if .it.did,this..lotcould..be...helpful.
[\ir.BrochuaskedMr. Gallaway if'thenightclub c~)Uldbecompletedifthis request is
denied. Mr. .C.allawayrepliedthatthere.. arenoPtirkingrequi rementsforbus inesses
in. . the . .Northgatezoning.district,butbecausethislotwas proposed .. by. thy .appl icant
to help . serve his bus iness,.hethinks .ther~i.sadefinite ..relat ionshiI>, .....a1 ~hough . they
are..2 separate ...actions...Hecontinuedtostatethat.should.thispermitfQfi the lot be
denied, the proposal for the.. club would have to be .reconsideredbytheiP .i~e C . Mr.
stewart asked if approval of this nightclub relies solely on this parking: lot and Mr.
Callaway replied that it does not.
Mr. Rector finalized by stating that the church has mixed emotions as to be for or
against this. request.
Skipper Harris of Franklin, Texas came f.orward aIld identified himself asa
businessman in the Northgate.area who operates commer.cial parking lots. He stated
that he is not necessarily>opposedtothislot, but he isinthefee;charge parking
business,. and even has plans to raze the house for the Boyetts and. is in negotiations
with them concerning puttinganothercommerciallot.on that property. He explained
how his lots are used, and stated that additionalfree parking in the area will hurt
his business to the point he would probably> have to close down a lot. He said that
he knows the area needs parking, but hedoes.not see bow lie can invest in a pay lot
and have even more free. parking in thearea,<since<there~s toomuch'free parking
there now.
Mr. Brochu stated thatheappreciatesallconcernsvo1ced,:butthisCommissionmust
consider what affects the neighborhood conditions. Mr. Harris said that is correct,
but if.he is>. forced to close one ofhislots,.......itwil1 becahled off, .parkingspaces
will be lost, and that will hurt the neighborhood.
Bill Scarmardocame forward and identified himself as the architect for the
applicant. He explained that t.he owner has plans. to open the nightclub only 18 hours
per week, and the restofthetimethelotwillbe>available for free. parking to
anyone. He explained that .the lot will be attractive since plans include saving the
large trees,and would probably include cleaning it up.if'debris became a problem.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Moore asked if aparkingsupplyjdemand study has everbeendoIlefor that area.
Mr. Callaway said that the nearest thing to that would have been a survey of patrons
which was done. several...years ago, the. results showing. that .....approximately 40% of .the
area business were walk-in patrons. Discussion followed concerning the possible
impact the new University parking lot would have,howhardoreasy it is to find a
parking place in Nortllgate, aIld how a nice concrete parking lot cannot hurt the area,
with the question then being how will it be maintained.
Mr. Brochu stated it would be private property,jiIstas anlY other private lot for
public use, and it will be the owner's responsibility to maintain i.t. He went on to
say that he does not think not putting in this lot will stop the problems the
churches have had, and even though parking for 30 cars might not make more than a
P&ZMinutes
8-20-87
Page 3
small dent in the problem, even that would be helpful. He added that it seems tohiln
tllat some of the concerns voiced at this meeting might not have anything to do with
concern for.theneighborhood,butrather<seemedto.beself-serving and perhaps should
not be considered by this Gommissioninmaking its decision.
Mr. Wendler said thatthisisdifficult,andheiappreciatestheconcernswhichhave
been. raised, but he thinks . that . if this lot. iS~I>proyed, it would be .well-~andscaped
andhopefullyclean,and/wouldhelp:alleviatese>meofthe<parking problems. He .went
onto say that this Gommission is. not in .~posit;ion to address the behavior of some
ofthes tudentswho . frequent the area ,a1 though he .. agrees... that.i t isappalli ng .He
went, on to state thathe.isinclin~dtoward,approvingthisrequestbecausehe
~believesitisbetterthansomeofthedilapidatedstructuresin the area, and it is
in accordancewitllthe Northgate ordinance, and if one man makes itandanotller one
'doesn't, that is not one of the concerns of this Connnisslon.
Mr. Stewart said that 'he wouTdbeinfavorofincludinga screening fence to help
,screen 'headlights ....and some nois.e from the adJacent ..apartment. . Mr. Colson pointed out
that a6 foot screen fence has been.included on the revised plan being considered at
this;meeting.
'Mr . Colson asked Mr . Callaway what the applicant would have lodo to make this a fee
10 tandMr.Callawayrepl iedtllat he really would not have to do anyt hing except
start charging. ... Headde.dth.ata.conditioncouldbeattached to a Gondifional Use
:Permitto control that , but he does not know ifitwould.~;beenf orceable. . Mr. Colson
said that he thinks it should be approved without> any type of stipulation, and then
the applicant can, if he desires at a later date, make this into a fee lot and
perhaps'relievesomeofthe conflicts stated tonight. He continued by stating that
he knows there is a parking problem in this area and anything that can be done to
help alleviate the problem should be done, but it<shouldbe done without a
restriction that the lot remain free to the public.
Mr. Wendler said this.areais in transition and this particular use makes sense. It
would be an iInprovenlent which could serve as a usable holding situation which is
better than an unmowed,unpavedandunkept lot, un~ilsuchtimeas it is
converted and put to better use. Headdedthatthelot'could easily be converted
and built upon.
Mr. Wendler then made amotion to approve this request for a Conditional Use Permit
as reques ted, but wi thP.R.C. recommendations. Mr. Colson seconded tIle nIot ion which
carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO.4: 87-414: Consideration of a Parking Lot Plan
for a structure to be located inthe.C-NGCommerciaINorthgate
zoning district as submitted by the Project Review Committee of
the City of College Station.
Mr. Brochu remincled everyone that this item is not a public hearing, but that tile
applicant is in the audience and may be called forward to address questions.
Mr.Calla\.oJay gave a brief history of events leading up to the use of this lot betvveen
Bill's Barber Shop and DoubleDave's for tIle location of a portable barbecue pit.
He explained that at this meeting, theP&ZCoIDlnissionwill! befllnctioning as the
Project Review Committee, since that committeelladforwardedthis itenl to the
entire Commission for consideration. He went onto explai~ that what is being
proposed by the applicant (a carport-like structure to be ~rected over the portable
unit) technically meets ordinance requirements, but Mr. We~dler, who was the P&Z
P&Z Minutes
8-- 20 -87
Page 4
Commissioner serving onthe.P.R.Ce.whenthis'proposalwasreviewed, expressed
concerns that perhaps tIle intent of the ordinance was not being met, and requested
that the P.R.C.vote to send this project to. the whole Commission for a ruling.
His concerns include the fact that this.proposedstructure is actually more than a
canopy and couldbecomeapermanentstructure,wherea~the uses approved for this
location havebeentelDporaryinnature. .... Heexpl~ihedthatthe intent of the
ordinance is to upgrade the Northgat~areawhichmi~htbe unintentionally subverted
'by going from defin-ite..temporary.structuresto...a quasi-permanent structure.
Mr . Br()chusaid that if this . structureisenclosed ill the future to become a
permanent structure which meets all building codes and other ..ordinances. he thinks
thatist:herightdirection.to take. He <continued by stating that this :smallempty
lot would have rather limited. uses.
Mr. Wendler said heis just 'having a hard time with this type ()fstructure in that it
iseems to.be technically,o.k.,>ibut,he does not think it.meetsthe intent and spirit of
theordinance,which>wastoupgradethisarea~ Mr. Brochu said that while the
"spiri tf! .of the ordinance must be <copsidered,>the.technicalaspects are all this
Connnission can enforce. . Hewentont() ;saY:t:hatperhaps in its zeal to approve an
ordinancewhicheveryonebelieved<wouldhelpupgradethatarea, the Commission may
wellhaveoverlookedsomethingsand.islearning that there are some problerns,that
"control is lacking, and that perhaps the ordinance itself needs to be reviewed.
Mr. Colson askedMr.\A!endler exactly what he would like to see done\:0 this project
and Mr . Wendler replied he would prefer to see something more temporarytllan tile
structure being proposed; something whichlhe City could be assured would be removed
should this temporary use cease its operation.
Mr. Moore said that while. there may be flaws in the ordinance, in considering this
proposal, it appears to him to be something which does not belong in tIlis location.
Mr. Colson stated the applicant would be taking. a sizable financial risk in
erecting this structure. Mr. BrochustatedtllatthisComrnission is not considering
the location of the trailer since that use has previously been established, but
should now be considering whether orn()tMr.Lyonscanput a shelter over the
trailer. Mr. \vendlersaid that he thiIlks..<ifthistype shelter had been a part of
the original request to locate tile mobile kitchens on tllis lot, the request would
~have been denied, but because of the temporary nature of those operations, those uses
for that lot ~vere approved. Mr. Brochu said that he does not disagree with Mr.
Wendler, but that he. simply does not know how this proposal can be denied.
Mr.S tewart said that he thinks this Commission call send a message to Counci 1 that it
has been forced to approve something it does not like because of weaknesses in the
ordinance. !VIr. Brochu said this Commission can do more than that; it can direct
staff to initiate work regarding this ordinance which can be taken t.o Council. Mr.
Wendler said that he thinks the Planning a& Zoning< Conunission must exercise judglnent
anel not s:Llnpl y decide whether something is t~~~hnically correct.
Mr. Stewar.t asked if this ca.n be turned dO\iIlbecause of tllec}lange of use. Mr.
Brochu. selid tllat he thinks the structure over the trailer looks better than the
trailer. Mr. Stewart said that the trailer{s} were allowed. because of their"
transient nature, and this structure is more perrnanent. Mr. Colson asked if it could
be givensonle type oflelnporarypermitbasedon a certain number of months . Mr.
Callaway stated that the usespermi ttedat this locationsh.oulcl have been considered
as permanent as they are in other locations.
P&Z rvlinute~3
8~20-87
Page 8
v .
Mr .Colsonmadeamotion....to.approvetheistruclure as proposed under .... P&ZCase No.87-~
414, and as considered under Agenda Item No. 4. . Mr. Brochu seconded the motion whicll
failed by a vote .0"[2__3 {Moore,..Wendler&Stewartagainst).
Mr. Wendler explained that he vQted against this motion because he would like to see
a1 ess permanent shelter ..whichwouldbeconsi stentwi th thetrai ler-typebarbecue pit
or else a real permanent building.
Mr .St.e\vart then made amotion to deny
seconded the motion which carried bya
structure as proposed. Mr..Moore
of 3-2 .(Brochu&Colson against).
People from the auclience:spoke'up and said they: knew this was,nota public hearing
but they thoughtthattheyshollld beinvi1;edto speak. They went on toeri ticize the
C omm i s s i on ersfo rdes cribing .theareaias'ugly. .. ...'rheyst-ated . they . also res ell ted the
fact that this proposal was<deniedsince.theeconomyofthe.area isin.a slump and
this project represents another way to generate business and revenue for the City.
The lnan{believedlobe Bill Hal'per, the owner of the lot} stated tllathewould
agreetoputupa bondin>an amount to cover removal of the structure if the mobile
kitchen is moved.
Mr. Brochu stated that this Commission appreciates the concerns of the Citizens, and
al tllough this . was not apublichearing,.heapologized . for not allowing this .. issue tf>
be addressed by the applicant. He 'attributed this.. error to his inexperience in
act ing aschairman,andagainstated that this simply was an oversigllt on his part.
Mr. Brochu went on to state that the ways to guarantee removal of a structure should
have been discussedatP.R.C. The man said he was not atthe-P.R.C., and was only in
attendance at this meeting at the request of Mr. ..Lyons, the actual applicant.
Mr. Lyons tIlen spoke from< the audience and stated that about 8 years ago he came
before this Board with a plan to build abuilding inNorthgate and was
denied permissionbecausellecouldnot furnish parking. Now.lle is coming
before the Boardwitha.request to erect a structure to cover his mobile
barbecue pit, and is denied because it is not a permanent structure. He
admonished this Commission to make up.. its mind regarding what it wants for a
business to be able to operate in College Station.
Mr . Lyons went on to state that he works now to help thearea,.andhe would be happy
to remove the structure if 11edesidestopull his . trailer out. He added that lle
really plans to stay and to build abuilding if his business goes as he plans, but
that he would agree toputupa bondt()guaranteeremoval of this structure should he
decide to leave.
Mr. Wendler stated he never meant < to "nit-pick't, but he thinks he and the Commission
have been cllarged witllusinggoodjudgment when considering plans, especially in
this area where controls in the past have apparently been lax.
Mr. Lyons asked if tIle Commission would reconsider this request and include the
requiremerlt of him. putting up a bond in an amount to guarantee removal of the
structure should he discontinue use of the lot. Arnan and WOlnan (believed to be the
Harpers) spoke up and said they are trying to upgrade the area and put in something
whicllwill generate business .andmoneyfor.the City. ivtr.. Brochu said that the
Cornmission sent a message bya majori tyvote . that it does not like this project; now
it is. only fair to give these people direction as to wllat\vewould like to see them
do.
P&Z Mi nl.l t es
8-20--87
Page 6
If \
The>Commissionersbrieflydiscussed various ways to guarantee.removal of this
struct\jreifthe,trailerpulls OUt. Mr. Wendler said this is a very difficult thing
to do simply because he is not against this business, and he would be willing to
reconsider'thisproposalifitcanguaranteedthatit.willbe treated as temporary
,unt ilsuchtimeth~t ittrulyb.ecomesapermanent ,total 'hui Iding.
Mr.Wendleritp.enmade .a.' ,'IDotionforthereconsider-atibn of this proposal. Mr-. Stewart
seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5-0).
to approve tllisrequestwith tile stipulation that should
the 'business cease ,tb}>penateat,that locati()D.I . .. at that point . the temporary
and the permanent type structure {sheltering. structure) will come
Mr. Brochu asked ifhe>waIltedto includelherequirementforabond. Mr. Wendler
;said .heaoes::Jlot'because,hetruststhese,people. 'Mr . 'Brochu asked Ass is tan tG i ty
.Attorney if this is allowed. She replied that she thinks it is.
iMr . Moore:seconded Mr.WeIldler'smotion. \Mr..:Stewartaskedwhat type of
enforcement action shouldbeiattached.. .Mr .,'Brochu ,said that since Mr. Lyons .had
offered, he thinks it would be reasonable to ask for a small bond equal to tIle amount
it wouldcosttobe<removed Mr. Stewart,askedifth€ motion can be amended to
require a bond. Mr. Callaway advised tile Commission to ,amend the motion to have
staff and the applicant work out some kind of mechanism to enforceremova.l of the
structure should the site be abandoned.
Mr. Wendler agreed to the amendment. Mr. Stewart so moved. Mr. Wendler seconded.
Votes were cast on the amended motion and itcarriedunanimously(5~O).
AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Continuation of Review of.Goals, Objectives
and Development Policies.
Mr. Wendler suggested that this item be sttidiedlongerbefore discussion takes place.
All agreed. Mr. Brochu announced that Ileand Mr. Dresser were ready to furnish a
rough draft of the goals and objectives they were preparing, and it should be
included in the next/packet.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6:
Other business.
Discussion followed regarding wIlen to take tlle.P&Z tour of City facilities, and it
was decided that 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, Allgust 25th would be the date set.
Mr. Wendler stated he wants a study of the C__NG zoning district ordinance made, with
the use of temporary structures focllsedon more closely. ~1r.. Brochu suggested that
the current outdoor activities should also be addres~_ed. Mr. Calla\vay suggested that
the NorthgateAreaMerchants should be invited to supply .input. He then suggested
tllatan item be ~ncludedonthe next agenda for discussion of this ordinance.
Mr..Brochu instructed all Commissioners to please return calls to City staff when
messages are left, and also to please let the Planning Tecllnician know if tlley cannot
attend a meeting.
TIle Commissioners all requested t:hat a packet for the P.R.G. meeting be supplied to
the Gommissioner scheduled to attend any specific meeting.! Staff agreed to place a
packet in the appointed Commissioner's box on Fridaybeforfb the meeting on Wednesday.
P&ZMinutes
8-20--87
Page 7
Mr. Rector spoke from the. audience stating that he still has concerns about the
safety of the parking lot which was.approvedat this meeting since that is a dark
corner. He fearsadditionalmuggings.He also questioned how to control or curb
people walking around the area with open alcoholic containers and also how to control
the amount of trash and debris in the Northgate area.
Adjourn.
Mr. Stewart made a motion to adjourn. Mr.. Colson seconded the motion which carried
UDan imousl y{ 5-0}.
~-~--1l2&1J{jAacl-_____----
Cha.i.rman., ..DavidBrochu
P&Z Minutes
8-20~87
Page 8