HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/1987 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 1987
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Brochu, Members Moore, Colson, Wendler
and Stewart
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Dresser, Sawtelle & Dresser; also
Council Liaison
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer
Pullen, Assistant City Attorney Banks and
Planning Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of August 6, 1987.
Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Moore seconded the
motion which carried by a vote of 3-0--2 (Wendler & Stewart abstained).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
• AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 87-706: A public hearing on the question of
granting a Conditional Use Permit for a parking lot to be
constructed on Lots 21 & 22 Block 12 Boyett Estates subdivision
(northwest corner of Church & Boyett streets), an R-6 High
Density Apartment zoning district. Applicants are Don R. Ganter
& Bill Scarmardo.
Mr. Callaway explained this request is for a conditional use permit to aocate a
parking lot in an R--6 zone on the northwest corner of Boyett & Church. This parking
lot i.s proposed for t:he free use of the public during the day, for the usc~ of the
church on Sundays, and for the use of patrons of the nightclub (the converted Campus
Theater) in the evenings. He described area zoning and land uses, adding that the
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 the 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 west property lines
adjacent. to the residential uses. He went on to explain ghat when the site plan for
the change in use for the Campus theater was reviewed, the applicant had included a
proposal to develop this lot, into parking far 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 t.o be considered as conditional uses, and therefore trtis request. is
now before the Commission.
There: were no questions, so the public hearing was opened. Mrs. W. 0. Reed came
• forward, stated she lives in Dallas, but owns property within 200 feet of this
particular lot, and had not, received not:ificati.on of this public hearing but her
brother had and had notified her.
•
Mrs. Reed stated she is against having any more beer joints or nightclubs :in the
area, and she is against this parking lot. She said 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 i.t's free to
serve a tavern.
Mr. Colson explained the plans for the lot include its use as a free public parking
lot for part of the time. He asked Mrs. Reed for clarification as to if what she has
stated is that she is against this lot because she thinks there is already enough
parking in the area.
Mrs. Reed replied that is the reason, but; also she is against it because it; is in an
R-6 zoning district.
Mr. Colson explained the ordinance has recently been changed by the Council. to make
parking lots Conditional Uses to be considered in any zoning district.
Jack Boyett came forward and stated the previous Councils had always said there would
never be a parking lot in a residential area. He went on to say there is parking on
certain streets in that area all the way to Bryan, and "we" have all the parking we
need without this l.ot. He added that it seems unreal to him that anyone would tear
down a residence across from a church and put in a lot, since the churches 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 t;his
lot which will soon be torn down. Mr. Brochu asked Mr. Boyett if he has any plans
• for ghat lot after the house is razed and. Mr. Boyett said he has no plans for the lot.
at all.
Mr. Boyett sa:i.d that: the man building the lot being considered at: this meeting w:il7
never leave the lot open free to the public, and it will put Mr. Skipper Harris who
has a commercial parking lot out. of business.
Mr. Brochu stated the Planning and Zoning Commission has been given the authority to
attach certain restrictions on Conditional Use Permits, and on this parking lot which
would guarantee that the lot would be a free public parking 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 interest in 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 is representing both himself and the church.
He asked how many parking spaces would be on the lot. Mr. Callaway replied the site
plan shows 31 spaces. Mr. Rector then asked if the parking lot has anything to cio
with the conversion of the Campus theater to a nightclub and Mr. Callaway explained
that at the time the Campus theater plans were reviewed, the applicant included a
proposal to develop this parking lot in conjunction with that project..
Mr. Rector identified various parking lots in the area, including the church's
parking lot, and stated they are all filled at night: now with people who are not.
participants in church activities and are causing great problems 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, but 31 spaces would not help much.
P&7.. Minutes 8- 20-87 page 2
He went on to state that the church considers this parking lot a potent;ial :for
furthering abuse to the area and as such, an additional detriment to the church. He
• then explained some of the problems the church has had.
Mr. Brochu asked him if he thinks the church would benefit by the additional. spaces
on Sunday and Mr. Rector said he does not see that t:he church has an overcrowded
parking lot at the church now, but if it dial, this lot could be helpful.
Mr. Brochu asked Mr. Callaway if the nightclub could be completed if this request. is
denied. Mr. Callaway replied that there are no parking requirements for businesses
in the Northgate zoning district, but because. this lot was proposed by t:he applicant.
to help serve his business, he thinks there is a definite relationship, although they
are 2 separate actions. He continued t:o state that should this permit for the lot; be
denied, the proposal for the r_lub would have to be reconsidered by the P.R.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 tc3 be. for or
against this request.
Skipper Harris of Franklin, Texas came forward and identified himself as a
businessman in the Northgate area who operates commercial parking lots. He stated
that he :is not necessarily opposed to this lot, but he is in the fee charge parking
business, and even has plans to raze the house for the Boyetts and is in negotiations
with them concerning putting another commercial lot on that property. He explained
how his lots are used, and stated that additional free parking in the area will. hurt
his business to the point: he would probably have to c.losc: down a lot.. He said that
• he knows the area needs parking, but he does not see how he can invest in a pay lot
and have even more free parking :i.n the area, since there i.s too much free parking
there now.
Mr. Brochu st:at.ed that: he appreciates all. conrerns voiced, but this Commission must;
consider what affects the neighborhood conditions. Mr. Harris said that is correct,
but if he is forced to close one of his lots, it will be cabled off', parking spaces
will be lost, and that will. hurt the neighborhood.
Bill Scarmardo came forward. and identified himself as the architect for the
applicant. He explained that the owner has plans to open the nightclub only 18 hours
per week, and the rest: of the tame the lot will be 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 cleansing it up if debris became a problem.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Moore asked if a parking supply/demand study has ever been done for 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 iJniversity parking lot, would have, haw hard or easy it is to find a
parking plane in Northgate, and 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, just as any other private lot far
• public. use, and it will. be the owner's respons:ibil:ity to maintain it. He went on t:o
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&7 Minutes 8~-20-87 Page, 3
small dent in the problem, even that would be helpful. IIe added that it seems to hi.tn
that some of the concerns voiced at this meeting might not have anything to do with
concern for the neighborhood, but rather seemed to be self-serving and perhaps should
not be considered by this Commission in making its decision.
Mr. Wendler said that this is difficult, and he appreciates the concerns which nave
been raised, but he thinks that if this lot is approved, it would be well--landscaped
and hopefully clean, and would help alleviate some of the parking problems. He went.
on to say that this Commission is not in a position to address the behavior of some
of the students who frequent the area, although he agrees that it is appalling. He
went on to state that he is inclined toward approving this request because he
believes it i.s better than some of the dilapidated structures in the area, and it is
in accordance with the Northgate ordinance, and if one man makes it and another one
doesn't, that is not one of the concerns of this Commission.
Mr. Stewart said that he would be in favor of including a screening fence to help
screen headlights and same noise from the adjacent apartment. Mr. Colson point:ed out.
that a 6 foot screen fence has been included on the revised plan being considerf>d at
this meeting.
Mr. Colson asked Mr. Callaway what the applicant would have to do to make this a fee
lot and Mr. Callaway replied that he really would not have t.o da anything except
start charging. He added that a condition could be attached to a Cvnditional Use
Permit to control that, but he does not know if it would be enforceable. Mr. Colsvn
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 relieve some of the conflicts stated tonight. He continued by stating that
he knows there is a parking problem in this area and anything that can be dune to
help alleviate the problem should be done, but it. should be done without ~i
restriction that the lot remain free to the public.
Mr. Wendler said this area is in transition and this particular use makes sense. It
would be an improvement which could serve as a usable holding situation which is
better than an unmowed, unpaved and unkept lot, until such time as it is
converted and put to better use. He added that the lot could easily be converted
and built; upon.
Mr. Wendler i;hen made a motion to approve this request fur a Cvnditional Use Permit:
as requested, but with P.R.C. recommendations. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which.
carried unanimously (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 87-414: Consideration of a Parking Lot Plan
for a structure to be located in the C-NG Commercial Northgate
zoning district as submitted by the Project Review Committee of
the City of College Station.
Mr. Brochu reminded everyone that this item i.s not a public hearing, but that. the
applicant is in the audience and may be called forward to address questions.
Mr. Callaway gave a brief history of events leading up tv the use of this lot. between
Bill's Barber Shop and DoubleDave's for the location of a portable barbecue pit.
He explained that at this meeting, t;he P&Z Comtission will be functioning as the
Project Review Committee, since that committee had forwarded this item to the
entire Commission for consideration. He went vn to explain that what, is being
proposed by the applicant (a carport-like structure to be erected over the portable
unit) technically meets ordinance requirements, but Mr. Wendler, who was the P&Z
P&Z Minutes 8--20--87 Page 4
Commissioner serving on the P.R.C. whc>n this proposal was reviewed, expressed
concerns that perhaps the intent of the ordinance was not being met, and requested
• that. the P.R.C. vote to send t:h:is project to the whole Commission for a ruling.
His concerns include the fact that this proposed structure is actually more than a
canopy and could become a permanent st:ructure, whereas the uses approved for this
]_ocation have been temporary in nature. He explained that the intent of the
ordinance :is to upgrade the Nort.hgate area which might be unintentionally subverted
by going from definite temporary structures to aquasi-permanent structure.
Mr. Brochu said that. if this structure is enclosed in t:he future to become a
permanent structure which meets all building codes and other OI'dlnancP_S }Ie thinks
ghat is the right direction to take. He continued by stating that, t:his small empty
lot would have rather limited uses.
Mr. Wendler said he :is just having a hard time with this type of structure in that: :il.
seems to be technically o. k., but he does not think i_t meets the intent and spirit: of
the ordinance, which was to upgrade this area. Mr. Brochu said that. while the
"spirit" of the ordinance must be considered, the technical aspects are all this
Commission can enforce. He went: on to say ghat perhaps :i.n its zeal t.o approve an
ordinance which everyone believed would help upgrade that area, the Conunission may
well have overlooked some things and is learning that there are some problems, i.hat.
control is lacking, and that perhaps the ordinance itself needs to be reviewed.
Mr. Colson asked Mr. Wendler exactly what he wou]d .like to see done t:o t.his project
and Mr. Wendler replied he would prefer to see something more temporary than the
structure being proposed; something which the 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 this location.
Mr. Colson staged the applicant, would be t;aki_ng a sizable financia]. risk in
erecting this structure. Mr. Brochu stated that this Commission i.s not considering
the location of the tra:i.ler since that. use has previously been established, but.
should now be considering whether or not Mr. Lyons can put a shelter over the
trailer. Mr. Wendler said that he thinks if this type shelter had been apart of
the original request to locate the mobile kitchens on this lot, the request would
have been denied, but because of the temporary nature of those operations, those use::
for that lot were 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. Stewart said that he thinks this Comm1SS1UII can send a message to Council that i. t:
has been forced to approve something it does not like because of weaknesses in the
ordinance. Mr. Brochu said this Commission can do more than that; it can direct
staff to :init,:iate work regarding this ordinance which can be taken to Council. Mr.
Wendler said that he thinks the Planning aRc ZOI]ing COmniLSS1OI] must exerClSe judgment
and. not simply dec:i_de whether something is technically correct.
Mr. Stewart asked if this can be turned down because of the change of use. Mr.
Brochu said that. he thinks the st:ruct:ure over the trailer looks better than the
tr'aller'. Mr. Stewart said that the trailer(s) were allowed because of their
transient. nature, and this structure is more permanent. Mr. Colson asked :if it could
be given some type of temporary permit based on a certain number of months. Mr.
• Callaway stated that, the uses permitted at this location should have been considered
as permanent as they are i_n other locations.
P&l. Minutes F]-20- 87 Page. 5
Mr. Colson made a motion to approve the structure as proposed under P&Z Case No. 87--
414, and as considered under Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which
• failed by a vote of 2--3 {Moore, Wendler & S1.ewart against}.
Mr. Wendler explained that he voted against this motion because he would like to see
a less permanent shelter which would be consistent, with the trailer-t;ype barbecue pit
or else a real permanent building.
Mr. Stewart then made a motion to deny this structure as proposed. Mr. Moore
seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 3--2 (Brochu & Colson against).
People from the audience spoke up and said they knew this was not a public hearing
but they thought that they should be invited to speak. They went on to criticize the
Commissioners for describing the area as ugly. They stated they also resented the
fact that this proposal was denied since the economy of the area is in a slump and
this project represents another way to generate business and revenue for the C,:ity.
The man (believed to be Bill Harper, the owner of the lot) stated that he would
agree to put: up a bond in an amount tv cover removal of the structure if the mobile
kitchen is moved.
Mr. Brochu stated that this Commission appreciates the concerns of the Citizens, and
although this was not a public hearing, he apologized for not allowing this issue to
be addressed by the applicant. He attributed this error to his inexperience in
acting as chairman, and again stated that this simply was an oversight on hi.s part.
Mr. Brochu went on to state that; the ways to guarantee removal of a structure should
• have been discussed at P.R.C. The man said he was not at the P.R.C., and was only in
attendance at t.h:is meeting at the request of Mr. Lyons, the actual applicant.
Mr. Lyons then spoke from the audience and stated that about 8 years ago he came
before this Board with a plan to build a bui.l.ding :in Northgate and was
denied permission because he could not furnish parking. Now he is coming
before the Board with a request t.o 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 the area, and he would be happy
to remove the structure if he decides to pull his trailer out. He added that he
really plans to stay and to build a building if his business goes as he plans, but
that he would agree to put up a bond to guarantee removal of this structure should he
decide to leave.
Mr. Wendler stated he never meant to "nit-pick", but he thinks he and the Commission
have been charged with using good judgment when considering plans, especially in
this area where controls in the past have apparently been lax.
Mr. Lyons asked if the Commission would reconsider this request and include the
requirement of him putting up a bond in an amount to guarantee removal of the
structure should he discontinue use of the lot. A man and woman (believed to be the
Harpers) spoke up and said they are trying to upgrade the area and put in something
which will generate business and money for the City. Mr. Brochu said that the
• Commission sent a message by a majority vote that. it does not like this project; now
it is only fair to give these people direction as to what we would like to see them
do.
Y&l Minutes 8-20--87 Page 6
The Commissioners briefly discussed various ways to guarantee removal. of this
• structure if the trailer pulls out. Mr. Wendler said this is a very cliffic:ult thing
to do simply because he is not against this business, and he would be willing to
reconsider this proposal if it can guaranteed that it will be treated as temporary
until. such time that it truly becomes a permanent, total building.
Mr. Wendler then made a motion for the reconsideration of this proposal. Mr. Stewart
seconded the motion which carried unanimously (5--0}.
Mr. Wendler made a motion to approve this request with the stipulation that should
the business cease to operate at that, location, at that, point the temporary
structure (trailer) and the permanent type structure (sheltering structure) will come
down.
Mr. Brochu asked if he wanted to include the requirement for a bond. Mr. Wendler
said he does not because he trusts these people. Mr. Brochu asked Assistant City
Attorney if this is allowed. She replied that she thinks it is.
Mr. Moore seconded Mr. Weudler's motion. Mr. Stewart asked what type of
enforcement action should be attached. Mr. Brochu said that since Mr. Lyons had
offered, he thinks it would be reasonable to ask for a small bond equal. to the amount
it would cost to be re moved Mr. Stewart asked if the motion can be amended to
require a bond. Mr. Callaway advised the Commission to amend the motion to have
staff and the applicant work out some kind of mechanism to enforce removal 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 it carried unanimously (5-0}.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Continuation of Review of Goals, Objectives
and Development Policies.
Mr. Wendler suggested that this item be studied longer before discussion takes place.
All agreed. Mr. Brochu announced that he and 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 N0. 6: Other business.
Discussion followed regarding when to take the P&Z tour of City facilities, and it
was decided that 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, August 25th would be t:he date set.
Mr. Wendler stated he wants a study of the C-NG zoning district ordinance made, with
the use of temporary structures focused on more closely. Mr. Brochu suggested that.
the current outdoor activities should also be addressed. Mr. Callaway suggested that.
the Northgate Area Merchant, should be invited to supply input. He then suggested
that an item be included on the next agenda for discussion of this ordinance.
Mr. Brochu instructed all Commissioners t.a please return calls to City staff when
messages are left, and also to please let the Planning Technician know if they cannot
attend a meeting.
• The Commissioners all requested that. a packet for the P.R.C. meet:ing be supplied to
the Commissioner scheduled to attend any specific meeting. Staff agreed to place a
packet. in t:he appointed Commissioner's box on Friday before the meeting on Wednesday.
P&Z Minutes 8-20-$7 Page 7
Mr. Rector spoke from the audience stating that he still has concerns about. the
safety of the parking lot which was approved at this meeting since that is a dark
corner. He fears addit:ional muggings. 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.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Adjourn.
Mr. Stewart made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (5-0).
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
- ~~ Y/~~ ------- --
Chairman, David Brochu
City Secretary, Dian Jones
P&7 Minutes 8-20-87 Page 8
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
DATE August 20, 1987
NAME ADDRESS
~ ~ .,~~ ~ ~
___ ..
,.- _ - -
,.
~ ~~
1 ; : c
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
lo.
11.
12. -----
ls.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
:?o.
21.
22.
> ~
24.
i `,
~.