HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2021 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionApril 15, 2021 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6
MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
April 15, 2021 6:00 p.m. Phone: *888 475 4499 and Webinar ID: 913 6272 2824 Internet: https://zoom.us/s/91362722824
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dennis Christiansen, Joe Guerra, Jeremy Osborne, Bobby Mirza, William Wright, Bill Mather, and Jason Cornelius
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Cunha and Linda Harvell CITY STAFF PRESENT: Michael Ostrowski, Carol Cotter, Erika Bridges, Alyssa Halle-Schramm, Amy Albright, Leslie Whitten, and Kristen Hejny 1. Call Meeting to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Consider Absence Request.
Chairman Christiansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Hear Visitors
No visitors spoke.
3. Informational Agenda
3.1 Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City
New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev
There was no discussion.
3.2 Discussion of Minor / Amending Plats approved by Staff.
• Phoenix Addition Phase One, Block 1, Lot 1R ~ Case #FPCO2021-000004
• Venable Estates, Block 1, Lot 1 ~ Case #FP2021-000003
There was no discussion.
3.3 Presentation and discussion regarding an update on items heard:
• A Rezoning for approximately five acres located at 3006 Norton Lane from R Rural to GS General Suburban. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on March 18, 2021 and voted (6-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on April 8, 2021 and voted (5-1) to approve the request.
There was general discussion.
3.4 Presentation and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings:
April 15, 2021 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6
• Monday, April 19, 2021 ~ City Council Special Meeting ~ Virtual Meeting ~ 4:00 p.m. (Liaison – Guerra)
• Thursday, April 22, 2021 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Virtual Meeting ~ Workshop 4:00 p.m. and Regular 6:00 p.m. (Liaison – Mather)
• Thursday, May 6, 2021 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Virtual Meeting ~ 6:00 p.m.
• Thursday, May 13, 2021 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Virtual Meeting ~ Workshop 4:00 p.m. and Regular 6:00 p.m. (Liaison – Osborne)
• Thursday, May 20, 2021 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Virtual Meeting ~ 6:00 p.m.
There was no discussion. 3.5 Discussion and review regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, BioCorridor Board.
There was no discussion Consent Agenda 4.1 Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes.
• April 1, 2021 Commissioner Osborne motioned to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Guerra seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). 5. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission Action. There were no items removed. 6. Regular Agenda
6.1 Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 1.10 “Transitional Provisions,” Section 3.3 “Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning),” Section 4.1 “Establishment of Districts,” and Section 5.11 “Single-family Overlay Districts” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, regarding the Restricted Occupancy Overlay (ROO). Case# ORDA2021000003. (Final action on this item is scheduled for the April 19, 2021 Special City Council Meeting subject
to change). Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm presented this item to the Commission,
recommending approval. Chairman Christiansen asked regarding concerns that this process may be illegal.
Assistant City Attorney Whitten clarified that the City Attorney’s Office does not believe Restricted Occupancy Overlay runs afoul of any laws. Chairman Christiansen asked if a more than two-occupant complaint has ever been taken to court.
April 15, 2021 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6
Assistant City Attorney Whitten stated that no cases have been taken to State Court in Texas,
however, it has gone to State Court in other states, and Federal Court. Commissioner Guerra asked regarding the original subdivision, the ordinance does not mention subdivision phases. Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm stated that phases do not need to be mentioned in the ordinance as neighborhoods and subdivisions are usually platted in phases and each phase is considered an original plat. Commissioner Guerra referenced the district standards/accessory structure section in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that states a property owner must live on the premises. Mr. Guerra
asked staff to reference this specific clause in the ROO language. Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm explained that two ordinances work hand-in-
hand. Ms. Halle-Schramm also explained accessory living quarters are mentioned in the ROO language, and from staff implementation side, staff does know to look in both places.
Commissioner Guerra asked about the legacy clause and the 50% structure alteration code, and how they were determined. Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm explained that the 50% structure alteration code comes from language located in UDO section 9.2 on nonconformities. Commissioner Mirza asked if the handbooks are ready. Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm stated that they will be printed once the ordinance is adopted by City Council.
Commissioner Osborne asked about home renovations what is allowed, and what requires a permit. Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm stated that old home restorations and extensive renovations beyond the thresholds in the Legacy Clause would need approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustments if located in a ROO overlay. Ms. Halle-Schramm further clarified that homes not in an overlay would only need a building permit.
Commissioner Osborne referenced UDO section 5.11.6.c, asking if a current rental property is housing four renters or a family when a ROO is imposed, then is rented to two tenants, when is the ability to rent to four removed. Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm stated that if a home is grandfathered at four unrelated, they can continue their lease. Ms. Halle-Schramm further explained if a family of less than four moves in for more than three months, it is now at threshold and cannot go back up to four occupants. Commissioner Osborne asked who would monitor the occupant numbers.
April 15, 2021 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6
Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm stated that Code Enforcement will enforce the occupancy restrictions based on a complaint basis through the See Click Fix system.
Commissioner Osborne asked for clarification on the petition committee verbiage that states “may include residents of subject neighborhood, but not necessarily”. Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm clarified that the petition committee can be comprised of non-residents. Ms. Halle-Schramm also clarified that the neighborhood must be involved, and staff does not see a problem because 50% +1 residents have to sign petition. Commissioner Osborne clarified that there is no time or age requirement of a neighborhood to be part of a ROO.
Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm confirmed that if 51% or more of the development is complete, a ROO can be requested.
Commissioner Wright asked if the 50% structural changes clause has any caveats regarding damages from natural disasters.
Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm stated that there is no specific language in UDO section 5.11, ROO, or non-conformities Chapter 9, but is city procedure that if a structure is damaged by a natural act, you would be able to reconstruct structure to the previous size or up to 10% by right and would not lose non-conforming status. Chairman Christiansen stated that staff and Commission have responses supporting and opposing the ordinance and asked how questions get processed. Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm stated that a lot of emails and calls were answered and responded to by staff.
Director of Planning & Development Services Ostrowski clarified that if 50% or more of the structure that houses a nonconforming use due to ROO is renovated in the overlay district, it would need approval from the ZBA. If it was a conforming use, they would just need to pull a building permit. Chairman Christiansen opened the public hearing.
Jessica Williams, TAMU, College Station, spoke in opposition of the ROO citing concerns for affordable housing, traditional family attack/LGBTQ families, lower income families, definition of family, and oversight. Andrew Scottsboro, Dove Crossing, College Station, spoke in favor of the ROO, stating that it will help with “stealth dorms”, on-street parking, and college students. Keerthana Rameshbabu, TAMU, College Station, spoke in opposition of ROO citing concerns for college students, stress on renters, the ordinance being hard to enforce, and additional staff time.
April 15, 2021 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6
Donald Deere, Camelot Subdivision, College Station, spoke in opposition of the ROO citing concerns for no longer being able to rent to families and then to four unrelated, 50%+1 being
too low, and legacy provisions being very complex. Mr. Deere also stated that provisions for “ag shacks” do need to be put in place. Julie Schultz, Edelweiss Estates, College Station, spoke in opposition of the ROO, citing concerns for rezoning without consent, causing blight, taking rights away from citizens, and terrorizing students. Alexia Hernandez, Northgate, College Station, spoke in opposition of the ROO because of the effect on housing affordability stifling students. Patricia McDermott, Southside, College Station, spoke in favor of the ROO, stating that students
are are not here long enough to make a difference, and enforcement is needed. Donny Hall, College Hills, College Station, spoke in favor of the ROO, stating that the ordinance
supports balance, and reiterating that it is a lengthy process to get a ROO approved. Shirley Dupriest, College Park, College Station, spoke in favor of the Ordinance Amendment
stating that half of the population are not students and students can go anywhere. Ms. Dupriest also stated that this is an opportunity that City Council has recognized the town needs a few small places where families can live. Elianor Vessali, Oakwood, College Station, spoke in opposition of the ROO and expressed concerns with the wording, section 5.11.d.1.c.2, “committee MAY consist of members of the subdivision”. Carly Oldag, TAMU Student Senate, College Station, spoke in opposition of the ROO citing concerns for student housing, ordinance is not ethical or fair, it constricts student occupants, increases tension between students and non-student neighbors, tool of exclusion, question legality
and fairness to homeowners, and lack of enforceability. Chairman Christiansen closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cornelius asked for the number of no more than four cases Code Enforcement has enforced.
Long Range Planning Administrator Halle-Schramm stated that since 2017, there have been 111 See Click Fix complaints submitted, 39 investigations completed, and six summons requests. Commissioner Guerra clarified for listeners that the ROO will not take into effect as soon as ordinance is passed, and that this is simply a tool in the toolbox to be used by neighborhoods. Mr. Guerra also explained that this will only be applicable to single-family houses leaving a lot of availability for students to rent in single-family neighborhoods. Commissioner Mather expressed concerns that the ROO will cause very serious unintended consequences, pitting neighbor against neighbor, and including outside activist group.
April 15, 2021 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6
Commissioner Osborne expressed concerns for a rezoning free to the applicant that applies to someone else’s property, will not work. Mr. Osborne further stated that this ordinance is
unenforceable and renting to families will stop.
Commissioner Wright reiterated that this ordinance is just a tool and should be an option whether it will work or not. Mr. Wright also stated that the ordinance should be given the opportunity to work.
Commissioner Mirza stated that there needs to be a happy medium with neighborhood integrity and student integration.
Chairman Christiansen stated that this is not a black and white issue. Mr. Christiansen expressed problems with the definition of family, and problems with enforcement. Mr. Christiansen further
clarified that there are other ways of making this happen, the way this will be applied this is not the solution to noise, parking, and parties, nothing happens until a subdivision comes forward.
Commissioner Wright motioned to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment. Commissioner Guerra seconded the motion, motion passed (4-3) with Commissioners Osborne, Mather, and Cornelius voting in opposition.
6.2 Discussion and possible action regarding setting a date to discuss the Planning & Zoning Commission’s Plan of Work.
Chairman Christiansen proposed an in-person meeting on a non-Planning & Zoning Commission night for a 6 p.m. retreat in Council Chambers.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission, and a poll will be generated to gather date possibilities for the meeting.
7.Discussion and possible action on future agenda items – A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire
about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information orthe recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal toplace the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
There was no discussion.
8. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
Approved: Attest:
______________________________ ________________________________ Dennis Christiansen, Chairman Kristen Hejny, Admin Support Specialist Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services