HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/2021 - Special Minutes - City CouncilSPW041921 Minutes Page 1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
APRIL 19, 2021
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF BRAZOS §
Present:
Karl Mooney, Mayor
Council:
Bob Brick
John Crompton
Linda Harvell
Elizabeth Cunha
John Nichols
Dennis Maloney
City Staff:
Bryan Woods, City Manager
Jeff Capps, Deputy City Manager
Carla Robinson, City Attorney
Tanya Smith, City Secretary
Ian Whittenton, Deputy City Secretary
1. Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present
With a quorum present, the Special Meeting of the College Station City Council was called to
order by Mayor Mooney at 4:01 p.m. on Monday, April 19, 2021 in the Council Chambers of the
City of College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77840.
2. Special Agenda.
2.1. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding Ordinance No.
2021-42 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# ORDA2021-000003.
Alyssa Halle-Schramm, Planning and Development, stated that the City Council requested that
City staff draft a Restricted Occupancy Overlay (ROO) ordinance and associated handbook that
would allow single-family property owners the option to request an overlay zoning restricting
occupancy to no more than two unrelated persons. City staff developed a draft ordinance,
conducted multiple rounds of public input, presented that input to the Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council, and revised the draft based on guidance provided by the City
Council at their March 11, 2021 Workshop.
SPW041921 Minutes Page 2
The ROO ordinance language necessitated a few text amendments to the Neighborhood
Conservation Ordinance (NCO) language within Section 5.11 of the Unified Development
Ordinance to account for the addition of a new ROO zoning. These amendments to the NCO
language are minor in scope and not substantive changes to the NCO provisions. At their
workshop, a majority of City Councilmembers provided direction to proceed with developing the
draft ROO ordinance. A majority of the Council preferred “50% plus one” as the required
percentage of property owners needed to sign the petition in support of a ROO zoning application.
Council also gave direction to draft a legacy clause (also known as “grandfathering”) that would
permit existing occupancy levels to continue in a subdivision that successfully gets a ROO and
would set parameters for what necessitates those properties needing to come into compliance with
the ROO occupancy restrictions.
Staff created a ROO Process Handbook to assist neighborhoods through the overlay zoning
process. The handbook outlines the responsibilities of both the neighborhood and the City and
includes checklists and templates for items such as the rezoning petition, neighborhood meeting
agendas, and meeting minutes. The handbook will serve as a procedural guide for citizens and City
staff and will be available for download from the City website but will not be adopted by Council.
Mrs. Halle-Schramm presented a summary of changes and potential options for the council to
consider:
5.11.D.1.c.2. The Petition Committee may shall consist of property owners of platted
single-family development from the original subdivision.
Two Options for 5.11.D.1.e.6.c. --- Note: They’re currently leaning for option two here.
OPTION 1: UDO 5.11.D.1.e.6.c. The nonconforming use changes or occupancy
increases. Decreases in the nonconforming use occupancy levels existing at the time a ROO
is adopted shall not be an indication of abandonment as specified in 9.2.C. “Abandonment,”
or cause a loss of the legal nonconforming use status; or
OPTION 2: UDO 5.11.D.1.e.6.c. The nonconforming use changes or occupancy
increases. Decreases in the nonconforming use occupancy levels below four unrelated
persons shall not be an indication of abandonment as specified in 9.2.C. “Abandonment”,
or cause a loss of the legal nonconforming use status; or
The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item at their April 15, 2021 regular meeting, where
they voted 4-3 to recommend approval. Staff also recommends approval.
At 5:14 p.m., the Mayor recessed the Special meeting.
Section Change
1.10 – Transitional Provisions Adds ROO as a New District
3.3 – Zoning Map Amendment ROO rezoning application requirements
4.1 – Establishment of Districts Adds ROO to list of zoning districts
5.11 – Single Family Overlay Districts ROO standard and legacy clause
SPW041921 Minutes Page 3
The Special meeting reconvened at 5:37 p.m.
At approximately 5:37 p.m., Mayor Mooney opened the Public Hearing.
Jeff Leatherwood, College Station, stated that he represents a concerned group of citizens as well
as the president of the local MLS, here to express that he believes Council has no real
understanding about potential impacts of the ROO. He believes that there should be an Economic
Impact study done before considering this ordinance.
Donald Deere, College Station, came before Council to express his concerns with the proposed
ROO ordinance. Mr. Deere stated that the current Legacy Clause and interplay with Section 9.2
of UDO is a mess and the Legacy right would be lost forever if any of the following occurs for
more than 3 months: renting to a family, leaving vacant for allowed alteration/renovation or
changes from 4 to 3 or from 3 to 4 unrelated tenants. Changing between 3 and 4, or between
family and students is not simply a choice, but a response to market conditions. He believes that
the “use” that is “grandfathered” should be based on rental vs. owner occupancy.
Carly Oldag, College Station, stated that she is a student and representing the student body who is
against the proposed ROO ordinance. She read a resolution that was passed by the student body
against the ROO and feels students feel less valued as citizens because of this proposed ordinance.
Elianor Vessali, College Station, came before Council to express her disappointment in the Council
for bringing this forward, citing how discriminatory and exclusionary this ordinance is. She
believes that the council is ignoring the voters and working to deny owners their property rights.
Ms. Vessali also stated she believes that the ROO will discriminate against individuals and restrict
their ability to live where they choose in the community.
Kurt Fisher, College Station, stated that the ROO denies equality for different households under
the law based on relation and marital status. He argues that if four individual renters live in a
house on the left and four related individuals live in the house to the right, aren’t they all citizens?
This is an attack against renters and unrelated individuals and the ROO turns a blind eye to
problems created by some owners and traditional families.
Fred Dupriest, College Station, stated that he supports the ROO in the alternative version presented
and requests that the “legacy clause” to be the same as the occupancy recorded on the date of
record.
Charles Vesperman, College Station, believes that those who oppose or are attempting to delay the
ROO do so on the basis of personal financial gain and not care for the community.
Andrew Scottsboro, College Station, supports the ROO even though he is a renter. He stated that
the single-family home he rents for his family is surrounded by students who are not interested in
living and enjoying the climate of a single-family neighborhood but instead treat the neighborhood
as temporary housing for their college experience.
Kathryn Lindsay, College Station, believes that this tool will allow neighborhoods a mechanism
to protect themselves from investors and being turned into rental communities.
SPW041921 Minutes Page 4
Robert McGeachin, College Station, stated that he is a longtime resident who has seen the character
of his neighborhood changed by rentals. He believes that the ROO could be a tool to help protect
newer neighborhoods and he would have been pleased to have such a tool to protect his
neighborhood.
Charles White, College Station, stated he is not in favor of the ROO for many of the reasons
mentioned. He also believes that even if passed the grandfathering clause is unclear and needs
some work.
Diana Wood, College Station, believes that the ROO can protect homeowners and their
investments by preventing a rental housing bubble. She stated that students do have protected
housing because many complexes will not rent to families.
Kirk Edney, College Station, stated he has lived here for over 20 years and he has seen his
neighborhood transition to a rental community over time and the neighborhood has suffered. He
believes the ROO could be used by neighborhoods to control their future.
Jacob McFarland, College Station, supports the ROO and stated that he first lived here as a student
and later returned to live several years after graduation only to find that the rental market had
changed. He cited the removal of older homes and dividing of lots and building smaller homes,
changing the character of neighborhoods.
Jessica Williams, College Station, opposes the ROO and believes that most of the citizens do as
well. She stated that she does not feel like opponents of the ROO and stu dents are respected by
the council.
David Higdon, College Station, supports this ordinance and stated that bringing this forward has
shown that the council is willing to do what is right in the face of strong opposition. He believes
that it could protect neighborhoods against profit driven investors.
Steven Strong, College Station, stated that he opposes this item believes that it will be overly
restrictive to those wishing to rent their properties. He would like the occupancy examined as he
believes it is flawed and too dependent upon consistent occupancy.
Shirley Dupriest, College Station, stated that she would like to echo David Higdon’s remarks and
thanked the council for considering this ordinance.
Kyle Bryant, College Station, supports the ROO based on maintaining reasonable real-estate prices
and making those homes available to lower income families. He believes the realtors opposed this
based on profit alone.
Liana Vincent, College Station, stated that she lives in an area already protected but wants to
support the ROO based on allowing others to the enjoy the protections she enjoys.
Gwen Howerton, College Station, opposes this ordinance based on living in this community for
several years and stating that the current rental market is already inflated. This will likely make it
worse.
SPW041921 Minutes Page 5
Linda Lee, College Station, stated she recently bought a home and is for the ROO to protect
neighborhoods against overcrowding. She stated that she is not against students but believes that
overcrowding neighborhoods is a safety issue.
Aadith Thiruvallarai, College Station, believes that this ordinance is against students and will have
a negative impact on marginal and non-standard family structures.
Keerthana Rameshbabu, College Station, stated she is a student and believes that the ROO is a
massive government overreach. She believes it is discriminatory, makes neighbors suspicious,
and will only increase rental prices.
Nan Crouse, College Station, supports the ROO even though her neighborhood already enjoys the
protections that she lives under. This would give neighborhoods the ability to invoke the
protections she enjoys and thus attract more families to the community.
Patricia McDermott, College Station, encourages the council to pass the ROO and support
neighborhoods. She believes that this would bring balance to the community and should be
strongly enforced.
Katie Ruffino, College Station, stated that a petition online has over 4000 signatures and this has
been strongly opposed by the citizens, but the council still pushes this forward. She believes the
the current grandfather clause is flawed and would change uses between leases, thus not making it
ineffective in protecting the current use.
Virgia Thomas, College Station, supports the ROO as a mechanism to protect homeowners from
inflated values and taxes.
Amy DuBose, College Station, represents a collation who oppose this ROO and stated that an
online petition has gathered more than 4000 signatures in opposition.
Rachel Smith, College Station, believes that the ROO is not anti-student but in support of citizens
who call College Station their permanent home.
Helena MacCrossan, College Station, stated that she opposes the ROO based on allowing people
to choose where they live, mostly in the future when many of the homes have lost their
grandfathering.
Carlo Chunga, College Station, stated he is a student, immigrant, and 16-year resident who could
not have lived in any of the places he has under a ROO. He believes it discriminator y and will
make people prejudice against neighbors who do not fit their picture of a family.
Eric Mendoza, College Station, is a student who opposes the ROO and supports the comments of
the student body chair and the resolution read on behalf of the student body.
Lisa Halperin, College Station, thanked the City Council for listening to the residents in the older
parts of College Station and offering us the opportunity to use a ROO. She stated that this type of
protection is offered in many other college towns, such as San Marcos, and is one tool to project
neighborhoods.
SPW041921 Minutes Page 6
Zachary Freedom, College Station, stated he opposes the ROO and that it dismisses a large portion
of the population in favor of a minority. He believes that a more inclusive solution should be
sought by council.
Frey Miller, College Station, stated that this item is about housing and that the ROO is not to be
confused with other issues. He believes that this item is discriminatory and will fail to provide
affordable housing to a vulnerable portion of the community.
There being no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.
At 7:50 p.m., the Mayor recessed the Special meeting.
The Special meeting reconvened at 7:59 p.m.
MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Nichols and a second by Councilmember
Maloney to adopt the proposed Ordinance No. 2021-4259 with the following modifications:
1. In sec. 5.11.D.1.c.(2) change the term “may” to “shall”;
2. Add the following language to sec. 5.11.D.1.d.: “Accessory living quarter requirements are further
specified in UDO sec 6.5 “Accessory Uses” within the standards for “Living Quarters”:
3. Add the following language to sec. 5.11.D.1.e.6.c: - “Decreases in the nonconforming use
occupancy levels existing at the time a ROO is adopted shall not be an indication of abandonment
as specified in sec. 9.2.C. “Abandonment”, or cause a loss of the legal nonconforming use status”
4. Add subsection (e) to sec. 5.11.D.1.e.6. to add the language: “The termination of registration with
the City’s Rental Registration program”; and
5. In sec. 5.11.D.2.a remove the language “while balancing the need for redevelopment of vacant or
underutilized properties.”
(AMENDED) MOTION: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Crompton and a second by
Councilmember Harvell, the Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to amend the
motion on the floor to modify the language “Add the following language to sec. 5.11.D.1.e.6.c: -
“Decreases in the nonconforming use occupancy levels existing at the time a ROO is adopted shall
not be an indication of abandonment as specified in sec. 9.2.C. “Abandonment”, or cause a loss of
the legal nonconforming use status” to “Add the following language to sec. 5.11.D.1.e.6.c: -
“Decreases in the nonconforming use occupancy levels below four unrelated persons shall not be
an indication of abandonment as specified in sec. 9.2.C. “Abandonment”, or cause a loss of the
legal nonconforming use status.” The motion to amend carried unanimously.
The Council voted five (5) for and two (2) opposed, with Mayor Mooney and Councilmember
Cunha voting against, to adopt the ordinance as amended. The amended motion carried.
3. Adjournment.
There being no further business, Mayor Mooney adjourned the Special Meeting of the College
Station City Council at 9:08 p.m. on Monday, April 19, 2021.
________________________
Karl Mooney, Mayor
ATTEST:
SPW041921 Minutes Page 7
_______________________
Tanya Smith, City Secretary