HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/1988 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
City Council 8: Planning & Zoning Commission
Joint Workshop
February 24, 1988
4:45 p.m.
ATTENDEES: Mayor Ringer, City Councilmembers Haddox, Brown,
McIlhaney, Boughton & Gardner; P&Z Chairman Brochu,
Commissioners Dresser, Stewart, Colson & Sawtelle
STAFF: Acting City Manager Ragland, Director of Capital
Improvements Ash, City Engineer Pullen, Director of
Planning Callaway, Public Information Officer
Calliham, Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City
Secretary Hooks and Planning Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Discussion of goals and objectives.
The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, who then asked Mr. Callaway to
introduce the subject. Mr. Callaway explained that this meeting has been called to
review the proposed Goals 8: Objectives section of the Commission's review of the
second phase of the Plan 2000 update.
He went on to state that after revised Goals & Objectives are adopted, the next stage
of the review is to consider the Land Use Plan, the Transportation Plan and any other
remaining elements of the Plan, which will be coming back to the City Council in the
form of recommended revisions to be considered.
Mr. Callaway concluded his introduction of the meeting's agenda by pointing out that
an item to be discussed is public input into the Plan update process. He explained
that item has been included on the agenda by staff in order to receive direction as
to how much and what kind of public input the Council and the Commission would like
to have in the review process. He then turned the meeting over to Chairman Brochu.
Mr. Brochu explained that the Commission perceived its task as not so much one of re-
writing the Goals 8: Objectives, but rather to review them, and update and revise
where it was deemed needed. He stated that when the Commission began its review,
it was decided there was a lot of redundancy in many of the stated objectives which
were included in the approved Plan 2000; there did not seem to be a real clear
definition between what was a goal and what was an objective. He reported that the
Commissioners believe a goal is a condition, a state of being, something desirable to
be reached at some point, but something which does not confine itself in one single,
given action. Many of the goals as stated in the Plan were not stated in that way,
and became confusing and ambiguous. They believe objectives should be actually
action statements; something to be attainable through some action. He said that the
subcommittees reviewed specific sections of goals and objectives, cleaned up some
language, tried to state each goal and objective as specified above and to make them
more clear and concise.
The Mayor then suggested that the best way to conduct a discussion of the draft goals
and objectives would be to take one goal with its objectives at a time, and began
with "City Character".
Mr. Brochu reported that the subcommittee for this section was composed of
Commissioners Sawtelle and Stewart who settled on a goal of "an attractive community
with a healthy, diversified economic climate", with the objective being to "guide and
influence growth by appropriate means."
Mr. Haddox recommended that "attractiveness" should be included in the objective,
rather than only addressing "growth". Mr. Gardner stated he would like for the
objective to address "maintaining character" and the fact that this is a "university
town", and use that as the direction to go when building the character of this city.
Mr. Brochu said that he thinks the danger, or the concern, in using a reference to
the university is being able to word it in such a way so that it does not come across
as a limiting factor. He added that certainly the city is tied to the university, it
always will be, and it will always be influenced by it, but at the same time the idea
is that with growth and development along other avenues which may-not be necessarily
linked to the university, the city should not have as a goal or objective something
which looks like it may be a limiting factor.
Mrs. Boughton said that she is pleased with what is offered in this draft, and does
not think it is necessary to address the university, although she knows what an
influence the university has had on the city because she was both born and reared
here and has seen the changes in both the school and the city.
Mr. Gardner said that in paring this document down to concise language, it has
suffered, as many revised documents have. He gave as an example, "why pick out the
word 'attractive' when we also want a clean, safe, economical, etc. city"? Mrs.
Sawtelle said that the word "attractive" covers all those other areas, and does not
only refer to aesthetics. '
• Mr. Gardner then addressed the phrase "diversified economic climate", adding that he
had heard the phrase "business climate" used, and does not see where the word
"diversified", which means "mixed", would apply to things that are on the ground,
whereas "climate" refers to attitudes toward industry, finances, etc., which are not
subject to the word "diversify". He went on to say that either we are for supporting
growth and industry or not.
Mr. Gardner said that he thinks that before reaching a decision, there should be
public input to see what direction the citizens want to go. Mr. Brochu said that the
Commission still thinks there can be public input before finalization since this is
not yet a finished product, and will not be finished before the Council adopts it.
He stated the purpose of this meeting is to gain guidance from the Council. The
Mayor stated that he thinks the city must present something to the public for
consideration of or reaction to, and that is what is being done now, and the
Commission is asking the Council to endorse (not adopt) what it has done to date, or
to direct changes to the document before the public hearings for public input.
Others present disagreed with Mr. Gardner, and the decision was reached to use the
goal as it has been presented in the draft copy, and to change the objective to
address appearance in addition to what is presented.
Mr. Brochu went on to the goal "Land Use", which was drafted as "adequate, but not
excessive, amounts of land for all necessary types of land uses arranged in an
efficient, convenient, harmonious and ecologically sound manner", with the objectives
being to (1) "protect the integrity of the single family residential areas"; (2)
"encourage the use of vacant land within the city limits"; (3) "avoid strip
commercial development and encourage centralized commercial development"; and (4)
"encourage controlled locations of industrial development through zoning and capital
City Council/P8:Z Workshop Minutes 2-24-88 page 2
improvements".
• Mr. Brown said that his only concern is that he would like to have the way we have
annexed land into the city in the past addressed, and would like to see more
encouragement of the use of vacant land already inside the city limits. Mr. Brochu
said that was the purpose of the second goal listed, i.e., to build from within, and
work the way out in solid development instead of creating holes or pockets of
undeveloped land. He went on to say he did not know exactly how the city could
encourage that, but if it is considered a priority by the Council, then methods of
addressing specifics can be studied. Mrs. McIlhaney said that when the time comes
to address new areas or annexation of land into the city, perhaps limiting
annexation, land use controls or utility services can be used or at least considered.
Mr. Gardner said he would like to see the objective "protect the integrity of single
family residential areas" enlarged by adding something, i.e., through zoning or
creation of certain types of streets or something. He continued by stating that the
reference to "the city limits" in the second objective is irrelevant since it goes to
the south some 2 1/2 miles already, and perhaps the objective should go on to include
"by discouraging ...". Mr. Brochu said he would prefer to see some kind of
incentives to be available to those who will use the vacant land within the city
rather than to petition for annexation. He went on to say that conditions change
from year-to-year in the city, and there is a danger in making a long term plan too
specific or narrow. Mrs. Sawtelle stated the Commissioners were looking at a
broader-type language which would be flexible and could be used for a longer period
of time, so specific-type language was avoided.
Mr. Brochu moved on to the section called "Thoroughfares" with the goal of "balanced
. development of all modes of transportation to assure the fast, convenient, efficient
and safe movement of people and goods to, from and within the community", and
objectives of (1) "develop an organized preventative maintenance program for streets
to ensure safety and long, economical life"; (2) "provide for the development or
redevelopment of major arterial routes as necessary to prevent traffic congestion";
(3) "develop adequate, safe systems for pedestrian and bicycle movement"; (4)
"participate in development of a public transit system to serve the area's needs";
(5) "cooperate with other local entities in efforts to minimize adverse effects of
the railroad"; and, (6) "support continued development of Easterwood Airport".
Consensus of the Council was to leave the draft goals as they had been proposed with
the exception of the title of the section, directing a change to be made from
"Thoroughfares" to "Transportation". Mr. Brochu agreed, adding that he thought that
is what it was entitled originally.
Mr. Brochu then read the section "Economic Development" with the goal of "sound
economic development through diversification" and objectives to (1) "encourage
industrial development compatible with the environment"; (2) "encourage commercial
development to serve the needs of the citizenry"; and, {3) "encourage residential
development".
Mr. Gardner asked if everyone is convinced that we do not have sound economic
development now, with the University being the economic base. Mr. Brochu said that
he does not think the goal is stated in such a way to indicate that there is not now
a sound economic base. Mr. Gardner continued by saying that he has not seen where
diversification will do much to fix what may now be wrong. Mr. Colson said that he
• does not think there is any question in anyone's mind but that diversification is the
way to go. Mr. Gardner pointed out all the plant closings and other things which
other cities have suffered through, that this city does not have to face because we
City Council/P&Z Workshop Minutes 2-24-88 page 3
do not have them. Mr. Colson said he personally does not want to be tied to only one
thing, and pointed to the problems being faced now by many of the businesses due to
• the "putting of all the eggs in one basket" in the past, i.e., leaning solely on the
Mr. Brochu said that the university has not been addressed in the goals or
objectives, not because leaving it out indicates any instability there, but rather
to preclude the City's economic structure being solely tied to the University. Mayor
Ringer pointed out another problem with designating the University as the sole
economic barometer as being the underemployment of individuals which results from the
large numbers spouses of faculty members in the job market.
oil industry for economic growth, and he pointed out that diversification will
inhibit that happening in the future. Mrs. McIlhaney suggested that perhaps the
words "steady growth" should be added somewhere to the goal presented. Mr. Haddox
went on to say that he would be opposed locating one large plant here which would
employ perhaps 10,000 people, but he would be very much in favor of many smaller
businesses which would employ 50 people here, 100 people here, etc. That way, he
continued, the community would not become dependent upon one company or one industry,
but rather would have multiple businesses, hence "diversification", to stabilize the
economy. The Mayor asked what Mr. Gardner thought would happen to the community of
the state legislature decided to cut funding to the university. Mr. Gardner replied
that a lot of people would leave and a lot of the businesses would certainly suffer.
Mayor Ringer went on to point out that selling a home would become impossible, and
continued by saying that the goal here is to have a sound economic base in the
community by having diversification so the whole economic structure will not be tied
up to one business.
Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Gardner if he is really suggesting that the City not attempt to
diversify the economic base in College Station, but remain primarily dependent upon
the University. Mr. Gardner said that he thinks he is, but he would like to hear
what others, besides those with special interests, think. Mr. Gardner said that for
many years the city was dependent upon the University, and neither the city nor the
people suffered. He went on to state that diversification to other economic bases
may cause more problems than the city will want to handle, and it becomes a question
of livability and the cost of it, vs. the fact that we guarantee job stability to
provide some insurance against the University perhaps falling apart.
Mr. Brochu said that if the Council prefers to make a statement like that, it is
indeed going the opposite direction of the one considered and pursued by the
Commission in it's review of the goals and objectives, and from the Plan as it is
currently written. He reminded the Council that the Commission simply reviewed what
was already in the Plan and made minor suggestions for clarification, and if Mr.
Gardner's idea is to be pursued, then public input is extremely important. Mr.
Gardner said that is exactly why he wants to get public input at this point in the
review.
Mr. Haddox disagreed with Mr. Gardner and explained that a year or more ago, the P8Z
and Council held a workshop and gave direction to the Commission as to what direction
to take. Mr. Gardner pointed out that he was in the audience at that meeting, and
was unable to say anything because it was not deemed to be a public hearing. Mr.
Haddox said that "economic development" was also deemed to be a major "Council
Concern" since that time, and at that time nobody wanted to keep College Station
totally dependent upon the University. Mrs. Boughton said that Mr. Gardner is right
in that the City has not suffered from being dependent upon the University, but the
• school district has suffered, and will as long as College Station remains a bedroom
community. She said that diversification of the tax base is important mainly for the
school system.
City Council/P&Z Workshop Minutes 2-24-88 page 4
Mr. Colson asked how the City can affect whether or not the University grows, or
• whether the University diversifies or not, so why have as a goal to support only
Texas ARM University. He went on to explain that the alternative to that is to
support a many-fingered area, i.e., diversification.
Mr. Gardner said that he thinks objectives numbered 2 8; 3 under Land Use are
unnecessary, since there does not seem to be a problem getting commercial development
to come to town. Mr. Brown said that we need to encourage development because we
have all that vacant space out there.
Mr. Brochu read the section "Services & Program" which depict a goal of "services and
programs that provide for the safety and welfare of all citizens for the protection
of their property" and objectives of (1)"maintain adequate personnel and equipment to
provide police, fire and emergency medical services to the population", and
(2)"develop and maintain various programs and facilities, including but not limited
to parks, recreational facilities, libraries and cultural programs".
There were no comments made, so the section was accepted for inclusion in the draft
update as presented.
Mr. Brochu then read the section "Utilities" which includes a goal of "the quantity
and quality of services needed to assure public health, safety and welfare; and to
promote growth", with the objectives being to (1) "prepare for growth; develop
surface water sources", (2) "upgrade reliability and constancy of electric services",
(3) "provide for adequacy of sewerage", (4) "encourage improvement in telephone,
natural gas and other privately owned services", {5) "develop solutions to abate
• flooding and drainage problems", and, (6) "utilize resources and utilities in City
operations so as to provide a model for citizen utilization".
There were no comments offered regarding these proposals, so the section was
accepted for the draft update as presented.
Mr. Brochu read the "Housing" section as follows: Goal: "An adequate supply of
housing with a wide variety of housing types"; and Objectives of (1) "maintain
integrity of existing housing supply, using the housing code and other controls", (2)
"upgrade minimum building codes to ensure quality construction", (3} "encourage the
development of energy efficient standards for new construction", (4) "encourage the
upgrading of deteriorating neighborhoods", (5) "encourage the development of
diversified housing types f_or low/fixed income consumption", and {6) "institute a
building code review board to continually evaluate existing codes relative to
advances in technology and materials".
Mr. Gardner asked if the goal has changed from something which referred to housing
costs, and Mr. Brochu and the Mayor answered in the affirmative. Mr. Gardner asked
if the Commissioners did not like that and Mr. Stewart replied that it was not that
the Commissioners did not like the reference to price, but pointed out that it is not
the City's job to control the price range of houses here, and could possibly do that
with the size of lots, but what a developer wants to put on that lot is another
thing, i.e., what amenities to be included and what materials to be used. He
explained that there is no definition of what a house must consist of, and making a
definition would be a very difficult task. Mr. Gardner said that price could be
addressed by the City, but it would indeed be a very difficult task. Mrs. McIlhaney
• addressed the objective "encourage the upgrading of deteriorating neighborhoods" and
Mr. Stewart stated that Mr. Callaway had specifically asked the inclusion of that
statement and Mr. Callaway explained that represents an area the Block Grant people
City Council/P&Z Workshop Minutes 2-24-88 page 5
believed is important to include as a statement from the City.
• Mr. Stewart pointed out that item number 6 under objectives is new, and has been
included because it was thought it would be a helpful objective to go along with the
ones stated before.
No specific changes were requested by the Council, so Mr. Brochu moved on to the next
section entitled "Community Appearance" with the goal of "a beautiful, safe, amenable
environment, and objectives of {1) "improve the appearance of municipal properties",
(2) "promote good site design to provide good appearance, minimize drainage impacts
and increase pedestrian safety", (3) "develop solutions to abate flooding and
drainage problems in the City", (4) "eliminate unsightly conditions such as junk
yards, abandoned vehicles, dilapidated buildings and excessive weeds and rubbish",
and (5) "develop community-wide pride in City appearance".
Mr. Gardner questioned the wisdom of using the word "amenable" in the goal. Mrs.
McIlhaney requested that "dilapidated structures and fences" be included under
objective number 4. Mayor Ringer suggested that perhaps she was referring to upkeep
or good maintenance of structures and fences, and Mr. Stewart added "reducing visual
impact" for clarification. It was agreed that the inclusion of "dilapidated
structure and fences" would cover her concerns.
Mr. Brochu moved on to the section "Citizen Participation" with the goal being
"Citizen participation in city government", with objectives of (1) "make effective
use of citizens advisory committees to assist in decision-making on matters such as
comprehensive plan development and amendment and capital improvement planning", (2)
"encourage attendance and participation at public meetings", and (3) "regularly
• provide adequate information to allow citizens to effectively participate in city
government".
He explained that this had been discussed, and found that it was a very difficult
subject, and the objectives stated had been reached only after much deliberation. He
went on to say that if Council decides citizen participation is truly a priority
item, then a much greater effort must now be made to get public input, and reminded
everyone of the various types of committees and meetings which were used when the
existing Plan was being developed. He added that if the Council sees this update as
simply clearing up statements made and included in the existing Plan, is not to
become a whole new tool or an entirely new Plan, then perhaps the type of public
input would not be as extensive. He said that this section leads right into the next
agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Discussion of public input and participation
in adoption of revised goals, objectives and plan revisions.
Mr. Haddox said that he thinks that these goals and objectives presented to the
Council do a very good job of addressing almost all of the 56 "council concerns"
identified some months ago, and that he also believes that it is a good idea to sit
down and review the published, adapted goals and objectives periodically to see if
the City is still on the right track, and update or change them if needed. Mr.
Gardner said that he is getting the impression that this review has been like using a
rather "broad brush" to patch up the existing Plan, without making any substantial
changes to that document or the goals and objectives which stand alone, except to
make them a little thinner or leaner. He scent on to read from a memo submitted by
• the Director of Planning which stated that "goals ... were adopted by a previous
Council under different conditions, particularly with respect to growth rates and the
local economy", and added that he reads into that statement that the Director of
City Council/PB.Z Workshop Minutes 2-24-88 page 6
Planning feels that there are sigl~ificant changes, but he has not seen the updated
base studies that everyone else has seen. He said that he does believe there have
• been substantial changes. Mr. Callaway explained that what has been done is to
review the Plan, to update the base studies, to review the consultants' objectives
and make adjustments, then to present those adjustments to the Planning and Zoning
Commission so they did have that information in mind before they got into the goal
review process. He added that copies of that report were forwarded to the Council,
and if Mr. Gardner did not have a copy, another would be provided.
Mr. Gardner said he may have a copy, but that he had not kept it handy because he
thought it would be discussed with Council in a work session such as was held
to discuss the goals and objectives, and during which he was not allowed input.
He went on to suggest that perhaps if that had been done, the public would have
had some input from which staff and Council could respond.
Mr. Dresser explained that in reviewing the Plan to date, the Commissioners have
decided to take out things they felt the city was unable to do because of lack police
powers within the city, or things the city had demonstrated over time that would not
be done, and gave as examples making it very hard for people to build or construct
on properties of all kinds with adding a large number of requirements or responding
very slowly in permitting, or making P.R.C. review extremely tough. He explained
that could be done if this Council wanted to, but it appears now that the city tries
to control the where and the how things get constructed, but it does not get involved
in the market process, that is, we do not tell people they can or can't do something,
but simply try to put some parameters on how they do it if they decide to. Thus, the
Commissioners in reviewing it to date, very deliberately took out a lot of stuff
which suggested powers which the city might want to exercise, but which the
• Commissioners could not figure out how it could be done, even if the city really
wanted to. He went on to say that he is a little confused by Mr. Gardner's
comments as to whether there still are things in the draft plan which perhaps
should also come out, or if more restrictions and requirements should be added,
thus going the other direction.
Mr. Haddox said that a few years ago, staff was instructed to be cooperative, and to
work with people in getting projects reviewed and approved, without throwing out the
things such as landscaping, etc. He went on to say that staff responded to that
direction, and it has become the policy, and hopefully will continue to be the
policy. He finalized by stating to the Commissioners that what they have done in the
review process of the goals and objectives, is exactly what he wanted to see done.
He said that he would not like to see a lot of exacting things included in the plan,
but he understood that represented only his opinion, and perhaps not that of Mr.
Gardner.
The Mayor said there are several ways to go regarding citizen input, one being to
simply not have any public hearing with Council directing PB:Z to bring the revisions
to it for acceptance; the second to have a public hearing before the P8Z on the goals
and objectives, and respond to the outcome; the third would be to accept what the
Commissioners have done and to hold a public hearing before the Council, with Council
being responsible for any revisions; with the fourth possibility being to have 2
public hearings - one before each body. The Mayor then asked for opinions from the
Council.
Mr. Dresser asked if he could interject a statement and permission was granted. He
• said he thinks that a decision should be reached as to whether or not the Council is
really generally satisfied with what the Commissioners have presented at this meeting
before going to a public hearing. Or, should there be a public discussion held to
City Council/PB:Z Workshop Minutes 2-24-88 page 7
address major alternatives the city might•want to take. He went on to say that if a
• public discussion is to be held at this time to consider any major alternatives to
what has been presented, the Commission is not prepared to handle one at this time,
since it has not been presented with any major alternatives to the draft presented.
The Mayor asked for any major alternatives to be addressed at this time. Mr. Dresser
said that one would be to working to diversify the economic base - it could be
decided that the city would not work in that direction; also how the city is to be
developed - whether to absorb vacant area in the immediate area or to promote
development in the area to the south for which major utility improvements have been
made.
The Mayor reminded everyone that the project is not to write a Comprehensive Plan,
but rather to review the present Comprehensive Plan, to suggest changes and
improvements, but~it is not to be a re-write or development of a Comprehensive Plan.
The existing Comprehensive Plan will still be the city's guide, but there are certain
things in it which should be changed or improved after several years of experience.
Mr. Haddox said that he has no problem with having anything made public, but he does
have a question regarding extensive amounts of time being spent in trying to get
public input for this document which is basically an update to an existing plan,
rather than a whole new plan. He added that the existing plan came from the public,
and the revisions are simply for purposes of clarification or cleaning up the
language, with no major changes to what the public had directed several years ago.
He asked Mr. Gardner if the public attitude has changed since the adoption of the
plan and Mr. Gardner replied that is possible, since it was prepared 6 years ago.
Mr. Haddox disagreed, stating that he has not seen a big change in the public's
attitude. The Mayor suggested that the P&Z schedule a public hearing for discussion
• of the goals and objectives, and following that public hearing, either the goals and
objectives as revised will be forwarded to the Council for consideration, or schedule
public hearings or additional workshops. Mr. Gardner said there is nothing included
in the revisions which will call for a large amount of public input, and warned that
not much will be forthcoming without additional work by task forces, etc. to
represent the public. He gave as an example the town meeting held by Bryan to get
public view points concerning the future of the city, adding that what is lacking in
this revision process now is public view points.'
Mayor Ringer reminded everyone that the Planning and Zoning Commission is the body
which has been reviewing the current plan, and that this commission is truly a
citizen's advisory group which has been appointed by the Council. Mr. Gardner said
this is the first citizen's advisory group he has seen which does not have citizen
input. Mr. Stewart stated each of these goals and objectives have been discussed at
public meetings with the subjects listed on posted agendas, and very little interest
was created. Mr. Gardner said that a published agenda would get very little response
and the items were not covered by the press or other media. Mr. Stewart said that
was true, and probably because no very significant changes have resulted.
Mr. Gardner said that his personal goal is a good, thorough, sound plan, and the
direction being taken will not result in that.
Mayor Ringer again suggested that the Commission hold a public hearing regarding the
proposed revisions to the goals and objectives, and following that, if public input
reflects changes are necessary, the Commission should respond by revising what has
been presented at this meeting to reflect those changes, and present it to the
Council where a second public hearing can be scheduled; but, if there are no changes
. after the Commission's public hearing, Council can take action on the revisions
presented. He then directed Chairman Brochu and Director of Planning Callaway to
schedule a public hearing, then asked Public Information Officer Calliham to try to
City Council/PAZ Workshop Minutes 2-24-88 page 8
get publicity on that public hearing so citizen's will know they can have input, and
those people present at this meeting who have special viewpoints to present, can be
sure that they are heard at the hearing.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Adjourn.
There was no other business and the meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED:
--- --- --- - --- --------
Mayo L r y 'n
ATTEST:
City Secr t y, Dian Jones
•
•
City Council/P&Z Workshop Minutes 2-24-88 page 9