HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes
~(.llB~J\J.TJ:NNO..5: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for nine tracts totalling
~R.Z3.. .~(tt'eS locate<ialQng.thesouth.si4e of F<M2818 extension at the East By Pass from R-l single
(amily.residential to C-lGeneral Commercial. (93-100)
$.~n.ioJrPl~nner.Kee.presellted the.staff . report and stated that. if . the .city.wishesto. deviate from the
ftJ.tl.lre land. use planas adopted in the 2818 report by rezoning this property, the following
conditions. should be imposed:
We should acknowledge and state that we wish to deviate from the land use plan
as adopted and adopt a different concept so that future rezonings will be in
compliance with out comprehensive plan. We would be acknowledging that this
concept is more desirable than the one we had previously adopted.
The property should be platted prior to the zoning becoming effective. This plat
should .contain one or more lots that function as one integral unit from a traffic
circulation,. driveway access .and. signage standpoint. ..Access easements should...also
be considered to provide cross access. to adjacent properties if.appropriate.
Senior .Planner Kee stated that at the tim.eof platting and as the Dartmouth Street right-of-way is
established, we will look at the remaining part .of this. 38 acres that. ends up on the. ~west side of
Dartmouth to. .determinewhether it should. remainC-l.. We will determine whether it h.as adequate
depth along Dartmouth to comply with our development policies. If it does not thell we should
look at some other zoning classification and at that time also consider land use and buffer
arrangements depending on existing conditions. The applicant has also requested that the
Dartmouth extension be relocated to the most westerly property boundary so as to allc)w for more
developable area. Twenty-two surrounding property owners and. a representative of the Mile Drive
residents were notified . of the public hearing and two responses in opposition to the rezoning
request were received.
Chairperson Hawthorne opened . the public hearing.
Applicant John Doucet of 5524 Bee Cave Road in. Austin approached the .Commissiorl and stated
that he represents. the land ovvners of the property in question. Restated that he also represents a
national. retail firm who. has been . looking into locating in. College Station. for some time. The
minimum size that is required for this particular development is approximately 25 to 30 acres;
however, there are not . many sites of. this size in College . Station. . Mr. Doucet added that the
proposed location is appropriate for retail use primarily because of ,the transportation illfrastructure
recently installed and the accessibility to the East ByPass. . The existing surrounding residential
development will.. be . buffered from the.. retail . development by.. the proposed . roadways and the
existing creek. Because the area in question willbeoccupied by Qne ;U~tl"andadequate buffers are
provided, the, proposed development will not compromise the surround~ng land uses. Mr. Doucet
stated that the proposed development will provide a tax base to <:;gll.ege'"Station and would allow
the opportunity to obtain . the majority of the right-of-way. for the Dartmouth extension.
Commissioner Gribou questioned the applicant as .to..the possibility of not relocating the~ Dartmouth
extension.
Mr. Doucet explained that because of the size of the proposed building and the parking required,
Dartmouth would have to be relocated in order to fit everything on the site.
Pat Siegert of Clarke & Wyndham Realty approached the Commission and stated that he agrees
with the points made by Mr. Doucet. He stated that he. is currently listing the property immediately
across the street from the subJect property. This property will facilitate the other two comers of the
proposed Dartmouth extension. The proposed relocation of Dartmouth would not be a problem for
the current . property. owner. Mr. . Siegert stated that because of the existing and proposed
infrastructure,. both locations are appropriate for retail use.
P & Z Minutes
January 21, 1993
Page 4
Gail Griffin of 108 Mile Drive appro~ched the Cotnmissionand stated that she has lived in this
residenc.e for fifteen years. and. has worked with the . city on several. occasions on the development of
the surrounding, area.. ,. She stated that she is interested in the growth of College Station; . however,
she is. more cOllcemed withallorganizedgro\yth. . The pr9perty owners and city staff worked at
length to come up with au acceptable land use pIau for this, particular area., ' Once a rezoning is
granted for retail developmentjn this area, thepl~n is changed and. a domino effect will begin to
demandmorecommerci~ldevelopment. .... If thisr~zoningisgranted, there is a PQ~sibility that the
de~lwinfallthroughal1d finyonecol,l!d com~. ill and subdivide the property for their own
cOlnmyrfiall,lse. The residentsofMil~ ,Drivell1et last night and decided unaniIIlol,lsly to encourage
the Commission to not rezone the subject property and to preserve the desired mixture of uses in
this area.
Chairperson Hawthorne asked Ms. Griffin if the rezoning request was granted and all of the
property south of the. creek stayed the same, wo.uld this be an acceptable situation.
Ms. Griffin stated< that theproposedsituation>tnaybe acceptable; however, there will still be a
domino effect created and increased pressure to rezone the remaining. areas.
John Jordan of 117 Millers. Lane approached. the Commission and stated that .if tble proposed
rezoning is granted, two existing residences will have to be demolished. If this is allowed, the door
is. open to developers to come into any residential neighborhood and remove homes for commercial
purposes. Mr. Jordan continued that the widening of F M 2818 has devalued his property for
residential.purposes. This area was originally planned for residential use and. should continue as
residen tial.
c. A. Bertrand. of. 120 Millers Lane approached the Commission and stated that he sees both sides
of the arguments presented.. .. .He stated that he owns the maJority . of the property inqluestionand
has lived in this area for thirty-five years. . Mr. Bertrand stated that he is familiar with t]le proposed
development and does not have a problem with this particular rezoning request. HO'Never, he is
concerned with allowing commercial uses along the .entire F M2818extension .and allowing strip
development. The residential character of the area should be preserved and can be with the
proposed buffering associated with the proposed development.
Chairperson Hawthorne closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mariottmoved to recommend approval of the 'rezoning request for nine tracts
totalling 38.23 acres located along the southside.ofthe FM2818 extension at the E~ast By Pass
from R-l single family residential toC-l general commercial with all recommendations outlined by
staff. Commissioner. Lane seconded the motion..
Commissioner Hallexpress~dconcem of going against the plan that staff, the Commission and City
Council put so. much tim.e and effort into developing. He stateJd that he has a strong sense that the
City Council wanted .this ..particular land. use plan and he would need more directio~n from the
Council before taking action on this particular rezoning request. Commissioner Hall stated that the
city has the opportunity to provide another pleasing entrance along a primarily vacant major
thoroughfare like . University Drive. The entire purpose of the FM 2818 Study was to be prepared
for development pressures along this corridor. Commissioner . Hall also expressed concern of the
environmental impacts of this size and type of development located so close to the creek:.
Chairperson Hawthorne stated that he met with Mr. Doucet this afternoon to discuss this particular
request. Hestate.dthat. he was a member of the subcommittee that worked on. theF M:2818 Study
and. feels .that we do have. direction from City Council. The proposed land use plan that the
Commission forwarded to City Council had more retail commercial uses and higher density areas.
The City Council had problem.s with that proposal and revised the proposed land use plan.
p.& Z .Minutes
Jan uary 21, 1993
Page 5"
Chairperson Hawthorlle stated that he . is not a nti.,pusiness; however, College Station is a rapidly
growing community and we should .beawareof<that fact and should have a . goal to attract
businesses in.. the appropriate locations. . He expressed>concer-n of deviating from the proposed land
use plan that derived from public involvement and> staff working with the . Commission and City
Council. Before deviating from the plan at such.an early stage, we should first establish why we
should even reconsider the plan.
The motion to recommend . approval of the. rezoning request failed (2 - 5);Commissiollers Mariott
and Lane voted. in favor. of. the motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO...6: Consideration of a final amending plat of Chimney Hill Villas., (93-203)
Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and recom.mended app1roval of the
amending plat with the following conditions:
Access is limited to the rear access easement. This should be reflected in a note
on the plat.
A note on the plat should reflect a finished floor elevation for lot 11 to
adequately protect any structure from flooding due to storm sewer system
overflow.
Representative of the applicant Christian Galindo approached the Commission and offered to
answer any questions pertaining to the proposed amending plat.
Commissioner Mariottmoved to recommend approval of the final amending plat of C~himney Hill
Villas with staff recommendations. Commissioner .Gribou seconded the motion which passed
unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA. ITEM NO.7: Other business.
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjoum.
Commissioner Mariottmoved to.. adjourn the. meeting of . the Planning and Zoning (~ommission.
Commissioner Lane seconded. the motion which passed. unopposed (7 - .0).
A1TEST:
Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas
P& Z Minutes
January 21, 1993
APPROVED:
Chairperson, Kyle Hawthorne
Page. 6
.,' ...a
city Council Re~ular Meeting
February 11, 1993
Page 5
Mayor Ringer mentioned that the request is in conformance with
the zoning and parking standards. The question of security land
litter has been addressed as part of the conditional use permit,
and after consultation with the .legal counsel, there is not data
available to determine there are traffic or parking problems. In
hisopinion,.the.c()uncil hap no legal basis, to overturn the
granting of the conditional use permit, no matt~r how the council
may personally feel. about, the land use, or their feelings about
the distance between the bar and church. The council isbollnd to
actunde~ ..the laws of the state and city , unless the council can
define legal and valid reasons to deprive the us:e of this lc3.nd.
Howard Atkinson, 120.4 Westover addressed the Council about ,tha
purpose of the council's action. Mayor Ringer replied that the
zoning ordinance requires a procedure for appeals to be plac:ed
before the city council.
The motion to deny the conditional use permit failed by a v()te of
2-4.
FOR~ CouncilmembersBrown and Schneider
AGAINST: . MayoF Ringer, CouncilmembersMcIlhaney, Crouch,
McIlhaney. and Gardner
Councilman Crouch made a motion to uphold the Planning and Zon.ing
Commission's. decision to grant the conditional use permit with
conditions placed upon it by the Planning and Zoning Commis::;ion.
The motion was seconded by Councilman McIlhaney which carriE~d
/ 4-2.
FOR: Mayor "Ringer. ,.Counci lmembers Crouch, Ga"rdner, Mcl lhane~y
AGAINST: Counci'lmemb.ers Brown and Schneider
Aqe.nda Item No. 6. -Apublic hearinc(toconsider an ordinance
rezoninC(3S.14 acres from R-1SingleFamilvResidentialto C-1
General.. commercial. Property . located at the". southwest corne~r of
theinterse.ction<of 281'8 andSH ...6 East BVDass.
Senior Planner .Ja:ne Keeaddressed this item. This request hlas
major implications for the future Land Use Plan adopted last.
summer for the 2818 study area. Inparti,cular,the a.rea bou.nd by
the 2818exte~sion,TexasAvenue. and. Tributary A.. of Bee Creek.
.1 The request involves 38 acres in the most easterly part of t,he
I area... Thif; requ~st>also involves land thatwillil1clude,the
right of waY.dedication for the portion of. DartmoQth extension
that you adopted as part of the plan. The request is to rezone
38.14 acres from.. . R-l Single Famtlyto C-l Gene:ralCommercial.
The applicant is Doucet & Associates,. Inc. repres~nting owners of
nine tracts in the area. The land use plan adopted last summer
reflects the area fdroffice andmedium density residential uses.
This requestfor.C-l on. this particular Pfoperty.does not comply
with the land u$e,. element of the ComprehensivePlal1. The
original recommendation for. this study. area included office
commer.cialandhigh density residential uses in this area . .A.t
.. ..
city council Regular Meeting
February 11, 1993
Page 6
the pUblic hearings, tobalanc:ethe interest and varying opinion
that were voiced during those hearings, .the final council action
was to preserve the lower density residential character of the
larger stl.lQY area. Commercial development is not,inappropriate,
but it ,does not comply with the lCinduse element of the
comprehensive plan. , It would also not preserve areas in this
study area for residential development. This was one of the
motivating factors in the study.
Ms. Keepointedout that. commercial zoning is a valid concept at
this location. She. explained the net revenues for the. city and
school district.
Ms.Kee identified factors to interject as conditions if the
property is rezoned. These conditions areas follows:
a) the . property should be platted prior to the zoningibecom.ing
effectivei.and,
b) it. is important that th~ rezoning actions are in complia.nce
with all elements of the plan as possiblei and,
c) aCknowledgethatwear:eideviating from the Land Use Plan. as
adopted" and adopta. different concept.
Mayor Ringer opened the pU:bilic hearing.
Applicant John. .Doucet of 1301 capital of Texas Hwy. South in:
Austin, spoketo.the >Counci!l. He mentioned that he has sear'ched
for a year .to locate suita'bi1e property in college station to
build a WalmartSupercenteri. This particular s.ite has the
qualitie~ to bu~lda. store pf this capacity. He described t.he
benefits .forColle.gestatior if this development occurred . He
presented . slides of ,the area including Mile . Drive and existi,ng
comInercial' establishments. !
Mr. Douc~t r.ead a statement from his real estate broker , CB
Commercial which indicated . that College station .hasan .off ic~e
space vacancy rate. of 28perrcent . To achieveastabili.zed
healthy real estate market iWou1d require an occupancy rate at 95
percent. 395,000 sq:. ft. off additional space would have to be .
absorbed. cons;iQering th~~mount9f occupied space that has
remained for the/past severplyearsand theinumh>erof jobs
:!:"equired to fill the vacancfLes,it<is veryunlik~lythat any. new
'office space will be requi:r~dinthis marketinthenext.sev'eral
years.
Mr. . Doucet ,~1l.\pp.a.s>izeclthat ~hisintersection in>.his opinion is
the,best~~8qJr~ion~Qrret:ai~.d.evelopment in. tl1.isarea~ .. He
concluded'tl1.arb.ebelieved pis request is an appropriate use for
this area and. does not beli~vetl1.ere are adverse impacts to
adjacent property.
HeintrOdu.8ed/J"Op.n Clark of:WaIItla.rt, Brenda Lynqh, Keith storm,
and the landowners. Herec()gnizedmany individua.lsfrom Walmart.
city Council Regular Meeting
February1!, 1993
Page 7
Councilman Gardner asked Mr. Doucet to explain why they felti
there is a need for another store of this magnitude.
Mr. John ClarkofWalmartexplainedtheSupercenterstore
concept. Hecontinl..ledtostate that Bryan. .andCollege station
are markets.. lacking enough grocery store .toserve the .current
volume and growth. He mentioned that the WalmartCorp. will ask
for tax abatement from the city.
Keith Storm, General Manager of the College station Walmart
store, 3808 Goldfinch addressed the council in. support of the new
store. He referred to the rapid growth of residential
development.
Mr. Clint Bertrand, 120 Millers Lane, addressed the Council.
First, he preferred R-1 zqning,but accepted the fact that this
property will not remain residential for several reasc>ns. First,
the property serves. as a.single.use function and thei:proposed
request is appropriate.. Iie noted that he has placedisreveral
restrictions in. the agreeInent with Walmarttosell h.~~ property.
Secondly, the area has .. adeqt1~te. buffers . Thirdly,. h~. i believed
the project is desirable fo'r: this area and if this piqject does
not prevail, the land will not develop . right away. ,Another
advantage is that the city will benefit from the extertsion of
Dartmouth.
Larry Satterwhite, 2707 Normand spoke in favor of the rezoning
request. He currently owns a parcel of land along the 2818
extension.
Jay Don Watson of 609 Bob. White in. Bryan, representing the
Baptist Church LoanCorporat~on spoke to the Council. He
indicatedthe< .Churchdoes., not plan to locate at this. site and
recommended rezoning.
Gail Griffin :.of,108 Mile Drive, approached the Council and spoke
in....oppositi.on.. to the rezoni.ng.She....recognizedtheMile Drive
residents present... . .She expressed concern ab.outtheir land values
declining because the surrounding areas will become commercial.
She u.rgedthe. counciltofocu.sonthe . "quality of life" as an
important factor above any economic .. factors. . In summary, the
rezoningdoe.s not comply . Vlith,thecity' s plan. She complimented
the Council on their service to the community .
Councilman McIlhaney .asked.theMile Drive property owners if.. they
would be troubled ifthe?ouncil ,tabled this issue based on the
new proposal to integratei! one tract. andre-evaluate the existing
plan and comei>ack with a.i recommendation for the entire area.
M.s. Griffin repliedthCit 'tb.e, ,staff and property owners spent an
entire year looking. for tfiebestuseof the areao She did not
agree that another study ~hould be done.
city council Regular Meeting
February 11, 1993
Page 8
John Walter. of 2708 N.'Wilderness approached the Council. The
quality of life attracted his family to move to College Stat.tion.
He mentioned that the impact of the Supercenter willadverse!ly
affect the residential neighborhood. He urged the councilt.o
abide with the original plan.
Josie Peacher, 8705 Sandstone, addressed the Council. She s;poke
on concerns expressed to her by some of the Emerald Forest
homeowners. One .majorconcernisthetrafficvolume and the!
possibility of other bar establishments in the area.
John Jordan, 117 Millers Lan.e, came forward. He requested t~he
city council to retain the character of the area.
Al Boorman, 113 Mile Drive, addressed the Council about the
future of College station. He expressed concerns aboutC-1
zoning in the area and the adverse affects to the residents of
Mile Drive.
Lisa Cantrell, 107 Mile Drive, addressed the Council. She
recently purchased their home on Mile Drive. One of the bas~is
for purchasing this house was the Comprehensive Land Use PlaLn.
She.urged the.council to consider the current plan.
Craig Hall , 1702 Amber Ridge spoke to the Council. He expre~ssed
concern of deviating from the land use plan in such a short time
from its inception. Mr . Hall expressed concern about the t:r.affic
volume, the drainage and flooding problems.
Patrick Siegert, 8701 chippendale, of Clark & Wyndham Realt~r
.approache.d the Council to speak in favor of the rezoning req[uest..
He stated.thathe will soon request a rezoning change.fromA-P to
C-l on the property across ~!he street, approximately 40 acres.
Mr . seigert stated that bec~!1lse of the existing ,and proposed
infrastructure, both locati6ns are appropriate for retail use.
JohnCla.rk ofWalmart, Inc . ,in Arkansas ,real estate manage:r~ for
Texas came forward. H~alluciedto Walmart'sobjectives for
locating Supercenters> in Bry!~nand College station. He pointed
out. that both stores in B:rY~r and College station are above
company average. He respoIlc1jiedto comments made by the citi2:ens
andexpressedfurtherconune~tsabout the gr.owth materializiIlg in
College station.
Gail Griffin addressed the Council. .. She referred to the out:lying
communities, who work and gO,:ro school. here . The media . recently
mentioned there is a need ifq:r residential development here and
sheagreedthattnere is a; 9!reater need for residential thaIl
office or commercial.
Al Boorman asked if the deed restrictions have precedent ove~r
plats. Asst. city Attorney ::Nemcikreplied that he is correct,
unles.s it is an illegal deed restriction. Mayor Ringer adde~d
city Council Regular Meeting
February 11., 1993
Page 9
that the city cannot enforce deed .restrictions. .. .Ifthisproperty
is rezoned, the staff recommended that the rezoning be contingent
upon.the propertybeingplatt.ed and to administer this plat as a
single building site.
John Walter came forward . He pointed out it doe.s not seem right
fora large corporation to ask a city to make adjustments.
Jason Bryan, a resident of Bryan spoke to the Council. He asked
theWalmart representatives what type of store would occupy 'the
vacant building. . Mr. Clark~re;plied that there . are other typ1es of
retai lers that would not be ..in competition with Walmart, and some
ha.vecontactedWalmart for lea-se of the bui lding . Mr. Bryan
agreed with the position of the homeowners.
Mayor Ringer closed the public hearing.
Agenda Item No .7,- ... Consideration of an ordinance rezoning 3~B .14
acres from ..R-lsingle Family Residential to C-1 General
Commercial.
Councilman Schneider moved to approve the rezoning request f:~om
R-l Single Family ResidentialtoC-1 General Commercial and
follow the staff recommendations as follows.
1. Property should be platted prior to the zoning becoming
effective.
2. Acknowledge that the council will deviate from the Land lUse
Planas adopted and adopt a different con.cept.
3. The plat should be consider as integrated property as once.
building lot. .
4 . Acknowledge that this rezoning is a revision ofa land u::;e
element of the comprehensive Plan.
Councilman Crouch .seconded. the motion.
Councilman Brown made a motion to table this item and recons~ider
this item on the March 25th agenda to allow the council to
revisit. the land use plan.
Councilman McIlhaney seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-1, Councilman Gardner votillg
agains.t .
Mayor Ringer announced that on the February 24thcouncilagellda,
discussion will' beheld on .theLand Use Plan.
Councilman McIlhaney asked staff to provide information on tile-
University Drive.. corridor 0
Mr. Clark mentioned to the Council that this action of the
council willdelaytheir.proj'ect until next year.
Wa.stewatersuperintendent Bill Riley introduced this item. H~
. briefed the Council on the affects of the operatiohwit.h .regard.
to the new regulations.
l
Lawrence Carter, Wastewater Operations. Manager addressed the
council. Effective October 1,1995, the Texas Water Commission
will require a permit with more restrictions and new
requirements. The <Environmental Protection Agency has also set
limitations on the operation of the sludge handling and disposal.
In order to satisfy the necessary requirements, the staff
reconunend.ed a comprehensive evaluation which will. address three
objectives.
1. Fulfill Immediate Needs
2. Plan for Long Range Growth
3. Evaluate the entire Wastewater System
Mr. Riley mentioned that monies were available in the budget for
the improvements necessary to comply with the mandated
requirements. However, the .staffdid not know the cost of the
total improvements.
Aqenda Item No. 3 - Discussion of
senior Planner Jane Keepresented this item. She began her
presentation by summarizing the four objectives established in
the land use plan adopted last year. The first objective was to
look at the study area, the golden triangle area ,and det.ermine
whether or not the area was viable for low density residential
housi;ng. The second objective was to avoid strip commercial
development along the new 2818 Corridor, to avoid the kind of
situations that exist.al'ongHighway 30 and the majority of Texas
Avenue. Another objective was to look at FM 2818 as an entryway,
\,
She
changes occurred. in
if
Mayor Ringer raised several issues~ Fir~t, if the land use.plan
were changed,. hoVl would we.protect the .integrity.ofthe
residential area from encroachment and we would also need .to
provide mechanisms for a buffer. Another issue . was . that challges
should be well considered and a plan should accammodat.e chan~le.
He emphasized that the council has to decide on the most .
appropriate and best use of the land.
Councilman Crouch served as a member of the subcommittee who
studied the land use plan last year. She stated there were
several property owners. in the. area .and the concern of thegl::"oup
, at that time was that it would be difficult toenvisionthesE~
properties as one large commercial tract. In addition, the
m~difications made to the plan were ba~edonthe residential
property owner's comments. Ms'. Crouch pointed out that it
appeared some of the property owners have changed. their mindf;
since their input last year. To explain her viewpoint furtller,
she referred to the fiscal indicators report. She concluded that
changing the adopted plan may be a logical solution based on the
reasons she stated.
Councilman McIlhaney.strongly .urged.the council to keep in mind
what th'e council sees as the focus of our community .
Councilman Kennadyremarked that.a balance between economic
development and quality of life is important. He directed
questio'ns. to other councilmembers.
Mayor Ringer responded to Councilman Kennady's question abou1:.
revenues. ..Based on studies , revenues generated to the city 1:rom
residential uses does not offset the cost for services.
Councilman Schneiderra~sed a question regarding the consequE~nces
of no,trezoningthe property.
Mayor Ringer addressed two concerns. First, the protection of
buffer zones; and, second, the other types of permissible
'\
Councilman McIlhaney expressed her concern of the intersectic>n at
Emerald Parkway and the Ea.st Bypass, regardless of theoutcolne in
this rezoning case~ A traffic light at the intersection is
important. Again,she..expr~esS?ed the need for an entryway .tothe
community.
Councilman Crouch maintained that the best use of the area
commercial.
; C"
..L ..:>>
After further discussion, Mayor Ringer asked the council if t:hey
wished to place onafuture agenda consideration of amendment: to.
the land use plan. CquncilmanMcIlhaney suggested a joint
meeting., with the Planning and. Zoning ~Commission. The counciJL
cc;>ncurred to hold a special meeting. Mayor Ringer added that:
discussion of the land use plan shall be placed on the March 24th
council meeting.
CUJ:rent
Councilman Crouch commented that this topic derived from the
Community Appearance Committee. Discussion .washeld on diffE~rent
shopping centers developed prior to the landscape ordinance, and
ways to bring them into compliance.
City Manager Ragland suggested the staff work with a council
subcommittee to look at different concepts. Mayor Ringeras~~ed
the Community Appearance Committee to work on this project.
Councilman Mcllhaney stated that the city Affairs SubcommittE~e
met with the CSISD Subcommittee to discuss this item. The BI~yan
ISD. hppes to retain John Carver for a one .day seminar. . Thec)ther
entities would be invited and asked to share in the cost. The