Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/1982 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission August lg, 1982 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Behling, Commissioners Kelly, Fleming, Hall, Miller, Bailey & Hill; also Council Liaison Prause MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst Director of Planning Callaway, Planning Assistant Longley, Zoning Official Kee, and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes meeting of August 5, 1982 Commissioner Hall referred to a statement he made at the bottom of page 2 which indi- cates that he was not concerned about minimum standards, and said that he had stated that minimum standards "were not an issue" rather than that which was recorded. With that change, Mr. Hall made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Fleming seconded. Motion carried unanimously, with 3 abstentions (Behling, Hiil ~ Bailey). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. • At this time Mr. Behling announced that Item No. 17 on this agenda, "Discussion of Problems encountered with the Development of Higher Intensity Uses in Shopping Centers and the effects on Parking Lots" would be deferred to the Development Control Review Committee and the Planning and .Zoning Commission in a joint workshop, and would not be heard tonight. AGENDA ITEM NO 3~ 82-714: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a new church facilit located near the corner of Southwood Drive and F M 2818 1300 F.M.Road 2818 Application is in the name of Friends United Church of Christ. Mr. Callaway presented the site plan for which the permit is requested and reported that staff recommends approval with P.R.C. recommendations. Public hearing was opened; no one spoke; public hearing closed. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the request with the P.R.C. recommendations being met; Mr. Bailey seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 82-715: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a new church facility located on the east side of Highway 6 Bypass East, approximately 3000 feet south of Raintree Drive. Application is in the name of Aldersgate United Methodist Church. Mr. Callaway presented the site plan for which the permit is requested, and reported that staff recommends that if this permit is approved, it be done with all P.R.C. recommendations being met. Public hearing was opened. Pat Rogers, architect of the • project spoke briefly in favor of the project. No one else spoke. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller asked about the site plan, and asked if the P.R.C. report which referred to reviewing site plan should have read "Conditional Use Permit" instead. Mr. Mayo PAZ Minutes 8-1g-82 I page 2 explained that what is shown on the plan the Commission has, is the revised site plan which depicts just what the conditional use permit is for. Mr. Bailey asked about ac- • cess, and Mayo said that the revised site plan they have in hand reflects the note requested by P.R.C. Mr. Hall asked how far the Northern most entrance is from Westing- house, and Larry Wells, a representative from the engineering firm which furnished the drawings answered that it was 575 feet. Mr. Hall then made a motion to approve the permit request with all P.R.C. recommendations being met. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 82-713: Consideration of rantin a Conditional Use Permit fora Day Care Center in the home at 201 Langford for a maximum of -9 children. Application is in the name of Andrea Mills. Mr. Behling announced that the public hearing had been held previously, but the Com- mission would hear additional public comments tonight since 3 commissioners had been absent at the last meeting. Ron Kaiser, a friend of the Mills, asked to put up a map of the neighborhood (request granted), then explained the color coded map. He asked that the commissioners address the issues rather than who was for and who was against the issuance of this permit. He listed what he believed to be the issues, and gave answers to each of these, then stated that the Mills would consider a compromise, that being to limit the number of children at the day care center to 6, under the age of 14 years, which would probably represent the lowest level of disruption of the neighborhood caused by any home occupation. Andrea Mills then spoke, and presented pictures of the home to the Commission, gave 'I some background to the day care center, and stated that she was sorry this has caused so much trouble in the neighborhood. • Nadine Stuth, Shanna Yates, Fred de Atrophia, Karen Kryton, Nora Lee Hatch and Kathy Wheeler each came forward separately to speak in favor of the day care center. Mike Walterscheidt and Libby Vastano came forward to speak as opponents to the day care center. Kay Hesby informed the Commission that Mr. Walterscheidt had acted as spokesman for the opponents, and Mrs. Vastano had explained her own home business which is in the neighborhood. Mr. Behling asked for a show of hands from the people at the public hearing represent- ing both those for, then those against the day care center, and indicated that he was not counting hands, but merely getting a feel of public opinion. Mr. Kaiser asked that the Commission keep in mind that numbers alone were not important, but rather the health, welfare and safety of the neighborhood are the main concerns. Mr. .Fleming asked Mr. Kaiser if he thought the Mills would consider an age limit of the children lower than 12 years. Mr. Ha 11 asked Mrs. Mills if she would mind limiting the number of children to 6, to which she replied that would be agreeable with her. Mr. Behling asked Mr. Callaway if the Ordinance allows imposing number of children or a time limit for the issuance of the permit. Mr. Callaway said either would be allowable. Mr. Bailey wondered why this had become a problem after she had been operating the center for a whole year, and then stated that in the future, he would prefer petitions rather than individual letters from citizens concerned. Mr. Hill asked if this request was for 6 children per day or 6 children in attendance at any given time. Mr. Behling informed him that 6 at any given time would be the only way to control the number. Mr. Miller said that it was his opinion that age of the children was not relevant to this • request. Mr. Hall then made some comments to the public, which included that the number of oppo- nents to the permit seemed to outweigh those in favor, the interest .shown in this sub- ject was gratifying to the Commission, and that the 54 signatures on the petition opposing PAZ Minutes 8-19-82 page 3 the permit were apparently of the opinion that this day care center could be injurious to the neighborhood. Those people in favor of this permit have indicated this center • would cause no inconvenience in the neighborhood, but those residents in the neighbor- hood have said that the noise and traffic have increased. In addressing the issue of property values, some have indicated the center would hurt them, some have said they would not be hurt, but none have stated that this day care center would enhance the values of residences in the neighborhood. Concerning deed restrictions which have been mentioned, Mr. Hall stated that although this Commission is not a body to enforce deed restrictions, it should be taken into consideration that the people who own property in this neighborhood had bought their property thinking that the deed restrictions would be effective. He further continued that it was his opinion that it would be hard to deny an additional amount of children in the future if the Commission would agree to allow Mrs. Mills to have 6 children now. He stated that this is a business in a neighborhood, and that the Commission can only regulate this type in this location, but there could perhaps be the possibility of having more requests for day care centers since the demand seems to be so great. He then addressed the issue of safety and said that there are no sidewalks in this neighborhood,. and at least some traffic would be added which could be construed as being offensive because the Langford cul-de-sac was not designed for heavy traffic and those people who bought property on a cul-de-sac expected traffic only to be to the homes in this strict residential neighborhood. He then pointed out that the issue was not whether the Commission was in favor of this day care center,or if Mrs. Mills is a good babysitter, but rather if she should be allowed to have more than 3 children in her home to care for, for money, at a time. Mr. Hall then made a motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Fleming seconded the motion. Mr. Miller then discussed the issue, saying that relevant points had been made by both sides, but that this particular neighborhood is different because of the • traffic from the location of the high school, the large number of children living on the street, and the fact that there are other businesses already operating in this neighborhood. Mr. Fleming pointed out that people who bought property in this neigh- borhood knew in advance that the high school was there and would be adding to the traf- fic count, but they did not know in advance of their purchase about a day care center. He then addressed the businesses already operating in the neighborhood stating that they were permissible, but that this day care center was not permissible for over 3 children. Mr. Miller said that it was his opinion that if she continued with only 3 children, or was allowed to have a maximum of 6 children, that nothing will change in the neighborhood. At this point, Mr. Behling urged residents who had questions concerning deed restrictions to pursue that through the proper channels. Votes were then cast: 3 commissioners voting in favor to deny the conditional use per- mit; 4 commissioners voting against the motion to deny the permit. Motion failed. Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to Andrea Mills which limits the number of children in attendance to 6 children, and with a further stipulation that a fence must be completed on both sides of the house facing Langford. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-3. Mr. Behling then declared a short recess. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 82-133: A public hearing on the question of rezoning approxi- mately 16.16 acres on the south side of Southwest Parkway approximately 600 feet east • of Texas Avenue, from Single Family Residential District R-1 to Planned Commercial Dis- trict C-3 and Administrative Professional District A-P. Application is in the name of Morris F. Hamilton, Jr. Mr. Kelly excused himself from the Commission. PAZ Minutes 8-1g-82 page 4 Mr. Callaway presented the request and located the land in question on a map. He then pointed out the Land Use Recommendation Map, and informed the Commission that staff • recommends that the land use recommendations be upheld and the requested A-P land should be R-3 (or R-4 or R-5 if the sewer capacity can handle it), and the requested C-3 should be A-P. Mr. Bailey asked about a creek in the area, and Mr. Callaway located it on the map. Mr. Hall asked why the application for the rezoning had not been completely filled out and stated that he prefers that all blanks be completed because he finds the comments on the application enlightening when study- ing the request. He went on to ask Mr. Calla4~ray if staff's recommendations had been discussed with the applicant, to which Mr. Callaway replied that they had been discussed with the applicant's representative. At this time Mr. Mayo interjected that the size of the requested C-3 land was entirely too large and that the purpose of establishing C-3 zoning was to accommodate tracts of land smaller than those necessary to accommodate C-1 businesses. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Callaway if staff would have made these recommendations without the sewer information to which Mr. Callaway replied that staff would not recommend any initiation by the PAZ at this time. The public hearing was opened. Ron Cruse spoke in favor of the rezoning as a representa- tive of the owner of the property. He gave the background to the request and listed the reasons the initial requested rezoning had been changed to this request. He stated that a requested R-5 zoning for 10.168 acres had been changed to A-P because the combina- tion of the creek and A-P zoning would be good buffer area. Mr. Hall asked about the 6 acres left, and Mr. Cruse said t-hat originally C-1 had been requested, and the appli- cant had heard the concerns the Council and staff had about high traffic, and then changed the request to C-3 for a small shopping center. Mr. Hall then said that the discussion of Agenda Item No. 18 might have a bearing on he outcome of this request. • Mr. Hall asked Mr. Hamilton if he would be able to use the entire 16 acres for A-P and Mr. Hamilton said that he could not answer that right now. Then Mr. Hill said that since Mr. Hamilton's plans are indefinite right now, would he consider making 10 acres A-P and leaving the other 6 acres as is until the plans are firm, to which Mr. Hamilton agreed. Mr. Behling closed the public hearing and then advised Mr. Hill that he would prefer to come up with something for the entire 16.168 acres. Mr. Bailey said that he believed that this area has been sufficiently studied and that the consensus was that no more commercially zoned land was needed in this area. Mr. Miller agreed stating that he had helped with the study for almost a year and that the plan arrived upon was for medium- type residential zoning for his area, and that he does not see the need for any addi- tional commercial or A-P zoning here. He went on to say there is lots of unoccupied commercially zoned space available right there in the area. Mr. Miller made a motion to deny the request based on staff warnings of overloading the sewer capacity and his personal feelings that no more commercially zoned land is necessary in that area. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried with 5 votes in favor to deny, 1 against (Behling) and 1 abstention (Kelly). Staff was instructed to take this rezoning request to the Council with a negative recommendation. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 82-132: A ublic hearin on the uestion of rezonin 4 tracts of land containin a total of .5 acres and located north of the intersection of Texas Avenue and State Highway Bypass in an area bounded by Texas Avenue, State Hwy. By- pass, and the southern boundary of the Bernadine Estates Subdivision, from District • C-1 General Commercial and District A-P Administrative Professional to District A-P Administrative Professional. This action has been initiated by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of College Station. Mr. Callaway gave the background of the zoning of this land and located the 4 tracts P&Z Minutes 8-19-82 page 5 (according to tax records) and spoke of the petition from residents opposing commercial development, stating that as a result of that petition, a study had followed and the • results had been reported to both the Commission and the Council. He further stated that in considering the rezoning of this property, the Commission should address 3 areas: (1)Was the previous rezoning in error?; (2)Have changed or changing conditions in the area created a need for rezoning?; and (3)Would the rezoning of the property better comply with the comprehensive plan for the City. He explained in addressing the first area, that a particular project and plat had been discussed at the prior rezoning hearings. In addressing the second area, he indicated that C-1 and A-P land nearby with better access had been provided, and in the third area, he said that the land use recommendation study, which had been presented and approved, would sup- port rezoning this tract to district A-P Administrative-Professional. The public hearing was opened. John Haney, owner of 6.9 acres of the land in question spoke and indicated that he was opposed to changes in zoning, because he had bought his land with the condition of existing C-1 and A-P zoning, and pleaded financial disaster if this zoning is now changed. He asked why this issue had not been resolved prior to this time since the current zoning had been in effect a long time. Mr. Miller asked if he understood that the use of a property was not taken into consideration at the time of C-1 and A-P zoning, and he replied that the land he bought was zoned at the time of purchase for what he proposed to build. Mr. Miller then asked if he had been aware that there might be technical difficulties on a project which might not be covered in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Haney said that he thought that zoning was done for commercial, residential or whatever as zoning, with no regard for a parti- cular project. Mr. Hall asked if he had consulted with staff before purchasing the land, to which he replied that he had not and that he does not, after such a long time, understand the need for a zoning change.. Mr. Hall explained that the City is now going • through a revision of all of the zoning and that many people might be affected by pro- posed changes. Mr. Haney said that he believed there must be .some tolerance and variances granted for people caught in his position. Gail Griffin spoke as a resident of the neighborhood who is in support of the PAZ initiated rezoning. She said that when they bought their home 18 years ago, the area was zoned R-l, and that all changes since that time came about because "somebody did not want to lose money." She further stated that a commercial development would add so much traffic that it would probably become the most dangerous intersection in College Station (intersection of Texas Avenue and the Feeder Road from the Bypass). She said that she could live with A-P zoning, however. Al Borman, also a resident of the neighborhood stated that he would not oppose this rezoning proposal for A-P zoning. Les Palmer, attorney for John Haney spoke and stated that the new maps fail to show the entire intersection. He said that the new Plan 2000 points to developing major inter- sections for C-1 and also for C-1 to be along major thoroughfares, and was in opposition to strip zoning. He said that this intersection would meet this criteria, and that the change in the conditions in the area were not at this intersection, but rather on down Texas Avenue. It is his contention that the current zoning complies with the comprehensive plan. He then gave background history stating that in 1978 the owner of the land came before the Commission with a request for A-P and C-1 zoning, and at that time all residents signed the petition in opposition, and that any new residents in the area already had A-P and C-1 zoning when they bought their land. He went on • to explain that the approved A-P and C-1 zoning had a condition that a 25 ft. easement (utility) plus a 15 ft. setback would be required. The zoning maps came out showing A-P and C-1 zoning and the Zoning Ordinance defines this map as the final authority on zoning. If this is not so, it puts people in a helpless position. He went on to say that J.W.Brewster conducted a study and reported it (this land) to have strong PAZ Minutes 8-19-82 page 6 commercial potential. Mr. Haney had purchased property which had been zoned A-P/C-1 for 3 years and then found that the 25 ft. utility easement had not been conveyed to • the City, so he deeded it very quickly to comply with the current zoning. Mr. Haney has complied, and has invested in excess of $600,000 in this property and has had site plans for the proposed projects tabled indefinitely. Gail Griffin spoke again and addressdthe 25 ft. setback, saying the Mayor (at the time) said he would not sign the rezoning Ordinance until that easement had been conveyed, therefore it was not legally changed until Mr. Haney conveyed the easement in 1982. Mr. Borman addressed a question to Mr. Palmer, asking if all residents had opposed the A-P/C-1 zoning, and the attorney answered in the affirmative. Mr. Borman corrected him stating the petition was to oppose C-1 for the entire property, and then the resi- dents agreed to A-P/C-1 zoning. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller requested clarification, and asked if the rezoning to A-P/C-1 had not been official until March of 1982. Mr. Mayo and Mr. Kelly answered in the affirmative, stating that it had become official only after the easement had been conveyed. Mr.Hill said that apparently the maps mistakenly showed A-P/C-1 zoning, and that it was his opinion that the City made a mistake. Mr. Bailey pointed out that the rezoning had been done for a particular project, and therefore, had been done in error. He further stated that he believes this development of A-P/C-1 would be "spot development" rather than "strip development." Mr. Miller stated that he sees a potential traffic flow problem with commercial development there. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Mayo if the newest comprehensive plan for the City has a plan incorporated to have commercial development at that location changed, to which Mr. Mayo replied that the City is in the process • of having public hearings of the same plan as presented. but including recommendations from staff, PAZ and some citizens to remove some commercial tracts. He said the Council will look at all these recommendations, and then decide on a final plan. Mr. Hill agrees that people who had bought R-1 zoned land there had expected that, but now the Commission has to take into consideration someone who had bought land zoned a certain way and begun a project, and he personally would feel bad if this rezoning was approved now.. Mr. Hall said he believed that was a valid point, and that new investors are encouraged and welcomed here, but that he also believes that in some cases the future of the City should be more important, and that he would support the rezoning of this particular land. Mr. Hall then made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning of this land as pre- sented in the numbered agenda item (7). Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-3. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: 82-314: A Preliminary Plat - Lord's Acres - 27.76 Acres in the Morgan Rector League. Mr. Mayo presented this plat and pointed out that the presubmission report was included and that staff recommends approval. Mr. Miller asked what the current zoning of this land is, to which Mayo replied that it is currently zoned R-1 and A-0. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve with Mr. Bailey seconding. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: 82-131: A Final Plat - Planned Unit Development District • No. 2 - Bandera Corp oration. Mr. Mayo reported that staff recommends approval of this final plat and plans for the PUD with a note to be included on the plat on undeveloped lots to read "Reserved for Future Subdivision". Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve the plat, with the condition the note be included and Mr. Miller seconded. Motion carried unanimously. PAZ Minutes 8-1g-82 page 7 • • AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: 82-236: Final Plat - Lots 2 ~ Part of Lot 3, Block 2 Bernadine Estates. Mr. Mayo explained and stated that staff recommends approval. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the plat with Mr. Fleming seconding. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: 82-238: Final Plat (Resubdivision of Part of Block 1) Breezy Heights Addition. Mr. Mayo presented, gave background of this land and indicated staff recommends appro- val. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the plat with Mr. Hall seconding. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: 82-239: Final Plat - Vacating ~ Re-Subdivision of Lots 61 ~ 75, Block 6, Southwood Terrace, Section 3C. Mr. Mayo presented the request stating staff recommends approval. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve with Mr. Miller seconding. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 13: 82-237: Final Plat - Replat of University Park II. Mr. Mayo presented, saying staff recommends approval. Mr. Bailey made a motion to approve but with a note on the plat to deny access from Lot 13 to University Drive. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 14: 82-531: Consideration of a Site Plan for Spring Loop 4-plexes located in University Park, Section II, Block T, Lots 1-6. Mr. Mayo pointed out that all P.R.C. recommendations had been met, therefore staff recommends approval. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve with Mr. Bailey seconding. Mr. Miller questioned what would happen if the existing large trees died and Mr. Mayo said that as the Ordinance reads, should an existing tree die, the developer is responsible for replacing it upon notice from the City. Votes were cast, with plan being approved unanimously. AGENDA ITEM N0. 15: 82-435: Consideration of a Parking Lot Plan fora Com- mercial Development at University Drive and Tarrow. Mr. Mayo explained the plan, pointing out that P.R.C. had recommended that dock areas have an island on either side, which would be taken out of the parking area. P.R.C. also recommended that rows of parking in excess of 20 spaces should be broken with islands, and that other than these two items which had not been met, staff recommends approval. Mr. Hall asked if all the recommended islands should be landscaped, and Mr. Mayo replied that it would 6e up to the Commission, but that the islands adjacent to the dock areas would be difficult to maintain. Mr. Behling asked if a screening fence would be required and Mr. Mayo said that the Zoning Ordinance would require one. Mr. Bailey asked about the number and location of the fire hydrants, and Mr. Mayo replied that the developers had met with the Fire Marshall, and he assumes they had complied with his recommendations, but that he would suggest the hydrants be in an island. Mr. Hill asked about signs, and Mr. Mayo said that Lot B will be allowed 1 detached Sign, and the remainder of this tract will be allowed only a total of one additional detached sign. • Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the plan with P.R.C. recommendations being met, and that in addition to this, there must be a raised curb island on each side of each service area, and 2 additional islands must be established on the east property line; 1 on the end of the parking row, and one interior island, and that these last 2 islands must be landscaped and include a tree. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion. Motion carried PAZ Minutes 8-19-82 page 8 unanimously. Mr. Mayo was instructed to contact the developer with these changes. AGENDA ITEM N0. 16: 82-434: Consideration of a Parkin Lot Plan for Taco Bell on Harvey Road. Mr. Mayo presented the background of this parking lot, and reported that staff disap- proves of the proposal, thus it has came before the PAZ for ruling. Mr. Bailey moved to keep the landscaping area and disapproval of the requested plan as presented. Mr. Hill asked if they had to plant a tree. Mr. Mayo said they do, and a 2-4" Oak would be preferred. Mr. Bailey withdrew his original motion; then he made another motion to deny the request. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Motion to deny request carried unanimously. Larry Hayes asked to speak as a representative of Taco Bell. He said that some fast food restaurants don't have as much landscaping as the Taco Bell and spoke of reasons for the proposed change. Mr. Hill asked if any alternative landscaping plan could be provided, and indicated if additional landscaping were provided in front there might be the possibility of then allowing the 2 additional requested parking spaces. Mr. Behling stated if the Taco Bell people would contact some of the PAZ Commissioners, they would be happy to help develop an alternative plan which might be acceptable. AGENDA ITEM N0. 17: This item deleted from the a enda as announced earlier. AGENDA ITEM N0. 18: Discussion of Potential Problems with C-3 Zoning. Mr. Mayo stated that in his opinion, C-3 zoning was established to accommodate small businesses on tracts of land too small to accommodate regular listed uses in C-1 zoning. He gave an example of the Jordan's .954 acres which had recently been rezoned to C-3 for her use as a nursery/greenhouse, and added that this use should be included as a permitted use on the list in the Zoning Ordinance, but he further believes that this use should be confined to a maximum one acre site size. Mr. Miller asked if the Commission can add to the list of permitted uses, could they also delete something. This question was never definitely answered in the discussion, and Mr. Kelly thinks it should be defined. Mr. Hall questioned restricting the size of a tract for one parti- cular use only. Mr. Mayo further explained the purpose of C-3 zoning as being for small commercial uses and low traffic generators. Mr. Hall asked if an acreage maximum allowed in C-3 zones is what the staff is recommending. Mr. Mayo confirmed, and sug- gested that perhaps 2-3 acre maximum would be ideal. Mr. Hill made a motion to add nursery/plant sales to the list of permitted uses in C-3 zoning. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Miller asked again about an acreage limit in C-3 zoning, and also suggested that perhaps "shopping center" should be deleted from the list of permitted uses. Mr. Mayo agreed that perhaps it should be deleted, or perhaps left in the list with special conditions added, as well as a maximum area. He went on to report that the item on the list, "Repair shops" originally meant small repair shops, such as radio, TV, small appliance repairs (things on a small scale), but this meaning is not conveyed anywhere and could, perhaps, cause a problem in the future, therefore an amendment to the Ordinance might be in order. Mr. Miller said that he thought C-3 zones should be limited to 2 acre development. • Mr. Bailey made a motion to direct staff to rework C-3 zoning in regard to size and permitted uses to be included. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Mr. Hill wanted to add to the motion that the last sentence be deleted from the list of permitted uses. Motion carried unanimously. Staff was directed to so advertise the change or amend- ment to the Ordinance. P&Z Minutes 8-19-82 Page 9 AGENDA ITEM N0. lg: Other business. • Mr. Behling announced the next public hearing for the Plan 2000 would be at the regular meeting of the City Council on August 26th at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM N0. 20: Adjourn. Mr. Kelly made a motion to adjourn; Mr. Miller seconded. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED: .7