Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/02/1984 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionS MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 1984 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Members Kaiser, Miller, Bailey, Martyn ~ Kelly MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Hansen STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, City Attorney Denton, Asst. Zoning Official Dupies, Forester Ploeger and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0, 1: Approval of Minutes - January 19, 1984 Mr. Bailey referred to A~ "be". He also requested specifically referred to Assistant City Attorney. Item #6 and was Informed Mr. Bailey made a motion 5-0-1 (Hill abstained). 3enda Item #5, top of page 3 and requested changing "is" to inclusion of titles of city employees in the future, and the reference to "Mrs. Locke" in Agenda Item #6, who is the Mr. Martyn questioned. the results of the votes cast on Agenda that the results as shown are correct. With those changes, to approve the minutes with Mr. Kelly seconding. Motion carried AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors • No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 84-101; A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 38.68 acre tract of land in the Richard Garter Lea ue, located ap roximately 300 teet east of SHb East Bypass and 200 feet north of SH30 Harvey Road from R-6 Apartments High Density and R-7 Mobile Home Park to General Commercial District C-l. Application is in the name of Frank Thurmond. Mr. Callaway located the land in question, pointed out the location of the flood plain on this land and stated the Comprehensive Plan reflects this land for commercial uses although the amount of land in question is larger than the Plan proposes. He further stated that. approval of this request would increase the depth of the existing commercial zoning at this intersection which would be consistant with the City's commercial develop- ment policies, and would also eliminate potential conflicts between the adjacent C-2 and R-6 and R-7 areas, Mr. Miller asked how far the flood plain extends eastward, and Mr. Callaway replied that he did not know the exact location, but that some of the land is In the flood plain and some is In the flood way. He added that access would have to be through the existing C-1 area so some shared access would be required. Mr. Bailey asked how deep the existing C-1 area is and Mr. Callaway stated it is now 200 feet deep. The public hearing was opened. Greg Morgan of Spencer Buchanan and Associates, repre- senting the applicant, came forward adding that the proposed C-1 land and the existing C-1 land would be developed jointly as both tracts are under the same ownership. Frank Thurmond, applicant, came forward stating that he also owns the property at the . corner of SH30 and SH6, and had been notified by mail of this rezoning proposal, and further that he has no objection to this request. He indicated the parking would be in the flood plain. Mr. Bailey asked who the owner of the land is, and Mr. Thurmond PAZ Minutes 2-2-84 page 2 answered .that all fo this land is owned by Mr. Wheeler, and much of the land is zoned R-1. Mr. Hill stated that this Commission would expect a joint development plan from the applicant in the future. No one else spoke.. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Bailey said that the problem he has with this rezoning is that he thinks more land should be Pncluded in this request just to clean up the area even though parts of the land would not be developable. Mr. Miller said that staff always recommends large commercial development at major intersections, and granted this would help increase the existing 200 foot depth of commercially zoned land at this intersection, but he is unsure that this amount of C-1 land is necessary and perhaps a small A-P tract would be better. Mr. Hi11 stated that this Commission should not decide on marketability of land, but rather if a rezoning .request complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martyn said he has several concerns with this request including the size of the tract and that particular location for C-1 development may increase the traffic problem at that intersection which already has a particularly bad problem. Mr. Hi11 pointed out that the State Highway Department is involved fn renovation at this Intersection which will substantially improve the traffic conditions there, Mr. Martyn speculated that no big changes will take place but Mr, Bailey and Mr. Hill disagreed, stating that the highway would be widened, the ramps were being moved and the signa1izaton would then be connected. Mr. Mayo stated there 1s really no way to compare the existing conditions to the possible future condi- tions after the renovations are complete. Mr. Martyn asked what type of access might be given to this tract and Mr. Mayo replied that the Comprehensive Plan says access will be one every 500 feet, Mr. Miller asked who the owner of the tract west of this tract 'rs, and Mr. Thurmond offered information from the floor that all this has common ownership, to which Mr. Miller replied that he has less concern about the development of the land now. Mr. Kelly speculated that the drive into the C-2 tract might now be eliminated. Mr. Bailey made a motion to recommend approval of this C-1 zoning request to the Council with Mr. Ke11y seconding. Motion carried 5-1 (Martyn), AGENDA ITEM N0, 4: 84-102: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 14.489 acre tract in the Richard Carter Survey, located on the east side of SH 6 East Bypass approxi- mately 1700 feet north of the intersection of SH and SH30 Harvey Road from Single Family ResidentFa) Districfi R-1 to General Commercial District C-1. Application is in the name of Joe A, Ferreri. Mr. Callaway located and described the land, pointed out area zoning and stated that the area is predominantly vacant now. He stated that this area is reflected as A-P zoning on the Comprehensive Plan with commercial uses at the intersection. He said that although this tract has adequate depth for a portion of it to be developed as C-l, staff would recommend that .this land be zoned A-P. He further pointed out on the map that approxi- mately half of the frontage on the Frontage Road is less than 200 feet deep, which repre- sents the acceptable depth for commercial development in .this City. General discussion followed with the Commission asking staff if the Commission can recommend a zoning dis- trio other than fihat which Is requested, and Mr. Callaway replied that it can, and staff would recommend that this Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to rezone this land to A-P. Mr. Mayo concurred that the Council has asked that the Commission make a recommendation rather than just forward a denial to the .Council. Mr. Hill asked why staff is recommending A-P zoning on this tract and Mr. Mayo explained that the con- sultants who prepared the Comprehensive Plan had generally left existing zoning as it was shown (R-1), but due to the difficulties which would be encountered in developing this land to residential standards because of the location of the flood plain and the PAZ Minutes 2-2-84 page 3 • flood way and the fact that the only access to the land would be to the Frontage Road which will eventually be one-way heading north, staff believes A-P development would be better than residential development at this location. Mr, Hill asked if some kind of multi-family residential development would be possible, and Mr. Mayo replied that it might be possible, but staff does not think this land should be zoned C-1, and that A-P is the best alternative. Mr. H111 said that it bothers him to make this type of recom- mendation, since the applicant has requested C-1 and may not want A-P as an alternative. Mr. Battey pointed out that this Commission approved the Comprehensive Plan and Mr. Mayo said the reason staff made a recommendation is because the Council has requested some type of positive recommendation when a recommendation for denial is forwarded to them. The public hearing was opened and Greg Morgan of Spencer Buchanan i; Associates came for- ward as a representative of the applicant. He explained that this land is owned by Joe A. Ferrerl who is in the hotel business in town, and that C-1 zoning has been requested because the owner can realize full value of this land if it is zoned for commercial use. He further explained that with frontage on the Frontage Road of the East Bypass and the outlet to the north being SH60, commercial zoning would be more to the owner's benefit. He stated that the applicant is aware that the Comprehensive Plan indicates-this land should be A-P, but the applicant is still requesting C-1 zoning because the plans he is formulating necessitate C-l zoning, No one e1 se spoke.. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Bailey said that he believes it should be a matter of policy that when there is a natural. boundary as there is in this particular case, the City should initiate rezoning of the remainder of the lend in question just to "clean up the area", and he believes this area should be rezoned to the middle of Carter Creek. Mr. Mayo pointed out that would not necessarily be a good plan, for the owner of the land on each side of the creek • may want to develop something which would span the creek. Mr. Kaiser asked for staff to explain o~ a map exactly what area is recommended to be A-P. Mr. Mayo said that A-P is shown all the way to the creek and then to SH 60 as well. Mr. Miller said that he disagrees with the request that this Commission should make a recommendation other than the request in this case, due to the size of the property in question, He went on to say that C-1 would not be warranted .because of the already existing C-1 land and the proposed C-l just considered, but neither is A-P warranted here and contended that this would become an A-P strip center. He said this Commission needs to know how this entire area can be used, and sees n.o reason to rezone it, and further thinks that perhaps the best direction would be to wait rather than to make a recommendation at this time, Mr. Hill pointed out that it is unusual to get a request for an area of the size back to the creek and to SH60 and. Mr. Miller said the Plan still recommends A-P. Mr. Marlyn said that he agrees with Mr. Miller that the land on this application should not be C-1, but further stated that he is not sure just what it should be. Mr. Bailey said this gives the PAZ a chance to at least zone a portion of the area according to the Plan which has been approved and accepted. Mr. Martyn said that in his opinion, the Plan is not necessarily all right. Mr, Bailey. made a motion to recommend that this land be rezoned to A-P. Mr, Kelly said he had a problem with 14 acres of A-P zoned land, This motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Miller made a motion to recommend denial of this request. Mr. Martyn seconded the motion. Mr. Miller explained that. his reason for this motion is that he is uncertain of a suitable zoning for this land; he further explained that was his reason for not second- ing the last motion. Mr. Bai-ley said that the City has paid consultants to put a Plan together, which they did, and it has been accepted, therefore he believes this Commission • should follow that Plan. Mr. Miller said he is still unsure. Mr. Martyn said that each PAZ Minutes 2-2-84 page 4 tract should be judged on its own merit and that the Plan is not infallible. Votes were cast-and this motion failed 3-3 (Miller, Hi11 ~ Martyn in favor to deny). • Mr. Kaiser said this is a critical area between 2 major intersections in this City, and he would feel more comfortable if staff would study this area more closely and include all natural features in this study and in its recommendation. He went on to say this could be dented, waiving the 180 day waiting period to allow staff to make the study. He then pointed out that just across the creek an Industrial area is shown on the Land Use Plan, but it Is currently zoned for Single Family Residential development. Mr. Bailey made a motion to recommend to the Council that this be rezoned to A-P. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion, stating that Council has the authority but that he is still not happy with 14 acres of A-P, He went on to say he would rather this request be tabled so the applicant would have a chance to reconsider his request. Mr. Miller said it may appear that he is opposed to A-P zoning, but he clarified by stating he is not opposed to the Comprehensive Plan, but is opposed to 14+ acres of A-P land with an odd shape, and further that he's not sure what should be done. Mr. Kaiser said from this tract east to the flood plain would be almost inaccessible unless this area is expanded. Mr. Hlil sa-d the Commission could state an opinion. Mr. Kaiser said this Commission could recommend rezoning up to the creek. Mr. Martyn pointed out that would be lots more fihan 30 acres, Mr, Kaiser agreed, stating that is why he believes this entire area. should be studied more carefully. Votes were cast with the motion fail- ing (3-3). Mr. Miller made a motion to table this request,. stating any action would be premature. Mr. Kaiser seconded the motion. Motion to table carried 4-2 (Bailey ~ Martyn against). • AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 84-103: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 6.34 acre tract of land in the Morgan Rector League located along the future extension of Holleman Drive adjacent to and north of the Richards Addition Subdivision, from Apartments High Density District R- to General Commercial District C-l. Application is in the name of James E. Jett. Mr. Callaway explained that this request is to rezone 6.34 acres from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial, stating that. the area in the immediate vicinity to the north, east and south is residential with general commercial zoning to the west, although some of the area is vacant. He stated that staff recommends denial of the request for several reasons, including (1)Comprehensive Plan reflects area as low density resi- dential; (2)Proposed C-1 .area does not meet minimum depth policy from proposed Holleman Street extension; (3)Proposed C-1 area is adjacent to an existing Single Family subdivi- sion; and (4)The proposed C-1 area is reflected as tow density residential on the Land Use Plan. He did, however, point out that some residential classification such as R-3 would be in compliance with the Plan. Mr, Miller asked if this land could be developed as Single Family Residential and also asked if the land is actually now zoned R-1 as Mr. Callaway's report states, or if it's zoned R-6 as the agenda and the application state. Mr. Callaway said it is zoned R-l at this time, and further that the land could be zoned as low density residential but it would probably be difficult to develop as R-l. He went on to explain that the depth of the lots would comply with R-3 zoning requirements, and R-3 would give more flexibility and would, in all probability, be more feasible than R-1 development. The public hearing was opened. James E. Jett, owner and applicant came forward and ex- • plained that C-1 zoning has been requested for several reasons, including the fact that the existing zoning would require an additional number of access ways off Holleman Street, multiple family development would encounter circulation problems, but general PAZ Minutes 2-2-84 page 5 • commercial development with controlled access could work very well. He said he is fully aware of the depth problems, and has separated the requested zoning into 2 applications because he has almost immediate plans for one of the tracts. Discussion followed con- cerning how this particular tract could be developed into single family dwellings, access problems, current low density development, replatting particular lots, required or de- sirable buffering between commercial and residential development and possible future ownership of some tracts of Tand in the area. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr, Batley asked If plans for-the extension of Holleman Street included curving ft as this drawing shows and Mr. Mayo replied that they do. Mr, Bailey said he has a difficult time accepting C-1 zoning backing up to R-1 zoning. Mr. Martyn said that the tracts should be merged and developed together. Mr. Mayo .pointed out that there is no way to make C-1 zoning at this location comply-with the accepted Comprehensive Plan. He further explained that Holleman is not meant to be a major street. Mr. Miller made a motion to recommend denial of this request to the City Council. Mr. Martyn seconded the motion, Mr. Hill asked staff if they are recommending leaving the zoning as it is and Mr, Mayo replied that staff has some problem with the existing zoning, and perhaps R-2, R-3 or low density apartment zoning would be more appropriate. Votes were cast, with the motion to recommend denial of this request carrying unanimously (6-0). AGENDA iTEM`NO 6~ 84-104: A public hearing on the question of rezoning 2 tracts of land in the Mor an Rector Lea ue located ad'acent to and southwest of the Woodstock Section I subdivision from A artments Hi h Density District R- to General Commercial District C-1 .97 acres and Administrative-Professional District A-P 9.20 acres . Application is In the name. of James E. Jett, • Mr. .Callaway located the land involved, identifying existing zoning in the area, point- ing out that this area is reflected as medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan, and stating that although the requested zoning is compatible with existing uses/ zoning in this area, staff cannot support this request as the tract's current zoning is in compliance with the City's Land Use Ptan, He also stated-that there is no problem with buffering should. this request be approved. Public hearing was opened. James Jett, owner of the land and applicant came forward, stating he does have a plan for developing this land which includes an office complex in the A-P zoned tract which would abut the creek, as well as have a view of the creek. He stated this proposed complex would be developed as a united plan with the bank tower scheduled. to be built on the existing A-P land which fronts on Harvey Road. He explained circulation plans for the A-P and the C-1 tracts, but again stated he only has plans for developing the A-P tract at this time. Discussion followed concerning access to Holleman, size of the proposed Holleman extension, depth of the land from Harvey Road to Holleman Sheet extension and type of creek crossings proposed. No one else spoke. Public hear- ing was closed, Mr. Martyn stated that he sees no need .for commercial zoning in a residential area on a street which will not be meant to handle the type of traffic generated with development in a commercial or A`P zone. He continued by saying that A-P zoning at the location requested would make too much A-P land, and further that in his opinion the current zoning is acceptable and there would be no need to change it; therefore, he is unable to support this request. Mr. Kelly made a motion to recommend approval of this request because it compliments the existing A-P and there are plenty of buffers. This motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Martyn made a motion to recommend denial of this request for rezoning. Mr. Kaiser seconded this motion.. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Mayo if the Council would be looking for a PAZ Minutes 2-2-84 page 6 recommendation or lfi the recommendation would be to leave it as it is. Mr. Mayo said • that if no recommendation 'rs forwarded, the Council can only assume that the existing R-6 zoning is acceptable. Mr. Mtller said he would think that it should not be R-6, but rather medium density residential. Mr. Ke11y speculated that any medium density residential zone would generate the same type and numbers of traffic, and that he thinks it would have to be down-zoned to Single Family dwellings. Mr. Martyn-asked to amend his motion to recommend dental-with the recommendation to step down the current zoning from R-6. Mr. Hi91 said this would not be acceptable because it would make a "dirty" motion. This proposed amendment was withdrawn, Mr. Mtller then made a motion to amend the motion to include recommending rezoning the land to R-4. This motion to amend was. withdrawn after short discussion. Votes were cast on the motion to recommend denial of this request and failed 2-4 (Kaiser ~ Martyn for the motion). Mr. Kelly asked the applicant, Mr. Jett, if he had any alternative zoning in mind for any of this land and Mr. Jett came. forward, thanking Mr, Kelly for giving him the oppor- tunity to speak.-He then explained that he had a substantial economic investment in this property and .has developed a good plan fow it, and in his opinion, this City has grown beyond the oid opt tonal type zoning, He went on to explain that future plans are being made for considerably nicer units (multi-family residential) than we currently have now which will accommodate the type of people who hopefully will be drawn to this area to be involved in the type of industry we hope to attract, and explained that R-6 zoning affords a development plan with flexibility in density, as well as requiring site plan approval- by both the Commission and the Council, if requested. He stated emphatically • that he does not want a tower-type zoning chosen by a group of people who have not studied the situation apd again fihanked the Commissioners for giving him the opportunity to speak again. Mr. Kelly then made a motion to recommend denial of this request with Mr. Kaiser second- ing. Mr. Bailey asked to amend the motion to "deny without prejudice" and Mr. Kaiser seconded that motion to amend. Motion to amend the original motion carried unanimously (6-0). Amended motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 84-800: A public hearing on the question of amending Section 7 of Ordinance 850 of the Cfty of College Station, Texas relating to landscaping. The pur- pose of the amendment to the Ordinance is to establish unambiguous regulations pertain- ing to landscaping in College Station. PAZ Commissioner Miller outlined the features of the ordinance amendment which include a point system for landscaping, some of the current ordinance, and some new requirements, including planting procedures. Mr, Hill asked what would happen if an existing canopy tree dies and Mr. Miller said it would have to be replaced with landscaping totalling the same number of points, forever. Mr. Bailey said he would suggest that points would be cancelled, rather than expended, which would only be a matter of semantics; that the requirement that the groundcover must. reach 100% coverage within one year from the date of issuance of the C,0. should. be spelled out. Mr. Martyn said that some groundcovers other than grass may take more than one year to attain 100% coverage. Mr. Bailey also suggested that the appeals process should be spelled out in this ordinance amendment, as he thinks It should be able to stand alone. Mr. Kaiser asked if this amendment would add to the landscaping required by the existing ordinance and Mr. Kelly and Mr. Mayo • replied that it would. Mr. Martyn asked if perhaps requiring some kind of security bond which would guarantee the .landscaping approved would be done should be included. Mr. Miller replied that this had been discussed by the committee and rejected as it would be difficult to enforce and implement, Mr. Martyn asked if direction should be included P&Z Minutes 2-2-84 page 7 covering the necessity of islands in parking lots being without pavement bottoms. • Temporary C.O.'s were discussed, and City Attorney Lowell Denton advised the Commission that a revised ordinance is being prepared at this time, and it will recognize temporary certificates of occupancy. He went on to explain that most of the problems the City .has met have been In projects similar to the FedMart Development and the new Zoning Ordinance wilt add a provision covering phases to projects, or stores within a project, and exactly what will be required prior to any occupancy. The public hearing was opened. Tony Jones came forward to speak, expressing gratitude for being given this opportunity to have input regarding this landscaping ordinance. He suggested that since planting requirements during the summer have been given a delay, so also should a winter planting delay be addressed. He suggested also that staff should be given s©me judgment which would allow some flexibility regarding requirements, and voiced-his opinion that the requirement of the suggested security bond is not a good plan; that competition among devel-opens could take care of that. He stated that in his opinion, strict enforcement of the ordinance is necessary. Jim Schutt came forward to speak, indicating that he fs a landscape architect and has come .before this Commission as a representative of several landscape architects in the area. He asked that the definition of groundcover be clarified by removing the word "herbaceous" and adding the phrase "less than 18 inches" to the definition. Mr. Schutt also indicated that saving an existing grove of trees smaller than 6" in caliper had not been addressed, and many times this can be done and a grove serves as a good screening device, He requested that this be addressed. He said that caliper size of trees should be taken 12 inches above the ground rather than at 4.5 feet above • ground level and suggested that containerized trees of 1~" caliper be assigned at least as many points as a 2" balled and burlapped tree, He suggested that the percentage of groundcover is too high; that 100% coverage requires at least 2 growing seasons for many varieties of groundcover, He also said that some types of architecture do not require shrubbery and/or trees, and allowances should be made for that. No one else spoke, The public hearing was closed, More general discussion followed from the Commissioners, with the decision made that no action will be taken on this ordinance amendment until the next PAZ meeting. AGENDA ITEM NQ, 8: 84-204: Final Plat - Re tat of Lots 1-19 Block E Universit Park Section i and Lot Slock V University Park Section II Mr, Mayo explained that this replat simply reduces the number of lots by making them larger; that the one point required on the Presubmission Conference report has been covered, therefore, staff recommends approval of the plat as shown, Mr. Bailey made a motion to recommend approval of this plat with Mr, Kelly seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0, 9: 84-400: Parking Lot Plan - Texian Inn Motel Mr. Mayo explained this plan, pointing out it will be located at the existing putt putt golf course on Texas Avenue. He pointed out also that the gallon size of shrubbery is not specified on the site plan, but that is covered in a separate Landscaping List which is included in the packets. He added that staff would also like the phrase "with the approval of the City of College Station" added to Planting Note #3 on the site plan, and with those additions, staff recommends approval of the plan, Mr, Miller made a motion to approve this plan with the addition to the Planting Note on the plan as stated by Mr, Mayo and the attachment of the Landscaping List as part of the site/landscaping plan which is being approved. Mr. Kelly seconded. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). PAZ Minutes 2-2-84 page 8 AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: 84-401: Parking Lot Plan - Tony Jones Convenience Store • Mr. Mayo explained this plan, stating that all PRC recommendations had been met and staff recommends approval of this plan as shown. Mr. Miller pointed out that the cur- rent ordinance requires one tree every 30 feet along right-of-ways and this plan does not include that requirement. Mr. Jones spoke from the audience stating that there are utility lines along that area and the Utility Department has requested that large trees are not .planted. under power lines. Mr. Hill asked for clarification concerning exactly what trees ~1r. Jones is including on this .site plan and Mr. Jones said none of the exist- ing trees are to be included as part of this plan except the 4 trees specified. Mr. Miller pointed out that a caliper size of crape myrtles is not- adequate and a minimum height should be shown on the plan. Discussion followed concerning the lack of landscaping on this plan as compared to landscaping on other projects recently approved, and Mr. Martyn stated that this plan does not meet this Commission's standards as established in the recent past, and suggested that the applicant should be requested to submit a better landscaping plan. Mr. Kelly pointed out that this one meets the present ordinance and Mr. Jones added that it meets the minimum ordi-Hance requirements, and he will in all probability add additional .landscaping after the project is complete. Mr. Hill said the plan may meet the minimum requirements, but he concurs with Mr. Martyn that it falls below others recently approved. Mr. Miller then made a motion to approve this site plan with the condition that the size of the crape myrtles be changed from 1~" caliper to a minimum 6 ft. height. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Mr. Martyn asked that the Com- mission please reconsider; that this plan is substandard and should never be approved by this Commission. Votes were cast and-the site plan was approved with the change noted concerning size of crape myrtles by a vote of 4-2 (Martyn ~ Hill, with Mr. Hill stating that he is not convinced this plan meets ordinance requirements). AGENDA ITEM N0. ll: 84-500: Site Plan Permit - Eastmark Apartments Mr. Mayo explained the plan, stating that all PRC requirements have been met, but that he has talked with Assistant Director of Public Services Bob Epps who has indicated that a location change and dumpster pad design would 6e desireable, suggesting a reversal of the dumpster location and the island location betweenthe basketball court and Building #16. General discussion followed with Mr, Martyn making a motion to approve this plan with the following conditions: (l)Reversal of the dumpster pad location and design and the island between the basketball court and Building #16 be made as required by the Public Services Department; (2)The typical island note must apply to all islands; and (3)The canopy trees to be included as required by the current zoning ordinance, i.e., one every 30 feet along the ROW of Central Park Lane and Colgate Drive. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0), AGENDA ITEM N0, 12: Other Busi-Hess After brief discussion, it was decided the PRC would continued to review proposed plans on Wednesday mornings at 10 AM with exception of the week Mr. Miller acts as PAZ Rep., and on those weeks, PRC reviews will be set to meet his schedule. Mr. Mayo asked .Commission for clarification concerning approval of the Master Preliminary Plat for Southwood Valley Sec, 25 at the last meeting, and the Commissioners agreed that it had been approved as shown on the plan presented by the Developer, which included all points of Presubmssion Conference report with exception of #8, which was understood to be only a point of consideration rather than a requirement. PAZ Minutes 2-2-84 page 9 Mr. Kelly made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Kaiser seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-0) and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: David B. Hill, Chairman ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones r 1 ~J PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER • NAME 4. a'~rC~ l'Io~cPtN 5. 2 l~ 6. ~ J. ~ . ~, DATE February 2, 1984 ADDRESS ~~ 3/5h ~2~~ ~ 779-4 7~ 1 P o,B~ Ala ~R~~N I~ 7~So~ 8aa-~~ c~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ C~b~ 2.'~~ ~=~ ~o~ ~M~w, C~~• s. 9. lo. 11. 12. 14. ~ ~..'`~S~-~ 260 k't.) ~t-•.~, ~~, , _. ~ s . v '~ ~~ 16. 17, .. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25• *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting 2 , Z O Commission Agenda Item No. Name C7h-) N ~~ Address ~0® House No. St eet City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speakers Official Capacity: SUBJECT~O~N W~HI~CH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK /v''r Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before Deglnning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. •• •~>'< REGISTRATION FORM -`>;'< (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO"ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ~ • Commission Agenda Item No. Name 3 t, ~ ~ )~- ~ 1_.L~ 1 ~' Address ~ ~ ~ ~~/~/) ~ ~ ~ , House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, '~ Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your preserlEation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one .em to five minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THErCOIMMISSION) Date of Meeting °~ ` ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~- `~ Commission Agenda Item No. Name~Rr'~I MO2G^ AN Address r, ~/ ~ ~~G ~1 d~ ~~4'~ N ~ 7 ~ o . House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organlzationy~ ~ ~~~c~z, J ~uc~t ~ ti~ ~ ~ s a v And, Speakers Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed regtstratton form to the presldin9 officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. • *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ~" ~'~ ~~ Commission Agenda Item No.~~ ~ ~~ ''~,, I ~ Name C.JYiT ~ L 5 ~• ~~ Address ~(~~ ~/'~~G~~[ ~-~(J1,~, L.(~~~ ~--~~ . House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK ef- /~iU S~y GrK c~ BLS?otiJ ~¢S Du~.c~~"-iE, Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before Deglnning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. • *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ~ ~~ ~~ t Commission Agenda Item No, ,~ ~~~ ~ ~, Name L = ~? c. ,s~'/*t ~ .~+. e;.-, Address ~ ~ 7 ~ 7 ~' ~/'~'~ ~- House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name oflOrganization: I V.. ~ , N t. /~~ „l.' And, Speakers Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK ZO~iw Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. •