Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/1984 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission September 6, 1984 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hansen, Members Brochu, Martyn, Tongco, Kaiser and MacGilvray MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Stallings STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Asst. Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Zoning Official Kee, Asst. Zoning Official Johnson, Planning Analyst Longley, Draftsman Scott and Planning Technician Volk. AGENDA ITEM N0, l: Approval of Minutes - meeting of August 16, 1984 Mrs. Tongco made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Hansen seconding. Motion carried 2-0-3 (Brochu, Martyn ~ Kaiser abstained). AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Hear Visitors No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 84-117: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 5.00 acre tract of land in the Richard Carter Surve located on the south side of Universit Drive, approximate) 00 feet east of the intersection of East Tarrow Street former) FedMart Drive and University Drive, from Single Family Residential District R-1 to General Commercial District C-l, Application is in the name of College Heights Assembly of God • Church. Mr. Callaway explained the request, pointing out that although this tract has adequate depth and area for commercial development and is located between existing C-1 and R-3 zoning, the request is in conflict with the commercial development policies in the City's comprehensive plan as these pol'cies, while encouraging commercial development at inter- sections of thoroughfares, discourage the extension of commercial areas along thorough- fares. He added that the existing R-1 zoning is not appropriate in this location, and that a higher density residential zoning district or A-P zoning would provide an appro- priate buffer between the C-1 tract to the west and the R-3 tract to the east, therefore, staff would recommend one of these zoning districts on this tract. Mr. MacGilvray referred to the commercial 6.20 acre tract, asking what the classification is, and Mr. Callaway explained that tract is zoned A-P. The public hearing was opened. Calvin Durham, pastor of the church came forward, stating that in 1975 the church purchased this land with the plan to relocate the church from Bryan to College Station on this tract, however, the growth of the church has made them question locating the new church on this tract where traffic patterns have become so busy. He added that the configuration of the tract is not conducive for the development of the facilities they want and that the size of the tract is too small to accommodate the facilities deemed necessary. He listed 8 points which would indicate the tract should be zoned to C-1 General Commercial: (a)The property to the west of this tract, on the same side of University Drive is already zoned C-1; (b)The property across University to 700 feet beyond (east) this property is zoned C-l; (c)The Master Plan of the City is not designed to follow property lines, and the dividing line on the plan seems to fall some- . where on this tract, therefore the applicant feels this request follows the plan; (d)owners P&Z Minutes g-6-84 page 2 within 200 feet have not opposed this request, including the R-3 tract immediately to the • east; (e)University Drive is a main arterial and has very heavy traffic; (g)A-P develop- ment usually does not take place on heavily travelled streets due to the noise which doctors and dentists dislike; (h)When travelling on the East Bypass, the only exit giving directions to ABM University is the University Drive exit; and (i)In reference to staff's statement that commercial development is encouraged at major intersections but not along thoroughfares, there is already much commercial development and zoning across University Drive which extends easterly beyond this tract at locations without intersections. Mr. Martyn pointed out that when the church bought the tract, it undoubtedly knew the shape of the tract. The pastor replied that although he was not with the church at the time of the purchase, he understands that there originally were 13 acres bought by the church, but somehow a little over 8 acres were reclaimed by the seller. Mr. Martyn asked if the church's intent is to sell this tract and to buy another property on which to build. The pastor replied that is the church's only option since this tract does not meet its needs; then pointed out that C-1 zoning represents the highest and best use of this land. Mrs. Tongco asked how far it is from this tract to Lincoln Street and Mr. Callaway replied that it is about 400 feet. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed, • Mr, MacGilvray asked staff to point out area zoning in relation to this tract; Mr. Calla- 'I way did. Mr, Kaiser asked the location of the apartment complex which is being built and Mr. Callaway pointed .out that it is behind (south) the A-P tract, adding that it is a condo development. Mr. Martyn stated he would like to make a statement in opposition to this request, and coptinued by stating that the land along University Drive is one of the last major areas this Commission has to plan the zoning on. He added that this Commission .and the Council have allowed commercial development which is against the Comprehensive Plan along this street, thus taking one more step toward allowing..conditions such as are along Highway 30. He acknowledged that C-1 zoned land brings the highest price, but point- ed out that is not the intent of this Commission. He added that A-P zoning on this tract would be better than C-1, but that R-3 or R-4 would be best for that area. Mr. Hansen stated that he believes that A-P zoning on this tract would serve as a step-down in zoning to the R-3 tract adjacent to this, which he would favor. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the R-3 tract is a recently established zoning district and if the owner is happy with that zoning, to which Mr. Mayo replied that it is neither recent, nor is the owner happy. He added that the owner's request was for C-1, and that if this tract is zoned C-1, the owner of the R-3 tract will probably come back for rezoning. Mr. Mayo pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan suggests several land uses along major thoroughfares other than com- merciai. Mr. MacGilvray asked when the C-1 tract .was established and Mr. Mayo replied it had been rezoned a number of year ago, Mr. MacGilvray stated that any type of residential district on this tract would not allow the "buffer" which is recommended. Mr. Kaiser asked the applicant what parish observations regarding A-P zoning would be and the pastor replied that the request is for C-1, pointing out that there is currently no buffer between existing C-1 land and the residential land behind his tract, adding that the church has no alternate plans. Mr. Kaiser asked if the church would oppose A-P zoning and the pastor replied that he did not know what that meant, as he does not know the uses allowed in A-P zones, but that if doctors offices are included, he believes that doctors prefer a quieter street. Mr. Kaiser asked the pastor if the church would leave the land zoned R-1 if it does not get rezoned to C-1 and the pastor replied that the church believes C-1 zoning is the best zoning for this tract. Mr~ MacGilvray asked if a zoning classifi- cation is changed, would the assessed value of the land also change. Mr. Mayo replied • that it should, but assessment is up to the Assessor's office. PAZ Minutes g-6-84 page 3 Mr. Kaiser said that in instances when the applicant asks for one zone and the PAZ sub- • stitutes another, the applicant does not have an opportunity to study any other zoning. an e 1 and that he would be hesitant to ch He added that he believes the facts are incomp ete g the request. Therefore, he would like to offer a motion to deny this request for C-1 zoning. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion. Mr. MacGilvray asked if there would be a 180 day waiting period before rezoning could again be requested on this tract, and Mr. Mayo replied that there would, unless this Commission waives that waiting period. Mr. Mayo added that the Council has asked for recommendations from this Commission, and would suggest that it make one unless it believes that R-1 zoning is best for this tract. Mr, Martyr agreed, adding that if this Commission can deny a request, it should have enough facts to know what a tract should be zoned, and would hope that if this request is denied, it would be accompanied by a second motion regarding a recommendation to be forwarded to Council. Mr. Mayo pointed out that what is reflected on the Comprehensive Plan reflects results of a locally conducted mini-plan completed several years before, adding that either A-P zoning or some type of apartment zone would be in compliance with that mini-plan. Mr. Kaiser said he is still reluctant to recommend R-4 on this tract without allowing the applicant time to study, adding that he clearly believes that both R-1 and C-1 are inappropriate on this tract. Mr. Hansen said he believes this Commission should give some kind of direction to the Council. Votes were cast, with the motion to deny fihis request for C-1 zoning carrying unanimously (6-0). Mr. Martyr then offered a motion to recommend to Council that this tract is rezoned to A-P. Mr. MacGilvray seconded this motion which carried by a vote of 4-2 (Kaiser ~ Brochu against). • Mr, MacGilvray asked if a recommendation could be made to zone to "either/or". Mr. Mayo stated he believes Council would be receptive to that. Mr. Kaiser said he would rather staff study the situation and make a definite recommendation to Council. AGt=NDA ITEM Np. 4: 84-118: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 2.009 acre tract of land on the west side of Glenhaverr Drive, approximately 200 feet south of Univ- ersity prve, from Townhouse-Rowhouse District R-3 to Administrative-Professional District A-P. Application is in the name of i3razosland Properties, Inc. Mr. Callaway explained the request, referring to a development plan provided by the devel- oper. Mr. Martyr asked how large the adjacent tract is which is currently zoned A-P and Mr. MacGilvray stated it would be approximately 2-2~ acres. The public hearing was opened. Hank McQuaide, 2101 Carter Creek, Bryan, came forward as a representative of Brazosland Properties. He stated this request is being made because the original homework done in planning this development 2 years ago had not been adequate, adding that since that time they have found topographic problems in developing this area as residential. He pointed out that this rezoning request is in compliance with the Master Plan, adding that the 2 creeks which. run through this tract make development difficu lt. Mr. Kaiser and Mr. McQuaide discussed the size of the buildings planned and the probable location of the park- ing lots, Mr. MacGilvray asked staff if they had a problem with this request, and Mr. Mayo repfiied that in this case, staff does not have a problem, further suggesting that plans might well include developing some of the buildings on this tract. No one else spoke.. The public hearing was closed, • Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Cumpton to come forward from the audience to present his con- ceptual drawipgs of this tract to the Commission and he did so. Mr. Hansen stated he has no problems with this request as it represents continuation of A P zoning to better utilize the land. PCZ Minutes g-6-84 page 4 • Mr. Martyn made a motion to recommend approval of this request with Mrs. Tongco second- ing the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 84-11g: A ublic hearin on the uestion of rezonin a 2.52 acre tract of land a portion of Lot 16 in the Lakeview Acres subdivision located a~ t the intersection of Texas Avenue and Morgans Lane, from Administrative-Professional District A-P to General Commercial District C-1. Application is in the name of Ronald Cruse, Tr. Mr. Callaway explained the request, adding that the current, correct zoning of this tract is R-1, although the application reflects that it is zoned A-P. He located the tract as well as other area zoning and development, stating that this area is reflected as office/ commercial with commercial to the north of Morgans Lane on the Comprehensive Plan. He then stated that although this tract has adequate depth, frontage and buffering, staff would recommend A-P zoning for this tract which would be in compliance with the adopted land use plan, and would be more compatible with the planned low density residential area to the east of this tract. Mr. Kaiser and Mr. Callaway discussed the depth of the C-1 area to the north of Morgans Lane. Mr. Callaway stated that should the church adja- cent to this tract glue up its land, the land would revert to R-1 zoning. Mr. Hansen asked. why this statement is being made and Mr. Mayo answered that staff only wanted to point out that possibility, as that area has encountered problems, including lack of fire protection for that tract. The public hearing was opened.. Ron Cruse, 8601 Creekview Court came forward, stating he has plans to develop this tract into a retail center, and he has talked to the City regarding access to Dartmouth. He said he has talked to the majority of the R-1 owners within 200 feet of this tract, and they have indicated they are in favor of this rezoning. • He then named Bertrand, Hobson, Fitch and Treadway as among those whom he has canvassed. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Hansen pointed out area land uses, adding he has no problem with this request, since it would be properly buffered and the adjacent property owners do not object to it. Mr. Martyn and Mr, Kaiser disagreed regarding rezoning this land along a major thoroughfare. Mr. Kaiser stated that he would prefer that Morgans Lane serve as a buffer between A-P zoning and C-1 zoning; therefore, he believes this tract should be A-P rather than C-1. Mr. Hansen stated there is potential of a major intersection at this location and our plan states that is where commercial zoning should be. Mr. Mayo pointed out this inter- section will carry a lot of traffic, but the street cannot cross Texas Avenue and will not create a major intersection;, however, either A-P or C-1 would be considered commercial, and this will be a commercial tract location. Mr. Kaiser made a motion to deny this request for C-1 zoning, adding his reason for this motion is his belief that the street (Morgans Lane) would provide a buffer between A-P and C-1 development. Mrs. Tongco seconded the motion. Mr. Hansen stated there seems to be a question on the current zoning of this tract and asked the applicant if he is aware of the current zoning. Mr. Cruse, the applicant, stated that lie had been under the impression that it was A-P, but had been made aware at 4 p.m. today that it Is R-l, Mr. Kaiser asked Mr, Cruse how long he had owned the land, and he replied that he has owned it approximately 6 months, and had always thought it was zoned A-P. He continued saying that there is now an A-P development adjacent to this tract, which would serve as a step-down from this C-l, so he cannot see a problem with his request and cannot understand this Commission's opposition. • Mrs. Tongco stated that in looking at the way the property in this area is developing some C-1 uses would not be compatible with the rest of the area, and stated further that this must be considered when a study of a rezoning request is made. Votes were cast and the motion to deny this request failed by a vote of 3-3 (Brochu,Hansen & MacGilvray against) PAZ Minutes g-6-84 page 5 • Mr. Hansen pointed out that the buffering Mr. Kaiser is requesting is not a require- ment. Discussion followed concerning the reasons the land was purchased ,the number of acres of C-1 at this intersection both on this side and the west side of Texas Avenue, and how effective roads/streets are as buffers. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to rezone this tract from R-1 to C-1 as requested with Mr. Brochu seconding the motion. Motion failed by a vote of 3-3. Mr. Kaiser made a motion to table this item until the next meeting as one member of the Commission is absent on this dafie. The Commission asked Mr. Cruse of his opinion on this and he reluctantly agreed, Mr. MacGilvray seconded the motion to table the item. Votes were cast with the motion to table carrying by a vote of 5-1 (Martyn against). AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 84-120: A public hearing on the question of rezoning a 1.061 acre tract of land part of Lots 2R & l5R in Block B EastMark Subdivision Phase II from General Commercial District C-1 to Commercial Industrial District C-2. Application is in the name of EastMark Partners. Mr. Callaway located the land to be considered, explaining that staff recommends approval of this request as it represents an adjustment in the district boundary of the recently established C-2 area. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. Public hearing closed. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve this request with Mr. Brochu seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 84-715: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit fora softball field, a playground and a daycare center at the existing faci- • lities of the Aldersgate United Methodist Church, 6501 E. Hwy 6 Bypass. Application is in the name of Aldersgate United Methodist Church. Mr. Callaway explained the request, informing the Commission the applicant has adequate site and facilities to warrant a recommendation of approval of this request. He went on to explain the church has an option on the land where the playground and softball field are planned and the church also has permission from the landowner to use the land for these purposes. The public hearing was opened. Randy Wimpee, Associate Pastor of the. church came forward to represent the applicant and stated that no additional facilities will be required for the daycare center, as the church is planning to use existing faci-lities for that purpose, He also stated the church has an option on the adjacent land which will come up on January 6th and the church plans to exercise that option, He went on to explain that this will be a daycare center licensed by the State, and it is not in operation at this time, Mr. Callaway pointed out that these uses had not been included in the request for the original Use Permit, therefore, it was necessary to again come before the Commission. Mr. Kaiser asked for whom the daycare center would operate and if plans were ever considered fora K through 6 elementary school. Mr. Wimpy answered that the daycare center at this time is being planned as a "mothers' day out" and would be in operation for members first, and then be open for others; and that an elementary school is not now being requested, nor planned by the church, however, another entity has been inquiring into that type use in the future. Mrs. Tongco asked if there is any barrier or buffer to separate this from adjacent residential property, to which Mr. Wimperanswered that the adjacent land is vacant now and the distance is approximately 100-150 feet to the street. Mr. MacGilvray • asked staff if this permit would allow a school for K-5 to which Mr. Callaway replied that this permit would authorize only what is being requested unless clarification is in the record. P1r. Marfiyn stated that the letter which accompanies the application in the packets P&Z Minutes g-6-84 page 6 • asks fora permit for l25 children Monday through Friday, which represents a "far cry" from a mothers' day out daycare center for a couple of hours a day. Mr. Kaiser asked if the church has received its permit from the State and an unidentified lady from the audience answered that they have a provisional permit only because only the paperwork has been received, but explained further that the number of 125 children would represent the maximum number of children for drop-in care for 4~ hours per day. She added that she feels that they could perhaps be licensed to operate 8 to 5 on a daily basis, but assured the Commission they are not applying for that now. Mr. Kaiser said that perhaps this could lead to a school program and Mr. Wimpeerepiied that is not in their plans now, but he could not rule that out for the future. Mr. Kaiser said he is concerned with the scaling and asked how large the daycare center by Wendy's on Southwest Parkway is. Mr. Callaway replied it is probably over 60 children; Mr. Hansen agreed; but; Mr. Martyn disagreed ,stating the First Presbyterian Church in Bryan's daycare center is one of the largest in the area, and only has about 60 children. Mr, Hansen asked how the numbers are regulated and Mr. Callaway said that he believes the number is governed by children per square foot, and the State has the regulatory agencies. Mr, Martyn said he used to know how it was figured, but has since forgotton. Mrs. Tongco asked if it is possible to consider this request in 2 stages, stating a small daycare center fora limited number of children does not bother her, but she does have a problem with a lack of buffering, both visually and for noise, and believes 125 children daily might create a problem in that residential area. Mr. Hansen said restrictions can be imposed by this Commission. Mr. Kaiser suggested perhaps a length of time could be attached. Mr. Martyn suggested 2 motions to cover this request: One for the daycare center and one for the softball field and playground area. Then Mr. Martyn asked if this • center would operate primarily to serve members and Mr. Wimpeereplied that initially that would be the case, subject to change in the future. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Martyn stated he has concerns which trigger his desire to have this covered in two motions; those being the possibility that the largest potential number of children might be too large for that area, and also the hours of the day in operation may well pose a problem. However, he stated he has no objections to the softball field- and playground area as long as conditions are imposed regarding lighting and hours of operation. Mr. Kaiser then identified the areas of con- cerns as being perhaps the length of time to grant the permit which might be set to allow evaluation of the operation by the Commission and the community; the maximum number of 125 children set by the State may be too large for an operation in this area; and the time of day or length of hours to allow operation of the center. Mr, Hansen cautioned that this Commission could become too regulatory and reminded the Commission that the State agencies are the experts in licensing regarding allowable numbers, etc. Mr. Kaiser agreed, but stated that by prdinance this Commission must consider the impact on the neighborhood and the State must address the health, safety and welfare of the children with regard to daycare facilities. Mrs. Tongco pointed out that the adjacent land is undeveloped now, and if this center is allowed to operate with the maximum number of children, that land may never develop. She added that if the center is licensed for 2 days a week, 4 hours a day, it would not create a problem in her mind. Mr. MacGilvray suggested acting on only the first paragraph of the letter accompanying the request. Mr. Hansen stated he would like -for staff to come up with some kind of guidelines for the Commission to follow. Mr. Kaiser made a motion • limit of 2 years for not extending beyond 1 p.m.; (He added that basically which accompanied the ap mously (6-0). to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center for a more than 72 children to operate 2 mornings a week, hours not days of the week to be left to the discretion of the applicant. his motion covers the first paragraph of the applicant's letter ~lication.) Mr. Martyn seconded this motion which carried unani- P&Z Minutes g-6-84 Page 7 Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an unlighted softball • field and playground. Mrs. Tongco seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO 8• 84-704: Reconsideration of a request to grant a Conditional Use Per- mit for construction of a religious/educational facility at 100-106 Dexter Dr. Request is in the name of Edgar Wolferts. This item was tabled after the public hearing on 6-21-84. Mr. Kaiser made a motion to remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Martyn se- conded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). Mr. Callaway indicated that the applicant is presenting a revised site plan which has been reviewed by staff and Mr, MacGilvray, and referred to letters submitted by the applicant from area residents and the memos from staff regarding recommendations, Mr. Hansen an- nounced there will be no public hearing regarding this item, but asked the architect for the project to come forward to answer possible questions from the Commission. Marion 0. Lawrence came forward and Mr. Hansen asked him for a brief explanation of the letters from area residents. Mr. Lawrence explained the letters from Mr. Cote and Mr. Woodcock indi- cate they have reviewed these revised plans and no longer have objections to this project. He then stated the letter from Mr. Vrooman and his son indicates they still have the same objections and would prefer residential development of this property. Mr. Martyn asked if all other conditions remain the same and Mr. Lawrence said the size of the building, the number of students and the days of the meetings (uses) remain the same as previously submitted. He then went on to explain the parking has been reduced, the existing building wi ll be removed affier completion of the .new facility and the land under that building will be developed into a "park-like" atmosphere. He said that alT drainage will meet the require• menu of the City, adding that the applicant would still prefer more parking, but has been willing to meet the conditions set forth by this Commission. City Engineer Pullen stated • that he had previously had problems with planned site development, but it would appear that this revised plan has addressed his concerns. He added that it would appear also there is sufficient street capacity to handle this project's traffic. Mr, Martyn asked how to address the time to be allowed prior to removing the existing building and Mr. Callaway advised the Commission to set a time limit, suggesting perhaps one year after issuance of the C,O. Mr. MacGilvray stated that the paving should be widened and Mr. Lawrence ex- plained that staff has indicated a requirement of 23 feet in width, which is agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Martyn made a motion to approve this Conditional Use Permit with conditions as agreed to regarding the time limit for removal of the existing building and the width of the drive, Mrs. Tongco seconded the motion which carried 5-0-1 (MacGilvray). AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: 84-221: Final Plat - Vacating & Resubdivision of Kirkpatrick Sub- division. Mr, Mayo informed the Commission this item is to be removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant. (Mr. MacGilvray left the meeting for a few minutes). AGENDA ITEM N0, 10: 84-223: Final Plat - Lots 1~2 Herman F. Krenek Subdivision Phase One. Mr. Mayo explained this plat stating staff recommends approval as shown. (Mr. MacGilvray returned to the meeting). Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve this plat as shown with Mrs. Tongco seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0, 11: 84-224: Final Piat - Resubdivision of Block B EastMark Addition Mr, Mayo explained this plat coordinates the rezoning covered in Agenda Item #6 (84-120) • adding that staff recommends approval. Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve the plat with Mr. MacGilvray seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). PAZ Minutes g-6-84 page 8 • AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: 84-225: Final Plat - Replat of Lot 9 ~ Lot 10 Block 7 College Hills Estates First Installment Mr. Mayo explained the purpose of this plat is to relocate side lot lines to allow develop- ment, adding staff recommends approval. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve with Mr. Martyn seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. i3: 84-226: Final Plat - Replat Lot 5 Block 1 Post Oak Mall Mr. Mayo explained this plat is for another phase of Post Oak Mall, adding staff recom- mends approval as shown. Mr. Brochu made a motion to approve with Mrs. Tongco seconding. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 14: 84-3og: Preliminary Plat - Herman F. Krenek Subdivision Mr. Mayo explained the location, adding that there have been many meetings with the developers to work out problems, and staff is satisfied that the land will be developed in a satisfactory manner, therefore recommends approval as shown. Mr. Martyn made a motion to approve with Mr, Kaiser seconding, Motion carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 15: Other Business Mrs. Tongco mentioned that future P.R.C,'s must be schuduled. The Commission ruled that Wednesday mornings are still favorable and instructed Planning Technician Volk to work out a schedule and notify each member. Mr. Hansen appointed Mrs. Tongco, Mr, Martyn and Mr. Kaiser to a committee to work on Conditional Use Permits regarding daycare centers. Mr. Martyn suggested a workshop some afternoon during which a friend of his can make a presentation. Mr. Kaiser asked about the East Bypass study committee and Mr. Martyn said the committee is to a point that a meeting with landowners can be set to discuss this committee's recommendations. Staff was instructed to set up this meeting. Motion to adjourn was made by Mr, Brochu and seconded by Mrs. Tongco. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). ATTEST: Dian Jones, City Secretary APPROVED: e Hansen, Chairman • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER .] NAME I. • ` 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7• ~/.~ ~i--~~- a~~~ 9. to. tl. DATE September 6, 1984 ADDRESS C ~~ G ~ /°~° ~ ~~G~~ , ~ X0,6 .D -~~'~'~ ~ - S. . T l 2 l4 l~l vNSrn•~ C ~ S . 13 . ~ v~._ ~ 4 . , j9~1 ~ ~ ~~ s . ~aq SIG C uM~Tb~ 16. >>. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25• `700 ~ G, ~ , 1o S, °~~ 0 SW ~ ~~~~~ ,~-JI !~ t~ ~ ~ ~ZS w-- kJt~ ~e~~,~~ *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) s IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name o ganlzation: ,. And, Speakers 0 lal Capae,L4y: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAY o The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. • Date of Meeting 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.