Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/01/1985 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission August 1, 1985 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Kaiser, Members Stallings, Brochu, MacGilvray, Wendler & Paulson MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Dresser STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Assistant City Attorney Clar, Planning Technician Volk, and Director of Planning Mayo who arrived at approximately 8:30 p.m. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes - aeeting of July 18, 1985. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5-1 (Kaiser abstained). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: 85-116: A public hearing on the question of • rezoning Lot 2R Courtyard Apartments subdivision located on S.H.3O approxiaately 224 feet west of the intersection of Stallings Drive and S.H.3O Eros A-P Adainistrative-Professional to C-N Neighborhood Business. Applicant is Texans Joint Venture. Mr. Callaway located the lot, explained area zoning and referred to size restrictions of C-N zones, adding that although staff has no objections to C-N zoning on this particular tract, this lot is over one acre in size, and as such would be required to have a minimum lot depth of 250 feet. He pointed out that this lot does not have the required depth, therefore, staff cannot recommend that a C-N district be established which does not meet the depth requirements of the C-N zoning districts, but would recommend a reduction in the size of this lot to one acre or less which could be done by replatting the lot, or as the applicant has suggested, by eliminating the easement along the east side of this lot from the rezoning thereby accomplishing the required lot size without the time and expense involved in replatting the lot. Mr. MacGilvray referred to Director of Planning Mayo's often repeated statement that there is a lot of undeveloped commercial land in the city which could be used without rezoning additional land, and Mr. Callaway replied that is correct, but in this case, the applicant is requesting a change from one type of commercial to another. Mr. Kaiser asked if a screen fence would be required between this commercial development and the adjacent residential areas and Mr. Callaway replied that a screen fence would be required between any commercial development and existing residential development. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that the proposed plan of not rezoning the easement is not included on the staff report, and Mr. Callaway replied that discussion of this proposal had taken place with the applicant after the staff report had been distributed. • The public hearing was opened. Jim Jett, trustee for the property and representative of the group of owners came forward to explain that the proposedC-N Minutes g-1-85 • project for this lot will serve much of the neighborhood, as there is a large number of apartments within walking distance; but it would, of course, serve others simply because of its location on a highway. He said that the applicants agree to the easement being excluded from the rezoning, that there will be no additional curb cuts to Harvey Road, but they hope to get access to the neighboring apartment complex. He said a 7-11 store is planned on this lot, as well as some other project which will fit into the restrictions set forth in the C-N zoning regulations. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the Commission will have a review of the uses and Mr. Callaway replied that it will, afterwhich Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve this rezoning request with the stipulation that the access easement as platted on the eastern side of this lot is not included in the rezoning, and will remain zoned A-P. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 4: 85-600: A public hearing to consider petitions for annexation of two (2) tracts of land totalling 1.73 acres and described as follows: Tract A: A 0.68 acre tract owned by the City of College Station and designated as a 371.23 foot westerly extension of the right-of-way of the existing flock Prairie 8oad along the northern boundary of the Southwood Athletic Park facility; and, Tract B: a 1.05 acre tract of land owned by the Boys Clubs of Brazos Valley, Inc. and located south of and adjacent to Tract A. . • Mr. Callaway located the tracts of land for which petitions for annexation have been received, adding that there are no homes located within these areas. After brief general discussion by the Commission, the public hearing was opened. Larry Wells, representative for the applicants came forward to answer any questions. Mrs. Stallings asked why annexation is being requested now and Mr. Wells explained that the rest of the Boys Club land is located in the city, the club has just completed a land swap with the former owner of this land, and they now want this tract to be inside the city. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mrs. Stallings made a motion to approve these petitions for annexation with Mr. Brochu seconding the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously (6-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: 85-709: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional IIse Perait for a church facility with a daycare center, a Christian school, a retireaent center, and an outdoor recreational area to be located on a 10.357 acre tract bounded by Glenhaven Drive, Doainik and the S.H.6 Bast Bypass Frontage fload. Applicant is College Heights Assembly of Gad Church. Mr. Callaway located the land which is within the Glenhaven subdivision, pointed out area zoning and the single family residentially developed land directly across Dominik from this tract. He reminded the Commission that the site plan presented at this meeting is conceptual only in nature, and the applicant is only requesting • that his proposed uses be approved tonight, with a definite site plan to come back to this Commission for approval at a later date. Mrs. Stallings asked if the applicant would be likely to stay with this site plan if the uses are approved 2 P&Z Minutes g-1-g~ • tonight and Mr. Callaway replied the applicant could better answer the question than he. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the parking, location and size of the buildings could not be considered at this meeting, where did that leave the Commisson. Mr. Callaway responded by stating it puts the Commission into a position of only deciding if the proposed uses of this tract are acceptable, adding that a site plan would be forthcoming for review and approval by this Commission at a later date. The public hearing was opened. Calvin Durham, senior pastor of the College Heights Assembly of God church came forward to act as spokesman for the church and explained the plans the church has formulated to date. He referred to the projected maximum numbers of people to be served by the various ministries being proposed, adding that it is hoped that the conceptual site plan presented at this meeting will be very close to the actual site plan, but what the church is really interested in at this time is getting approval of the various uses proposed prior to committing large sums of money on the actual development of permanent plans. Mr. Durham-referred to the memo which accompanied the application and pointed out that the church is planning various phases of development of the site, and is requesting temporary access to Dominik for a 2 year maximum time period until Glenhaven Drive is completed. He then addressed the possible objections to this plan as follows: (1) Drainage: Stated that curbs and gutters as well as storm sewers will be installed on Glenhaven Drive; that the street will be completed within 2 years; (2) Noise: Stated the greatest noise in the area will come from the existing Bypass, but agreed that a greenbelt could be planned between this project and Dominik to help buffer noise; (3) Traffic: Stated that most of the • traffic to this site will be from the Fast Bypass with the probability that only local area residents will use the access to Glenhaven Drive and Dominik; (4) Traffic Surges: Stated that surges would take place primarily at worship services on Sundays and possibly on Wednesday evenings and the available access to 2 overpasses would help alleviate possible problems; (5) Daycare and School: Indicated that these ministries would probably not cause any increase in traffic as people already travel to daycare centers and schools in the area, and that perhaps development of this site would help alleviate any existing problems as it provides more immediate access to the Bypass; (6) Lighting: He would hope for help with specifications from the City, adding that the aim of the church is to enhance the area, and perhaps even help to deter crime in the neighborhood by providing additional night lighting; and, (7) Property Values: This project should not hurt property values in the neighborhood as the church plans to enhance and to beautify the area. Mr. MacGilvray stated that the drawing the applicant has been referring to is different from those provided earlier to the Commissioners. Mr. Durham agreed stating that some of the changes he has inked in on his drawing have come as a result of talking with the City Engineer and the neighborhood residents, adding that the church does not want the entrance to this project to be from the cul-de-sac on Dominik, but would rather have an entrance from Dominik further to the west of that location. He then said that an entrance off Dominik would not be absolutely essential to the church's use of the property, but he would hope that at least a temporary entrance would be allowed until Glenhaven is cut through and completed, which the developer has indicated would take place within two years. • Mr. Brochu asked for further explanation concerning the proposed retirement center, including the number of people, the number of stories of the building, etc. Mr. Durham said the specifics are unknown, but it probably would not be more than two 3 P&Z Minutes 8-1-85 • stories in height and would be located at the base of the hill; that it would be a live-in type home with perhaps a recreational center and a worship center, but it would not have a large dining room or medical facilities. He clarified by stating that the exact location of the building has not been set. Mr. MacGilvray asked what the liklihood is of this site being fully developed adding that the membership of the church is only 300 now and this seems to be a rather large undertaking. Mr. Durham replied that the church has been planning this project far a long time, and believes the first phase will take place within 18 months. Mr. Kaiser reminded the Commissioners and advised the audience that this Commission can attach conditions above and beyond regular site plan approval including the limitation of uses and development of each phase. Mr. Durham replied that the church's commitment to developing the proposed ministries is very strong, and it would hope that the Commission would not limit approval of the requested uses to specific phases. Hank McQuaide, 2101 Carter Creek, Bryan came forward to speak in favor of the land use as a part owner and developing partner of the Glenhaven subdivision. He confirmed that Glenhaven Drive will be put in within 2 years, and the developers know there will be some additional traffic flow in the area, but believe that additional traffic will not be generated primarily from the church project. Phil Hobson of 1608 Dominik came forward to speak against this Conditional Use • Permit, adding that he has been chosen to represent all 9 area residents adjacent to this land (across Dominik). He handed out a memo to all Commissioners which addressed specific concerns of the residents including traffic congestion, sound, lighting, aesthetics, drainage, decreased property value, compliance to comprehensive plan, the resemblance this project would have to commercial development, and the lack of need for this type of project in the city. A copy of this memo is attached to these Minutes. He then highlighted the neighborhood's concerns, emphasizing the already existing drainage problems in the area, which City Engineer Pullen confirmed by explaining that some of those homes are built in the 100 year flood plain. Mrs. Stallings asked Mr. Hobson if there is complete opposition to this, or if something could be worked out and Mr. Hobson said that the residents had been given no chance to work anything out with the church as the pastor had only contacted some of the residents 2 days ago, but added that trees and a greenbelt would not be enough to buffer this proposed project from the residences, and the neighbors felt like at least a full city block of residential development should separate their homes from a project of this magnitude. Mr. Brochu said the traffic to Dominik could be controlled with no access to Dominik, reminded everyone that this is a conceptual plan only and with compromises, parking and recreational facilities could be moved, and the church seems to be willing to compromise. Mr. Hobson said that all compromises would have to be on the part of the. area residents. Mr. Kaiser asked if access to Glenhaven and Dominik were precluded would the area residents still oppose this proposal and Mr. Hobson answered that they very definitely would, as there would still be the • large, paved parking lot, the additional sound and the lights; adding that it seems to him the church is not interested in having only a church on that tract. Mr. Wendler said he believed if brick and concrete screening fences were erected a few 4 P&Z Minutes 8-1-85 • feet back from the property line with utilization of low level lighting, this project would not have an unfavorable impact on the existing residences. Mr. Hobson stated that would still not make it an acceptable plan, as the residents could see over the fence, and maintenance of landscaping and fences in this city has been lacking on many projects. Mr. Brochu asked again about the reference made to drainage under the Bypass and City Engineer Pullen replied that some of the homes are in the 100 year flood plain, and if the water backed up under the Bypass, the homes would surely be affected. Ann Hazen, 1205 Munson came forward to speak in opposition to this project, adding that she was very aware of both the development and the zoning of the area because she had served on both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council when these subjects had been studied. She went on to explain that any changes in the plans developed for that area now would be in direct opposition to previous regulatory bodies' decisions. Rudy Freund, 1508 Dominik came forward to speak in opposition to the project citing the probability of flooding of the existing homes in the area if this site is developed as proposed, and the belief that this proposal represents a commercial establishment rather than a church, specululating that if someone would come in with a rezoning request to change the tract to commercial zoning, it would not even be considered. Mr. Kaiser stated that a Drainage Committee has been formed and an engineering firm has been hired to study the various drainage basins in this area, but that no permanent answers have been reached regarding what is to be done to control flooding, nor where the money will be derived to make any recommended changes. Tom Comstock, 1700 Dominik came forward to speak in opposition to this proposed complex stating that retaining property values of the residences along Dominik are of primary interest to him, and he would not want anything across the street but single family residences. Hank McQuaide came forward again to address the concern over drainage problems explaining that a contractor had cut Glenhaven Drive through without the planned terracing which caused water to flow where it had never gone before when the residents had felt threatened by water in their yards, adding that this had been done in error, and had since been rectified. He stated that any type of development would include storm sewers, adding that it has been his experience that metering of water runoff is easier to control from a parking lot than it is from single family residences. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. McQuaide if, in his opinion, this tract is the best site available in Glenhaven for this project to minimize noise and traffic in the neighborhood and Mr. McQuaide replied that there is another tract on a commercially zoned corner which might be as good a location, but added that he does not believe any heavy traffic will be added to Dominik and then disagreed with the expressed realtor's opinion that there would be a 20X reduction in property values if this project is developed, as the appraiser he had consulted had indicated there would be no drop in property value. At this time, Director of Planning Mayo arrived at the meeting. George Bass came forward to address the fact that Commissioners change periodically and if uses on • this project are approved step-by-step, problems for future commissioners might become extremely difficult to solve. Mr. Mayo explained that only uses are being considered tonight and the actual site plans} would have to be approved by the 5 P&Z Minutes 8-1-85 • Commission after the specific allowable uses are approved, and each time this project is considered by the Commission, the area residents will be notified and notices will be placed in the newspaper, just as has been done for this hearing. Mr. MacGilvray asked if rezoning would be required to allow a retirement center and Mr. Callaway replied that would depend upon exactly what type of retirement home is planned. Mr. Kaiser asked if access conditions can be attached by this Commission and Mr. Mayo replied that question should be addressed to the Legal Department as access is normally controlled by the City Engineer. Assistant City Attorney Clar replied that it appears that ordinance would allow the Commission to attach access conditions to a conditional use permit, but added that he is only basing his belief upon interpretation of the ordinance, adding that before he could give a definite answer, he would have to study case law, etc. Mr. Pullen spoke at this time to state that he agrees with Mr. McQuaide regarding runoff from a commercial parking lot being more easily controlled than runoff from single family residential development. Mr. MacGilvray stated that this church is not simply just a church, and he wonders if the neighbors would object to only a church. He then asked Mr. Hobson if he could answer if the main objections were to "commercial" development, and Mr. Hobson said the objections would not be as strenuous, but the residents would still not want to be looking out over a parking lot. Mr. Paulson stated that it appears that neighborhoods in general do not want churches and schools and daycare centers in the neighborhoods, and it seemed a shame to him that this is happening. He stated also that drainage could be better controlled on developed land than on undeveloped land. Mr. MacGilvray disagreed to • a certain degree with Mr. Paulson, stating that the real question appears to be whether or not the city itself should allow these uses in a residential area. Mr. Kaiser reminded everyone that this proposed facility is actually on the Bypass, and 2 other churches have been built in recent years along the Bypass, and still another church on Welsh backs up to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Brochu stated that this is a well, established, older, true neighborhood and new development of this nature in this neighborhood is not the same as new development in a newer type neighborhood, and he personally believes there are better places for this particular development, and further, if there were a motion to deny this request, he would be in favor of denial. Mr. MacGilvray stated that to a certain degree only, he agrees with Mr. Brochu about the differences in neighborhoods. Mr. Wendler stated that he believes this pastor has demonstrated honesty and willingness to cooperate, there are ways to provide serious buffering, it seems runoff can be controlled, and the developer does not seem to think this project will hurt the value of his remaining property, therefore he believes consideration should be given these facts. Mr. Brochu then made a motion to deny this request for conditional uses as listed on the application. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion to deny. Mr. Paulson suggested perhaps a larger greenspace could be developed. Mr. Kaiser said he is troubled by the scope of this project and does not know if he can support one of this magnitude. He added that he is not troubled by developing a church on this site, as he does find a precedent of locating churches in residential neighborhoods, and believes that a compromise can be reached in this • case. Mr. Brochu said this does not answer the church's question tonight; they have requested an answer on these uses they believe they need. Mr. Wendler agreed that a definite answer is in order tonight rather than a "maybe so, come back" and 6 P&Z Minutes 8-1-85 • does not believe in this case a compromise would be a good idea. Votes were cast and the motion to deny failed by a vote of 2-4 (Kaiser, Stallings, MacGilvray and Paulson voting against). Mr. MacGilvray suggested that a motion to table might be in order so the church and the residents could get together and discuss a possible compromise. Mr. Kaiser pointed out that since the motion to deny failed, the other options open are to table or to move toward an affirmative response to this request. Mr. Paulson said that if this is buffered well it could be a decent site, but that he is against the conceptual plan which has been presented tonight. Mr. Brochu pointed out the applicant could always come back with another request. Discussion waned and Mr. Brochu made a motion to table this request until the first meeting in September. Mr. MacGilvray seconded this motion. Votes were cast with the motion to table carrying by a vote of 5-1 (Paulson against). AGBNDA IT$M N0. 6: Other business. CJ There was no other business. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Brochu made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVED: - -------- - - ------- Chairman, Ronald Kaiser • ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones 7 ./~ +~. July 31, 1985 • MEMORANDUM T0: College Station Planning and Zoning FROM: The Residents of Dominik Drive, College Station, Texas SUBJECT: College Heights Assembly of God's Application for a Conditional Use Permit on a 10 Acre Plot of Ground Zoned R-1 along Dominik Drive in College Station. I am Dr. Phil Hobson, representing the following nine families, the Comstocks, the Basses, the McConnells, myself, the Kramers, the Landmans, the Van Devers, the Freunds, and the Arbuckles, (stand) on the lower end of Dominik Drive. The families are the one's most affected by the proposed change of use of the land adjacent to Dominik Drive When several of us arrived here and purchased our new homes along Dominik Drive over 20 years ago, we were assured that this was a highly restricted residential area and would remain so. We were told that the then young city of College Station had the foresight to initiate a zoning ordinance which would protect those individuals, especially on the fringe of a development, by bringing all new developing acreage into the city, zoned single family • residential. Since that time, we have had to defend our properties twice previously against the encroachment of apartment complexes and business establishments, which have included this same tract of land. We are not against change and certainly not against anyone's right to request a change. We are definitely, however, against any change which would benefit one individual at another's expense. The city fathers, in their wisdom, have agreed with us in the past. Our unanimous objections to this proposed change consist of the following: Traffic congestion: The projected number of worshipers for the Sunday morning and Wednesday evening services has been set at 900. The Monday through Friday day care service has been projected for 100 children. The day school attendance has been projected at 200 children. The day care service and day school enrollment, potentially involve multiple trips per day by the parents to and from the facility. The retirement center facility would add additional traffic. The recreational area, as it's proposed, is immediately adjacent to Dominik and may involve extensive additional traffic, depending on use, by both automobiles and bicycles. The traffic congestions on the frontage road of the east by-pass and hwy 30 at times is already very bad, and could be expected to be much, much worse. Sound: The sound generated by all this traffic, 900 worshipers • coming and going and 300 children playing would probably exceed considerably, that of a commercial zoning. / ~. Lighting: It is assumed that the parking lot would be lighted extensively as well as the recreational area. If this should be the • case, the light itself would be quite objectionable in the quiet residential neighborhood. Aesthetics: The proposed plan shows extensive parking lot development immediately adjacent to Dominik. This means that we would be looking out our front windows onto a parking lot. Depending upon the recreational area use, it quite possibly would mean, also, looking out onto a playground, ball diamonds, etc.. Drainage: The development, to this point, has created extensive drainage problems for several of the residents. These have been rectified to a large degree. Paving of a large share of 10 acres, however, could present catastrophic problems. One of our group has visited with the city engineer, who expressed the concern, that if this amount of land is developed, that the culvert under the east bypass will not be able to carry the run off. If such is the case, then his house and many others may be flooded. Decreased property value: Approximately one-half of the property owners here are, or have been, involved with residential real estate sales. Thus, they are familiar with the effects of this type development on the adjacent property value. In order to be impartial, however, the largest family home real estate agency in the area was contacted. Their opinion was, that you immediately eliminate the majority of the buyers for this price range home. They would not buy a home adjacent to this type development, at any price. In their opinion, the financial • sacrifice to the owners of these homes would be about 20%, or approximately $20,000 to $30,000 each, or a total of $180,000 to $270,000. These are all very fine homes with all of the lots being extra large. Most of the lots are approximately 100' X 300'. Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan for the next 20 years and beyond, recommends that this area be zoned for single family residencies. It further specifies that the city "will continue to reserve appropriate close-in areas for single-family development in the future, that the city will discourage the location of high intensity development which will place undue traffic burden on fronting streets, discourage commercial activities in locations where they would present conflicts due to traffic, noise, lights, or other high activity levels, control development and regulate activities as necessary to provide a beautiful, safe, amenable environment for all citizens, and protect the integrity of single family residential areas." Resembles Commercial Development: The projected gross income from this development (not including the church) would be: 100 day care children at $2,400 per year (my stepson at Frills and Freckles) _ $240,000; 200 school children at $1,600 per year (Brazos Christian School, College Station) _ $320,000; retirement center - (projections not given but 100 inhabitants not unlikely - Waldon Retirement Center to include 180 inhabitants at a charge of $12,000 per year) if 100 inhabitant figure is used at $12,000 per year, the projected gross income would be $1,200,000. The total projected income would then be in the range of $2,560,000. ,! Need: There are 8 private schools in the Bryan-College Station area for children beyond kindergarten, Several of these schools are in the College Station area and are religious related schools. There are 40 day care centers in the Bryan-College Station area, a high percentage, of which include a nursery school and kindergarten and are located in College Station. Waldon Retirement Center is scheduled to open soon, Several of their facilities are available for the retired, with and without nursing care. Several of the above facilities were checked and all of those checked had plenty of openings. It is our understanding that the existence of a Conditional Use Permit is a mechanism whereby the specific needs of a given community can be met, regardless of the zoning. We do not feel that a need for these facilities has, in any way, been demonstrated. For this and the above stated reasons, we therefore request that the Conditional Use Permit be denied. Thank you PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • GUEST REGISTER NAME ~. 2. `v,. 3. (~ ~ 4. s. 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. tf ~ ,~ 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. ~~ 24. 25. DATE p„g„mot t, 1985 ADDRESS f~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ S S ~ lsotic L~ ! ( ~. ,~? ~~.~Pi-~Yao /E / lri~-~, ,• I (~ Cam? l ~~~-rc~-~ ! ~ ~' S~ Co c 2 :~ ~il..~ ~' ,. ,~ ~ _- r 3 ,ro t3~ d d ~.-~ a..-~ lso ~ Z ,~,«, ~'. S 50~ ~1' t ~ rev ~~-~--~~,.~._- ~,,. _~ .., ~~ 3 c~ a. ~~~ ~-~.. ~.~.~~.a-l - ~' a `~ ,ti i . ,~, ~. *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ Commission Agenda Item ,,per ~' ,r ° ~ , t ~ ,/ Name ~ /_f, i ; \/ l .,/,free • t • Address ? `~~ ~ ' ~ House No. Street ~ C ty IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization. r And, '" / ~ Speaker's Official paelty:• -~rE--"- SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPE~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 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. 1~ u *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ~ ' ~ `"~ S Commisslon Agenda Item No. ~ ~ _ 7 O j~ Name / h v /~/,~ Address ~ 6D~' 1~ , /~c ; h : ~~/-, l:~ ~~ o •~- ~~ ~f` House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGAN TION,~~ ~ ~~ Name of Organization: i And, Speaker's Official Clapaclty: SUBJEC 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 Deglnning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commisslon, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commisslon will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. •