HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/1985 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 1985
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Kaiser, Members MacGilvray, Wendler,
Paulson, Brochu and Dresser
MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Stallings
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Assistant Director
of Planning Callaway, Assistant City Engineer
Smith, Assistant City Attorney Clar, Zoning
Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of October 17,
1985.
Mr. MacGilvray made one correction to the minutes; that was changing the listing of
Commissioners under Agenda Item No. 11 to reflect that only he and Mr. Dresser
would be meeting with the Assistant Director of Facilities Planning. Mr. Wendler
made a motion to approve the minutes with that change; Mr. MacGilvray seconded the
motion which carried 5-0-1 (Paulson abstained).
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2. Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
• AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3. 85-122: A public hearing on the question of
rezoning an 8.95 acre tract of land located on the north side of
the proposed extension of Holleran Drive approxisately 1500 feet
east of Lassie Lane, frog A-P Administrative-Professional to C-1
General Co»ercial. Applicant is Jases B. Jett, Trustee.
Mr. Callaway explained the request, located the tract and pointed out area zoning
and uses. He explained that the area is reflected on the land use plan as high
density residential with office-commercial uses to the north, but that since the
adoption of that plan in 1982 there have been several changes in conditions in this
area, those including establishing 36.69 acres of C-1 zoning and 15.52 acres of A-P
zoning in 1984; the increase in the width of the extension of Holleman Drive from
39 feet in a 60 foot R.O.W. to 47 feet in a ?0 foot R.O.W. with sidewalks on both
sides; and a potential change being the possible extension of Stallings Drive from
SH 30 south to Holleman which would create a new intersection at Holleman with this
tract then having frontage on both Stallings and Holleman. He pointed out that
there are no land use or zoning conflicts with this request, all adjacent tracts
are currently zoned C-1, A-P, or R-6, that the subject tract has adequate depth and
area for commercial zoning, therefore staff has no opposition to this request as
approval of it will not substantially change zoning patterns in this area.
Mr. MacGilvray asked about the original request on this tract and Mr. Callaway
replied that there have been several requests on this tract, but the last request
which was approved was for A-P. Mr. MacGilvray then asked if staff has any concern
• about the flood plain on this tract and Mr. Callaway replied that A-P or C-1
development would be equal in effect and staff has no particular problem with
either. Discussion followed concerning the perimeters of this tract, area zoning
P&Z Minutes 11-7-85
• and uses and effect on the flood plain.
The public hearing was opened. James E. Jett, applicant came forward and explained
the history of past rezoning requests and development plans as they were at those
times. He then spoke of the possible plans to extend Stallings, stated this
rezoning request comes without a specific use in mind, but with an attempt to blend
with existing adjacent/area zoning and allow him to more effectively plan
development of the entire area. Mr. Kaiser asked for clarification regarding the
possible future rezoning request regarding the tract to the north. Mr. Jett
explained, adding that he knows nothing definite, as he is not the owner of the
land. Mr. Kaiser, Mr. MacGilvray and Mr. Jett discussed how the flood plain will
be affected, and how the flood plain will affect development.
Jim Gardner then came forward to oppose this request because he has hopes that some
streets in the City could be free of commercial development.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Brochu said that because not much of this tract fronts on Holleman, he does not
think that this rezoning would have a major impact, and it even seems that it might
tidy up a "block". Mr. Kaiser stated he is bothered by the location of the flood
plain and the effect C-1 development will have on the natural vegetation in the
area. Assistant City Engineer Mark Smith stated that the same regulations would
apply in either A-P or C-1 zoning districts regarding increase of runoff or
velocity increase, adding that it would be better if the flood plain were developed
• in an overall plan rather than in bits and pieces. Mr. Wendler stated that in his
opinion, an appropriate land use in this area other than a natural park would be
hard to choose. Mr. Paulson said solutions to development in the flood plain can
be worked out and compliance to rules will have to be followed, adding that he does
not believe any other type of development will take place at that location. He then
pointed out that the Drainage Committee has not yet set standards on types of channels
to be used.
Mr. Jett spoke from the audience and addressed drainage/channelization plans for
this area where the flood plain will be changed. Further discussion followed
concerning the impact on the flood plain which will take place with development
with Mr. MacGilvray reiterating his belief that the City is heading in the wrong
direction when it allows any type of development in the flood plain, after which
Mr. Paulson stated his disagreement with that belief.
Mr. Paulson then made a motion to approve this rezoning request with Mr. Wendler
seconding the motion. Motion to approve carried by a vote of 5-1 (Kaiser against,
who then explained his dissention is based on concern of possible impact on the
flood plain.
AGBNDA ITEM N0. 4. 85-123: A public hearing on the question of
rezoning a 10.03 acre tract of land located on the south side of
Rock Prairie Road, east of and adjacent to the Bel,ont Place
Section Two subdivision, frog R-4 Low Density Apartsents to C-1
General Cos~ercial. Applicant is Area Progress Corporation.
• Mr. Callaway explained the request, identified area zoning and uses, and
pointed out the proposed Humana Hospital site is adjacent and to the west of this
tract. He added that the subject tract is vacant and is reflected as commercial
2
I
I
P&Z Minutes 11-7-85
• and medium density residential on the land use plan. He stated that staff
recommends approval of this request because of its location, that being between the
Humana tract to the west and a C-2 area to the east, as well the fact that the
subject tract has adequate depth, area and access for commercial development.
Mr. Kaiser asked what types of development could take place in C-1 which would not
be allowed in A-P and Mr. Callaway explained.
The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr.
MacGilvray stated he personally has no problem with this request. Mr. Wendler made
a motion to approve this request with Mr. Brochu seconding the motion. Motion to
approve carried unanimously {6-0).
AGBNDA ITEM N0. 5. 85-717: A public hearing on the question of
granting a Conditional Use Persit for a 140 unit personal care
facility for asbulatory adults over the age of sixty-five on a
7.825 acre tract of land located between and fronting on Doainik
Drive & University Oaks Boulevard, appx. 500 feet east of Hyle
South. Applicant is the College Station Retireaent Association,
Ltd.
Mr. Callaway explained that this project is a convalescent home as defined by the
City's zoning ordinance and is therefore required to have a conditional use permit.
He explained further that conditional use permits are granted by the Commission
subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards when the Commission finds the
proposal meets certain criteria listed in Section 10 of Ordinance 850. He informed
• the Commission that the revised site plan presented meets all conditions set by the
P.R.C. at its review on 10-23-85, therefore staff recommends approval of this
conditional use permit/site plan as presented.
The public hearing was opened. Tim Chinn, Kling Engineering came forward as
representative of the consulting engineering firm for the applicant and introduced
Saralee Lewis and Gilbert Gallego who were in attendance representing the
applicant. Ms. Lewis explained what would be included in this facility and why
this location was chosen, supplying information while referring to a site
plan. Mr. MacGilvray asked if this project would be completed in phases, and Ms.
Lewis answered that 4 phases are being planned. More questions followed regarding
who would be living in this facility and Ms. Lewis explained that it is not being
designed for people who need a great deal of medical attention, although medical
personnel would be in attendance, but it is meant primarily to house older people
who are still able to care for themselves. Tenants with cars was discussed, with
Ms. Lewis stating vehicles are allowed, but tenants are encouraged to use the
facility's transportation. Mr. Callaway explained that the parking provided
exceeds the requirements set forth in the ordinance. Discussion followed regarding
whether or not the shops included in the "core" area of this facility could be
allowed with Mr. Callaway explaining that the shops would represent a minor part of
this facility, and would be available for use by tenants and their guests only (as
apposed to use by the public), therefore would be no problem with a conditional use
permit.
No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Wendler made a motion to
approve this conditional use permit with P.R.C. conditions. Mr. Dresser seconded
• the motion which carried unanimously (6-0).
3
P&Z Minutes
11-7-85
• MR. KAISER EXERCISED CHAIR'S PREROGATIVE AND MOVED AGENDA ITEM N0. 8 TO THIS
POSITION ON THE AGENDA.
AGENDA ITBM N0. 8. A public hearing on the question of amending
the College Station Code of Ordinances to include a section
relating to newspaper dispensing devices.
Assistant City Attorney Clar explained .the background which led to the preparation
of this ordinance as being that early this past summer the City began receiving
complaints from citizens about newspaper dispensing devices which had been placed
in various locations. He said staff had determined that an ordinance controlling
the location of these devices would be the best way to handle what appeared to be a
problem, and after doing some research on other ordinances, had also determined
that an ordinance which would not prohibit these devices, but simply control the
location of the devices so that they would not be allowed in low density
residential zoning districts or developments, in sight distance triangles, on
private property without written permission of the property owner, within 5 feet of
any fire hydrant or other emergency facility, on paved areas which reduced
passageway for pedestrians to less than five feet or at any location where it would
overhang or rest on the curb or roadway would be the best solution. Neither could
they be chained to signs, utility poles or other City structures under this
ordinance.
Discussion followed regarding liability insurance, similar ordinances in other
cities, safety of residents with regard to the sight distance triangle, concern
• about the First Amendment Rights newspapers have, and the number of complaints
received (with no exact number given by staff). Mr. Paulson stated that if the
complaints received numbered less than 100, they represent only a very small
percentage of the total population. Mr. Dresser asked why it has been determined
that this ordinance is necessary, and asked if it has been determined that these
devices represent a safety hazard to the public. Mr. Kaiser said if these devices
represent a safety hazard to the public he thinks some type of regulation would be
acceptable, but he said he could not back an ordinance which regulated location on
private property in entire zoning districts. Mr. Paulson agreed, but added that
newspaper companies should have no more rights than anyone else.
The public hearing was opened and no one came forward to speak in favor of the
ordinance, but various state and local newspapers were represented by the following
people who all spoke in opposition to this ordinance: Skip Schneider, Circulation
Director of the Bryan-College Station Eagle; Gordon Gallatin, Circulation Director
for The Houston Post; Ed Carne of the Dallas Morning News; Ray Denton, State
Advisor for the Houston Post; Frank Davis of the Brazos Valley News Service and an
unidentified speaker from the audience. All of the above listed people stated that
an ordinance controlling the location of newspaper racks represents a violation of
the First Amendment Right of newspaper companies; that the $5.00 fee for a permit
for every location of a newspaper rack represented a cost which is prohibitive to a
firm; but all agreed that if there was a complaint from either a citizen or the
City regarding the location of one of the racks, each newspaper company represented
here tonight would work with the City in satisfying the complaint. All agreed that
they believed this ordinance would violate the newspapers' first amendment rights,
but all also agreed that they were concerned for the health, safety and welfare of
• the citizens of this community, and would cooperate with the City regarding the
location of these rack, but believed this could be handled without an ordinance,
adding that many of these ordinances have been struck down all over the United
4
P&Z Minutes 11-7-85
• States, further adding they would rather not have to test an ordinance but would be
willing to if necessary.
Number of complaints received was discussed with Mr. Gallatin of the Houston Post
replying that his company had received approximately 10 complaints regarding the
location of its racks, and after working with the City, all racks were moved to
locations recommended by the City.
After a rather lengthy question and answer session with each of the above named
persons, no one else spoke and the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners discussed the ordinance, voicing questions as to exactly why this
ordinance had been prepared, concluding that it had been done apparently without a
study to determine whether or not there was a need for the ordinance, but rather
prepared following complaints which did not apparently address public safety.
Further discussion followed regarding just how to act on this ordinance; whether to
table it to allow staff time to rework it, to forward it to council, or to reject
it. Mr. Paulson asked if this Commission could ask Council for guidance as to
whether or not this ordinance is needed. Mr. Dresser said he is not convinced the
City has a problem which needs to be addressed, and then made a motion to reject
this ordinance as being unnecessary at this time. Mr. Brochu seconded that motion.
Mr. Wendler likened these devices to those of campaign signs which are regulated as
to locations allowed, stating that he is not sure these racks should be treated
differently. Mr. Brochu stated campaign signs were covered under the Sign Ordinance
• after a study by conducted by P&Z, Council and citizens, adding that he
believes first it should be determined if there is a problem, then that problem
should be addressed. Mr. MacGilvray agreed, stating that staff apparently acted
without direction from a public body, but rejection of this proposal will not kill
a problem if there is a problem.
Votes were cast, and the motion to reject this ordinance carried 4-2 with Kaiser
and Wendler casting dissenting votes.
AGBNDA ITEM N0. 6. 85-311: Preliminary Plat - Windwood Phase 6.
Mr. Callaway located the tract of land, referred to the Presubmisson Conference
conditions, adding that they had been met on this revised plat, and stated that
staff recommends approval as shown. Mr. Paulson referred to the condition on the
report that states that setback lines are regulated by ordinance and stated that he
does not think the City should try to regulate how professionals do their jobs.
Mr. MacGilvray pointed out that setback lines are subject to change and that a plat
is a matter of record. Mr. Mayo stated that the reason for this condition in this
particular case is because this is a corner lot and the applicant was not sure how
his building would face, therefore did not know what would be the front and what
would be the side setback. Mr. Paulson explained his concern comes from his
knowledge of a company involved in a lawsuit because setback lines were indicated
by a note rather than a physical line on a plat. Mr. Mayo said that an engineering
firm can put whatever it wants regarding setback lines on a plat in most instances,
but the City will enforce only what its ordinances require. Mr. Paulson clarified
by stating that he simply did not want this particular plat requirement to set a
• precedent for future plats.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve this plat with Presubmission Conference
5
P&Z Minutes
11-7-85
• conditions. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0).
THE CHAIR AGAIN EXERCISED ITS PREROGATIVE TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA,
ANNOUNCING THAT THE NEXT ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED WOULD BE ITEM N0. 9.
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 9. Consideration of the University Drive Land
Use Study and reco,~endations.
Mr. Callaway briefly explained that the study and report came as a result of
direction by Council to conduct the study following pressure by numerous applicants
for C-1 zoning along the eastern part of University Drive and one actual rezoning
to C-1 in that area. (Please refer to actual study included with these minutes).
Mr. Wendler asked if this report proposes rezoning in the area or if it is to be
used for simply putting people on notice. Mr. Brochu explained that there will be
no rezoning as a direct result of this study, but that the committee had been asked
to look at the area because of the repeated requests for rezoning on certain
tracts, and this report either confirms the existing plan or recognizes changing
conditions in the area which might cause a change in the plan. The study itself is
to serve as a guideline should a rezoning request came up in the future.
Mr. Callaway explained that this report does not recommend changes in the adopted
Land Use Plan, and the committee and staff would only ask this Commission to
endorse the report or endorse it with any modifications it decides on. The report
will not be sent to Council for formal consideration as was the East Bypass Land
• Use Recommendations, but would simply be forwarded to Council for its information
and to supplement the Land Use Plan as adopted.
Mr. Paulson said that because he had not had time to thoroughly study this report
he would simply abstain from voting if the rest of the Commission was ready to vote
on endorsement. Mr. Dresser stated that he is comfortable with the report; Mr.
Wendler said he is ready to endorse it.
Mr. Wendler then made a motion to endorse this report to be used as a general
guideline by staff in evaluating rezoning requests in this area; that staff should
furnish this information to developers considering requesting rezoning in the area,
and that this Commission should reference this report as a document to supplement
the Land Use Plan as adopted when considering rezoning requests in the area; and
further that this report should be forwarded to Council with this Commission's
endorsement.
Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which was approved by a vote of 5-0-1 (Paulson
abstained for reasons mentioned above).
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7. 85-804: Consideration of an ordinance
a,ending and superceeding Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Kaiser referred to his memo (attached to these minutes) and requested the
Commission to consider each item listed and take action so that the revised Zoning
Ordinance can be forwarded to Council with the Commission's recommendation to
approve, advising that notice will follow that the Commission has accepted or
• rejected the language proposed by staff on these particular paints. Mr. Dresser
said he would personally like to see the ordinance read as this Commission want
prior to sending it to Council. Discussion followed on the various points listed
6
P&Z Minutes 11-7-85
• in the memo with Mr. Paulson questioning why staff kept in the requirement of the 6
foot screen fence around satellite dishes when this Commission had expressed its
desire to see that requirement deleted. Mr. Mayo explained that staff would point
out the Commission's recommendation when the document is forwarded to the Council.
Mr. Paulson expressed a desire to see the language changed to reflect what this
Commission recommends, with staff pointing out what they would like to see in a
separate memo.
Mr. Kaiser stated then that he would like for the Commission to consider changing
the conditional use permit requirements for daycare centers to increase the number
of children allowed in daycare facilities without a permit from the current 3 to 6
to follow the current state and local permit regulations. Discussion followed with
Mr. Kaiser suggesting that anything under 7 children could be termed "babysitting
in the home" as opposed to daycare which can be regulated by other state and local
regulations. Mr. MacGilvray said he likes the idea of allowing up to 6 children in
a home daycare facility without requiring a use permit, but then to prohibit taking
care of more than 6 children in the home altogether. Mr. Kaiser said he would
prefer to allow up to and including 6 children to be cared for in the home without
requiring a use permit, but if more than 6 are requested, to follow the same
Conditional Use Permit regulations which now are in use.
It was decided by the Commission to go through the memo step-by-step and to vote on
each point. Results are as follows:
1. Home Occupations - Paulson moved to approve the language staff has proposed and
• included in the revised ordinance. Wendler seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (6-0).
2. Family - Paulson moved to approve the definition offered by staff which has
been included in the revised ordinance. MacGilvray seconded the motion which
carried unanimously (6-0).
3. Satellite Dish Antenna Definition - Paulson moved to approve the definition of
satellite dish antenna as proposed by staff and included in the revised ordinance.
Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0).
4. Satellite Dish Antenna Regulations - MacGilvray made a motion to direct staff
to delete the 6 foot screen fence requirement in the revised ordinance prior to
forwarding the ordinance to Council. Paulson seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (6-0).
5. Definition of Child Care - Change to reflect "any facility or premises where
seven or more children under sixteen (16} years of age regularly attend for the
purposes of custody, care, or instruction; and which children are not members of
the immediate nuclear family of any natural person actually operating the facility
or premise." Mr. Paulson made the above motion; Mr. Brochu seconded. Motion
carried unanimously {6-0).
6. Appeals of Conditional Use Permits - Mr. Wendler made a motion to change the
language on how to appeal (the actual mechanics, forms and language} decisions of
the P&Z, coordinating the language used with the City Secretary. Mr. Brochu
• seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-O).
7. Citation authority - Mr. Wendler made a motion to incorporate the language used
7
P&Z Minutes 11-7-85
• in the Sign Ordinance regarding citation authority into this zoning ordinance
before the ordinance goes to Council for consideration and approval. Mr. Dresser
seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0).
8. Buffering - After lengthy discussion regarding suggestions received from people
other than Commission members, the P&Z decided to make no additions or changes to
the existing language of the proposed ordinance, citing the introduction of this
ordinance and the definition of R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District as
being adequate protection of R-1 development/districts from adjacent undesireable
uses.
Staff was then instructed to send the proposed zoning ordinance to the City Council
with a recommendation of approval as submitted, but without the inclusion of the
ordinance for the Northgate Zoning District or the Commercial Planned Unit
Development District until after public hearings are held and recommendations made
on those sections by P&Z.
Mr. Dresser made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed zoning ordinance to
the City Council, subject to the changes discussed and voted on at this meeting and
as listed above. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0).
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 10. Other business.
Mr. Callaway announced that no applications requiring public hearings had been
received for the regular meeting of the P&Z on November 21st, adding that only one
• final plat had been received, but should the Commission wish to cancel that
meeting, final approval of that plat by Council will not be delayed, as it will not
be scheduled for Council agenda until December 12th, whether P&Z considers it on
11-21 or 12-5. Mr. Brochu made a motion to cancel the regular meeting of the P&Z
on November 21st. Mr. Paulson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0).
Mr. Paulson again requested that staff prepare some kind of flow chart showing how
projects go through the City, so he can give this information to the Drainage
Committee.
Mr. Paulson also expressed his opinion that the satellite section of the zoning
ordinance had been prepared prematurely by staff, as it is his understanding that
the Council directed that this potential problem be studied by P&Z with a
recommendation to follow that study, and the fact is that the P&Z was given no
chance to make the study prior to staff preparing an ordinance which, in his
opinion, may not have been necessary had the study been made.
Mr. MacGilvray agreed that the P&Z should be given the opportunity to study a
potential problem and give direction to staff, adding that the potential problem
could be brought to the attention of the Commission by way of a memo from staff.
Mr. Kaiser requested that staff prepare a map showing the individual locations of
all Conditional Use Permits which have been granted by the Commission, perhaps
using color coding to distinguish the different uses.
Mr. Kaiser also requested a report on the Holleman Street railroad crossing from
• the City Engineer.
Mr. Kaiser further requested a report from staff concerning the Industrial High
8
•
P&Z Minutes 11-7-85
Tech Park at the southern edge of the City Limits.
He then announced that in the near future he would like the P&Z to consider
appointing a committee to make a land use study of the land most recently annexed
at the southern edge of the City.
AGBNDA ITEM N0. 11. Adjourn.
Mr. Wendler made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Brochu seconding the motion. Motion
carried unanimously (6-O), and the meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED:
- --------- -- -------------
Chairman, Ronal Kaiser
c:
•
ATTEST:
----------------------------
City Secretary, Dian Janes
9
Cl
November 1, 1985
City of College Station
t'OS[~ Ot=(=K;E Ii(>X 9960 1101 "CE?CAS .AVLNUE
('OLLEGf : S"I~.i"l~l(~N, I~E\.~S 77840-2499
T0: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ronald Kaiser, Chairman
SUBJFsCT: Revised Zoning Ordinance
Prior to making a final recommendation to the City Council
regarding the revised zoning ordinance, I would like for you to
focus your attention on several subjects which have not yet been
resolved, in my opinion.
Please consider the following list of paints individually and
either approve staff's recommendations, or forward alternative
recommendations to the City Council:
• 1. Home Occupations: Staff proposes the list of permitted home
occupations be changed to a list of examples of home occupations
and that section (d), pertaining to home occupations as
conditional uses be deleted. Section (c), prohibited uses would
remain. All other home occupations would be regulated by the
performance standards included in the definition.
2. Family: Staff proposes to add the fallowing sentence:
Persons are related within the meaning of this definition if they
are related by consanguinity, affinity or legal guardianship.
3. Satellite Dish Antenna Definition: Staff proposes the following
definition: A broadcast receiver that receives signals directly
from a satellite rathf~r than another broadcast. system, and
amplifies the signal at a focal point in front of the receiving
component.
4. Satellite Dish Antenna Regulations: On September 11th the
Commission decided to delete the 6 foot screen fence requirement
from the satellite dish antenna regulations. Staff proposes to
retain this requirement. Staff has proposed to allow placement
of dishes in locations other than rear yards when granted a
variance by the ZBA in order to provide for suitable reception.
In addition to the above, I would like the Commission to give
• consideration to the following:
1. Conditional use requirements for daycare centers:
a. Increase the number of children allowed in daycare
1
friciltit~s without a use ~'~e~r~mit state and lor,tl r~~y~ul,~t i<,n~:
allow up to 6 children without 17ermit or licF~nsr°; ttie zoning;
ordinance currently allows only 3.
b. If the number is increased, the Commission might consider
(1)elminating daycare as a conditional use in residences,
(2)base approval on neighborhood response, or (3)approve existing
regulations.
2. Appeals of Conditional Use Permits: The current ordinance is
unclear with respect to the form of the appeal and the Council's
authority in acting on appeals. I believe the Commission should
consider defining Council's role in handling appeals. The
Council could be limited to (a)upholding P&Z's decision,
(b)overturning P&Z's decision, or (c)returning case to the P&Z
for reconsideration of specific points.
3. Citation authority: I think the ordinance should include
language authorizing or granting the Zoning Official citation
authority for any violation.
4. Buffering: Questions have arisen concerning additional
buffering requirements between residential and non-residential
land uses. These requirements could take the form of additional
setback requirements, screening or landscaping. It is my opinion
that the current ordinance language is adequate when the City's
• Land Use Plans and Development Policies are followed.
•
2
•
UNIVERSITY DRIVE LAND USE STUDY
University Drive Study Committee
Celia Stallings
David Brochu
Steve Hansen
U
College Station Planning and Zoning Commission
• October, 1985
Introduction
• In December, 1984, and January, 1985, the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council considered, and subsequently
re-considered, a request for C-1 General Commercial zoning on a
tract along the south side of University Drive, part of the One
Lincoln Place development. This tract was located adjacent to a
tract which was the site of a number of rezoning requests during
the past ten years. Other tracts in the area had been considered
for commercial rezonings in the recent past. None of these
request were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan adopted by
the Council.
The City Council returned a request for C-1 zoning along
University Drive to the Planning and Zoning Commission on January
10, 1985. At that time the Council requested that the Planning
• and Zoning Commission appoint a committee to study the area and
prepare specific land use and zoning recommendations.
On January 17, 1985, Planning and Zoning Commission chairman
Steve Hansen appointed Commissioners Celia Stallings, David
Brochu, and Terry Tongo to a committee to study this area in
accordance with the Council's request. Commissioner Stallings
was appointed chairman of the study committee. After
Commissioner Tongo was elected to City Council, Commission
chairman Ronald Raiser appointed former Commissioner Hansen to the
committee.
On January 24, 1985, the Council established a 1.8912 acre
C-1 tract in the One Lincoln Place development.
r1
U
University Drive Study page 1
.~
UNIVERSITY DRIVE LAND USE STUDY
A review of the City's land use plan for the area along
• University Drive was requested by the College Station City Council.
This request was in response to continued requests for commercial
zoning along the south side of University Drive coupled with
intense commercial development in the University Drive/East
Tarrow area.
The review of this area began by identifying and establishing
study area boundaries. The area to be studied was identified as
follows:
The area along University Drive from Tarrow Street east to
the East By-pass. The northern boundary is the northern
property line of all tracts or subdivisions having frontage
along University Drive. The southern boundary is Lincoln
Street and the extension of the Lincoln Street alignment
• straight to the Post Oak Forest development; the boundary
from Post Oak Forest to the By-pass is the southern property
line of any tract or lots having frontage along University
Drive. (see fig. 1 )
•
University Drive Study page 2
FIGURE 1
STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES
•
•
•
University Drive Study page 3
.'
Land Use Plan Review
In determining the appropriateness of the land use plan as
. it applies to this area, the area's natural and man-made features
identified by the City's planning consultants were examined.
These features were utilized by the consultants in conducting a
development suitability analysis and preparing a development
suitability index and map for the City.
Natural Features
Two natural features were identified as having an impact on
development within the study area. These included floodplains
and steep slopes. A major floodplain is found in the northern
portion of the study area. Lesser floodplains are found along
the small creeks in the area. Steep slopes along some of these
creeks impact several tracts.
• A third feature is a visual barrier (the East By-pass)
located on the eastern boundary of the area.
The natural features identified by the City's planning
consultants are reflected in Figure 2.
•
University Drive Study page 4
•
FIGURE 2
NATURAL FEATURES
i
~'_ ~ ~ ~_
~ r ~ ~ /, .
.= ` ~
l ~ /
1 ~_~__ ~
~ ,. ~~ -
_~
,.
i.
~~ „ ~ , ~ ~ -
~ i
~ ..
~,
ti ~ ~ ~ _ ~ l
,- ~~ i
~ ~
~.,,,
~~~. ~~
r
~ - .; L~C~END
~ ~~ ~Iclod- ~'lar~s ~-
~ t ~~ ~~
~ €~
•~'
.,
Yt~ l ~trner
:..
..~~?' r~ia ~.
University Drive Study page 5
Man-Made Features
The man-made features which impact this area are developed
area, easements and noise zones. Developed area, or existing
development at the time the plan was prepared, included the
commercial and multi-family uses in University Park and Chimney
Hill, multi-family uses in Lincoln Place, single family
residential uses south of the proposed extension of Lincoln St.,
and the Past Oak Forest PUD. An easement for a Lone Star Gas
transmission line affects several tracts. A noise zone (the
East By-pass) is located along the eastern portion of the area.
Man-made features are reflected in Figure 3.
•
University Drive Study page 6
i•
.J
1
~`~
I•
FIGURE 3
MAN-MADE FEATURES
F a _ ~+--
------
--,~_-_
_~
_ -z~1:
i
- ~~
~ ~
ti
~ I ~ ~l
/1 ~ ~ s
'1 ~ 4
,- ~ ~- e
~'
I ~ ,
-i i
i ~ ~ ~
~ ~~
i
~-~ `f
~~ ,
-•,
~- ~
,`
University Drive Study
.~
a
a
:~
r
~ LEGEND
~ P~ ..-.-
u~i~f~ 5er,ii~e •~•••
y
N~c Zpne M
E s --
page 7
Development Suitability
The natural and man-made features were used by the City's
• planning consultants in the preparation of a development
suitibility index and map. This map (Fig. 4) was a "first level"
land use recommendation used in part in the preparation of the
land use plan. The committee reviewed this map as it pertains to
the study area in the process of identifying any errors in the
plan as adopted.
C:
J
University Drive Study page 8
FIGURE 4
DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY MAP
•
•
•
s
,;
~~~~~
University Drive Study page 9
i•
Future land use requirements for the City are projected in
the City's comprehensive plan. These projections are given
below.
Table 1
Future Land Use Projections
College Station P lanning Area
Land Use Acres ~ of Developed
Area
Single Family 2,725 28.81
Duplex 145 1.53
Fourplex 60 0.63
Apartments 850 8.99
Mobile Homes 60 0.63
Total Residential 3,840 (Subtotal 40.59$)
Retail 690 7.29
Services and Offices 200 2.11
Hotel/Motel 80 0.85
Total Commercial 970 (Subtotal 10.25$)
• Schools 170 1.80
Parks and Open Space 1,240 13.11
Other Public 130 1.37
Streets and Highways 2,610 27.59
Total Public 4,150 (Subtotal 43.87)
Light Industry 235 2.49
Heavy Industry 215 2.27
Railroad 50 0.53
Total Industrial 500 (Subtotal 5.29$)
(Total 100.00$)
Total Institutional 3,845
Total Land Use 13,305
Vacant and Flood Plain 23,845
Total Undeveloped 23,845
Total Area 37,150
Source: Plan 2000, projections by consultants.
•
University Drive Study page 10
i•
Development Trends
Development trends in this area were identified by utilizing
the Serial Zone Landuse Change data maintained as part of the
City's Land Use Inventory data base. This data gives the change
in land use by serial zone for the years 1983 and 1984. The
study area is located within serial zones 184 and 202. The
changes within those serial zones are given in the following
table.
Land Use Change by Acres
Serial Zones 184 and 202
Use
C7
Low Density Medium Density
Vacant Residential Residential Commercial
Year
1983 - 5.87 + 0.96 + 0.95 + 3.16
1984 -25.59 + 0.68 +13.70 +11.29
Existing Land Use
•
The current land use and area for each tract in the study
area was determined by utilizing tax records and windshield
surveys. The land use for the study area is given in the
following table.
University Drive Study
page 11
•
Study Area Land Use
Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Office/Commercial
General Commercial
Vacant
ROW/Other
Acres
14.51
46.29
4.33
37.05
176.17
39.69
Total 318.04
* Includes 10 ac. park site in University Park
The current zoning for each tract within the study area was
•
determined and reviewed. The total zoning district acreages for
the area are as follows.
Study Area Zoning Acreages
Zoning District
R-1
R-lA
R-2
R-3
R-4
A-P
C-N
C-1
Changes in Conditions
Acres
91.60
5.17
5.5
13.14
85.88
28.17
0.57
82.56
Changed or changing conditions in the study area have
•
occured in two areas since the adoption of the land use plan.
In the area along the south side of University Drive A-P zoning
has been granted on two tracts in an area reflected as High
Density Residential on the land use plan. A-P zoning was also
University Drive Study
page 12
granted on a lot in the University Park subdivision which was
• located in an area planned for medium density residential uses.
This is not considered (by the planning staff) to be a serious
deviation from the plan. In many respects the Administrative-
Professional zoning district is comparable to apartment zoning
districts. A-P has similar traffic generation characteristics
(similar to the R-5 and R-6 apartment zones). The apartment
zones and the A-P zoning district are considered to be
appropriate as buffers between low intensity and high intensity
zoning districts. The 1.8912 acre C-1 tract that was
established in the One Lincoln Place development was considered
by some members of the Committee as a deviation from the land use
plan and development policies.
• Although the A-P zoning in this area is not a serious
deviation from the plan and is in compliance with development
policies, the result of the change is the "sandwiching" of
residentially zoned tracts between A-P tracts. While the A-P
zoning district is compatible with residential uses, A-P zoning
on the residentially zoned tracts would be more consistent with
the zoning paterns being established in this area.
Transportation
University Drive is one of the City's major thoroughfares.
The committee recognized that as such, University Drive must
provide for through movement of vehicles as well as access to
those lots or tracts with frontage only on this street. Two
streets in the study area, Tarrow and Lincoln, are secondary
• thoroughfares. Transportation concerns or potential problems
University Drive Study page 13
identified by the committee include:
• 1. Traffic congestion in the Tarrow St./Hilton area-
Tarrow Street is a heavily traveled route, a
continuation of East 29th. Street in Bryan. The Hilton
Hotel and other commercial developments in this area
(including a multi-story office structure not yet
completed) will contribute to the congestion that
exists in this area.
2. Traffic congestion along University Drive- University
Drive narrows to two lanes from East Tarrow east to the
By-pass. Committee members have observed congestion in
this two lane section. Increased development in this
area will add to this congestion.
• These transportation problems can be addressed by
improvements in the study area thoroughfare system. The
committee reviewed possible improvements to the University/Tarrow
intersection prepared by the City's Traffic Engineer. These
improvements included lane changes and the use of one-way traffic
flow in the Hilton/Chimney Hill area. The urbanization and
widening of University Drive is included in the fiscal year 1985
Transportation Improvement Program, Bryan-College Station
Metropolitan Planning Organization's annual element of area
transportation projects. The proposed widening is funded through
the Department of Highways and Public Transportation and the
exact funding date of this project is uncertain.
The extension of Lincoln Street to University Drive should
• begin this fall. This project, funded through the City's Capital
Improvements Program, should improve traffic circulation within
University Drive Study page 14
• the study area and reduce some of the traffic load on portions of
University Drive.
Some members on the Committee felt that the addition of a
street connection from Lincoln to University Drive between Munson
and Ashburn Streets would improve circulation within this portion
of the study area. This connection was included on previous City
transportation plans, but is not on the City's current plan.
Utilities
Sewer constraints found in this area could limit allowable
densities in area development. A sanitary sewer improvement
project funded through the City's Capital Improvements Program is
under design at this time. This project should be completed in
approximately two years and should alleviate area sewer
• constraints.
There are no water service constraints in the area. Some
tracts may require off-site extensions to existing mains in the
area. A waterline project funded through the City's Capital
Improvements Program will be completed this fall and will improve
the area water system.
University Drive Study page 15
Zoning Recommendations
• After review of current land use, zoning, existing plans and
supporting information and study area conditions, the committee
made the following recommendations for the study area:
The area along the south side of University Drive is
zoned C-1 from Tarrow St. east for a distance of about
1300'. This zoning is in accordance with the land use plan
and development policies and no consideration was given to
any change in this area.
To the east of this C-1 area the tracts along the south
side of University Dr. are zoned A-P and R-3 for
approximately 900' to a small C-1 tract. It was the
opinion of the Committee that zoning in this area should be
• held to A-P at a maximum. R-3 or R-4 zoning would be
consistent with the land use plan. A-P zoning would be
more consistent with the established zoning pattern in this
area. It was felt that there is no strong motivation or
need to increase commercial zoning in this area and that
commercial zoning would increase traffic loads along
University Dr.
The committee recommended that the 4.45 acre R-3 tract
located in this area, (Tract A, Figure 5) be rezoned to A-P
to be more consistent with adjacent zoning. The Committee
also recommended that rezonings in this area, reflected as
high density on the Land use plan, be limited to R-3, R-4,
or A-P. A pattern of A-P frontage with R-4 "behind" the A-P
• was established in the One Lincoln Place development. This
arrangement was found to be acceptable.
University Drive Study page 16
• FIGURE 5
ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS
-_
,,
~_./ /r -~---
~__
~ ~~ _ _ .
- - -_ :_ ~.
;__
i__ ,_; __
-_ _
d_o ~
TRACT E~
1
•
~~
., [.V! \
r s "C-I
t RQ-
~- „~
R ~-~<
~~.~~.j~ - C-~
i '?
J
\ Pa
~ ~ ~,_
R-I
- I
r ~• u.
~~~ ~ ` R_3
R 4 TRACT C ~ ~
A'P ~
y, y e R_ a
~ r T r /~• ~ ~ Gi i'r /.
i~ ~
--. ~ ~ C-1 sf Q
v~ ~ ; i ~ ac
C- ~ _R-3
.SC,i
a~ocK a, R~~,'
F'L iGl-~T$
1365 F d r
~. ?~+,
C_~ /`.1 /e. _
TRACT R ~ R-3
fl
Q ~,
•., ..
~~y.F iN• ~ ~1=~~~'Y. ~ ~ it
TRACT B ` `,._ . _,~~-3 -,,, ...','-.- :.
q 11 I[ I{ 11 ~ ~ ~~ _ ~+
a ~'
~ ~ ~ ,
i [ [ [ ,.
W' ~ ~' [-' N !CL~ T A T E S ~ '~
I.
N o [o ~~
L { N 21 ~, ,
I I[ [7 ~. y ,J - y
TRACT A~( , ~-..~ `~,,-~.a.~~:
s1 _ ~ PO -I i ~.[ '.. .. a :' :~' :i' '•; ~ '~,j _~
r ~, ,,,,,~ . :~
4 I _
r~ R 4~ ~ N ~ ~~ Q ~f If
a ~ I
C N 13~+ r ~ ~ ~"~ I.
_,~ , i. >
~Q~t~~V ..,F e.. ~t r-' 1 +r}~`• ~ ~ ~ `j- i _ 1s _J"l,..._ _ -„ l ~''. r ~ q
'• r ~ R' ~ - tit;* ; t • ~ J~rr ~ :,
?c . i ~i.
_ _ _
' '
~~ ^F~ ~°~. 'f 9~ _
yy Y: j ` t Y ~• „~~ `
..
_ ... „~ ..,~r.~. .
0 r. ~ .. .:_ ..
University Drive Study
page 17
A "buffer" of R-lA zoning has been established along
• Lincoln St. between Tarrow and Ashburn and in the One
Lincoln Place development. The Committee advised that
this buffer zone be continued along the north side of the
Lincoln St. extension, separating the existing low density
residential areas south of the Lincoln extension from the
higher densities that are developing to the north.
The area at the southwest corner of the future Lincoln
St./University Drive intersection was found to be well
suited for a limited commercial or C-N tract to provide for
some commercial services to this area (Tract B, Figure 5).
This corner will have alternative access to University Dr.,
and is separated from the balance of the tract on which it is
• located by a creek. The southeast corner should be A-P or
R-3 for the same reasons stated above (closer compliance
with land use plan and policies, established zoning
patterns, and lower traffic generation).
The tracts along the north side of University Dr. from
Tarrow St. east to Spring Loop were found to be zoned and
developed or developing in a manner consistent with the land
use plan. No changes in the area were discussed with the
exception of the R-4 zoned tract in University Park located
between two A-P zoned tracts (Tract C, Figure 5). The
committee felt that this tract could remain zoned R-4 or
could be rezoned to A-P.
Block Y, University Park, was identified as a "problem"
• tract (Tract D, Figure 5). The tract is divided by creeks
and gullies. Access to University Drive is poor, and the
University Drive Study page 18
tract is served by a private access easement that runs
between two duplexes to April Bloom. The committee
recommended that this tract remain R-3.
East of University Park is a 64.71 acre tract (Tract E,
Figure 5). The committee felt that a portion of this tract
could be used to increase the depth of the adjacent 9 acre
C-1 tract (Tract F, Figure 5) . The balance of the 64.71
acre tract was to be medium density residential with A-P on
the By-pass frontage. A-P was found to be suitable for a
portion of this tract, in the area just east of University
Park.
It was the committee's recommendation that the portions
of the study area not described above remain as currently
zoned and developed or developing.
It was the opinion of some on the committee that
University Drive is an outstanding thoroughfare and provided
an opportunity for commercial and office activities, not
residential or apartment uses. Others agreed, but felt that
this could best be accomplished with A-P and R-3 zoning as
planned along University Drive with commercial activities
concentrated at the intersections with Tarrow and with the
East By-pass.
University Drive Study
page 19
~r
~ ~~~~
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, RELATING TO NEWSPAPER DISPENSING
DEVICES.
WHEREAS, the City of College Station, through its regulatory
authority, intends to promote the health, safety and welfare of
its citizens by the enactment of an ordinance regulating news-
paper dispensing devices;
WHEREAS, the City of College Station recognizes the competing in-
terests of the residents to be free from unreasonable intrusion
into their privacy interests, as well as the right of commercial
free speech;
WHEREAS, the citizens of College Station have the right to secure
privately-owned property from such intrusions; and
• WHEREAS, the safety of the residents of the City of College
Station and the use of public streets is of primary concern to
the City of College Station.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS:
I.
That Chapter 4 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College
Station, Texas, is hereby .amended by adding a section, to ~e
numbered Section 2, which said section shall read as follows:
"SECTION 2: NEWSPAPER DISPENSING DEVICES
A. DEFINITIONS
(1) Newspa er Dispensing Device - the term "newspaper dis-
pensing device" as used in this section shall mean any
type of unmanned device for the vending or free
distribution of newspapers, news periodicals, or
advertisement circulars.
L~
•
(2) Si ht Distance Trian le - On a corner lot in any
istrict, nothing shall be placed in such a manner as
materially to impair vehicle drivers' vision at
intersections, along a triangle defined by the property
lines and a line joining two (2) points located twenty
(20) feet back from the property lines intersection.
B. LOCATIONS
(1) No newspaper dispensing device shall be located:
(a) within districts R-1, R-1A, R-2, and R-3 within the
City as shown on the official Zoning mad. Hof the
City of College Station;
(b) within any single family, dupledevelooedhasesingle
development or on any property P
family, duplex or townhome.
(c) within the sight distance triangle of an inter-
section;
• (d) on private property without written permission of
the property :owned;,,,.:... _ ~ :.....:.....:
(e) within five feet of any`fire hydrant.or other
emergency facility;
(f) at any location where the width of paved clear
space in any direction for the passageway of
pedestrians is reduced to less than five feet; or
(g) at any location where it will overhang or_rest on
the curb or roadway.
(2) No newspaper dispensing device shall be chained to,,
signs, utility poles or other City structures.
C. APPLICATION
Any person intending to locate a newspaper dispensing device
within the city limits of College Station shall make an
application to the City Secretary for a permit to locate the
same. The permit shall be granted upon the following
conditions:
C:
•
(1) The permittee shall pay an application fee of Five
Dollars ($5.00) for each location where a newspaper
dispensing device is located. The permit fee shall
be used for the payment of cost in investigating the
location and the issuance of the permit.
(2) a. In the application, the permittee shall designate
on a diagram the proposed location of the
dispensing device. The City Secretary shall
determine whether the proposed location is within
City right-of-way or an easement requiring written
permission of the private property owner.
b. The City Secretary shall'.~further determine that the
proposed location does not violate the sight
distance triangle as defined herein. Upon
determination by the City Secretary that no
violation of Section B exists, a permit for the
location of the newspaper dispensing device will be
approved.
(3) If the City Secretary fails to either approve the
• application or render a written decision delineating his
reasons for denial within ten (10) working days, the
' applicant shali.,have; the right,, to grant :the C,~.tx ,,. ,., _,.,, , ~.. , _
+ Secretary an additional ten ( 10) days €or 'review -or~-~~.~ ~>-~.F ~-x- ~-~~
appeal directly to the City Council. The. City Council
shall review the application at the next available
agenda meeting in accordance with its time period rules
concerning the placing of items on the agenda. Failure
to appeal in writing shall constitute the granting of an
extension to the City Secretary. There is no time limit
for the filing of a written request for Council review
of an application when the City Secretary has failed to
act.
D. ADVERTISING
A newspaper dispensing device shall not be used for adver-
tising signs or for publicity purposes other than that
dealing with the display, sale, or purchase of the newspaper
sold therein.
C]
•
E. LIABILITY
Permittee shall save and hold the City of College Station
harmless from any and all liability for any reason whatsoever
occasioned upon the installation and use of each newspaper
dispensing device and shall furnish, at permittee s expense,
such public liability insurance as will protect permittee and
the City from all claims for damage to property or bodily
injury, including death, which may arise from the operation
under the permit or in connection therewith and such policy
shall name the City of College Station as an additional
insured, and shall be in the amount of not less than Ten
Thousand Dollars ($10,000) combined single limit for any
injury to per~+ns and/or property damage, and shall provide
that the insurance coverage shall not be cancelled or reduced
by the insurance carrier without thirty (30) days'-prior
written notice to the City. A certificate of such insurance
shall be provided to the City and maintained before and
during the installation of such devices.
F. REMOVAL
• Upon the voluntary removal of any newspaper dispensing
_ device, the permittee shall restore the property of the City
to the same condition as ,.when; ~th~-, deyi;ce...was,:intia;lly.. in-: ; .
stalled, ordinary wear and tear excepted.
G. AMORTIZATION CLAUSE
For the purpose of this section, a non-conforming newspaper
dispensing device shall be defined as a newspaper dispensing
device which does not conform with the provisions of ~is
Ordinance. Such newspaper dispensing device shill be removed
within a period of three months from the effective date of
the adoption of~thi,s Ordinance.
H. REVOCATION OF PERMIT
Upon the violation of any of these provisions, the City of
College Station's City Secretary shall notify the permittee
by mail of the violation. Permittee will be given ten (10)
days to come into compliance with this ordinance or permittee
shall have the right to appeal the City .Secretary's deter-
mination to the City Council by filing a Notice of Appeal,
including a statement of the grounds for appeal, with the
• City Secretary within ten (10) days after notice of the
r~
U
decision by the City Secretary. The City Council shall set
the time and place for hearing such appeal. Notice of such
time and place for hearing such appeal shall be mailed
postage prepaid to the permittee to the address given in the
application at least five (5) days prior to the date set for
the hearing. The City Council has the power to reverse,
affirm, or modify the decision of the City Secretary, and any
such decision by the City Council shall be final.
I. DENIAL OF PERMIT
A person who is denied a permit by the City Secretary may
appeal this decision in the same manner as provided for in
Section H. Notice requirement shall be the same as required
in Section H. The City Council shall have the power to
reverse, affirm or modify the decision of the City Secretary
and any such decision by the City Council shall be final.
J. PENALTY
A violation of this ordinance is a Class C misdemeanor and
shall be punished by a fine of not less than Twenty Dollars
• ($20.00) nor more than Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00), and
each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate
offense. ~ •:~~,:__•
II.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage
and approval by the City Council and duly attested by the Mayor
and City Secretary.
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED THIS day of , 1985•
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
• City Secretary
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
•
GUEST REGISTER
DATE November 7, 1885
NAME ADDRESS
• -
2 • ! l l~'Ivnson C. 5.
4.
`~Yln.U,u f-~~lL~-`~" 313Z ~ . Zap ~
s • ~ a.~ -- ~ r~ l7~ FLU ~ ~~ ~ S
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
~~.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
• 24.
25.
6~
~-i ~9~ ~S