Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/1985 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission September 5, 1985 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: All Present MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Mayo, Assistant Director of Planning Callaway, Assistant City Engineer Smith, Assistant City Attorney Clar and Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of Minutes - seeting of August 15, 1985. Mrs. Stallings made a motion to approve the minutes as presented; Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. Z: Hear Visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 85-218: Final Plat - Southwood Valley Section 25C. Mr. Mayo located the land represented on this item and on the following item, • identifying both as being identical to the corresponding sections on the Master Preliminary Plat of Southwood Valley which was approved earlier and advised that staff recommends approval as shown. Mr. MacGilvray asked if staff is recommending approval of the "box easements" on this plat;'when, on the last plat of Southwood Valley staff had asked that: approval b~ conditioned on putting the easements in a 10 foot easement to run parallel to the rights-of-way of streets, and Mr. Mayo replied that the lot sizes. had changed on that previously referred to plat and following that change, the box easements fell in the center of lots, whereas on this plat, the easements are on lot lines, and staff finds them acceptable. Mr. Brochu made a motion to`approve this plat; Mr. Dresser seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: 85-219: Final Plat - Southwood Valley Section 25B. Mr. Mayo explained that this plat is identical to corresponding land on a previously approved Master Preliminary Plat of Southwood Valley Section 25, therefore staff recommends approval as shown. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve with Mr. Brochu seconding the motion. Motion carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 85-220: Final Plat - Belmont Place Section 2. Mr. Mayo located the land, explained that the plat is identical to the previously approved corresponding section of the Master Preliminary Plat; then further explained that this land is now owned by and will be developed by the Humana Corporation. He stated staff recommends approval as shown. • Mrs. Stallings made a motion to approve this plat; Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). 1 P&Z Minutes 9_5_85 • AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: 85-310: Preliminary Plat - George McCulloch's Industrial Area. Mr. Mayo explained the plat, located the tracts of land and referred to area uses and zoning, adding that staff recommends approval of this Preliminary Plat with Presubmission Conference conditions. Mr. MacGilvray asked for clarification of area zoning, and also if the configuration of Holleman on this plat covers future needs of the City, and Mr. Mayo further explained area zoning and uses, and added that the configuration of Holleman is shown as staff has requested. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to approve this plat with presubmission conference conditions. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0}. Mr. Kaiser then explained that the next two items are within the area designated by the City Council as being under a moratorium, but further explained that these same two requests were excepted from that moratorium, thus this Commission has been given permission to hear and consider the requests, and also to make recommendations regarding them to the Council. AGENDA ITBM N0. 7: 85-118: A public hearing on the question of rezoning Lots 18, 19, 20 and 20 feet of Lot 17 Block 4 West Park Addition subdivision located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Park Place and Wellborn Road, from R-1 Single Family Residential to R,4 Apartments Low Density. Applicant is Henry William Hilton. • Mr. Callaway located the subject tracts, explained area zoning and existing land uses, pointed out that the area is reflected on the approved Land Use Plan, adding that the Comprehensive Plan itself has identified this area along Wellborn Road as having a low suitability for single family residential use, but has high to very high multi-family suitability. He stated staff has concerns with respect to the request, those being: (1)Although the area is reflected as low density residential on the land use plan, this does not limit the appropriate zoning districts to R-1, but means that some amount of higher density zoning can be established with low density maintained; and, (2)The request only addresses a portion of a block which is designed and developed for low density residential uses, and changing only a portion of a block may have impacts on the remaining single family residences on the block. He added that in this respect this request is similar to two R-2 and R-5 requests denied by council in April and June, 1985. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Callaway to clarify staff's recommendation and Mr. Callaway replied that staff is unable to make a favorable recommendation for the reasons stated. Mr. MacGilvray asked what density is allowed in R-4 districts and Mr. Callaway replied that 16 dwelling units per acre is allowed in R-4. Mr. Wendler asked the density allowed in R-3 districts and Mr. Callaway replied that he is unsure, but perhaps as much as 14 dwelling units per acre, the main difference being that in R-3 development the lots are platted individually. Mr. MacGilvray asked if a site plan had been reviewed to determine the location of curb cuts for the project proposed here and Mr. Callaway replied that one had not, but the • curb cuts would most likely be confined to being from Park Place, with no access (according to the Engineering report on this request) from Wellborn Road. 2 P&Z Minutes 9-5-85 • The public hearing was opened. Henry Hilton, applicant, came forward to explain he wants to rezone this land so he can develop an apartment complex of 12 units which would be much more economical than building single units on separate lots. He said the density of apartments is no greater than that of small, individual houses. Mrs. Stallings asked if there is only one house on this land now and Mr. Hilton replied that is correct, but that house will be moved out. Mr. MacGilvray wondered aloud if this project would spawn other like projects, then expressed his concerns regarding the affect higher density would have on the infrastructure of the area. Tony Bourgeois, owner/occupant of 104 Park Place for approximately 5 years came forward to speak in opposition to this request, citing increased density could cause a drain on utilities and streets in the area. Jim Collinsworth, owner/occupant of 109 Park Place for several years came forward to express concern that a project like this might overtax the utilities and very narrow streets which are in the area. Mrs. Stallings asked him if he had experienced problems in the past, and he replied that it appears to him that the sewers function very slowly in the early mornings. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser stated that the comments and concerns made regarding the condition of streets in that area are correct, adding that he has an additional concern in that • he believes because of the location of this land there probably is a market for multi-family dwellings and he fears approval of one such request would set a precedent for the future, adding that he is not ready to make that kind of decision prior to receiving the results of the thorough study which is taking place; therefore, he is not in favor of this request now. Mr. Wendler stated that he agrees with Mr. Dresser, adding that the results of the ongoing study will allow abetter understanding of the area. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the developer of parcels of land like this be could required to enhance infrastructure in the area in a way similar to the requirement of parkland dedication and Mr. Mayo replied that he is not aware if this can be done at all, but it certainly cannot be done on a lot-by-lot basis. Mr. Kaiser explained "impact fees" which are used in Florida, adding that he does not believe this has been approached in Texas as yet. He then asked Assist;ant City Engineer Smith if the rights-of-way in this part of town are different from other parts of town and Mr. Smith stated there is the same amount of right-of-way, but these streets are not curbed and guttered, and this type of improvement is usually done as a result of the receipt by the City of a petition from the landowner, who would, in turn, be assessed for a portion of the improvement. He added that there have been no petitions received from landowners in that area. Mr. Brochu stated he has the same concerns as Mr. Dresser. Mr. Kaiser then summarized the concerns listed as being regarding increased traffic, increased demands on the infrastructure and added a concern of his own which is the • relationship of this small area in this block, pointing out that multi-family development might not be the highest and best use of the land until remedial action takes place in this area. 3 r: P&Z Minutes 9-5-85 Mr. Dresser made a motion to deny this request with Mr. Brochu seconding the motion. Motion to deny carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITBM N0. 8: 85-119: A public hearing on the question of rezoning Lots 17, 18 & 19 Block 1 Regency Square subdivision located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Wellborn Road and Holleman Drive from C-N Neighborhood-Business to C-1 General Commercial. Applicant is S. Helley Broach. Mr. Callaway located the lots, explained area zoning, existing area land uses, current zoning and approved proposed uses for the lots, pointed out that the land use plan reflects the area as low density residential, and that the current zoning (C-N) is considered to be appropriate in and adjacent to residential areas. He further explained that approved commercial development polices in the Comprehensive Plan state that commercial zoning on arterials should have a minimum depth of 400 feet wherever possible, adding that this tract has a depth off Wellborn Road that varies from 177 to 350 feet, and that no individual lot has a depth greater than 177 feet off Wellborn. He pointed out that the intersection of thoroughfares (as this tract exemplifies} is identified by the Plan as appropriate for commercial development, adding that the proposed Holleman extension and signalization projects will increase traffic volume through this intersection. He informed the Commission that a 2.5 acre C-1 area was established to the north of • this tract by City Council in August, 1985. Mr. Callaway stated that staff recommends denial of this request, listing the reasons as being (1)The tract is adjacent to an existing residential area and although C-N districts allow some controlled commercial uses, C-1 districts allow all permitted uses without review as to location; (2}The lots do not comply with approved development policies with regard to depth for commercial zoning; (3}The area is reflected as low density residential on the land use plan and current C-N zoning is more appropriate at this location. He continued by pointing out possible alternatives to C-1 zoning as being approval of C-3 zoning on the corner lot, which would allow the applicant's proposed use with less potential impact on adjacent areas than C-l; or C-1 zoning on the corner lot only, which would not be in compliance with development policies but would have less potential impact than C-1 zoning on all three lots. He went on to say that any change in zoning should include a condition requiring joint access and development between the lot, as was proposed and approved on the site plans for C-N development. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Callaway if these were the same arguments staff presented regarding the request for C-1 zoning on the lot across Holleman from these lots and Mr. Callaway replied that they are the same. Mr. Dresser asked about sign location if this is rezoned to C-1 and Mr. Callaway replied that unless the applicant changes his approved site plan, no further review will be required, and the sign location, etc. will be governed by ordinance. Mr. Dresser asked if these lots were rezoned to C-1 and the applicant changes his approved uses, would there be additional • review, and Mr. Callaway replied that any proposed permitted C-1 use would be acceptable, and no further review would be required unless the site plan changed at which time there would be review by the Project Review Committee, but not the 4 P&Z Minutes 9_5_85 • entire Commission. Mrs. Stallings asked what C-3 district signage allows and Mr. Callaway replied that it is the same as C-1 signage. Mr. Mayo explained staff's main concern is the possible impact on the neighborhood, as in C-N zoning uses and site plans are reviewed and approved by the Commission, but if lots are rezoned to C-1, the list of approved uses is greatly varied and the neighborhood has no control. Mr. MacGilvray asked if a variance to sign regulations could be granted in C-N zoning districts and Mr. Mayo said that although he would have to check with the Legal Department to be certain, he does not believe it can be done. Mr. Kaiser asked if gas price signs are allowed in C-N zones and Mr. Mayo replied that they are, and only the large, freestanding signs are prohibited. The public hearing was opened. Kenny Broach, applicant came forward to state the reasons he believes his 3 lots should be rezoned from C-N to C-1. They included the fact that the Comprehensive Plan states that commercial zoning should be established at major intersections, and this certainly will. be a major intersection considering the high traffic counts at the intersection, and the fact that because of its location and area development, that corner will handle much more than neighborhood traffic. He continued by pointing out the Comprehensive Plan states that commercial zoning districts should be at least 400 feet whenever possible, adding that it is not possible for him as his lots are less than that. He pointed • out that the City's policy is to establish curb cuts a minimum of 200 feet from an intersection, pointing out that the established curb cuts to his lots are approximately 185 feet from the intersection, and quoted from the P&Z Minutes of an earlier meeting in which City Engineer Pullen stated that although the curb cut locations do not meet the 200 foot requirement, ..."but a judgment of the :impact of the drives has been taken into consideration, and it has been determined that these drives will not adversely impact the traffic at this intersection, as along Wellborn, traffic into this project will most likely be a right turn in, right turn out situation." Mr. Broach then addressed development suitability of the lots, stating that the Plan says the uses should be compatible with other nearby uses, and pointed out that the City had recently established C-1 zoning right aci°oss the street from these lots with industrial right across Wellborn and the railroad tracts, and although the adjacent R-1 zoning to the south would appear to be a problem he pointed out there is an established "beer joint" which has been there for ages and no one knows when it will close, so there really is no conflict. He then addressed the problem of lack of buffering between this and adjacent residential tracts, stating that he wonders if the buffer between the R-1 on this side of Wellborn and the industrial across the street is the arterial or the railroad tracks. He stated that the existing R-1 zone is indicated as having low density residential suitability, but pointed out that the R-2 land adjacent to these tracts have been said to be undevelopable by the owner due to the large amount of money already invested in the land. He also stated that the uses approved for his C-N zoned lots would be more compatible in a C-1 district according to staff recommendations at the time of the rezoning request and referred to staff's statements regarding the • proposed gasoline pumps as being potential high traffic generators and the fact that fast food restaurants had, up to that time, only been allowed in C-1 districts. 5 P&Z Minutes g-5_g5 • He then addressed the need problem of equity, stating the preferred 400 foot depth of commercial tracts is policy rather than law, and the fact that the City has recently rezoned land right across Holleman to C-1 without this requirement indicates that this area needs commercial development. He added that he would like to be a survivor, and to accomplish that he needs the same flexibility the C-1 tract across the street has regarding signage, on-premise sale of alcohol, etc. if it becomes necessary. Mrs. Stallings asked how the applicant feels regarding staff's recommendation of C-1 zoning on the corner lot only and Kenny Broach deferred to his father, Kelley Broach who came forward to answer questions. He stated that if the property across Holleman is zoned C-1 and this property is not, his company will not be able to compete on the same level, nor have the same opportunities. He went on to explain that he would be concerned about rezoning all the land up and down Wellborn Road to C-1, but pointed out that this property is located at a major intersection whereas the other lots are not. He explained that there are approximately 1100 residential units with 74% occupancy across the tracks and the traffic count will most likely be more than the 20,000 vehicles per day recorded now as Holleman will eventually connect both the East and the West Bypass. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. Broach if he thought he could be successful with his current zoning if there was not C-1 zoning across the street, and Mr. Broach stated that if that tract were zoned C-N (as his is) he would be willing to remain C-N, adding that he only wants equity to be able to compete on an equal basis. Mr. Kaiser said he does not blame him, but explained this Commission must look to the highest and • best use of the land, pointing out that the concern regarding equity can only be a very small consideration for the Commission. Mr. Dresser asked if there are 3 lots here and only 1 lot across the street, what would control having 3 separate developments here and Mr. Broach replied the curb cuts being allowed would control that. Mr. Mayo clarified by explaining that the plat of these 3 lots includes an access easement across all 3 lots. Mr. MacGilvray asked Mr. Broach if he had considered expressing opposition to the request to rezone the tract across Holleman to C-1, and Mr. Broach replied that he had considered it, but did not think the City would zone it C-1, and additiona:Lly, he does not try to control others' use of property. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser stated that he had voted against the C-1 zoning across the street, but he has been persuaded by the equity issue and is having a hard time determining the difference between these lots and the tract across the street, adding that although his feelings have not changed, he does not see how the Commission can now deny this request. Mr. Kaiser pointed out that this Commission makes recommendations to the City Council, and what it must consider are surrounding land uses and he would advise each Commissioner to use his own judgment in coming to a decision. Mr. Brochu stated he had been involved with this C-N zoning, was against the C--1 zoning across the street, but now the reality is that it makes an impact, and now the conditions in the area have changed, and he does not see any way changing the zoning on these lots would have that much more impact than the tract across the street. • Mr. Kaiser said that is certainly a legitimate point, but the R-2 tracts adjacent to these 3 lots are the same, and the existing C-N provides a buffer between them 6 P&Z Minutes 9_ro_8ro • and the C-1 across the street. Mr. Brochu pointed out that R-2 is the existing zoning, but the land is not being used as that. Mr. MacGilvray said that in most cases C-N zoning next to R-2 zoning would be better, but pointed out the approved uses are not ordinary C-N uses. Mr. Mayo pointed out there can be no guarantee of uses in C-1 zoning districts, and staff must look at surrounding uses and provide to the council its best judgment regarding recommended zoning. Mr. Paulson said he still believes this will be a major intersection in that part of town, pointing out the depth policy is only a number and many plans could be built on less. Mr. Kaiser stated that depth figure serves as a guideline adopted in the Comprehensive Plan for optimum development. Mr. Paulson said economics must be considered, then asked what neighbors this Commission is protecting, pointing out there is no one here to voice opposition. He said that he believes this is a prime commercial tract in this particular area of town. Mr. Kaiser said that although the Comprehensive Plan states that commercial development is best located at major intersections, it does not say it should be located at every major intersection in town. He added that the 400 foot figure is simply a guideline, and pointed out the Broach's land is very close to depth, but he is bothered by the existing R-2 zoning behind this tract, and wondered how it could be buffered. He added that he is also troubled about the area behind the C-1 tract across the street which does not have a buffer, in fact that is his major concern; the residentially zoned and developed land. Mr. Mayo said the Comprehensive Plan says to put commercial development at major intersections, not C-1 zoning; then in studying the plan more, it appears that this • is not a good C-1 tract and it is already a commercial tract; although C-3 zoning would preclude the planned and approved fast food restaurant, staff would recommend this plan be allowed if the tract is rezoned to C-3. Mr. MacGilvray asked if there were more uses permitted in C-3 than in C-N to which Mr. Mayo replied that the uses are different, but signage and outdoor display of goods are the major differences. Mr. Kaiser said that C-3 zoning would preclude the fast food restaurant, but there would be more flexibility in completing the shell building. After more discussion regarding the possible permitted uses in various commercial zoning districts, Mr. MacGilvray said this Commission is in a spot because perhaps a mistake was made across the street. Mrs. Stallings made a motion to approve this request to rezone from C-N to C-1, as stated in the application. Mr. Paulson seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 6-1 (Kaiser against). AGENDA ITSNI NO. 9: 85-711: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a Scott & White Clinic to be located at the southeast corner of Glenhaven Drive and University Drive. Applicants are Vic Paulos and R. W. Butler. Mr. Callaway explained this request, adding that it includes both site plan and use approval and reminded the Commission that the use for the tract was approved previously without site plan approval. He pointed out that the applicant is asking the Commission for a variance to interior island requirements, and indicated that all requirements could be met on this tract if the building was shifted, but that • would include eliminating the large greenspace to the east, and the applicant has expressed a desire to retain this natural greenspace to enhance the beauty of the project. 7 P&Z Minutes 9_5_85 • Mr. MacGilvray said that the P.R.C. tried to encourage a more efficient use of this parking layout and that he believes it can be done and also meet the parking and island requirements, and spoke of suggested changes which could accomplish that. Mr. Kaiser asked how many interior islands are included in the variance request and Mr. Callaway replied the variance is far 3 interior islands and that all other P.R.C. requirements have been met. The public hearing was opened. Clark Potter, Project Director for Scott & White in Temple, Texas came forward as a representative of the applicant and to ask approval of this request and also to answer any questions, adding that every effort has been made to incorporate suggestions made by Mr. MacGilvray to no avail. (Mrs. Stallings was out of the meeting for only a moment}. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Brochu said he is happy to see the existing greenspace being saved. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. Mayo if staff is recommending approval of this site plan/conditional use permit with the island variance and Mr. Mayo replied in the affirmative. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to approve this site plan/conditional use permit with the variance requested in the letter regarding 3 interior islands. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion. Mr. Dresser asked if that includes P.R.C. recommendations and Mr. Mayo replied that the site plan being approved tonight includes all P.R.C. conditions with exception of the 3 interior islands. • Mr. MacGilvray withdrew his original motion. Mr. Brochu agreed. Mr. MacGilvray then made a motion to approve this conditional use permit/site plan with P.R.C. conditions and with the 3 interior island variance as requested in the letter. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion which carried unanimously {7-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: 85-709: Reconsideration of the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a church facility with a daycare center, a Christian school, a retirement center, and an outdoor recreational area to be located on a 10.357 acre tract bounded by Glenhaven Drive, Dominik and the S. H. 6 Bast Bypass Frontage Road. Applicant is College Heights Assembly of God Church. (This item was tabled at the meeting of August 1, 1985). Mr. Brochu made a motion to remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Wendler seconded the motion-which carried unanimously (7-0). Mr. Callaway explained that this request is for a conditional use permit for the use only, and the site plan presented is simply a conceptual site plan to give the Commission an idea of what is being proposed on the land, with the actual site plan to come back before this Commission for approval at a later date. He added that a public hearing would be held at that time, with proper notification made, just as has been done for the public hearing held for this request. Mr. Kaiser pointed out that the public hearing requirement had previously been satisfied by this Commission, so at this meeting he would request that Mr. Hobson act as spokesman for the neighborhood and Pastor Durham to speak for the applicant. He then asked Pastor Durham forward first. • The Reverend Calvin Durham came forward and spoke of the compromises offered to the homeowners in the area which are outlined in the letter to the Commission included 8 P&Z Minutes g_5_85 • with these Minutes. He listed 11 points of compromise which had been made, adding that the central focus of a church is to minister in the secular realm, and then read from a book to exemplify this need. Mr. Kaiser interrupted him, stating that the denomination is not a concern of this Commission, but rather the uses proposed, then asked the pastor to address those uses. He reminded everyone that the site plan is not being considered at this meeting, but rather the uses. Pastor Durham said the aim of the church is to minister to the whole man with uses for all, but the church has agreed to remove the retirement center from the plans as well as offering other compromises, but the neighborhood has not agreed to this. He added the church needs the approval of the conceptual site plan and land use plan for all the other uses as they are essential to the church's ministry, and it does not feel those uses can be compromised any further. Mr. Kaiser reiterated that this Commission is not considering the site plan, but the conditional use permit, and it might be useful to attach any conditions which might be imposed by the Commission on a site plan as they would be helpful in developing a site plan in the future. Phil Hobson, spokesman for the neighborhood, came forward to state the area should remain zoned R-1 as shown in the Comprehensive Plan 2000. He said the area residents feel that this facility would be an abuse of a conditional use permit, and stated that somewhere in this country there is a lawsuit over exactly this same issue. He went on to explain this church now owns 5 acres of land on University Drive which should be large enough to develop a project to meet its needs, adding • that the site on University would be more economically feasible to develop. He then addressed the offer made for a 40 foot greenbelt, pointing out there :is a 50 foot greenbelt between Texas Avenue and the Culpepper Shopping Center which is hardly noticeable, adding that is the reason this neighborhood feels that any buffer less than 150 feet in width would not be effective, and then pointed out the neighborhood has offered to accept a 200 foot greenbelt. He went on to explain that the only alternative acceptable would be for the developer to move th<~ City Park but he understands that is not a feasible, viable alternative to the City. He spoke of talking with appraisers who would give no specific figures regarding the possible decrease in property values, but they did laugh when he asked if the residences would be adversely affected by the proposed project across the street. He then spoke of asking Brazosland Properties to secure and maintain 3 appraisals, and then to absorb any losses if any residence had to be sold at less than the appraised value, but that was not acceptable. He then stated that he had signatures from citizens all over the City who were against this permit. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Hobson what he felt would be the appropriate use of land adjacent to the Bypass and Mr. Hobson answered R-1 was the appropriate use as shown in the adopted Plan 2000. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the neighborhood had considered the option of leaving 7 single family lots along Dominik, with the rest sold to the church and Mr. Hobson answered the only option agreeable to the neighborhood would be to have a full city block of homes with one side of the block facing Dominik and the other side of the block facing another street running parallel to Dominik. Mr. Kaiser speculated that the impact on this neighbarhood would be the same as the impact on new single family homes and Mr. Hobson answered if the church was already • developed, anyone purchasing a home would know it was there, but the existing neighborhood feels it would be compromised. 9 P&Z Minutes 9_x_85 • Mr. Kaiser explained that granting a Conditional Use Permit is not the same as rezoning, in that the land is still zoned R-1 and should an approved use not be developed the land would revert back to only R-1 uses. Mr. Hobson said they appreciate that, but that they have approached the City Council about changing the conditional use permit to be more limited. Vernon Files, 1402 Dominik spoke from the audience stating that the neighborhood had made compromises in the past, i.e., Merry Oaks street going through, apartments next to houses after the promise of a buffer; then asked what the difference between this daycare center and a commercial daycare center would be, as they both charge money for its use. He then likened the school to a private school and spoke of the recreation area causing noise and traffic. He concluded by saying the fact that it is a church makes no difference and that he is for the integrity of the church, but the problem is there seems to be no difference in the impact between the same type of commercial enterprises and this church project. Mr. Dresser asked what staff's concerns are regarding drainage; and, if that tract is developable. Mr. Mayo said without a complete study that's a hard question to answer, but said that there have been very few instances where a tract is determined not to be developable. Mr. Kaiser said he seemed to recall the Commission had set certain limits on the Aldersgate Church when the permit was granted and Mr. Callaway explained that the limitations were placed on the daycare center regarding the specific days and the hours to be in operation on those days, and the church had come back for more • children later, but there was no school included with the request. Mr. Kaiser restated that certain conditions can be addressed with a Conditional Use Permit which cannot be addressed with any other kind of development, citing traffic, noise, buffering, etc. Mr. Brochu said he wanted clarify what he had said at the last meeting, as it has since become apparent that either he did not say what he meant, or he was misunderstood; then continued by referring to this as an "established neighborhood" as opposed to an "establishing neighborhood", and he had been concerned that the people served by this facility might not be the people in the established neighborhood, as the living patterns of these people have most likely been set, whereas in an establishing neighborhood perhaps these same patterns have not already been set and they might be more likely to use area facilities. Mr. Kaiser said he is not against schools and churches being located in neighborhoods and has approved both in all types of neighborhoods in the past, and this Commission must now decide if this use is being proposed in a good location along the Bypass, and then it must address buffers, drainage, traffic, etc. Mr. Brochu agreed, adding that he thinks any concerns at all must be attached as conditions in a motion at this meeting to serve as guidelines in future development. Mrs. Stallings said she had tried to study this issue carefully since it was first presented, and she had contacted 4 appraisers who did not feel they could make a • judgment in this area regarding the possible impact on property values as there did not appear to be anything to compare with in this area, and they all believed such a judgment would have to be made by studying outside areas. One did, however, indicate that impact would depend on the appraised value of the house, with impact 10 P&Z Minutes 9-5-85 • more adverse on homes in the $150,000-$200,000 plus bracket. She said that she felt that if the church developed the project in an attractive manner with adequate buffering, the neighborhood would not be adversely affected. Mr. Kaiser said that he believes there are a number of steps which could be taken to minimize the impact on the neighborhood regarding traffic control, etc., and would speak favorably toward awarding this permit for a church, school and daycare center, with proposed controls regarding the daycare center, i.e. number of children allowed, etc. Mr. Kaiser then advised the audience that a protest to any decision made by this Commission could be filed with the City Council within a certain period of time. Mr. MacGilvray asked the audience to ask themselves the following questions: (1)Do you go to church? (2)Is that church in a neighborhood? (3)Do you make use of a daycare center? (4}Do you use a Christian educational center? (5}Do your children go to school? Mr. Kaiser then stated that this Commission is bound by ordinance to grant Conditional Use Permits, subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when it finds: (1}That the proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the Zoning Ordinance for this type of use; (2)That the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and the plan for physical development of the district as embodied in the comprehensive plan for the development of the City; and, (3)That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, • nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property. (Se~~. 10- C.2, Ordinance 850) Mr. Wendler stated that all unforeseeable changes are unpleasant and he is really not sure that groundbreaking for single family residences along this street would not cause just as much anxiety, but explained that more predictive control is available on this proposed project. Mr. Wendler then made a motion to approve the conditional use for a church, a daycare center and a Christian day school, including the offer of compromise in the letter as conditions to be used as a general guideline (specifically the 11 listed points of compromise in the letter dated August 28, 1985 and addressed to the Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission.) Mr. Dresser seconded this motion. After discussion, Mr. Wendler amended his motion to include the establishment of an outdoor recreation area on the site specified on the revised site plan presented at this meeting. Mr. Dresser seconded the amendment. Votes were cast on the amendment and the motion to amend carried unanimously (7-0). Votes were then cast on the amended motion and the motion as amended carried by a vote of 6-1 (Paulson against). Mr. Paulson explained that although he believes churches need to be in neighborhoods, some of the residents of this neighborhood appear to be rattier senior and are longstanding residents, and perhaps may not have the means t:o move should they wish, therefore, he voted against this permit. Mr. Kaiser again advised of the opportunity to appeal any decision this body makes to the City Council by filing a petition with the City, and then thanked the people for their patience while the Commission was hearing and determining the outcome of • this application. 11 • P&Z Minutes 9_5_85 AGENDA ITEM N0. 11: 85-804: A public hearing to consider an ordinance amending and superceding Ordinance No. 850, the Zoning Ordinance, and all amendments thereto, as well as all other ordinances in conflict with this ordinance; providing a revision and updating of the zoning regulations, including but not limited to site plan review, parking requirements, landscaping, sign regulations, amendment procdures, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and enforcement and penalty provisions, all in accordance with a cc~aprehensive plan for the development of this City, and in accordance with the provisions of the Articles lOlla-j., V.A.C.S. (Second public hearing). The second public hearing was opened and Jim Schutt, acting as representative of the Brazos County Association of Landscape Contractors came forward to state his organization is generally in favor of this ordinance, adding that the change in the barricade requirements was particularly good, but questioned whether or not the sliding scale of points for trees would actually save any large trees. Mr. Mayo said an attempt is being made to encourage developers to save 4-6-$" trees, and the question now seems to be "what would help accomplish that?" Mr. Schutt said the compromise made on the clinic's site is a step in the right direction, and without some type of compromise which would be attractive to a developer, he had no answer to Mr. Mayo's question. Mr. Brachu suggested that perhaps compromises could be set on a ratio to the size of the development, that is, a certain size tract could eliminate X number of parking spaces. Rudolf Freund came forward to recommend that the section covering Conditional Use Permits be changed to restrict what can be permitted to a small project rather than • including a 10 acre project such as was decided tonight. He suggested that a zone change would be in order for a project of this magnitude. Mr. Mayo stated that certain kinds of uses have historically been included in any neighborhood or zoning district, but what seems to be happening to church development indicates the uses of a church are changing and they are becoming a 7 day operation, thus becoming more noticeable in a neighborhood and having greater impact. Mr. MacGilvray said he agreed and perhaps a closer look should be taken at churches. Mr. Mayo pointed out the Conditional Use Permit really allows the City to take an individual look at each project. Mr. Kaiser directed staff to look into the uses included in the Conditional Use Permit process to determine if, perhaps, some should be changed, added or deleted. Phil Hobson came forward to suggest either the Conditional Use Permit be eliminated or make the ordinance more specific regarding each use allowed. He then suggested that things of this nature should be decided by people responsible to the voters, rather than an appointed board. Terri Tongco came forward to suggest perhaps definitive guidelines regarding the residential areas and the widths and type of buffers could be included in both the Conditional Use Permit process and in development between zoning districts. Jim Gardner came forward to question specific sections of the proposed ordinance: (1)Accessory buildings used to house home occupations? (2}Child care or convalescent home with (a} and (b) listed below should be child care and then list (a) with convalescent home and (b) listed. (3)"Classification amendment" should perhaps be "Reclassification amendment". (4)Home occupations should be limited to • be allowed in the principal structure. (5)Use of the word "exception" in several locations should be changed to "variance". (6)Referred to use of "Special Exception" and then said that perhaps that would be acceptable. (7}Suggested "Non- 12 P&Z Minutes 9-5-85 • Conforming Uses" should be "Non-Conforming Uses and Structures". (8)Suggested the use of open land be eliminated within 1 year or made conforming. (9)C-N zoning is perhaps too restrictive regarding the sizes of buildings and land. (10)Referred to the use of the words "negative damage", asking what damage was not negative. (11)Make references to "the ZBA" read "the Zoning Board of Adjustment". No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Wendler said there is no definition of "church" in the ordinance. Stallings said perhaps an acreage limitation could be used in Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Paulson said the section regarding control of satellite dish antennae is definitely not realistic. Mr. Kaiser referred to a definition of "family" which had been passed around to each Commissioner. Mr. Kaiser then said this Commission is definitely not ready to pass this on to the Council with a recommendation. Discussion followed with the Commission setting Wednesday, September 11, 1985 at 4:30 p.m. for a workshop to study and continent on the proposed ordinance. AGENDA ITEM N0. 12: Other business. Mr. Kaiser said he has concerns over the possible large number of underground gas storage tanks which could be included in some of the projects being approved, and requested that staff finds out exactly who controls those tanks, whether it is the Fire Marshal, the State or just what entity. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 13: Adjourn. Mr. MacGilvray made a motion to adjourn with Mr. Brochu seconding the motion; motion carried unanimously (7-0). Vice Chairman, Dan MacGilvra ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones • 13 SAC . 2 . ~~ ~' I ~,l ~Tit~fV ~ C~G~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ L ~ ~~ ~~G~~e C ~~C . ~ S v'U 1,15 ~ . ©~ s U~~ of ~cce s~ - Q ~ u ~a~f, ~-~, ~ urGL ~ ~~ ~ I~ , I d C°~v~ ~r Gory va (Qs c~t~' ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ wi ~~~~s c~ ~~~ -~ ~~. ~-~~ s~wc~, 5~~~~~ ~jP. 5~~~"~ c~~~l~f`~~s G ~ ~l s ``~.c arc ,s-~ ~ ~~Gu~t,-~" ' (,~ocrd c ~ ~ ~ ~,~~ ~1 ~~ ~~ ~ .~ e~ f~ _ -~-ti ~ z ~ c~.~ ~ ~ try, r v~ ~~~. ~ r, a ,S U ~ s--~du~G~ e. 0 6 S ~.~ S c~ ~-~L vl t ~i o !~( o-T ~'` ~c ~ a, t t/L ~r1~°, cSr ~Q`~r~'~'1 ~~"Ge ~ S1'~(~~'CC a~ ? ~ ~~Grl~'~"mc, G- C° SSE le~~l ~ ~x ~~l b J ~ ~t c~e Y~~~~Pd~ ~ -f~l Est. .~. ~jGG~"G i~ u,9b ~~ ~ Cre c.~c~ss~-~r~~ ~ Cfisz~rzcc -t0 c~ar~~-F~ , ~~ ~~ e ~~ _ ~~~s U~ ~ ~~,~ ~~ , l~~ ~~ fy • ~~ S~ o ~ ~ ~ ~J' ~ t al. .S`e~~d~e_ ~~ f~Yl~ .D f vic~' ~ ~ tcri Vo~U~ S ~/~cc,~,~reS ,S~a~s-~~~ ~~ ( L ~ ~ ,,O l~ ~t~ ~P~1 `~ ~ D ~ ~9~° p~e~ aCl rz~~ ~~~ ~~~~ c~ r~~, ~~ a-~a.~' uS~ s r~ fGl~`~ ___~ ~ ~T9e,~v-~, ~ ~ Eat ~t fl ~ `~ ~}S~ . ~ ~ . ~~ (~dri t' ~ c,~~v I i -~ ~ o ~ X G~~~'rrrK. a-l1~..1``''p c.c~S t~5 ~-DCn-E'linv~~ e .~ ~~' t° xc~~~e C7 ~ ~S7e Gr ~,~, e. ~C,~~`E' c eu 1 (C15e~ ~ ~~ G ~ r ~) K i r r~ I L-l ~i ~ ~~ -Fi re , S-~'a v'-'y, ~~c , ~ USA ~~ vC ~t .. ~D r Ylt ~ ) ~T (~ ~ ,S(na J IGd ~° t J~ c~Utio ~~ ~~~~ ~'- ~~ ~-Fle ~ ~ ~~-~ ~ Ul{,aTB tl ~~ e ~t/dG ~ C`fc1 ~2 V' ~ ~S 1(~ T~CUin GU 'V' V '~-G (~ U~ U l S~ ~ . ~~"C . ~7~ 10- C-A.1 ll}~t~~-3o~.'~ ~U.Sr1V~S.5 ~ 5e e~uns Uvt, yu° c~ ssa~r C ~~S~rrG~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 d, sr`~; r~ ~ k ~ ~~ Y ~ • C D U Lv U I~ ~~i /o) j l y~~ °~ ~% ~ Z l fil, D ~ !~~ ! Ul ~.~~ -p~-o~+~~ a~P~ovals. ~Sho~r`d~.~ ~G~EUE, ~ ~ ~/t~l.l Yl t WI Uwl St 7~ S/ Z~ ~ W~`G o~S c~ ~ ~X (LZ(t>1J1~ ~ • 1r115e~, a~ ~___-- 9 ~ ~, ~~ _ / ~cf~( ~~-z ~ s~~ ~~ ~ U~~ s ~~~ ~L ~ ~~ ~~ , aid d ~~ l~e xis ~ ~~~ ~e~ t~-~~~~c,~ 9 ~ ~ ~ .s°~'a-~ aid o~ ~~ ~cc w~ ~ ss~ o u PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • GUEST REGISTER NAME ,i 1. o~,~ .moo 2. 3. 4. 6. 7 . G- $. ~,f~ ~~ of .~; 10 . ~' 11. r• 12. 13. ~" 14. 1 S . w,~, ' 16. r ~7. 18. 19 . ~ .Ii~ l'1 i ?`s .~' .., ~, 2 0 . ~.~~) I~ is ~~~.5 UEJ D ~~ ~ ,~ 23. • 24. 25. DATE September 5, 1985 ADDRESS o o ar~r~ I~ ~ S r A- Y __ ~, ' '~ ,~ ~ , S n~ t~~'` i, 1 / Gov ~ ~ ,, ~ '~ - fi:~ r ~ 1 / Gr' .T, 11 F i J~ ~,~ ~ ~~ ,,e T ~'~ ~C*,~,~ ltY D ~ J. r~'~7~~.~.~..~~ r ~,~q ;~, ~,~' .. ~~-, ~+ /~//J) // " 44~~ / ~ ~V ~ ~ / ~ .~ ~j ~W~A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER • DATE September 5, 1985 NAME - '~~ 1. ~ ~ r x ~+~+ 3 . ~~~ _ cam' ~ . _ ~~ ~. ~~ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25. ADDRESS ~~ / ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~w4 `~-' ~ .1 ~~ ~ t. ~ ~ i ~ r} ~ . ,: ~^ r , ,~,i.~ £ . ~ s p, ,, ~,~ ., ' .,~ ,.--~ ,~/) 1, -~' ,,..._, it -7v ~a ~.,~~~--~-. . c ,~ *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting / - S- ~~ Commission Agenda Item No. ~~~ Name pp ~(/i(/. ~~.,e/,,~?, /~'//. .~~it Y~/~d,H'`i Address 070 ~~Y~/~/ODC/ ` ' ~~ House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organizat/ion: ~( ~f ~~ / And, Speaker's Official Capacity: ~'SfOr SUBJECT ON WHILH 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 beglnntng your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. • *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE GC~OMMISSION) Date of Meettng / ~ ~ S Commission Agenda Item No. ~ I Name L1 ~ M ~ E~'~t`r'7" ' Address ~~ ~ l~l~~(, ~~~ y v~ House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organ l za"tAlon-: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: 1/~, -~ r~-~-- SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK 7(" ~ L~~. ~ CJ ~Il~ ~~ILSZU 1'~ 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. C *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) p- J L Date of Meeting o J o Commission Agenda Item No. ~,~ r ~~ Name V ~ 6 Address ~ , Mouse No. St et City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: C~ SUBJE T ON WHICH PERSON MISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN E%TRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker Ilmlttng an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. • *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS 41H0 MISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting v`~ r , w ~` \. Commission Agenda Item No. ~ '" r i r Name ` Y Address r _~ ~ ' ~' House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: • SUBJECT ON NHICH PERSON MISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. • *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting Name Addre IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of 0 nization: `~~?h. ~ • And, Speaker's Official Capacity: 12.E ,~ SUBJECT ON WHICH P RSON WISHES TO SPEAK The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. Comml ss I on Agenda 1 tem No. 5^ ' ~ ~ Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you lf~e 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. • *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting Pf V A• y '~ Q y' Commission Agenda Item No, ~~ Name V ~ ~GyI'I~A' Address ~ ~ ~7 • ~I C /+ G.. House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK ~ ~/~~h9 orb, ~vtS/~ 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. *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ~ommisslon Age a ytem NG, / / Name ~'/iJ~'y~ .+~.. ~~/' ~/ ~ ^ ~~ l ' ~ ' 4`/ Address ~ r:' . .; "~ / ~'' ~---' -^i ~ .6r~ House No. treet City • IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, n ~~ ~ Name of Organization: And , /'~ Speaker's clal Capacity: ~~~ ~_ ' '"•~ > ~> ,-` SUBJECT ON WHIC~ERSON WISHES TO SPEAK .,.. ~ r ~C ~;;~'~', . -~~ X~ ,.. 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. *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE~COMMISSION) (; Date of Meeting ,7T~ ]J Q l ~( ~~ Commis-s-lon Agenda Item No. ~ ~- l I {} Name ~ Q ~u (r~~ C~ CX I!`G e ~ t S Address ~ ~~ ~R~~ ~~~ce ~ S ~x • House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your 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 five minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. • *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting Comml ss Ion Agepda I tem No. T w ~ ~ Name I ~ Address L r, ~- • House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you• have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. • *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ~.~~© Commission Agenda Item No. Name ~diQ~ ~ ~~~iY/l-f~°~2sG ~ LL/ Address Nouse No. Street City • IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: And, Speaker's Official Capacity: ~~~~~~ SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair; hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR COMMISSION FILES. The Commission will appreciate each speaker limiting an address on any one Item to flue minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. • *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ~ S~ P~ Commisslon Agenda Item No. ]S Name Addre~ /~ f2/ --~ House No. Street y IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: /-~~~~cf~ ~,~n~~,~~iss And, Speakers Official Capacity: SUBJECT 11N WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK /gym ~~~ /1~v6 ~- ~ / l(~~'~I ~LC~ ~ G~JO ~/yCziC ~L~' 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 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. r ~ ~J *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting ~ ~' ~ I/ Commission Agenda Item No. Name ~~"~~ ~~~L- /\~ /~~/ ~~__//// Address /~l®~ /Y' ~~~1~~pE /~~f2~/le ~L~Xi' House No. Street City ~ • IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Nam of Organization: And, Speaker's Off/iclal Capa~cQlty: 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 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. •