Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/1988 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES . CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission July 7, 1988 7:00 Y.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sasatelle, Members Michel., Colson 8: Dresser MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Stewart, Moore & Davis STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks, Planning Assistant Johnson 8: Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Approval of minutes - meeting of June 16, 1988. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0}. AGENDA ITEM N0. Z: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM N0. 3: 88-703: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center to be located at 305 Wellborn Road in the existing Unitarian Fellowship • facilities. Applicant is Brazos Valley Community Action Agency. Mrs. Kee located the subject facilities on an aerial photo, described the physical features of the property and identified area zoning and land uses. She also explained the conditions under which the Commission can grant a Conditional Use Permit, and stated that the P.R.C. had not reviewed this proposed project because there are no site modifications being proposed. She then expanded the explanation of the request by stating the center will operate 5 days a week from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., for a maximum of 30 children between 6 weeks and b years of age caith a staff of 6-7 peogl.e. She also pointed out there is a fence play area to the rear of the facility, and access for dropoff and pickup will be from the alley which runs from Highland to Wellborn. She infol•med the Commission that 18 notices to area property ownel•s had been sent, and she had received 2 responses to date. The public hearing was opened. David Altman, PI•esident of the Unitarian Fellowship came forward and explained the fellowship is planning this center as a community service and explained the facilities have been used for similar functions in the past, citing a child care facility and a kindergarten as examples. MI•. Colson asked several questions about the proposal summary included in the packets, covering access via the alley, the number of children, and whether or not there is another program of this nature in the City. Mr. Altman answered the questions and explained that there is a similar program in Bryan, but none in College Station of this nature. Shirley O'Brien came forward to state she is representing the owners of The Varsity Apartment complex, and that although she is not speaking in opposition to this proposal, she requested that some consideration be given to including some type of buffer zone or privacy fence to buffer noise from the children playing outside aIld to ensure the children would not stray to the complex property. She explained that the • apartment complex is fox• adults only, and the noise from the children playing outside in the vacant lot adjacent to the complex might very well disrupt the quiet atmosphere offered to the residents. She added that there is already traffic congestion in the area and she and the owners are also concerned with additional traffic through this neighborhood. Mr. Dresser asked Mrs. O'Brien about existing fencing and she explained. Mr. Michel asked if he understands the requested privacy fence is for noise in addition to vision screening. Mrs. O'Brien said the owners are not concerned with screening vision to/from the complex, but rather are concerned with the noise of the children playing in the vacant lot adjacent to the complex. Mr. Michel pointed out ghat the proposal states the children will be playing outside in the fenced area, which is quite a long distance from the apartment romplex. Mrs. O'Brien agreed, but said if the vacant lot is used for a playground, it is very close to the complex. Mr. Altman came forward to respond to Mrs. O'Brien's concerns and stated the children will only use the fenced area outside an the opposite side, and there are no plans to expand the facility to the vacant tract, except perhaps for use as a parking lot. in the future when finances permit. He added that he thinks it would be almost impossible to either see or hear the children from the apartments when they are using the fenced area, but if it becomes a problem, he would like to address it. Mr. Michel. asked Mr. Altman to respond to the concern about traffic congestion and Mx•. Altman explained there are 2 exits to the alley, which has been actually used as a street since it runs between Wellborn & Highland, and while there might be a maximum of 30 cars using the alley during the rush hours, staff would actually have • used it well ahead of those hours. Mr. Michel asked if this is the same facility which is used for ballroom dancing and Mr. Altman explained it is not, but is very close to it, which is the Jazzercise site he believes. Mr. Dresser asked who actually owns the alley and Mr. Altman explained the City maintains it periodically, so he thinks it is City-owned. Mrs. Kee clarified by stating it is an alley on the plat, and she can find no record of its being abandoned. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser asked if the Commission can impose a maximum number of children as a condition for approval. Mrs. Kee stated that it has been done in the past, but added that staff is not overly concerned with the number of children since the state regulates that facet of the center. Mr. Michel asked if staff has any recommendation regarding the requested privacy fence and Mrs. Kee replied she would prefer that the Commission make decisions concerning conditions to impose, but added t;hat if the outdoor play area is ever expanded to another area other than shown on the site plan, she would like to state that it would be considered by staff to be a change to the Conditional Use Permit as considered at the time of approval, and staff would require that change to be considered at another time by the Commission. Mr. Dresser said hE; is not, concerned with any noise or invasion of privacy 30 children playing in the fenced area might create, but he would be concerned if the number of children increased. • Mr. Dresser then made a motion to grant approval of this requested Conditional Use Permit subject to a maximum of 30 children. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4~-0). P&Z Minutes ?-7-88 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Discussion of Landscaping Guidelines for the Northgate Zoning District. • Mrs. Kee explained that the intent of the ordinance as it applies to the Northgate zoning district was that parking and landscaping x•equix•ements would be at the discretion of the P.R.C. based on special conditions which exist in that area. She continued her explanation by stating that the existing ordinance section does make parking requirements the discretion of t:he P.R.C., but through oversight, the landscaping requirements included would be the same as any other commercial zoning district. She continued her explanation of this item by stating that the Commission had dix•ected staff to px•epare some guidelines to be followed by the P.R.C. when considering landscape requirements in this area, after the ordinance is changed to reflect the intent. Mrs. Kee then read from the proposed guidelines which were included in the packets. Mrs. Sawtelle asked Mrs. Kee if staff is recommending any retroactive action and Mrs. Kee replied that it does not, but would be used for new proposals in the area. Mrs. Johnson then expanded the explanation of the guidelines proposed and showed illustrations of what could be done in fx•oxtt of some of the existing businesses if the guidelines had been in affect when those businesses were established. Mr. Colson said he likes the whole proposal presented by staff, but wondered if existing businesses should be grandfathered in. Mrs. Johnson said the guidelines would only be used for any new proposals, but perhaps existing businesses would begin to landscape their storefronts out of pride or a desire to beautify the area. She • explained that part of staff's proposal would be the px•eparation of a list of plants and/or materials cahich would be suitable for use in the restricted settings with harsher-than-average growing conditions. Mr. Colson asked if planter boxes could be used in the 5 foot sidewalk area and Mrs. Johnson stated that if the sidewalk in front o.f a business is less than 5 feet, that business would be exempt from, but she found in her survey of t:he area that many of the businesses have 8 feet of frontage, so those places could use some of the suggestions on the proposal.. She went on to state that staff would recommend that the applicant make his own proposal regarding the type and style of landscaping to use, and the P. R.. C. could then review that proposal, just at it does for any other landscaping proposal. Mr. Callaway referred to item #5 of staff's memo which indicates that guidelines shall be developed in cooperation caith the Northgate Merchant's Association, and suggested that those people may have some ideas of what can or cannot work in the area through past experiences. Mr. Colson agreed and suggested that staff should regort to the Merchant's Association ghat the P8:L Commission likes the suggestions and examgles presented by staff, and would now like to have suggestions from the Association to consider before making a final decision. Mr. Dresser agx•eed, and offered to represent the Commission at a Merchant's Association meeting if Mrs. Johnson will also go and bring her wonderful artist's renderings of things which can be done in the area. Mrs. Johnson agreed to attend the meeting and to take her sketches, but suggested that whoever represents the Commission at that meeting should take a tour of the Northgate area prior to the meeting to see ideas of things which do work there as we1.1 as some things which have been tried, but do not work well. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed, and said she would also like P8;Z Minutes 7-?-88 Page 3 to attend the Association meeting. • Mr. Dresser then directed Mrs. Volk t:o include a statement in the minutes that the Commission thanks Mrs. Johnson for her illustrations, and that the Commission considers both the illustrations and guidelines presented as excellent. All Commissioners present agreed. AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: 88-803: amending section 7.11 of the 1638} to exempt areas in the district from specific lands Project Review Committee the where appropriate. A public hearing to consider Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. C-NG Commercial-Northgate zoning cape requirements and to allow the flexibility to require landscaping Mrs. Kee exglained the proposed ordinance amending Section 7.11 of the Zoning Ordinance simply provides for the P.R.C. to review the applicant's proposed landscaping and to have the authority to require landscaping where it is deemed appropriate, just as it has the same authority for parking requirements. Mr. Callaway clarified by explaining that the ordinance amendment provides the P. R.. G. the flexibility to require landscaping where appropriate, which was the intent of the ordinance when it was written. Mr. Dresser made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 7.11 presented by staff. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which carried unanimously ;4-0;. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6: Discussion of temporary overflow parking • lots. Mr. Callaway reported that in May of this year the City Council heard an appeal of the Commission's decision to deny a Use Permit for a "temporary" parking lot at the Aldersgate church, and after hearing the appeal, remanded the use permit request back to the Commission for• consideration of a time period and any other specific conditions which might be imposed in order to allow the use permit to be granted. He added that the reconsideration of the request for a TJse Permit for the Aldersgate lot= would be heard at a later date. He went on to report that at the same meeting, Council passed a motion asking the Commission to consider setting some guidelines or requirements to be considered for parking lots of a temporary nature for facilities where the temporary lot would be in excess of that required by ordinance, and that is what this discussion should be directed toward at this meeting. Mr. Callaway then suggested possible areas for discussion might include landscaping or screening requirements, time limitations, size limits as a percentage of the total site or developed area, provisions to prevent tracking of mud or gravel onto public streets, dust control, applir_ation of "temporary lot" standards for overflow lots at facilities that meet parking standards, or any other area the Commission identifies. Mrs. Sawtelle asked if it is likely that the use <;f ar. overflow lot might be addressed. at the onset of a project, to which Mr. Callaway replied that, he feels certain it 4,rould not, but rather would come up at a later time to handle peak or seasonal demands. Mr. Dresser said he thinks there are 2 different subjects to be discussed: (l; a "temporary" parking lot which might remain substandard until it is completed and P&7. Minutes ?-?-SS Page 4 becomes a permanent lot, and (2}a "temporary" parking lot to be used as an overflow lot with no time constraints. Mr. Callaway stated "temporary" would mean that it would not be used forever. Mr. Dresser asked if the result. of this discussion would be the intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Callaway replied that the Council asked that the Commission develop some standards, and noctiT staff is requesting for suggestions or direction so staff can develop some guidelines to present. Mr. Dresser asked what vehicle would be used to implement these guidelines. Mr. Callaway replied that he believes that. would be best addressed by a change in the ordinance. Mr. Colson stated that all areas, and not only the Aldersgate church, will have to be addressed or considered if the ordinance is amended, and he thinks that some type of time limit should be the main issue on a "temporary" type parking lot, and added that he would he against anything that would be proposed to be used over a period of a maximum of 12 months. Mrs. Sawtel.le said if an applicant proposed a "temporary" parking lot for a very short period of time, he probably would not want to include any landscaping or fencing which would both represent additional eYpcnses. Mr. Colson agreed, pointing out that all standards not set by ordinance would have to be buried. Mr. Dresser repeated that he thinks there are several issues being discussed including (1}the Aldersgate "temporary" lot which the church does not want to pave or bring up to standards because it would not be a good use of it's money, and no agreement to do it in "x" months was suggested; and (2)an "overflow" parking lot which always appears to be "handier" than the permanent, paved lot, so it seems that more people use the "overflow" lot than the permanent lot. He added that he does not think any of the items discussed so far would solve the Aldersgate problem, and also, that he wishes the Council representative would be present at the meeting tonight, because it is not at all clear what Council wants the Commission to do. He finalized by stating that this Commission has made its statement twice regarding the Aldersgate issue, and now he thinks it is up to Aldersgate to address something. Mr. Callaway said he was not attempting to address the Aldersgate situation at this meeting but would like for the Commi.ssian to consider establishing some type of guidelines for 2 types of parking lots: (1}a "temporary" parking lot which would not be used for the life of the facility, but which would be of a temporary nature, to he used only for a specific time, and then which must be upgraded to meet full compliance; and (2}an "overflow" parking lot which would or might be there forever, but would be used only periodically. He went on to say that he thinks the Council would on]y want either of the 2 situations to apply only after full compliance has been met on a permanent lot, that is that either a "temporary" or an "overflow" lot would only be considered in addition to parking supplied that fully complies with the ordinance requirements. Mr. Callas,+ay went on to say that depending upon the specific location of a "temporary" or "overf]ow" lot, the Commission may want to consider additional screening or landscaping, or even a different type of surface for one entering into a City street from one which enters into the permanent. ].ot. He continued by stating the Commission may even decide it would be better not to ever consider having these types of lots, i.n whi.ch case any overflow caould spill aut to parking nn the street or on grassy areas along the right--of-way, depending upon where it; is. Mr. Michel said he is certainly happy to have that clarification, because he had come tonight prepared to discuss temporary lots in general, and not specifically the Aldersgate situation. Mr. Gal ].away stated again that the Aldersgate situation 4ti~ould P&Z Minutes 7-7-88 Page 5 be addressed at a later date when the church comes back with some type of proposal to take under consideration. • Mr. Michel pointed out that. as he understands it, what the Commission is being asked to address at this meeting is temporary or overflow parking lots for all facilities - not just the churches, but commercial businesses as well. Mr. Gallaway agreed, and added that perhaps some businesses/or any facilities could be identified which might need some type of additional. parking on a seasonal or temporary basis, and that consideration might be given as to what type of landscaping, or other conditions, might be required on both types of lots. He added as an example that perhaps standard landscaping could be required on overflow lots, but not on "temporary" lots. Mr. Michel said that he thinks a time limit should be ranked high on the conditions for use of a temporary lot, and }xe also would think that a time should be established as to when that time limit should begin; that is, does the time limit begin when the City notifies the subject of a non-compliance, or actually when the use of the temporary facility began. }}e stated that: other things which might be considered is whethex• or not curbing should be required, and also, if the specific business/facility is a part of an association, should that association be allowed t.o have input as to what is anticipated to be "temporary". He gave as an example the Northgate Merchant's Association, and what input an organization of that nature might. have that might have to be considered by the Commission. Mrs. 5awtelle said she agrees that a time limit; is important, and when that time begins should be an important consideration as swell. She scent on to state that she does not like the idea of allowing a permanent overflow lot, and if the use of a facility is anticipated to be that intense, then a standard lot should be built, • whether it's a church, a mall or a restaurant under consideration. She pointed out that Post Oak Mall has a lot of parking available in anticipation of only the Christmas season demand, and that's as it should be. Mr. Dresser said that as a practical matter he thinks that churches should be considered somewhat differently from businesses, and gave as an example a church that had an annual festival which he thinks should just be allowed to happen, caith pax•king where ever it is possible to find a place to park, whether it be on a grassy lot c>r on the street or where ever, but that if x•egular use of an additional parking lot is required, then he thinks a lot with standard, permanent, required features should be developed. He added that he is still having a problem with definitions, and he would prefer that specific definitions he supplied with examples of each before any action i.s taken by the Commission. Mrs. Sawtelle gave as an example and a definition, the following: If Al.dersgate church needs additional. parking until a more permanent expansion of the standard facility can he made with a permanent parking lot which goes with it, then they could come in and request approval of a "temporary" parking lot for "X" number of months. Mr. Dresser interjected that if "temporary" also means unpaved, he thinks some things absolutely must be considered according to standard engineering standards, those being drainage, mud, dust, access to public rights--of-way, etc. He continued by saying that a requirement of landscaping, visual barriers, etc. can be considered in quite a different light and could be addressed when the time limitation is set:. He said if the use would be for only 6 months, it might be foolish to require complete standards to be met, but if the use^ were to extend for 5 years, a different, • consideration should be given. Mrs. Sawtelle said she would like for staff to seriously look into the consequences PK:7, Minutes 7--7-88 Page 6 to the City of tracking mud onto public: streets and clogging storm sewers, etc. from a temporary, unpaved facility. Mr. Gallaway pointed out that although the City Engineer is not represented at this meeting, staff will address any questions to his office regarding surface materials, curbing, drainage, mud, et;c. before it: brings back any suggested guidelines for consideration by the Commission. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: Discussion of building size limitations in the C-N Neighborhood Business zoning district. Mr. Callaway explained this agenda item is the result: of a motion made by the Council directing the Commission to examine the maximum allowed building size for a retail food store in a C-N zoning district, following a ruling to deny a request to rezone, from C-N to C-3, the lot located at Harvey Road and Rhett Butlex•. Mr. Callaway explained that an ordinance approved in 1978 revised the C-N district and placed size limitations on buildings. He continued by reporting that staff contacted 2 local real estate representatives and asked if convenience stores are indicating a need for larger building sizes, and both representatives indicated that the 2500 square foot maximum appears to be sufficient, but t:he applicant in the Harvey Road rezoning request stated an intent to develop a retail food store of approximately 3100 square feet as the motive for seeking the zone change. Mr. Callaway then referred to a list of sizes of 10 convenience-type food stores located in various locations and various zoning districts, with the average size of these 10 stores being just under 2100 square feet. He did point out that most of • these stores, while not :in C-N districts but rather in C-1 districts, are not, highway oriented, and it appears that when C-N districts are located on highways, the businesses locating in them try t:o serve both the neighborhood and be highway oriented at the same time, and perhaps do find a need for a larger store. He explained that: the item has been placed by staff on the agenda for discussion only which will allow the Commission to give staff guidance as to how to prepare any formal. ordinance or proposal for consideration by the Commission and the Council. in the future. Mrs. Sawtelle asked if there are any other C--N districts along Harvey Road and Mr. Callaway replied in the negative. Mr. Dresser agreed that where C-N districts ax•e located along highways, the problems begin whether for signage or building size. He stated that he thinks the 10,000 square foot building size, with a 2500 maximum square foot business size was included to keep major traffic-generators out of the neighborhood, and also thinks this would still he appropriate. He went on to say that what he does not understand i.s why the Council denied the applic_•ant's request: for C-3 zoning on this lot, adding that perhaps they are saying that "occupants of apartments are people too, and should be given some considerat;ion". He agrees, but. stated emphatically that he does not think the restrictions of the C-N zoning district should be changed. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed that the district regulations should not be changed. Mr. Michel agreed and asked if the ages of the buildings listed were available so a determination could. be made as to the trend. Mr. Callaway replied that some-: of the buildings on the list are quite old, and some have been approved but have not hee~n built, and it is his opinion that the floor area has probably been determined by the ground area to work in. He went on to explain that many floor plans are used repeatedly by the parent company, and perhaps the need for this one 3100 square foot P&7. Minutes 7-7-88 Page 7 store would reflect a change in requirements for national chains. • Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Gallaway why the maximum of 2500 square feet was established. Mr. Callaway stated he does not know, but Mrs. Kee saki that apparently in approximately 1976 an inventory and survey was r_onducted and the results indicated that most users had between 1900 and 2300 squat•e feet of floor space, so she thinks that's why the maximum of 2500 square feet was set. Mr. Colson said perhaps that figure was chosen because it allowed some flexibility from the current standard sizes. Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Gallaway if the Commission is supposed to make some type of recommendation to staff at this meeting, or would the Council prefer that additional study be put into this item. Mr. Callaway said staff could even prepare an ordinance for consideration, and the Commission's recommendation could be made at the meeting it is considered. Mr. Colson s~iid the minutes reflect at least 2 Council members have suggested increasing the allowable maximum size of a business in a C-N zone. Mr. Gallaway stated. he would review the tape recordings of the minutes for clarification as to the Council's direction before hringing something back for additional discussion and. action. Mr. Dresser, Mr. Michel. and Mrs. Sawtelle said they would all hate to see the C-N district regulations changed and especially as it regulates business size in the neighborhood. Mr. Colson disagreed. Mr. Colson asked if the zoning of the lot on Harvey Road is appropriate for that particular corridor and Mr. Callaway replied that the Commission has already made the recommendation that the zoning be changed to G-3. Mr. Dresser asked if there is another lot zoned G-N adjacent to this and Mr. Callaway replied that there are 2 lots • which are zoned C--N and the rezoning request was only for one of them whirh s,rould have left 1 lot zoned G-N and located between 2 C-3 lots, if the request, had been approved. Mr. Dresser said that this is the last G-N zone. in the Harvey Road corridor, and he would like to see staff review the north side of the Harvey Road corridor to see if any land which is not commercially zoned should be changed to commercial, and the Commission can begin action on those areas. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed that this should be done. Mr. Colson said that perhaps piecemeal zoning is the best way in this area. Larry Wells was allowed to speak from the audience and he stated there seem to be 3 classifications of stores locating in C--N districts, those being (1)Oil company stares, (2}Mom 8: Pop type stores and {3}Newer national chains. Mr. Colson asked Mr. Wells if lte sees a trend toward larger stores and Mr. Wells replied that different. locations expect more walk-in traffic than others, and if someone is willing to buy a 1 acre site, perhaps they plan to genc:rat:e enough business to warrant a larger store. Mr. Colson said there seems to be a trend tos,rard larger stores. Mr. Michel pointed out that staff's statistics dc> nc>t. indicate that. Mr. Callaway stated that one way to approach this problem could be that the Commission might authorize exceeding the limitation on maximum floor space on a case- by-case basis. Mr. Dresser said that the only C-N zoning on the north side of Harvey Raad is Lhe specific tract in question now, and he thinks that a study should be made of the appropriate zoning on the north side of Harvey Road from Texas Avenue to the Bypass, • and if it is determined that thet•e is more appropriate zoning for some areas than is current ].y in effect, then the Gottunission can make the recommendation to change the zoning. Mrs. Sawtelle and Mr. Michel agreed this is the direction to take. Mr. P&Z Minutes ?-7--88 Page 8 Colson disagreed, stating that he thinks Council has indicated the building size in a . C-N district should be changed. Mr. Michel stated that he thinks Council wanted an analysis of the question to be conducted. Mrs. Sawtelle ended the conversation by directing staff to conduct a study of the north side of Harvey Road from Texas Avenue to the Bypass. AGENDA ITEM N0. 8: Selection of a Vice-Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mrs. Sawtelle stated she would like to select Steve Stewart to act as Vice Chairman of the Commission. There was no opposition, so Mr. Stewart was selected to be Vice Chairman to Chairman Nancy Sawtelle. AGENDA ITEM N0. 9: Other business. Mrs. Kee reported that Grace Bible Church has requested permission t.o add picnic tables, fencing and playground equipment to the existing school facility, and staff will not be bringing that consideration to the Commission for action, but will approve the request in-house because it does not constitute a major change to an existing use. Mr. Callaway replied that the Goals R Objectives as approved by the Commission will be discussed by the Council at the next meeting. Mr. Dresser asked how the previous discussion went and Mr. Callaway replied that Counci] had received a summary of information from staff, that Mr. Gardner stated he preferred discussion to be handled by a committee, and that approach was approved by Council. • Mrs. Sawtelle reminded all Commissioners that they should notify Mrs. Volk if they cannot attend a meeting as soon as they find they have a conflict. She explained that if a quorum cannot be located, the meeting will have to be canceled which entails a great deal. of telephone notificat;ion, and then rescheduling and notification of the date of the meeting must follow, so she reminded each Commissioner o:f how important it is to try to attend each meeting, and of the problems entailed when a meeting has to be canceled. Mr. Dresser asked if the Commission will be considering the enabling part of the Goals & Objectives soon ar if staff must wait for Council to act on the Goals 8: Objectives before bringing this to the Commission for consideration. Mr. Callaway replied that staff has been proceeding to prepare something for the Commission to consider, albeit slowly, but the answer to the question is that: staff has not been waiting for Council to approve the Goals K: Objectives, but has not been able to finalize the document for presentation to the Commission. A'PTEST: s AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: Adjourn. Mr. Co]son made a motion to adjourn. unanimously (4-0;. City-Secretary, Dian Jones P8:7. Minutes Mr. Michel. seconded the motion which carried PPROVF.D: Chairman, Nancy Sawtelle 7-7-88 Page 9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION i• GUEST REGISTER DATE July 7, 1.988 11. • 12. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. NAME ADDRESS 2 ... S ._, 4. '~-~' ~ ¢ 't'' t ~._;" ~ t . 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. 13. 14. 15. 16. *** REGISTRATION FORM *** (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION): ~t ~ ~ ; L. Date of Meeting ~ ; ~ L ~i ~ Commission Agenda Item No. ~ ,~ i ~j n ! _. i _ ~ 1 y Name _Jp-~ ~ ~~. L-~e: ~ ~ 1~ ~ L'_~~~~ ~1 s- Address ' l(e:2~':~- ~ ~-I~.~X`J~.r ~ ~ . ~~_~ ~ ' Z . C~~ ~- House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: ..,, ~ .~ ~ And , Spff aker'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 off(cer 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.