Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/1988 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: May 5, 1988 7:00 P.M. • AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: 1988. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission All present plus Council Liaison Gardner None Director of Planning Callaway, Assistant City Engineer Smith, Assistant City Attorney Banks, Senior Planner/Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk Approval of minutes - meeting of April 21, Mr. Stewart made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Colson seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. Z: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: A public hearing for the purpose of receiving input from citizens regarding the City's preliminary revised Goals g Objectives for the purpose of updating the Gity's Plan 2000. Mr. Callaway briefly reviewed the history of the efforts made to date to update Plan 2000 and stated that after the revision of the Goals ~ Objectives is adopted, the next sections to be reviewed and perhaps revised will be land use, transportation and development policies. The public hearing was ogened. Mike Abelson, 8705 Appomattox Drive came forward and expressed concerns that improvements in the city seem to happen as a reaction to concerns expressed to council, with most of the improvements being concentrated in the newer parts of town, with the older sections being ignored. He suggested that the city might allocate resources for improvements according to property values and not simply on numbers of areas, so older areas can continue to maintain property values. He suggested that perhaps something could be done under Services ~ Programs or Economic Development to address upgrading and maintenance in the older residential subdivisions on the east side of the Bypass, rather than to concentrate primarily on the newer areas of Southwood Valley and even those areas yet to be developed further to the south. He then listed specific items to be included as roads, lighting, parks and recreation facilities. Mr. Brochu stated that allocating resources according to property values is very interesting, but may well lead to further deterioration in older neighborhoods which have lower property values. He added that in some of the newer subdivisions the homeowner's assocations work toward upgrading the area as a group, but in some of the older areas, there is no organization, and thus no group effort is made to voice concerns or list needs and thase areas tend to be forgotten. Mr. Abelson suggested that for those people who are not organized, or who tend to feel threatened when addressing a governmental body, perhaps the Planning Staff could meet with them and help them plead their cases. • Mr. Colson said that perhaps streets in older, residential areas have been neglected, but it seems to him that the subject has been addressed in the first objective listed under the Transportation goal. M. M. Kothmann came forward and commended the various City bodies for mailing out this information to all residents, but stated he is concerned with how to get the objectives implemented, and more specifically, how will the objective under the Transporation goal which states "develop adequate, safe systems for pedestrian and bicycle movement" be accomplished. He pointed out that the entire City lacks sidewalks, so pedestrian travel is almost prohibited, and that the bicycle lanes have either been eliminated, reduced in number or enforcement is not in effect, because it is a very dangerous mode of travel on most streets. He explained that he thinks the City should try to coordinate with the University in developing more, and safer, pedestrian and bicycle access ways. Mr. Kothmann also addressed the objective under Transportation which states "participate in development of a public transit system to serve the area's needs", and said that he is concerned about this because a public transit system in a community of this size would surely fail and have to be subsidized as has been the case in many cities which are much larger than this one. He said he would rather eliminate that objective and strengthen the bicycle and pedestrian statement. Mr. Kothmann said that when new areas are being developed, he would urge consideration of inclusion of bike lanes and sidewalks at the onset, so real planning can be done. Mr. Brochu said that perhaps the objective covering the public transit system should be reworded to "study" rather than "participate". He reminded everyone that what is • being discussed and referred to here tonight is a "draft" set of goals and objectives, and that council will take the final action, so some things may well be changed as the result of input from the citizens such as that being received at this meeting. Discussion followed regarding the existing bike lanes and the hazards of bicycle traffic, with Mrs. Sawtelle asking what happened to the bike lanes and the signs along the south side of Jersey. She added that the reflectors which have been installed seem to indicate a right turn lane, and more people are driving in it and using it for a right turn lane. Mr. Kothmann said that in the last day or so signs have been painted to indicate that lane is a bike lane only. He went on to say that perhaps something could be done jointly with the University to promote safety consciousness and thinking as they apply to bikes and pedestrians. He suggested that something needs to be done on University where geople cross it between McDonalds and Zachary, and more specifically at the very least a crosswalk should be painted, but even better would be the installation of a pedestrian crossing light. His last suggestion was that the stop signs on Southwest Parkway and Langford remain since they have made a much safer way for children to cross the street. Joyce Birdwell, 1411 Post Oak Circle came forward and read a statement her husband had written which thanked everyone for giving citizens the opportunity to provide input into the planning process of the City. It stated that while he agrees with the objective which calls for the protection of single family residential areas, he thinks the language should be broader and should include protection of commercial and multi-family areas as well. Mr. Birdwell's statement also addressed the objective covering participation in development of a public transit system, saying that to • participate means to him to pay for, and although he agreed that it would be nice to have a public transportation system, they are too expensive and not cost effective, and this is an automobile society. Additionally he suggested that an objective P8:Z Minutes 5-5-$8 Page 2 should be added to Economic Development to encourage College Station as a retirement home for early retirees from other cities. While he agreed with most of the language in the sections labeled Services 8 Programs, Utilities and Housing, he would suggest adding the words "in an economic manner" to each of the goals stated. He also requested addition of an objective to encourage citizens to vote. His final comment was to suggest that some language which recognizes the importance of Texas AB:M University to this city should be added to the goal concerning City Character. (A complete copy of Mr. Birdwell's statement is included in the Book of Minutes.) Ann Hazen came forward to urge development of sidewalks in areas being developed in the future, and cited the extension of Munson as causing a very dangerous situation for any pedestrians due to the excessive speeds being driven since the improvements were made. She said that sidewalks must be included along through streets to allow pedestrians to have a safe place to walk. Joe Nance, 1403 Post Oak Circle came forward to cite several concerns including the protection of the integrity of multi-family areas in the Land Use section, considering the impact on entire streets when extending a section of a street as it relates to moving more traffic faster, clarification of the type of public transit system being considered, enforcement of laws as they relate to bicycle riders, striping Lincoln Street to include a left turn lane at intersections, and addressing the impact on College Station if Villa Maria is extended to the new highway since there are a lot of undeveloped areas within the Gity limits now, and that would open up a new area. He said he is opposed to "spot zoning", is in favor of some kind of public transit system, but would like it to be better defined and be self-supporting and not subsidized, and agreed that there should be extra accommodations made for retired persons in the city. His last statement was one to state that there • definitely is a need for a stop light at University Drive and Lincoln. Mr. Brochu said that he seems to be hearing a desire for encouraging retirees to settle in College Station, but opposition to a public transit system, adding that he thinks perhaps those two things should go hand-in-hand. Mr. Abelson spoke again from the audience stating that he would like to see some resources spent in Emerald Forest because there isn't even a park there. i• Mr. Brochu thanked everyone who attended this meeting, and especially those who offered input. He assured everyone that additional consideration would be given to the suggestions and concerns voiced at this meeting tonight, and reminded them that the Council is the body which will ultimately take action on various parts of the revisions to Plan 2000. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 4: 88-600: A public hearing to consider the annexation of a 35.0 acre tract of land located along the north side of Graham Road, approximately 2200 feet west of Texas Avenue {SH6). The petitioner is the City of College Station. Mr. Callaway explained this land is the site of the City's Utility Service Center which is located with the Southwood Athletic Complex, Humana Hospital and vacant tracts to the north, a vacant tract and warehouse facility to the east and the balance of the area predominantly agricultural with scattered residences. He stated the area is reflected as low density residential on the land use plan, and is located within the projected 20 year growth area. He pointed out that annexation of this land would bring the existing city-owned facility into the city service area. He also reminded the Commissioners that annexation proceedings were held for this tract in 1987, at which time the Commission recommended annexation, but annexation was not PAZ Minutes 5-5-88 Page 3 finalized at that time and explains the need for the additional public hearings. • The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mrs. Sawtelle made a motion to recommend annexation of this tract. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion which carried unanimously (7-0}. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 88-601: A public hearing to consider the annexation of a 505.64 acre tract of land located approximately 200 feet west of Rock Prairie Road and approxisately 7000 feet south of Greens Prairie Road. The petitioner is the City of College Station. Mr. Callaway identified the large tract of land on a wall graphic and explained that it is the site of the Lick Creek Wilderness Park and the Lick Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, and annexation of this land would bring those 2 city-owned facilities into the city service area. He stated the area is reflected as low density residential, parks and recreational and institutional on the land use plan, and is also located within the projected 20 year growth area. Mr. Golson asked what the holes represented on the wall graphic and Mr. Callaway explained those tracts are not owned by the City, and are not included in any annexation proceedings at this time, but it is anticipated that the owner will petition for annexation in the not too distant future. He reminded the Commissioners that they can recommend that Council initiate action to annex the 2 small areas if they desire. • The gublic hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Wendler made a motion to recommend annexation of this large acreage, with an additional recommendation that the Council initiate annexation action for the 2 small areas which will create additional "pockets" of land not in the city limits. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion. Mr. Moore asked about the area which is indicated as parkland dedicated by Mr. Fitch and Mr. Callaway explained that the groperty has been dedicated to the city as parkland, and contains easement: rights which belong to Exxon and Gulf States Utilities. Votes were cast on the motion made by Mr. Wendler, and the motion carried unanimously {7-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: 88-204: A public hearing to consider a Final Replat of Lots 4,5,6,7,8 A 9 Block II, IIniversity Park Section II. Mr. Gallaway announced that Item #6 will not be considered at this meeting because the owners of the land have not fulfilled some of the requirements. AGENDA ITEM N0. 7: 88-406: Appeal of a P.R.C. decision to require full compliance with standard C-1 landscaping, island, curbing and surface requireaents at the proposed restaurant in the Old City Hall at 101 Ghnrch Street, which is in the Comsercial Northgate {C-NG} zoning district. Appeal is being made by Don g Cheryl Anz. Mr. Gallaway briefly explained the appeal which was filed by Mr. ~ Mrs. Anz, and P&Z Minutes 5-5-88 Page 4 pointed out that while the written appeal addresses only the surface of the parking lot, the P.R.C. has required full compliance with C-1 ordinance standards which includes not only the surface requirements, but also landscaping, island and curbing requirements. He added that the applicant has included more than the required number of parking spaces and enough landscaping to meet ordinance requirements, but has not addressed curbing and island requirements in his appeal. He explained that the applicant is proposing staged or phased construction of the parking lot, that is, in the first year he agrees to pave lot 1, but to level, stabilize and use a rock surface on lots 3-6; by the end of the 3rd year he agrees to install curbing and gutters around lots 3, 4, 5, 8: 6; by the end of the 5th year he agrees to paving lots 3-6. Mr. Callaway stated that this phased construction of the parking lot has been proposed by the applicant since the P.R.C. made its ruling. Mr. Anz was invited forward to state and explain his appeal of the P.R.C. decision. He read his written appeal to the Commission. Mrs. Sawtelle asked staff if there is a time limit set for the gravel surface of the parking lot at Patricia and First Street which Mr. Anz referred to, and staff replied that in reviewing the records apparently the existing surface was approved by the P.R.C. since it is not even mentioned, but that there was a time limit established for meeting C-1 landscaping requirements. Mr. Brochu said that while he is always the person who cautions the Commissioners to be consistent in their decisions, he would point out that the "mudlot" parking lot which was referred to in the appeal was already being used for parking at the time the developer came in with his proposal to improve the surface and define the lot, thus improving a very bad situation and flexibility was allowed, but if an error was made in allowing a gravel surface the parking lot at Patricia & First Streets, he • sees no reason to continue making the same error in the name of "consistency". Mr. Brochu further explained that this project would be new construction, that much of the subject land is open and is not being used for parking, and in his opinion, a parking lot of the type being proposed makes no attempt to upgrade this already congested area. Mr. Moore said that in comparing this gravel lot with one which this body recently rejected, the temporary nature of those other plans were never documented and thus, leniency was denied. However, in this case, the temporary nature of the gravel surface has been documented, but he asked staff what would happen at the end of 5 years if the applicant does not fulfill his proposal. Mr. Anz replied that he has a good track record in this community, and he will back up his statement. Mr. Dresser asked for clarification of the specific lots being addressed for staged construction and Mr. Anz clarified by stating that all of lots 3,4,5 8: 6 were included. Mr. Dresser stated that this is a new area which is virtually empty now, and in the absence of curbs and gutters to control vehicles, he wondered what is being proposed to control ingress and egress to the parking lot, especially clang the Wellborn side. Mr. Anz replied there will be something along the Wellborn side; that the curbcut from Wellborn will be paved, and the rest of the lot will have a limestone surface, but will have wheel stops and be almost like the lot behind the Deluxe restaurant where there are no curbs, but where railroad ties have been used. Mr. Dresser thanked Mr. Anz for the explanation and explained that his proposal is not clearly stated in the appeal, as it is not written anywhere on the site plan, and he would be more comfortable if he were looking at a site plan which spells out the plans. He said if he could see exactly what is being proposed or agreed to by Mr. PB;Z Minutes 5-5-88 Page 5 Anz, he might be willing to support some of the request, but he could not agree to a • parking lot at this location which does not include curbs and gutters which are used to control drainage. He added that the statement "compliance with the drainage ordinance" does not regulate anything unless it is stated on the site plan being reviewed and approved. Bill O'Brien spoke up from the audience and stated to Mr. Dresser that the P.R.C. never discussed the drainage plan which was included on the application, and the surface of the parking l.ot was the issue which could not be agreed upon. Mr. Dresser stated that surface and drainage cannot be separated. Mr. Wendler said he wanted to address the "character of the area" which has been referred to, and went on to state that there may be a flaw in the ordinance, or perhaps in his understanding of the ordinance, but he never understood that an ordinance which incorporated regulations designed to "aid development and redevelopment in a manner compatible with the character of the area" meant that sae should keep the Northgate area looking as it does today. He explained that he reads this appeal as a request for relaxation of requirements normally enforced in high intensity areas with heavy traffic. Mr. Brochu said that he thinks the Northgate ordinance was written to give the city more hands-on control as opposed to the way some are interpreting it as "no control" Mr. Stewart said he agrees, adding that this is a special area to be preserved, and this Commission has always talked about trying to improve the area and he does not see the ordinance as an excuse to allow it to look worse. Mr. Brochu pointed out that this body recently, as a majority, voted against rezoning • these particular lots from C-1 to C-NG, and he still thinks the lots should be developed as C-1. Mr. Moore questioned whether a concrete lot would actually be an improvement to the area. Mr. Stewart stated that he understands the economic reasons listed, but he still believes this is a C-1 business in a very congested area, so should be treated as any other C-1 business. Mr. Brochu added that there is ample room on these lots to develop it completely to standards of other C-l, and pointed out that the special zoning district was established for those tracts which were already developed and could not comply due to existing restrictions, and the only reason for this request for non-compliance seems to be financial. Mr. O'Brien said that "best use" and maximum use" are terms often used by zoning people, that many of the proposed parking spaces are not required by ordinance, and Mr. Anz is proposing to develop many additional parking spots for others to use which will relieve some of the congestion in the area, and if a concrete surface with. curbing is required all at once, probably only that area which is required will be finished, and Mr. Anz is only trying to do what is best for the area and in 5 years time the parking lot will be completed to standards. Mr. Colson pointed out that t:he appeal differs from the original application in that paving is being phase in, and based on the Commission's reaction to the C-1 zoning request, and the fact that this is a new operation, he thinks the Commission would be consistent in requiring a finished, complete parking lot. Mr. Wendler said he is concerned that the direction being taken would be doing some spot zoning for the purposes of economic development, and this Commission must PAZ Minutes 5-5-88 Page 6 consider this in a Planning 8 Zoning text; that is, is it a good idea to put a limestone parking lot in this area. Mrs. Sawtelle agreed, adding that although the lot on Patricia ~ First Street has been allowed to have a limestone surface with no fencing, it seems to be the project which is inconsistent. Mr. Colson asked what part of the proposed lot would fulfill ordinance requirements and Mr. Anz pointed it out on the site plan. Mr. Colson asked why Mr. Anz would want the rest of the lots developed for parking when only a small portion is required and Mr. Anz said it would help relieve congestion in the area, and he thinks people patronizing his restaurant across Church Street from this lot will park here and use the pedestrian walk which is being included. Mr. Brochu said he still does not understand why a limestone lot was allowed at Patricia and First Streets. Mr. Callaway stated that he has the same question, but written records do not reflect the reasons, and therefore, the surface must not have been discussed at the meetings and the surface proposed was considered acceptable. Mrs. Sawtelle stated she does not recall that surface requirements were ever discussed. Mr. Brochu stated again that consistency is fine, but if the surface of that lot was a mistake, he does not think the Commission should continue to make the same mistake. Mr. Moore said the difference is that this applicant is agreeing to comply, but over a period of time. Mr. Wendler stated he is looking for what is right as he interprets the ordinance. Mrs. Sawtelle asked what the appeal process is to this meeting and Mr. Brochu explained that staff has pointed out that this is the appeal to a P.R.C. decision, • and ordinance does not address additional appeals, so any appeal of tonights decision would be to a court of record. Mr. Colson said he would be in favor of ruling that the applicant must completely finish the minimum requirement, and he could then do what he wants after that. Mr. Stewart agreed that the applicant must meet the minimum requirements regarding number of spaces, paving, curbing, and drainage to start with, and then if he wants to extend improvements to phase 2 at a later date, he could make those complete improvements at that time. Mr. Colson went on to explain to the applicant that he is opposed to letting him develop a complete lot without meeting any standards, but he would not be opposed to Mr. Anz fully developing at the beginning what it would take to meet minimum requirements, and then develop any additional phases later. Mr. Brochu asked if this Commission can rearrange or must it either grant or deny with recommendations attached. Mr. Callaway said that he thinks the Commission can address the appeal as it applies to surfacing, and he does not know how much further it can go. Mr. Stewart made a motion to deny this appeal, but with a suggestion attached that the applicant should meet the minimum parking requirements and standards in terms of surfacing, curbing, drainage, etc. Mr. Anz asked if the Commission would agree to allow him to pave the entire surface, but be flexible on the islands and curbing over a period of time. Mr. Callaway reminded the Commissioners that the proposal meets the landscape points required, but he has a question as to whether or not the applicant will be required to provide only the islands shoran on the site plan, which do not meet requirements. Mr. Wendler said if the applicant were proposing only a hard suface with no curbs and PAZ Minutes 5-5-88 Page ? islands, he would have agreed since he thinks that would meet the "spirit of the G-NG • ordinance". Mr. Dresser asked how the proposed phasing would be handled if it was not finished as being proposed, and Mr. Gallaway said that staff would send a reminder of the time constraints for each phase, and if the terms of the agreement were not met within a reasonable length of time staff would take the case to municipal court. Mr. Anz said he would now prefer to pave the entire parking area and to include curbing only around the entrance, but to use wheelstops at all other places. He and Mr. Callaway used a site plan to illustrate exactly what he is now proposing. The motion made earlier by Mr. Stewart died for lack of a second. Mr. Wendler said he would prefer to table this item until the applicant can spell out on a site plan exactly what he is now proposing. Mr. Anz said the plan would look just as it does at this meeting, but the entire surface would be paved. Discussion followed with Mr. Wendler asking about stripping. Additional discussion followed with Mr. Wendler saying that the exception now being considered is to island and curbing requirements, and in his opinion could be considered enforcing the "spirit of the ordinance". Mr. Dresser stated that the Commission has always been consistent to adherence to complete parking lot standards, and he would want to understand why this particular case should be the acceptable exception to the rule. Mr. Brochu added a question as to how deleting curbing, but including wheelstops would make such a difference to Mr. Wendler. Mr. Wendler explained that the applicant is proposing to provide additional parking to an already • congested area, which might relieve some of the mess on Ghurch Street. Mr. Dresser said he disagrees with Mr. Wendler's theory that a need will be fulfilled which would not be fulfilled if the Commission insists on full compliance to standards. Mr. Wendler said that is not quite what he means. Mr. Dresser read the purpose section from the C-NG ordinance and spoke of the character of the area in terms of how it applies to the establishments, but does not apply to the existing shoddiness of some parts of the area. Mr. Anz stated his proposal will upgrade the area. Mr. Stewart stated that it would be a matter of the degree to which it would upgrade, even though it might help relieve some existing parking problems in the area. Mr. Brochu said that he does not think this proposed lot will help the parking problem in the Northgate area in general, but will rather address those specific businesses on this street. Mr. Wendler said that anything that takes traffic off Ghurch Street will be helpful, and this must be a give-and-- take situation, and he would like to look at each case individually. Mr. Brochu stated that the extra 6 or 8 parking spaces gained by deleting the required islands will not be that helpful in alleviating congestion in the Northgate area. Mrs. 5awtelle said that it seems to her that Mr. Anz' proposal is that he wants either to pave the entire area, or pave nothing at all and have a gravel lot. The difference between the cost of curbing and wheelstops was discussed by Mr. Stewart and Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Colson reminded everyone that what the Commission will be establishing is a precedent, and any future applicants will automatically be faced with providing hard surface parking, leaving other things such as curbing, islands, etc. to be addressed • on the individual projects. Mr. Dresser made a motion to deny this proposal because this lot can be developed by P&Z Minutes 5-5-88 Page 8 the applicant to complete standards as his needs grow, and because this is a new area • to Northgate particularly with regard to city hall and the area is one of high visibility along Wellborn Road and does not look like "Northgate", but looks like new development and should be developed accordingly. Mr. Brochu seconded the motion. r ~ L J Mrs. Sawtelle asked if this motion is approved, can Mr. Anz appeal to the Commission again or will his only recourse be to go through the courts. Mr. Brochu said he did not know. Mr. Stewart asked if they could come back with a whole different plan. Assistant City Attorney Banks said that direction can be given to the applicant as to where to bring an alternate plan. Mrs. Sawtelle said that the motion should then be more structured. Mr. Dresser said that he would be perfectly willing for the motion to include that Mr. Anz can develop as much as he wants if it is developed up to standards, and to phase additional areas which are also up to standards. Mrs. Sawtelle asked Mr. Dresser if the proposal would then go back to P.R.C. or just where and Mr. Dresser said he would direct that it go back to P.R.C., and revised his motion as follows: He moved that the Commission deny the appeal and recommend to the applicant, that he revise his site plan and bring it back to P.R.C. showing as much as he can develop in accordance with C-1 standards. Mr. Brochu seconded the revised motion. Votes were cast with the results being 4-3 to deny (Moore, Colson & Wendler against the motion). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other business. Mr. Callaway asked if the Commission wants staff to reduce the comments regarding Goals 8; Objectives discussed earlier and to bring them back to the Commission at the next meeting. The Commission directed staff to do that. Mr. Stewart asked for an update on the Aldersgate appeal. Mr. Gallaway replied that the appeal will be heard at the Council meeting on May 26th, and until that time no enforcement action will be taken. Mrs. Kee referred to a memo she had written to the Commission about the interpretation the Legal department has given to the Northgate ordinance, and explained that from now on full compliance to the regulations of C-1 will be required unless the Commission directs staff to pregame an amendment. Mr. Brochu said that he thinks the Commission should discuss this, and directed staff to prepare some kind of an amendment to address the problems discovered and to schedule it as an agenda item for discussion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Adjourn. Mr. Stewart made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously. APPROVED: • Acting Chairman, George B. Dresser ATTEST: City Secretary, Dian Jones PB:Z Minutes 5--5-$8 Page 9 T?.ank_ ;*ou for the ~c ~.,,_.,o,~.T_,._ , _ ,_.~it ~o ;~rov de input into the punning process ofy she c-~tv• There ha~ been some crit,ic~sm of Plan 2600 becau=e pro;~~:tad growth has not occurred. T i '-.`link thi.= criTicism L.7 ,~~-founder. i1o one can ac;~urately predic-t ~rcwth. T1? pure:,•-..=P _ of a long range plan i= to encourage growth and to _~lan for adequate city .services when growth doers occur. Althc~-:gh land use punning is important, the most important aspect of long range planning is for automobl le Iransr~ortatu:i and ut i l; t i e- R + , L 1 5• O .~~_ OI t ~le~e are e.~pensive to supply afte±- ~arowth has taken place. It is important that adequate right-of-ways are provided before major growth takes place in any direction. I believe Plan 2000 provides a basis for planning for the transporta+,ior~ and utility needs of the ~~ity. Any plan should be updated from time to time and I commend the City for undertaking this task. I also believe this task is best performed by the ~'ity Staff and the various volunteer boards of the city and not. by paid consultants. • Please allow me to make a f'ew observations about the proposed Goals and Objectives whicr~ are the subject of this public hearing. I very much like the first objective which is to "Guide and influence growth---". This is an improvement over the language in Plan 2000 which is to "regulate the rate, areas and type of growth---". The word regulate suggests growth limits which I do I:ot believe are appropriate f'or College Station. The second objective calf for the protection of single family residential areas.. I certainly agree with that objective but I think the language should be broader to cover protection of commercial and multi-family areas as well. In the transportation section, an objective calls for the city to "Participate in development of a public transit system---" I do not know what is meant by participate. To me, this language means pay for. Although I agree it would be nice to have a public transportation system, they are simply too expensive and Izot cost effective. The fact is that we live in a automobile society. Cities our size. and even much larger cannot a:ford public transportation. What is needed is new technolcsy, I have no disagreement with the proposed language for . Economic Development. However there is an activity missing that I think is important. That is to encourage retirees to ~- J 7e ' " ~ - ~~N?. ._... il..=' _Y'~i Oi ~!_?~~ _:~_: "~..:in_~. _.~.y_~~C~ Ji: _ T` tea- `. ~.- lilcausl;r ~.~ai Oi ~aIiIT~cl--;i ~_ ~ ou. tJJl~ii tic mari,r aCti-; i t `_._ ~ i C := available to the p~_I't_lic from Te.~as ABM and the goad syste of parka, snorts and rem, e t e-,- ~-. -m! r , _r a ion _>iSting in tie COIIIIP.tlili~,'v, (~Olle~e '=ta'".10I7 1. an. e-~cellent pierce for a retiree to 11vP. ~, '- iJhV nOt add all O't~? F_r'± ~ V:; to the .^.Canamlc, ieVe iopmerit :~ec_;t On to ?I1t~ollr~.aF? Collt~g~ `~atlon ~.~ a ret iremeIlt home for ea.r_y retirees from other ,~itia_e~ The a_ver.age retirement .age in the ilnited States io 58 and droppin~- li I approve of me la.guag~ in -he ~`c~_orLs l~bei.?'u Set-V 'rte and Programer, TJtilities, and Housing with erne e.scent:~an. Na where in any of these sections is cost considered or mentioned. All of theses services should be provided in an economic manner. I would suggest adding "in an economic manner" to each of these goals. I would also like to see an addition that said that charges for services will be based on the cast of service. Under Citizens Participation, I would add an Objective to encourage citizens to vote. One final comment. College Station e;gist only because of Te;~as A&M. The TJniversity is the dominate influence in the community. It seems to me that any long range plan for the city should recognize this. I concur that providing some diversity is important and desirable. But it should not be the only concern. I suggest adding some language to the goal on City Character that acknowledges the importance of Te:~as A&M to the city. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Dick Birdwell PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE May 5, 1988 NAME ADDRESS __ , Iy " j 7~` ~~ ~ i '` _~ 5 • 1q r: ~ ,.fem.( !t n __ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ;. 1,~i~. r ^ i~ !.~ ~'i' ~~ ' ~ ~.. - // to. 11. • 1 2. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 1~ u Name 1 1 Address House No. Street City IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: *** REGISTRATION FORM **'~ (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) Date of Meeting '~ ~- Commission Agenda Item No. And, Speakers 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. • **~F REGISTRATION FORM *~* (FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION) ,,; Oate of Meeting ~ r ~~ Commission Agenda Item No. ~) /. q ~. ~ 1 1 Name ~1 i~ ~ C ~' , ~ / , ,~ ~. ,) , ~ ~"" i ~ Address ~~, {'- ~1 ,~ i House~No. Street ~ CI[y ~ IF SPEAKING FOR AN ORGANIZATION, Name of Organization: a~ `1 And , Speaker's Official Capacity: SUBJECT ON WHICH PERSON WISHES TO SPEAK ~ ,.. ~ i .i - ,. ~ r ~ r Please remember to `step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by [he 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.