HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/1991 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission•
MINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
7:00 P.M.
November 21, 1991
~~
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Sawtelle, Members Esmond, Hall, Hawthorne, Colson,
Michel and Smith.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway, Senior Planner Kee, Planning Technician
Thomas, Assist<nt to the City Engineer Morgan, Development Services
Director Ash, Transportation Planner Hard, and City Engineer Pullen.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes -November 7, 1991.
Mr. Esmond moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 7, 1991 as written. Mr.
Michel seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). (Mr. Colson was not present for the
approval of the minutes.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit request by the
City of College Station to allow a recycling drop-off facility to be located at the corner of
Wellborn and Louise in the Northgate zoning district. (91-712)
The City of College Station withdrew the conditional use permit request prior to the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Discuss a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations
pertaining to sidewalks and bikeways. (91-812)
Chairperson Sawtelle informed the Commission that they would be making comments on the
proposed ordinance amendments as they relate to the Commission's responsibilities. She stated that
no official vote will be taken on any of the proposed ordinance amendments discussed at tonight's
meeting unless there is no clear consensus on a particular item. Staff has drafted these amendments
under the direction of the City Council and are being reviewed by the Commission to receive input.
Tonight's Commission meeting is not the forum to argue policy, if a Commissioner would like to
argue policy, the City Council is the proper forum. Public input will be accepted, but the meeting is
not a public hearing. Questions and input will be allowed as they pertain to the responsibilities of the
Commission; however, questions such as cost should be referred to the City Council. The agenda
advertised in accordance to the Open Meetings Act does not list the meeting as a public hearing.
Mr. Esmond stated that he received a letter from the City inviting him to a public hearing to review to
the proposed ordinance amendments.
Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan stated that the words "public hearing" were used in the letter
sent to the public; however, the intent was to receive input from developers and engineers who will
• be directly effected by the proposed ordinances and not to conduct a formal public hearing.
Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan presented the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations,
Section 5 regarding development of streets as it pertains to sidewalks. The City Council's objective
in reviewing the sidewalks and bikeways of College Station is to "review and possibly change our
• standard sidewalk design/specification". She outlined the four areas highlighted under the current
practice which are location, size, flexibility, and timing of installation. The City's current
specifications call for a standard 4' wide reinforced concrete sidewalk placed 2' from the back of curb
within the street right of way. This standard is applied without consideration for the size or
classification of street, land use, speed limits, topography, natural features, etc. Currently, the
subdivision regulations requires sidewalks on both sides of streets having a right of ay width greater
than 60', and on one side of streets of lesser width. Sidewalks on residential and collector streets are
presently optional at the recommendation of the Commission. Exceptions to or partial waiver of the
requirements of placement of sidewalks may he granted by the City Council upon recommendation
of the Commission. When it has been determined that satisfactory alternative pedestrian ways or
pedestrian bikeways have been or will be provided outside the normal right of ay; or that unique
circumstances or unusual topographic, vegetative, or other natural conditions prevail to the extent
that strict adherence to said requirements would be unreasonable and not consistent with the purposes
and goals of the subdivision ordinance of the comprehensive development plan. Currently, the
subdivision ordinance requires the construction of the sidewalk simultaneous with the construction of
the street, unless previously agreed otherwise through a letter of guarantee. Ms. Morgan added that
the recommendations of the Streetscape study indicate a preference for locating the sidewalks a
minimum of 6' from back of curb; if placed up against the curb, the sidewalk should be 5' wide. The
2' grass strip that is generally built can be a maintenance problem in some areas. Often times, the
sidewalk is located less than 2' from back of curb o avoid existing obstacles or obstructions, leaving
an even smaller grass strip. Even in new areas there will be conflicts in placement of signs, utilities,
mailboxes, fire hydrants, water meters, gas meters, telephone, cable, etc., within the limits of the
right of way. The postal service requires placement of mailboxes on residential streets within 18" of
the back of curb. While utility placement varies, the fire department recommends placement of fire
hydrants a maximum of 5 - 6' from the back of curb. Ms. Morgan concluded by making the
following recommendations:
• Location- Sidewalks should be located on both sides of all streets.
Placement- Sidewalks will be placed in one of the following two manners: (1) they
shall be located at least 6' back of curb and be 4' wide, or (2) shall be located against
the back of curb and be a minimum of 6' wide.
Transitions- Transition sections where the sidewalk is between the two placement
alternatives, sections shall have a minimum radius of 10' and all transition sections
will be approved by the City Engineer.
Clear Sidewalk Width- If the clear width is to be obtained between the back of curb
and the front face of the obstruction, clear width shall be 6'; if clear width is to be
obtained from the back face of the obstruction and the edge of the sidewalk, then clear
width shall be 4'.
Timing of Installation- All sidewalks should be constructed as part of the street
construction, thus not allowing sidewalks to be build after lot construction.
Transportation Planner Hard presented the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations, Section 5
regarding development of streets as it pertains to bikeways. The definition of a bikeway as well as a
new section to give the City the authority to require bikeways in accordance with the Bikeway
Master Plan were added to the ordinance. Revisions to the Subdivision Regulations include the
establishment of bikeway types (bike paths, lanes and routes), location criteria, and design criteria
that would comply with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) and signing and markings as per the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
• (MUTCD). Bike routes will be designated by signing with no set design criteria. The route widths
will be 12.5' outer lane for collectors and a 13.5' outer lane for arterials.
P & Z Minutes November 21, 1991 Page 2
• Bike lanes will be one way facilities with a minimum width of 5'. No parking in or adjacent to the
facilities will be permitted. Design, signing and striping will be as per AASHTO and MUTCD. Bike
path design for a two way facility will be a minimum of 8' wide with desirable 12' wide with a 2'
graded shoulder on each side. One way facilities will be a minimum of 5' wide. In the instance of a
combination sidewalk /bike path, the facility could be a minimum of 14.5' wide if the City requires a
minimum 2.5' separation. In lieu of the separation, the City may require measures to delineate uses
through signing, pavement markings of different surface types. Bike Paths when located in
greenbelts and park areas will be contained in a bikeway easement. When located in a street right of
way, the path must maintain a minimum 3' back of curb. Bikeway costs to the developer can include
markings and signing, additional right of way and pavement costs. Bikeway costs to the City can
include markings and singing, maintenance, pavement costs and retrofit. The two next steps in the
action plan are to make revisions to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to schools, parks, shopping
centers, apartments, bus shelters, etc. and to revise the Bikeway Master Plan through the forming of a
Bikeway Committee to include City staff, University representatives, Planning and Zoning
Commissioners, Highway Department representatives, and representatives of local bike shops.
Mr. Hall stated that it appears that the College Station utility department creates the biggest obstacles
with the location of sidewalks. In the slides presented by staff and in the Streetscape presentation,
there were several obstructions such as utility poles in the paths of sidewalks. The City should be
prepared to locate utility poles so that they do not interfere with the location of sidewalks. He added
that Welsh should be designated a bike way south of George Bush and north of Rock Prairie Road to
encourage the bikers to take Holleman and allow them to feed off and close George Bush as a bike
route. Traffic along George Bush will only increase with the proposed Presidential library and bikers
may not be able to safely use George Bush as a bike way.
Transportation Planner Hard st<zted that there are long range plans to widen George Bush and in the
• future the revisions allow for restriping for three lanes of traffic. When this occurs, the parking and
bike lanes will be deleted. At this point the City may approach the University to see if a bike path
could be installed off of the pavement section on the north side of George Bush.
Mark Paulson, a resident of Raintree Subdivision, approached the Commission and questioned staff
as to the bikeway and sidewalk requirements on a 39' street.
Transportation Planner Hard stated that the 12.5' wide bike path could be developed in the existing of
the street, but that additional right of way could be required. The Bikeway does not necessarily have
to be located within the pavement section of the street. The placement of bike routes will be
determined by a subcommittee of staff and community members.
Mr. Paulson stated that the City is getting carried away and is leaving out all cost considerations;
The City is building a platinum solution for a tin problem". Revisions should be made especially
with regard to placement of sidewalks; however, two sidewalks are not needed on a 28' street. Many
citizens of College Station like the privacy of a street without sidewalks to encourage pedestrian
traffic. In regard to bikepaths, a 12.5' additional lane to a roadway is totally out of the question as far
as the increased costs. A 28' street does not carry enough traffic to absorb the additional costs of
sidewalks and bikeways.
A. P. Boyd, with Pebble Creek Development, approached the Commission and stated that he
understood the meeting tonight to be a public hearing. The Pebble Creek subdivision is unique in
that it is private and does not encourage additional traffic. The ordinance revisions need more input
and study before requiring developers to add 1.2.5' to every street and adding sidewalks on both sides
of the street. Most homeowners do not want sidewalks in front of their home. Will the Pebble Creek
development have to follow these new guidelines?
• Chairperson Sawtelle stated that sidewalks and bikeways have become a Council concern because of
the expressed citizen concern of pedestrians having to walk in the street with moving vehicles.
P & Z Minutes November 21, 1991 Page 3
• Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan stated that the Council will ultimately decide whether the
Pebble Creek development will be grandfathered in or have to comply with the new guidelines.
Larry Mariott, of Mariott -Walston Homes, approached the Commission and stated that the cost of
the additional sidewalks and bikeways will be absorbed by the homebuilders. The homebuyers no
longer allow the builder to tack these additional fees on to the final price. He is concerned with the
requirement of sidewalks along both sides of a 28' wide street. These steep requirements will
negatively effect the new home market in College Station. There should be more study and public
input before the approval of the proposed ordinance amendments.
Randy French, a local homebuilder, stated that the cost issue is a major concern. Aesthetics should
be considered in these amendments. On the smaller streets and cul-de-sacs, more green space is
desired instead of additional concrete. If the sidewalks are installed prior to development, the
installation of water and sewer taps will be difficult because the builder will have to bore under the
existing sidewalks. In addition, the concrete trucks will damage the sidewalks during home
construction. He stated that his main opposition is to the requiring of sidewalks in small residential
areas.
Mr. Hall suggested the addition of a definition to the proposed ordinance to clarify between small and
large residential streets to determine whether or not sidewalks and bikeways should or should not be
installed. This definition would help in reaching an agreement between the City and the
homebuilders /developers. He stated that he understood the concerns stated by the homebuilders of
requiring sidewalks and bikeways on smaller lots and streets with restricted traffic flow.
Mr. Hawthorne stated that the language in the ordinance pertaining to waiver procedures should be
adjusted. The City is shifting the burden from the homeowner to the developer to show uniqueness.
• Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan stated that the waiver section of the proposed ordinance
amendment has not been changed from the previous ordinance. The homebuilder or developer can
come before the Planning and Zoning Commission and then to City Council to request a waiver to
the proposed requirement for location of sidewalks.
Mr. Esmond st<~ted that in the "Duties and Responsibilities of the Planning and Zoning Commission"
it states in item C that, "preparation of Subdivision Regulations or modifications thereof e be
recommended to the City Council". The Commission has had only two weeks to review the
proposed ordinance amendments and the public has not even seen a written copy of the proposed
ordinances. The Commission cannot gather adequate public input on an ordinance that the public has
not even reviewed. The Commission is failing to prepare and recommend these ordinance
amendments as stated in the role of the Commissioner. The Commission should t<zke an active role
to prepare and recommend these ordinance amendments. Mr. Esmond suggested the designation of a
subcommittee consisting of staff, Commissioners, homebuilders and developers, to review and gather
public input for the ordinance amendments.
Chairperson Sawtelle stated that Mr. Esmond had some valid points; however, these particular items
are a Council concern and the Council asked staff to make these revisions. The responsibility for
preparation was not assigned to the Commission in this case and was assigned to the staff. The
Commission is being asked for comments only. She stated that she was not aware of the wording in
the letter sent to the public stating that there would be a public hearing.
Mr. Esmond stated that the second paragraph in the letter states, "these amended sections of the Code
of Ordinances will effect the way you do business in the city of College St<~tion". These changes will
effect the way everyone does business including the Commission and the Council He stated that he
• does not want to review any ordinance haphazardly. He recommended that the Commission create a
P & Z Minutes November 21, 1991 Page 4
subcommittee to thoroughly review the proposed ordinances. The Council~~rerr}~be embarrassed by
• an ordinance that has had practically no public input. The Commission should do their job to ensure
that the ordinances have had adequate public input, thoughtful comment, and review.
City Engineer Pullen stated that the wording in the letter should have been made more clear. The
words "public hearing" in this letter did not actually mean a formally advertised public meeting but
an open discussion on the proposed items. Staff has received less than six phone calls in response to
the letter.
Mr. Esmond stated that the letter was dated ten days prior to the meeting. There was not adequate
time for the public to formulate questions and digest the information in the letter. He stated that he
still had several detailed questions about the ordinance amendments; however, there was not enough
time to cover them at tonight's meeting.
Chairperson Sawtelle suggested that the Commission proceed with the agenda. There was an error in
the interpretation of "public hearing" as stated in the letter. Concerns as far as adequate input should
be addressed to the Council. The City has an expert City staff that has been hired to do a job and
they, nor any Commissioners, are haphazard. The staff has more expertise, especially in these
technical matters, than some members of the Commission.
Mr. Esmond moved to create a subcommittee to spend time going through the proposed ordinances
and gathering public input.
Bobby Lane with Pebble Creek Development approached the Commission and stated that all of the
people he has visited with through the sales and marketing of the development have never said any
negative comments with regard to the lack of sidewalks or bikeways. The Pebble Creek area is a
• heavily wooded area and the developers want to preserve as many trees as possible. Installing more
concrete would eliminate many existing trees.
Mr. Hall stated that the area of Deacon and Rio Grande was never anticipated to be a heavily
travelled pedestrian access; today the sidewalks are not adequate. What is adequate today may not be
adequate ten years from now. In Scottsdale, Arizona, there are sidewalks against the curb that
enhance the overall aesthetics of the city. There should be a balance between the needs of the
developer and the citizen. There are several sidewalk needs today that were never anticipated at the
time of development. There is a genuine citizen concern for the lack of sidewalks in the City. The
luxury golf course will enhance the development regardless of what the City requires. The City is
attempting to address the public concerns expressed for the lack of sidewalks around public parks,
schools, hospitals, etc.
Chairperson Sawtelle stopped discussion and asked for a second of the original motion made by Mr.
Esmond. Mr. Hall seconded the motion and requested to continue discussion.
Mr. Hawthorne stated that in some situations there were no sidewalks required on some streets as the
waiver section was previously written. There was a time when the developer or builder did not have
to come before the Commission and Council and request a waiver because sidewalks were not
required. With the new ordinance, every time a developer wants a waiver, they must come before the
Commission and Council.
Mr. Esmond st<~ted that he is for sidewalks and wants to see more sidewalks in the city. He does not
think that the staff and the Commissioners have gone about it the right way. The Commission should
be able to forward the ordinance to Council with a clear direction. This clear direction can only be
accomplished through a subcommittee to gather more public input and review. He stated that he
• could not support an ordinance when the impact is not known and adequate public information has
not been gathered. Mr. Esmond stilted that his next motion would be to recommend denial of the
proposed ordinance.
P & Z Minutes November Zl, 1991 Page 5
• Chairperson Sawtelle stated that the Council initiated these ordinance revisions. Because the source
is different, the Commission's role in this case is different. The Commission should not attempt to
make up the Council's mind for them. We should not take over a process that the staff has adequately
executed. This type of procedural question should be discussed before the Council and not during the
Commission meeting. The Commission should not start creating a subcommittee and allowing for
months of discussion for each and every ordinance. If this were to be the procedure, Council would
have stipulated this criteria in their direction to staff. At this point, it is not the Commission's
perogative to make these procedural decisions for them. Staff has been asked to present these
ordinances to the Council in the near future.
Mr. Michel stated that he did not second the original motion made by Mr. Esmond because he does
not feel compelled to make a recommendation at tonight's meeting. This was the first opportunity for
review and discussion. The Commission could t<zble or ask for additional time. He did not agree
with the idea of creating a subcommittee; the entire Commission should review the information and
public input to make a firm recommendation. Staff has already put a lot of time in drafting the
ordinance and the Commission should receive public input and polish the ordinance.
Mr. Esmond requested that his motion requesting the creation of a subcommittee be withdrawn. He
stated that all ordinances in the future should have serious deliberation by all Commissioners and
receive public input. The Commission is not doing the Council justice by sending them a document
that has not been properly reviewed. The Commission should hold a formally advertised public
hearing.
Mr. Hall withdrew his second to the original motion made by Mr. Esmond creating a subcommittee
to review the proposed ordinance amendments.
• Chairperson Sawtelle stated that a concensus can be drawn that more public input is needed and more
discussion concerning the size of a street and its relation to the requirements of sidewalks and
bikeways. The Commission should list the concerns stated and present those to Council and let them
decide the future of these ordinances.
Mr. Hall moved to table the discussion to allow time for staff to meet with the concerned developers
and builders to see if some agreement can be reached. The ordinance could then be brought back to
the Commission for reviewing and polishing before referring the item to Council.
Chairperson Sawtelle stated that the Commission needs to identify the sections that they are having
problems with and suggest solutions. There is little that can be accomplished between now and the
next meeting to adequately address the expressed concerns.
Mr. Hall stated that Council is asking the Commission to discuss the amendments as a body and give
them guidance. The Council will be appreciative if some of these major concerns could be addressed
prior to the Council meeting. Staff could distribute copies of the amendments to the public and
request that they submit their revisions and recommendations in writing within five to seven days for
staff to review and incorporate in their presentation to the Commission. He agreed to withdraw his
motion to allow for Mr. Michel to make a revised motion.
Mr. Michel moved to recommend to Council that they allow a public hearing on the subject
according to the Open Records Act, if necessary, and for the Council to inform the Commission of
any time constraints and the number of public meetings allowed on this item by the Commission and
to give direction at the next Planning and Zoning meeting. This two week period will allow the
concerned builders and developers to meet with staff and get copies of the proposed ordinances and
get a public announcement in the media announcing the public forum at the December meeting.
P & Z Minutes November 21, 1991 Page 6
• Planning Technician Thomas informed the Commission that the next City Council meeting will be on
December 12, 1991. Staff would not have a direction from Council until the Commission meeting on
December 19, 1991.
Mr. Hall seconded the motion made by Mr. Michel.
Mr. Hawthorne moved to amend the motion to identify the specific concerns addressed in tonight's
meeting such as, requiring sidewalks on both sides of all streets, the damage to the sidewalks by
concrete trucks and installation of water and sewer taps, the cost factor, and that the concerns stated
by the public present requesting more public input and review. Mr. Michel seconded the amendment
to the original motion.
Mr. Esmond moved to make a second amendment to the original motion to include a concern for the
sidewalk widths and obstacles and obstructions. He questioned the rational behind them; however
there is not adequate time to address these details.
Chairperson Sawtelle asked that the discussion and amendment procedure cease to allow for a vote.
Mr. Michel called the question on the original motion as amended by Mr. Hawthorne. The motion
passed (5 - 1 - 1). Chairperson Sawtelle abstained from voting while Mr. Hall voted against the
motion.
Chairperson Sawtelle called a five minute recess.
Mr. Colson moved to apply the same motion to the next two ordinance amendments as was made in
the first ordinance amendment and refer these ordinances to Council with a request for direction from
Council on the matter of discussion of public hearing. Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
• Mr. Esmond suggested that the Commission use the opportunity of the meeting tonight to get some
public input on the next two items. There are people present tonight who were invited by the City to
provide input.
Mr. Colson and Chairperson Sawtelle suggested that the public present obtain a copy of the proposed
ordinance amendments to review. Chairperson Sawtelle informed the public that copies of the
proposed revisions would be made available in the Development Services Department beginning
Friday, November 22, 1991.
Mr. Ed Mc Dow requested that the audience be allowed to hear the staffs presentation of the next
two proposed ordinance amendments and then obtain a copy of the ordinances. This would allow a
better understanding of what is actually being proposed.
Chairperson Sawtelle stated that the presentations would need to be presented in the formal public
hearing. She suggested a general presentation of the material followed by brief comments by the
Commission and the audience.
Mr. Colson called the question on the original motion. The motion passed unopposed (7 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Discuss a proposed amendment to the Drainage Ordinance. (91-818)
City Engineer Pullen presented the amendment to the Drainage Ordinance. Section one of the
ordinance will stay the same except for the addition of number six which addresses surface water
retention and the direct water flow onto adjacent properties. Section two contains several revisions to
current definitions and adds the definition of a barrier. The date, March 12, 1987, clarifies the new
• construction definition as to when the drainage ordinance was originally adopted. Section three
contains some minor alterations to the administration of the ordinance while Section four adds items
P & Z Minutes November 21, 1991 Page 7
• to the duties and responsibilities of the administrator, the City Engineer. These additions include the
assurance that all property has access to suitable surface water drainage facilities, and that all
easements along natural drainage ways and required upon development. Section four also amends
the administrative appeals section to allow an appeal through the Zoning Board of Adjustment in
place of the Municipal Court. Section five was extensively rewritten to address ownership and
responsibility to maintainance of facilities, how drainage facilities are handled in subdivisions of
land, general design criteria, and requires engineers and contractors to certify compliance. Section
six addresses National Flood Insurance Program regulations. Section eight allows penalties to others
besides the owners and increases the fine from $200 - $500.
AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Discuss an amendment to the Code of Ordinances pertaining to
driveway access. (91-81~
Transportation Planner Hard presented the proposed Driveway Access Location and Design
Ordinance to be added to the College Station Code of Ordinances. The proposed ordinance will
address the location of driveway access, spacing of driveway access, corner clearance, shared access,
geometric design of driveway access, street structures, permits and appeals. In general, the ordinance
applies to commercial and multifamily developments; however, a judgment by the Engineering
department may override set criteria. Single family and two family developments will take access
from the lesser street. No commercial driveways will be located such that the left turns into and out
of the driveway have to cross a marked left turn queue storage area. Access will be prohibited in
right turn lane transition areas. Corner parcels will be allowed only one driveway unless proven that
they need additional access to accommodate traffic volumes or circulation. The intent of the corner
clearance section of the ordinance is to allow access if minimum requirements can not be met, but to
keep the driveway as far from the intersection as possible. This section provided for reduced
clearance minimums for corner parcels with distances varying from 75 - 120' according to street
classification. There will be a special provision for downstream corner clearance on arterials with a
channelized right turn lane. The proposed shared access will minimize the number of access point to
keep traffic off of the street by allowing access to adjacent properties on site. There will be
provisions for shared and / or cross access easements. The minimums may be lessened if shared
access is used to provide incentives for property owners who do not meet spacing requirements. He
reviewed the standard criteria for driveway width and curb return for residential and commercial
developments. Special design considerations include driveway throat length, limited access
driveways, right turn deceleration lanes and traffic signals. The permitting process st<3tes that the site
plan will be considered the "application" for access. The existing drives may be reconsidered for
new building permits, zoning change and replatting. Driveways will be required to be approved prior
to the issuance of a building permit. To appeal a section of the proposed ordinance, the aggrieved
must notify the City Engineer in writing. The Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize a
variance to the ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other business.
Mr. Esmond questioned staff as to the recommendation to dedicate right of way to provide for a right
turn lane along University Drive made in the traffic impact study submitted by Scott & White Clinics
for Glenhaven VII.
Assistant to the City Engineer Morgan stated that the right turn lane recommendation was not critical
to the development but was a suggestion. The lane was not recommended by staff because the one
way frontage roads will help reduce traffic load in the area.
Transportation Planner Hard agreed and stated that Scott and White was not allowed a curb cut on
University Drive. Staff felt that the lane was not critical to the development and that staff did not
• require the dedication for additional right of way because access was denied.
P & Z Minutes November 21, 1991 Page 8
Mr. Esmond stated that eventually a right turn lane would be needed along University. St<1ff should
have taken the opportunity to acquire that additional right of way at this time. If the lane was not
built, the City could have abandoned the area. The Commission should not have approved the
preliminary and final plat without t e edication of the additional right of way. Mr. Esmond
distributed copies of the traffic s submitted by Scott & White Clinics and stated that there
should be more time allowed for technical review prior to the approval of a plat. He concluded by
asking Chairperson Sawtelle if the Commission was obligated to address policy matters.
Chairperson Sawtelle stated that policy matters should be directed to City Council. In the roles and
responsibilities handbook, there is a difference between the roles of an elected and appointed official.
All policy related items should be addressed by Council and not argued in the Commission meeting
forum. Chairperson Sawtelle informed the Commission that the legal staff is no longer attending
Commission meetings. She stated that she prefers that they be present to help with the administration
of Robert's Rules of Order and to ensure that everyone receives a fair hearing. The legal staff does
not believe that it is a worth while pursuit to attend which probably stems from recent "attorney-
bashing" that may have taken place within the last few months. She requested that the legal staff
return and st<~ted that the Commission should not expect an on-the-spot legal recommendation. She
asked all Commissioners to try and remember to be courteous to all City staff.
Mr. Colson requested that the City restripe the City Hall parking lot to come into compliance with the
existing ordinance. The City should make a conscious effort to be a leader in complying with all
ordinance requirements.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn.
Mr. Colson moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Hawthorne
• seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7 - 0).
APPROVED:
<~
Chaff person, ancy Sawtelle
ATTE
Planning Technician, Natalie Thomas
•
P & Z Minutes November 21, 1991 Page 9
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
•
s
DATE // ~~J~~~~~ ~~ ~~f
NAME ADDRESS
~^ i
1. - ~ ~ ___
' :'1,~ ~ w
6 . ~' ,,~,. :~ v :a,,,,,y, ~.-
~~-. z
~ ,~ -~~
9 ~ ~~ ~ L ;~` '' ~ ~_ ti
10 . ,-~..- ,.. t ,
,~
~; ~.
,- ,; / ~ A , ,P- , r- .
12 ~ ~ 1 ~~
i ,~ ~ •~ -
13 ~ '4` 'f~ t.~,.'
14. '~ v°~~~'~~~'~,
15.
17 . _ ~,. ~C S ti ;L ---~
,~ t
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
~5•