Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/1994 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionM I N U T E S • Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION „ TEXAS January 6, 1994 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne and Commissioners Gribou, Smith, Hall, Mariott and Herring COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Lane. STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Economic and Development Services Callaway, City Planner Kee, Planning Technician Thomas, Development Coordinator Volk, Transportation Planner Hard and City Engineer Pullen. (City Councilman Nancy Crouch was in the audience.) AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of December 16, 1993. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of December 16, 1993 as corrected by Chairman Hawthorne. Commissioner Mariott seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0) . AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of 13.65 acres with frontage along Dartmouth near the intersection of Colgate from R-2 Duplexes to R-5 Medium Density Apartments. (93-113) City Planner Kee informed the Commission that on December 2, 1993, this item was denied by the Commission. At the applicant's request, staff withdrew the case from the City Council agenda to allow time for the applicant to meet with the surrounding property owners and discuss possible alternatives. Staff re advertised for tonight's public hearing; however, after discussions with the surrounding property owners, the applicant has requested that the Commission delay action on this item so that they may revise their request to a planned unit development (PUD). The legal notice for the public hearing before the Commission is still valid because a PUD is less intense than the proposed R-5 zoning. Because a PUD requires a preliminary plat, impact studies and site plans, the applicant has requested that the Commission delay action until the next available meeting. The applicant is not present. Commissioner Smith stated that he would like to know how many people in the audience are present to speak on this item. Chairman Hawthorne asked those in the audience that are present to speak on this item to raise their hand. Two members of the audience raised their hands. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Jim Gardner of 1216 North Ridgefield approached the Commission and stated that he is concerned about access to the property. • Mr. Gardner suggested that access to the site not be allowed along Dartmouth and instead require access from Colgate through a vacant lot. Whatever density is allowed, traffic and circulation should be major considerations. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mariott moved to table the rezoning request of 13.65 acres with frontage along Dartmouth near the intersection of Colgate from R-2 Duplexes to R-5 Medium Density Apartments. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0) . AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request of 2.37 acres with frontage along Lincoln Street adjacent and to the south of the Cedar Creek Condominiums from R-lA Single Family Residential to R-2 Duplexes. (93-112) City Planner Kee informed the Commission that on December 2, 1993, this rezoning request was unanimously approved by the Commission. On December 9, 1993, the City Council denied the rezoning request. The rezoning was re notified at the applicant's request to waive the 180 day waiting period to reconsider the request. At that meeting, the Commission denied the request without prejudice and waived the 180 day waiting period. This rezoning request is scheduled to be considered by • the City Council on January 27, 1994. Chairman Hawthorne questioned staff if there was any additional information available as to why the City Council denied the rezoning request. City Planner Kee stated that Mr. Nicks spoke more adamantly against the request than he did at the Commission meeting and the public hearing seemed to play a major part in the Council's decision. Councilman Crouch informed the Commission that she personally did not feel that the applicant needed to upgrade the zoning. She stated that she wanted to let the applicant know her perspective regardless of the notification problem. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Don Jones of 3201 Forestwood in Bryan approached the Commission and explained that he is a local broker involved with the subject property. Mr. Jones stated that there are two main points to consider when viewing the rezoning request. One, there have been concerns expressed pertaining to the increased density of the proposed rezoning from R-1A to R-2; however, with the proposed R- 2 zoning, there will be a total of eight duplexes built on the • site with a total of sixteen living units. With the current R-lA zoning, there could be townhome units built with a total of seventeen living units. P & Z Minutes January 6, 1994 Page 2 Mr. Jones stated that a second concern expressed is that the duplexes will encourage non owner occupied housing. The existing • townhome development west of this site along Lincoln Avenue that is currently zoned R-1A, has three owner occupied units and fourteen non owner occupied units. Considering the current market demands, duplex development is the highest and best use for the subject property. The public demand is not as strong for townhomes. Roy Hammons, Engineering and Planning consultant for the owner approached the Commission and stated that the subject property is a difficult piece to develop because of the increased lot depth. The owner would like to construct eight total buildings with sixteen living units. Parking will be along the rear and the front setbacks will be increased due to the depth of the lots. The nature of Lincoln Avenue has changed over the last few years and has become a major access way to Texas A&M. The current R-1A zoning may have been appropriate in the past; however, considering the current market and the nature of Lincoln Avenue, single family development is not longer viable on the subject property. Oran Nicks of 901 Munson approached the Commission and stated that in the current market, commercial development such as multifamily housing is attractive; however, the city should maintain the current plan in this area with a buffer zone along the north side of Lincoln. Mr. Nicks expressed concern with changing one small piece of the plan without consideration of the . other pieces. Zoning changes should not be allowed on an incremental basis and buffer zones should remain to protect single family neighborhoods. With respect to the threat of the owner building eighteen small, single family units, citizens must rely on current policies and guidelines to prevent a substandard development. Stephen Miller of 906 Munson stated that rezoning the subject property will begin a domino effect for surrounding properties to request rezonings and more intense land uses that will eventually degrade the established single family neighborhood. When the developer of the subject property purchased the land, he was aware of the zoning and the plan for the surrounding area. The surrounding property owners and the city as a whole should not have to pay for the speculation of the property owner. Mr. Miller informed the Commission that buffer zones are extremely important in all communities and should be maintained to protect the existing single family development. Single family development is the fruit of many communities and should be protected as such. Ann Hazen of 1205A Munson informed the Commission that she has lived on Munson for twenty-one years and served on the Planning and Zoning Commission when the zoning decisions on the subject property were made. If the proposed rezoning is granted, there • will be a domino effect for more intense zoning in the area. Ms. Hazen stated that along with intense zoning, there is increased traffic that will also negatively effect the neighborhood. P & Z Minutes January 6, 1994 Page 3 L. Owre of 903 Munson informed the Commission that her mother and sisters are co-owners of 903 Munson and that she resides on • Walton Drive. She stated that if the rezoning is granted, it will create a greater demand for multifamily zoning in the area. The existing, established single family neighborhood should be protected and the buffer zone should remain in place. Martha Cannon the mother of L. Owre and co-owner of 903 Munson approached the Commission and stated that it would be a mistake to remove the buffer zone along Lincoln Avenue. John Crompton of 1000 Rose Circle informed the Commission that if the rezoning request is granted, it will continue the deterioration of the existing neighborhood. Wayne Saslow of 104 Walton approached the Commission and stated that he has lived at this address for twenty-two years. Continued multifamily development like the apartment complex at Lincoln and Nunn will continue to degrade the residential neighborhood. Kathryn Lucchese of 1008 Puryear stated that the applicant should reconsider his development plans for the subject property. An example of the highest and best use of the land is a townhome development like the one along Post Oak Circle and not duplex development. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. • Commissioner Mariott moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request for 2.37 acres with frontage along Lincoln Street adjacent and to the south of the Cedar Creek Condominiums from R- 1A Single Family Residential to R-2 Duplexes. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. Commissioner Mariott stated difference in the proposed townhomes. Lincoln Avenue is will continue to do so as family homeowners prefer to traveled streets. that there is not much of a duplex units and the allowable carrying more and more traffic and she community grows. Most single stay away from homes on heavily Commissioner Smith agreed with Commissioner Mariott; however, the citizens in the surrounding neighborhood have voiced so much concern that he will have to vote against the rezoning request, even though he does not fully agree with their arguments. Commissioner Gribou expressed concern of spot zoning and stated that the entire area should be examined more closely. Chairman Hawthorne stated that he will vote against the rezoning request primarily because Mr. Nicks has changed his mind since the last public hearing. He agreed with Commissioner Mariott in . that the subject site is a difficult piece of property to develop; however, that is not a sufficient argument to breech the integrity of the City's buffering policy by allowing R-2 zoning. P & Z Minutes January b, 1994 Page 4 Chairman Hawthorne informed the Commission that Lincoln Street is an adequate buffer zone and that the R-2 zoning would not degrade • the surrounding neighborhood. However, after listening to the public and reviewing the zoning in that area, there is an established land use plan. Chairman Hawthorne stated that if the R-2 zoning is granted, it would open the door to adjacent property owners requesting more intense zoning, which does not seem to be the plan in this area. Commissioner Hall stated that he did not feel that the discussion of the R-1A alternative was a threat to the surrounding property owners or to the Commission. Everyone should be aware of the alternatives available and what is allowed under current standards. Commissioner Hall stated that the applicant is proposing a reasonable use for the subject property and is reducing the number of curb cuts and placing parking in the rear. There is an existing apartment complex immediately behind the subject property and R-2 zoning is still an effective buffer between the apartments and the single family development. Commissioner Hall stated that the entire area should be examined to determine zoning for long term use and the subject rezoning is the first piece or step in doing so. The rezoning could be conditioned upon adequate buffering, limited access and rear parking. City Planner Kee stated that placing conditions on the subject development could be controlled through the platting of the • property since the property will have to be platted prior to issuance of a building permit. The original motion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning failed (2 - 4); Commissioners Hall and Mariott voted in favor of the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a previously tabled conditional use permit request for the Bull and Bear, a proposed restaurant and bar to be located at 505 University Drive, suites 307 and 309. (93-715) City Planner Kee reminded the Commission that they tabled this case pending review of this matter by the City's legal department. Another related question that came up involves the fact that quite often, zoning restrictions are not uncovered during a title search. There was no note on the plat that would have put a title company on notice that there was an implied shared parking agreement in existence. The City could always require such notes; however, property is platted at times well before we know of a planned use. City Attorney Locke states in her memo that "whether the property was subsequently subdivided or not does not affect the shopping center designation for the purpose of calculating the number of total parking spaces". "In my opinion, the removal of the designation by either requires • both properties to come into compliance with current ordinances pertaining to the provision of parking spaces under the City's land use ordinances." P & Z Minutes January b, 1994 Page 5 City Attorney Locke's memo stated, "Where the removal of this designation creates a deficiency in parking, it appears that these successors in interest to have two options. One, provide • the additional parking spaces or two, remove some of their square footage from the certificate of occupancy." City Planner Kee stated that there is also a third option in that the property owner could receive a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to the parking requirement. Commissioner Gribou moved to grant the conditional use permit for the Bull and Bear, a proposed restaurant and bar to be located at 505 University Drive, suites 307 and 309. Commissioner Mariott seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a final plat of Pebble Creek Phase 2B. (93-200) City Engineer Pullen presented the staff report and recommended approval of the final plat as submitted. The sidewalk on both sides of Augusta Circle is required because of the width of the right-of-way. Although the street is collector size, it serves a local function with no other streets connecting to it. Traffic is limited to the people who live or visit residents on the street. For this reason, the Presubmission Conference staff recommended granting the requested sidewalk variance and deleting the sidewalk on the outside of Augusta Circle. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the final plat of Pebble Creek Phase 2B with staff recommendations. • Commissioner Herring seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0) . AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Public hearing to consider proposed changes to the Thoroughfare Plan. (93-826) Transportation Planner Hard presented the amendments to the thoroughfare plan up for discussion including new streets, extending existing streets and revising the plan to cover developing areas to the south. Upon further review and discussion of all amendment considerations, staff has numerous recommendations for amendments to the thoroughfare plan. Of the eleven proposed amendments that were street widenings/extensions, or new streets, staff recommended approval of the following: (1) Walton realignment with Lincoln; (2} Cornell extension to Manuel; (3) Manuel extension to Dartmouth; (4) Eisenhower extension to Lincoln; (5) Switch Station Road; • (6) Colgate extension to the East Frontage Road; and, (7) Barron Road overpass at State Highway 6. P & Z Minutes January 6, 1994 Page 6 Transportation Planner recommended that additional studies be conducted to consider the following four extensions or new • streets: (1) Kyle, widen from Bush to Dominik; (2) Kyle, extension from State Highway 30 to Holleman; (3) Kyle, extension from State Highway 30 to Cornell; and, (4) Glenhaven, extension from State Highway 60 to Barak. In addition, staff recommended approval of a change in street classification for the following nine streets: (1) Emerald Parkway - major to minor arterial; (2) Longmire - collector to minor arterial; (3) Rio Grande - minor arterial to collector; (4) Manuel - upgrade to collector; (5) Cornell - upgrade to collector; (6) Colgate - upgrade to collector; (7) Woodcreek Drive - upgrade to collector; • (8) Foxfire Drive - upgrade to collector; and, (9) Frost - upgrade to collector. Transportation Planner Hard stated with regard to the revision to the thoroughfare plan for the area south of town bounded by Rock Prairie, Greens Prairie, and Wellborn Roads, staff recommended the "Pebble-Barron" over the "Bird Pond-Barron" alternative. While both are viable alternatives, staff feels the community travel benefits of the Pebble-Barron connection outweigh the regional benefits of the Bird Pond-Barron connection. The pros of the Bird Pond-Barron connection are continuity between State Highway 30 and F. M. 2154, an additional route to State Highway 30 and no directional change. The cons to this alternative are "thru" traffic in a residential area and redundant movement. The pro's to the Pebble-Barron alternative are that it discourages "thru" traffic, it is a community connection and better serves local traffic patterns. The con to this alternative is the arterial direction change. Commissioner Hall expressed concern of up or down grading street classifications and the budgetary impacts. If the City encourages traffic in a certain area, then certain funds should be budgeted towards those streets for maintenance, additional • sidewalks, or whatever is necessary to facilitate the additional traffic. With respect to Rio Grande, there will always be a large amount of traffic on this street due to the close proximity of schools and the athletic complex. P & Z Minutes January b, 1994 Page 7 Commissioner Hall suggested that specific budgets be set aside according to the street classification so that citizens that live • along these streets are entitled to whatever resources are available. Instead of just reclassifying a street, or changing the colors on a map, traffic control and implementation should also be considered. Transportation Planner Hard informed the Commission that the changes in street classification will not effect the budget; however, it will effect the application of the driveway access ordinance. The proposed changes in street classification is more of a change to reflect the existing patterns and the overall concept of the plan. City Councilman Crouch stated that street classification does have an impact on sidewalk requirements and future Streetscape implementation. Chairman Hawthorne expressed concern of the Walton connection to Lincoln. He stated that the proposed connection is encouraging more traffic into the established single family neighborhood. Commissioner Gribou questioned the effects of the Walton connection with increased traffic at the entrance of Texas A&M. If traffic is encouraged along Walton, it could potentially cause problems on campus. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. • John Crompton of 1000 Rose Circle approached the Commission and expressed concern of the proposed Walton-Lincoln connection. The proposed realignment will encourage more traffic along Munson that is not adequate to handle the current traffic flow. Mr. Crompton explained that he was involved in the public hearings when Lincoln and Munson were extended. At the Munson extension hearing, the residents were promised a sidewalk for the pedestrian traffic including the large number of children that walk to school each day; however, a sidewalk was never installed. There is a major problem with the amount of traffic and the speeds at which they drive along Munson. The proposed realignment of Walton to connect with Lincoln will only encourage more traffic along Munson and through this neighborhood. Stephen Miller of 906 Munson stated that the proposed Walton realignment is a neighborhood integrity issue. The City should not allow the east gate area to become a slum and should minimize the amount of traffic through the existing single family neighborhood. Kathryn Lucchese of 1008 Puryear informed the Commission that the proposed Walton connection would also encourage additional traffic along Puryear. Currently, there are no sidewalks along Puryear and a number of cars park along the street for activities • at Thomas Park. Ms. Luchesse suggested that the traffic signal at Walton and Texas be relocated to Lincoln and Texas in order to re-route the large amount of traffic from Walton Drive. P & Z Minutes January b, 1994 Page 8 Mark Weichold of 1016 Puryear approached the Commission and stated that he was concerned of at the lack of substance of the • staff presentation. There was no mention to the actual numbers of increased traffic along Walton Drive with the proposed realignment. Staff should obtain some actual traffic counts before recommending a connection that would encourage more traffic along a residential street. Paul Clarke of Clarke and Wyndham Investments stated that any proposed north-south alternatives would help with traffic congestion. He stated that he is in favor of the Eisenhower extension, Manuel to Dartmouth connection and the Colgate extension. • Wayne Saslow of 104 Walton approached the Commission and stated that the Walton realignment would negatively effect the integrity of the existing neighborhood. There is currently a problem with traffic along Walton, Puryear and Munson and staff should explore possibilities to slow down traffic in these areas. Jim Gardner of 1216 North Ridgefield recommended that the consideration of the proposed amendments be delayed until handouts are made available to the public. Additional information should be given to the public prior to the meeting so that they have time to give an organized response to the proposed changes. Mr. Gardner stated that he is not convinced that the proposed Walton realignment is needed. Since the University is growing on the opposite side of campus, it does not appear that many people would be served by the proposed realignment. Oran Nicks of 901 Munson approached the Commission and expressed concern with the proposed Walton realignment creating more of a traffic problem since the intersection will not form a "T". The design of the connection may not be safe. Mr. Nicks expressed concern with the increasing traffic along Munson and the proposed connection encouraging more traffic through the neighborhood. Gene Clark of 1302 Sussex questioned the timing of the Rock Prairie Road extension. Tom Goen of 3715 Sweetbriar in Bryan questioned the overall time frame of the proposed amendment changes. Transportation Planner Hard explained that the proposed amendment changes will later be prioritized as short and long range plans. The Rock Prairie Road extension is a current project and is on the short range thoroughfare plan. Steve Hartnett, owner of the 707 Texas shopping center and several properties in the Wolf Pen Creek area, approached the Commission and stated that the Eisenhower extension would alleviate traffic using the alley in the 707 Texas center. The connection would also give an alternative route to Texas Avenue and would alleviate traffic congestion. Mr. Hartnett suggested that the Eisenhower connection be placed on the short range plan. P & Z Minutes January 6, 1994 Page 9 Steve White of 1005 Puryear suggested that Nunn Street be closed in order to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. Staff . should explore alternatives, like the utilization of Foster, that would alleviate the amount of traffic along Walton. Jennifer Fredericks of 1006 Puryear explained that there is currently a problem with traffic and parking around Thomas Park. The City should consider the increased traffic in the neighborhood and the overall effects on the environment. Ann Callaway of 1003 Puryear stated that Nunn Street has been a traffic problem for some time. Alternatives should be explored that would remove the large amount of traffic from Walton and Puryear instead of encouraging additional traffic on these residential streets. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the seven street extensions recommended by staff excluding the Walton realignment with Lincoln. The proposed Walton realignment should be studied further prior to consideration. Commissioner Herring seconded the motion. Commissioner Gribou stated that he would prefer to see alternatives available to the Walton realignment including traffic counts to establish a clear reasoning as to what pressure would be relieved by the proposed realignment. • Chairman Hawthorne stated that he does not see what the advantages would be to the Walton realignment. It appears that the realignment would create more traffic problems such as increased traffic and traffic speeds in the area. The City should not implement anything that would negatively effect the uniqueness and integrity of the neighborhood only for convenience. Commissioner Mariott requested that staff look into the issue of a sidewalk along Munson. If the residents were promised a sidewalk with the Munson extension, one should be installed. Commissioner Hall agreed and stated that the proposed Cornell extension should be a top priority. He suggested that Transportation Planner Hard prioritize the list of amendments prior to City Council consideration. The original motion to recommend approval of the street extensions recommended by staff with the exception of the Walton realignment with Lincoln passed unopposed (6 - 0). Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the nine changes in street classification recommended by staff. Commissioner Herring seconded the motion. Commissioner Hall • stated that he would like to see Rio Grande remain a minor arterial until a traffic count proves that it should be reclassified. P & Z Minutes January b, 1994 Page 10 Commissioner Hall moved to amend the motion to delete the change of Rio Grande from a minor arterial to a collector. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. • The amendment passed (5 - 1); Chairman Hawthorne voted in opposition to the motion. The original motion as amended passed (5 - 1) Chairman Hawthorne voted in opposition to the motion. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend that staff conduct further studies of the four street extensions and widenings as recommended by staff. Commissioner Herring seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). Commissioner Hall moved to recommend approval of the Bird Pond- Barron alternative as opposed to the Pebble-Barron alternative for the south side of College Station. Commissioner Mariott seconded the motion. Commissioner Gribou expressed concern where major arterials turn into minor arterials and future traffic problems. He stated that he would like to see additional information on the proposed land use plan for the subject area. Commissioner Hall stated that there is existing right-of-way along Bird Pond Road that could be utilized. This existing right-of-way would expedite the implementation of the thoroughfare plan. Chairman Hawthorne stated that since both plans are fairly close • in concept, both alternatives should be presented to the City Council along with the comments made at this meeting. The original motion to recommend approval of the Bird Pond-Barron alternative passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Other business. Commissioner Hall stated that traffic is a major challenge in College Station and will continue to be a challenge as the community expands. He stated that he would like to encourage the City Council to look at the overall budget on traffic issues and the impacts of the George Bush Library on the current traffic budget. The City should prepare now and look at long range solutions for traffic in College Station. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. Commissioner Hall moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Mariott seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - O). APPR ~~ K e Hawthorne, Chairman • A Na alie Thomas, Secretary P & Z Minutes January 6, 1994 Page 11 Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ~~ ~` Agenda Item No. _ Name ~ • ~~'~ ~ Address ~, ~~ l'~ ~~ r2~ ~ yr If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's o ficial capaci :., Subject on which person shes to speak: ~r?;nos P ~ ~~ ~L ,'~'lcol~( SfvP~ 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 PLANNING FILES. ~~~ ~~~ Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ~T-c~ it , ~- i `< c Agenda Item No. Name K «~'~ ~ ti ~. ~~ L-~- ~ c ~,-,z. ~ ~> Address i o c> ~~'- ~,~ ,: ~,~ ~- ~._ ~ ~ ~ ,1-'-~ C S If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are • recognized by the chair, hand your completed registration form to the presiding officer and state your name and residence before beginning your presentation. If you have written notes you wish to present to the Commission, PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING FILES. Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ~ /~0 61~ ~-~ Agenda Item No. _~-? Named Address ~~ ~ ~~~io~--~ If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: 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 PLANNING FILES. Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ~ -~ ~~ _ ~~~/ Agenda Item No. ~ ~- Name Ovft ~~ \ . C~lv C `~ P Address ~>. ~~'~~~: ~~6-~~ ~ ' ~.~ - If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: , , ~. Subject on which person wishes ~o speak: ,'j ~~ ~, ~_( C 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 PLANNING FILES. Planning ~' Zoning Commission Guest ~eBister Date l ~~~ ~ame ~ cfrfress 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 19. zo. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 2S. _; 2. , ° u~; ~~ ~~ ~. 4. 6. _ ~5_ - >~ ~.~% x . - , ._ /" / /~ ,. 7. ~ L ~~.Ci-~O (~, /~ ..ice/' - . 8. (.~-~~-i.~ 14. ~--C~ m G~~_~~-~ ~ IS. y ~'1~- 16. ~ i;l'~t ~., . ~'-~ ~ c ~;~ ~ c_ ^l ~ 1 !j Is. ~~~-~~lf~%r~~ ~~l >1;~2;y1~ ~ ~~_~, ~ ~~ti~_~~-- ~_. rr ~~ ~~ ~Q ~ ji~r^~S~lJaac.~~~G/C~ ~~ J _.- .- , ,~:~I % ~..,. ., ,. , , : c` _. ~ ~~ ~C' / /Z 'Lu Lv> gyn.,, "'~- C~ r ~--~.~C~-~ / .' ~ ~ ~ : i ~ ' ~ t ~ ~ '~ ~ C .a C~~ yl.~'Gl'1~- ~ .~ 1 ~.~ ~ ~ ~~ t t ~ ~~ `, ~.i 7i~~ ~~;Y4'1 ,J r' ~ , '' 1 ~~~ ~C ~ ~.~~~ ~ ~-r ~ 2 ~' G ~ ~--- ~~ ~ v ~ ~ w~~ ~,~1~_~ C