Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1994 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 17, 1994 7;00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hawthorne, Commissioners Hall, Garner, Lane, and Smith. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Lightfoot and Gribou. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Assistant City Engineer Morgan, Planning Technician Thomas, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn, Assistant Director of Economic and Development Services Callaway, City Engineer Laza and Development Coordinator Volk. (Council Liaison McIlhaney was in the audience.) • AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: The Consent Agenda consists of non-controversial or "housekeeping" items required by law. Items may be removed from the Consent Agenda by any citizen, City staff member, or Commissioner by making such a request prior to a motion and vote on the Consent Agenda. (l.l) Approval of minutes from the meeting of November 3, 1994. (7.2) Consideration of a final plat for Ponderosa Place II Tract A-7 Subdivision. (94-241) (1.3) Consideration of a final plat for University Oaks Subdivision, lots 24 & 25. (94-242) (1.4) Consideration of a final plat for the Scarmardo Subdivision. (94-245) (1.5) Consideration of an E.T.J. final plat for Westminster Phase II Subdivision. (94-247) Agenda item 1.2 was removed from the consent agenda at the request of staff. Agenda item 1.4 was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the Commission meeting. The remaining items were unanimously approved by consent. Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report for the final plat of the Ponderosa Place II Subdivision. There is an existing rear access easement that staff would like to retain as part of this plat for future access to other lots in the subdivision. This access easement is not shown on the revised final plat. Staff recommended approval of the final plat with the condition that the existing access easement be included on the resubdivision plat. • Commissioner Smith moved to recommend approval of the final plat of the Ponderosa Place II Tract A-1 Subdivision with staff recommendations including the dedication of the rear access easement. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). . AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for lot 2 of the Holleman Place Subdivision from C-1 General Commercial to R-5 Medium Density Apartments. (94-122) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the rezoning request. The Land Use Plan shows the subject site as low density residential between retail commercial to the west and "Wolf Pen Creek" to the east. This Wolf Pen Creek (WPC) area was placed on the map in anticipation of the WPC district that was created several years after the Land Use Plan was adopted. In the early 1980's, when the Plan was adopted, the land uses for WPC were not yet determined. In 1988, the WPC district was created, and the list of permitted uses included restaurants, theaters, night clubs, and apartment complexes. The requested zoning for apartments would be more compatible with the WPC uses. The existing C-1 zoning is not compatible with the single family residential uses located to the south across Richards Street. This tract was rezoned in 1984 from R-1 to C-1 even though that request did not meet development policies. The R-5 would be a preferable zoning to the commercial in this location. There is a 15' visual screening area along Richards that is shown on the subdivision plat to act as a screening buffer to the single family across that street. Nineteen surrounding property owners were notified with two inquiries. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the rezoning request, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lane moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request for 6.307 acres along the south side of Holleman Drive approximately 600' west of the Dartmouth intersection from C-1 General Commercial to R-5 Medium Density Apartments. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a rezoning request for 11.88 acres located on the southeast corner of the intersection of F.M. 2154 and F.M. 2818 from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial. (94-123) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed rezoning request. The subject property and the surrounding area at the intersection up to the City limit line has been zoned R-1 since its annexation into the City. Since that time, no development has occurred and the property has never been platted. The property owner wishes to use the tract as a golf driving range as an interim use until a permanent commercial use can be placed on the property. The owner is not subdividing, and therefore, according to our Subdivision Regulations, will not be required to plat the property. This development will need to sewer by private septic means in accordance with City and County Ordinances. In the event that platting is required for future development, the developer will have to extend a public sewer line for collection service from Welsh Street approximately 2500' to the east. The Land Use Plan shows this tract as retail commercial with high density residential to the south along Wellborn and retail commercial to the east along F.M. 2818. The requested zoning is in compliance with the Plan and with surrounding planned uses. One surrounding property was notified with no response. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the rezoning request, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lane moved to recommend approval of a rezoning request of ] l .876 acres on the southeast corner of the intersection of F.M. 2818 and Wellborn Road from R-1 Single Family Residential to C-1 General Commercial. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which • passed unopposed (5 - 0). P & 7_ Mimiles November 17, 199-1 Page 2 of 9 • AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a resubdivision of the Southwood Valley Section 24A Subdivision into 15 individual single family lots. (94-239) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and recommended approval of the resubdivision plat with the conditions listed in the Presubmission Conference Report dated October 26, 1994. The subject property is reflected as medium density residential on the Land Use Plan; however, a request for R-2 Duplexes zoning was denied earlier this year. The applicant has submitted a final plat for single family homes with a cul-de-sac. There will be a detention pond located on lot ten and the owner of that lot will be responsible for maintenance. The property owner of the adjacent Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was notified of the public hearing as required by state statute. A sign was also placed on the property with the date of the public hearing and staff called a few residents along Aztec to keep them informed of the development. Approximately ten letters have been submitted in opposition to the replat. City Planner Kee informed the Commission that one of the letters received in opposition to the replat is from the adjacent church property. Since they have protested the replat, both the Commission and Council must approve the final plat by a 3/4 vote. In general, the opposition expressed by the surrounding property owners concern the proposed number of lots and density of the proposed development not fitting in with surrounding development. The proposed lot size is just under 10,000 square feet and the density is approximately 3.8 units per acre. The density of the single family area across Welsh is higher than the proposed development and of course the densities in the adjacent duplex areas are much higher. The least dense area is the single family development to the west of the subject property. Because of the letters received in opposition to the request, staff met with the legal department to discuss recent case law in similar circumstances. The Commission should be aware of case law that if a subdivision plat meets all City codes, regulations and standards, the City is obligated to approve the final plat. The subject • replat meets all of these requirements. City Planner Kee informed the Commission that a similar case in the mid 1980's in which the City Council approved seventeen lots instead of the proposed twenty-three lots due to utility constraints, was litigated and the court ordered the City to approve the plat because it met all regulations. The City did not have to pay damages in this particular case. With respect to the subject plat, there is nothing in terms of traffic or infrastructure that would warrant denying this plat and requiring fewer lots. Requiring a fewer number of lots could be viewed as a taking of the property. Staff recommended approval of the proposed replat of Southwood Valley Section 24A. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Engineering representative of the applicant Earl Havel with Garrett Engineering approached the Commission and stated that all zoning and subdivision regulations have been met with the proposed final plat. The utilities in the area are adequate and there will be no negative impacts on those utilities with the proposed development. There are some lots in the area that are larger than the proposed lots; however, the subject area is placed in between a duplex development and a commercial type development. The proposed development should help bridge the gap between the single family and duplex development in the neighborhood. From an economic standpoint, if the number of lots were reduced, a more expensive house would be required. With the current market and the location of the property, a more expensive home would not be desirable or economically feasible. Applicant Glen Thomas of Thomas Properties stated that once they saw the strong opposition of the surrounding residents to the proposed duplex development, they withdrew their request before the City Council meeting, He wanted to work with the people in the neighborhood and give them • what they wanted which was single family homes. The original plan for the property was sixteen lots; however, one lot was removed to allow for drainage. Mr. Thomas stated that they have met, and in some instances exceeded, all of the City requirements. P & 7_ Mrfnilcs November 17, 199-t Page 3 of 9 • Stephan Hatch of 2102 Langford approached the Commission and stated that he is representing C. Richard Shumway, the president of the College Station Stake of the Latter Day Saints Church. He stated that the church is against the proposed replat and increasing the number of lots in the area. Mr. Hatch expressed concern with the additional traffic and possible overflow parking into the church parking lot. As the number of units are increased, a more transient population will locate in the area and reduce the value of the church property and the residential neighborhood. He also expressed concern of security in the area if the subject property is used primarily for investment property. David Ellis of 3008 Bolero and bishop of the L.D.S. church informed the Commission that his main concern is that there is no indication as to the size of the houses to be built. The increased density may be a result of the number of people allowed to live in the house and not necessarily the number of units per acre. The Church would also like a 6' screening buffer so that people could not park in the church lot and walk into the back door of the proposed homes. Mr. Ellis stated that when Mr. Fitch originally developed the area, he indicated eleven lots on the subject property as opposed to the fifteen lots currently proposed. He expressed concern with the increased traffic, safety issues with the result of a more transient population and maintenance of the church property. The following residents spoke in opposition to the proposed replat Steve Rholes 2905 Aztec Court Jim Long 2914 Aztec Court Mike Storms 2907 Aztec Court W. C. Ellis 704 Encinas Place Dan Lineburger 2903 Aztec Court . The following objections were stated by these residents to the proposed replat: (1) Because the surrounding property owners were not notified of the public hearing, the neighborhood has not had a chance to study the new proposal. The proposed development will have a serious economic impact on the existing area and should be examined more closely by staff and the residents. When staff reviewed this development, the concerns of the surrounding property owners were not considered. The surrounding property owners have not had anyone involved in the process who ensures that their interests are protected. (2) The average lot size and density presented on the subdivision map cannot be correct considering the size of the existing single family development and the proposed development. (3) The proposed development is only duplexes in disguise in that the development will be small, narrow buildings occupied by students. (4) The traffic in the area will be increased considering that with the student population, there will be at least four cars per home. (5) If the surrounding residents would have known that this type of development would be allowed, many would not have bought homes in the area. (6) The original plat for the subject property consisted of eleven lots, not the proposed • fifteen lots. In purchasing a home in the area, residents relied on this information and now the plan ~s being changed to satisfy a developer. The profit made by the developer will be at the expense of the neighborhood. P c~. 7_ Mirn~les November 17, 199- Page -l of 9 • (7) There is a difference between the existing and proposed development in the area with respect to large, established trees in the existing neighborhood that allows a visual softening. It was suggested that some large trees be added to the subject property to help soften the impact of the proposed development. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. He stated that the Commission plays a vital role in protecting the interests of the surrounding property owners. Staff makes a recommendation based on policies, regulations and Plans that have been established by the City Council. Through this process and the public meetings, the City should be able to make an informed decision that will protect everyone's interests. Chairman Hawthorne stated that with respect to the legal notifications, staff has met and even exceeded the current requirements mandated by the state. The Commission and the staff cannot change those requirements, those decisions are left up to the state legislature and the City Council. There is a limited amount of resources as far as staff and money that has been allocated to the notification process and right now staff is following the established policies. Commissioner Hall stated that the Commissioners spend a lot of free time trying to balance all of the issues and make decisions accordingly. He questioned the density and square footage estimates that were presented to the Commission on the neighborhood map. City Planner Kee stated that they were taken from the Geographic Information System as well as other hand checks. While the proposed lots are sometimes narrower than the existing lots, they are over 150' deep which make a difference in the calculations. Staff will verify those figures prior to the City Council meeting. City Planner Kee informed the Commission of the statutory "Thirty Day Rule" in which a plat must be either approved or denied by the City Council within • thirty days after the Commission meeting otherwise it is automatically approved. The Commission cannot table the final plat until the next Commission meeting, otherwise, it will be automatically approved prior to City Council consideration. Staff can work with the surrounding property owners to provide any additional information they may need prior to the City Council meeting. Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the final plat for the replat of Southwood Valley 24A, Tract B of Block 55 with staff recommendations. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. Commissioner Garner stated that the developer has tried to meet the desires of the surrounding neighborhood and the proposed single family development should not conflict with the existing neighborhood. The proposed development is a good transitional area between the existing single family and duplexes. Commissioner Garner asked that the developer install screen fences or order to make the development more aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Hall questioned the applicant as to the size of home on the proposed lots. Applicant Charles Thomas informed the Commission that he is concerned about the neighborhood's impression of the proposed development. The homes will be all brick, fenced yards, landscaping, garages, etc. The homes should average around 1200 to 1500 square feet with a price range between $95,000 and $110,000. Glen Thomas stated that the homes will be similar to the ones they built along Pueblo and Arroyo. The homes will be built with a zero lot line approach so that there is a larger, usable side yard • area. P ~. 7. Miyrntes Noi~ember• 17, 199- Page ~ of 9 • Chairman Hawthorne informed the audience that he lives on Pueblo Court South and he is concerned about development in the area. However, he has a problem dictating to the developer additional regulations that are not currently required by law. As long as the developer is able to meet the current requirements and regulations, he should be able to develop the land accordingly. As far as speculating on possible student housing or more than one family living in a unit, this can happen anywhere in town and is not limited to the size of the home. With respect to the concern about increased crime in the area, you cannot put a screen up around crime because it happens everywhere. Chairman Hawthorne encouraged the audience to attend the City Council meeting on this issue and express their concerns. Commissioner Hall stated that he lived in a home on Van Horn with approximately the same lot size as proposed by the developer. The homes in that area are not sub-standard and no one can speculate that the proposed homes are going to be sub-standard based on the size, location or population. Commissioner Hall stated that he would prefer to see thirteen instead of the proposed fifteen lots; however, that is an economic decision that the developer must make since they currently meet all ordinance requirements. The motion to recommend approval of the final replat of Southwood Valley 24A, Tract B of Block 55 with staff recommendations passed unanimously (5 - 0). City Planner Kee informed the audience that the City is currently working on a comprehensive planning process that will continue over the next year. If anyone is interested in participating in that process, they can leave their name and address with staff to be contacted in the future to meet with staff and consultants. • AGENDA 1TEM NO. 5: Public hearing to consider a conditional use permit for the Aggie Sigma Chi Fraternity House to be located on lot 2, block 70 of the Fraternity Row Subdivision. (94-713) Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and recommended approval with the conditions outlined in the Project Review Committee report. The property was obviously intended for fraternity use, but each individual site must come before the Commission for formal review. The landscape plan submitted does not meet all of the ordinance requirements; however, staff can work with the developer on future revisions. There will be a number of minor changes in the site and landscape plans that staff would like to work with the developer on in order to meet all ordinance requirements. Fifteen surrounding property owners were notified with one call received concerned about the use of the entire Fraternity Row Subdivision. Chairman Hawthorne opened the public hearing. Robert Ables approached the Commission and stated that he represents one of the property owners in the Fraternity Row Subdivision. He informed the Commission that fraternity homes were planned for this area and there is an existing home on lot 1. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garner moved to grant a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a fraternity house on lot 2, block 70 of the Fraternity Row Subdivision with staff and Project Review Committee recommendations. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed • unopposed (5 - 0). P &: 7. Mifr~~les No>>ember• 17, 199;1 Page 6 of 9 • AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of an E.T.J. final plat for the Harvey Hillsides Subdivision, lot 1, block 3. (94-244) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and recommended approval of the final plat with the proposed variance request to the half cul-de-sac. The County Commissioner's Court approved the final plat as presented with the half street. The applicant has tried to work with the County and City and he has exhausted all of his options. The County is currently working with the adjacent property owner to obtain the additional right-of--way. The County has also indicated to the applicant that they will construct the remainder of that cul-de-sac; however, the City has no commitment to that effect. Commissioner Hall moved to recommend approval of the final E.T.J. plat for the Harvey Hillsides Subdivision, lot 1 of block 3 with the proposed variance request. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a final plat of the Wilbed Subdivision, a resubdivision of lot 3R-1, block 2 of the Brentwood Section Four Subdivision. (94-246) Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and recommended approval with the conditions listed in the Presubmission Conference Report dated October 21, 1994, in particular the requirement to share access between the two lots. The revised final plat includes this shared access easement. Commissioner Garner moved to recommend approval of the final plat of the Wilbed Subdivision • with the staff recommendations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Discussion of parking requirements for industrial development. (94-802) Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Commission that the Zoning Ordinance currently does not include a parking requirement for industrial uses. When uses are proposed that are not on the Section 9 list, the Ordinance gives the Commission the authority to assign a parking requirement. Recently, for example, the Commission set the parking requirement for the Texas Digital expansion and for the Putt-Putt Golf expansion. During recent discussions, several commissioners expressed a reluctance to set parking requirements on a case-by-case basis due to possible inequity in the cost of site improvements from one developer to another. In other words, it seems that the Commission preferred an ordinance amendment that would apply a reasonable standard to any industrial use. For most uses, setting a parking requirement is relatively easy because land uses are fairly similar in the parking demand generated. A fast food restaurant in Detroit, for example, needs about as much parking as a restaurant in College Station. It seems fair to require parking in relation to the parking needed, which for many uses can be determined through studies. And it seems more enforceable to have a parking requirement based on square footage, which cannot change easily without detection or without a required permitting process. However, industrial uses have a wide range of functions and associated space needs. The number of employees per square foot can change from one company to another, or within the same company from one year to another. There is also a prevalent sentiment that many of the larger, established industrial firms (especially research and development firms) should be allowed to set their own parking number so that they may stimulate usage of alternative modes of transportation. P c~ 7. Mi~~tries November 17, 199-I Page 7 of 9 • Staff has conducted research into this issue and has come up with two major points of discussion: (I) One option would be to let each firm determine its own parking needs. This decision would allow the firms the opportunity to require employees to share in the cost of those spaces. The purpose of this cost shift would be to encourage other uses of transportation rather than the one person per car method that is the primary mode of commuting in College Station. Studies show that forcing the employee to pay for parking will result in more carpooling, use of transit systems, and walking/bicycling. The critical question regarding such an incentive/disincentive approach is one of timing. Eventually, College Station may be congested enough to find the need to commit itself to vehicle reduction. College Station is still relatively small; adding time in for carpooling could double or triple a trip, whereas in a larger city, carpooling adds a smaller percentage to the trip time. Mass transit is also not as well developed here as in larger cities. The types of firms that will be locating in the College Station Business Park, however, are going to seek alternatives to the more traditional parking lots. (2) The second option is to operate as we have in the past and assign a parking requirement that would accommodate the parking need generated without over building the parking lot. Most of the parking requirements for other uses are now based on square footage rather than a per person, seat or employee number. However, with the diverse needs of industrial uses, perhaps the requirement should be based on a "number per employee plus one space for every company vehicle" basis. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that staff is seeking input from the Commission for the preparation . of an ordinance amendment. The main purpose in this endeavor is to maintain flexibility, while putting forth minimum standards that will ensure similar treatment of similar uses. Staff recommended the following be included with such an ordinance amendment: (1) Create a new zoning district for the Business Park that allows each individual firm to determine its parking requirement. The district restrictions should codify many of the Business Park development standards as outlined in the deed restrictions. (2) Due to the variety of uses that can be expected under the industrial (manufacturing) classification, and the lack of adequate studies available, continue to bring each individual M-l, M-2 and some C-2 uses to the Commission. Develop a set of standards based on a per square foot and per employee calculation. The staff will make the calculations, and collect information to measure the viability of each of the two possible requirements. Allow a third option that may be used if the firm presents adequate data to support the parking the applicant wishes to provide. The Commission should then have enough information to choose among the two and possibly three alternatives. Chairman Hawthorne questioned exactly what types of uses are included in the industrial zone especially those uses considered "research and development" firms. These categories are broad and it seems that the different uses could be broken down within the industrial classification to determine the parking requirement. Factors such as the average number of employees of similar firms in other cities could be utilized. There should be a standard or a guide for parking requirements that does not require the Commission to consider each development on a case by case basis. A standard could be applied and if there are circumstances that the requirement is not • justified, the applicant can request a variance from the Commission. P ~ 7_ ~l~/in~ilc~s Nonc»~ber 17, 19>-~ Page 8 of 9 • Commissioner Hall stated that with respect to the Business Park, parking ratios should be based on square footage since the park is completely undeveloped. Problems seem to occur with piecemeal development like the Alenco industry in Bryan. As business grows, the number of employees will grow. Parking requirements could be determined on the total build out or the ultimate development of the property. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Other business. Assistant City Engineer Morgan questioned the Commission regarding the sidewalk memorandum presented at a previous meeting that contained some research on sidewalk placement in commercial development. The biggest legal question was can a fund be established to accept money in lieu of sidewalk construction to allow the sidewalk to be constructed continuously once the adjacent properties are developed. The legal department has informed staff that such a fund would not be allowed. Chairman Hawthorne stated that the policy in place now of requiring a sidewalk upon development of the property seems to be the preferred method. Eventually, the sidewalks will be continued either with the development of the property or construction by the City. City Planner Kee informed the Commission that Sabine Kuenzel was promoted to Senior Planner. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn. Commissioner Lane moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). .] APPR©VED: i ~~ ~~., ~~__,_ Chairman`, Kyle Hawthorne ATTES Plan ing Tec nician, Natalie Thomas • P ~ 7_ ll~li~~r~les~ Novemhc~r 17, 1>9-1 Pa~rc~ 9 of 9 Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ! ~ ~ J ! ` rf Agenda Item No. Name ~ ~J ~ ~ ~ S Address ! ~---~ ~li(~. ~ ~ ~ +~ "`- If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: J _ Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: lease 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 + ~ / I / a~ Agenda Item No. T Name t yl~an ~i~~h T Address .1 ~ 4 ~, « ,~; , r '~ If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: 5 (- 4 ~ ~=c. 1`k Subject on which person wishes to speak: _- cc„~ t (\ ._~. 1..~. ~~ •i'lease 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 ; .7 iG'v ~.' ~ ~ ~~ ~' `~ Agenda Item No. Name ~~~'~~~ j^~j is-~~~~~ Address '~;~~. ~~ ~%>>c, ~~.~'~ ~ - ? 7 ~~a -~ If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: C-tai.t~C rf ~, ~ ~ ; uS C tr('tS i CN= ~ ~' ~~' ~l}~ Speaker's official capacity: ~?; Srl u~~ Subject on which person wishes to speak: 1'~Li-~Z/ a c?r.: `f- SG~-~ ,~ •i'lease 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 ~ ~' Agenda Item No. Name ~' % ~ ~ /v~-; Address _ ;~ ~ ~. ~ ``- - J If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: 'lease 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 ~ (_ ~ ~~~ Address 7~-~ ~ 1i1~~'~~S ~ G'G' F, If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to s eak: .Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are recognized by the chair, h>>nd 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. n LJ lo. • 11. 12. 13. 14. IS. 16. 1 ~. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 2S. ~lanninB ~' .honing Commission Guest register Date 9 ,. ~a ~~^ 6. ~ /-,' ~~~ s 8. ~~~QeP~ -s~~~ ~_ ;,~lcf~fress l l l U ~Z~, w~r~(~ ~~c ~ 1 / ,~/ / f ~D ~ il7~d f~ ~/~v ~~1,i-~~- ~ '' ~,• ~ ~-7 ~,-, ~'.~, ys, a ~a ~ ~3~G ~~~-, ~. S 7T ~~~y~ . L,c~, ~`, I~-c, C ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~`l1~ ~~. ~ ~~ ~~~~ IG ~~ 7 ~y c. 2- ~ z 7~ ~~ ~ ~ .-- ~~ ,~ n