Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/1996 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission• MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS City Hall Council Chambers July 18, 1996 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Gribou, Commissioners Lightfoot, Smith, Massey, Parker and Garner. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Hawthorne STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, City Engineer Laza, Senior Planner McCully, Staff Planner Dunn, Planning Intern Evans, Transportation Planner Hard, Assistant City Attorney Robinson and Development Coordinator Volk. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of June 20, 1996. • Mr. Lightfoot made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Parker seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing to consider a rezoning and master plan of the Pebble Hills Subdivision located along the north side of Greens Prairie Road, approximately 1400 feet east of the State Highway 6. (96-109 8 96-309) Senior Planner Kuenzel (McCully) made the staff presentation, explaining that she would be combining the report for the master plan and the rezoning request. She stated that the plan is for the development of 174 acres into about 262 single family lots on 150 acres, 172 multi-family units on 7 acres and 17 acres of commercial development, along with the extension of 3 collector streets through the area, and the dedication of a sizable greenbelt and parkland area to the City. She then explained that earlier in July Council approved a rezoning request for 48 acres of R-'1 Single Family Residential land which is the area on this master plan fronting on Greens Prairie Road and extending to the creek. The applicant has now submitted a request to rezone the remaining 126 acres of the 174 tract to some R-1, some C-1 and some R-5. Ms. Kuenzel (McCully) explained that this rezoning shows densities typical of those found along the East Bypass subdivisions, which is in compliance with the current, approved Land Use Plan, but she pointed out that if the new land use plan being proposed by the consultants now is adopted, this request will not be in compliance. That new plan shows much lower density in this area than our current low density residential. She stated that both the R-5 part of the request and the C-1 part are in compliance with the current, approved Land Use Plan, but that neither would be in compliance with the new plan if it is adopted, explaining that on the proposed plan • all of the property is shown as low density rural residential, with a large area of regional retail at the main intersectio~- of SH6 & Greens Prairie Road. • She briefly covered other parts of the staff report included in the packet, including the necessary extensions of water 8~ sewer lines, dedication of greenbelt and "upland" parkland and extensions of collector streets through the tract, and finalized her presentation by stating making a recommendation that staff thinks that the proposed higher density single family subdivision with the preservation of open space and with city sewer is preferable to a lower density subdivision without those amenities. She reiterated that the current land use plan supports this rezoning, and that although the proposed draft land use plan does not because of the density proposed, staff recommends approval of the request as submitted. The Commission had no questions of staff at this time and the public hearing was opened. Marion Creagor came forward and identified herself as one of the owners of the land surrounding this subdivision. She said she had no objection to the rezoning request, but she does have a problem in that she did not get a letter of notification. She exhibited a letter that had been sent to a trust, but stated that she thought she should have been notified as well. She said that some of the other property owners adjacent to the subject property had not received notification either. She pointed out that there is an oil well on the property and wondered how development could take place over that well. She continued by explaining that she is also concerned with the road shown cutting through the property -which would cut through her property also and wondered if the plat could be changed, or if it would be approved like it has been submitted if it is approved tonight. Ms. Kuenzel (McCully) explained that the master plan proposed is basically a conceptual plan, and a preliminary plat and a final plat must be submitted, reviewed, considered and approved before anything can be built. City Planner Kee explained that the major streets will be required in the area as the property develops. Mr. Gribou added that the location of streets is a concept at this time, and that location can be changed, but cautioned that is must be addressed quickly • because this project is in the process now and this developer is planning his development around what is shown. Mr. Gribou asked staff about the timing of the roads and Mrs. Kee explained that as the property develops the developer will be responsible for building the roads. Staff then explained that regarding the complaint about proper notification, staff will have to check the records in the files sometime after tonight's meeting. Dr. Marsh, another owner of property abutting this tract came forward and said he has no problem with the request, but he resents the fact that he had not been informed or consulted regarding the location of the streets shown on this plan in the area. Mr. Gribou explained that there have been many public meetings over the past 2 years where the general location of streets was discussed. Mrs. Kee added that there will be additional public meetings and then public hearings, so everyone who has an interest in what the City has planned for future development should be cognizant of those meetings an attend to give input. There were no additional comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve the rezoning request and the master plan as submitted. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion. Commissioner Massey asked for clarification concerning the location of the oil well and City Planner Kee responded by explaining that there is not problem with the well being there and being shown on a master plan, but when actual platting takes place, all of those types of problems will have to be addressed according to the regulations in place at the time. Votes were cast on the motion to approve both the rezoning request and the master plan for Pebble Hills Estates and the motion was approved unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing to consider a City initiated rezoning for the • entire Northgate Area totaling 141.94 acres and bound by Wellborn Road, University Drive, South College and the current City limits boundary from C-1 General Commercial, R-2 Duplexes, R-6 High Density Apartments, R-o1 Single Family Residential and C-NG . Commercial Northgate to NG-1 Historic Northgate, NG-2 Commercial Northgate and NG••3 Residential Northgate. (96-110) Staff Planner Dunn made the staff presentation explaining that this City initiated rezoning represents one of the largest the City has ever done, and is comparable to the rezoning which resulted in the creation of the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. He described the districts by pointing out that the NG-1 Historic Northgate district would be a 51.27 subdistrict which would generally apply to the "core area" of Northgate in the vicinity of the existing C-NG Commercial Northgate district, as well as the Wellbom Road area in the vicinity of the existing C-1 area; the NG-2 Commercial Northgate district would be a 23.25 acre subdistrict which would replace the existing C-1 district in the general area of the Albertson shopping center; and NG-3 Residential Northgate district would be a 67.43 acre subdistrict which would consist of the existing residential areas to the north to be zoned for higher density residential development. Mr. Dunn reminded the Commissioners that the actual districts were adopted earlier this summer and are now a part of the Zoning Ordinance, and this item tonight addresses actually rezoning the properties in the areas so they will have the zoning districts that are applicable to the Northgate districts and be subject to the same regulations as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out that Land Use is the predominant issue, specifically the protection of residential uses, encouraging the use of vacant land with services and avoiding strip commercial. The redevelopment plan which was adopted recommends encouraging higher density residential use in close proximity to the University and nearby commercial uses. The NG-3 district does not allow any new single family homes to be developed, while protecting higher density apartments from commercial development. One of the primary reasons for initiating rezoning of the area was to encourage infill redevelopment. The standards set forth in the NG District encourage pedestrian access. The area of NG-1 along Wellborn Road will increase the depth of the • existing C-1 commercial land, thereby discouraging strip commercial. He displayed a colored map of the adopted land use plan for the area to illustrate how this rezoning will comply with that previously adopted plan. He talked about how this zoning district is the first area of the City which requires bicycle parking areas for all new development and redevelopment, and went on to address how this rezoning addresses economic development, housing and community appearance as covered in the staff report. He concluded his report by stating that the zoning changes proposed will not alter the comments concerning existing infrastructure found in the Redevelopoment Plan such as water, wastewater and storm drainage systems. He explained that according to that plan many of the existing systems do not meet the current demand, and increasing density and development in Northgate will require associated improvements to several infrastructure systems, some of which are recommended in future Northgate CIP projects. Commissioner Parker asked about the redevelopment and specifically about the repair of existing service stations. He clarified by adding that he would like for "redevelopment" to be better defined. Mr. Dunn stated that generally in the NG-1 district many properties are eligible for the historic register, and any proposed changes to a facade would trigger additional review by the facade committee. Mr. Parker said he is concerned because of possible repair or replacement of existing equipment such as underground tanks at these existing stations, and wondered if something like that would trigger additional restrictions. Mr. Dunn explained that that type of repair would not; that those types of uses would be "grandfathered". There were no other questions and the public hearing was opened. Larry Haskins came forward to speak in behalf of J. C. Culpepper, Guarantee Federal Bank, Boyett Trust and First Federal Bank. He stated that his clients stand behind this proposal and believe it will encourage • development in the NG-2 area and that the NG-3 district will feed the NG-2 development. He said his clients would urge approval of the proposal. • Peter deKeraty of St. Mary's Catholic Center came forward and explained he represents the property at the corner of Nagle 8~ Church. He said they are in the middle of a building project and understand the proposal being considered will not affect the project, but said he thinks it is a good plan. He told the Commission that the church's project includes a major pedestrian walkway down Nagle and he would hope this pedestrian way will be extended by someone in the future. He went on to say that if in the future, a new church is built, it would be built on the remainder of the property they own, and he would hope that the parking requirement would be taken into account when they come in with their plans. He stated that his group is in favor of this rezoning proposal and he thanked the City for keeping the Church well informed throughout the process. Mr. Dunn stated that parking requirements and standards are being addressed now, and the outcome will probably be a public and private project. Imran Kakwan, 4200 Boyett #D, Bryan, TX came forward and thanked the City for the notification and being given the opportunity to speak. He said the proposal is to expand the commercial district to adjacent to his property, and he has had problems in Bryan when commercial is located right next to residential because of the parking problems created as well as the conflict between parked vehicles and the pedestrian bicycle traffic. He said that he thinks this rezoning will increase existing problems in the area. He said that the residents left in the Northgate area are generally graduate students who want quiet and he thinks this will negatively affect his property. AI Gallegos, 303 First Street N., College Station came forward and identified himself as the owner of property in the R-6 area, and asked if he wanted to add room to his property would it be grandfathered so he could do that and Mr. Dunn explained that it would be "grandfathered" and that if he wanted to expand his building in the future he could request a Special Exception to • expand his use and that request would be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He also had a question about taxes, but no one at the meeting was qualified to answer his question and he was referred to the Tax Assessor. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Massey made a motion to approve the City initiated rezoning request as submitted. Mr. Smith seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider a final replat of the Grand Oaks Subdivision totaling 5.7 acres divided into twenty-three R-1 Single Family lots and located along Lincoln Drive to the northwest of the Sweetbrier Addition Subdivision. (96- 220) City Engineer Laza gave the staff report by briefly highlighting some items included in the written staff report in the packets. Mr. Parker said that Lots 18-20 appear to be within a rectangular area and he wondered if there will be problems with driveways to those lots. Mr. Laza said that he had checked into that and found the entire plat meets all setback requirements. Mr. Lightfoot asked about access to Lincoln and Mr. Laza explained that there will be no access allowed directly to Lincoln from these lots. He went on to explain the developer has stated there will be a security fence and a security gate around this subdivision to regulate access, but in all other aspects, it will be a standard single family subdivision. The public hearing was opened. Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater, College Station, came forward and identified himself as the project engineer for this project, adding that he is prepared to answer any technical questions about this plat, but would refer other questions to the developer who is in the audience. He explained that this will be a standard single family development on a • rather upscale type and showed an artist's rendering of what the entrance to the subdivision is planned to look like. I• Mrs. Phyllis Nicks, 901 Munson came forward and identified herself and her husband as owners of Lot 1 Woodland Estates subdivision. She explained that her husband was unable to attend the meeting, but she read a statement he had prepared. The statement indicated the Nicks' thought the preliminary planning for the subdivision appeared attractive, and if it complies with all zoning and platting laws and utilities are placed underground, they would be in favor of the plat. The statement did, however, point out some concerns they had, being: (1) The lots appear to be of minimal size which they fear will detract from the existing, adjacent residential neighborhood, and (2) A second, emergency exit should be considered to promote safety to this and adjacent development. The statement also indicated the Hicks would offer to sell this developer additional property to better "optimize" this subdivision. Several people in the neighborhood came forward to speak in opposition to this plat, citing the reasons for opposition as being lack of proper notification (and requested notification using common sense), drainage problems being increased, additional traffic on Munson which adds to an existing unsafe condition, lack of consistency with the existing neighborhood, loss of trees, possible type of fence, and future possible maintenance problems. The following list represents those people who spoke against this plat: 1. William B. Smith, 1040 Rose Circle 2. Dr. David Bailey, 1032 Rose Circle 3. Tom Aughinbaugh, 1030 Rose Circle 4. Leonora Awre, 903 Munson 5. Janet Boutton, 1034 Rose Circle 6. Martha P. Cannon, 903 Munson 7. Dianne Thompson, 1042 Rose Circle • Development Coordinator Volk explained notification requirements as being (1) ad in local newspaper and (2) written notification to all property owners in the original subdivision who were within 200 feet of the subject resubdivision plat. She stated that those requirements had been met adding that the residents along Rose Circle were not specifically notified by mail because their property is now in the Sweet Briar subdivision which was platted out of the Woodland Estates subdivision in 1969. After all area residents had been given an opportunity to address the Commission, David Scarmardo, the developer of the proposed subdivision came forward to answer any questions the Commission might have. He explained his vision of the fence and referred to an artist's rendering, adding that the columns would be 8-9 ft. tall. He said the City had mentioned neighborhood concems and he had tried to address all he could think of in his planning. He explained that he was proposing only 1 entrance into the sutxiivision to address safety along Lincoln. He described the houses being proposed as being $150,000 to $200,000 homes on smaller lots because he had received numerous requests for nice homes with small yards to maintain. He said the fence in the rear of the lots adjacent to the Sweet Briar subdivision would be similar to that proposed in front along Lincoln. He said the placement of houses on the lots would at least meet the minimum setback requirements of 25 ft., with trees in front, on the side and in the rear. A discussion from the floor followed between Mr. Scarmardo and many of the residents who spoke previously, with Mr. Scarmardo trying to explain his plans and the citizens continuing to raise questions. Mr. Gribou closed the forum and invited anyone with something other than what had already been mentioned to speak. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. • Mr. Lightfoot defended staff by saying that by following the statutes staff ensures consistency, adding that addittotl~) notification might be a good idea in the future. He then made a motion to • table action on this plat to allow the developer the opportunity to work out details outside this meeting room. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Parker asked if staff is satisfied with the access being proposed. Mr. Laza replied in the affirmative. Mr. Massey said he would like to second Mr. Lightfoot's comments, but would indeed like to see "common sense" used in notifying adjacent property owners who would be impacted, even if they are not legally required to receive notification. City Planner Kee reminded the Commission of its statutory obligations when considering plats and replats, and reminded them that because of the statutory 30 day rule, the commission only has the option to deny or approve this plat, with tabling not being an option. Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson stated that she would concur with Mrs. Kee's opinion, but would be required to conduct research to give the Commission a definite answer. Mr. Lightfoot removed his motion to table this plat. Mr. Smith removed his second to that motion. Mr. Lightfoot then made a motion to decline this plat. Mr. Massey seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-2 with Garner 8~ Parker voting against the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a final plat of the Willow Run Phase II E.T.J subdivision totaling 42.3 acres divided into four residential lots located along Capstone Drive. This final plat also includes a variance request to the City's minimum surfacing requirements of the proposed private road. (96-219) City Engineer Laza located the property and described the E.T.J. plat. He then explained the • variance the applicant was requesting for the surfacing requirement, stating that staff would recommend denial of that variance request because if this area would get annexed the City would become the responsible party for upgrading the roads. He added that the County has already considered this plat and variance, and approved both as submitted. Acting Chairman Gribou announced that although this item is not scheduled for a public hearing, he would invite any interested party to make comments. Mike McClure, project engineer, came forward to explain that the developer had donated land to the County for Capstone Drive when he originally began this subdivision, and the County constructed it as a gravel road. The developer now would like to make this road which connects to Capstone a gravel road also, and has plans to retain ownership of the road and make known to the residents on the road he has the option to upgrade it at a later date, but would like to build the road to County standards at this time and the variance request would only be to the surtacing. He added that residents living on this road would have to drive on gravel roads to get to this road, so it doesn't seem to make good sense to require this road to be hard surface when all others are gravel coming to this road. No one else spoke. Ms. Gamer made a motion to approve the plat, but to deny the variance request. Mr. Lightfoot seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a preliminary plat of the Freeman Subdivision totaling 5.6 acres consisting of one C-1 General Commercial lot located along the east side of Texas Avenue between Krenek Tap and W. King Cole Drive. (96- 310) City Planner Kee made the staff presentation which briefly covered the staff report included in the packets. She stated staff recommends approval of this plat as submitted because all • previous concerns have been addressed. • Mr. Parker made a motion to approve the plat as submitted; Mr. Smith seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a preliminary plat of the Pebble Creek Phase Six Subdivision totaling 45.33 acres divided into 105 single family lots located between the east line of the College Station Business Center Phase I and the west line of Pebble Creek Phase 4C. (96-311) City Planner Eke made the staff presentation for this item, referring to the staff report included in the packets and pointed out this preliminary plat has been accompanied by a revised Master Plan which reflects the changes made since the Master Plan was approved in 1992. She stated that as with all developments, an impact on the surrounding infrastructure will occur, adding that this development will not create a substantial negative impact. She referred to the location of sidewalks in the platted area and indicated they meet our subdivision requirements. She informed the Commission that staff recommends approval of this plat with the condition that the R-1 rezoning become effective prior to final plat approval. She pointed out that the area is currently zoned A-O and R-3 so the zone change is necessary. She stated that the paperwork for that rezoning request has been received and will come before the Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Grub invited comments from the audience. None were forthcoming. Mr. Massy made a motion to approve the preliminary plat with staffs conditions. Mr. Lightfoot seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Consideration of a final plat of the O.C.Cooper Place subdivision totaling 2.37 acres divided into eight duplex lots located along the west side of Holleman Drive just west of the Enclave Apartments. (96-221) City Engineer Laza made the staff presentation which followed the staff report included in the packets. He informed the Commission that since the packets were prepared, the engineer for' the project has asked for permission to change the alignment for drainage and sewer, and explained that due to unanticipated problems occurring which negatively affected the original plans, the proposal is to change the direction of the infrastructure. The new proposal would require off-site easements to be granted by the owners of the LULAC project. Staff has asked for the developer to provide a letter from the LULAC owners indicating agreement will be forthcoming. Staff has received that letter, but the construction documents have not been completed or reviewed yet. The developer and engineer have been meeting with those people, and are close to finalizing that agreement, so staff would recommend approval of the plat with the conditions that a written agreement with required easements are submitted to the City, and that all construction documents are approved by the City Engineer's office prior to filing the plat for record. Comments from the audience were invited and Roy Hammons, project engineer came forward and talked about the problems he had with the previous drainage and sewer plans, and explained the new proposal will be more in both the City's and the developer's best interests. He stated the legal documents and the engineering construction documents will be forthcoming very quickly. Mr. Parker made a motion to approve the plat with the conditions listed by the City Engineer. Mr. Smith seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Public hearing to consider an amendment to Section 7.15 of • the Zoning Ordina,prce pertaining to the C-3 Planned Commercial zoning district to allow small restaurants ~,yith sit down dining and without drive-thrus. (96-809) • Senior Planner Kuenzel (McCully) explained this amendment is the first of several ordinance revisions which will come to the Commission after the Comprehensive Plan is approved. She explained that the C-3 Planned Commercial Zoning District had caused staff difficulties for Borne time, adding the primary reason for the problems has been that eating establishments with sit down dining have never been allowed in this zoning district. She stated that the purpose of the district is to allow commercial low traffic generators, with sit down restaurants, theaters, night clubs and other higher traffic generators being prohibited. She continued by saying that frequently staff has a request from someone to allow a small eating establishment like an ice cream parlor or a retail business where coffee might be served with some seating being incidental. She added that staff feels comfortable that small restaurants with sit down seating and without drive thru windows would meet the intent of the C-3 zone, and would recommend amending the zoning ordinance to include such. She continued by explaining that whether or not a restaurant with seating includes the sale of alcoholic beverages cannot be a factor regarding whether or not that restaurant can be included as a permitted use in a zoning district. Commissioner Lightfoot asked if this proposed amendment would allow food to be served in a convenience store with on-premise alcoholic consumption and Mrs. Kuenzel (McCully) (McCully) replied that it would. She added that currently the C-3 district allows package liquor sales, but if this amendment is approved, on- premise alcohol consumption would be allowed if the TABC issues a permit. He asked for her to locate some C-3 zoning and she identified Post Oak Village as an example. Ms. Garner asked if this type of thing could be handled with a Conditional Use Permit. Mrs. Kuenzel (McCully) replied in the affirmative. Ms. Garner stated that once one CUP had been approved for a project like this, it would be hard to deny others. Mr. Massey asked if staff had • been received a lot of pressure to change the ordinance and Mrs. Kuenzel (McCully) replied that the new owner of Post Oak Village has had requests for ice cream parlors. Mr. Smith asked what kind of guidelines would be used, pointing out nothing is included in the ordinance to help the Commission make a decision. Mr. Gribou agreed, suggesting perhaps a more specific description of what might be allowed could be included. Mr. Smith concurred, adding that at this point he would not know why he would say no to one and yes to another. Mr. Parker asked for clarification regarding just how much traffic serving alcohol generates in comparison to a popular Subway sandwich place, adding that he does not think the traffic serving alcohol is an issue. Mr. Gribou finalized by stating that the Commission would request an amendment with more teeth or more direction because not, if a small restaurant comes in he doesn't see how it can be denied. He stated he would like to have staff develop some standards for the Commissions consideration. Mr. Lightfoot agreed, adding that he is not trying to restrict growth, but he thinks more guidelines are needed. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Lightfoot made a motion to table consideration of this item to give staff the opportunity to develop more guidelines in the ordinance. Mr. Parker seconded the motion which carried unanimously (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Other business. Ms. Gamer asked if staff should be doing more notification of the surrounding properties than statutes require? Mr. Gribou said that the legal aspect is one guideline, but perhaps notification of adjacent property owners would be the neighborly thing to do. Mr. Parker concurred. There was no other business. • AGENDA ITEM NO,~„~~ Adjourn. • Mr. Lightfoot made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Garner seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (6-0) APPROVED: ,, r, TTEST: l • • • Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting ~ / /~./ ~ Agenda Item No. ~_ Name ~~'7Art T ~-~.,~ ~ ~,~,~ ,y ~ w Address ~0 ~ /~ v~-r'ori If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: G~ v ~+ .2~ Subject on which person wishes to speak: ~, r~ ~_ 7t"~ 1!/cxh..~ ah/o/~ ~ ,1 /=r~ Q r .Su b o~ Yl JJ ~~ ~se 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 ~° Agenda Item No. ~-~- (, . i i Name ~/; ii~~<r~.~, ~~~ ~Jl~Gc~~ ~ Address ~..,~z / ti~%~. C ~, ~ ~~ l-z If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: tease 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 ~ + ~~~ 9 ~' Agenda Item No. Name1~Y • ~~} f t A ~~} I L A Address (0 ~ 2 oFE ~t-~-Gc.~ If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which~pe~rson~ hes~speak: ~P -~ y S r lu1C ~ `ase 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. ~~ /9--SG Name ~~,-, /~ ~ ~ ~ ~'. S ~ .~ Address ~ o ~ ~ -sc ~.'--,.Le If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: .S~/.~ Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: ~se 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 ~~~~~~Q-- (~~~ `P~ Address Gt l~I~ If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: QGuf?CJ~ ~ ~~d/°`e~~ Subject on which person wishes o speak: Gres f-l-S~ ~~GZI~~i ~%L~ ~e l//G 2 ~ ase remember to step to the podiu as soon as ou 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. ~~T GG~i~ ~(~~ ~lP f~.~ ~' 903 /I ~ c~~t.s~x ~,~~e~ ~ • Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ Agenda Item No. Name )(@ ~ ~~ ~''i ~ ~ C.~ `~..~?'1,'1 Address ~ ~,~ lx,';^';, ,~ t . ~~ If speaking for an organization, Name of or Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: ~ase 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 L~~t L c ~ /~' / ~ ~ ~° Agenda Item No. ~_ Name ~?f/~i' ~ L i ~ ~~C ~~'S Address ~~'~ ~ ~I~,. ,~' ~~~~'~~~ ~ ~~ ~, If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to ~se 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) ~~ r,. Date of Meeting y~~ '~ c"t ~• ' + `°~ Agenda Item No. ,~` ~ ~.. Name ~` . ; ~:., ~ .~ Address »' ; J ~~ 1 ~ ~ a ,~ .~ ,% ~f 1 If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: tease 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. ,~'~-~ .,r , • Registration Form (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting i I !' ' r . Agenda Item No. r- Name -' i~;~, '~•' ~~ ; ~: ; ~ ,~;; ; ; ~, f ~' ~ ~. Address ~; ? ~`"~' ~ ~ - ~ ~ .. . . If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: r { ,~; ~, Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: tease 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 ~~ l Agenda Item No. Name i ~~ ~~t" 1 ~~~ Address ~ ~ ~~ Ce If speaking for an organizatiKn, Name~orga~ion: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ s ~~~ ~® ~ G Speaker's~f?fficial capacity: Subject on which person wis es to ~ ,~~ / ~ ~~ tease 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. ~lannin~ ~' Zoning Commission Guest ~eBister • Date ~ Lv ~~//~ 1. ~arne .JU ~~~ ~ ~ ;~t cfcfress ~..,, ~ ~ << . ~~ 4. Gt K".' ~\ /Z ti ~ ,~ t ~ 1-3~ % ,~ / ./ ~ t~/ ~ E~ G LI Y u_ .L. ~ ~ ~/ E t ~~ 1 ~' 1 / / 6. ti ~ B"~- ,f-x k w71~ l ~C~ Lc. c t 1 L i Y s.~ ~~~~ .~~ ~ ~ l 0 3 2 ~ sL C-~. ~ s~. ~ / C. _ i 1.1. ~.. ~J- ~l"c~ v"1 L-~t.1".~1t~.: <<~ r / L ~) f n.t%~..~ C`L; ~,t~~.l. ~, _ ~ ~ , ~. 13. ~ 7~~V ~~St ~~~... 1.~~/. ~. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 2S. .~ 1~ 16. 17. 18. 19.~ ..-_ ,t_.t- .~. .,---_ ., etc= "~ ~ G~2~~~ i 7 C i. ~~.~" ° ~. ~c t ~ .-c L ~."Z~ iJ~°'s ~ f ~i c / 1. /C c- >--~ ~i7 ~ S~ J ~'