Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/02/1997 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • JOINT MEETING Planning and Zoning Commission City Council CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS October 2 1997 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Garner, Parker, Rife, Gribou, and Lightfoot. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Silvia. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor McIlhaney, Councilmembers Mariott, Esmond, and Birdwell. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Senior Planner McCully, Assistant City Engineer • Morgan, City Engineer Laza, Planning Technician Ruiz, Staff Assistant Charanza, Assistant City Manager Brymer, Transportation Analyst Hester, Transportation Planner Hard, Graduate Engineer Kaspar, Director of Development Services Callaway, City Secretary Hooks, Director of Public Works Smith, City Attorney Cargill, Assistant City Attorney Reynolds, and City Manager Noe. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of September 18, 1997. Commissioner Rife made a clarification of his statement to Agenda Item #3 concerning the Telecommunication Towers. He moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of September 18, 1997 with his change noted. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). Chairman Massey and Mayor McIlhaney called the joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to order. Mayor McIlhaney explained to the audience that the reasons behind this joint meeting were to allow the Council to hear the Carter Creek Relocation Project Presentation together and to hear Staff and the Commissions recommendations and discussions. r1 U P&Z Minutes October 2, 1997 Page 1 of 11 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Presentation of Carter Creek Relocation Project by Mike Davis. • Assistant City Engineer Morgan opened the presentation by explaining to the Commissioners and Council that this item related to an important element of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. There are a number of references within the Plan to Open Space/Open Space Preservation and greenbelt linkages to City Parks. Her presentation focused on the overall picture including Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives that refer to Open Space/Preservation/Linkages, limitations within the current ordinance, and short and long term alternatives to help the City get closer to achieving the goals and objectives. Ms. Morgan stated that Objective 5.1 in the Comprehensive Plan Goals states: "College Station should prohibit the reclamation of the floodway associated with Carter Creek, Lick Creek, Wolf Pen Creek, and the Brazos River to prevent upstream flooding, avoid long term structural and erosion problems associated with floodplain reclamation and to provide aCity-wide network of natural open space." She explained that this objective statement gives the City direction for the future but they are not ordinances. These objectives must be converted into ordinance form before Staff can begin to implement them. The presentation is one of the stages of transforming this goal into an ordinance. At present, the City is extremely limited in our ordinances as it relates to protection/preservation of open space or these linkage areas. The current drainage ordinance was written as a flood hazard ordinance and it speaks directly to the control of flooding and the prevention of flood damage. The City cannot preclude the use of a person's property with the ordinance unless it poses a flooding problem. The City currently allows the development of entire floodplains and the relocation of entire floodplains/floodways associated with creeks, streams, drainage swales to allow development to occur, • unless there are flooding impacts. In the long term, an acquisition program must be researched which would consist of a detailed master plan delineating those areas that are desired for open space and how much of the floodway/floodplain is necessary to achieve that goal. In the short term, Staff is suggesting that through the ordinance revisions, the review time change for development permits in Carter Creek, Lick Creek, Wolf Pen Creek (east of SH 6 bypass), and the Brazos River basins. This change in review time would allow staff to approach Council regarding the proposal and consider acquisition or negotiation with developers prior to development. The Carter Creek Relocation Project is pending permits related to this discussion. The project is located in the vicinity of University Drive and Harvey Road. It is one of the largest scale reclamation projects the City has ever seen. It has already been started through the permit process, but there are several permits that must be granted for a project of this magnitude, including the City of College Station Development Permit, a FEMA CLOMR and LOMB and the US Army Corps of Engineers 404 (wetlands permit). The 404 permit is currently being phased out and the permit issued on this project has an expiration date of January 1998. The Corp has asked the applicant to reapply for an individual permit due to the magnitude of the project, its current status and the proximity of this expiration date. Under the individual permit process, the Corp will mail out requests for public comment to adjacent property owners, Parks and Wildlife, EPA, and other government agencies involved in the wetland permit • process. P&Z Minutes October 2, 1997 Page 2 of 11 The applicant has submitted the necessary documents for this project to the City for the Development Permit. The submittal has been reviewed and the permit was denied due to the design not meeting ordinances. The applicant may now revise the design or request the appropriate variances. Once this is • complete, the development permit can be issued. The applicant has not submitted the project to FEMA as of this date. Projects of this nature are first approved at the City level and then transmitted to FEMA for their review and approval. The FEMA approval consists of two parts (CLOMR and LOMR). The CLOMR is FEMA's comment on a proposed project that would, upon construction, alter the Hydraulics/Hydrology characteristics and result in the modification of the existing floodway. The LOMB is FEMA's modification of the FIRM based upon completion of project. Mike Davis, developer for the project, approached the Commission and stated that this project has been around for 12 years and was submitted to Council and Planning and Zoning Commission 11 years ago in conjunction with the City of Bryan. Resolutions were received approving the project but the project was not completed due to the decline in the economy in 1987/88. The process began again around six years ago trying to reassemble the project and complete all required paperwork. In 1994, the financing and individual implementation was completed. Last year he met with staff to discuss ordinance changes and to work on the basics. Mr. Davis explained the different processes that the City and other government agencies require and stated that one project did not always suit all parties within their guidelines. He explained that the intent of the project is to take the water at the upstream end coming from Bryan on Carter Creek, run it through a drop structure and put a restricter in the creek channel so no change in flow and property owners upstream will not be affected. The drop structure allows the flows to be • balanced at the project floodway. The project intends to carry the water through a channelization through Bryan back in through College Station on the Carter Creek Channel. The velocities were increased slightly to have a stable channel design within the system. A lot of time was spent trying to balance it to keep sediment from causing a problem now or in the future for the ease of maintenance. A major retention area was created upstream of Highway 30 so all the water coming from Scott and White, Varsity Ford, Hollywood Theatres, and some of Sam's to eliminate flooding during major storms. Approximately one-third of the total property is designed for greenspace, wetlands, and channel design. Mr. Davis stated that the Corp of Engineers and Parks and Wildlife want a natural bottom channel. The channel would be roughly 40 feet wide to be reached on both sides by back hoes for maintenance. The side slopes are above this for easy maintenance and to place equipment on and maintain anything within the channel. To help preserve the bottom a very low slope was kept and f~r~ce blocks will be placed at intervals each time the bottom is raised two -three inches to avoider~ r' of the bottom of the channel. To keep the creek from meandering, four foot concrete sidewalk will be installed on the pilot channel for maintenance without the meander through the system. An ultimate channel design was created to carry the standard project flood as well as the standard 100 year flood. Most of this channel carries 21,800 cubic feet per second as a 100 year flood level according to the FEMA numbers. The standard project flood is 35,600 cubic feet per second flow. Greenbelt designs have been added to the side of the channel all the way up with bike paths. Mr. Davis • explained that the design includes as much existing infrastructure in the area as possible. P&Z Minutes October 2, 1997 Page 3 of 11 Commissioner Lightfoot asked Mr. Davis to explain why this project was brought forward after the Comprehensive Plan was presented since the project has been in existence for a number of years. Mr. Davis responded that the actual drainage proposal was presented in June, prior to the adoption of the • Comprehensive Plan. The designs were being changed from the original which caused the delay. The side slopes were changed, more mitigation areas were added, increasing the hardwoods area, and portions of the greenbelt. It took longer to make the submittal than anticipated. Mr. Davis approached City Staff around last October and Staff explained that the Comprehensive Plan was in the process of being adopted. A resolution had already been presented for this project in the past. Negotiations were in the process with other parties involved in the project to get land dedication. Commissioner Lightfoot asked if Mr. Davis followed the development of the Comprehensive Plan as it would affect this piece of property. Mr. Davis explained that the first versions of the Comp Plan did not preclude flood plain development. He thought this project would meet the conditions pertaining to the Plan. Commissioner Rife asked how he plans to control the sediment problem so it does not end up like Wolf Pen Creek. Mr. Davis explained that they would put a restricter in the creek channel so the velocity would not be increased. Mr. Rife asked about the 90 degree bend. Mr. Davis said that the 90 degree bend is just before it enters their channel. Commissioner Parker stated that there are two 90 degree turns in the channel and a potential problem could ocur when it hits Carter Creek. Mr. Davis stated that there will be a small section where it would be widened out to increase the velocity on the turning point. Commissioner Garner asked what the time frame would be on this project. She has a concern that the transition of the flow of water would contribute to flooding in the area. Mr. Davis stated that the design calls for sediment ponds to be installed prior to entering into the creek area. Ms. Garner asked will there be guaranteed completion of the project? Mr. Davis said that the owners will only receive any benefit from this project if it is totally completed. The project at any point of construction would not • increase the flood plain, flood elevation, or the flooding in any other area. Commissioner Lightfoot asked how much excavation would be involved? Mr. Davis stated that some trees would be removed, some trees would be filled around, some dirt would be compacted. He explained that some of the older trees would be saved. Most of the area is a one foot type fill, only a small amount would be deep fill. Commissioner Gribou said that aone-foot fill would basically kill any tree. Mr. Davis explained that if you carefully fill just the drip circle around the tree, it could survive. Chairman Massey said that more development usually means more runoff potential. Is the project designed to accommodate the excess volumes? Mr. Davis said that it would be somewhere in the 500 year range. Mr. Massey asked how many similar projects Mr. Davis has had involvement in. Mr. Davis stated that this is the first one of this size; he explained that he has done small reclamation projects in Oklahoma. Councilmember Birdwell asked if the plans included filling up the old channel once the new channel is constructed. Mr. Davis said that sections above Burton Creek a section around the intersection of Hwy 60, and smaller sections downstream would be filled. The remainder would stay the same. There are no plans to change the bridge. Mr. Birdwell asked if there are any changes to the drainage structure? Mr. Davis said they would be stopping approximately 500 feet from Highway 30. Chairman Massey asked about long term maintenance, and if the City would be responsible for the • maintenance. Mr. Davis said the maintenance question was still open as to whether P&Z Minutes October 2, 1997 Page 4 of 11 the City should be responsible for maintenance and ownership of the easement or not. Mr. Davis said that it should be mowed 3 - 4 times per year and fertilized to have adequate care. He said that they • have someone who would mow it and pick up the debris 3 - 4 times per year. Mr. Massey asked what the length of the channel from Highway 30 to end of the development would be. Mr. Davis said it is approximately 7500 feet from Highway 30 to the north end of development. Ms. Morgan explained that the proposed amendments (explained in Agenda Item Number 3) actually do not apply to the pending project. The project has been submitted under the current regulations and the new regulations (amendments) cannot be retroactive. If the applicant complies with all of the ordinance requirements the permit will be approved, there is no discretion in the permits. The applicant must meet other guidelines to be approved including zoning, which is discretionary. The current zoning on the property is R-1, if the applicant desires a change in zoning he would have to request a zoning change to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Site development and building permits must be obtained, these are technical review. There has been discussion about realigning the City Limits. The City of Bryan must also approve the project. Staff would like to receive comment from the Commission and Council on the Carter Creek Relocation Project and to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Goals. Chairman Massey opened the floor to comments from citizens regarding the proposed Carter Creek Relocation Project. The following people spoke regarding the Relocation Project: • Mark Shavers, Chapter President of Brazos Audubon Society and representative of Brazos Greenways Council Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive (Windwood Homeowners Association President) Christian Turner, Representative of Brazos Greenways Council Scott Schaeffer, Representative of Brazos Greenways Council Wayne Schebelski, Windwood Resident Wilfred Gardner David Scott, Representative of Brazos Greenways Council Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group (Engineer for project) The following are the comments made regarding this project: • Too many questions have not been answered. • Prior to a decision, citizens need a chance to comment on the project. • There should be a citizens group developed to address the project with Council, Commissioners and Staff. • The development would be a massive change in the land and waterflow in the area. • The drainage from Burton Creek and Carter Creek will be changed, by not running were they exist now. There will be an increase in the pollutants in the water and an increase in mosquitoes in this area. • Can the bridges handle excessive increased water flow? • • There are some large problems associated with this project including engineering, environmental, cultural and economic. P&Z Minutes October 2, 1997 Page S of 11 • The property owners downstream are concerned with increased water levels and velocities. • Concerned about channel maintenance. • • Concern that this project is something the community will not be proud of in the future. Chairman Massey closed the public comment session. Commissioner Rife expressed that the project was new to him and most of the Commissioners. His concern was that this is the most visible floodplain area and a plan is being presented that would likely do away with the area as we know it today. He believes that it will be developed to try and preserve as much as they can. However, the Council needs to make a decision about whether or not we should stand behind the intent expressed in the Comprehensive Plan to maintain greenbelt areas. He believes greenbelt areas can be an asset to the City in the way of "rural charm" or "natural areas". He thinks the Commission and/or Council should decide if we really want to preserve these areas. Commissioner Gribou stated that he feels it deals with the right of the owner to develop the property, but it needs to be balanced with the Comprehensive Plan goals and the City's commitment to how we are willing to work with the Comp Plan. The City needs to take into consideration the greater good for the citizens. The owner does have to right to develop but the impact of the City needs to be taken into consideration. It will be up to the Council to see how much the City is willing to back the Comprehensive Plan, and this project will be a good test to that effect. Commissioner Rife asked Staff to clarify the impact of the previous resolution on this project and the Comprehensive Plan. Assistant City Engineer Morgan paraphrased the to mean they were concerned with the old resolution's commitment to the current Council and Commission. City Attorney Cargill • explained that a resolution is not a law and is not legally binding on a future Council. Mr. Rife asked what effect the Comprehensive Plan would have in these decisions. Mr. Cargill responded that the Comprehensive Plan is adopted by resolution. The Comp Plan is a guide to how the city should be laid out and what should be achieved through the overall picture.. The Plan is not a law. Commissioner Lightfoot asked if this project is the same as the project presented in 1986? Staff explained that they would have to research the initial plans or documents. Mr. Davis explained that the project is not identical to the original one in 1986. It has been modified to include additional wetlands and greenspace and other things to meet all City requirements. Commissioner Garner expressed her concern of the completion of the project. She felt that since the project was presented ten years ago and not completed due to the economy the same may stand today. She feels that something this large needs to be completed and have a time frame and guarantee to be completed. Chairman Massey asked Assistant City Engineer Morgan to comment on what other cities are doing with this sort of development. Ms. Morgan explained that from some of her past experiences and research, she has seen that cities including Austin, Dallas, Ft. Worth, McKinney and cities in north Texas, have worked together to create projects such as 10-mile Creek. A lot of projects throughout the state of Texas have tried to accommodate trail systems and natural greenbelt areas and they found that they do promote growth in those communities. Tulsa has a tremendous system where they have had flooding and they created greenbelt areas to try and mitigate flooding impacts. Staff has recently had • conversations with Harris County Flood Control district about some of these projects. Harris County P&Z Minutes October 2, 1997 Page 6 of 11 Flood Control has built a number of these types of channels throughout Houston and surrounding areas. In discussions with them, they stated that they were trying to avoid building these projects in the future because the public did not want them any longer. They were trying to go back to the natural settings • and avoid some of the large scale projects. Chairman Massey asked about guidelines for an environmental study on this area. Ms. Morgan explained that the Corps would do the study because it is an individual permit. Mr. Massey asked what the City of Bryan's position is on this project. Ms. Morgan stated that Staff has worked with the City of Bryan during the whole process. Bryan is basically in the same situation as College Station. Bryan has denied a permit to the applicant until some of their comments are addressed. Bryan requires the concrete lining to proceed up the sloped sides of the channel to the 25 year storm event. Commissioner Gribou asked if the City is capable of doing anything other than just going through the permitting process as far as land acquisition. Ms. Morgan stated that the City has the ability to negotiate with the land owner to acquire some of the property. Ms. Morgan reiterated that the new ordinance is not applicable to the pending project but land acquisition is not out of the question. Commissioner Parker stated his concern regarding the engineering of this project. He felt he needed to see hard numbers and statistical data before a decision could be made. Councilmember Birdwell stated that the only way to create greenbelts and links would be along the existing creek. The City would have to buy the right-of--way which would require a bond issue • approved by the voters. This project provides a bikeway at no cost to the City. He was very concerned with the drainage downstream. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Presentation and discussion of proposed drainage ordinance amendment. (Comprehensive Plan Implementation -Drainage Open/Space). Assistant City Engineer Morgan explained that a new Drainage Variance Board would be created and the review time for development permits for certain drainage areas would be changed to 30 days with the proposed drainage ordinance. Variances to the Drainage Ordinance would shift from the Zoning Board of Adjustments to the newly created Drainage Variance Board. The variance board would be a Council appointed citizen's board consisting of five members. The membership would consist of three professional engineers licensed in the State of Texas, one real estate professional and one member with an environmentaUconservation background. Drainage variances are usually extremely technical and differ significantly from the Zoning Board of Adjustment's scope. They are typically brought forward very seldom and as such, it is difficult for a board not versed in this background to learn enough about the variance process and technical requirements. Having a board comprised with this background will make the technical interpretation problems less difficult. P&Z Minutes October 2, 1997 Page 7 of 11 Currently there is a 10 day review time period allowed by the ordinance to respond to these development permits. In the amendment, it would allow a thirty day review period to give Staff a chance to present to Council on these types of developments. These amendments actually do not apply • to the pending project. The project has been submitted under the current regulations and the new regulations (amendments) cannot be retroactive. The development permit is basically a technical review. If the applicant complies with all of the ordinance requirements the permit will be approved, there is no discretion in the permits. The applicant must meet other guidelines to be approved including zoning, which is discretionary. The current zoning on the property is R-1, if the applicant desires a change in zoning he would have to request a zoning change to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff would like the Commission and Council to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Goals Mayor McIlhaney thanked the Commission for allowing this joint meeting to happen and explained that this meeting was for informational purposes only. Mayor McIlhaney adjourned the City Council at 9:10 P.M. and the Planning and Zoning Commission continued with the remainder of the agenda. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 13 "Flood Hazard Protection", of the Code of Ordinances which includes language changes to comply with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan and changing the appeal body from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to the Planning and Zoning Commission. (97-815) Please see Agenda Item number 3 for Staffs comments regarding the ordinance amendment. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing and seeing no one present to address the issue, the public hearing was • closed. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a master preliminary plat of 20.2 acres divided into 18 duplex lots, one neighborhood commercial lot, and one large apartment lot, located along the south side of Southwest Parkway at the proposed extension of Dartmouth Drive. (97-318) Staff Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the proposed subdivision will include the extension of Dartmouth Drive through the property from Southwest Parkway. The proposed duplex development will lie to the east of the new road extension, the apartment lots will lie to the west. The neighborhood commercial property will be located on the southwest corner of the new intersection. The development of the duplex portion of the subdivision will include a residential cul-de-sac that will extend off the Dartmouth extension and will provide access for the duplex lots. The property was rezoned in October of 1994 from single family to the R-2, R-5, and C-N designations. The applicant worked with the City to bring the request in line with the Comprehensive Plan, which had been updated shortly before that time to cover the FM 2818 extension area. • The master preliminary plat meets the City's development ordinances as well as the Comprehensive Plan for the area. Staff recommended approval with Presubmission Conference conditions. P&Z Minutes October 2, 1997 Page 8 of 11 Commissioner Rife moved to recommend approval of the master preliminary plat with Presubmission Conference conditions. Commissioner Gribou seconded. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to amend the motion to include staff recommendations also. Commissioner Rife seconded the amendment which • passed unopposed (6-0). The Commission voted on the motion and it passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a proposed final plat for the Wheeler Subdivision Phase One, approximately 4.242 acres divided into one C-B lot (2.498 acres) and one A-P lot (1.744 acres) on the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and University Drive intersections. (97- 232) Graduate Engineer Kaspar presented the staff report and stated that the final plat is the first step in preparing the property for development after the rezonings that took place earlier this year. The west corner is being shown as one large lot while the east corner will be divided into two lots, one with A-P zoning and the other with C-B zoning. The intent is for the A-P lot to house the MicroAge offices while the C-B lot will house the Marriott Towne Place Suites. Staff recommended approval of the proposed final plat. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the final plat with staff recommendations. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a parking lot plan for Parts America (formerly Western Auto); located in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district and includes repainting the • building and sign changes. (97423) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that this request is located in the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District. All development proposals within this zoning district must be reviewed by the Design Review Board in conjunction with the Project Review Committee and recommendation is made to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the City's land use and development codes, the Wolf Pen Creek master plan and standards and policies in the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District. This particular proposal is to repaint the Western Auto building from its current orange color to a gray building face on all sides with the two street views having the blue and red Parts America colors painted as stripes along the top. On the blue stripe will be placed the Parts America sign which will be composed of 62 inch white letters with a bronze or red can around each letter. The sign will extend from the building face only 6 inches. The Design Review Board reviewed the proposal on September 19, 1997 and recommended approval of the facade painting and building sign changes with the conditions stated in the report. Mr. Richard Pedia, representative of Sears & Roebuck (owner of property) was present and stated that he would answer any questions the Commission asked. Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve this parking lot plan. Commissioner Rife seconded the • motion which passed unopposed (6-0). P&Z Minutes October 2, 1997 Page 9 of 11 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 9, Subdivisions", of the Code of Ordinances by adding sections covering "Gated Communities". (97-812) Transportation Analyst Hester presented the staff report and stated that there has been a dramatic increase in the development of gated subdivisions in the state of Texas, and the City of College Station is now receiving requests to establish these types of residential developments. The trend toward building and residing in gated subdivisions appears to be a response to the desire of citizens for a heightened sense of security as a component of the quality of life in their home environment. Citizens seem to view these private subdivisions as a defense against increasing crime, an opportunity to enjoy additional amenities, as a means to limit traffic in their neighborhoods, and as a means of exerting greater control over their living environment. Developers have simply responded to this market demand and are now inquiring to staff about the requirements for developing gated subdivisions in College Station. The proposed ordinance is broken down into four sections which include general requirements, the homeowners association (HOA), geometric design guidelines for the entryway, and the reclamation of common areas. The main conditions under the general requirements section states that the subdivision not cross or disrupt any existing or proposed thoroughfare and the infrastructure main utility lines will be maintained by the City. The responsibilities of the HOA necessitate an adequately funded and mandatory HOA. Normally, the only expense involved is the landscape maintenance of the common areas and the occasional repair of mechanical failures in electronic gates. However, as these facilities age, greater resources will be required. The geometric design guidelines for the restricted access entryway establishes adequate distances for the gates from the public right-of--way to allow adequate queuing and turn around area to prevent vehicles from backing out of the gated driveway into the public street. The reclamation section of the ordinance defines the conditions under which the city may reclaim the private areas. Commissioner Rife asked about emergency access into the subdivision. Mr. Hester explained that it would be similar to key pad entry. Fire and emergency personnel will have a key to get into the "locked box" in cases of emergencies and power failures. Commissioner Gribou asked about the 20 feet gated entry way throat length. He said it would depend on what type of street the subdivision is coming off of. It should depend on the type of street because if the subdivision is off a major road the speeds would be higher and could cause accidents (rear ending). Mr. Hester explained that they may have to be taken into consideration on a case by case basis. Chairman Massey indicated that he was concerned about the need for 100% neighborhood participation to have the private streets changed to public. He said that he would support the amendment as written because staff indicated that this is a typical sort of language for this application. However he felt that a majority approval may be a better way to manage the change and hoped that the Council would consider this point as they move to update the ordinance. Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Marianne Oprisko, 14125 Renee Lane, expressed concern about card entry access. There should be • limitations on the types of access into these communities. Chairman Massey closed the public hearing. P&Z Minutes October 2, 1997 Page 10 of I1 Commissioner Rife stated his concern with emergency access into the community. Commissioner Gribou stated that modern technology should eliminate the problems. • Commissioner Lightfoot moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Other Business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn. Commissioner Gribou moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6-0). ATTEST: Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza r~ U AP ROVED: r C~..,; r ,~,~ y f-~ ~ fi~~ ~ ~'.~1 C~ ~ ~ ~~t ,' I ~ ~' P&Z Minutes October 2, 1997 Page I1 of I1 Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) ~ ~ _~ ~ Date of Meeting Agenda Item No. ~-~ Name ~ ~' `' ~ ~` Address - ")~~ ~- ' ~ " If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak,: y ~ ~~ - ~~, ,, ase remember to step to the podium as soon as you are cognized 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. c b a: c 0 Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting `~(~~_ ~~ ~~~ Agenda Item No. 3d-`~ Name ~~PX'ftil ~((15~n Address ?~7a S 1~' ~ a a ~~~' If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: ct on which perso wishes to speak: _ n ~i _ ase remember to step to the podium as soon as you are ognized 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 ~-G~c: r Agenda Item No. ?_ r>+-~(~ c~~ Name ~~ ~ ~-~ Address L~fY; .-~~~~,-~-c;< ,.,~,r If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: C j C ~.'JC - C_.. ~ ^' C Speaker's official capacity: ~ ~?, ° ~r _ _ f ~[:`"~~l/~E"'1 f, ~'_.' a'7/~`y-i°~.. ~c: _.G ice:+/,c_:.. ~' Subject on which person wishes to speak: ~t. ~-,y~, ~i~L~., ,~/,,..~~ /_:~`~.•~~'~~.~/=:e.,~ ~1 it's "~~lit.rL'~C .~.LL',,~,~L ~Z~ ase remember to step to the podium as soon as you are cognized 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. ~~ '~~ 'b ', W o~. o~ cd 1 H WI .[ ~I Q Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting Agenda Item No. Name Address If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: ,: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: ase remember to step to the podium as soon as you are cognized 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) Name Address If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak:, ase remember to step to the podium as soon as you are cognized 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. Date of Meeting i _ Agenda Item No. ;~ ~ _ Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting , Agenda Item No. Name Address If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: ase remember to step to the podium as soon as you are cognized 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) ,--~ n / q Date of Meeting L-l C~ `~' 1 I ~ / Agenda Item No. Name ~ ~ ~=- O ~ 1--~-/~- Address ii JJ~ ' ~ ` ~ G- ~ lc 4 ~ c If speaking for an organization, Name of organization: s official capacity: ct on which pe~r~son wishes ~s"TC-x~-I ~L.4- ~I b ~° ase remember to step to the podium as soon as you are cognized 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. ~I Q Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting Agenda Item No. ~ ~~ Name ~l"'~~~~~lL ~~~ ~ ~ ~~% «~;, Address ~~~ S ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ n If speaking for an organization, Name of organiza L Speaker's official capacity: Subject on whic~erson wishes to speak: ase remember to step to the podium as soon as you are cognized 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. a~ a ., b w Registration Form • (For persons who wish to address the Commission) Date of Meeting 1 ': ,~ ~ , ~ ~~ Agenda Item No. "'. Name ~~ ~ °~" ; a ~~ ; ~~; r~,~ rr. Address ~ ~~'~ ~'~ r'<v~; ~ J"~~- ~ ~~',~ If speaking for an organization, N~~a) me of organization: ~h Speaker's official capacity: Subject on which person wishes to speak: ~ r ., ~ ( . y Ff ~~3 ~ ,fir'- A ~.~~; ase remember to step to the podium as soon as you are ognized 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. ~~anning ~ .~onin~ Commission Guest ~,eBister ~ II ~~- ~ C Date ~~~.iV .~~ ~1 ~ ~~ ~sme ~lcfifress 2. 3. 4. Z ' 'ti„ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~, ,~~2 e,~.~~ ; ~ r2~ ,~ .-mil , ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ Y U r. , . ~ ,~_ _, .~~ ~, 8. ~-- ~ 5 t . -~-~~~ 1 ~. ~ ~ r (~ _ ~ ~ C1,~ ~ U~ `(~ ; r 7 ~~L~ ~ ' ,~ ~ i • r ~~ It ~~ L}. , i~I ~ / ~ - °~~ ~`' ~U~ ~~ _~ ~~'- 11. • ~=L ~ c ~-~~_~ r I l ~ ~~ti ~~ ~~ ~ ~ < ~.~~ ~ s_ ~ ~ ~~~~1 v 12. C~ ~ ~a~ ~~~.. 5 ~~ ~ ~~ia ~' c~I~' ~~ ~ z- 13. ~~~ L:~-~(~' ~} ~P`~ ~ `~T~ ~ ~C~~`~'•~L %~--~ l~K- ~i Lc.J . ~ 1, ~~ ~J ~ .~ ~D ~ST• ~~~~~~ `~/ 'yl~~ ''"~r 14. • IS. r 7; C 1~'~ VI"J /~ 16. 1 firn`1~ 1-I D f~ ~I ~'~~ C 17. ~~~:`(~ ~~,-,~-r, - 18. 19. 20. 21. ~~G~.4~,r ~~.~.~5 ,^ .~ ' ~ ~~oi Sf~((~ ~ ~~~`~~ c~ ~ ~ ~, 4 ,_- ~~~~ ~ ~V l ~ -- 1..y ~ ~-+~.~~-~ 4~`~. I ' ~Cannin~ ~' ZoninB Commission Guest 7~,e~ister Date %G ~ ~ - cl ~ ~~ ~lcfifress ~, ~ ~~ v 1. `~, ~ s~1~-- 3. 4. S. 6. 7. i 8. 9. 10. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. • 24. 25.