HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/2002 - Joint Minutes City Council Mayor City Council
Noir Ron Silvia John oun
Winnie Garner
Mayor Pro Tempore oun
James Massey Scott Mears
City Manager Dennis Maloney
COLLEGE STATION Thomas E. Brymer Anne Hazen
College Station, Embracing the Past,
Exploring the Future
MINUTES
COLLEGE STATION CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Joint Meeting
Friday, April 19, 2002 at 8:30 a.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Mariott, Councilmembers Massey, Maloney, Garner,
Silvia, Hazen, Commissioners Floyd, Williams, Happ, McMath
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Mcllhaney, Commissioners Hawthorne, Trapani, Kaiser
Mayor Pro Tem Mariott and Chairman Floyd called the joint meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 1 -- Presentation, discussion and possible action on the Unified Development
Ordinance.
This joint meeting was held for the purpose of discussing and considering issues within the draft
document of the unified development ordinance in order that staff can receive policy direction
toward the final version. Kelly Templin, Director of Development Services, facilitated the
discussion. He requested that staff have the ability to reserve Section 8: Subdivision Regulations
for the purpose of reaching standard common development standards within the ETJ with Brazos
County. This process will be done separately from the UDO.
A paper containing the issues list (referred to as List No. 2) cited below was followed throughout
the day. The following is a recap of each item discussed and any action taken.
1) Redevelopment Districts
Current ordinance: NA
Existing draft: NA
Input received: Desire to assist with the redevelopment and revitalization of existing commercial
centers through interaction with the Economic Development Department and their 4B Board. These
"districts" might take the form of overlays or a new zoning designation and would entail flexibility
such as the ability to reasonably increase a current level of nonconformity and the implementation
of less than full bufferyards or other landscaping, in return for other design considerations. It is
thought that full conformity with present and proposed standards will keep a number of locations
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 2
stagnant and perpetuate vacancies along vital commercial corridors. These "districts" could require
recommendations from the 4B Board and the P &Z, and Council approval.
Staff comments: Such devices are in place in other cities and can be used to revitalize aging strip
centers and former big box locations. Staff requested permission to draft such provisions in the
UDO.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
2) Lighting
Current ordinance: Lighting cannot be directed to residential areas; no plan required
Existing draft: Lighting plan required; technical requirements
Input received: Several responses for lighting section to become more restrictive
Staff comments: Adopt lighting standards /requirements but spell out technical requirements and
incorporate realistic lighting levels. Possibly cap height of light poles. Reword for ease of
enforcement.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
3) Roadway phasing subdivision platting
Current ordinance: NA
Existing draft: No language proposed
Input received: Developments can be concocted so as to leave required capital improvements to a
latter or final stage. This can result in traffic and utility complications, especially if the final phase
is delayed or is not built.
Staff comments: Some language could be added to the subdivision section to require that each
phase extend its 'fair share" of infrastructure. A timetable could be established for tie -ins to
existing streets for traffic facilitation, to relieve traffic through neighborhoods, and access to
schools, etc. The same is true for utilities.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
4) Cumulative rezoning in residential districts
Current ordinance: Is cumulative (allows for less intense residential development up to the stated
maximum use /density)
Existing draft: Is not cumulative (only the stated type is allowed, e.g., single- family)
Input received: Request to reconsider and allow cumulative zoning in residential districts
Staff comments: Non - cumulative zoning might provide a higher level of assurance to property
owners. However, the City has had cumulative zoning in its residential areas for quite some time,
and several non - conformities will be created. Additions or larger than 25% and changes or use are
prohibited for nonconforming uses.
%liar
4/19/02 Joint Council /P &Z meeting Page 3
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Preferred cumulative zoning. Staff was instructed to look at buffering
issues as well.
Development community comments: Favors cumulative zoning.
Council Member Maloney arrived to the meeting at 9:30 a.m.
The group recessed for a short break at 10:00 a.m. They returned at 10:15 a.m. to continue the
meeting.
5) Building height limits - all districts
Current ordinance: Limits residential to 35' (2.5 stories) in single family /duplex, 3 story in multi-
family. No height restriction in commercial or industrial
Existing draft: Heights restricted to 35' in all residential, commercial and business /industrial
districts; 60' in light and heavy industrial
Input received: Concern that language is too restrictive
Staff comments: Staff agrees that the height restrictions as written, are too restrictive.
Development community agreed.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
6) Conditional uses in the land use table
Current ordinance: NA
1116/ Existing draft: Many currently permitted uses to be made conditional
Input received: The requirement for conditional use approval runs contrary to one of the stated
purposes of the UDO process, to streamline development procedures.
Staff comments: Where possible, it would be helpful to list additional site requirements for these
uses and have them remain permitted in order to streamline procedures. Where such standards
cannot be developed, the use could be converted to a conditional use.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Council wants opportunity to see the administrative standards that
would streamline procedures.
7) Tree protection /preservation
Current ordinance: No required to preserve existing trees; incentives - additional points awarded
Existing draft: Same as existing ordinance
Input received: Numerous responses in favor of tree protection
Staff comments: Add incentives for retaining existing growth. Credit existing growth toward
landscape requirements. Allow flexibility to increase bufferyard depts. to count and retain old
growth.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 4
8) Structures in easements
Current ordinance: Structures not permitted; fences, walls, landscaping permitted
Existing draft: Not addressed
Input received: Request for clarification and additional restrictions
Staff comments: Clark with Utilities and Public Works what plantings are acceptable in
easements. Allow flexible bufferyards where plantings cannot be implemented in easements.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Staff has flexibility to work with developers for proper location of
landscaping in the easement.
Development community comments: Noted the problem where plantings are required under
high line wires. He asked that the landscape points in an easement should not be counted as
part of the overall project points, if the landscape is not required in the easement. CC/P &Z
concurred.
9) Electrical transformers
Current ordinance: Screening of offensive items required if identified on site plans; not addressed
on plats
Existing draft: Same as current
Input received: Request to move transformers to rear of sites
Staff comments: If added to regulations, electrical easements will need to be along rear property
lines only. Owing to topographic and other physical features, this is not always possible.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Need to be flexible
10) Timing of buffer /fencing /wall installation
Current ordinance: Applied at site plan stage and required to be in place for certificate of
occupancy.
Existing draft: Same as current
Input received: Request for buffers to be installed prior to site work or the beginning of
construction
Staff comments: While requiring earlier buffer installation might help to protect existing
residential areas from construction impacts, installation of landscaping, walls and irrigation prior
to grading will be difficult at best and impossible in some instances.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
11) Buffer alternatives between residential/commercial uses
Current ordinance: Requires new planted green area and masonry wall
Existing draft: Same as current
Input received: Request to allow natural buffers to take place of man -made buffer
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 5
Staff comments: In some areas it has been difficult to require the man -made buffer and even the
wall due to topographical and /or floodplain constraints. Allow for acceptable alternative buffers.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
12) Buffer requirements - adjacent to major roads to protect residential areas
Current ordinance: No provision
Existing draft: Same as current
Input received: Request to consider requiring a landscape buffer between a major roadway and new
residential development
Staff comments: There has been previous Commission and Council discussion of this issue. The
Comprehensive Plan encourages residential development adjacent to major thoroughfares in many
areas. A buffering requirement would make these goals more attainable.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
13) Construction safety - fencing
Current ordinance: Not addressed
Existing draft: Not addressed
Input received: Request to require fencing on all sites is unnecessary. This is a site
security /liability issue for individual developers to address on a case by case basis.
Staff comments: Requiring safety fencing on all sites is unnecessary. This is a site security /liability
issue for individual developers to address on a case by case basis.
4/19: CC /P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
14) Landscaping of parking lots
Current ordinance: Required end islands and 180 SF of landscaping for every 15 parking spaces;
streetscaping across site frontage
Existing draft: Same as current
Input received: Request to add more green space to parking lots
Staff comments: Current landscaping requirements are generally in line with other communities.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Give staff flexibility to negotiate the trade off of landscape /treescape
incentives in parking lots by a percentage of discretion.
Development Community comments: Have incentives to increase visual barriers between
street and parking lot
15) Drainage regulations in single - family districts
Current ordinance: Applies at plat stage to subdivision
Existing draft: Same as current
Input received: Request to reexamine drainage with individual building permit and minor site
improvements (such as fencing) in older areas
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 6
Staff comments: Such an approach would be staff intensive and will require a longer review and
inspection period
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
16) Conservation district standards
Current ordinance: Lot size and frontage must equal average on a block in older residential areas;
only 1 primary use per platted lot
Existing draft: Adds lot building coverage restrictions
Input received: Request to regulate architectural style in the older single family areas; request to
reconsider maximum setback
Staff comments: Lot coverage may be addressed by setbacks currently applied to residential lots.
If architectural review is chosen for older neighborhoods, some research of standards will have to
take place and another review body will have to be established. Such regulations will lengthen the
review time frame and must be carefully crafted to limit subjectivity.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
17) Contextual setbacks in older neighborhoods
Current ordinance: Only a minimum front setback of 25' is established (no maximum)
Existing draft: Front setbacks for new homes in older areas must be between front building walls of
adjacent homes
Input received: Request to remove maximum setback so that a new home may be set as far back on
a lot as desired
Staff comments: The draft language was written in response to a request to incorporate contextual
setback standards for older neighborhoods.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Give staff flexibility to deviate by 20% variance. Consensus to have
maximum setback
18) Maximum front building setback - commercial and industrial buildings
Current ordinance: No maximum currently -- only minimums set
Existing draft: Would require all buildings to be no further than 50' from front property line
Input received: Requests to remove the restriction
Staff comments: The language in the draft would allow for a maximum of one row of parking in
front of buildings. If the City chooses to place parking in the rear of sties, perhaps a better
approach would be to experiment with such restrictions in a targeted area of the City (such as the
City Center) or within a limited commercial (C -L, C -0) zoning category where the scale is smaller
and a less conventional look is desired. The draft maximum setback could also run afoul of future
right -of -way expansions.
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 7
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
Development community comments: Prefers the removal of language.
19) Building mass /architectural style
Current ordinance: Not addressed
Existing draft: Adds language that would require large buildings to variegate facades
Input received: Concern that the language is too broad; remove language or become more specific
Staff comments: If the goal is to visually break up large commercial building masses, regulate
massing of large buildings with more specific language and make it applicable only to large (big
box) centers.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
Development community: Agreed with staff comments.
20) Outdoor storage /display in commercial districts
Current ordinance: Not regulated; required to be screened if caught during site -plan stage
Existing draft: Restricts displays to the areas closest to the buildings
Input received: Request to allow some display in other areas of the site (parking lots, edge of site,
etc.)
Staff comments: Staff has heard several complaints from citizens and board /committee members
expressing a desire to restrict such areas. The Language must be very specific. Such areas cannot
encumber required parking.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
Development community comments: Agreed with staff comments.
The group recessed for lunch. They returned at 12:35 p.m.
21) Outdoor storage /display in industrial districts
Current ordinance: Not regulated; required to be screened if caught during site -plan stage
Existing draft: Does not restrict area
Input received: Request to become more restrictive
Staff comments: Some screening of outdoor storage is appropriate. Staff recommends drafting
language with input from Economic Development.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
Development community comments: Agreed with staff comments.
22) Building height limits - adjacent to residential areas
Current ordinance: Restricts commercial buildings to 35' when within 100' of a single family
dwelling
Existing draft: Same as current
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 8
Input received: Request to allow a building to "step up" the sections of a building that are further
than 100' from the dwelling
Staff comments: 35' (2 1/2 stories) would allow for complete visibility of yards and residences from
adjacent nonresidential sites in any case.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
Development community comments: Agreed with staff comments.
23) Staff level "variances"
Current ordinance: No provision
Existing draft: Allow staff level variances or waivers for up to 20% of stated standard
Input received: If allowed, lower the percentage to 5% or less
Staff comments: If staff -level "variances" are provided in the UDO, the City may wish to adopt
different standards for approval other than special conditions and hardship. The standards
required for such "variances " should limit staff discretion as much as possible.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Action by staff should be reported to P &Z and Council.
Change the staff level variance to 10%
Development community comments: Likes the higher percentages in certain situations
24) Big box retail - City wide
Current ordinance: No distinction from general retail
Existing draft: Separately defined from general retail and not permitted in certain commercial
districts; broad architectural restrictions applied
Input received: Request to treat big box as in current ordinance or to better define architectural
style required
Staff comments: Staff requests direction as to whether it is desired to treat big box retail differently
from other commercial uses.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Do more research about other communities' experience. The
architectural and buffer requirements may be considered differently for big box. Bring back
standards that staff presented to former council in late '90s. Do not differentiate based on
the scale of the operation per Kelly.
Development community comments: Need defined standards for big box
25) Neighborhood churches and regional churches
Current ordinance: No distinction
Existing draft: Would limit the amount of accessory uses in certain cases
Input received: Request to protect neighborhoods from the impacts of large, busy church sites
Staff comments: Churches could be limited to a sanctuary by right in some districts with accessory
uses limited to the 25% of accessory use allowed to all uses. Each principal use must meet zoning
and parking restrictions.
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 9
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Hesitation expressed about addressing this issue at this time. Possibly
have tools available in the ordinance to address these cases in terms of accessory uses, (parking,
landscaping, screening).
Mayor Pro Tem Mariott left the meeting at 1:40 p.m. Council Member Ron Silvia presided.
26) Maximum building lot coverage
Current ordinance: Not addressed other than through setback restrictions
Existing draft: Would further limit the maximum buildable square footage of a lot
Input received: Request to remove the draft language
Staff comments: These regulations should only be included if they can forward an identified goal
(e.g., reduce flood hazards, non point source pollution, runoff).
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Remove draft language.
27) Wolf Pen Creek development standards
Current ordinance: Requires compatibility, harmony, etc., as determined through the review
process
Existing draft: Similar to current
Input received: Request to include more specific standards
Staff comments: More specific standards could help guide the early stages of the development
process.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: One DRB would be more qualified to develop entry level standards.
Need to proceed with a solid similar goal for all three zones (northgate, university drive,
wolf pen creek)
Development community comments: Input from major property owner in WPC would be
beneficial
Mayor Pro Tem Mariott returned to the meeting at 2:30 p.m.
28) Special district review process
Current ordinance: Three separate processes and boards for three separate districts
Existing draft: Consolidates review process into a single board with recommendations to the
Planning and Zoning Commission
Input received: Request to either do away with the special districts and return to the standard
commercial approach or to allow staff to conduct a technical site plan review and allow the
aesthetic review to be conducted by a board.
Staff comments: Past City Councils have taken special interest in the Wolf Pen Creek, Northgate,
and Overlay districts, with a focus on encouraging the development of distinctive areas.
Abandoning the special districts may go against previous Council strategic issues, plans, and
t w implementation decisions. Perhaps a better approach to reduce the level of uncertainty would be to
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 10
require broad general site layouts and building design to be reviewed by a board, and leave the
technical site plan review to staff.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: DRB have a standing meeting and make discretionary standards, and
staff have review nondiscretionary standards. Codify the requirements. Streamline the
process to attain the goal. Look at visions for each of the three areas (northgate, overlay
district, and WPC) Massey and Maloney work with staff in terms of WPC standards.
Development community comments: Difficulty to have consistency with a volunteer board,
members in attendance change from meeting to meeting. Prefer staff to perform technical
review.
The group took a short break at 2:35 p.m. They returned at 2:45 p.m.
29) Oversize participation in the ETJ
Current ordinance: Not provided
Existing draft: Same as current
Input received: Request to provide street oversize participation in the ETJ
Staff comments: The City's policy in the past has been not to provide incentives for development
outside the city limits. The use of tax funds outside the City is questionable. Required compliance
with Subdivision Regulations in the ETJ, as practiced by most communities (e.g. Bryan) would
address this matter, for the most part.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Upon annexation, reimburse developers for oversize participation if
funds are available. Look further into Bryan's subdivision ordinance regarding oversize
participation in ETJ. Need flexibility to have this provision as a good planning tool.
Development community comments: Undue burden for capital payment upfront, needs to
be tied to annexation plan.
30) Grace period
Current ordinance: N/A
Existing draft: N/A
Input received: Request to allow a 3 to 6 month grace period between adoption of the UDO and its
effective date so that projects currently under design may continue
Staff comments: Some reasonable grace period could be considered; however, this will delay the
implementation of all regulations, including any deemed urgent.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: 180 days for grace period
Development community comments: Provide for a reasonable transition
31) Density cap in the multi - family district
Current ordinance: R -4 maximum 16 DU /Acre; R -5 maximum 24 DU /Acre; R -6 allows more than
24 DU /Acre with Council approval
Existing draft: One district with maximum of 18 DU /Acre
Input received: Requests to allow higher densities in certain cases or not to cap the district at all
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 11
Staff comments: Placing no cap on the allowable densities would not allow for orderly future
planning of infrastructure. A better approach might be to raise the allowable density to one that is
typical of College Station apartment development.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Want special provisions of the Northgate area for mixed use and
residential development in Northgate. Include the second multi family district around
University in the more urbanized area, when appropriate utility capacity is available.
Development community comments: Encourage development around the University
32) Big box retail - Wolf Pen Creek
Current ordinance: No distinction from general retail and thus permitted by right in WPC
Existing draft: Would remove big box from WPC
Input received: Request to continue allowing big box retail in WPC
Staff comments: Past input into the WPC district has resulted in requests to remove big box from
the district due to the vision for the corridor to be pedestrian oriented and to have development with
a distinctive style.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: This item was deferred to the staff and committee of council for
discussion during the development of the Design Review Board processes.
33) Residential uses in WPC
Current ordinance: Permits apartment uses
Existing draft: Would not permit residential uses
Input received: Request to allow apartments, dormitories, etc. in the district
Staff comments: Prior Wolf Pen Creek subcommittees have expressed view that the district should
not become residential -only, and that the remaining vacant tracts should develop as commercial
with an emphasis on tourist and pedestrian orientation. Residential uses could be limited to non -
apartment types (e.g., townhomes) if some residential uses are desired.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: This item was deferred to the staff and committee of council for
discussion of the development of the Design Review Board processes.
34) Notification requirements
Current ordinance: Mirror statutory requirements (staff policies enhance requirements)
Existing draft: Would add notification requirements for Comprehensive Plan amendments
Input received: Request to reconsider and notify over and above the state requirements
Staff comments: Prior discussions regarding this issue included the additional financial burden to
the City and additional staff workload, as well as legal implications that might accompany
additional notifications.
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Encouraged staff to notify above legal requirements, provide
additional information
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 12
V`,,,. 35) Water conservation - irrigation requirements
Current ordinance: No provision
Existing draft: Same as current
Input received: Request to either requires irrigation systems that follow state water conservation
guidelines or provide a point reduction as an incentive.
Staff comments: Water conservation is currently encouraged through other City programs and a
point reductive incentive would bring the landscaping requirements in line with other City goals
4/19: CC/P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
36) Cluster development lot size determination
Current ordinance: No cluster development provision
Existing draft: Would allow smaller lot sizes /dimensions, which are to be determined by the
Commission
Input received: Request to not have the Commission determine the lot size due to concern that this
provision would act as a disincentive (Initial lot layout would have to precede Commission
consideration of the appropriate standard).
Staff comments: The purpose of the clustering option is to maintain the same maximum gross
densities by concentrating the dwelling units in one area of a site and leaving other areas vacant as
common open space. The result would essentially move green space from private yards and group
green space into larger common areas. This option could be used to deal with a floodplain
(greenway) or when common amenities are used to market property. A set percentage reduction
(25 or 50 %) would assist the developer during the design phase and lessen the review period. This
standard may also encourage the use of this development option in sensitive areas.
4/19: CC &P &Z comments: Agreed with staff comments.
Development community comments: Encourage cluster development where appropriate
in terms of neighborhood/commercial development.
37) Cluster development - no open space option
Current ordinance: Not addressed
Existing draft: Would allow smaller lots with little to no conventional yards but require common
open space in return
Input received: Request to allow a cluster development that would not require the open space and
associated maintenance
Staff comments: This type of development would create a highly urbanized, high density single
family or townhome character. Such an approach should begin with a Comprehensive Plan
discussion that would determine the appropriate location of such developments, and a new zoning
district. Dedication of open space for greenways or public parks may be an acceptable option.
4/19: CC &P &Z comments: Agree with staff, using a separate zoning district from Item No. 36.
Development community comments: Remember the senior market.
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 13
Irn, Meeting concluded at 3:36 p.m.
The following items were not discussed. These items were part of the issue paper prepared by staff.
38) Parking for industrial uses
Current ordinance: Based on gross square footage (same as other uses)
Existing draft: Same as current ordinance
Input received: Allow for flexibility to accommodate automated processes and actual employment
numbers
Staff comments: Staff agrees that basing parking on building area when many industrial buildings
contain automated processes is illogical. Large unused parking areas are expensive, often required
the removal of trees and creates run -off and detention issues.
39) Master sign regulations
Current ordinance: No coordination required between multiple signs on a site
Existing draft: Would require master sign plan for multi- business sites with consistent lettering,
colors, size, and materials
Input received: Concern that trademarks would effectively not be accommodated under the
proposed level of restriction.
Staff comments: One option that is used in a number of cities is to require a consistent background
and /or sign style /shape but to allow individual trademarks.
40) Buffering requirements between duplexes and single family
Current ordinance: Requires a 6' masonry wall
Existing draft: Same as current
Input received: Request to remove masonry wall requirement
Staff comments: The City of College Station has historically viewed duplexes to be more akin to
apartments rather than single family, therefore the buffer standard was added to physically
separate duplexes from single family homes.
41) Sign regulations - more than one sign per building plot
Current ordinance: Allows a second freestanding sign on sites exceeding 25 acres with more than
1000' frontage
Existing draft: Same as current
Input received: Request to reduce the site size to 15 acres with 600' frontage to be allowed a second
sign
42) Attached sign regulations
Current ordinance: Size, number not regulated
Existing draft: Would add attached sign restrictions and would restrict signs on multi - storied
buildings to 15% of the first floor wall area
Saw
4/19/02 Joint Council/P &Z meeting Page 14
Input received: Concern that higher buildings might need larger sign area - request to allow 5% of
the total wall area for floors above the first floor
43) Conditional Use Permits required for nightclub uses
Current ordinance: Requires CUP's for all nightclubs in all district
Existing draft: Same as current
Input received: Request to allow nightclubs as a use by right
Staff comments: The City Council decided in the early 1990's to increase the review of nightclub
uses in the City. The CUP process was the method chosen to gain regulatory control over the
number and location of nightclubs.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 13 day of June, 2002.
APPROVED:
eet-
Mayo' on Silvia
•TEST:
City Secretary Connie Hooks