Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2007 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 7:30 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Rezoning Item: REZ07-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Martha Greer for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone to Medium Density Single Family (RS8) zone for approximately 5.75 acres of property located on South Governor Street. D. Other Items E. Consideration of the March 1, 2007 Meeting Minutes F. Adjournment Informal Formal City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM ----1 Date: March 15, 2007 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner RE: REZ07 -00002 South Governor Street Consideration of the S. Governor Street rezoning proposal was deferred from the March 1 meeting. Some Commissioners had questions about the implications of this rezoning and the potential for further duplex conversions. While the Planning Department has not studied duplex conversions on this block of South Governor Street, a July 2006 study was conducted for other areas in the Central Planning District*, including the RNS-12 zones on Fairchild Street, Jefferson and Market Streets, Church Street, and Davenport Street. These areas are comparable to S. Governor in that they are all RNS-12 zones in close proximity to downtown and the University of Iowa campus. These neighborhoods are also similar to South Governor in the character of housing-mostly older single family homes or homes that have been converted to duplexes and multifamily units with some more modern multi-family structures interspersed. The neighborhoods in the study were re-zoned from Low-clensity multi-family (RM-12) to Neighborhood Residential Conservation (RNC- 12) -now called RNS-12 -sometime between 1993 and 1995. The changes that have occurred since these areas were re-zoned to RNS-12 show an increase in percentage of single-family rentals (+ 5% or + 18 units) and duplexes (+ 2% or + 8 units) and a reduction in percentage of single-family owner-occupied units (- 3% or -13 units). The results indicate that while the RNS-12 zone has served its purpose in maintaining single family character by reducing opportunities for multi-family development (a 3% drop in multi-family or -12 units), that the rental market continues to affect these neighborhoods and duplex conversions are a part of this trend. The study also shows that from 2001 to 2006 in the South Dodge Street, a nearby area that is zoned RM-12, saw its percentage of single-family owner-occupied decline by 6% (-4 units), while the percentage of single-family rentals rose 6% (+ 2 units) and duplexes were up 12% (+ 3 units). This indicates that duplexes are a trend in this area. If the Commission agrees with the goal of the applicants to preserve single-family character of the neighborhood, the RS-8 zone provides an effective tool for reducing single-family home conversion to duplexes. As of this date the Commission has received no further correspondence regarding the proposed zoning change. I have been in contact with Mr. Sandersfeld, the owner of 416 S. Governor Street, to discuss the RS-8 rezoning and he has indicated that while he has no plans to convert his property to a duplex, he remains opposed to the zoning change. Staff believes that if the goal is to preserve the single-family character of the neighborhood, that this property should be included in the rezoning. * I have attached a map showing the land use analyses for the areas included in the above cited study. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2007 - 7:30 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith, Bob Brooks, Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Amelon (4640 Sharon Center Road SW), Paul Bethke (12 Amber Lane), Martha Greer (530 S. Governor St.), Scott Ritter (Hartford Consultants; 5060 James Ave SW, Kalona), Suzanne Bentler (520 S. Governor St.), Mark Russo (614 Clark St.), Adam Bohr (McClare Engineering) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, of SUB07-00001: an application submitted by Todd and Debra Hahn for a preliminary plat of Mount Prospect Addition Part IX, a 16-lot, 5.21 acre residential subdivision located on Lakeside Drive, west of Amber Lane. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB07-0002/SUB07-00003: an application submitted by American Bank & Trust for a preliminary plat and final plat of Olde Towne Village Part 2, a 3-lot, 1.82-acre commercial subdivision located south of Rochester Avenue and east of Scott Boulevard. Public Discussion of Anv Item not on the Aqenda No discussion. Rezoninq Item REZ07-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Martha Greer for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS12) zone to Medium Density Single Family (RS8) zone for approximately 5.75 acres of property located on South Governor Street. Freerks announced that she owns property in this area so she would recuse herself. She left the meeting room. Walz stated that the area to be rezoned begins with 416 on the east side of the street and 423 on the west and extending to the opposite end of Governor Street. It includes adjacent properties along Bowery Street. This area was rezoned from RM12 to RNS-12 in 2000. RS8 and RNS-12 zones are fairly similar because they are both single-family in character. The main difference is that in the RS8 zone, duplexes are allowed only on corner lots, and only on those lots with 8700 square feet or larger. In the RNS-12 zone, one could change a single-family home into a duplex, as long as the lot is 6000 square feet in size and the lot is 45 feet wide. The RNS-12 zone was meant to stabilize single-family character. There are three multi-family units in the area proposed for rezoning. All of these were nonconforming when they came into the RNS-12 zone and would still be nonconforming if the area was rezoned to RS8. They can continue to operate under their current permits because they were grandfathered in. The current limit for unrelated persons living in a dwelling unit is three in both RNS-12 and RS8. In the past, the limit was higher. These properties have been grandfathered in and can continue to operate with the higher limit so long as they keep their permit active. Even if the house is sold to someone else, the occupancy can be maintained. Existing duplexes can continue to operate as duplexes and would only have to come in conformance with the new standard (duplexes on the corner only) if the property was destroyed. Homes that are presently single family would not be able to be divided to duplexes. The Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2007 Page 2 corner lots are not large enough to become duplexes. As it is zoned presently, there are a few properties that could become duplexes. Since the RNS-12 rezoning, several of the homes have been converted to single-family homes and people have invested in rehabilitating properties. Many of the people who are making this application with Greer own their homes and rental property in the area. There has been some reinvestment and more owner-occupied housing. The applicants state that the reason for the rezoning is to keep the balance between rental and owner-occupied housing. Over 75% of the uses in the area are single-family but the ratio of renter to owner occupied is about 50/50. The applicants have circulated a petition and have the support of the majority of property owners in the area, including those property owners that own the duplexes whose uses will become nonconforming if the area is rezoned. There are four properties that currently have duplex permits. One has already given up their permit, but is keeping a rental aspect with an apartment attached to the garage (an allowed accessory used in the proposed RS-8 zone). All current permit holders have signed on. When we think about rezoning, we think about the number of nonconforming uses that would be created. There are a number of lots that are considered nonconforming because they are too narrow. However, the RS8 zoning contains a density option that states that a narrower width is acceptable if there is an alley. This option will make all lots conforming except for three. The only increase in nonconforming uses would be the duplexes that become nonconforming. Staff recommends rezoning for the following reasons: 1. the existing predominance of single-family uses, both renter and owner occupied in the area 2. the owners of the three duplexes that would become nonconforming have signed in support 3. there is no change to status in the three multi-family properties which are already nonconforming in the RNS-12 zone 4. the rezoning reduces the number of nonconforming lots due to the bonus provision of the RS-8 zone 5. the comprehensive plan includes goals to preserve the older, historic, neighborhoods closer to downtown. Smith asked which property on the map was owned by Mike Sandersfeld, since he had submitted a letter to the Commission in opposition of the rezoning. Mike Sandersfeld owns the northernmost lot on the east side of the street. His property is a single-family, renter-occupied (4 non-related persons) house. Smith asked if Sandersfeld's property was on the fringe and Walz confirmed that it was the last lot. The staff suggested this boundary because they felt that it was as far north as they could go without getting into more multi-family uses and duplexes where properties would become nonconforming. Eastham asked about the property at 520 S. Governor which is shown as a two-family duplex but is not shown as a nonconforming use under the RS-8 zone. He asked if this was because the owners have indicated that they will change the configuration from duplex to single-family. Walz stated that the owners intend to drop the duplex permit and would not be a nonconforming use. After this duplex, there are three duplexes left in the area. Eastham asked about rental permits which allow 4 unrelated persons in a dwelling. He asked if the permit regulation would continue even if the property were rented to three unrelated persons or a sing/e- family. Walz confirmed that one does not have to rent to the maximum number in order to retain the right to rent to the maximum. The permit simply indicated the maximum allowed. Applicant Martha Greer (530 S. Governor) thanked City staff for helping to put together this application and reason with the applicants as to where the boundary lines should be drawn. She purchased her home about 8 years ago and was looking for a home that she could renovate. She is a single mother and was looking for a safe neighborhood where her son could walk to school and have a diverse school. She looked at the Mann and Longfellow neighborhoods. She is only the 4th owner of her home which was built Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2007 Page 3 in 1920. The Lorenz family built the home and the two subsequent owners have family connections to Greer, as she is a lifelong resident of Iowa City. When she moved into the neighborhood, she thought that she had made a mistake in buying this home. She was awoken several nights from the sounds of drunken people. She also had problems with landlords who would not respond to concerns and often could not be found. The rezoning in 2000 and the nuisance ordinance and conservation district made a huge difference in turning the neighborhood around. In this neighborhood, people can afford to purchase homes and renovate them. They can walk to work and downtown. She would like this rezoning to further stabilize the neighborhood. She feels that the neighborhood provides affordable housing for people who want to buy but also for those who want to rent in a comfortable neighborhood. She is concerned about the neighborhood becoming any higher density. There are a few homes that could be changed to duplexes. There is already a parking problem on the streets. Greer stated that changing some of these homes to duplexes wouldn't necessarily do much to provide more affordable housing as the current zoning allows for an entire house to be built on the back of an existing house which could be called a duplex. She doesn't feel that eliminating the possibility of further duplexing reduces the affordable housing available. She feels that this rezoning application furthers the goals of the comprehensive plan. Eastham asked about her comment that she doesn't believe that changing a single-family home to a duplex necessarily makes the units more affordable. Greer responded that she feels that this conversion would not automatically make them more affordable. This would depend on rental audience. The rental audience is typically 3 unrelated people who can afford $1500/month or $500 per person. A family or single professional may not be able to afford what three unrelated people can. Eastham suggested that two duplexes at $800/month would be more affordable and would give about the same rental income. Greer states that this would assume that the existing structures were duplexes as opposed to adding on another structure. She is not sure that a property owner would have much incentive to convert an existing structure when the rental income would be about equal to the current rental income. Greer stated that she appreciates the consideration of the Commission and appreciates the City's role in improving the neighborhood. Brooks opened the floor to public discussion. Suzanne Bentler (520 S. Governor) lives in one of the homes that is going to release their duplex permit. When they first bought their house, they lived in an apartment off the garage while they saved money to move into the house to start renovating. They still rented after they moved in, using it as a duplex. They have since decided to relinquish their duplex permit. Her family is excited to have the home and to be in the neighborhood. Bentler read a letter from Grace and Whitey Piro (521 S. Governor), long term residents of the neighborhood who supported the rezoning. Bentler stated that she has enjoyed getting to know the neighbors and the neighbors have appreciated seeing the improvements that they have made. Bentler is also a landlord who owns a duplex in the neighborhood and is supportive from both positions. Eastham asked about the tenants in Bentler's duplex. She responded that one half of the duplex is a single woman with a disability and the other is a student. Mark Russo (614 Clark St.) moved to the area three years ago from NE Iowa. Russo and his wife bought an old Mennonite church and have spent the last years converting the church into a home. His wife was familiar with the Summit and Governor Street areas. She had lived at the corner of Burlington and Summit for many years. They were looking for a neighborhood which would not be compromised by uncontrolled expansion and which would have a buffer from the younger people. They considered the Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2007 Page 4 Longfellow and Governor/Summit Street neighborhoods. Governor Street provided a risky option because of the zoning. Their intent was to buy a home (Russo is a builder) and turn it into a comfortable, single-family residence. He is in favor of the proposal because Clark Street. is a wonderful, diverse neighborhood. It is close to the school and downtown. It has all the amenities of Governor, but enjoys slightly more zoning protection. He feels that the Peninsula development seems to be a City-funded effort to recreate a neighborhood very similar to the one that the applicant here lives in. The difference is that this neighborhood is very close to town and doesn't cost any money to taxpayers. He feels that this is a wonderful neighborhood and that the City has a great stake in preserving and enhancing this neighborhood. Miklo clarified that the City paid for the original concept plan for the Peninsula Neighborhood and then sold the property to a private developer. The streets and homes are being built with private money and not City funds. Brooks closed public discussion. Brooks stated that he felt that it was possible to vote tonight. However, there may be some people who are in opposition but were not able to come due to the inclement weather. Eastham stated that he would like to defer this application because of the significant effects that it will have on the neighborhood. He feels that it would be wise for the Commission to express and discussion their opinions tonight. . Smith agreed with Eastham that discussion should take place tonight. Brooks would like to allow at least a couple of meetings for people to voice their concerns. Walz has taken several phone calls from people both in the neighborhood and outside of it. None of those calls have been negative. The only negative opinion is the email from Mike Sandersfeld who would like his property excluded. Smith feels that this is not a development or a decision that is holding someone at bay. The area is doing well and will continue to do so for the next two weeks until a decision can be made. He is struggling with the one lot (416 S. Governor - Mike Sandersfeld) which is not fully in support. Because this property is on the fringe, he doesn't see the rationale of including this property in a voluntary rezoning when the rezoning is involuntary as applied to him. He would like to amend the zoning to not include this lot so that someone who is not in support is not included. He would like the opportunity to work with this owner. Eastham is hesitant to vote tonight for the same reasons as Smith. He notes that there are 30 addresses in the application; 18 addresses express support for the rezoning but very few of the one-house rental addresses have indicated whether they are in favor or not. He would like to give them another meeting to express their concerns. Plahutnik agrees with Smith that two weeks will not make much of a difference. He is happy to be sitting on a commission that can look back and see how their decisions have positively affected neighborhoods as the previous conservation zone has done in this area. Brooks feels that it is reasonable to defer so they can get the support of as many people as they can. Plahutnik suggested that Smith look at the zoning proposal as far as whether Sandersfeld's property was on the fringe of the zoning or not. Staff has identified this area as the natural break and that good zoning is good for the neighborhood whether it is in the center or on the edge. Smith feels that if the house was in the middle of the zoning request, you couldn't spot zone the house another way. He knows that if the majority feels that this decision is in the best interest of the community, the single owner might be outvoted. Since the boundary was drawn in the middle of the block, he doesn't Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2007 Page 5 see what the harm would be in not including the house. He asked Miklo about the possibility of amending the application to exclude this home. Miklo stated that the applicant would have to indicate whether or not they consented to the amendment. Eastham confirmed that the current applicants are Martha Greer and Suzanne Bentler. Smith made a motion to defer the application to March 15. Koppes seconded. Eastham felt that this application was straightforward until he read through the information provided by the staff. There are 30 properties in this application: 23 single-house properties, 4 duplex properties (1 is being converted so there will eventually be three), and 3 multi-family properties. Nine of the single house properties are currently used for rental purposes. The purpose of the application is to inhibit the expansion of rental uses in the area by eliminating duplex conversion. However, there are only 3 duplexes in the 30 units and he doesn't see much of an indication that there has been a recent pattern of increased duplex conversion. He doesn't feel that eliminating the possibility of duplex conversion will change the rental occup.ancy in the area. He was surprised at the number of single-family units that are used for rental in this area. One third of the total single homes are used for rental purposes. Most of them are probably used by unrelated people because most have a permit for 4 unrelated people. He feels that the actual change in zoning which would inhibit duplex conversion would have very little effect on the conversion to rental uses because the value of the remaining single-family homes is very similar to the current single-family homes that are used for rental purposes. . He wonders why there is a market for 3 unrelated people to want to rent a single occupancy home. He stated that a single person could pay $500 a month and the rent earned would be $1500, which is the house purchasing equivalency for one family who earns $60,000 a year. Most of the remaining single- family houses could be purchased by families making $60,000 a year. He feels that it is likely that rental usage will continue in this area even with RS-8 zoning because the market is there and the housing prices are appropriate. Eastham felt that if duplex conversion is prohibited, single-family, lower-income renter occupants will not be able to move into this area. A family making $30,000 a year can afford approximately $800 in rent. You could not afford to rent a single-family home on this budget. He feels that if people want to preserve the neighborhood and increase the number of single-family homes, they should convert the duplexes and make them more attractive to single-family renters. He feels that this will attract single-family renters and also possibly some students. He still thinks that this will be a better situation than having only student renters able to move into the area. He is struggling to understand why this is a good idea and wonders if this is the best idea if the purpose is to encourage people to stay in the neighborhood longer. Eastham encourages people to respond to his comments at the public input session at the next meeting. Shannon stated that he was on the commission when this rezoning was approved (at that time it was RNC-12, not RNS-12). He thought that the neighborhood was in its decline. He compares this situation to Johnson Street, which has been converted to all multi-family and looks like parts of New Jersey. He is glad that the zoning worked out for the neighborhood and that they have stabilized it. He would like to see everyone happy and would like to see the one disgruntled lot owner be excluded from the rezoning or be supportive of this application. Brooks stated that a deferment would allow Walz and the applicants to discuss the northern boundary of the application with the person who is not in full support. Motion carried unanimously. Development Item Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2007 Page 6 SUB07 -00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Todd and Debra Hahn for a preliminary plat of Mount Prospect Addition Part IX, a 16-lot, 5.21 acre residential subdivision located on Lakeside Drive, west of Amber Lane. Miklo stated that the property was zoned RS-5 which allows single-family homes on lots of 8000 square feet or larger. A special exception was granted in the mid-1990's for a church. The church was never built and the property is being sold to developers to create this residential subdivision. The subdivision would consist of one new street, called Aniston Street, that would intersect with Lakeside Drive. There would be 16 lots and an out lot that would provide access to the trail network. Storm water management would be sent to the Sycamore/Greenway regional storm water management system. There would be no storm water facilities on the property. The property contains some hydric soils near the center of the site. There are no'jurisdictional wetlands on the site so the Sensitive Areas Ordinance for wetlands does not apply. The plat will have to include a drain able base for the street to deal with the hydric soils. It is estimated that this subdivision would generate approximately 112 vehicle trips per day onto Lakeside Drive. This is in compliance with the amount of traffic expected on a collector street. The revised plat has no deficiencies. Staff recommends approval. Koppes asked about the normal cul-de-sac length that is recommended by the City'. Miklo stated that this cul-de-sac is between 650 and 700 feet. The maximum allowed is 900 feet. Applicant Scott Ritter with Hart Friedricks Consultants stated that he was here to answer any questions for the Commission. There were none. Brooks opened the floor for public discussion. Paul Bethke (12 Amber Lane) owns property to the east of the proposed construction. He presented a petition from his 6th grade daughter which has been signed by her friends and class,mates. Bethke asked about the location of the sidewalk connecting with the trailway. He wasn't sure if it would be heading south or west. Miklo pointed this location out on the map for Bethke. It leads east from near the end of the cul-de-sac to the existing trail. Bethke thought that the church had turned over the ownership of the extension from Lakeside Drive to the trail over to the City so it could finish building the trail. He asked if this property is now for sale. Miklo responded that the trail in this area was an easement over the church's property and with this plat it will be dedicated to the City. Bethke asked when ground would be broken for this construction. Miklo stated that a final plat must be submitted before that point and ground wouldn't be broken before spring. Bethke asked if property values would be commensurate with recent values in the area, especially Stanwick which is the newest development in that area. Brooks stated the City has no control over the prices of the homes but that he assumes because the lot size is similar to the existing, that the prices would also be similar. Bethke would like to know if this would put any pressure on Grant Wood Elementary which is already pretty full. He assumes that these lots will be purchased by families with school age children. Koppes stated that Bethke needs to bring this issue to the school board. Bethke stated that his children are very concerned with keeping the field. They knew that eventually the area would be developed and they are glad that the church was not built because it would have caused even more problems than they are currently facing with this development. Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2007 Page 7 He is concerned about early morning construction with small children living all along the street. He is also concerned from experience with past construction projects about flooding and about construction related trash blowing into his property. He stated that the greenway floods frequently, especially at the first intersection of Lakeside extension and the Stanwick part of the trail. He said it has been almost constantly flooded for the past week. Miklo stated that this area does contain storm water and he is not sure if it was designed to flood or not. He recommended that Bethke bring this to the attention of the City Engineer. Brooks asked Bethke to thank his daughter for the petition and suggested that a copy be given to the developer. Brooks closed public discussion. Motion: Eastham motioned to approve. Freerks seconded. Koppes would like to ensure that a stop sign is installed at the end of the new street since it is so close to the Grant Wood Elementary School entryway. Miklo stated that this can be addressed by the City Traffic Engineer. Eastham asked if there were stop signs on Amber Lane and Koppes indicated that she thought there were. Motion was approved 7-0. SUB07-0002/SUB07-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by American Bank & Trust for a preliminary plat and final plat of Olde Towne Village Part 2, a 3-lot, 1.82-acre commercial subdivision located south of Rochester Avenue and east of Scott Boulevard. In November, the Commission approved a site plan for this lot as well as the two adjacent lots. The plat before the Commission will not change the site plan, but will divide one plot into three separate plots. There will still be three buildings and the parking lot and landscaping will be the same. The only difference is that the individual building owners will own the land under their property rather than owning it in common in a condominium association. The plat as submitted is in order and staff recommends approval subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Brooks stated that his understanding was that the platting process is to facilitate the subdivision and purchase of the land by different buyers. The prior plan as approved in November stays in tact. Adam Bohr with McClare Engineering (applicant) came forward to address any questions from the Commission. He confirmed that nothing will be changed on the design. Brooks opened and closed public discussion. Motion: Freerks motioned to approve. Koppes seconded. Motion was approved 7-0. Election of Officers Smith asked about the time line for changing posts. Miklo stated that the new officers would take their positions at the next meeting and would serve for a year. Eastham stated that the by-laws state that officers would be elected at the first meeting in February or soon after as possible. Brooks stated that the elections have usually been postponed due to absence in the commission or other circumstances. Eastham nominated Freerks for the position of chair. Motion carried unanimously. Freerks nominated Eastham for the position of vice-chair. Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2007 Page 8 Eastham nominated Plahutnik for the position of secretary. Motion carried unanim~usly. Other Items Miklo brought to the Commission's attention a recent Supreme Court case regarding a rezoning in Dubuque. The Iowa Supreme Court overturned a rezoning because of ex parte communication (discussion outside of a public meeting). The City Attorney prepared a memo directing the City Council on how to react to this decision. The Council needs to act as a quasi-judicial body which is a fairly high standard. If there is communication, it should be announced at the meeting who the communication was with and what the nature of the communication was. Everyone should have the same information. The Commission's by- laws are already stated in this way. The American Planning Association recommends that, if a Commission member is approached by someone at home or on the street that the member encourage them to come to the meeting and discuss the issue or put the communication in writing. If the communication cannot be avoided, it should be announced at the meeting. There will be a change in procedure in how the Council deals with rezonings. Now, the Council discusses them at their Monday informal meetings with their staff presentation. This will now occur at the Tuesday meeting so that the public is also aware of the staff presentation. In terms of the Commission's attendance, they would need to attend the formal meetings on Tuesday instead. . When the code is being amended broadly and does not affect a certain property, this is a legislative decision and these rules do not apply. Eastham confirmed that the City Attorney is not suggesting that the P&Z Commission's current practice of discussing rezoning applications at the informal meeting needs to be changed. Miklo confirmed this and stated that the informal meeting should only be used to gather information and not to make up your mind about how you will vote. You should not make up your mind until you've heard the last of the public input. Koppes asked about the capital improvement project for Sycamore Street. Miklo stated that the current end of the pavement to the city limits is currently in the plan for 2009. Miklo stated that it is very important that Sycamore Street stay in the budget because the City has approved some zonings that have allowed limited or no access to Sycamore Street until it is improved. Smith stated that he would not be available for the next meeting. Eastham stated he would not be there either. Koppes will be here on Thursday but is not sure about Monday. Eastham asked if there was any possibility that the discussion of the Governor Street rezoning application be moved to a meeting where all Commission members are present. Miklo stated that the date of the next meeting has already been announced to the public. Miklo stated that the Commission has met during spring break before. Even with Freerks steeping out on this application, there will be a sufficient number of people. In order for the application to be approved, all four present members would have to vote in favor. The application could also be deferred again if the applicant agrees. Consideration of the February 15. 2007 Meetina Minutes Smith motioned to approve. Eastham seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Adiournment Meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Minutes submitted by Megan Weiler. s/pcd/minutes/p&zJ2007/3-1-07.doc e o '; en 's E o o'E mo ,: g e~ o NCD"" ~ug eN mC'll e"C .- e e CD ~~ 0- ~ o ; ..2 .... 0 x x x x x x x - M 10 LU LU .... X X X 0 0 0 X - N .... 0 X X X X X X x N 00 .... X X X X X X X - .... 1Il a 00 ....... a 00 E.~ ..- ..- ..- ..- a a ..- a ..- - - - - - - - Q) x I.C) I.C) I.C) I.C) I.C) I.C) I.C) I-w a a 0 a a a a E ~ e II) ~ II) .s 0 ca CD e Q) ~ i ... Q. = .s::. E 0 CD Q. .s::. c ~ e ! ca ca E Cll 0 .s::. Z l:D w u. :.:: i[ U) U) C!J z i= w w :IE ...J <( :IE ~ o u. CD W N X X X 0 X X x N en w N X X X X X 0 X - .... 1Il a 00 E.a a ..- 00 ....... ..- ..- ..- a 0 ..- a ..- - - - in - - - Q)x I.C) I.C) I.C) I.C) I.C) I.C) I-w a a 0 0 a a a E ~ e ~ ~ en '2 0 C'll ~ - e .c ::I :5 0 '1i) CD .s::. e Q) e Q. C'll 's C'll e ~ C'll .c Em w u. ii: tn tn ro IIi (,) <i. ui ~ ci ...: z C!J z i= w w :IE ...J <( ~ o u. ~ u Q) 1Il :J o X W --:;:. c: c c Q)Q)Q) 1Il1ll1ll ~.c.c c..<t<t .. 1\ 1\ II >- W Q) - ~xoo