HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2008 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
220 S. Gilbert Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Comprehensive Plan Item:
An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the 2007 Historic Preservation Plan,
which contains policies and recommendations for the identification, preservation and
regulation of historic landmarks, properties and neighborhoods.
D. Other:
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 20, 2007 & January 2, 2008
F. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
Commission Meetin s:
Maroh3 Maroh17
Maroh6 Maroh20
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
January 17, 2008
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
From:
Robert Miklo
Re:
Historic Preservation Plan
At its January 10 meeting the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the
proposed revisions to the Neighborhood Stabilization and Home Ownership Incentive
Program sections of the Historic Preservation Plan. The HPC approved the revised
language (copy attached). They also agreed to include the proposal for Downtown historic
and conservation districts in the Executive Summary. These proposals are currently found
on page 70 to 72 of the plan.
design for construction of new secondary buildings, what may be negotiable, etc.
6. Study real estate and economic impact of district designation on market values and tax
assessments in other previously designated districts.
7. Confirm record of design review cases that have been problems versus those that were
approved in other districts-cite specific numbers.
8. Stress good news about post-tornado stories as an example of the best and worst that can
come from a natural disaster pushing a design review process "to-the max"; focus discussion
on large issues while also responding to narrower concerns.
Common objectives relating to Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization apply to older
residential neighborhoods throughout the community. They include recommendations for
education programs to increase public awareness of historic resources and encourage resident
involvement with preservation. They also include general neighborhood stabilization efforts
designed to make aging neighborhoods attractive places to live.
Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps:
1. Promote heritage education efforts at local elementary schools (especially those in older
neighborhoods such as Horace Mann, Longfellow, Lincoln, etc.) by supporting establishment
of a local history education program that includes information, tours and events connected
to historic districts.
2. Recruit and train potential district residents to serve on the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Commission.
3. Participate in an annual or bi-annual "District Forum" for historic and conservation district
representatives hosted by the HPC. The District Forum's agenda could vary but would
regularly provide a setting for sharing information about regulatory changes, exchanging
successful ideas among districts, and offering suggestions for solving problems that cross
district boundaries.
4. Parking problems though not specifically a preservation concern, are important for the
overall stabilization of neighborhoods. To address these concerns it is recommended
that neighborhood associations and the City, explore alternative methods of managing
parking. This might include a residential parking permit program in some areas, the use
of angle parking to increase the supply of parking spaces where appropriate, and the use of
"environmentally friendly" paving techniques when parking is added to back yards. When
addressing parking solutions the conflicting issues of increasing supply while minimizing
paving in a residential setting must be considered.
5. The City should remain vigilant in addressing complaints regarding issues such as zoning
violations, removal of snow from sidewalks, weed removal and trash control that affect
neighborhood quality of life. In some locations, targeted code enforcement may be
appropriate to address perceived neighborhood decline.
6. PIOluote neiglibodlood ~tabiliLatjoll tl1fougll dIe comer sion of rental proper tie~ to ovvner-
occupied residences 01 duplexes bJ el1couragil1g homeov,rnership, developing, a Home
7. Establish a "user-friendly" technical assistance effort for property owners by implementing
64
the Technical Assistance Steps also listed below.
8. Develop and fund a program to alleviate lead-based paint for residential landmarks and
buildings in historic and conservation districts that is sensitive to their architectural
character.
The increasing importance of establishing technical assistance as a "user-friendly effort" was
identified as an important strategy for many neighborhoods, including those already established
as historic or conservation districts, or in some cases, where designation efforts have not begun.
The Technical Assistance Steps below and referred to by reference for specific neighborhoods and
districts provide a menu of activities for the HPC, Friends, and neighborhood associations to use
over time to help property owners who are planning improvements to their buildings-including
work that is outside the scope of formal design review but important to overall up-keep and
building preservation.
Technical Assistance Steps:
1. Develop a historic preservation technical assistance program as an on-going effort aimed at
developing and maintaining the capacity of historic district property owners to maintain or
restore their historic buildings.
2. Distribute an annual or semi-annual "historic preservation report" to property owners in
districts that includes information regarding design review efforts.
3. Add a "history corner" column in the neighborhood association newsletters received by
district residents with information on relevant subjects ranging from a do-it-yourself guide
for re-glazing windows to where the neighborhood ghosts reside to why moisture trapped
in exterior walls leads to peeling paint and dry rot. These columns could be collected at the
City website, indexed, and/or printed annually for retention at the public library.
4. Develop special topic publications in response to resident suggestions and needs identified
by the design review process.
5. Deliver technical assistance and public awareness information through neighborhood
newsletters and website(s), and direct communications with district residents, including
email.
A neighborhood strategy that crosses district and neighborhood boundaries involves the creation
of a program to encourage owner-occupancy as a stabilizing measure. The need for such a
program was identified in various neighborhood meetings and interviews. In communities
around the country, such programs are usually targeted at populations that are at or below
median income levels. Some ofIowa City's most affordable single-family homes are in northeast
Goosetown and parts of Longfellow. Potential funding sources for such a program might include
Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and major employers. The basic components of a
Home Ownership Incentive Program focusing on neighborhood stabilization are outlined below.
Home Ownership Incentive Program
1. Consider the primary goal for such program as neighborhood stabilization
2. Establish the program through the cooperation of one or more lenders. Consider CDBG/
65
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The update of preservation strategies for specific neighborhoods that follows is organized
alphabetically within larger "Planning Districts" that were adopted by the City in 1997. The
city has been divided into ten such Planning Districts including five containing historic areas
discussed below. Within these Planning Districts, other terms are used to describe various
neighborhood groups. The term "historic district" (HD) refers to a contiguous area that has been
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, designated by local ordinance, and/or both.
Historic districts are significant because of their architecture, historical associations, and other
visual attributes. The term "conservation district" (CD) applies to a local designation for areas that
share a common character, which may include both visual and historical qualities, but because of
physical integrity concerns, does not qualify as a historic district. Both local historic districts and
conservation districts are protected through a design review process administered through the
Historic Preservation Commission.
The term "neighborhood" is used is several manners in the discussion that follows. When
the word is capitalized, it refers to one of the areas of the city organized through the Office of
Neighborhood Services in the Planning and Community Development Department. This City
program supports and encourages neighborhood action and provides ideas and resources that
can help shape the future of a neighborhood. Neighborhoods actively organized in the historic
areas include the Northside, GoosetoWll, College Green, Longfellow, Melrose Avenue, Manville
Heights, Oak Grove. Morningside/Glendale, and Shimek.
The terms "neighborhood" or "corridor" are used to describe areas that have been formally
surveyed through the Historic Preservation Commission or are recommended for surveying
to determine their eligibility as a local historic district, conservation district, and/or National
Register district. A summary of the status for completed and future neighborhood objectives
appears at the end of this section on page 109.
Downtown Planning District:
66
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 20, 2007-7:30 PM
MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A LEE RECREATION CENTER
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Brooks, Charles Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Dean
Shannon, Terry Smith
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Wally Plahutnik
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Bob Miklo, Adam Ralston, Tim Weitzel
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Danielson, Judith Pascoe, Claire Sponsler, Jim Ponto, Helen
Burford, Cecile Kuenzli, Mark McCallum, Jean Walker, Mike Haverkamp, Glen Meisner, Kevin
Digmann, Amy Charles, Melinda Paulsen
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL(become effective onlv after separate Council action):
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Plahutnik absent), SUB04-00011: an application
submitted by John Oaks Estate for final plat of Lyn-Den Heights Part III, a 2-lot, 38.67-acre
residential subdivision located on Rapid Creek Road NE.
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting order at 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the 20007 Historic Preservation Plan,
which contains policies and recommendations for the identification, preservation and regulation of
historic landmarks, properties and neighborhoods.
Weitzel, Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, discussed three issues that were raised
at the P & Z work session.
The first issue was in regards to the University as a steward. He said that while the City cannot
create mandates for the University, it is still a worthy goal to pursue cooperative efforts to
preserve historic structure on University property. He thinks a City and University task force would
be the best place to address issues.
The second topic was the Downtown area. He displayed a diagram showing the downtown area
with a smaller historic district surrounded by a larger conservation district. He said such a plan
would trigger a better chance for federal and state tax credits. He said the details regarding
administration of the proposed districts have yet to be planned out. He said a similar plan was laid
out in previous years, but the problem was getting in contact with the property owners (not the
merchants). He said the plan calls for a fa~ade program to improve historic store fronts. He said
the districts will help with economic development by creating a pleasing shopping environment,
help rebuild the existing area, and create a greater shopping potential that will increase the tax
base for the City.
The third subject Weitzel spoke about was affordable and environmentally sustainable housing.
He said traditional building materials and methods are often more affordable when compared to
modern alternatives, as well as being repairable. For instance,. many modern windows must be
thrown out if they are damaged, while traditional windows can be repaired. Preserving traditional
materials is economically and ecologically sustainable. He mentioned that large old buildings
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 20, 2007
Page 2
could be repurposed as residential housing rather than being torn down. He mentioned that
building renovations, when part of a historic district, can apply for federal and state tax credits.
He said preserving older homes helps preserve affordable housing stock. He said that less than
half the residents of Iowa City own a home, which highlights the need for affordable rental
properties as well as affordable owner-occupied property. He cited studies that show diverse,
mixed housing helps with neighborhood dynamics, vitality, and stability. He said when more than
50% of the housing stock in a neighborhood becomes rental you start to have problems
particularly in a college town. He distributed possible revisions to pages 64-66 of the Preservation
Plan. He said the draft revisions were intended to address the concerns raised by Eastham and
Brooks about emphasizing owner-occupied over rental. He also distributed handouts about
ownership programs that have been used to stabilize neighborhoods in cities like Dubuque and
Philadelphia.
Eastham brought up his concern that the Historic Preservation Commission work closely with the
market analysis for the Downtown. Weitzel said there couldn't be a historic district without the
consent of the landowners, so the goals of the market analysis would have to be part of the
process.
Miklo described the proposed changes in language in the Historic Preservation Plan that may
clarify the concern about owner-occupied and rental housing. He said number six of
Communication and Neighborhood Stabilization Steps on page 64 was changed from, "Promote
neighborhood stabilization through the conversion of rental properties to owner-occupied
residences or duplexes by encouraging homeownership, developing a Homeownership Incentive
Program such as outlined below," to, "In areas where housing condition surveys show the need
for reinvestment, promote neighborhood stabilization through ,a Homeownership Incentive
Program such as outlined below." Number one of Home Ownership Incentive Program on page
65 had proposed additional wording, changing it from, "Consider the primary goal for such
program as neighborhood stabilization by encouraging an increase in owner-occupied
properties," to include "".where housing conditions indicate a need for reinvestment."
Number three on page 66 struck the wording, "Initially target the program at specific
neighborhoods that are locally designated historic or conservation districts. Extend the program to
all new districts upon designation." The proposed wording read, "Target the program to
neighborhoods where housing conditions indicate a need for reinvestment, for areas where the
percentage of owner-occupied dwellings are less than 50% and for areas that contain small
affordable dwellings that are suitable for first time homebuyers."
Number four on page 66, which read, "Make available a package of incentives aimed at
converting buildings containing rental units to owner-occupied single-family dwellings or
duplexes," was struck completely.
Eastham expressed his continued concern that a Historic Preservation Plan should have its
primary goal as preserving historic structures, not a program targeting neighborhoods. Miklo said
he felt the purpose was broader than simply preserving buildings. Eastham said that he felt that a
home ownership program that is part of the preservation plan should be limited to historic and
conservation districts and should not be expanded to neighborhoods in general.
Public discussion was opened.
Judith Pascoe, 317 Fairchild Street. said she has lived in Goosetown for several vears and now
lives in the North side. She said that she is currentlv the coordinator of the Northside
Neighborhood Association. She expressed her interest in the plan, especially the homeowner
incentives, because she said neighborhoods close to downtown face a lot of pressure from high
housing prices especially for rental properties. She said, historically, zoning allowed a high
number of tenants in a structure, which now makes the price of buying a property and converting
in back into a single-family dwelling prohibitive. While current zoning regulations may have
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 20, 2007
Page 3
changed, she said existing rental homes are grandfathered in, making the likelihood of a change
back to owner-occupied highly unlikely. She also mentioned the constant pressure to turn single
owner-occupied houses into rental properties because of the financial incentive. She said while
residents of close-in neighborhoods are happy with a mixture of owner and rental properties, she
feels it will take an incentive program to keep the balance in check, because the pressure is to go
to rental. She said the owner occupancy incentive program is necessary to help stabilize these
close-in neighborhoods.
Claire Sponsler, 413 Gilbert Street" said she would like to support the integrity of the focus vision,
as well as second Pasco's opinions. She said she thinks the possibility of an incentive program
tipping a rental property back into owner-occupied is especially important in areas that are historic
but don't have the official designation because those are the areas that are most at risk for losing
neighborhood stability and their historic buildings. She said she participated in the preservation
planning process when the owner occupancy incentive was proposed. She said it was a direct
response to concerns expressed by neighbors at those meetings
Jim Ponto, 618 Brown Street, said he is the Brown Street representative on the Historic
Preservation Commission. He said the Plan is especially important for areas at risk of losing
stability and historic structures, as well as existing districts. He also would like to see balance of
owner-occupied structures and rentals. He said that the Brown Street historic district helped to
stabilize the neighborhood.
Helen Burford, 528 College Street, who works with Friends of Historic Preservation, said that over
the years there has not been an active community effort to develop financial incentive programs
for historic preservation. She would like to see a "road map" for home ownership incentives for
people who are interested in historic properties and the assistance programs that are available.
Kuenzli, member of Friends of Historic Preservation, and active member of the Longfellow
Association, said if someone is concerned with affordable housing in Iowa City, then he or she
should do what the Plan is encouraging without weakening the language or hiding the meaning.
She stressed that just because a neighborhood is "historic" does not mean it is full of large, fancy
houses. Many historic districts are made up of small, modest homes, she said. She gave an
example of a house that recently went on the market. She said a Friends of Historic Preservation
member approached the owner with an offer to buy and restore the property as an affordable
single-family home, but the homeowner laughed, saying a Realtor had offered a much higher
sum, and now the house is divided up into rental property stuffed full of "many bodies." Kuenzli
said this is a perfect example of how the Historic Preservation Plan could have lead to affordable
housing, but instead the property turned into a rental. She said people are afraid to buy houses in
neighborhoods where that is the pattern. She said think of older neighborhoods where houses are
smaller and therefore more affordable. She urged the preservation of such neighborhoods.
Mark McCallum, a Realtor and landlord, spoke about affordable housing and tweaking multifamily
zones. He said if Iowa City isn't going to offer enough affordable housing in modern apartments
(referring to one bedroom units, rather than three or four bedrooms), then the issue is going to
spill over into historic districts because developers will see older structures with grandfather
clauses to be all the more desirable. He said recently a building in his neighborhood with small
one-bedroom rentals was torn down and replaced by the same number of units but each unit had
four bedrooms. He said as a result those units are no longer affordable. He cited disincentives,
such as parking space requirements, for building smaller, affordable rental housing.
Jean Walker, 325 Lucon Drive" spoke about the consequences of a home turning into a rental
property, such as cars being parked on the grass, the yards torn up, and the interior home
structure being abused. She also addressed the University of Iowa's impact on neighborhoods
near the University. She said it is an "unlevel playing field" because if the University buys a
property that falls within a historic area it can do what it likes-.up to tearing the property down.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 20, 2007
Page 4
She said this is a concern in her neighborhood and wishes to see the preservation plan provide
support for the preservation of these neighborhoods.
Michael Haverkamp, President of Friends of Historic Preservation, said many people in the
community have been a part of creating the Plan during the last year and a half, and it has been
well considered. He said there was a lot of input at the neighborhood level. He was happy that
there were few questions from Planning and Zoning, and he said understood the Commission's
concern over affordable housing. He said the pressures felt in many of Iowa City's historic
neighborhoods are somewhat unique, in that unlike other urban areas, historic preservation here
is not a form of gentrification used to take low-income owners out of the equation. He stressed
that the Plan is trying to help sensitive neighborhood back into what they were originally planned
for-single-family housing. He encouraged the Commission to endorse the plan.
Freerks closed the public hearing and opened discussion for the Board.
Motion: Eastham made a motion to defer to the next meeting because this was the first public
meeting held on the item, and the first substantial revision of the Historic Preservation Plan in 15
years. Smith seconded the motion.
Smith asked for clarification of the Planning and Zoning Commission's role in the Historic
Preservation Plan. Miklo explained that because the Historic Preservation Plan is proposed to be
part of the Comprehensive Plan, it is the Commission's role to make a recommendation to the
City Council. Miklo said that although there are zoning issued discussed in the plan, such as
Historic District overlay zones, there are also non-zoning issued, such as economic development
and neighborhood stabilization proposal that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not deal
with on a regular basis. The Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the Council. The
Commission could recommend revisions to the draft and those could be sent back to the Historic
Preservation Commission for their review. If the Historic Preservation Commission does not
concur with the changes recommended by Planning and Zoning, then the City Council would
need to decide which draft to accept. Smith confirmed that Planning and Zoning have the option
of
Smith confirmed that the Commission had the options of recommending amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan to include the Preservation Plan as drafted, to propose changes or reject the
proposal and the current language in the Comprehensive Plan would stay. Miklo said he thought
that the first two options are correct but if the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
against amending the Comprehensive Plan, then the City Council would decide.
Freerks said that at the informal meeting there were four items that the Commission had questions
about and staff and the Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission had responded with the
information in a memo and proposed changes to the language of the Preservation Plan. She asked
if the Commission would like to give some direction on those items.
Eastham said he is in favor of the historic preservation. He said that goal two of the plan had
several objective aimed on improving the historic preservation review process. He
suggested that it might be prudent of the Historic Preservation Commission to agree to
accomplishing most of the objectives in goal two before they move on to proposing any new
conservation districts. Freerks and Koppes disagreed, saying that would be denying the
opportunity for new districts. Miklo said the Historic Preservation Commission sets annual goals
for work to be accomplished and it was his understanding the objectives in goal two were high on
Historic Preservation's list so that they would likely accomplish many of those before they moved
on to pursuing additional districts, but there was no guarantee of that.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 20, 2007
Page 5
Smith said he echoed what Eastham had said. He was concerned that the plan has centered on
affordable housing, home ownership incentives, and multifamily housing, rather than the core
objectives of historic preservation.
Weitzel cited the consultants who are preservationists and urban planners who developed the
plan and said historic preservation starts off as a good way to preserve buildings and history, but
then dovetails into a way to preserve and stabilize neighborhoods, and create economic
development. He said that preservation is not just about historic buildings but is a tool for
improving the quality of life for neighborhoods. He cited Brown Street and Iowa Avenue as
examples. He said that the mission statement is to protect, identify, and improve quality of life
and economic use of historic buildings and areas for this generation and future generations.
Smith said while he agrees with the stated goals of the Historic Preservation Plan, what he
struggles with is the attempt to identify the "problem," and what much of the conversation seems
to be centered on as the problem are students and the University's failure to build enough
housing for the growing student population so they are spreading out into neighborhoods. Smith
said the Commission has been trying to make some changes to counter that, which he considers
to be a good thing, however, he noted a developer who made a proposal to the Commission a
few weeks earlier for high-density student housing. The developer advocated the project had
similar goals as Historic Preservation Commission's goals, yet it was denied. Smith said he feels
the Commission has been somewhat disingenuous, and needs to think about what their solution
to the student-housing problem is if they support these goals. He said the Commission can't flip-
flop objectives on different projects.
Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan does address the housing issue, and identified the area south
of Burlington Street as an area of growth for high-density housing. He said they are talking with
the above-mentioned developer about a five-story building, rather than 12-story building. It would
be about 300 - 400 bedrooms per acre (still a high density) rather than the 830 originally proposed.
He said the point is the City had identified an area south of downtown for high density housing and
that was what we were getting and that might take pressure off historic neighborhoods.
Eastham said he thought that the more dense project represented vertical density and that
addressed the student housing problem fairly well. He said he had asked the City Attorney's Office
if the City could more directly regulate student housing and identify if there were certain zones from
which students could be excluded. Greenwood-Hektoen said she did not think that would be a
permissible land use regulation, but if the majority of the Commission would like to explore it, she
would research the question further. Freerks asked if the majority of the Commission would like to
research this idea. Eastham said he did not wish to pursue the issue further.
Koppes said we need to be careful when we say we turned down high-density zoning applications
that could have helped stabilize close-in neighborhoods. She said the same argument was used
with the Lodge, but it was only speculation that it benefited older neighborhoods. Shannon said he
thinks if you want to take the pressure off neighborhoods you do need to provide high rise or higher
density somewhere. He said he thought that older neighborhoods would come back but agreed
that groups of students are hard on older houses. Having been a landlord in the past he said he had
first hand experience.
Brooks said he would be more comfortable voting for, and moving forward with, the Historic
Preservation Plan if the Historic Commission had voted upon, and approved, the proposed
changes in language.
Miklo said the Commission had options: take the document back to the Historic Preservation
Commission with the proposed language changes, propose some amendments to go on to the
City Council, or take it back to the Historic Preservation Commission, see if they agree, and if
they do, then jointly recommend it to the City Council.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 20, 2007
Page 6
Brooks said he wanted more clarification on how the downtown would be affected by the Historic
Preservation Plan. Miklo directed the Commission to page 72, objective three of the Plan, which
proposes a small downtown historic district and a conservation district for other parts of
downtown. Brooks expressed concern that the information there did not come across in the
executive summary very strongly. He said he does not think the history of architecturally
significant downtown buildings, past merchants, and businesses are being taken seriously
enough. He said that without a downtown designation we could lose many of the historic buildings
which are as important as our historic neighborhoods. As a business owner in the hospitality
industry he gets lots of requests from guests for information about the historic nature of downtown.
He said that he feels the historic nature of downtown is a real asset for economic vitality.
He said he is also concerned that incentives be provided for preservation of historic structures
regardless of whether they are owner occupied or rental occupied. Miklo said that the City once
had a rehabilitation program for rental properties but it was discontinued back in the early 1990's.
He said that there was not a lot of interest in the program on the part of landlords due to the
requirement that rents be kept at the fair market level.
Koppes said she thinks the Plan does not go far enough in regards to the University and
neighborhood preservation.
Freerks called for an amendment to the motion to continue the discussion to January 17, 2008.
Eastham made the motion, and Smith seconded it. The motion carried 6-0 (Plahutnik absent).
REZONING ITEM:
REZ07-000016: Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning
from Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for
approximately 4.40 acres of property at 2815 Rohret Road.
Ralston presented maps and aerial photographs to the Commission, which detailed the site's
original farmhouse, out -buildings, topography and trees on the property, as well as buildings in
surrounding neighborhoods. He explained that Hodge Construction wants to demolish the house
and surrounding outbuildings and rebuild with a use that would be suitable for a CO-1 zone, for
example, a daycare. The site is currently zoned as RS-5 for residential use, and if it were rebuilt
for RS-5 it would yield approximately 10 residential lots. Ralston explained that the CO-1 zone
can serve as a buffer between residential, commercial, and industrial zones. He added that while
there are no commercial or industrial uses in the area, Highway 218 generates a significant
amount of noise, and as such, residential use may not be the most appropriate for the site. CO-1
uses are generally less sensitive to noise, but if residential uses are allowed on the second floor
of the property, Staff recommends a conditional zoning agreement and that will require the use of
sound dampening building techniques and materials. As far as the Comprehensive Plan, Ralston
said the Southwest District Plan identified the property, and states that low-intensity, non-
residential uses, such as a childcare center or a small religious institution, might be appropriate.
He added that CO-1 zones are designed to be adjacent to residential areas, and there are homes
located to the north and west of the site.
Records indicate that the farmhouse on the property was built around 1900, but there is
documentation to show the house is historic. He pointed out some steep grades on the property,
which will affect development, as well as several stands of mature trees, which should be
preserved as a noise buffer. He said the 2006 Traffic Survey counted 4,600 trips on Rohret Road,
while the road is indicated for a capacity of up to 12,000 daily trips. He said a CO-1 use would fall
well within the trip capacity of the road. The road also has sidewalks on both sides.
He said Staff recommends approval of the item subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement that
specifies four items:
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 20, 2007
Page 7
1. The trees along Highway 218 are preserved within an 80-foot right-of-way as a buffer.
2. If there are residential uses on this property, sound abating construction techniques be
used.
3. Parking will be located to rear of the building.
4. If parking will be located on the side, it will be to the west, not the east, due to the existing
residential uses to the east.
Brooks asked what the Comprehensive Plan indicates as possible uses for the land on the east
side of Highway 218 (across the highway from the site). Miklo said the Southwest District Plan
shows a north-south street that would enter into an area called the Carson Lake Neighborhood,
and the Plan shows neighborhood commercial in the area, specifically non-residential uses along
the highway that would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Meisner, with MMS consultants, said he and Hodge Construction are in agreement with all of the
conditional use items except number three, where there would be no parking allowed in the front
of the property. He said they would like to see eight parking spaces, maximum, including some
handicapped spots, at the front of the building as part of a proposed loop drive. He said front
parking is important because of a tree line in the middle of the site that will need to be preserved,
thus cutting into available space on the west side. He also said that the property is located on an
arterial street, and it is not unusual to have front parking on such a road. He said front parking
would be screened from Rohret Road to make it less visible. Meisner noted that if the property
were developed as a daycare it would be important to have convenient parking places at the front
of the building for parents dropping off and picking up their children.
Commissioners inquired about the trees and sensitive areas on the property, and Miklo said that
his office has not been able to do a full analysis of the property, but will know more when there is
a site plan proposal. Koppes said if it was put in the Conditional Zoning Agreement there would
be no question that the trees would be preserved. Eastham said it would be good to be specific
and identify the trees to be preserved on the plan.
Digmann spoke to the Commission about possible businesses Hodge Construction had
considered as occupants for the site, and said that they would need to be destination-type
establishments, such as a day care, religious center, or offices, none of which would require
highway access. He also agreed with Meisner that a limited number of front parking spaces would
be important-- one for the customers of the future business, and two, because of the terrain and
trees existing on the site. Digmann noted that it would be important to leave some open area as a
playground if the site develops as a daycare.
Freerks referenced letters of concern over "mature oaks," and asked Meisner about Hodge
Construction's intent to preserve trees, including those in areas not protected. Meisner said Mike
and Dave Hodge are the "biggest tree lovers you'll ever find" and their intent is always to keep as
many trees as they can.
Brooks asked about setback requirements, and Miklo said because of setback averaging, he
suspects the building could be no closer than 40 feet to Rohret Road. Brooks said he would
consider allowing parking in the front if the Board could place a 50-foot setback condition which
would give room for a circular drive and some good screening between the street and parking.
Amv Charles. 1341 Shannon Drive, said she is concerned about safety in the area. She cited
increasing police calls in the neighborhood, and she is worried that the proposed change in
zoning will further isolate the street, as there would be no residential uses facing the street. There
would not be anyone aware of what is happening along the street. She said if this is rezoned from
residential she would want to see a use, such as a community center or day care, which benefits
- ---..-.-.-.-----------.--
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 20, 2007
Page 8
the neighborhood. She questioned if it was zoned office what could go on this property. She also
was concerned about parking and said that a having a use that is not obviously residential would
not benefit the quality of the neighborhood.
Shannon asked for clarification about Charles concern about how this proposal would affect crime
in the neighborhood. Charles said that if this is developed with a non-residential use there would be
no houses for a long stretch. She said that if something happened on the street during the evening,
there would be no one to see it.
Melinda. 1427 Rainer Drive,Jold the Commission she thinks the traffic count numbers are
deceiving because at peak travel times people in the area can find it very difficult to pull out onto
Rohret Road, and she is concerned about added traffic and safety. She also is concerned about
trees she sees from the back of her home, property values, and run-off from the elevation change
from the proposed site to her property. She is concerned that there not be a restaurant with a
beer garden. Koppes suggested that Paulsen contact the traffic planner regarding her concerns
about traffic.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Brooks inquired about screening requirements. Miklo informed the Commission that there are
requirements when a commercial property borders a residential area. He said the requirements
include vegetation screening when parking areas are involved. He also pointed out that many of
the trees Paulsen was concerned about are actually on the condominium property.
Smith asked how staff felt about a limited number of parking spaces in front.
Miklo said that his Staff's main concern with front parking is that the site sits in a pleasant
residential area. They believe office and commercial uses can fit into a residential area as long as
they are not overly commercial. He said he thought a limited number of parking spaces, well
screened, could work. He said he would like to see a concept plan showing how that might work.
Motion: Brooks said he would like to see more detail, and made a motion to defer until January
2, 2008. Shannon seconded it. Freerks clarified which areas the Commission would like more
information and details on: a 50-foot setback from the street, eight parking spaces in front of the
building, the proposed circular drive, and protection of the grove that runs north and south
through the property. Brooks added that he would like some kind of statement on site lighting.
The board voted 6-0 (Plahutnik absent) to defer the vote until January 2, 2008.
SUBDIVISION ITEM:
SUB07-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by John Oaks Estate for a final plat
of Lyn-den Heights III, a 2-lot, 38.67 acre residential subdivision located at 4584 Rapid
Creek Road NE.
Ralston displayed an aerial photograph of the property to the Commission and said the final plat
would divide the property into two separate parcels, one to the west with the original house and
the second, called "Out-lot A," which would remain undeveloped. He said there had been no
changes in the application since the Commission's informal meeting, and Staff recommends
approval of the final plat.
Freerks called for questions to Staff. There were none. She then opened the pubic hearing.
Danielson, attorney for the estate, said the application for the final plat is to allow them to break
off the house from the rest of the property so they can settle the estate. He said it saves the
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 20, 2007
Page 9
balance of the subdivision for future development, and it is consistent with the road plan that is in
place.
Freerks called for questions from the Commission. There were none.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the final plat. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion
was approved 6-0 (Plahutnik absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 15, 2007
Freerks made a correction to the minutes, stating that she did not second the closing of the
meeting.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the corrected minutes. Brooks seconded it. The motion
was approved 6-0 (Plahutnik absent).
OTHER: DISCUSSION OF CAPITOL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Miklo said the document is the proposal the City Manager has set on to the City Council. The City
Council will be discussing it at their budget hearings in January. He noted that some items in the
plan had been shifted around including the Northside fire station and Sycamore Street.
Koppes said Sycamore Street is always on her list for improvements, as is Gilbert Street. She
also questioned American Legion Road and Lower West Branch Road. Miklo said Lower West
Branch Road was completed earlier in the year, and American Legion Road has a higher-grade
surface, and is in better shape, than other roads on the list. Koppes said she thinks the road
needs to stay on the Board's radar as more construction develops in the area.
Smith asked what things the Commission wants that are not included in the Plan. Members
discussed amongst themselves and concluded that they were in agreement with the document.
Motion: Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Brooks seconded it. The motion
carried 6-0 (Plahutnik absent).
C
o
'0
.!a
E
E
o
o'E
mo
C (.)
.- G>
Co:::
o
NG>l:;
oa(.)o
O);N
C"
.- C
C G>
Ct::
..!!:!<C
a.
~
C3
CIS
~
.2
C)
z
i=
w
w
:::IE
...J
<C
:::IE
0:::
o
u.
0 W
N >< >< >< >< >< ><
-. 0
N
....
.." W
.... >< >< >< >< >< ><
-. 0
....
....
co
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-.
0
....
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
0
....
0
N >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-.
en
CD W
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< -.
-. 0
co
N >< OW >< >< >< >< ><
-.
co
en >< >< >< >< W >< ><
.... 0
-.
.....
N W W
.... 0 >< >< >< 0 >< ><
-.
.....
.... W W W
!:::! 0 >< 0 >< >< >< -.
CD 0
t::: >< >< >< >< W >< ><
CD 0
.....
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
it)
C'? >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-.
.."
en
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-.
''It
.." W >< >< >< >< >< ><
~ 0
.." W
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< -.
-. 0
C'?
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-.
C'?
.." W W
.... >< >< >< 0 0 0 ><
-
N
.... >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
N
co >< >< >< >< >< ><
.... ><
-
....
l/) 0 co
E ~ 0 T""" co N T"""
T""" T""" 0 T""" T""" 52 T"""
ID .~ -. -. -. -. -. -.
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
III III III ~
.:.:: E .:.:: ~ C .c
0 ... C 0
CIS G> -
e e Q. - C 'E
a.> .c 0 ~ C
E - .c
m III u. ~ CIS UJ
ro . CIS . CIS . .c
Z ai ow <i. u.i 3=ii: CUJ ....:
C)
z
i=
w
w
:::IE
...J
<C
:::IE
0:::
o
u.
Z
..... w
.... >< >< x >< >< ><
- 0
N
....
C'? W
-. >< >< X >< >< ><
N 0
....
.... w w
e >< >< X: 0 0 >< ><
0
....
.... w w
C'? >< >< X >< -. >< 0
-. 0
.....
CD >< >< >< w w ><
.... X 0 0
-.
.....
en >< >< X w w >< w
-. 0 0 0
.....
co LU
.... >< >< 0 >< >< >< ><
-
CD
0
C'? >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
~
CD W
.... >< 0 >< >< >< >< ><
~
CD W
N >< >< >< 0 >< >< ><
-.
N
en w
N >< >< >< >< >< 0 ><
-.
....
l/) 0 co N 0 co
E ~ T""" T"""
T""" T""" 0 T""" T""" 0 T"""
ID .~ -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
I-w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E ~ C
III III III C 0
.:.:: CIS .:.:: ~ - C
0 .c ... ~ C .c
- G> .c -
a.> e III e CIS CIS 'E
CIS 0 .c
E m w u. ~ ii: UJ UJ
ro ai 0 <i. u.i 3= c:i ....:
z
"0
a.>
l/)
;j
(,)
><
w
--:;::,
c: c: c:
a.> a.> a.>
l/) l/) l/)
~.c.c
(1.<(<(
.. II II II
>. W
a.> -.
~><OO
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 2,2008--7:30
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL -- CITY HALL
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Brooks, Charles Eastham, Amy Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally
Plahutnik, Terry Smith
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Greenwood-Hektoen, Bob Miklo, Adam Ralston
OTHERS PRESENT: Glen Meisner, Lucy Wibbenmeiner, Meredith Paulsen, Amy Charles
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent) REZ07-00016, a rezoning from Low-Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to a Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 4.40 acres
of property at 2815 Rohret Road subject to a conditional zoning agreement specifying:
1. Existing healthy trees along Highway 218 within 80 feet of the highway right-of-way will be
preserved.
2. Sound abating construction techniques will be used if residential uses are developed on the
property.
3. Except for a passenger drop-off and pick-up area, parking areas, in excess of eight spaces, shall
be located behind the front plane of the building.
4. Parking areas will not be located between the east property line and any building on the property.
5. Minimum building setback of 50 feet.
6. Development on this property shall be in general conformance with the concept site plan attached
hereto and incorporated herein. Any significant changes from the concept site plan shall require
review and approval of the Planning & Zoning Commission
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ07-00016: Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning from Low-
Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone to a Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately
4.40 acres of property at 2815 Rohret Road.
Ralston informed the Commission there was one minor change to the application-a submission of a
concept plan. He reviewed the application, pointing out the house and outbuildings on the property which
the applicant would like to demolish in order to build a structure consistent with a CO-1 zone. Ralston also
pointed out the stands of mature trees on the land, as well as the undulating topography.
Ralston reviewed the applicant's concept plan, which showed eight front parking spaces, two of which
were handicap spaces, screening on the south side along Rohret Road, the building footprint and parking
spaces to the rear of the building. He said the concept plan met Staff's expectations. Ralston said a
conditional zoning agreement would be appropriate. Ralston stated the main concern was the parking,
and that it be kept to the rear. He said the Conditional Zoning Agreement would state that if the parking
needs to be moved, the application would be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He
also said the CZA should require all the vegetation in certain areas of the property be preserved, and if
there are changes in that area, those also need to come before the Commission. Ralston stated that with
those specifications, Staff recommends approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 2, 2008
Page 2
Miklo added that the code requires evergreen screening along certain areas of the parking lot, and that
there will be further scrutiny when the property is developed. He also pointed out specific areas of trees to
be preserved, and reminded the Commission of the recommendation for a 80 foot buffer strip along
Highway 218 which would preserve the trees in that area.
Freerks called for questions to Staff.
Brooks asked about the trees in the north-south zone, the possibility they are growing on a sensitive
slope area, and how that would affect their preservation. Miklo said he was not yet sure if that specific
area was a protected or sensitive slope, but that information would be verified at the time of the site plan
when the property is developed.
Brooks asked how the Commission could describe those trees for the benefit of protecting them before
the Commission knows the results of the survey. Miklo said the Commission could describe the area in
the CZA based on an elevation point, measurement, or a drawing that would be attached to the CZA
before the item goes before City Council.
Smith said the policies are already in place to address those issues, and what the Commission is
discussing tonight is just the rezoning. Miklo said he was not yet sure if the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
protects the trees in question, and there was some previous discussion about wanting parking in a certain
area so that the trees and slope in question were left undisturbed, which is why the Commission may
want to lock into that with the CZA.
Freerks reminded the Commission that protecting the trees and having the buffer along the highway was
kind of a "swap" for having the eight parking spaces in front of the building.
Koppes asked if stating, "general compliance with the concept plan" would be specific enough wording in
the CZA. Miklo said the more specific the Commission could be, the fewer questions that will come up in
the future.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Glen Meisner, with MMS Consultants for Hodge Construction, asked the-Commission if he could answer
any questions for them.
Smith asked about the setback for the building being 50 feet, and if the applicant was comfortable with
that. Meisner said the concept drawing showed a setback of 61.7 feet. Brooks asked about the
approximate square footage of the building. Meisner responded that the concept drawing showed a
building of about 80 feet by 100 feet, which equals about 12,000 square feet. Brooks commented that the
parking area with 50 spaces seemed like more parking spots than need by a daycare. Meisner said the
number of sparking spaces proposed on a concept plan are calculated the square footage of the building.
Lucy Wibbenmeiner, asked what the property was going to be rezoned as, and what would be built on the
site. Smith and Freerks explained the rezoning was for a CO-1, and one of the proposed uses would be a
daycare. Miklo added that CO-1 was for office uses, possibly limited retail, but the most likely use would
be for office space.
Wibbenmeiner asked if the Commission would be voting on the matter that night, and Freerks said that
they most likely would be voting, and if they did not, they would ask the applicant to defer because of the
45-day limitation period. Koppes added that after P &Z votes, the matter goes on to the City Council,
where there will be more time for the public to speak.
Wibbenmeiner said she has always enjoyed the farm on the property, and if there is going to be
something commercial on the site, she might like a say in what goes in. She said she had spoken with
neighbors, and one had mentioned the possibility of a small coffee shop or something similar.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 2, 2008
Page 3
Freerks stated that Wibbenmeiner might want to discuss her concerns and ideas with the applicant later,
but during the meeting, questions were to be directed to the Commission.
Melinda Paulsen, 1427 Rainer Dr., expressed her concern over the parking lot, and said it would be
basically in her back yard. She asked about the screening. Miklo said there are screening requirements
for commercial parking areas, and requirements in the zoning for an evergreen hedge to screen the area
from residential zones. He stated the zoning requires the evergreens be at least three feet tall when
planted and reach a minimum of six feet at maturity.
Paulsen asked about the possibility of a security light right in front of her living room window and what
recourse she would have about something like that. Miklo said there are lighting standards that do not
allow light trespass on to an adjacent property. The standards state the light must be downcast and the
light may not exceed one-foot candle at the property line.
Paulsen inquired about the possibility of the building sitting vacant for a few years, being bought, and then
being rezoned again for something different, like a Hooters restaurant or beer garden. She said she was
concerned about this because of property values. Freerks said the Comprehensive Plan shows the
property as residential or a type of commercial that would fit into the area, typically an office or a daycare
that has daytime traffic, but not a lot of evening traffic.
Paulsen asked about where the outside play area would be if the property was developed as a daycare,
and expressed concern about children having to cross a parking lot in order to access the playground.
Amy Charles, 1346 Shannon Dr., brought up her concerns over neighborhood cohesiveness, safety, and
keeping the area a place where all the residents are able to pay attention along the streets to what is
going on outside. Charles mentioned several recent police calls to the neighborhood. She told
Commission members that if the property is developed as planned, it would be a long stretch from Rainer
to the highway where there would be basically nobody paying attention.
Charles asked about the possibility of a future owner changing the use of the site from a daycare to
something else allowed under CO-1 zoning, and if there was someway to restrict what might be allowed.
Freerks said any business that fit within the CO-1 guidelines would be allowed use of the property. Miklo
stated CO-1 is mainly an office use, and the only retail use would be personal service, such as a hair
salon. Hospitality uses are allowed, such as a guesthouse, but only up to nine rooms. He added that
private schools would be allowed, as well as religious institutions. He stated food service establishments
are limited to 100 occupants, and the code does not allow drive-up service.
Charles said that although she understands the site is seen as a buffer for noise along the highway, she
pointed out houses right along the highway further north where noise was apparently not an issue.
Plahutnik agreed that while there has been no shortage of developers who are willing to build right up
against a highway, he finds it laudable that Hodge is not looking to put houses on the site. Charles said
she thinks there is a premium on land close to the University for those people interested in walking and
biking.
Eastham said the Commission is looking at including a concept plan with the rezoning which will be part
of the condition zoning agreement, and that will continue with the! zoning for the site into the future. He
added that if the building were sold in the future, and used for another purpose, the conditions of the
zoning would still apply, unless the zoning agreement were changed.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve CZ07-00003 with five conditional zoning agreements:
1. Existing healthy trees along Highway 218 within 80 feet of the highway right-of-way will be
preserved.
2. Sound abating construction techniques will be used if residential uses are developed on the
property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 2, 2008
Page 4
3. Except for a passenger drop-off and pick-up area, parking areas, in excess of eight spaces, shall
be located behind the front plane of the building.
4. Parking areas will not be located between the east property line and any building on the property.
5. fV1inimum building setback of 50 feet.
Brooks seconded the motion.
Freerks called for discussion of the motion.
Freerks said there was no language in the motion to protect the trees as part of the swap made for the
eight parking spaces in the front of the building. Smith said he thought the building setback was another
tradeoff the applicant made. Freerks said that did nothing to protect the grove. Smith said he thought the
grove was shown as undisturbed in the concept plan, and the regulations with a sensitive or critical slope
area would protect the trees. Koppes pointed out that it was unknown if the slope qualified as a sensitive
area. Freerks added the Commission has the ability to do more.
Eastham asked if the concept plan should be part of the conditional zoning agreement. Miklo said it was a
possibility, and the rezoning could state that the applicant must generally conform to the concept plan.
Miklo said the Commission's main concerns seemed to be three-fold: placement of the building,
placement of the parking, and preservation of trees on the slope. Miklo said the Commission could qualify
and say, "General conformance with the concept plan and if there's a significant change regarding the
setbacks, parking, building, or the trees on the slope, it must come back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission." This would give the Commission some extra assurance of getting what they saw on the
concept plan. Smith said the problem with that was what is "general conformance"? He stated he feels
the Commission has some very specific requirements for the conditional zoning agreement. Freerks said
there was currently no wording to prevent the building from being moved over on to the slope. Smith said
he thought logistical issues would make such a move unpractical, rendering the slope and the trees
inherently protected.
Miklo added that given some public concern, the Commission might want to add a minimum setback for
the parking along the east property line. Smith asked what the codes require, and Miklo said it was 10
feet. Brooks said he thought that area had a fairly steep slope and building on that area would be
expensive and require retaining walls. Koppes said her concern was that the Commission was leaving
one whole side of the property open with no protections. Brooks said as much as he would like to protect
trees, he does not want to tie a property owner into preserving them, given that the Commission has had
no report from the city forester about value or condition of the trees in question.
Koppes responded by asking about the parking area on the other side of the building, and Brooks said
the Commission already had standards they've agreed to, and if the Commission wants to make
provisions every time a CO-1 butts against a RS-5, they should have it in the code. He added that the
topography of the site already makes it costly for the developer to move the parking further east.
Smith asked for the City Attorney's advice if "general conformance to the concept plan" gave the
Commission any additional guarantees without creating too many ambiguities. Greenwood-Hektoen said
such a statement would be, generally, a good way to get the Commission what they see on the concept
plan. She said she thought the concept plan seemed a little ambiguous but if it was to scale it could be
included with a CZA.
Freerks pointed out the Commission already decided to wait for a concept plan to make a decision, yet
now they seemed unwilling to apply anything to the CZA. Smith disagreed, saying the motion to the CZA
limits parking in the front of the building to no more than eight spaces, and requires a 50-foot minimum
setback. Freerks said that those were things they didn't need a concept drawing to understand. Smith
said there were three different amendments to the CZA that the concept drawing helped the Commission
visualize.
Eastham made an amendment to motion to offer a sixth condition: the development would be approved if
it's in general compliance with the applicant's submitted concept plan, or it would need to return to P & Z
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 2, 2008
Page 5
for approval. Koppes seconded the amendment to the motion. The amendment to the motion carried on a
vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
Freerks called for any further discussion on the amended motion. She stated she agrees the trees in
question will probably be protected because of the slope. She added that she believes the site, being
adjacent to the highway, is a good place to have a CO-1, and that it can fit nicely with the neighborhood.
Eastham said a big factor, for him, in rezoning from a RS-5 to a CO-1 was the Southwest District Plan,
which discussed the parcel in question specifically, and considered it for commercial development as an
alternative to residential. The motioned carried on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
Miklo stated the rezoning item would be scheduled for the January 29th City Council meeting.
OTHER:
Smith stated he would not be able to attend the February 4th and .7th meetings.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Eastham made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:.10. Koppes seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Shannon absent).
s/pcd/mins/p&z12008/1-02-08.doc
C
o
'in
,!a
E
E
o
(,)'E
c)o
C (,,)
,- CI)
Co:::
o
NCI)~
.....(,,)0
-CN
C)1ll
c"C
.- C
C CI)
C=
.!!!<C
D.
~
(3
III
~
.2
~ >< >< >< >< w ><
..... >< <5
en o ..- 00 NO 00 ..-
E ~ ..- ..- 0 ..- ..- 0 ..-
a>'~ -. -. -. -. -. -. -.
LO LO LO LOLO LO LO
I-w 00 0 00 0 0
E ~ C
II) II) C 0
II) III -X:: CI) - C"c
-X::"c ;8:- ~
0_ "c C_
O II) III .-
OJ '- III e 0 III "cE
E cow u.~ ii: rnrn
ell aio ceLLi ~ci t-=
z
C)
z
i=
w
w
:E
..J
<C
:E
0:::
o
u.
C)
z
i=
w
w
:E
..J
<C
:E
0:::
o
u.
~
en
E(])O..-OONOOO..-
.....~~o~~o~
a> . B- i?5 i?5 i?5 i?5 i?5 i?5 i?5
I-JjOOOOOOO
-X::C
II) ~ II) II) 'c 0
-X::"ci!:CI)'5C"c
0_ CI) Q."c C_
O II) Q. III .-
(])E'-llleo.!!!"cE
COwu.~D.rnrn
~aioceLLi~cit-=
1:1
(])
en
:J
u
><
W
-_:t::>
c c c
(]) (]) (])
en en en
~.o.o
o...<{<{
.. II II II
>. W
(]) -.
~><OO