Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/10/2003Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435 Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Craig, Colton, Meyer, and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Wray, and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the January 16, and February 6 (Continued), 2003 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. • 2. Resolution PZ03-06, Easement Dedication. 3. #33-94G Lot 8, Harmony Safeway Marketplace, Project Development Plan. 4. #50-02A Colorado State University, South Residence Hall, Site Plan Advisory Review. Recommendation to City Council: 5. #13-03 Huber Rezoning. Discussion Agenda: 6. #11-03 East Mulberry Corridor Plan, Rezoning. Item #3, Lot 8, Harmony Safeway Marketplace, Project Development Plan, was pulled from the consent agenda by citizen John David Sullivan. Member Colton moved for approval of Consent Items 1, less the February 6, 2003 minutes, 2, 4, and 5. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. Project: Lot 8, Harmony Safeway Marketplace, Project Development Plan, #33-94G. Project Description: Request for a 9,900 square foot, one-story • multi -tenant retail building located at the southeast corner of Wheaton Drive and Monte Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 2 Carlo Drive in the Harmony Safeway Marketplace. The site is zoned HC, Harmony Corridor. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Chairman Torgerson asked Mr. Sullivan to state the nature of his concern in order to allow staff to tailor it's presentation to the issues. Mr. Sullivan replied that he was speaking on behalf of a homeowner's association on Iva Court, directly north of the Safeway Market lot. He stated that they are delighted to see the development completed there. Their objection is with the setback from the sidewalk. He stated that the neighborhood had been promised in 1996, when Safeway first developed, that the setback from the sidewalk would be 18 to 20 feet. Based on the previous mailing received, the setback is now less that 10 feet. Mr. Sullivan stated that they would like the setback to remain at 18 feet with landscaping between the building and sidewalk to help with sound and the close proximity of the development to the neighborhood. Chairman Torgerson asked City Planner Ted Shepard to tailor his staff presentation to those concerns. Planner Shepard gave a brief description of the project stating that this is the last vacant pad site in this shopping center. Craig Conn, with the Conn Architectural Group, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that the building had been pushed north to allow for adequate parking on the south side of the building. This site was approved for 130,000 square feet total; this project will be 122,000 square feet. Substantial landscaping surrounds the entire perimeter of the site as a buffer. The building setbacks do comply with the City's design guidelines to push the buildings closer to the street. That was actually a request of staff to do that. A continuous row of landscaping has been provided along the back side to soften the building. Additional detail and material changes have been added to the fagade as well. There is a sidewalk along the back side of the building and there is landscaping between the sidewalk and the street. There are light fixtures on the back of the building that are zero cut-off light fixtures, they will not go past the property line. These are all part of the City's design guidelines. This is a multi -tenant building and there is not a lot of traffic along the back side of the building which will • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 3 eliminate or lessen the noise problem. The parking lot was purposely located on the south side of the building in order to allow the building to screen the parking from the northern neighborhood. Public Input Mr. Sullivan gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that immediately south of this site is the "Village Pancake" facility and parking. There is parking on the south and east side of the proposed building and on the north side of the pancake house (Village Inn). Mr. Sullivan stated that the building had increased in size from what they were originally told; from 6,300 square feet to 9,300 square feet. He stated that the homeowners association really does not object to the building but would like to see the additional 8 foot setback and landscaping. Milton Krogh, 1355 Iva Court, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that the Safeway market and shopping center were very attractive to them initially. He added that the approved plan for Lot 8 at the time he moved in was for a 6,600 square foot building with the setback and landscaping conforming to the corridor • plan. With the requested building envelope to increase to 9,900 square feet, it would take up most of the setback as well as remove much of the existing landscape. Mr. Krogh stated that he believed this change would increase noise for the neighborhood. He asked that the plans for Lot 8 be maintained and approved as they were planned in 1996. Leroy Ekedahl, 1361 Iva Court, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that all of the buildings along Wheaton have approximately 18 foot setbacks and that he is opposed to the proposed building setback changes. Public Input Closed Chairman Gavaldon asked Planner Shepard to reply to the comments regarding setback and building size. Planner Shepard replied that this project was caught between two Codes — it came in under the LDGS and subsequent to part of the approvals for the site, the Land Use Code was adopted. The pad sites came in under the Land Use Code. The 1996 plan was a preliminary PUD. When final PUDs come in, they are to be in substantial compliance with the preliminary. This building is in substantial compliance; the building did get a bit larger but is still in compliance. There was never an intent for the Safeway setbacks to be maintained on other buildings on • Monte Carlo as the Safeway was the largest building on the block. In 1996, Lot 8 was a pad site given a best -guess estimate for building envelope and square Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 4 footage. Most of the time, the finals do not come in exactly like the preliminaries. The landscaping has been well -maintained along Monte Carlo. There is about 11 feet of landscaping behind this proposed building, then the sidewalk, then the parkway strip between the sidewalk and curb. There is a total of about 20 feet. Staff did not believe this made the project non -compliant though it is smaller than what was indicated on the preliminary. Chairman Torgerson asked if the building square footage did not put the project into non-compliance. Planner Shepard replied that most of the other pad sites likely did not come in at exactly their preliminary square footages. Staff did not feel that the additional square footage knocked the project out of compliance. Member Craig asked if Lots 1, 2, and 3 came in as their preliminary plans showed in 1996. Planner Shepard replied that they did; however, lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 are shown as changing from the preliminary. Member Craig stated that was understandable as those lots were along Harmony and clarified that Lots 1, 2, and 3 did remain as the preliminary plans showed. She asked if site shots were available with respect to any trees that would be removed. Planner Shepard replied that site shots were available. There were original street trees put in when Safeway was going through it's final. The trees were put in on Monte Carlo between the curb and the walk and some have not done well over the years. This project does not take out the trees in the parkway strip; however, the City Forester, Tim Buchanan, is of the opinion that some of the trees will be better off being replaced. There were some trees planted beyond the parkway strip, south of the sidewalk. Every tree that has been removed by this proposal has been looked at by the City Forester and has been mitigated. Some of the trees were not in very good shape to begin with. Member Craig asked if this building were to be put in it's original placement from 1996, would those trees still be left. Planner Shepard stated that the plan approved in 1996 was a preliminary plan, is not site specific and does not vest any rights. The 1996 preliminary approved building would probably not take out any trees. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 5 Member Craig asked if the enlargement of the building by a third was standard because some of the other buildings were increased in size. Planner Shepard replied that it is not standard to raise it a third, but there really is no standard. The Harmony Corridor Plan allows this shopping center at this scale to be 130,000 square feet. It is coming in at about 122,000 square feet with Pad 8. It is within it's parameters. Pad sites often come in a little differently than what was first envisioned at the preliminary stage. Chairman Torgerson asked if vesting occurred at the preliminary level under the LDGS. Planner Shepard replied that there was a preliminary vesting of one year. That was just an LDGS vesting, not a state statute vesting. Chairman Torgerson asked if for that one year, it was vested for use, character, and density. • Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Member Craig asked about location being part of the preliminary. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman replied that was correct — it was location, character, and density. The preliminary had to be pursued to final within a year. Member Meyer asked if the building being moved forward, to the south, by 8 feet, would create a parking issue in lost spaces. Planner Shepard replied that it would not create a parking issue but deferred to the applicant. Mr. Conn replied that the 8 feet would be critical because when the projects are designed, they are held to the design guidelines adopted by the City. This project complies with all of them. The building ended up where it was in order to provide the landscaping that the Land Use Code requires to screen the parking lot. The setback called for is 15 feet from the property line. This is 18 feet. This project complies with the new Land Use Code design guidelines, as has been requested by staff. Member Colton asked what the current Code requires for setbacks. n �J Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 6 Planner Shepard replies that the Code refers to build -to lines, street orientation, direct connecting walkways, etc. This building has a direct orientation to the shopping center and an orientation to Wheaton. The landscaping is really the only part of the Code that applies with respect to the Monte Carlo frontage of this building. It is not prescriptive with respect to landscaping. Member Colton asked if the building is oriented to the interior of the shopping center, not to the neighborhood. Planner Shepard replied that was correct. Chairman Torgerson asked, given that there is no prescriptive setback, if a contextual setback would apply. Planner Shepard replied that the setback would be contextual for a 9,900 square foot building in comparison to the 49,000 square foot Safeway. However, in urban design principle, a contextual setback is often used. Member Colton stated concern over the differing setbacks and that we are straying from the original plan given to the neighborhood. He stated that he would rather have a larger setback. Attorney Eckman stated that the contextual setback is available to an applicant but is not required of an applicant. Setbacks from Article 4 can be used. There are no definitive setbacks in Article 4. Chairman Torgerson asked if planning staff had asked the applicant to move the building closer to the walkway. Planner Shepard replied that the primary issue was that the parking had to be on the south in order to keep it from facing the neighborhood. The second issue was getting build -to lines and street orientation once the parking lot configuration was decided. It made sense to get as much orientation as possible to Wheaton because of the sidewalk, Rock Bridge condos, the connection to Village Inn, and the Golden Meadows neighborhood. There is a Monte Carlo pedestrian access along the existing path on the west side of Safeway. The actual building orientation to Monte Carlo was to be an attractive architectural wall with a recognizable base, middle and top, matching materials, and generous landscaping. Those were the basic, fundamental site design principles that brought the project to this point. However, there is less landscaping along Monte Carlo than the folks along Iva Court would like to see. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 7 Director Gloss suggested that as the Board is concerned with the setback issue and that there are many concerned neighbors, it may be worthwhile to continue the item to allow the parties to get together as well as talk to staff about a reasonable solution to some of the issues. Chairman Torgerson asked about the Code section dealing with operational compatibility. It appears that the rear doors of the building would be where inventory arrives. He asked where the delivery trucks would park in order to serve them. It appears that they may park on Monte Carlo. Mr. Conn replied that they would not park on Monte Carlo. The businesses will be serviced through the front of the building. The sidewalk and doors that are at the rear of the building are only for exiting in case of an emergency. The trash enclosure is also on the south side of the property as all services come into the front of the building. Chairman Torgerson pointed out that there is no place for the trucks to park in the front of the building either. Mr. Conn replied that most deliveries are early in the morning prior to shops being open. Chairman Torgerson asked if the applicant had any objection to continuing the item to attempt to work the issue out. Mr. Conn replied that they were not trying to discount the neighborhood concerns but that they have presented a project that complies with the Code and staff requirements. If the setbacks were to be increased, there would not be any additional landscaping materials placed in that buffer, the building would just be moved a bit further south. The buffers around the parking area will be lost if the building is moved farther south. Those buffers have been requested by staff and are required by Code. Mr. Conn stated that he would like to resolve the issue now if possible. Moving this building 5 or 6 feet to the south will not be noticeable on a street as wide as Monte Carlo. Member Colton asked what the impact on the interior landscape would be if the building were moved south. Planner Shepard replied that there was not as much landscaping on the site in the first round of submittal as there was on subsequent rounds. We worked very hard to get more landscaping on the entire site. What would likely happen is the • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 8 loss of the middle section of parking and/or the applicant would have to voluntarily agree to reduce the square footage of the building. Chairman Torgerson asked what bearing the expired preliminary PUD proposal would have on the decision tonight. Attorney Eckman replied that since this project is a PDP under the Land Use Code, the preliminary PUD is no longer relevant to this. The project should be measured under the Land Use Code only. Director Gloss stated that the project would also have to be in compliance with the Harmony Corridor Plan. Member Meyer moved for approval of Lot 8, Harmony Safeway Marketplace, Project Development Plan, #33-94G citing the findings of fact and conclusions on page 6 of the staff report. Chairman Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Craig stated concern over the City Plan idea that buildings have reduced setbacks to allow pedestrians to enter the buildings and many buildings now have the rear of the building facing the street so the parking can be at the front of the building. Member Meyer stated that this project was not set in stone when the preliminary PUD was approved and that it has evolved over time with a different Land Use Code. It is difficult to deny a project when an applicant has followed all the rules. Member Colton stated that he could not find a section of the code that this project does not meet. However, he would like to see a compromise made by taking out the center section of landscaping or a row of parking, and possibly moving the building to a location more consistent with what the original plans showed. He suggested continuing the item to put more work into a compromise. Chairman Torgerson stated agreement with Members Colton and Craig; however, he stated that his decision would be based on Code despite the concerns of the neighbors. He asked if it would be appropriate to make an amendment for a condition that deliveries not be made to the back doors. Attorney Eckman replied that would be appropriate. Member Meyer agreed to the friendly amendment. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 9 Member Craig stated that since the setbacks are subjective, the Board is not really held to a specific number. Attorney Eckman stated that he had not found any objective setbacks in Article 4 for this zone district. He added that he did not have the Harmony Corridor plan with him, however. Member Craig stated that the Board would not necessarily be going against the Code if they asked for a larger setback. Attorney Eckman replied that if there are no setback requirements at all, but that there perhaps are other requirements for landscaping and things, those other requirements made need to be looked at for compliance first. Planner Shepard stated that there is a section in Article 3 that talks about landscaping and the area between incompatible land uses. It was primarily written for those situations where there is no intervening public street. Those standards are all subjective as well. • Member Craig asked if the setback standards could be interpretive because we are trying to look at neighborhood compatibility. Attorney Eckman replied that there are some compatibility standards in the Land Use Code but he was unsure if any of those could touch on this issue or not. Planner Shepard stated that most of those compatibility standards are architectural and related to building compatibility. Member Craig asked if there Iwas a neighborhood compatibility part of Section 3 Planner Shepard replied that that section was removed from the LDGS. He stated that the closest applicable thing in the Code is called "buffering between incompatible uses and activities," Section 3.2.1(E). It envisions two land uses next to each other that are not separated by a public street. Even if this wasn't separated by a public street, there is still nothing prescriptive in those standards. Member Colton asked if the Harmony Corridor Plan contained specific neighborhood center criteria that addressed this issue. Member Colton moved to continue Lot 8, Harmony Safeway Marketplace, • Project Development Plan, #33-94G for further discussion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 10 Member Craig seconded the motion Chairman Torgerson stated that he would not be supporting the motion because the project, though not the best design solution, does comply with the Code. Developers should expect an affirmative vote if they are complying with the Code and listening to staff suggestions. There probably is a more creative solution that could satisfy the neighborhood and the developer's needs. The motion was approved 3-1 with Chairman Torgerson voting in the negative. Attorney Eckman stated that the continuance should be to a date certain. Director Gloss replied that May 1, 2003 would be an available hearing date Chairman Torgerson stated that the project would be continued to the May 1, 2003 hearing. Attorney Eckman suggested that some of the standards from the Harmony Corridor Plan be included in the new staff report. Project: East Mulberry Corridor Plan Rezone, #11-03. Project Description: Recommendation to change the zoning designation of 3 parcels totaling approximately 23.9 acres located at the northeast corner of Lincoln and Lemay Avenue, from Industrial (1) to Employment (E). Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Pete Wray, City Planner with the Advance Planning Department, gave the staff presentation recommending approval. The item was continued from the March 6, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. This proposal is an attempt to make our zoning map consistent with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and the amended City Structure Plan, both adopted in September 2002. The recommendation from the East Mulberry Corridor Plan at that time, shows Employment zoning, rather than Industrial zoning, for three parcels on the northeast corner of Lincoln and Lemay. Employment zoning has been suggested • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 11 for several reasons. It provides new options for office and light industrial at key intersections of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. The key intersections identified were Greenfield and East Mulberry, Timberline and East Mulberry, and Lincoln and Lemay. The employment zoning would provide options for business expansion and mixed use development and would allow for secondary uses including things like convenience shopping centers and residential, on a maximum of about 25% of the property. This change would provide a transition from the industrial uses in and around the airport area to the existing residential neighborhoods to the north and any future development on the west side of Lemay around the golf course area. Planner Wray stated that Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood zoning was considered for the site but was not regarded as appropriate as it is not consistent with City Plan and it would allow too many residential uses near the airport. Public Input Jim Webster, 705 Curtley Road, Lusk, Wyoming, gave his testimony to the • Board. He stated that he was in protest of the City changing the zoning of his property to Employment (E) and he would prefer to see the zoning changed to Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN). He stated that he has a solid contract with a project to go on the site and felt it would fit in nicely with the residential on the south and north. John McCoy, 1900 S. Shields, gave his testimony to the Board. He is the listing broker for the property. He stated that at the last meeting at which this request was heard, staff did not give a strong recommendation either way. Practically speaking, the zoning change request does fit in compatibly with the area. Development of this site may create some momentum for fixing some troublesome storm drainage, traffic, and street issues in the area. Finally, all good plans allow for modifications and this is a modification that is both desirable and compatible to the area. Bob Benzel, 1718 Trailwood, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that the Webster family has been trying to sell the property for 15 years and that they have a signed contract with a reputable builder here in town and that the project will be affordable and provide housing for people in that part of town. Public Input Closed • Chairman Torgerson asked if there was great fault, from a planning perspective, in zoning the property MMN. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 12 Planner Wray replied that there are some close comparisons between the two land uses when you look at providing the transition between the existing industrial and residential uses. Both zones would provide that transition. It is a matter of interpreting the intent of City Plan when looking at the existing uses of Wal-Mart and the Buffalo Run apartments. Staff felt that the Employment designation provided quite a bit of flexibility in the number of uses that could come in, certainly more uses than Industrial. The designation of Employment does allow for 25% residential uses. It would not be a deal -killer for the plan to approve the MMN zone but the City and County staff did not receive sufficient support for this from other staff and Boards. The owners of the airport have stated that they have some concerns about future residents complaining about airport noise. They would like to work with the developers to bring this issue to the new owners and make certain they are aware of the existing airport operation so as to reduce noise complaints. They are not against the MMN zoning, they would just like the noise issue to be addressed. Chairman Torgerson asked if the Board did want to make this portion MMN and zone the other section E, as recommended, would the sub -area plan also have to be amended. Attorney Eckman replied that the Structure Plan map would have to be changed, as would the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. He asked to have the Webster parcel pointed out. Planner Wray replied that it is the middle parcel, approximately 15 acres. Attorney Eckman asked if it would be logical to keep the remainder of the 23.9 acres E or if it should all be MMN. Planner Wray replied that staff would be alright with the Webster property being zoned MMN and the other two smaller parcels being zoned E. Member Craig asked what uses could go in MMN. Planner Wray replied that MMN does allow other uses in addition to the residential. There are office and some commercial uses allowed as well. Employment allows office and some residential uses. Attorney Eckman read the allowed uses for the MMN zone district as per the Land Use Code. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 13 Member Meyer stated that at one point, this corner was proposed for Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) zoning. Planner Wray replied that there was initially a fourth parcel with an LMN recommendation as part of this rezoning consideration. It was pulled from this agenda item because it is not officially in the East Mulberry Corridor Plan study area. The current property owners, with the existing industrial zoning, had an existing contract for an industrial use. Chairman Torgerson asked how much of the road rights -of -way have been acquired. Planner Wray replied that most of the rights -of -way shown are for future street alignments. Nothing has been dedicated for right-of-way at this time. The City, not the landowner, has been proposing the roads. Member Colton asked if the roads were on the Master Street Plan. • Planner Wray replied that they are. Any proposed development project would have to be examined for how the street plan would work. Member Colton asked if the street plan would have any effect on which zoning would be more appropriate. Planner Wray replied that it would not likely have any effect Chairman Torgerson stated that there is not much vehement opposition to the Webster's request and that they would be required to dedicate a fair amount of right-of-way. Planner Wray stated that the MMN zone is not consistent with City Plan according to staff opinion. Chairman Torgerson asked when the street connections were recommended Planner Wray replied that the extensions of Duff and International came out of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan process. He stated that the Structure Plan locates Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhoods immediately adjacent to neighborhood commercial centers. This would be a change to City Plan in that the Wal-Mart center is not officially a neighborhood commercial center. Cl Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 14 Chairman Torgerson asked what about the Wal-Mart Center made it different from a neighborhood commercial center. Planner Wray replied that there are other goods and uses within the shopping center and that a neighborhood center would have smaller neighborhood uses such as childcare, barber shops, etc. Chairman Torgerson stated that the Buffalo Run Apartments residents are certainly using the Wal-Mart center as a neighborhood center. Planner Wray replied that there is not a direct local street connection between the two. Member Craig asked if this issue was brought up at the East Mulberry Corridor Plan hearing. Planner Wray replied that the proposal for MMN was discussed at that hearing but that the Board decided to leave it as E. Member Craig asked what had changed in the opinion of the Board since that time. Chairman Torgerson stated that he had been unsure previously and his only reason for not pushing for MMN at that time was that the residents might complain about the airport noise. That could be dealt with as a condition of approval so it seems like a workable option. Member Craig asked how a condition of approval could be worded to make sure the residents are aware of the airport noise. Chairman Torgerson replied that if it is a deed restriction, the realtors are required to disclose it to any potential buyers. In the case of rentals, it could be required that landlords inform their tenants. It seems that the land owner has been put in a difficult place with the City a few times and now will be asked to dedicate a large amount of right-of-way. Mr. Webster stated that they had negotiated a storm drain system right through the center of their property. It took a lot of negotiations with the City. The City oversized it and went with concrete. The City gave the property taps to the storm drain system that can now not be used. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 15 Chairman Torgerson stated that if the staff is truly on the fence with the decision and if it is a minute definition difference, there is no harm in zoning the property MMN. Member Colton stated that the airport issue was stronger before; that is the only thing that may have changed between the first hearing and this one. Planner Wray replied that the airport issue may have been more vocalized in the early stages of the plan. Zoning the property Employment would minimize the potential for housing and would still provide transitional issues. The airport owners have always had concerns about noise, visual impacts, fly zones and things like that. They do not feel that there is a safety issue with this property being the distance it is away from the runway. They do feel there is a compatibility issue, however. Chairman Torgerson stated that he had previously been very concerned about compatibility both from a safety standpoint and a noise standpoint. This site would not be within the standard flight pattern. Mr. Torgerson asked how the • properties should be referenced in a motion. Attorney Eckman stated that the properties should be referenced as they are in the staff report and that the Board should recommend to City Council changes in the Structure Plan and East Mulberry Corridor Plan should it be decided that one of the parcels should be zoned MMN. It was determined that the property in question was referred to as #2 in the staff report, approximately 15.79 acres. Member Meyer moved for recommendation to City Council of approval for E zoning for properties #1 and #3 as referenced in the staff report and MMN zoning for property #2, as referenced in the staff report, and a corresponding change in the Structure Plan and East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would not be supporting the motion as it is spot zoning and that the developer working with the property owners should have been able to develop a project compatible with the Employment zone. The Board would not be limiting this piece of property by making it Employment. 40 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 16 Chairman Torgerson asked if the zoning motion could be conditioned to include the disclosure of the airport noise to potential buyers. Attorney Eckman replied that making conditions on zoning becomes complicated but is possible. Chairman Torgerson asked to make a friendly amendment to the motion that there be a deed restriction that all buyers be informed that an airport is nearby and that noise may be an issue. Members Meyer and Colton accepted the amendment. Member Colton stated concern over the airport noise and the fact that there is no data to be found on the noise problem. The motion was approved 3-1 with Member Craig voting in the negative. Director Gloss reminded the Board that there is a worksession meeting Friday, April 11 and that it should be brief. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.