Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/17/2018Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Ruth Rollins William Whitley Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing May 17, 2018 Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: Hansen Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Frickey, Kleer, Wray, Bethurem Harras, Sullivan, Beane and Gerber Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review Planning Manager Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2018 Page 2 of 9 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland, spoke about making mistakes and the ability to correct them and how he feels the Board does not have that luxury. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from April 19, 2018 P&Z Hearing 2. (Pulled from Consent) Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005 3. Ginger and Baker Temporary Parking Lot 4. Aweida Annexation, Plan Amendment and Zoning ANX180002 Public Input on Consent Agenda: Erik Sutherland, spoke of mistakes that happen and being the guy to fix those mistakes. He referred to the Board and not having the opportunity to do that at this time. He went on to discuss that through trial and appeals courts one has the ability to petition with a motion for reconsideration of a decision. In the case of the Planning and Zoning Board this is not an option. He would like to see consideration toward allowing a means to petition. Member Carpenter commented that she believes that the development community is not our only customer. Chair Schneider commented that he wanted to close public comment and then open it for other comment. Member Rollins commented to Mr. Sutherland (left directly after speaking) that she would like to see a draft of what he is speaking of, to see what he is proposing. Chair Schneider commented that he appreciates Mr. Sutherlands due diligence in the process and further explained the reason and project behind Mr. Sutherland’s comments. Chair Schneider conducted a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Hobbs requested to have the Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005 pulled from the consent agenda. Member Rollins requested to have the Ginger and Baker Temporary Parking Lot pulled from the consent agenda. Chair Schneider recused himself from the Aweida Annexation item. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the minutes of the April 19, 2018 Planning and Zoning hearing. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0 Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve item 4 of the consent agenda, Aweida Annexation, Plan Amendment and Zoning, ANZ180002. Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 4:0 Pulled from Consent: 2. Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005 Project Description: This is a Project Development Plan to develop 4 lots of the Evergreen Park Replat (Parcel #’s 9701310009, 9701315001, 9701214008 and 9701214007) as a self-storage facility. The proposal consists of in a mix of drive up and interior storage units. Building A on the corner of Conifer Street and Red Cedar Circle will be a 2-story facility with interior storage units while the remaining five buildings will each be one story. The overall proposal contains 96,773 feet of building area and is located in the Industrial Zoning district. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen communications received. Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2018 Page 3 of 9 Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of this project. Curtis Koldeway, Hauser Architects, provided a presentation in relation to the project and areas addressed, such as, Conifer and Red Cedar, use of complementing materials, and how the project has helped start the process of cleaning up the area. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Staff Response Planner Frickey addressed previous concerns from the Board in relation to nearby buildings and overall fit. Planner Frickey further discussed the modification request for a fence being longer than 100’ along an arterial street. The applicant is requesting a 104’ fence. The second modification is to exceed the maximum fence height of 6’ in specific areas, applicant would like a height of 7’ in these specific areas. The third modification request is for landscaping, wherein the applicant would like to use dense landscaping and the fencing. Staff is recommending approval on all three modifications requested and presented. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs asked Planner Frickey if he had any pictures of the frontage on Conifer. Planner Frickey pulled up a front facing picture of the Raw Earth building. Member Hobbs also questioned the use types of the townhomes that will go in across from the storage facility. Planner Frickey corrected the language used in conversation; the units are all for-rent apartments as opposed to townhomes. Member Hobbs asked what the classification for Conifer was in regard to City planning. Planner Frickey responded that it is considered an arterial street. Member Rollins asked Planner Frickey to pull up the elevations that would be seen if you were at Crown Pointe, and to see if the fence went all the way around the property. Planner Frickey pulled up the slide and responded that the fence extends from the East portion of the emergency access only drive aisle to the East property line and that the building makes up the remainder of the frontage on Conifer to the West of the access aisle. Member Rollins asked if there was landscaping in front of this area. Planner Frickey responded yes. Member Hobbs commented that his concerns are not with the modifications. He feels that the design work and the fence is a good substitute, but rather with the mass, scale and look along Conifer. The concern is due to the project being along a District boundary, across from residential and destination shopping. He feels that unlike the Raw Earth site, this site does not match the overall feel. Member Schneider asked Planner Frickey how the height of this proposed structure compares to that of Raw Earth. Planner Frickey responded that he will have to revisit the information, but does know that Raw Earth is not 260’ long, and that he would look the information up on City Docs. Upon completion of his research, Planner Frickey returned and provided additional information; Raw Earth is 110’ in length and is 30’ tall. In proportion, this proposed project is comparable at 263’ in length and 27’ in height. Raw Earth has a multiple level roof and windows. Member Rollins shares Member Hobbs’ concerns in regard to the mass and scale of the building and she is unsure that this was addressed enough with the current plan. Chair Schneider asked Member Rollins if this concern was due to the length of the wall. Member Rollins stated that it seemed like a huge wall, long and tall with very little architectural elements that would make it more compatible with the surrounding residential and in line with Raw Earth. Member Hobbs does not think that there has been enough done to give style, character and transition at the edge of a zone. Member Hobbs would like to continue this project and give the applicant a chance to circle back with staff with improvements. Member Whitley agrees with Member Hobbs on the landscaping and fencing area, he feels as though it looks like a correction facility. Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2018 Page 4 of 9 Chair Schneider stated that he feels that the Board would like to continue the item and asked that the applicant team return to the podium. Chair Schneider asked for confirmation of understanding of the concerns being expressed. The applicant team stated that they are complying with the land use code for the zoned district and that they do have some redundancy in the columns that come down Conifer to break up the mass of the building. They do acknowledge that the metal panel might be of concern and that they are using a stucco covered panel so that it looks more like a stucco building instead of a commercial or industrial metal panel. They felt that they should ask for a continuance and take a look at the concerns. They are ok with the decision for continuance. Member Rollins asked if it was possible for the applicant to put in some windows to break it up. The applicant agreed and will take a look at that. Planner Gloss offered that the Board could condition the application to provide very specific direction to staff and the applicant that could be addressed in the next stage in the process. Member Hobbs stated that he would not feel good about designing this at this hearing. He feels that since Curtis was the architect on Raw Earth that he has the capability to do this right and within budget. Chair Schneider agreed the design team and applicant should be the ones to come back with a better design. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board continue the Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005 to the June 21, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 5:0. 3. Ginger and Baker Temporary Parking Lot Project Description: This is a request to develop a temporary surface parking lot located at the southeast corner of Linden and Willow Streets. The proposal consists of a gravel overlay to the existing undeveloped lot and addition of a chain link fence enclosing the south end of the parking lot. The parking lot will accommodate up to 58 vehicles. The development site is ½ acre and zoned R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen communications received. Member Rollins reported that she had ex parte communication directly after work session. A friend of hers spoke to her regarding new parking at Ginger and Baker. Member Rollins does not feel that this communication will have an effect on her decision making for this item. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Gloss gave a brief overview of this project. The applicant, Jake Graham gave details of the current state of the vacant lot and that they would like to use half of the lot for parking. They will fix the chain link fence and add a fence line on the East as well as add road base to reduce dust and mud. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Board Questions / Deliberation Planner Gloss further detailed improvements to be made and stated that the land use code does allow for interim parking lots and that the approval is good for three (3) years with two successive one (1) year extensions. Landscaping, paving and lighting will not be required. Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2018 Page 5 of 9 Member Hobbs asked if Mr. Graham had seen any parking improvements at his establishment with the opening of the Firehouse ally parking garage. Mr. Graham responded no. Member Rollins asked if there would be signage that would state “For Ginger and Baker employees and customers”. She also asked if there would be a physical presence at the lot. Mr. Graham stated they are looking into an automated gate solution but that they would rather have someone present. However, this is very expensive. They will test initially by having people present and depending upon capital costs of an automated gate, a determination will be made at a later time. Member Rollins stated that she is sensitive to the area as she is frequently in that location and wanted to ask the applicant if they were open to asking the City to change the short-time limit parking on that same side of the roadway. Mr. Graham stated they had worked on that extensively before opening as there was no handicap parking available. They were able to take four (4) 2-hour parking spaces and convert them into handicap parking. The four other spaces are 30-minute spaces. They are open to converting two (2) of the 30-minutes space to two- hour spaces. The space across from the location are 2-hour spaces. Member Rollins stated that she would like to condition the approval to include the conversion of two (2) of the four (4) 30-minute spaces back to 2-hour parking. Mr. Graham does not have an appreciation for how important the 30-minute parking spaces are for the business and is struggling to understand how two (2) spaces is going to change the dynamic considering they would like to add the lot which will facilitate 58 cars being taken off the street. He does not feel it is a good trade. Member Carpenter asked Member Rollins for a better understanding of where she was headed with that condition and why. Member Rollins stated that she is in that area frequently and that the ability to go to the adjacent business was for more than 30 minutes was lost because some of the parking was changed over. Member Rollins does appreciate that this lot will add 58 spaces for Ginger and Baker as it will shift some parking from the street, but only for those going to Ginger and Baker. Mr. Graham does appreciate and understand where Member Rollins is coming from, but at the same time, they are investing real capital to create a temporary lot to take 58 spots off the streets. Chair Schneider asked Mr. Graham if they would be willing to open the lot for Ginger and Baker and neighboring businesses. Mr. Graham responded that they cannot per the terms of a lease that they signed with the property owner. Member Carpenter asked Planner Gloss to speak to the changes to the on-street parking on the other side that was mentioned. Planner Gloss spoke to the changes to on-street parking on Willow street that will allow more heading parking as opposed to parallel parking. This will free up several additional spaces. Planner Gloss commented that he is unsure if it is under the Board’s purview to condition an impact on a public right-of-way. Planner Gloss referred this to the Assistant City Attorney. Member Rollins clarified that she was asking the applicant if they would be willing to approach Parking to do that. If the applicant said that they would, then she would ask that be part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Yatabe replied that it is fine to make a condition that the applicant approach Parking in regard to the question, though he partially agrees with Planner Gloss that the Board should contact Parking staff to see why it is set up as it is and what effect the changes may or may not have. Member Carpenter stated that it would make her uncomfortable as a Board member to request this from an applicant. Member Rollins stated she is not going to ask for it at this time. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Ginger and Baker Temporary Parking Lot, PDP180005. Based on the agenda material presented during the work session and this hearing and Board discussion of this item. Member Whitley seconded. Chair Schneider appreciates the applicant coming to the Board and working with neighboring property owners to address the parking concern. Vote: 4:1. Discussion Agenda: 5. East Gateway Annexation and Zoning, ANX 180001 Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 1.77-acres of land consisting of three properties into the City of Fort Collins. The properties are located approximately ¼ mile northeast of the Interstate 25 and East Mulberry Street interchange. The annexation will enclave the East Mulberry Corridor. In accordance with the City’s Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2018 Page 6 of 9 Structure Plan Map, the requested zoning for this annexation is Industrial (I), General Commercial (C-G), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that no citizen communications have been received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Kleer gave a brief overview of this project that included a PowerPoint presentation. The applicant is requesting industrial low-density mixed-use neighborhood and general commercial zoning. This is consistent with the structure plan map. Neighborhood outreach and presentations were conducted. No applicant team for this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Barbara Trivarton, Cloverleaf Community, is curious on how this annexation is going to affect her community. She received communication that there will be 20’ taken from her property and is wondering if this is a buffer zone, or if it will be built on as it includes their entryway. There is also a drainage ditch located on the property for annexation that has been grandfathered in, she is wondering if this is going to be changed as their property uses this ditch for drainage. At one point the CDOT property was due to have a frontage road placed if the property is sold. Is this true? Mrs. Trivarton asked if there will there be emergency access to the property. Staff Response Planner Kleer responded to the first question regarding the 20’ buffer by stating that it is unlikely that it will ever be developed or redeveloped just by being annexed into the City of Fort Collins. The second question regarding the drainage ditch, Planner Kleer is uncertain. As for the CDOT property, there will be frontage road realignment upon future development. In response to the last question, Planner Gloss stated further discussion will be had with the applicant. Chair Schneider explained that at this time we are not to the level of detail with this project, this level of detail comes in at the PDP stage. Member Rollins asked for clarification regarding the ownership of the 20’ strip of property, entity or individual. Planner Kleer stated it was owned and administered by Tower Management, LLC. Member Rollins asked for clarification on the drainage ditch and the impact of this annexation. Planner Gloss stated they will have to look into the ditch. Chair Schneider questioned if this would also be covered at the detailed PDP stage. Planner Gloss stated that it will with the project to the West, however, from the citizens comment and perception of impact from the property owned by the Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park, it would be different. The remaining land to the East may at some point be annexed by Timnath. Member Rollins asked if some of the property belongs to the mobile home park. Planner Gloss responded that was correct. Board Questions / Deliberation Chair Schneider asked for clarification as to what zoning happened before annexation, or if it could be combined into one motion. Mr. Yatabe stated he felt they could combined them into one motion as long as they are congruent motions. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to City Council for approval of the Annexation and requested zoning of industrial I general commercial CG and low-density mixed-use neighborhood L-M-N based on the agenda materials and the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, the board discussion and citizen participation that we have heard tonight. Member Carpenter seconded. Chair Schneider commented that this does create a pretty large enclave that hopefully staff will look at doing in phases. Vote: 5:0 6. Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2018 Page 7 of 9 Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 1,600-sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. The proposed tower would be 55 feet tall and disguised as a bell tower. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district and, as such, is subject to review and approval by City Council. Wireless telecommunications facility is not an allowed use in the RL zone. The applicant is seeking an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on this parcel. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that the Board received information from Patrick Wilson who objects to the project, and expressed concerns about the aesthetics and impact on property values. The Board received attachments 6, 7 & 8 added to staff report and packet on 5/11/18, and Paul Higgens provided public comment in opposition of the project. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of this project Ken Bradtke, Director of Operations for Atlas Tower and co-applicant with Verizon Wireless, provided a presentation on the Century Wireless Telecommunications facility and addition of permitted use. This tower will be 55 feet tall and disguised as a bell tower. This tower will increase service and coverage. Mr. Bradtke did provide additional requested plot information that included the height at 45’. Planner Frickey discussed the addition of permitted use process and what it is and what is required to be approved for this use. Planner Frickey went through all eight (8) criteria and stated that the project did meet the criteria involved. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Will Moore, resident of Fort Collins, he lives approximately 500’ SW of the proposed project. He is curious if there are any potential health risks, mainly exposure from radio frequency waves to those that live in close proximity. Mike Moses, 3706 Coronado Ave., Mike stated that he lives a couple blocks from the proposed site and wanted to give compliments to the staff and Atlas for providing professional information. He currently has no service at his home, he cannot connect with his business or his parents or children in case of an emergency. Mike is a proponent of this tower and has encouraged the Board to vote in favor. James Anderson, PO Box 126 Severance, CO., James is the pastor of the church which is the location of this tower site. He asks that the Board vote in favor of this project as this would be of service to the community. Natalie Sterling, 3514 Omaha Ct., She agrees that there is a need for a tower, however, she is disappointed with the design. Staff Response Planner Frickey responded to Will Moore stating that the Federal Telecommunications Act prohibits Cities from considering health impacts as part of the decision-making process for wireless telecommunications facilities. Staff did not perform any analysis on the health impacts of this facility. Verizon Wireless representative, addressed the question regarding emissions. Emissions are low and therefore pose no health concerns. Board Questions / Deliberation Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2018 Page 8 of 9 Member Rollins asked Planner Frickey about his contact with the property manager of the property located at the South-East corner of Shields and Horsetooth, and the question of co-location, and wondered If he asked if there could be an additional tower. Planner Frickey responded that he did not personally ask for an additional tower as the applicant indicated in their narrative that they had asked for an additional tower at that location and were not able to secure. Member Hobbs asked Pastor Anderson if the church was the owner or lessor of the property. Pastor Anderson responded that they have owned the property for the past 45 years. Member Hobbs asked if he had any development plans for adding onto the church on the North side of the building. Pastor Anderson responded not at the moment, but they had discussed doing an activities area. Member Hobbs asked what the length of the lease was that Pastor Anderson negotiated or would enter into with Atlas Tower. Pastor Anderson responded that the term is 20 years plus renewable after that. Chair Schneider asked if it was an accurate assessment that during other review of towers it looked as though the maximum height difference between a bell tower versus the top of existing structure is approximately twice the size. Planner Frickey responded that was accurate. That the two biggest disparities are that steeple tapers off at the top so that the bulk is less, and the steeple is more than twice the height. Chair Schneider asked the applicant if he had different carriers that he is contracting with other than Verizon. Michael Powers of Atlas Towers responded that they are working with both T-Mobile, Sprint and AT&T in this market. They are working with Verizon as the anchor tenant at this location. They are in discussion with others for this location. Chair Schneider asked in regard to previous applications and future technologies if it is possible height may be reduced and still maintain the level of service and coverage. Mr. Powers replied that the intent over the past five (5) years is for the antennas to get bigger, taller and heavier. He then spoke of the 5G potential. Chari Schneider remarked that this is a different answer then what has been heard in the past, as far as size is concerned. Mr. Powers stated he has no way of predicting the future. Member Hobbs questioned the clad and brick. Mr. Powers answered yes, that the legs will look like brick. Member Hobbs questioned the wind load and flexibility of the tower and how brick was determined the best material and if they have used brick before. Mr. Powers responded that they had not, but that the manufacturer had. The material used to create the brick is almost like a foam, it is a faux brick. Member Hobbs spoke of the Turnberry tower previously approved at 45’ in height and that he understands from a business standpoint the need for co-locating, and that on the Turnberry tower co-locating is possible. Mr. Powers responded that they strive for optimal coverage and meet the target. Member Hobbs requested to view a particular slide and asked about the location of the tenants. Mr. Powers agreed with Member Hobbs’ thought on location. Member Whitley asked a design question, commenting that the rendering and the drawing do not look like the same tower, and wondered which is correct. Member Whitley feels that the second rendering was far better. Mr. Powers stated that the drawings have not been updated to show current idea which is closer to the second drawing. Member Rollins confirmed with Planner Frickey the 1600 square feet and asked about exhibit three, location number six which states that the facility requires 2500 square feet. She wanted to know why the difference and stated that it made sense to get it as close to Harmony and Shields for coverage reasons. Member Rollins went on to how the property is zoned and that the land use is not compatible with wireless telecommunication facilities. Planner Frickey deferred to the applicant. Mr. Powers responded that the 2500 sq. ft. being used as a standard footprint for a generic site when trying to lease and that Member Rollins is correct that the number does not have accuracy when looking at property number six. This property does not have any space available. Member Rollins enquired about space 19 and if space was available for co-location. Mr. Powers stated that it does not meeting the zoning codes and it would be closer to residential. Chair Schneider made mention that he is concerned with the height and asked if dropping the height to 45’ would mean that dropping one of the potential carriers. Also, that other towers have been built wherein the height was negotiated to a lower height. Mr. Powers gave a generalized response relating to amount of separation, 10’, that using a 6’ panel is very unusual as the third carrier would be below what they call the clutter (houses and trees). Planning & Zoning Board May 17, 2018 Page 9 of 9 Member Rollins asked if it had been asked that the tower be located within the steeple or that the steeple could be reconstructed to facilitate the tower. Mr. Powers responded no. Planner Frickey responded that the steeple did not exist and that it was added and built into the roof. Member Carpenter asked that 1f the church wanted to build an actual bell tower, what would the procedure be? Planner Frickey responded that it would be a minor amendment, accessory structure and accessory use to the existing building. Building height restriction would not apply as they do not have ceilings. They could build a bell tower 100' tall with no wireless equipment in it and be fine. It would be approved at the staff level. Deliberation Member Hobbs has issue with the massive scaling and he feels a condition of 45' would be a good compromise. The structure looks overly heavy. Member Rollins agrees with Member Hobbs. It seems overwhelming and taking the top piece off would be better. Chair Schneider asked for clarification on the panels and why it appears the drawings are different. Member Whitley stated that he does not see any similarity between the two. Planner Frickey responded that staff has the most updated drawing. The photo simulation is inconclusive as there is no scale bar and there is no way to compare the two images. The applicant provided the images. Member Whitley is confused as the applicant said the photo simulations were the more accurate representation than the drawing. Chair Schneider clarified that Planner Frickey is saying staff has the most recent drawings. Member Carpenter suggested that the plans are what should be looked at. Merriber Rollins asked if the Board was taking it as is or recommending lower height. Member Carpenter stated that Council had looked at it and conditioned it to 45'. Member Hobbs stated that was not correct. At the APU process staff had recommended a reduction to 45'. Planner Frickey further clarified that Council applied the condition and it then came back to the Board. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommend for approval the APU for the Century Wireless Transmission Facility with the condition that the maximum height of the structure is reduced to 45' and that it is based on the agenda material, information and material presented during the work session, this hearing and discussion on this item. Member Rollins seconded. Member Whitley feels the simulation is misleading visually, there is no true sense of massing, scale and proportion of the final product. Member Whitley will be voting against. Member Carpenter will be supporting the motion. Member Rollins asked if to scale plans will be brought to Council? Planner Frickey responded yes. Chair Schneider will be supporting this motion. Vote: 4:1. Other Business None noted Adjournment Chair Schneider moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:54pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Gerber. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: ~ - c;>..l - I !/.