Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 09/11/20024 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 11, 2002 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date By Time �• �[ �G PRESENT: David Rhone, Chairman ♦ Members Cliff Berg • L. O. Nelson • Danny Richardson Bill Rowland Ken Birck J. C. Bradberry David A. Clark, Director of Community Development Steve Seese, Planning Administrator Paul Stillson, Planner II ABSENT: Susan Wood Reeves Rusty Sons I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rhone at 2:00 p.m. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the audience wished to address the Commission. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ♦ City Staff N Mr. Bradberry made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 14, 2002 meeting. Mr. Berg seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote. IV. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Public Hearing on Preliminary Plats — none submitted 2. Public Hearing on Final Plats The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the following plats subject to the Standard Conditions of Approval for Final Plats and Replats and any specific conditions listed below: Provide utility easements as required by utility companies and Director of Public Utilities, and drainage easements as required by Director of Public Works. ♦ Submit water and sewer plans to the Utilities Engineer; water plans to the Fire Marshall; and street, sidewalk and drainage plans to the Director of Public Works. Drainage plans must be complete enough to include impact on surrounding property and include detention facilities as required by Director of Public Works. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 1 Coordinate street lighting plan with Director of Traffic & Transportation, if underground electric utilities are to be provided. Note: Approval of a plat does not imply development of property in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Woodland Park, Block 2A, Lots 1 -B & 1 -C (Sept. '02) a. Provide utility slips. b. Alley closure process shall be in accordance with City Policies on alley and easement closures. City Council approval will be required. c. Include in legal description "Portions of Blocks 4,5 & 6, Woodland Park ". d. Comply with stormwater detention ordinance. (PUBLIC WORKS) Mr. Richardson made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Berg seconded the motion. The Consent Agenda passed with a unanimous vote in favor. V. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Rezone to Multifamily 7.723 Acre Tract Being Lots 8 -12, Block 4, Country Club Addition R 02 -04 Applicant ........... ...........................Larry Edelbrock, W.V. Housing Ltd. Requested Action .. .......................Rezoning from Single Family -2 and Light Industrial to Multifamily Purpose ................. .......................Apartment Development Property ......... ..............................A 7.723 -acre tract being Lots 8 -12, Block 4, Country Club Addition, a portion of Lot 1 -A, Block 2A, Woodland Park Addition and adjacent property out of Abstract 305, from Single Family -2 Residential and Light Industrial to Multifamily Residential Existing Land Use .. ......................Residence Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning N: Residential, SF -2 E: Commercial, LI S: Commercial, LI W: Golf Course, LI Analysis: The applicant seeks to rezone this 7.723 -acre tract consisting of five lots along 32nd Street zoned Single Family and a portion of the Woodland Park Addition to the south presently zoned Light Industrial. The general area is a combination of residential and commercial uses. There are few uses in the area that would be classified of a Light Industrial nature. a. Changed conditions: The City used CBDG funds to pave the streets in this general area to encourage redevelopment. b. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: Staff considered the effects of the land uses allowed under that proposed zoning district relative to conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan currently designates the area "Commercial ". The existing Light Industrial zoning is not in conformance with the plan. c. The nature and degree of impact upon neighboring lands: The rezoning of this area will be compatible with the surrounding land uses. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 2 If rezoned to Multifamily, an amendment to the Land Use Plan to High Density Residential is also required. Evaluation of access, traffic, lighting, etc. will be conducted under the site plan review process. This can only be accomplished once building layouts, number of units, ingress and egress, etc. are shown. In order to avoid having a small unbuildable area of Multifamily zoning along Holliday, staff recommends the 200 x 37 foot drainage way not be rezoned MFR. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning with the exclusion of the 200 x 37 ft. strip along Holliday. This request will also require an amendment to the land use plan. Mr. Richardson made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning case to City Council. Mr. Nelson seconded the vote. Fifty -two (52) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Within the notification area, ten (10) properties replied in favor, an additional five (5) properties inside the proposed rezoning tract replied in favor. These tracts are under the same ownership and would be a part of the development thus separating them from the ten properties in favor. No responses were received that were opposed. Outside the notification area, twelve (12) responses opposed the rezoning request. Mr. Seese summarized the comments from the responses. Mr. Larry Edelbrock, applicant for proposed Woodview Apartment Complex, stated he would be available to answer questions or explain the project in more detail. Mr. Charlie Gibson, 3011 Speedway, stated as Vice President he was representing the Wichita Falls Country Club. He asked the Commission to table the decision regarding this rezoning citing reasons that the Country Club did not receive proper notification and they were not able to have a board meeting or poll the membership to form a formal opinion about the potential long -term problems of the proposed location of this complex. His concerns were ingress /egress problems, and proximity to schools and parks. He commented that this project would adversely affect the Country Club's property. He stated this is neither the right use for this land nor the right place for this project. Mr. Seese responded that the Country Club was sent a notice and nothing has been returned as undeliverable. He further stated that they were also mailed a notice during that same time frame regarding an alley closure, to which they responded. Mr. Bobby Schaaf, #4 Champions, stated he was protesting this development because of traffic concerns, especially on 32nd Street, density, overcrowding of area schools, and lack of parks and playgrounds. Mr. Seese cautioned the Commission about using school enrollment as criteria for determining a change in the zoning district status. Mr. Richardson commented that the current zoning could accommodate land uses, which might have a more negative effect on the surrounding property than GC zoning. Chairman Rhone reviewed all of the current zoning (LI) uses. Chairman Rhone asked if 32nd Street could handle the increase in traffic from an apartment complex. Mr. Clark stated that when this project was first PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 3 discussed, Mr. George Bonnett, former Director of Public Works, expressed there would not be a problem with an increase in traffic on 32 "d Street. Mr. Tommy Isbell, 2104 Berkeley, asked for a clarification regarding the property owner responses. Mr. Seese stated there were ten responses in favor of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Isbell stated, when he was considering developing the 4 -H property (now Champions Addition), he originally proposed a higher density development but was discouraged because of traffic concerns. Chairman Rhone addressed tabling this item by asking Mr. Edelbrock for an explanation of his timeframe. Mr. Edelbrock explained that the zoning had to be approved by October 10th. He further mentioned that MFR allows 25 units per acre while this project will have 14 per acre. The complex will have 104 apartments; the amount to be invested in that area will be $8.3 million. He added that it would be a gated community, one of the finest (apartments) in the city. Schools, businesses, Sheppard Air Force Base and other community leaders have submitted letters supporting this project. Mr. Clark stated he and staff have been involved with this project because of its low income housing tax credit financing. He further explained that this apartment complex is a logical use of the property. The developer has successfully completed a highly competitive and difficult process to achieve tax credit award. Representatives from the State surveyed and closely scrutinized the area before granting the financing. The City responded to questioning by the State indicating a need for low -to moderate - income housing and the availability of utilities, and transportation. City officials, as well as elected city officials, responded with support for this project. He stressed the objective before this Commission is to consider whether to change the land use of this property. Responding to the Commission's question regarding locating this project in other areas of Wichita Falls, Mr. Edelbrock stated the north side of town would not be feasible. Location within a "qualified census tract ", such as this property, is essential to receive the tax credits. Mr. Birck stated that Ms. Catherine Fitch, Housing Administrator, indicated to him that the south part of Wichita Falls was saturated with low- income housing projects and there was a demand in the northern part of the city. Mr. Edelbrock stated that Ms. Fitch was extremely supportive of this project. She was probably indicating the saturation of projects around the Rathgeber Road area, which is 4 -5 miles away. Mr. Clark emphasized to the Commission that the issue under consideration was not the location of low- income housing but a zoning issue. He did, however, explain more about qualified census tracts. They are located in the eastern portion of the city, from north to south and not too far north. Within those areas, the City administration has been reluctant to support subsidized apartments being located in one area ( Rathgeber Road area) and this site did not contribute to that concentration. Mr. Edelbrock reviewed a letter from Ms. Fitch dated February 21, 2002 stating the importance of the apartments as related to the revitalization of the area by helping to meet goals of the Council - approved Consolidated Plan and supporting the site. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 4 Mr. Bob Johnson, 2031 Peachtree, owner of the property being considered for rezoning, stated that he previously tried to sell the proposed property to both the Country Club and Mr. Isbell, but there was no interest by either party. He commented that this would be a great location for an apartment complex as well as raising the tax base in that area. Mr. Nelson inquired about the 37 foot strip along Holliday that is suggested to be excluded. Mr. Stillson stated this strip would be unbuildable. Mr. Clark stated that rezoning that strip would not be compatible with the zoning line since it contains a drainage ditch. Mr. Seese stated the citizen's concern about the proximity of a drainage ditch does not relate to this project because Holliday Creek is not close to this area. Regarding traffic, Mr. Seese stated that Jacksboro Highway was at one -third of its vehicular capacity. He also stated that 32 "d Street is a 50 foot wide street with 31 feet of pavement with curb and gutter. There are nine houses located on this street; with the potential of 1 -1/2 cars per family from the apartments added to the existing cars, this street would still be under vehicular capacity for a local street. Mr. Birck asked if the number of apartment units could be limited. Mr. Seese replied rezoning procedure does not accommodate such a limitation and that issue could not be considered. Mr. Berg stated he was concerned with the density issue relating to traffic with approximately 150 cars traveling down 32 "d Street at 8:00 a.m. and again at 5:00 p.m. Chairman Rhone stated that this would be a great addition to the City but the effects and the impacts on the infrastructure (streets) must also be considered. Mr. Nelson stated there was similar rezoning case on Jacksboro Highway several months prior that caused concern. He stated he was opposed to that rezoning; however, that location seemed more appropriate than this one. He commented that this area would be suited for a less dense project with no greater than SF -2 zoning. Chairman Rhone asked if the property previously rezoned for subsidized housing was considered for this project. He also asked about the procedure for locating property to develop for tax credit housing. Mr. Clark stated that the developer of a project decides on the procedure. He further commented that the developer of the proposed housing development on Jacksboro went through a two -year process that turned very political with another local project being selected, which is now under construction on Highway 79. Mr. Nelson asked rhetorically if less dense units could be constructed on the property. Chairman Rhone stated he was answering this question and emphasized that the issue is a request for rezoning; the Commission cannot consider the number of units to be constructed but only the land use. The vote was none (0) in favor and seven (7) opposed. The motion failed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 5 2. Rezone to General Commercial Lots 11 & 12, Block 16A, Highland Addition R 02 -09 Applicant ........... ...........................City of Wichita Falls Requested Action .. .......................Rezoning Purpose ............... .........................Rezone from Single - Family Residential (SF -2) to General Commercial (GC). Property ............ ...........................Lots 11 & 12, Block 16A, Highland Addition Existing Land Use ........................Vacant Fire Station Surrounding Land Use & Zoning N: Residence, SF -2 S: Kell Blvd., GC E: Residences, LC, SF -2 W: Lumber Yard, Residences, GC Analysis: This is the old Fire Station # 5 owned by the City of Wichita Falls. It was abandoned in September of 2000 when personnel and equipment moved to the new fire station built on Beverly Drive. The building has been vacant since that time. The City is in the process of selling this property. This property currently has a split zoning. This property consists of a total of four lots. The southern two lots are zoned General Commercial and the northern two lots are zoned Single - Family Residential. This has resulted into a situation where the building sets in a General Commercial zoning district while the parking lot is in a Single - Family Residential zoning district. In order for the property to marketed and fully used as a commercial building the parking lot will have to be rezoned to GC. Any new commercial use at this location will be subject to all developmental requirements including a six -foot tall privacy fence along the northern property line to serve as screening from residential areas. Recommendation: Because the City is the applicant in this case, staff will not make a recommendation. Mr. Birck made a motion to recommend approval of this rezoning case to City Council. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. Seventeen (17) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) replied in favor, none (0) were opposed, and one (1) was undecided. Mr. Birck made a motion to change the rezoning request to Limited Commercial. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Mr. Clark stated this property will be offered for sale as a single piece of property. It will probably be developed as a commercial entity considering the proximity to Kell Blvd. and noted the lumber yard across the street. Mr. Seese stated the zoning division runs through the middle of this property separating the parking lot from the building. Mr. Seese stated he did not feel there would be a benefit to having Limited Commercial zoning for a parking lot of a building located in GC. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 6 The vote was three (3) in favor and four (4) opposed to changing the zoning to Limited Commercial. The vote for the original motion was six (6) in favor and one (1) opposed. 3. Carport 4502 Sisk Road C 02-43 Mr. Nelson made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion. Sixteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Seven replied in favor and none were opposed. The applicant, Jeffery Harper, submitted two more positive neighborhood responses. He described the carport by stating it would be 20 x 19 feet, aluminum with gutters, paint scheme to match the house, and a flat roof. The carport was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. 4. Auto Repair Facility 4554 Barnett Road Case C 02-44 Applicant ........... ...........................Mike Shallenberger Requested Action ..... ....................Conditional Use Permit Purpose ............. ...........................Auto Repair in General Commercial Property ............ ...........................4554 Barnett Road Existing Land Use ........................Vacant Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning N: Multifamily, MFR E: Residential, SF -2 S: Vacant land, GC W: Vacant land, GC Analysis: The applicant seeks a conditional use permit to construct an auto repair facility on this 0.46 -acre tract on the west side of Barnett Road. It is part of a large tract of land north of the drainage channel that was rezoned from Single Family -2 to General Commercial. Auto repair requires a conditional use in a General Commercial Zone. This proposed 6,400 sq. ft. building will be used for the storage and repair of automobiles. The parking requirement for auto repair is one parking space per 200 sq. ft. of building resulting in a 32 parking space requirement. The applicant's site plan shows 31 spaces. Note that the shared driveway that will serve this property and the property to the south. Shared driveways are recognized as a way to reduce the number of driveways on a street and are PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 7 generally a benefit to the property developer and the motorists using the adjacent street. Our parking ordinance is silent on the subject of shared drives. Staff is concerned that the rear of the property will become a long term storage yard for vehicles and should be screened with a privacy fence. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval conditional use with the condition that the rear of the property by screened with a privacy fence. Eight surrounding property owners were notified of this request. No responses were received in favor and five responded opposed. Mr. Seese summarized the negative responses. Mr. Dennis Probst, representative for the owner, stated the size of the building was based on the proposed occupant's need which will be an auto repair shop. The occupant does not envision using all the proposed parking spaces; however, they are required based the square footage of the building. He also stated the rear perimeter of the parking lot would have a metal fence installed. He further explained the drive - through capabilities of the shop into the rear of the lot. Stored vehicles would not be visible from the front of the building. Mr. Nelson inquired about outdoor lighting. Mr. Seese responded that would be addressed in the review of the site plan. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval of this auto repair shop. 5. Carport 1008 Wolcott C 02-45 Mr. Richardson made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Ten surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Two replied in favor and none were opposed. The carport passed with a unanimous vote in favor. 6. Carport 3405 Barrett Place C 02-46 Mr. Richardson made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Twenty -two surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Four replied in favor and none were opposed. The applicant, Linda Niebruegge, stated she is requesting the carport to protect her vehicle. The carport was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 8 7. Carport 4323 Edgehill C 02-47 A motion and second were made to approve this carport request. Twenty -five surrounding property owners were notified of this carport request. Four replied in favor and none were opposed. Ms. Shirley Pollock, 4349 Grandview South, stated her house has a carport and she is supportive of her neighbor's request. The carport was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. 8. Carport 4520 Lakeview Drive C 02-48 Mr. Berg made a motion to approve this carport request. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Eighteen surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Four replied in favor and none were opposed. Mr. David Burbank, applicant, requested the carport for protection of his vehicle from the environment. The carport was approved with a unanimous vote in favor. 9. Halfway House /Transitional Training Facility 2900 Henry S. Grace Freeway C 02-49 Applicant .......... ............................Gil Peters, Christ's Prison Fellowship Requested Action ..... ....................Conditional Use Permit Purpose ................ ........................Halfway house for parolees Property ............ ...........................2900 Henry S. Grace Freeway Existing Land Use ........................Fork lift sales and service Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning N: Henry Grace Freeway, GC E: Henry Grace Freeway, GC S: County Property, GC W: Vacant land, Residences Analysis: The applicant seeks a conditional use permit to establish a halfway house for prison parolees. A portion of the former Morgan Dodge building will be remodeled to accommodate 16 -18 parolees who will live in this facility. The facility will operate around the clock, seven days a week. The average stay for participants will be from one to two years. There will be about four employees that will provide supervision, psychological counseling, work training and life skills. The parolees may be employed offsite with the employers providing the transportation. No individuals may own a car and the facility will be locked at night. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 9 The applicant has stated that no violent individuals or sex offenders will be admitted into this program. Staff notes that the site is somewhat isolated, with the nearest residences about 400 feet away. Because this property is in the 100 year floodplain, improvements to the building may not exceed 50 percent of the value of the present building without elevating the entire structure to one foot above base flood elevation -in this case about four feet. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval conditional use with the condition that no violent individuals or sex offenders be housed here. Mr. Richardson made a motion to approve this request for a halfway. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Mr. Seese presented a list of violent offenders supplied by the applicant. He stated that violent offenders would not be housed at this facility. Mr. Seese recommended a condition be added to include offenders of any type of sex crime be excluded from the proposed facility. Mr. Gil Peters, coordinator for Christ Prison Fellowship, presented a history of this prison ministry in Wichita Falls. He enlightened the Commission to the problems facing parolees as they reenter society. He then explained some methods to defeat the cycle of criminal behavior. Mr. Richardson asked if admittance to his program was voluntary. Mr. Peters explained that parolees must have a place to go for residency and rehabilitative training. He further stated they would either be with staff or at their place of employment. Mr. Nelson asked if the entire building would be utilized. Mr. Peters responded that, since the building is located in the flood plain, there is a limitation of the amount of remodeling that can be done. Living quarters and classrooms are the main focus. Dr. James Sterling, 4209 Kingsbury Drive, stated he has been involved with this organization for about one year. He praised the success of the program. Mr. Peters added that this facility will train parolees to reintegrate into society. Mr. Mark Hengry, 1439 Cherokee Circle in Burkburnett, stated that he has been involved with this organization for four years. He commented that this is a needed facility for training parolees before entering society. He totally supported this proposed facility. Mr. Seese asked the Commission to consider an amendment to the original motion to include the exclusion of violent offenders and sexual offenders in this transitional training facility. Mr. Berg made the motion with Mr. Richardson seconding the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. The original motion to approve this conditional use permit was passed with a unanimous vote in favor. 10.Therapy and Rehabilitation Clinic 2101 Brook Avenue C 02 -50 Applicant ........... ...........................Scott Davis Requested Action ..... ....................Conditional Use Permit Purpose ................ ........................Therapy and Rehabilitation Clinic Property ............ ...........................2101 Brook Avenue PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 10 Existing Land Use ........................Vacant Building Surrounding Land Use & Zoning..N: Residences, BA S: Residences, BA E: Residences, BA W: Residences, Offices, BA Analysis: This is a vacant commercial building at the corner of Brook Avenue and Pearl Street. Records indicate that the last use of the building was Triumph Dental Lab and it operated until the late 1990's. Prior to that the use was Texcolor Photo Center and it ceased operations around the late 1980's. This site is within the Brook Avenue (BA) zoning district. The BA district is a specialized district allowing primarily offices and medical offices. At its June 12th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would add "Therapy and Rehabilitation" under the Brook Avenue district as a Conditional Use. The City Council passed the amendment on July 16, 2002. This application will be the first request for a Therapy and Rehabilitation Clinic facility within the Brook Avenue zoning district. The applicant has stated that the facility "will be used for message therapy, aroma therapy and hydro therapy" and that the facility "will be a total wellness clinic." Recommendation: Staff feels that this request fits into the intent of the BA district and recommends approval. Mr. Birck made a motion to approve this conditional use permit. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Twenty -five surrounding property owners were notified about this conditional use permit. Six replied in favor and none were opposed. Ms. Theresa Davis, applicant, explained the services she would be providing at her clinic. Mr. Nelson stated he was supportive of this request. The conditional use permit passed with a unanimous vote in favor. 11. Recycling "Buy Back" Center 2601 -2611 Jacksboro Highway C 02 -51 Applicant ............. .........................Thomas H. Lyon, Vista Fibers of Dallas Requested Action ..... ....................Conditional Use Permit Purpose .................. ......................Recycling "Buy Back" Center Property ................. ......................2601 -2611 Jacksboro Highway Existing Land Use ........................Morgan Buildings Sales Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning N: Jacksboro Highway, GC E: Auto Repair, Auto Sales, GC S: Concrete Batch Plant, GC W: Auto Sales, GC PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 11 Analysis: The applicant seeks a conditional use permit operate a recycling center for aluminum, paper and "red" metals such as brass and copper. This business has to move from its present location because of the Jasper water plant expansion. The center will use the existing buildings on this site with no planned additional structures. There will be two employees operating 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., six days a week. There are no company vehicles other than a forklift. The applicant is also investigating the possibility of partnering with the City to collect plastic and paper, which would be an additional business added to the current operation. The principal noise source would be from the can flattener and blower machine and some sawing of larger metal pieces. Staff visited this present location and detected a moderate level of noise, but not excessive. The applicant stated that he has not had any complaints about the noise produced at the current site. Staff's other concern was outdoor storage of scrap materials. For that reason, staff recommends that no outdoor storage be permitted. Any materials must be fully screened from view with a privacy fence of sufficient height to completely obscure them from view. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this conditional use, with the condition that no outdoor storage be permitted. Mr. Richardson made a motion to approve this conditional use request. Mr. Bradberry seconded the motion. Twenty -one surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One replied in favor and two were opposed. Mr. Seese reviewed the negative responses with the Commission. Mr. Tom Lyon, applicant, stated he had been operating at his present location for 25 years until he was displaced by the new water treatment plant. He explained the operation of his facility with emphasis on minimal amount of noise generated. Mr. Chris Gilfrey, manager of the current operation, stated there have not been any noise complaints in the thirteen years he has been associated with the company. Mr. Nelson stated this business would be an improvement to the area. The vote was unanimous in favor of approval. V11. OTHER BUSINESS 1. City Council Update — Ordinance Amending Subdivision Regulations Mr. Clark stated that City Council tabled the ordinance to have a sub - committee review it. A meeting for this week is scheduled, then the ordinance will go back to Council. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 12 2. Discussion of Items of Concern to Member of the P &Z Commission Mr. Birck stated that restrictions concerning architectural design should be considered by this Commission. VII. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. David Rhone, Chairman ATTEST: Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator Date Date PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 PAGE 13