Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2006-02-21RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission February 21,2006,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Edward Pohl; Commissioners Wendell Amos, Ike Eisenlauer, George Hix, Betty Hull, Joyce Kitchen, and Doug Klink Commissioners Eisenlauer, Hix, Hull, Kitchen, Klink, and Pohl Town Attorney White, Town Board Liaison Homeier, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, and Recording Secretary Roederer Commissioner Amos, Planner Shirk Chair Pohl called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. Estes Valley Planning Commission minutes dated January 17, 2006. b. Preliminary Condominium Map, River’s Edge Condominiums, NW % of SE 1/4 of Section 16, T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M., 1605 Fish Hatchery Road, Request to construct six previously approved duplex buildings providing twelve condominium units, Dallman Construction, Applicant. It was moved and seconded (Huli/Eisenlauer) that the Consent Agenda be accepted, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT, Shanafelt Subdivision, Lot 2, Prosser Subdivision, 1445 S. St. Vrain Avenue, Applicant: Gary & Christine Shanafelt Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is a request for a minor subdivision to divide one iot into two. The iot is located at the corner of Tranquil Lane and Highway 7, is zoned RM-Multi-Family Residential, and is 1.62 acres in size. The applicant proposes to divide the lot into one 30,386-square-foot duplex lot (0.7 acres) and one 40,007-square-foot multi-family lot (0.92 acres). The proposed lots meet the lot size, dimensionai standards, and configuration requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). As it currentiy exists, the maximum allowable density on the iot wouid be thirteen units. If the proposed subdivision is approved, the maximum allowabie density would be reduced by four units, with a deveiopment potential of seven units on proposed Lot 2A and development on Lot 2B limited to the two existing duplex units. No deveiopment is currently proposed. If development on Lot 2A is proposed in the future, construction of three or more units would require Planning Commission review and Town Board approvai. Deveiopment of fewer than four units could be approved at the staff level. A landscaped buffer is required between the property to the west zoned R- Residential and the proposed dupiex lot (Lot 2B). Staff recommends waiving this requirement since a duplex already exists on this lot and no additional units can be built on the lot. Platted limits of disturbance are not required or recommended. Staff recommends that the location of gas lines be shown on the plat and that the plat be rerouted to the Public Works Department and to Upper Thompson Sanitation RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 21,2006 District for their review and approvai prior to Town Board review on March 28, 2006. ISO calculations for fire protection have been submitted; the Fire Chief has not expressed any concerns about the calculations. Additional adequate public facilities standards, including stormwater drainage and the possible requirement of a traffic impact study, will be reviewed if development is proposed on Lot 2A. Staff is supportive of retaining the existing access onto Colorado Highway 7 for the current residences and any future development that may occur on the site. The construction of sidewalk is not recommended because a non-motorized trail is located directly across from the proposed lots along Highway 7. The driveway access easement is currently thirty feet wide. Planning staff has suggested that the applicant consider narrowing the driveway easement to twenty feet, the minimum width required, and shifting the easement to the north, which would provide a larger buildable area on proposed Lot 2A. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent neighbors for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department, Town Attorney Greg White, Upper Thompson Sanitation District, and Colorado Department of Transportation. Planning staff received calls and emails from a few neighbors concerned about the type of development that could occur on the proposed lots and how close to the adjoining property line future development could be located. No written comments were received from neighboring property owners. Public Comment: Mike Carnes, 1047 Tranquil Lane, stated his objection to rezoning the lot from estate zoning to multi-family zoning, reducing the required setbacks, increasing density in the neighborhood, the height of buildings that may be constructed in the future, the impact future development may have on the water pressure in the adjacent Tranquil Vale subdivision, and general objections to further development in his neighborhood. Discussion followed with Chair Pohl, Director Joseph, Planner Chilcott, and Town Attorney White each clarifying that the lot’s zoning will not change—it has been zoned for multi-family use for at least twenty years—the required setbacks will not change, and the allowable density on the proposed lots would actually decrease if the subdivision is approved. Building height is governed by the EVDC, which limits height to thirty feet. There was further discussion over Mr. Carnes’ concerns about the lack of water pressure in the Tranquil Vale subdivision. Town Attorney White advised Mr. Carnes to address his concerns about the water pressure in the Tranquil Vale subdivision with the Town water department and the Town Utilities Committee. He clarified that this is not a development proposal, that the proposed subdivision meets all EVDC requirements and therefore cannot be recommended for disapproval by the Planning Commission. Christine Collins, 1032 Tranquil Lane, requested clarification on the setbacks. Planner Chilcott stated that the wording in the statement of intent was incorrect. Although it refers to a reduction of setbacks, it is the setback from the new interior property line shared by the proposed lots, not the setbacks from the front property line or any neighbors’ adjoining property lines. Ms. Collins stated her opposition to the subdivision request and her concern about not receiving notification of the request. She noted that she also has poor water pressure at her residence. Cliff Baker, 1062 Tranquil Lane, questioned the purpose of the meeting, the authority of the Planning Commission, and who governs the density of development and changes of zoning. He also asked about the number of parking spaces required per unit and whether there is a requirement to provide room for a fire truck to turn around. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 21,2006 Sue Phelps, 1070 Tranquil Lane, stated she shares concerns raised by other neighbors and that she had not received mailed notification. She questioned whether consideration is given to the appearance of proposed development. Meri Winkel, 1431 S. St. Vrain Avenue, questioned access to the proposed lots, stating her concern that traffic would be redirected past the front of her residence. Town Attorney White stated that whatever private property rights of access Ms. Winkle has are not affected by this decision and can’t be changed by decision of the Planning Commission. Marilyn David, 1054 Tranquil Lane, requested and was provided a copy of the neighbor notification mailing list. She questioned whether consideration is given to required utilities or to neighbors’ comments and stated her objection to development that may result in the loss of a “family” neighborhood. Drew Sartell, Van Horn Engineering and Surveying, was present to represent the applicant. He stated the owner does not wish to move the location of the driveway as recommended by staff. He reiterated that the existing lot has the development potential for thirteen units if the subdivision application is not approved. He stated the Shanafelts are long-time residents of the area and are reducing the development potential of the lot by proposing this subdivision. Commissioner Hull recommended a neighborhood meeting between the owners and the neighbors to clarify issues and address concerns. She and Chair Pohl thanked the neighboring property owners for their input. Commissioner Kitchen stated there is no legal obligation to mail notification to neighboring property owners; it is done as a courtesy. It was moved and seconded (Pohl/Kitchen) to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision of Lot 2, Prosser Subdivision, to the Town Board of Trustees, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. CONDITIONS: 1. Plat approval shall be conditioned on comments in the affected agencies’ memos, letters, and emails referred to in the staff report. 2. The preliminary plat shall be rerouted by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying to Public Works for their review and approval of the water service lines prior to Town Board review. 3. The preliminary plat shall be rerouted by Van Horn Engineering and Surveying to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District for their review and approval of the sewer service lines prior to Town Board review. 4. The location of gas lines shall be shown on the plat prior to Town Board review. The gas line to the existing duplex on proposed Lot 2B shall be relocated into one of the proposed utility easements along the property line if it crosses Lot 2A so the buildable area of Lot 2A is not limited. Chair Pohl declared a ten-minute recess at 3:05 p.m. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 21, 2006 AMENDED PLAT, Mary’s Meadow Development, Lots 2, 4, and Outlot A, Mary’s Lake Replat of Mary’s Lake Subdivision, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-01 and PRELIMINARY CONDOMINIUM MAP, Mary’s Meadow Development, Proposed Lot 4A, Mary’s Meadow Replat of Mary’s Lake Replat of Mary’s Lake Subdivision, East of Mary’s Lake Lodge at the intersection of Kiowa Drive and Mary’s Lake Road, Applicant: Mary’s Meadow Deveiopment, Inc. Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. She stated this is an amended plat application to consolidate three lots—Lots 2, 4, and Outlot A of the Mary’s Lake Replat—into two lots, proposed Lots 2A and 4A. The total land area is approximately 7.8 acres; proposed Lot 2A is approximately 2.7 acres and proposed Lot 4A is approximately five acres. The existing lots are zoned A-Accommodations/Highway Corridor, no change in zoning is proposed. Density was transferred from Outlot A to Lots 2 and 4 when the Mary’s Lake Subdivision was originally platted in 2000, so removal of Outlot A will not result in an increase in density. The lot size, dimensional standards, and configuration are appropriate for the location of the subdivision and for the type of development and use contemplated. The applicant has demonstrated that there are building sites on both lots. When Mary’s Lake Subdivision was originally platted, Outlot A was created to protect wetlands that were identified by TR Boss Environmental and Biological Consulting, and to accept drainage from all lots in the subdivision except Lot 1. A second wetlands study was prepared in 2005 by Darcy Tiglas, who concluded that although two of the three required criteria for wetlands had been met, the third— hydrology requirements—was not met and therefore wetlands were not present on Outlot A. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed with the conclusion. Planning staff finds that the area has value as wildlife habitat, and is supportive of the proposed elimination of Outlot A because a platted limits of disturbance, a no-build area, is proposed, which would protect the area of greatest significance as open space. Drainage requirements changed with Larimer County’s adoption of new stormwater drainage regulations in the summer of 2005. The drainage studies for the Mary’s Lake Replat stated that no detention pond was required. The studies have been updated as part of this amended plat application and now state that detention is required. Detention facilities should be designed to improve the area’s natural value and follow best-management practices. The Mary’s Meadow developrnent plari 06- 01 shows a preliminary drainage plan for a detention facility, which will be revised. The applicant and planning staff desire to enhance the wildlife value of the area and provide detention ponds that are natural in appearance. Multiple, smaller ponds are being considered; detention may need to be split between Lots 2A and 4A. This is also a development plan application to build thirty-five multi-family residential units. Five single-family units, five duplexes (ten units), and five four-plexes (twenty units) are proposed. Six accessory buildings are also proposed—a 6,000-square- foot, two-story common building and five four-car garages. The plan meets all required density and dimensional standards. A maximum of forty-one residential units or 123 accommodations units are permitted on the property. The development plan will also serve as the preliminary condominium map. Only one principal use—residential use—is proposed and a note to that effect should be added to the plat. Deed-restricted attainable housing is not proposed, and no density bonus has been requested. Residential use of the property does provide for rentals and the use of units as vacation homes, provided EVDC and municipal regulations are followed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 21,2006 Although residential use is an allowed use in the A-Accommodations zoning district, the accessory use standards for the A zoning district are designed for accommodations development and are not appropriate for residential development. In order to address neighbors’ concerns, the applicant has agreed to limit accessory uses to those found in the RM-Multi-Family Residential zoning district and staff recommends that a note stating so be added to the development plan. The total square footage of accessory buildings is limited based on the square footage of all principal buildings, but there is no limit on the number of permitted accessory buildings in either the A or the RM zoning districts. In response to neighbors’ concerns about the proliferation of future storage buildings, staff recommends that the number of additional accessory buildings be limited with this approval and that the applicant add a note to the plan stating the maximum number of additional buildings that will be allowed in the future. Staff recommends a maximum of five additional accessory buildings and/or a total of 2,000 square feet in additional accessory buildings be allowed; the applicant is supportive of this restriction. Proposed accessory rooms within the common building include a laundry facility, an art room, a library, a kitchen, and a meeting/dining room. Kitchen facilities in the proposed common building are for use by residents who wish to eat meals together; no restaurant is proposed. Staff believes the accessory rooms are incidental and customarily found uses/rooms in a residential common building. Because the community building will provide storage space for residents, planning staff recommends the phasing of the development include construction of the community building early in the process. Proposed phase I includes the first two four-plexes, the community building, garages, and associated landscaping. Proposed phase II includes construction of the tri-plexes and the remainder of the parking. Planner Chilcott stated that staff recommends the phasing plan be revised so that all detention is constructed when 25% of the building permits have been issued for the entire Mary’s Lake subdivision and noted that development may have already reached that point. Neighbors’ concerns include the number of vehicles permitted on the property. Parking is an accessory use and is permitted only in designated parking spaces. Seventy-nine parking spaces are required; seventy are proposed, with areas reserved for the addition of nine parking spaces if demand requires their construction. Information should be provided on the development plan explaining when construction of these parking spaces will be triggered and their construction should be addressed in the phasing plan. Neighbors have also expressed concern about overflow parking spilling onto Kiowa Drive and have requested that required parking be constructed with each phase. Planner Chilcott noted that the developer is not allowed to use off-site parking, including parking along the Kiowa Drive right-of- way, during construction. Given the number of parking spaces shown on the plan, no recreational equipment or recreational vehicles will be allowed to be parked or stored on the property. The applicant may choose to further limit allowed accessory uses through private restrictive covenants. The property owners at 2824 Kiowa Trail have requested that the driveway entrance on Kiowa Drive be relocated so that headlights do not shine directly into their main window; this request has been shared with the applicant. Staff has recommended that at least one handicapped-accessible parking space be located near the common building. Planner Chilcott stated the proposed development plan does a good job of addressing operational and physical compatibility with existing use, with the exception that the location of trash receptacles should be further reviewed. Adequate public facility improvements for proposed Lot 4A are required to be installed or guaranteed prior to issuance of the first building permit, and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 21, 2006 improvements are required to be installed concurrent with the impacts of the development. The proposed development complies with all applicable standards for outdoor storage, areas, activities, and mechanical equipment. No concerns were expressed by reviewing agencies about the provision of water, sewer, or electric services to Lot 2A. A traffic impact study was prepared and reviewed with the Mary’s Lake Replat in 2005; road improvements were required as a condition of plat approval. No further improvements are required with this plat. The study assumed development of fifty units on Lots 2 and 4 of the Mary’s Lake Replat; thirty-five units are proposed on Lot 4A, The study may need to be updated once development is proposed on Lot 2A. A twenty-foot-wide pedestrian easement was dedicated with the Mary’s Lake Subdivision plat and on the Mary’s Lake Replat and is accurately reflected on this proposed plat. Planning staff recommends that the easement be relabeled and dedicated as a non-motorized trail easement, which is consistent with the trail plans for the area. It is the opinion of planning staff that trail construction along the Lot 2A and 4A property lines adjacent to Mary’s Lake Road was triggered with the Mary’s Lake Replat, although it was agreed to delay trail design and construction until a development plan for Lots 2 and 4, which is the area encompassed by proposed Mary’s Meadow, was submitted. Estes Valley Recreation and Park District submitted a letter recommending trail construction. The property owners involved in the replat are not supportive of assuming responsibility for trail construction and will appeal the requirement to construct the trail to the Town Board at their March 14, 2006 meeting. The landscaping plan should be updated to be consistent with the development plan, including any changes to drainage. Staff is supportive of installing landscaping along Kiowa Drive in phase I, given concerns voiced by Kiowa Ridge property owners. The timing of detention pond construction and the associated landscaping requires further review and will be evaluated when plans are resubmitted prior to the March 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Phasing for the open area and detention pond construction and landscaping should be separate from phasing of unit construction on Lot 4A. Greg Sievers of the Public Works Department stated recent changes in the applicant’s plans necessitates Fire Chief Scott Dorman’s re-verification that the ten- foot-wide pedestrian path proposed between the residences will provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. Proposed Lots 2A and 4A are reverse-frontage lots. Building design may not be such that long, blank walls face Mary’s Lake Road; additional landscaping may be needed to buffer Mary’s Lake Road. This request was submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff and to adjacent neighbors for consideration and comment. Comments were received from the Town of Estes Park Department of Building Safety and Public Works Department, from Town Attorney Greg White, Estes Park Sanitation District, Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, Larimer County Engineering Department, Larimer County Planning and Building Services Division, Colorado Department of Transportation, and United States Army Corps of Engineers. Written comments were received from neighboring property owners Gilbert Thomas and Carol J. Gresslin of 2824 Kiowa Trail and from William G. Howell of 3025 Sioux Court. Planning staff met with adjacent property owners a number of times and attended the Kiowa Ridge homeowners’ association meeting in January to answer questions about Town review of the applications. Neighbors remain concerned with some aspects of the proposed development which are beyond the scope of Town regulations and review. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 21,2006 Planner Chilcott noted that development plan approval does not obligate a property owner to build the approved units. The owner can request major or minor changes to the plan or discard the approved plan and submit a new plan for review and approval. The Estes Valley Development Code provides for minor modifications of up to ten percent to be reviewed and approved by staff. Review by the Planning Commission is required for more significant changes. A finding that approval of this application will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, injurious to other property in the neighborhood, or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) is required; however, planning staff needs additional information prior to making this evaluation. Due to the complexity of the project, planning staff recommends the amended plat, development plan 06-01, and the preliminary condominium map applications be continued to the March 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, with resubmittal of the applications with revised plans by February 28, 2006 to address issues described in the staff findings portion of the staff report, including all affected agencies’ comments that would necessitate changes to the plat. The revised plans will be posted on the Town website at www.estesnet.com/comdev/ CurrentReauests.htm the following week; there will not be mailed re-notification of neighbors or the additional publication of legal notice. Commissioner Hull questioned whether patrons of Mary’s Lake Lodge would use the parking in the proposed Mary’s Meadow development. Planner Chilcott noted that some parking for Mary’s Meadow will be along Kiowa Trail, and reviewed the steps that were taken to address neighbors’ concerns over the design of that road. Although the road is in a public easement, it will be privately maintained and posted at both ends with “Private, no through traffic” signs, which should minimize use of the parking spaces by Mary’s Lake Lodge patrons. Public Comment: Frank Theis of CMS Planning and Design was present to represent the applicant. He provided a copy of the detention area concept plan. He has been working with wetlands expert Darcy Tiglas to design a plan that both enhances wildlife habitat and improves the detention. He noted the applicant’s desire to create an area that will be an amenity for the property. He also stated he represents all developers of the Mary’s Lake Replat in their opposition to constructing the required pedestrian trail at their expense. He noted there is ongoing negotiation with staff on this issue and that the developers intend to appeal the trail requirement before the Town Board. In response to a question from Director Joseph, he stated the detention ponds shown on the concept plan may have seasonal standing water, depending on weather conditions. Chair Pohl questioned the applicant, Jim Tawney, whether he would agree to staff’s recommendation of a continuance. Mr. Tawney stated he has postponed presenting these applications to the Planning Commission since December in an effort to address concerns raised by neighbors and planning staff and that he would be willing to continue the applications for one additional month. Joe Coop of Van Horn Engineering and Surveying was present to represent the applicant. Commissioner Hull stated her reservations about the parking plan and her desire to see all seventy-nine parking spaces constructed, as required by the EVDC. Mr. Coop stated that co-housing studies show that number of parking spaces would not be required to meet the needs of residents. Commissioner Klink noted that if the co-housing plan failed and the units were to become condominiums at a later date, the Commissioners would have done a disservice to the community. Commissioners Hull and Klink also expressed their concern about emergency vehicle access to the units. Mr. Coop stated he would review the access with Fire Chief Dorman again and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 21,2006 8 Mr. Tawney noted that the plan for emergency vehicle access is what was recommended by Fire Chief Dorman. Mr. Tawney also noted that the owner of Mary’s Lake Lodge has purchased property from him in order to provide adequate parking for the lodge. He reiterated that Kiowa Drive will be signed at both ends as a private road. He stated the proposed parking is appropriate for the co-housing concept and that he will market the development to people who are interested in co-housing. Tom Gresslin, adjacent property owner of 2824 Kiowa Trail, highly praised Planner Chilcott for all her work on this proposal, noting that she has served as an intermediary between neighboring property owners and the developer when communication between them was strained. He stated he lives directly across the street from the proposed development and has no objection to it. He noted that planning staff has done much and the developer has agreed to many changes to address his concerns. He stated the proposed driveway coming out of the parking area is on an upward slant and pointed directly at his bay window. He requested that the applicant move driveway to the other end of parking lot, noting there is vacant land to the east of his property all the way to Highway 7. He reminded Planning Commissioners that they must ensure there is no injury to other property in the neighborhood and stated the current egress from the parking area would injure his property. He requested that the Commissioners deny the applicant’s request to reduce the amount of parking provided. He requested the location of the common building be changed so the building is closer to the lodge and the residential units are closer to neighboring residential properties, stating that would provide development that was more consistent with adjacent properties. He also requested that the applicant provide more concrete information on covenants and restrictions for the development, noting that co-housing in the Denver area has shacks, chickens, and pigs on the property. Commissioner Hull asked Mr. Tawney whether the driveway from the parking area could be moved. Mr. Tawney stated that moving the drive could impact a future owner. Chair Pohl pointed out that there is no choice for Mr. Gresslin, but a future owner of an adjacent lot could choose where to place a window to eliminate the problem of car lights shining into it. Joe Ford, neighboring property owner of 2800 Kiowa Trail, stated he has spoken in favor of other development in this area and that he does not oppose multi-family development. He stated he has not received positive two-way feedback from the developer about what the proposed development will look like in the future. He stated his home is approximately 150 feet from the front door of the proposed common building and listed multiple concerns with the possible future use of the common building, including community gatherings every night. He stated e does not wish to look out his front window at a common building that may have a bus or snowplow parked there all the time. He reminded Commissioners about the EVDC requirement that development be consistent with surrounding neighborhoods. He stated his concern about the lack of garages for the residences and about co- housing developments in Denver and Boulder that are In various stages of deterioration. He would like to see controls placed on this project. Mr. Tawney stated that not all current co-housing is deteriorating; some co-housing developments are city showpieces. He reminded Commissioners that the issue of protective covenants is not a part of the development plan process and stated one of the parts of co-housing is the process of consensus building among residents. As the developer and owner of the property, he is trying to create a structure that will allow the eventual residents of the development power over the covenants. Chair Pohl and Town Attorney White confirmed that review of covenants is not part of the development plan application process. Town Attorney White noted that covenants RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission February 21,2006 are reviewed when the final condominium map application is processed; the covenants are not reviewed for use regulations, they are reviewed for consistency with Town regulations on things such as density and declarant’s rights. Mr. Tawney went on to note that co-housing is a viable housing option for teachers, town and hospital employees, and other working members of the community, noting that his vision of shared transportation is not a big bus, as Mr. Ford alluded, but rather four or five people car-pooling to work. Commissioner Kitchen encouraged the applicant to consider redesigning the parking egress to eliminate car lights shining into Mr. Gresslin’s window. In order to receive more information on the proposed detention area, on the comments made by the Pubiic Works Department, on the emergency vehicie access to the proposed residentiai units, and on the proposed number of parking spaces, it was moved and seconded (Hull/Klink) to continue the Amended Piat request for Mary’s Meadow Deveiopment, Lots 2, 4, and Outlot A, Mary’s Lake Repiat of Mary’s Lake Subdivision, and the Development Plan 06-01 and the Preliminary Condominium Map requests, Mary’s Meadow Repiat of Mary’s Lake Repiat of Mary’s Lake Subdivision, to the March 21, 2006 Pianning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 5. REPORTS None. Director Joseph expressed his appreciation for Planner Chilcott’s hard work on the Maiy s Meadow development proposal. He stated she has done an outstanding job and further expressed his appreciation of her work as Acting Director while he was out of town. Chair Pohl expressed his appreciation of Mr. Tawney’s willingness to continue his requests to the next Planning Commission meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.p.m. Edward B. Pohl, Chair Ouli^oederer, ^cording Secretary