Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/01/1996 MINIITES OF MEETING August 1, 1996 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LANGDON at 7:32 p.m., on August 1, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Robert Eckhardt Harry Williams Carolyn Griffith Jay Rasplicka Carl A. Cerveny George Langdon Janice Thompson Warren Johnson - EXCUSED ABSENCE Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PIISLIC HEARING The .following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of August 1, 1996. A copy of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the. City of Wheat Ridge. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 1, 1996 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to approve the order of. the agenda as printed. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Mr. Gidley informed Commission that the item under Discussion and Decision Items Capital Improvement Projects would not be heard this evening. Those projects were not yet finalized, he noted. With that change, motion carried 7-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MIar~ia.S Commissioner CERVENY moved to approve the--minutes for the meeting of July 18, 1996 as printed. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. 6. PIIBLIC FORIIM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing under Item 7 of the Public Hearing section of the agenda.) No one had signed the roster, nor came forward to speak at that • time. 7. PII8LIC HEARING 1. Case No.WZ-9h-7. ACity-initiated large area rezoning from Residential-Three (R-3) to Residential-One C (R- 1C) and Residential-Two (R-2). The rezoning area is generally located between West 32nd Avenue on the south, West 38th Avenue on the north, Sheridan Blvd, on the east and Pierce Street on the west. Mr. Gidley presented the staff report. Entered and accepted into the record was the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gidley pointed out several corrections on the zoning map projected overhead, explaining the reasons why the corrections were necessary. Commissioner CERVENY inquired about a written response contained in the packet. Mr. Gidley responded that the highest use of the land was not guaranteed. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY voiced his concern that rezoning might make some properties less valuable to the owner(s). Mr. Gidley reminded Commissioner CERVENY that City Council had • directed staff to proceed with this large area rezoning proposal and Planning Commission should stick to the topic for discussion. Planning Commission Minutes • August 1, 1996 Page 3 Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the property Commissioner CERVENY was concerned about was located at 5755 West 37th Avenue. She added that she thought that property already had multi-family dwelling on it. Mr. Gidley noted that the property Commission THOMPSON was referring to (5755 W 37th Ave) was outside the area of rezoning. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked what the average lot size in the area _-. of proposed rezoning. Mr. Gidley measured some of the lots in the subject area and determined their size, relating the lot size to the number of dwelling units that could be built with a particular zoning. Chairperson LANGDON asked Mr. Gidley what the difference was between R-2 and R-3 zoning. Mr. Gidley referred which was projected zoning districts by Discussion followed possible number of several residential to a Summary of Zoning District Regulations overhead. He explained the difference in the comparing them, regarding different scenarios and the :amily dwelling units that could be built on lots. Chairperson.LANGDON asked Mr. Gidley to explain the process necessary to build multi-family units on several residential lot(s). Mr. Gidley explained how a property owner of several residential lots who wished to build multi-family dwellings would go about securing a consolidation plat. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the proposed large area rezoning would actually achieve the goal of low-density residential. Mr. Gidley answered that once the zoning was locked into R-1C, there would be only two possible new subdivisions, referring to the two large pieces of vacant land in the area. Commissioner THOMPSON noted that some of the single-family residences were on large lots. Mr. Gidley acknowledged that fact. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if it would be possible to have dwelling units built three stories high? Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 1, 1996 Mr. Gidley answered yes, but he added that was allowed under the current residential zoning regulations as well. He elaborated. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked what the setback would be for three stories (35 feet)? Mr. Gidley answered that in the R-1C zone side setbacks would be five feet; 30 feet from front; 10 feet from the back. He also provided setback regulations for. the R-2 zone and setback regulations for multi-family dwellings in R-3 zone districts. Commissioner CERVENY asked if there would he properties currently zoned R-2 to R-1C? Mr. Gidley stated no, the proposed rezoning was from existing R-3 zoning to either R-1C or R-2 zoning. Discussion followed. Commissioner THOMPSON noted how "transitional zoning" (multifamily-family to duplexes to single-family residences) can be used to buffer. Mr. Gidley elaborated on that concept. Chairperson LANGDON asked how properties became nonconforming, such as those zoned R-1C but have a two-family unit on it? Mr. Gidley noted that the properties in question are zoned R-3, not R-1C. Some of the lots in the R-3 zone district are sub- standard for a two-family dwelling, but have two-family dwellings on them. Many started out as "mother-in-law" apartments. He elaborated. After a certain period of time, he added, the use would become legal nonconforming. Commissioner GRIFFITH asked what could be placed on a certain parcel of land if the zoning was changed to R-iC. Mr. Gidley explained that it would allow only a single-family home on it. However, he further noted that the other lot could be subdivided and developed into several other single-family dwellings with a private drive serving them. Kent Davis, 8080 Melrose Drive, was sworn in. Mr. Davis stated his family owned 3705 Jay Street which contained two parcels containing approximately 5.25 acres. One_parcel is zoned R-2 and the other smaller parcel was zoned R-3, he added. Mr. Davis stated although there was no plan to develop the land, he wanted • the zoning to remain as it was. The property currently is for sale. He elaborated. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 1, 1996 Commissioner GRIFFITH asked Mr. Davis what zoning had he applied for on the property? Mr_ Davis answered R-3, multi-family. He noted that there was existing multi-family in the area. Mr. Gidley noted that his recollection was the application was for medium-density iapproximately 14-16 units/acre) townhouses. ,Tim Brown„ 3505 Gray Street was sworn in. Mr. Brown stated he had confusion about the R-1C zoning. Mr. Gidley explained the proposed R-1C zoning to Mr. Brown. Mr_ Brown asked about the density that the R-1C zoning would allows. Mr. Gidley stated that R-1C zoning would allow 8.5 units per acre. He elaborated. Mr. Brown asked how the rezoning would affect his property value. . Mr. Gidley reported that he spoke with the County Assessor assured him that as it relates to existing development, single family homes are assessed as they are developed. The underlying zoning would have no bearing on how a property is assessed. Valuation, he added, is based upon market in terms of resale value. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley to explain to Mr. Brown what could be built on his lot if the proposed rezoning is approved. Mr. Gidley stated that a lot size of 5600, a single family home could be built on a lot that size, whether the zoning is R-3, R-2 R-lA, R-1B or R-iC. Discussion followed. Mr. Brown asked if his house burned down, could he rebuild it? Mr. Gidley answered yes, he could, in any of the zone districts he mentioned. Discussion followed. Frank Nocera 3690 Pierce Street, was sworn in. Mr. Nocera stated he would like to retain the R-2 zoning on his property because he may, at some point, wish to rent a mother-in-law apartment. He was also concerned about property value. He elaborated. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 • August 1, 1996 Commissioner CERVENY spoke about property values, re-salability. Discussion followed. . Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he saw no problem in allowing Mr. Nocera's property to be rezoned to R-2, rather than R-1C. Commissioner THOMPSON asked rvr,- Nocera to point out his property on the overhead. Mr. Nocera did so. Edgar Johnson, 3700 Benton Street was sworn in. Mr. Johnson pointed out two parcels of land (currently zoned R-3) which are developed as duplexes and should be rezoned R-2. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the. zoning could be changed if the property owner had not be notified? Mr. Gidley stated Planning Commission could make the recommendation and then the property owner would be notified when the public hearing before City Council is. scheduled. • Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Mr. Johnson if he knew the addresses of the two parcels in question. Mr. Johnson stated he drove past them trying to get addresses, but had been unable. to read the addresses from his vehicle ._ He spoke of his concern for a vacant parcel in his neighborhood being developed at a high density. C'hervl Brunaardt, 5621 West 36th Place was sworn in. Ms. Brungardt stated she was in favor of the rezoning. -She stated that there has been a tremendous increase in traffic in her neighborhood. She also mentioned her concern that many of the rental properties are not maintained. Commissioner THOMPSON asked what the standard lot size was for patio homes being built? Mr. Gidley answered the ones near Miller Street on 38th Avenue on the north are 5,000 to 5,500 square foot lots. The overall density is approximately 4.9 units per acre, with streets removed. Ms. Brunaardt stated she had owned her home for 20 years and was not new to the area. • Reata Bitter, 3555 Chase Street was sworn in. Ms. Bitter stated she had lived at that location for over 3..0 years. She added. that Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 1, 1996 she was strongly in favor of the rezoning. She wanted to maintain the single-family home community. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Ms. Bitter what was her opinion of duplexes? Ms. Bitter stated that a nicely-built and maintained duplex was fine. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if she preferred single-family to duplexes? Ms_ Bitter stated she did. Marilyn Veitch, 3715 Chase Street was sworn in. Ms. Veitch stated she was surrounded by apartments. She was in favor of the rezoning. She elaborated. Don Gassman 3725 Harlan Street was sworn in. Mr. Gassman stated he was in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Gassman informed Commission of the problems he had encountered with apartment tenants presently and how he did not want the situation to worsen. • Dick nol7 who had signed .the roster, was not present to speak. Roberta Thomas, 6595 West 32nd Avenue was sworn in. Ms. Thomas stated she wanted to retain R-3 zoning on her property. She added that her property contains two single-family homes on one lot. One of the homes contains a two-unit apartment. She stated with R-1C or R-2 zoning, her property could not be rebuilt if it was destroyed. Mr. Gidley stated Ms. Thomas' property was unique in that it contained two primary structures on a single lot, which makes it nonconforming with the present zoning. Under Colorado and Wheat Ridge law, unless you have a planned unit development, only one primary structure is allowed on it. So, as it stands today, should the structures somehow be destroyed, they both could not be replaced without obtaining a variance. Ms, Thomas explained how the property came to be that way. Mr. Gidley stated that it predated zoning. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked what was the property lot size? And which of the two structures Could she replace; the duplex or a single-family dwelling? Mr. Gidley stated the lot size was approximately 75 feet by 145 feet, so with the current R-3 zoning, only one two-family Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 • August 1, 1996 dwelling could be placed on the property. He elaborated. Mr. Gidley stated that he would modify the proposal and recommend that R-3 zoning be retained on this particular parcel. Dornthv Archer, 3640 Marshall Street was sworn in. She asked if previous down-zoning in the City had successfully halted high- density growth. Mr. Gidley stated one area east of Fenton Street, between Fenton and Sheridan Blvd. and south of West 32nd Avenue was down-zoned from R-3 to R-iC in about 1974. Since most of the area was built-nut, there hasn't been much intensification in that area. Ms. Archer pointed out several large, vacant parcels which she pointed out could be developed into multi-family complexes. Ms. Archer stated that she was in favor of the down-zoning. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if Ms. Archer had feelings one way or another regarding her own property. Ms_ Archer stated her concerns were the large, vacant areas she had pointed out. Commissioner GRIFFITH asked Ms. Archer if she was in favor or in opposition to the large area rezoning. Ms. Archer stated she was in favor of the rezoning. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY asked Ms: Archer what would be a fair way to handle rezoning the large, still-vacant parcels? Ms_ Archer said she was vacillating between R-2 and R-1C zoning. She pointed out several smaller parcels that could be similarly developed. Commissioner CERVENY pointed out that if the large area rezoning is approved, the option of combining several small parcels in - order to build multi-family housing would be eliminated. Ms_ Archer answered she isn't opposed to owners of large vacant parcels getting a fair amount out of their property, however, she believes that the neighborhoods should be protected from developers coming in and putting large numbers of multi-family units in single-family residential neighborhoods. Discussion followed. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 1, 1996 Ms_ Archer stated her recommendation would be for the entire parcel to be rezoned from R-2 and R-3 to R-2. Commissioner CERVENY asked if Ms. Archer would oppose rezoning the parcel to R-3 if restrictions were placed on the property? Ms_ Archer stated it would be impossible to enforce such restrictions if the developer had enough land to build the units. She gave examples of past instances. Discussion followed. Commissioner THOMPSON reminded those present that owners could, at a later date, apply to rezone their parcels. Mr. Gidley agreed that was so. Each parcel would be considered on its' own merit. He admitted that it would be less likely for the rezoning to be approved. Ms. Archer asked if certain property owners could protest the rezoning and ask to be eliminated from the proposal? • Mr. Gidley explained how something similar to that could happen. Chairperson LANGDON asked if a stipulation could be made that the owners of the large, vacant parcels could apply to maintain their zoning as R-3? Mr. Gidley stated that would be contrary to City Council°s directive. City Council, with their directive, has already said "no" to such a request. Chairperson LANGDON stated he had problems taking rights away from individuals without their approval. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked how City Council decide what they were going to do before a public hearing was held? Mr. Gidley stated this was a legislative process, not a quasi- judicial proceeding. City Council initiated this with an idea in mind. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley if when Commission is ready to make a motion, should the properties discussed individually be voted on separately? She felt some properties needed to be excluded from the large area rezoning. Mr. Gidley stated that Commission could, if it should desire, • continue this matter for the purpose of making a decision to your next meeting. Between now and then, the property owners not Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 August 1, 1996 notified (because they were not considered a part of the rezoning), draft a new map, summarize comments made in order to help Commission organize their thoughts and make a final conclusion. Commissioner GRIFFITH noted that Council not direct Planning Commission to exclude properties from the proposal. Should the individual property owners who wish to be excluded from the proposed large area rezoning go before City Council. Mr. Gidley agreed that they could. Mr. Gidley stated he thought that Planning Commission's duty was do what Commission felt was right in this situation, based upon the information presented to them. Commissioner GRIFFITH did not feel that Planning Commission should make the decision regarding what properties, if any, should be excluded. Mr. Gidley stated that Planning Commission can make a recommendation to City Council to approve as it was presented, approve as modified, or to deny. Commissioner CERVENY asked if it was possible to require the owners of the large vacant parcels to obtain a PRD upon. development, if the R-3 z~n~*'g is retained? Mr. Gidley stated that would be an "overlay requirement" on those vacant properties to require site plan review with building permit application. Unless you have specific standards to apply to the site plan review, then you are setting yourself up for arbitrary and capricious decisions. Commissioner CERVENY asked if_specific standards could be set. Mr. Gidley stated it was possible, but usually it was based upon design criteria that had some association to another, perhaps adjacent, development. It would be very difficult to set standards, when you don't know what objectives you're trying to achieve. Mr. Gidley suggested a reasonable alternative would be rather than rezoning the large vacant parcels to R-1C, they be rezoned to R-2. In that way, the option of single-family or two-family dwellings could be built. • Mr_ Davis was called back to the stand. He stated if he was looking to place as many units on his land as possible, he would Planning Commission Minutes Page li August 1, 1996 go with the R-1C zoning. Mr. Davis thought a developer would more likely be interested in the parcel if the zoning was left as it currently is. He doubted that the zoning could be changed if the down-zoning is approved. He would want the entire parcel zoned R-iC if the zoning is changed. Leaving the zoning as it currently i5 was his first choice, however. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Davis if he thought the area could handle the increased traffic/intensity if it is developed with multi-family dwellings. Mr_ Davis stated that when his greenhouses were operating, there was much more traffic in_the area, with growers and employees coming and going. Even single-family residences would be an impact, he added. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the R-3 zoning was left in place, would Mr. Davis build the maximum number of units or would less than be satisfactory? Mr. Davis stated he doubted 21 units per acre would be built. • Discussion followed. Commissioner ECRHARDT stated that discussing a PRD at this time was a waste of time. He added that a PRD is wide-open and at this time Commission did not have enough information to discuss it. Commissioner CERVENY stated he disagreed. Discussion followed. Chairperson LANGDON thought that Commission might not have adequate information and that the case should be continued. Commissioner THOMPSON thought that there might not be adequate time to do that with the recent building moratorium. She was in favor of voting on the information presented that night. If certain property owners wished to go before City Council, that would be their right. Chairperson LANGDON summarized Commissioner THOMPSON's thoughts on the matter. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she felt that Commission had justification for excluding some parcels, on Mr. Gidley's recommendation, She added that in some cases, what Council has proposed just would not work for specific parcels of land. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 August 1, 1996 • Mr. Gidley explained that R-3A zoning allowed 14 units per sore, R-2A allowed 10 units per acre. He noted that Exhibit A, which was projected overhead, three areas would be modified: • Solid orange areas would be revised to R-2 (dark shaded) • One area outlined in orange not rezoned • 3282, 3230 Chase Street and 3245 - 3219 Benton Street, 5401, 5425 West 32nd Avenue would be revised to R-1C Commissioner THOMPSON reminded Mr. Gidley that R-3 zoning on Ms Thomas' property he had recommended be retained. Commissioner THOMPSON noted the two parcels Mr. Johnson had mentioned that should be brought into conformance, 3700 Block, West side of Benton Street would be rezoned to R-2. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he had a problem with the property on Depew Street presently zoned R-3 and the parcel to the west of it also zoned R-3. He noted that the parcels are surrounded by multi-family units. He did not believe that those parcels should be rezoned to a single-family classification. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if Commissioner ECKHARDT thought R-2 zoning would be better as a transitional zone classification? Commissioner ECKHARDT thought R-2 zoning would be more reasonable. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the large single-ownership property zoned R-2, Should perhaps come to Commission and address the issues? Mr. Gidley stated that Mr. Davis was present and he had sgoken to one of those individuals on the phone and the other large- property owner had received notification. Discussion followed. Commissioner WILLTAMS asked if the decision on this case is continued to August 15, what repercussions would it have in meeting the schedule with Council? Mr. Gidley calculated public hearing could not occur prior to September 23rd. The September 9th deadline could not be met. Chairperson LANGDON stated he asked the Commission whether or not they felt we needed additional information. He thought Commission should make a decision that night. Planning Commission Minutes August 1, 1996 Page 13 Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that the only real troublesome areas were the four parcels outlined in blue. The others marked in orange would be rezoned to R-2; Ms. Thomas' property would be retained as R-3; the property on 35th and Benton would remain R- 3. He proposed that parcels on Depew Street be rezoned as R-2; all of the Davis property be rezoned as R-iC; property outlined in blue north of the Davis property rezoned to R-2. The remaining properties as proposed by Exhibit A. Chairperson LANGDON asked if Commissioner ECKHARDT wished to make that a motion. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he did, for the following reasons: 1. The property is in the City of Wheat Ridge and has been posted, therefore jurisdiction has been met; 2. All large area zoning requirements have been met; 3. Objectives set forth by City Council stated in Resolution #1533 have been met; and 4. The rezoning will bring zoning into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner ECKHARDT added the two parcels brought to the attention of Commission by Mr. Edgar Johnson be rezoned from R-3 to R-2. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON noted there had been no one present speaking about the parcel north of the Davis property. Mr. Gidley stated the owner had spoken to him personally. He added that the mother had requested that a portion of the land be maintained as single-family home. She requested R-2. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that the owners who own the two large parcels to the east circled in blue, did not attend the hearing. She added that those speaking from the neighborhood were opposed to multi-family in that area. The owners may not want their land rezoned R-2. She would be voting against rezoning to R-2. She thought they should have the opportunity to come to City Council to request R-2 zoning. Commissioner ECKHARDT revised his motion to change the zoning on the two parcels to the east to R-2 and leave them as R-1C. The • only real changes would be to the Davis property and the property north of the Davis property. Planning Commission Minutes • August 1, 1996 Page 14 Commissioner CERVENY asked if correspondence had been received from the owner? Mr. Gidley stated a card had been received, stating the owner disagreed with the rezoning and wanted the R-3 zoning retained. Commissioner CERVENY moved to amend Commissioner ECKHARDT°s motion to leave the zoning on those two parcels to the east as it is, R-3. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he would agree with that amendment. He added that since multi-family surrounds the parcels in question, it makes more sense to leave it as is. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion to amend. Commissioner CERVENY asked for clarification on-the Davis parcels. Mr. Gidley stated that the lower parcel is zoned R-2, the upper parcel is zoned R-3. The motion made is that the entire parcel be rezoned to R-1C. Commissioner CERVENY moved to leave the Davis properties zoning as it presently is, the property zoned R-2 would remain R-2, the property zoned R-3 would remain R-3. Commissioner ECKHARDT reiterated that Commissioner CERVENY was proposing to leave the properties to the east and the Davis properties as they are presently zoned. Commissioner CERVENY stated that was correct. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Commission to vote on the properties that are not being questioned. She suggested individual motions for each of the properties being questioned. As the motion stands, she would be voting against it. That doesn't necessarily mean she is opposed to all properties involved, just a portion. Commissioner ECKHARDT withdrew his first motion, with the approval of his second and moved that Planning Commission recommend to City Council for the reasons stated previously, that the large area rezoning be approved with those exclusions shown in orange, red and purple on Benton Street, the parcels outlined in blue, the property on 38th and property on Depew Street will not be considered in this motion. • Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-D. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 • August 1, 1996 Commissioner CERVENY moved that the property at 6230 West 38th Avenue circled in blue be rezoned R-2, not R-1C as proposed. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she would be voting against this motion based on testimony heard this evening from residents stating their preference for single-family homes rather than multi-family rentals. Commissioner CERVENY stated the reasons for his motion as follows: 1. The size of the property which would easily accommodate the R-2 zoning; 2. The request by the owner that the zoning be R-2; and 3. The property borders West 38th Avenue, which is not an R-1 site. Motion carried 6-1, with Commissioner THOMPSON voting against. i Commissioner CERVENY moved that the property zoned R-3 between Fenton and Depew Streets north of West 37th Avenue remain as R-3 for the following reason: 1. It is surrounded on three sides by existing multi-family development. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she would be voting against this motion because the neighborhood needs a transition from multi- family development and the majority of the testimony has been wanting single-family versus rentals. Commissioner ECKHARDT seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-2, with Commissioners THOMPSON and GRIFFITH voting against. Commissioner CERVENY moved that the Davis property, where the southern two-thirds is presently zoned R-2 and the northern one- third is presently zoned R-3, that property remain zoned as it is. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she would be voting against this motion. The reason why the large area zoning was undertaken was to secure this area as low-density residential. I don't think • that R-3 zoning will be compatible with that. Mr. Davis stated Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 • August 1, 1996 he would support R-1C zoning. Also testimony taken has been predominately opposing multi-family development. Motion carried 4-3, with Commissioners THOMPSON, ECKHARDT and GRIFFITH voting against. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Traffic Management Seminar to be held August 10 at Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 10. NEW BUSINESS A. Regarding the Informational Item - Comprehensive Plan Consultant Interviews, Janice Thompson suggested Dorothy Archer's name be submitted to CMI. 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS A. Jay Rasplicka asked if Planning Commission would like • to meet with PWAC? Mr. Gidley will check with Mr. Goebel regarding scheduling a joint meeting with PWAC, possibly on August 15, prior to the regular meeting. Janice Thompson reported she will be out therefore unable to attend that meeting. regarding the possible widening of Young Youngfield needs some center turn lanes. bottlenecks occur at Casey Camper Sales, xunz Development. of town on August 15 and She stated her comments Field; she feels Ms. Thompson added that Camper World and the Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Gidley if a joint meeting with City Council would be held Monday? Mr. Gidley stated that if the meeting was scheduled, Staff would notify Commission by phone giving them details. 12. COMMITTEB AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS A. Bob Eckhardt briefly brought Commission up-to-date regarding the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 August 1, 1996 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned by consensus at 10:50 p.m. Sandra Wiggins, tary •