TAPED Shading powder

Document Sample
TAPED Shading powder Powered By Docstoc
                           CITY OF KETCHUM
                      Monday, April 23rd, 2007, 5:30 p.m.
                         City Hall, Ketchum, Idaho

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jack Rutherford at 5:30 p.m. at City
Hall, Ketchum, Idaho.

Commissioners Present:      Chairman Jack Rutherford
                            Commissioner Greg Strong
                            Commissioner Deborah Burns
                            Commissioner Rich Fabiano

Commissioners Absent:       Vice Chairman Anne Corrock

Also Present:               Planning Director Harold Moniz
                            City Attorney Ben Worst
                            City Planner Kathy Hansen
                            Planning & Zoning Mark Goodman
                            Ashley Whitesell, Recording Secretary

 1. PUBLIC COMMENT – Opportunity for the public to talk with the
    Commission about issues and ideas not on the agenda.

   Planning Director Harold Moniz – Please take note that I amended the agenda just
   before the meeting, in item number ten (10) Consideration of Draft Findings of Fact I
   added Frenchman’s Place and the Galleria, which are on your agenda for decision
   making tonight.

 2. Public Hearing upon the application of the Lot 5A, LLC for a Conditional Use
    Permit for bank use – Lot 5A, Block 4, Ketchum Townsite (331 Leadville Ave)
    – located in the Community Core (CC) Zoning District.

   City Planner Kathy Hansen – I don’t see any representatives for Lot 5A here
   Chairman Jack Rutherford – Are there any Staff comments on this project?
   City Planner Kathy Hansen – Staff would just like to point out the two conditions
   concerning the window coverings; they are requesting a condition that store front
   windows on Sun Valley Road provide clear visual from both inside and outside. The
   other conditions was concerns regarding traffic congestion within the alley, Staff is
   suggesting that we work on an agreement to minimize the congestion.
   City Attorney Ben Worst – At the last City Council meeting they did approve a
   contract that accepted an in-lieu payment for the Community Housing component and

                     April 23rd, 2007 Planning & Zoning Meeting            Page 1 of 11
 it also provided some diagonal parking on Leadville Avenue, and the City agreed that
 it would ensure clear unimpeded alley access.

 Commissioner Greg Strong moved that Block 5A, LLC does meet the standards
 for approval of the Chapter 17.116 of the Ketchum Zoning Code Title 17 only if
 the following conditions of approval are met as outlined in tonight’s Staff Report
 1 – 6.
 Commissioner Rich Fabiano 2nd the Motion
 Roll Call: Commissioner Rich Fabiano; Aye, Commissioner Deborah Burns;
 Aye, Chairman Jack Rutherford; Aye, Commissioner Greg Strong; Aye

3. Public Hearing upon the application for a text amendment to the Community
   Core (CC) Zone section of the Zoning Code, Chapter 17.64, Title 17. The
   applicant, KOWALLIS MACKEY, requests an amendment regarding the
   fourth floor setback on sixty (60) foot right-of-ways.

 Beth Robrahn – This application is a result of the regulations we recently adopted
 for the TDR section of the Community Core Chapter of the Zoning Code. The
 setback requirements for a Fourth Floor was changed from a minimum of five (5) feet
 and an average of ten (10) feet to twenty five (25) feet from the center line of the
 adjacent right-of-way. There has been a series of compromises between the City and
 the development community in order to meet the community housing requirements as
 well as provide this additional mechanism to try to preserve older buildings. We have
 found that the fifty five (55) feet from the center line of the adjacent right-of-way
 seems to be too restricted; the applicant has requested that the City consider reducing
 that fourth floor setback. So tonight what you’ll be looking at tonight is the
 difference between ten (10) feet, fifteen (15) feet, and twenty five (25) feet; also
 fourth floor setbacks from the property line. The applicant has proposed language as
 follows: “Each design of said fourth floor shall be set back a minimum of fifty five
 (55) feet for all eighty (80) and one hundred (100) foot streets and forty (40) feet for
 all sixty (60) foot streets measured from the center line of the adjacent right-of-way
 and shall conform to the development specifications of the design review regulations
 of Chapter and” I made some changes to that to make it flow
 a little bit better because it doesn’t make sense to have the reduced number on the
 smaller rights-of-way so I just changed the language to read as follows: “The Fourth
 Floor shall be set back from the property line adjacent to a one hundred (100) foot
 right of way or alley a minimum of five (5) feet with an average of ten (10) feet, the
 fourth floor shall set back from the property line adjacent to an eighty (80) or sixty
 (60) foot right of way a minimum of fifteen (15) feet.” With that overview I believe
 Mike Hall is here on behalf of the applicant and he is going to give his introduction
 and Dale Bates is also here to give his analysis on the solar impacts of the different
 Mike Hall Redhawk Landing Developer – Tonight we have a presentation from one
 of the architects here regarding view corridors and an analysis of what the effect of
 this change in the code as far as the setback goes.

                    April 23rd, 2007 Planning & Zoning Meeting              Page 2 of 11
Brian Steinberg with Weber Thompson Architects presented a slide show to the
Commission regarding the code allowed heights; the presentation showed the
different view angles and the setbacks of what is required and the difference of
what is being proposed.

Dale Bates – We have done some solar analysis with the regards to how will the
setbacks affect the solar; another issue the setbacks have is it does push the elevators
that go to the Fourth Floor into the building. One aspect that I really want to say it’s
really not a sun issue; the sun from the Fourth Floor TDR is not increasing the
shading. What I would say is after 2:00 p.m. for a few months in winter there will
some extra shadowing; but I really do support moving back to the ten (10) foot
setbacks the way it was originally envisioned.
Chairman Jack Rutherford – Dale Bates; I agree with you analysis, I think it’s very
Beth Robrahn – I have a letter to read into the record from Robert and Elizabeth
Taylor from 191 6th Street West; “We would like to oppose the text amendment to the
Community Core Zone Section of the Zoning Code chapter 17.64 that would change
the Fourth Floor setbacks on sixty (60) foot rights-of-way. We consider the proposal
to be harmful to the community with increased density and the official character and
openness of Ketchum. The change will benefit only a few developers; we vote to
reject the proposed amendment.”
Chairman Jack Rutherford – Okay thank you.
Commissioner Rich Fabiano – I’m concerned about the feel and bulk of the
building; I’m just afraid of the mass of the building and I understand that there won’t
be a large effect on the sun with shading; this is just a real touchy area.
Commissioner Deborah Burns – I tend to go with fifteen (15) just to be safer and it
just feels a little more compromising.
Commissioner Greg Strong – I don’t have any problem with the fifteen (15), if we
put restrictions on this to the point where it is undoable or not financially possible to
do then we haven’t accomplished anything. Maybe after looking at this more I might
be willing to go to a ten (10), in all honesty a computer rendering does not provide an
“accurate” example.
Chairman Jack Rutherford – I agree with what Commissioner Rich Fabiano said,
this is about building mass and it’s the perception of mass and as a developer you’re
looking for building bulk and you can have different perceptions of bulk. If we go
back to our form base code the issue in the form base code is shape and form
diversity essentially, I think we have to look at how do we get other roof lines on the
fourth floor rather then just defaulting to the box shape. Right now we’re not seeing
other roof lines in the actual building design; we’re just seeing the box shape as the
Scott Roberts – The more restrictive the code becomes, the more prescriptive the
design becomes and you force the architect into doing blocks and boxes.
Chairman Jack Rutherford – We really need to strengthen our design guidelines for
a fourth floor so when we do the design review we can push and pull on the building
as is appropriate. We have to be very design sensitive on these fourth floors so that

                   April 23rd, 2007 Planning & Zoning Meeting              Page 3 of 11
 we don’t walk down the street and say “how did that get built”. I think we need to
 have more subjective criteria for the fourth floor in our design guidelines and the
 developer cant assume that building to the setbacks on the fourth floor is an as of
 right condition. The fourth floor is a TDR program, its voluntary and you’re entering
 into a trading scheme to do that; so what I’m saying is if you have the TDR’s that
 doesn’t give you the right to build into the setback.
 Sue Jacobsen Ketchum Resident – If you would like a bad example of a three story
 flat roof building looks like; go and look at the back of the Higden building on First
 and Leadville.
 Chairman Jack Rutherford – I think that’s a good example and that’s why we did
 this new form base code last year was to avoid those situations. Can we continue this
 to the May 14th meeting?
 Planning Director Harold Moniz – You certainly could continue this part; when
 you talk about the fourth floor design guidelines we will have to notice that
 Beth Robrahn – Okay so we’ll have to re-notice this because we’re going to add the
 design review guidelines so that means we’ll publish on May 2nd with the date of May
 21st at 12:00. I’m going to have to give some specifics on design review guidelines
 for that meeting, so do you have any direction that you want to give specifically to
 what type of design guidelines you would like to see?
 Chairman Jack Rutherford – Yes, horizontal and vertical ungulation to the fourth
 floor building mass and encouragement of vaulting the roof shapes on fourth floors.
 Okay we’re going to close the public hearing and re-notice this.

4. Public Hearing upon the application for the Galleria Condominiums
   Preliminary Plat Subdivision – The Galleria Condominiums – Lot 7A, Block 4,
   Ketchum Townsite – 351 N Leadville Ave – CC Zone – 9 Dwelling Units.

 City Planner Kathy Hansen – This is the preliminary plat of an existing commercial
 building and we don’t have any comments or concerns.
 Jim Zarubica Representing the Applicant – One thing that I would like to point out
 in the recommended conditions is that there is a requirement for a party wall

 Commissioner Deborah Burns moved to approve the preliminary plat of the
 Galleria Condominiums subject to the conditions 1-6 as stated in the staff report.
 Commissioner Greg Strong 2nd the Motion
 Roll Call: Commissioner Rich Fabiano; Aye, Commissioner Deborah Burns;
 Aye, Chairman Jack Rutherford; Aye, Commissioner Greg Strong; Aye

5. Public Hearing upon the application of Ketchum East, LLC for a rezone
   request to change from GR-H to GR-L – Lots 3 and 4, Block 41, Ketchum
   Townsite (100 and 120 East Avenue) – GR-H Zone.

                   April 23rd, 2007 Planning & Zoning Meeting             Page 4 of 11
Chairman Jack Rutherford refuses himself for item number 5; Commissioner
Greg Strong is acting Chairman.

Planning & Zoning Mark Goodman – This is currently zoned GR-H through the
development agreement now its being requested to rezone back to GR-L; there are
no major issues.
City Attorney Ben Worst – This property was up zoned pursuant to a development
agreement from GR-L to GR-H and that is a tool that is specifically provided by
Idaho Code that prevents spot zoning. What this does is the up zone is conditioned
and limited by the development agreement that sets certain conditions to make the
use compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The agreement itself and the
Ketchum Municipal Code both state that in the event that agreement is rescinded it
shall revert to its original zoning, which is consistent because the original up zone
was only possible because of the development agreement that has since been
descended by the owner. Idaho Code does require that we go through the LUPA
process and have a public hearing at this body and again at the Council in order to
eliminate the development agreement and restore the original zoning and amend the
zoning map.

Commissioner Greg Strong Opened the Public Hearing

Sue Jacobsen Ketchum Resident – I own Lots one (1) and two (2) on block forty
one (41) and will this affect the density from the original plan that was presented
and approved by this body?
Commissioner Greg Strong – It was rezoned with a development agreement
which is basically a contract that says you can only do “x” on that piece of property
so they will have limitations to what they will zone.
Planning & Zoning Mark Goodman – There is a possibility of having four (4)
units, two (2) units per lot; that is the maximum of density that will be allowed.
Sue Jacobsen Ketchum Resident – Do you know if the plan has changed?
Planning & Zoning Mark Goodman – There is an application in the pre-app right
now and we will be hearing that tonight on the agenda for four (4) units.
Evan Robertson for the applicant – I just want to go on record that I’m asking for
a down zone after thirty five (35) years of asking for up zoning. I would also
reiterate that this is a contractual obligation to the City and that you approve the
down zone.
City Attorney Ben Worst – The Staff Reports are written to incorporate some
comments on the Comprehensive Plan; if you don’t make any comment it’s
accepted that the staff report is accepted is written. Are you comfortable that this
request is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan?

The Commission is in agreement that the Staff Report is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Rich Fabiano moved to recommend to the City Council the
application for re-zone of Lot three (3) and four (4) of block forty one (41)

                 April 23rd, 2007 Planning & Zoning Meeting             Page 5 of 11
   Ketchum Town Site under Section Seventeen point one five two (17.152) of the
   Ketchum Zoning Code.
   Commissioner Deborah Burns 2nd the Motion
   Roll Call: Commissioner Greg Strong; Aye, Commissioner Deborah Burns;
   Aye, Commissioner Rich Fabiano; Aye

6. Frenchman’s Place Preliminary Plat Subdivision – Frenchman’s Place LLC –
   Lots 5 & 6, Block 9, Ketchum Townsite – 360 E 9th Street – CC Zone – 4 Lots,
   4 Units.
  Chairman Jack Rutherford returns as Chair.

 Chairman Jack Rutherford – Where is this building in terms of being completed?
 David Patrie Representing Frenchman’s – Unit ten (10) is the only part that is
 under construction, originally on the plat the storage units downstairs were labeled as
 residential storage and what we’re doing now is they are being assigned to a
 particular unit.
 Planning Director Harold Moniz – One of the reasons they are re-platting is the
 three (3) light industrial units were built with recessed entries and then they had a
 problem with water getting in when it rained. So they covered that section and built
 that out and that’s one of the reasons that is driving this; the rest of the building is
 occupied and being used.

 Commissioner Greg Strong moved to approve the preliminary plat of
 Frenchman’s Place subject to conditions one through four and with the
 condition that at the final plat the number five that the applicant bring the entire
 plat with the building improved.
 Commissioner Deborah Burns 2nd the Motion
 Roll Call: Commissioner Rich Fabiano; Aye, Commissioner Deborah Burns;
 Aye, Chairman Jack Rutherford; Aye, Commissioner Greg Strong; Aye

7. Consideration upon the application of 260 First, LLC for a Pre-Application
   Design Review with regard to the following described property Lots 5, 6 & 7,
   Block 38, Ketchum Townsite, commonly known as 260 First Avenue North.
   The applicant is proposing a 60,633 square foot mixed use building in the
   Community Core (CC) Zone.

 Peter Grieve Weber Thompson Architects – I’m going to talk through some of our
 design goals and Brian Steinberg is going to help me with some of the technical

 Peter Grieve went through a Power Point presentation showing diagrams which
 show where the site is located in relation to an auto oriented route and pedestrian
 route and a composite of a Google Earth photograph of the site and how the project
 will tie into Main Street, First Street and Sun Valley Road. He also presented the

                    April 23rd, 2007 Planning & Zoning Meeting              Page 6 of 11
Conceptual Site Plan which shows the location of the building and the relationship of
the pedestrian environment. Another diagram Peter Grieve presented shows the
project massing given by three examples; one was the massing following code, the
second shows the massing with the old code and the third diagram shows the
proposed massing of the project. Scott Roberts stated that there was an article in the
paper stating that they have pushed the building height down eighteen (18) inches but
they actually pushed the building down six (6) feet of build able height to
accommodate the neighbors across the alley. Peter Grieve went through a movie that
showed the project with more detailed renderings.

Brian Steinberg – What we did is we wanted to make sure that we looked at your
design guidelines and we wanted to show you that we are adhering to them. We
pulled out of the code the design guidelines that were applicable to this site, building
type and landscaping around it and made a booklet; we went through each guideline
to make sure are we meeting that guideline and we feel that we are meeting every
single one except for one. The one design guideline we did not meet is about balcony
size, I believe the description in the design guideline is the balcony shall be no wider
then they are high. What that does is it really limits you to a certain balcony size, I
think the intent was a good one but if you’re just limited to balconies as wide as they
are high then you’re limiting them to nine (9) or ten (10) feet. We feel that this
design guideline limits what you can do on the façade versus being able to use that
projection and tying the building together.

The next issue is a façade transparency percentage on the base of the building; this is
a design guideline that I think is meant to encourage having an active and open façade
for retail and interaction. This project meets this requirement along First Avenue but
we fall short of that requirement which I believe is a sixty (60) percent minimum at
grade on Sun Valley Road. We really feel like we have met the intent if not the exact
percentage and I believe we are at forty five (45) percent on this façade.

Chairman Jack Rutherford Opened Public Comment

Scott Wesley Board Member of Rotarun Ski Area – We have been offered the
building out of this area by Mr. Roberts Company and it is our hope with Mr. Roberts
company and our board can come to an agreement in a very timely manner. We feel
that this project will be a great addition to our area and a great service to the people of
the Wood River Valley.
Scott Roberts – Mr. Wesley is referring to the existing LET building.
Scott Wesley – They’ve offered to give us the building and transport it to the area
and that is very exciting and a huge asset to the community.
Mickey Garcia – There is a lot of glass in this building but one of things that glass
does is it reduces the appearance of mass and I like that actually.
Planning Director Harold Moniz – The departure they are asking for on the
balconies they can request and exception that the Commission can grant.
Commissioner Greg Strong – I like the way that you have broken the building into
components and I think it’s a good design overall.

                   April 23rd, 2007 Planning & Zoning Meeting                Page 7 of 11
 Commissioner Rich Fabiano – One major issue I have is the setback on the fourth
 floor, I don’t think that is going to “fly”; the other issue I have is the setback on Sun
 Valley Road. One of the things I do like is the materials you have used; I think
 you’ve done a great job in the design of the building. I have a problem with how the
 affordable units are all situated on the back side of the alley.
 Commissioner Deborah Burns – I have a feeling like this building is its own little
 compound and that worries me; and I am also worried about four (4) floors.
 Chairman Jack Rutherford – Certain aspects of this building are absolutely
 gorgeous, I love the concrete base that is next to the building. I don’t really care if
 you’re not complying with the balcony issue but there are something’s that you are
 asking for that we can not grant and if we were going to change the codes for those
 issues those hearings will be very lengthy and I wouldn’t guarantee that you will get
 them. So I think that you just have to comply with the setbacks on Sun Valley Road
 and you can’t give us a four story façade on Sun Valley Road. Okay thank you very
 much for your presentation, I believe we have everything we need.

 At 8:30 Commissioner Rich Fabiano moved to extend the meeting to 9:00 p.m.
 Commissioner Deborah Burns 2nd the Motion
 Roll Call: Commissioner Rich Fabiano; Aye, Commissioner Deborah Burns;
 Aye, Chairman Jack Rutherford; Aye, Commissioner Greg Strong; Aye

8. Redhawk Landing – Preapplication design review – to build a 41,920 sq.ft.
   Mixed use building in the CC Zone, Lot 5A, Block 22, Ketchum Townsite,
   commonly known as 111 East Ave, and 480 2nd Street.

 Scott Freeman – We are approaching this project under a type five (5) approach
 primarily because we are proposing ground floor residential units.

 Scott Freeman then presented to the Commission the project via a slide show.

 City Planner Kathy Hansen – There was a problem with the noticing with the
 timing that the project came in; noticing went out late and I wanted the Commission
 to consider whether or not we needed to do this again.
 Chairman Jack Rutherford – The public will certainly have time to be noticed.
 Planning Director Harold Moniz – We sent out the notices on Thursday so people
 will be receiving them over the weekend.
 Chairman Jack Rutherford – I don’t like the façade, and I’m not going to get
 specific on what I don’t like but I’m getting the image of an institutional college
 building. I think you need to push this building to a more residential image, and if
 you’re using historical imaging the West side is more Victorian then the other images
 you have here. I don’t have an objection to the overall size and shape, maybe there
 could be more ungulation; we’re not trying to emphasize height in our town. I don’t
 want you to think that I’m telling you that you don’t have a good residential building;
 I think your floor plans are fine and I think your layout is good but the imagery on the
 outside is not what I’m looking for.

                    April 23rd, 2007 Planning & Zoning Meeting               Page 8 of 11
 Commissioner Deborah Burns – I really like the bottom floor it feels inviting.
 Commissioner Rich Fabiano – The top floor is what bothers me.
 Commissioner Greg Strong – I think in a different town this building would look
 great, I just don’t think that this building has a “Ketchum” feel to it.
 Chairman Jack Rutherford – Okay guys thank you for coming in, hopefully that is
 enough feedback for you.

9. Block 41 Townhomes – Preapplication design review – to build a 15,012 sq.ft.
   Townhouse development in the GR-L Zone. Lots 3 and 4, Block 41, Ketchum
   Townsite, commonly known at 100 and 120 East Ave.

 Chairman Jack Rutherford refuses himself; Commissioner Greg Strong is acting

 Steve Cook representing the Applicant – This is two lots and they are
 approximately fifty five (55) feet by one hundred and fifty (150) feet. They do not
 need to be subdivided it is just going to be a simple sub lot; each one will occupy a
 sub lot. The footprints range from twelve hundred (1,200) square feet to fifteen
 hundred (1,500) square feet of nicely scaled units. This is a site that starts off and has
 a bench to it that drops off to the South at River Street, so we have three (3) units that
 occupy this upper portion of the property. I think one of the more exciting aspects of
 this project is how it anchors the Southern end of East Avenue and the landscape
 amenities and the scale that it will bring. At no point do any of these buildings
 exceed the thirty five (35) foot building height limit, in fact you can see around the
 perimeters there is a three (3) to four (4) foot high retaining wall and landscape would
 be at the base of that and then jump above it. The exterior elevations are of a
 contemporary nature but not in a very harsh manner, and this is going to make a nice
 transition from some strong façade elements and stepping into the residential. The
 intention in the common areas is to put some pretty heavily planted landscaping and
 the intent is that the buildings will be absorbed by that elevated landscape platform.

 At 9:00 Commissioner Deborah Burns moved to extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m.
 Commissioner Greg Strong 2nd the motion
 Roll Call: Commissioner Rich Fabiano; Aye, Commissioner Deborah Burns;
 Aye, Commissioner Greg Strong; Aye

 Steve Cook – If it’s feasible the intention is to use ground source natural heat to heat
 these units which would eliminate the need for any air conditioning condensers.
 Commissioner Greg Strong – Can you please go through the materials a little bit?
 Steve Cook – Sure, I think it’s a simple combination the vertical stair well elements
 will be Oakley Stone and the actual facades of the building itself will be six (6) inch
 clear cedar laid vertical with a natural stain. The windows will be a black clad
 aluminum window system; it’s a very simple but effective pallet but I think effective.
 Commissioner Greg Strong – What is the transition wall made of?
 Steve Cook – At this point and time it will be stone.

                    April 23rd, 2007 Planning & Zoning Meeting               Page 9 of 11
 Commissioner Deborah Burns – The other issue was the terraces on all four (4)
 townhouse units; they appear to encroach in the required setbacks.
 Planning & Zoning Mark Goodman – I have an analysis prepared by the applicant
 regarding that and after discussion it comes down to our code doesn’t address that
 issue very well. It would likely be that there will a six (6) foot maximum height on
 the retaining walls and as far as the terraces go our code doesn’t necessarily regulate
 Steve Cook – I know one thing that we want to be considerate of is this alley, it
 would be nice to preserve some snow storage for the neighboring condominium
 Commissioner Greg Strong – I’m good with it.
 Steve Cook – Thank you for your time.

10. Consideration of the draft Findings of Fact regarding:
       a. Skate Park Design Review – Approval
       b. Splash Park Design Review – Approval
       c. Vanderbilt Residence Mountain Overlay Design Review – Approval
       d. Splash Park Playground CUP – Approval
       e. Powder Creek Preliminary Plat – Approval
       f. Bordeaux Street Residences Design Review – Approval
       g. Frenchman’s Place Preliminary Plat – Approval
       h. Galleria Condominiums Preliminary Plat – Approval

 Commissioner Greg Strong moved to approve the draft findings of facts A – H
 Commissioner Rich Fabiano 2nd the motion
 Roll Call: Commissioner Rich Fabiano; Aye, Commissioner Deborah Burns;
 Aye, Chairman Jack Rutherford; Aye, Commissioner Greg Strong; Aye

11. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning & Zoning Commission
    meeting of:
       a. March 12th, 2007

 Commissioner Rich Fabiano moved to approve the minutes of March 12th, 2007
 Commissioner Greg Strong 2nd the Motion
 Roll Call: Commissioner Rich Fabiano; Aye, Commissioner Deborah Burns;
 Aye, Chairman Jack Rutherford; Aye, Commissioner Greg Strong; Aye

 Commissioner Rich Fabiano moved to adjourn at 9:35 p.m.
 Commissioner Deborah Burns 2nd the Motion
 Roll Call: Commissioner Rich Fabiano; Aye, Commissioner Deborah Burns;
 Aye, Chairman Jack Rutherford; Aye, Commissioner Greg Strong; Aye

                   April 23rd, 2007 Planning & Zoning Meeting             Page 10 of 11
                                   Jack Rutherford, Chairman

                                   Greg Strong, Acting Chairman


City Council

               April 23rd, 2007 Planning & Zoning Meeting      Page 11 of 11

Shared By: