Loading...
PZC Minutes 1102931 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on November 2, 1993, at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Perkins. Members Present: John Perkins, Jack Hunn, Patti Dixon„ Henry Vest Rhoda Schneiderman, Sue Railton, Buz Reynolds Staff Present: Steve Amsbaugh, Director of Community_ Development, Mary Holden, Town Planner, Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary All members were present except Jack Hunn and Henry Vest. Both members arrived immediately after roll call. Lot 29B. Block I. Wildridge Subdivision Special Review Use Home Occupation Public Hearing Mary Holden stated that Ms. Debra Brill is requesting approval to operate an insurance sales office out of her home. No clients will be coming to the residence, she goes to them, and there are no employees. Holden stated that this request does meet the three criteria for approval of a Special Review Use, which are outlined in the Staff Report, and it also meets the definition of a home business in the zoning ordinance Staff recommends approval with the conditions that no signs be allowed on the building or property, and that no employees be allowed to work in the home. Chairman Perkins asked if anyone had any problems with this or any questions. The Commission members had none. Chairman Perkins then opened the public hearing. The Recording Secretary stated that she had received one call regarding this, from Judy and Dave Yoder, who stated that they had no problems with this request. With no further public input, Chairman Perkins closed the public hearing. 69 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETITTG MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 2 Lot 29B. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Special Review Use Home Occupation Public Hearing, cont Sue Railton moved to approve the Special Review use for a home occupation, for Lot 29B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Buz Reynolds seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The Recording Secretary asked the Commission to approve Resolution 93-10, which grants approval, showing the conditions of approval. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Resolution 93-10, Buz Reynolds seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot A. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Avon Center Garage Door Design Review Mary Holden stated that the applicant is requesting approval to instar] a locked, open grated garage door to the underground parking entrance. The main concern with this application is that Avon Center did receive a 15% parking reduction in their required parking One of the criteria, in order to receive this reduction is that the parking spaces be open to everyone. By virtue of the locked garage door it would then reserve spaces violating the criteria to receive the 15% parking reduction. The second concern is with the proposed door style, which is an open grate. The design guidelines recommend a metal or a solid wood door. Based on those two concerns, Staff is recommending denial of this application. Bob Roman, representing Avon Center, stated they are trying to solve a problem of vandalism and burglaries. The homeowners would like to secure the garage with a locked doorway. The intent is not to limit access to the patrons, etc. He stated that maybe a compromise would be if they leave the door totally open during the day and just secure in the evening hours. The police department is supportive of this and so is the fire department, because there is vandalism to the stand pipes, etc. which they have to address on a regular basis. The grated door is for better ventilation. Chairman Perkins asked if Staff would still have the same concerns if there were an agreement made that this door would be open during business hours? Mary Holden replied not really. As far as locking it down in the evening hours, Staff would only nail down the hours during which that door would be locked. Buz Reynolds asked what hours they would have the door locked. Mr. Roman stated that it would be open probably until at least 10 PM, when the restaurants close. Reynolds asked if the vehicles that were in there would be able to leave. The applicant stated that they would. Reynolds asked if that was a heated ramp. The applicant stated that it was. Reynolds stated that he had no problems with the request. RO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 3 Lot A. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Avon Center_ Garage Door Design Review, cont Jack Hunn stated that he would support it with those hours of limited use. He would also support the grated door, for the ventilation reasons stated, and for the fact that most of the time when it is visible to the public, it is open, being closed only at night. He suggested that the color of the stucco match the putty color instead of white. He also asked if there would be any additional exterior lighting associated with this. The applicant stated that possibly over the baluster. Patti Dixon stated that she supports the open grate door and she also thinks the stucco should match the putty color. Henry Vest asked , since it wiil be closed only a few hours, if the open grated door would make that much difference in the ventilation. The applicant stated it would. He stated that the engineers have stated that they need to have 96 square feet of intake, so if you have a solid door, you would have to have this huge venting system right next to it, which is not really attractive. Vest stated that he had no problem with :he request. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she has no problem, but would like to see any lighting done be incandescent and very low wattage. She has no problem with the open grate. Sue Railton stated that she has no prob:_-m with the request. Chairman Perkins stated that the motion needs to pin down the hours that are acceptable to the applicant and the Staff, also that the grate door is OK, but color would match the putty color and that the lighting on the key device be low wattage. Buz Reynolds asked if the door would automatically open at a certain time and shut at a certain time? The applicant stated they could set it up on a timer. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to grant final design approval to Lot A, Block 2, with the following conditions - 1. Hours for the open grate door to be closed be set at 10 PM to 7 AM. 2. The surrounding stucco match the putty color on the existing building. 3. Any lighting used to illuminate the key entry or card entry be of low wattage, incandescent. 4. The door be placed on an automatic timer. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 4 Lot A. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Avon Center Garage Door, Design Review. cont Patti Dixon seconded. Steve Amsbaugh asked if this 10 PM closing is tied into the time that the restaurants stop serving food. The applicant stated that it was. The people will always have access out if they leave later. Chairman Perkins called the vote and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 4. Block 1. Benchirark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Golden Eagle Service Center Design Modifications. Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that the applicant is requesting approval for the elimination of the eyebrow element on the south elevation. It will be replaced with a type of dormer roof that would impact the other elevations slightly. Staff recommends approval of this modification. Everything else remains the same. Ron Bifani stated the minor changes are to get the stairs from the first floor to the top floor, making the roof line nicer, and adding a little window so that they get some south light. Jack Hunn asked if this provided access to the roof. The applicant stated that it did. Hunn asked what type of roof finish was there. Mr. Bifani stated it was a sort of layered type roof. There is a roof terrace already designed there. Buz Revnolds asked about the windows. Discussion followed. The Commission had no problems with the modifications Patti Dixon moved to grant approval for Lot 4, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, design modifications as submitted. Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lots 1 and 2. Block 1. Lodge at Avon Subdivision_ Temporary Fence Mary Holden stated that Mr. Jack Berga, on behalf of the owner, Mr. Williams, is requesting approval to place a two rail fence alorg the lot lines abutting Benchmark Road of Lots 1 and 2. The purpose is to keep people from parking on the lot throughout the winter, thereby eliminating snow compaction. The owner is intending to start a project on the site in April of 1994. r2 r - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 5 Lots I and 2. Block 1. Lodge at Avon Subdivision. Tewporary Fence. (cont) Staffs main concern is the location that is shown in an easement. The applicant has been made aware that it will have to be pulled out of the easement, and he has agreed to do that. Staff would recommend approval of this application. Jack Berga stated that they just want the fence up so that they do not have snow compaction and will be able to get a quick construction start in the spring. It was just an oversight on his part that it is shown in the easement. They will move it over as far as the Town would like. It is a temporary two rail open fence. They originally wanted to put up a more people proof -fence so that when they went into construction they would have some kind of a barrier, because it will be a basement dug there. There is nothing in the construction fencing regulations that would allow them to do that. They will want, once they start construction, to cordon off the excavation, so the Commission might consider developing something in the meantime. Buz Reynolds asked if the straightening out of the road has ever been finalized? Steve Amsbaugh stated that the applicant will be coming in with a conceptual design review and that is the time to look at the road alignment. The Commission members had no problems with this request. Henry Vest moved to approve Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lodge at Avon Subdivision request for the placement of a two rail open fence, with the condition that the final approval of the placement of the fence being made by the Town Engineer. Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 2, Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision. Anderson/Connell Duplex, Color Change and Deck Addition Mary Holden pointed out on the drawings the various requested changes as follows: West Elevation: Adding windows above the entry door on the north unit; Shifting the stucco further north to encompass the entry door on the north, Adding a window on the third level on the north unit; Lowering the entry roof on the south unit and changing window style; Adding stucco around the two windows on the south unit and around the garage doors for both units; and Enlarging the existing deck. East Elevation: Removing stucco; and Adding two windows. E2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 6 Lot 2, Block 5. Wildridge Subdivision, Anderson/Connell Duplex, Color Change and Deck Addition cont Noah Elevation: Adding a deck; Adding a door in -lace of a window; Adding a vertical window; Enlarging a window; Adding a door on the lower level, underneath the deck; and Adding a 6 x 6 retaining wall. South Elevation: Adding three windows. Building Material: Roof - GAF Designer Class "A" Asphalt Shingles, Charcoal in color. Building Colors: Body - SW2241, High Tide, (muted light green) Trim - SW2385, Olympic Range, (dark green) Stucco - Off White Ms. Holden stated that the project was approved with woodruff shingles. However, since fire rated woodruff shingles were not available, they have gone to the asphalt shingles, and this is already installed. Color samples were provided along with a color rendering. Ms. Holden stated that their main concern is the deck which encroaches into a parking, access, utility easement. This lot was subdivided and the northern lot needs this access easement. Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: That the deck either be removed from the easement, or that portion of the easement be vacated. That retaining walls over four feet in height must be designed by a licensed engineer and approved by the Town Engineer. The utility meters be located on the building. Kurt Anderson stated that they got into the project after it was approved. They were under the impression that if they could add windows it would be of greater value to the home, and upgrade the entire piece of property. The deck seemed like a more workable home, rather than having only one door into the living, kitchen, dining area. the encroachment of the easement is primarily parking. All of the utilities will be running closer to the main road rather than across the driveway. They will contact the other owners about vacating the easement in the encroachment area. The window changes work better with the inside spaces. Sue Railton stated that she did not have any problem as long as they resolve the easement. a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 7 Lot 2. Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision. Anderson/Connell Duplex. Color Change and Deck addition cont Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she does have a problem. She stated that she thinks AI Connell knows better. He has played the game in this town for a long time. She stated she thinks he knows better than to make a ton of changes and not come before the Board for approval. She stated that she would certainly never approved that roof. She stated that to her it looks like tar paper. She kept wondering when they were going to put the roof on. She stated she would vote against it. Henry Vest stated that he thinks that the changes are for the better. It is too bad about the roof. Patti Dixon stated that she thinks that they are improved changes. The only thing is the window fenestration on the east elevation, they don't line up. One the second floor one window doesn't line up with the other window. The applicant stated that there is a closet to the left of the window and that room is the master bath. Jack Hunn asked if the floor plan shown is proposed or is that the old floor plan? The applicant stated that it is what they built. Everything was approved there except a closet has been added to the master bath. Hunn asked if the garage had been eliminated. The applicant stated that it had not. Hunn stated that he thinks the window changes do improve the looks of the home, and the shifting of the stucco is appropriate. He stated that he does think that these changes should have been brought to this Commission before they are implemented. The way he tends to review them is that they do not already exist. He mentions that specifically because of the following comments. If they were bringing that roof product to us tonight and asking for permission to change roofing products, he would be inclined to approve asphalt, but not in that color. If you look down on the roofs in the subdivision, there are no black roofs. They are all earth tones, natural tones and blend in with the topography and the natural colors up there, and this roof really stands out. The color is the problem, not the product. He asked if the roof material is a 300# product. The applicant stated that it is a 280#. Hunn stated that in summary he would support everything the applicant is proposing, with the exception of the roof and he would like to see a different color roof put on the building. He understands that this is not what the applicant wants to hear, but he thinks it is important to the subdivision. The applicant stated that when he choose the color he was going over the final drawings that were approved and there was not a color chosen on the prints. Hunn stated that the approved woodruff product is a natural cedar color, so a color would not be specified. Discussion followed on the proposed color changes. the applicant stated that what she is trying to do is get a color that blends in with the surrounding sage. She stopped at a house in Edwards that blends well and asked the owner what color he had used and this is the color he gave her. Discussion followed on the darker trim. Dixon asked what color the stucco would be. The applicant stated that it would be sort of a cream color or off white. They haven't actually chosen that color at this time. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 8 Lot 2. Block 5. Wildridg_e Subdivision. Anderson/Connell Duplex, Color Change and Deck Addition. cont Jack Hunn stated he has concerns regarding the high level of contrast between the proposed siding color and the trim. A lot of contrast and a lot of trim and it becomes a very dizzy house. He agrees with the applicant's goals to get the house to blend in with the sage, but he is not sure that this color gets it there. He too would like to see all three colors together on the table. Buz Reynolds asked about the encroachment into the easement. The applicant stated that it is about 2 feet by 3 feet. Reynolds stated that he too would like to see all the colors at once, the roof, siding, trim and stucco. He asked what color the windows would be painted. The applicant stated they would be the same color as the trim. Reynolds stated that, off the small chips, he sees a big contrast in colors too, which he does not like. He requested the applicant provide a board with the colors. He stated that he does not care for the black color of the roof, but at this point, with the roof fully installed, it is a tough one. Al Connell stated that they thought they would be safe because that is the exact same color that was used on the units the Town buili. There was some discussion on this and the Commission questioned that statement. Steve Amsbaugh stated he would check on what was actually used. Reynolds stated that he actually thought it was tar paper on their roof. Ms. Anderson stated the reason that they chose black was that black would hold the heat and they thought it would help with the snow melt. Chairman Perkins asked if the encroachment would require a variance or what does Staff want to do to remedy that situation? Mary Holden stated that she has spoken with Norm Wood, Town Engineer, and he doesn't see a problem with getting a vacation for that small portion, because it is not blocking access to the lot and really not taking up a parking space on the Anderson lot. Steve Amsbaugh stated that it is not a setback easement, it is a voluntary access easement to the adjacent lot. Chairman Perkins stated that he agrees with the people that do not like the roof color. He stated that if that is the roof that was used on the Townhomes, It may be that their distance away and the fact that their design in the configuration that it is, you really never have that direct sight line and viewing of that roofing material. He stated that this building is so close to the road and the roof color is very prominent. He stated that the Board has had a history of being very lenient with people with people that come in with your type situation, and he stated that he thinks that day has to change. If you were in the town of Vail, they would make a unanimous decision for you to take your roof off and put something on it that was approved. They are in a different development phase than Avon is, but we are starting to reach that phase and he thinks we really need to stand for quality of materials and appearances. Sue Railton moved to approve final design modifications, including the windows, placement of the stucco, the roof, and the deck, with the following conditions: 004 !1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 9 Lot 2. Block 5. Wildridae Subdivision Anderson/Connell Duplex Color Change and Deck Addition_ c nt 1. The easement be resolved. 2. The full color samples be brought back for review. Henry Vest seconded. The motion was amended to add Staff recommendations as follows: 3. Any retaining was over 4 feet in height must be designed by a licensed engineer and approved by the Town Engineer 4. Utility meters must be located on the building. Vest seconded the amendments and the motion carried with a four to three i )te, John Perkins, Jack Hunn, and Rhoda Schneiderman voting nay. Lot 4. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision_ Ridgeline Condos Rock Retaining Wall Mary Holden stated that this is a request for approval of a rock retaining wall which is approximately 270 feet in length. On the original final design review plans there was extensive site disturbance shown on the east side and no rock retaining wall. On the building permit plans a rock retaining wall was shown at approximately 70 feet. During construction it grew an additional 200 feet. It is about 270 feet long, 2 to 3 feet in height and it has reduced the site disturbance on the east side substantially. Staff recommends approval of this application. Ms. Holden stated that Steve Amsbaugh has some additional comments. Mr. Amsbaugh stated that Mr. Wahl isn't here tonight and probably because it was recommended at the last meeting when he was here on the sod issue, that the issues be separated, because the rock retaining wall needed to be thought out on how it should be handled, i.e. Staff or Commission approval. John Perkins stated that they saw this on the site visit and he thinks it is an improvement to the overall development. It makes a nice transition from the cliff to the rock wall and then the development. The other Commission members had no problems with the wall, either. Henry Vest moved to approve the rock retaining wall modification on Lot 4, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 10 Lot 71. Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, North CourtRequest for Approval of Video Drop Box Jim Benson is requesting approval for a video drop box. This was tabled at the last meeting so Staff could work with the Town Engineer on circulation. The Town Engineer has looked at the circulation and a memo has been included with the Staff Report. Steve Amsbaugh, the Town Engineer and the applicant met on the site and looked at three different locations and the one location that seems to have the least amount of impact or works the best is at the outside edge of the sidewalk. If the Commission approves this application, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. The box be painted to match the building, or the roof; or the trim color. 2. The additional advertising shall not be displayed and it can only be marked as video cassette return only. 3. The box be placed at the edge of the sidewalk. John Perkins asked if the conditions were acceptable to the applicant. Jim Benson stated the site location is perfect. He would like to leave the box blue He would be happy to take off the description of late fees, etc. off. He would remove the phone number and North Court off but would like to leave the logo on the sides. If the Commission feels that it must be repainted, he would peel off all the vinyl and get it repainted to the roof color, but he would like to leave it as is. Buz Reynolds stated that he would like to see it painted to match the building and he likes the idea of how it is laid out. He asked how big "fast drop" would be. The applicant stated he would rather have "fast drop" as opposed to "video cassette return" Jack Hunn stated that he still has the same concerns that he had at the last meeting with regards to circulation, and he interprets Norm's memo with concurring with those concerns with regard to circulation and congestion in the parking lot. Just in concept he has a problem with doing anything to the parking lot that will make it more difficult. He also considers it to be a sign, so his opinion is unchanged and he can't support it. Patti Dixon stated that she doesn't have a problem with the location. Matching one of the colors on the building would be better. She is in favor of the logo on the box, with the deletion of all the other printed material, except for the "fast drop". Henry Vest stated that he thinks the location of the box is fine because the other entrance is so hard to manage. He feels the current color is fine. The "Box Office Video" looks good, take off all the other stuff and make a smaller "fast drop" and it will work well. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 11 Lot 70 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision North Court Request for Approval of Video Drop Box, (cont) Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the applicant had approached the building owners to possibility of making it a one-way driveway. He stated that he had, and their concerns are that if they were to do that no one would adhere to it and they were concerned that it might affect the other tenants flow. they might consider it if it becomes a problem. Rhoda asked who picked the location? Steve Amsbaugh Replied that Norm Wood's memo states that of the three locations looked at, that is the one he would suggest. Schneiderman stated that it surprises her because it is at the narrowest spot. Discussion followed on this and the possible alternatives. Schneiderman stated that she thinks it needs to be painted a trim color and not the blue, or the roof color, it should be one of the main building colors. She stated that she would like to see the "fast drop" be no more than 20% of the front of the box, and she would like to see the logo be no more than 20% of the side panel, and everything else be taken off. Sue Railton stated that she does not have a problem with the location, she thinks it is the best of all of a bad situation. She thinks the suggested lettering should come off. She asked the applicant if the sign would be the same blue as the box. The applicant replied that it would be. Railton stated that if that was so, she doesn4 mind if it stays the color it is now. Chairman Perkins stated that he tends to still agree with his position last time, but as he thinks through this, he thinks even a difficult drop box may be .... what are the alternatives if there is no drop box at all.... A car will have to try to find a parking space and/or stop in the street and run it in to the store. He will reluctantly support the location and go along with what everybody else wants on the color. Henry Vest moved to approve the video drop box for Lot 71, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, in the proposed color, with the following condition: 1. The drop box shall not display additional advertising, and shall have the business logo only on the sides and a small fast drop on the front. 2. The box be located at the outside edge of the sidewalk, as suggested by the Town Engineer. Sue Railton seconded. Under other discussion, Jack Hunn stated that almost everyone has said, "best of a bad situation", "lesser of all the evils", Town Engineer says "this is a bad idea" Staff isn't recommending approval of it, yet we feel compelled to approve this.... and we are talking about the color and the signage. He thinks the Commission is really missing the point, the concept of this thing is dangerous. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that Staff is recommending approval. Hunn stated that they 1 W PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 12 Lot 71, Block 2. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision North Court. Request for Approval of Video Drop Box. (cont) are saying "if the Commission wishes to approve the video box". He is interpreting that as really leaving it up to the Commission, and the Staff is not giving glowing endorsement. Steve Amsbaugh stated that he doesn4 want to put the Commission in the position of traffic enforcement officer, and if you approve this from a design point of view, do the best job you can, and it proves to be unsafe, well both want to pull it out of there. Staff will be watching that. You are not being asked to endorse a safety hazard. Hunn reiterated that it seems like they feel compelled to approve this and we are all saying it is not a great idea. John Perkins stated that he believes that if the box is not there—the majority of those parking spaces are going to be so hard to get into, and if there is one with a car on both sides, 90% of the people are going to park in the access area right in front of the building and get out of the car and run it in and come back to their car. As far as safety, he does not think speed will ever be a factor in that parking lot. He stated that he likes the fact that Staff said they could monitor it and see if it is a problem. Hunn asked the members of the Commission how they would feel about a time frame. Discussion followed on what wording would be coming off the box. Henry Vest amended his motion to include a time frame of one year for the placement of the box and then at that time a review can be submitted. Sue Railton seconded the amendment. The motion carried with a four to three vote, Rhoda Schneiderman, John Perkins, and Jack Hunn voting nay. Ring and Approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 19 1993 Jack Hunn moved to approve the minutes of the October 19, 1993, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Buz Reynolds stated that he would like to get a policy set, and he realizes that enforcement is a big problem, but he would like to see it tied to the building permit that the project must be built per approved prints, and stating that if it is not built per plans, the applicant may have to go to the expense of taking it down. Considerable discussion followed on how this could be handled to stop what just happened tonight with the Anderson/Connell project. MSA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 13 Other Business (cont) Steve Amsbaugh stated that he totally supports Buz's concern, and Staff has been discussing having a stamp for building permits stating "No changes to this plan are allowed without additional approval". Amsbaugh stated he would come back very soon with a proposed solution to that issue. Buz Reynolds also st : asted that roofing materials be approved by the building department prior to being installed on the ouilding. Landscaping materials should also be inspected before being planted. Rhoda Schneiderman asked why Holy Cross can't be made to conform to the design guidelines. Why can't they be made to landscape if they are going to put some sort of gigantic structure on a busy intersection up in'Wildridge. Steve Amsbaugh stated that the Peregrine building has requested that they do a full scale color range on the building. Their design consultant has recommended that they paint five stories of the building with the proposed colors just to see how it will look. Amsbaugh stated that he thinks this is a good idea as long as if it looks bad, they paint it back. The commission decided to discuss the design guidelines update at a worksession the next meeting. Steve Amsbaugh then made a presentation on the Aquatic Center site that has been approved by the Town Council, if the voters approve it in today's election. The meeting was then adjourned at 9:35 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary a a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 2, 1993 Page 14 93