Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Planning & Zoning Minutes 04/05/2017 MINUTES CITY OF AMES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION [*Absent] MAJOR TOPICS DISCUSSED: 1. Election of Officers 2. Rezone of 1105 Top O Hollow Road (Continued) 3. Public Hearing for Annexation Request of Auburn Trail (4605 Hyde Avenue) 4. Rezone of 3505 South Duff Avenue 5. Zoning Text Amendment for On-Street Parking in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District 6. Zoning Text Amendment for Landscape Standards (Part 2, Continued) 7. Lincoln Corridor Plan Discussion (Continued) __________________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER: Debra Lee, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: (Bowers/Wannemuehler) to approve the Agenda for the meeting of April 5, 2017. MOTION PASSED: (6 - 0) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2017: MOTION: (Wannemuehler/Ragaller) to approve the Minutes of the meeting of March 15, 2017. MOTION PASSED: (5 - 0) Minhas abstained as was absent at last meeting. ____________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC FORUM: There were no public comments. ____________________________________________________________________________ ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: (Bowers/Ragaller) to nominate Matt Converse as Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission. MOTION FAILED (2-0) (voting yes: Bowers/Ragaller) (following members did not vote: Lee/Wannemuehler/Basmajian/Minhas) MOTION: (Basmajian) to nominate Debra Lee as Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission. MOTION PASSED: (4-0) (voting yes: Lee/Wannemuehler/Basmajian/Minhas) (following members did not vote: Bowers/Ragaller) MOTION: (Bowers) to nominate Matt Converse as Vice Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission. MOTION PASSED: (6-0) ____________________________________________________________________________ REZONE OF 1105 TOP O HOLLOW ROAD (CONTINUED) Charlie Kuester, Case Planner, stated that it was continued from last meeting however since last meeting the applicant, Ames Electric Department, asked this to be continued indefinitely as they want to do more design work and more outreach with neighbors. MOTION: (Bowers/Ragaller) to accept applicant’s request to table indefinitely. MOTION PASSED: (6 - 0) ____________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ANNEXATION REQUEST OF AUBURN TRAIL (4605 HYDE AVENUE) Charlie Kuester, Case Planner, stated that this is a repeat of an annexation request that was presented to the Commission back in January, they received an application from Hunziker Apartments LLC for 68 acres and after discussion with City Council, the planning department was directed to include four non-consenting properties on the east side of Hyde Avenue. Mr. Kuester indicated the areas on a map and stated that there are 68 acres of consenting and 14 ½ acres of non-consenting owners. When presented to the City Council in February the annexation was approved and then sent to the state City Development Board, in early March, the state found the application to be incomplete and not properly filed, as there was not appropriate language in the resolution for approval. In order to avoid any uncertainty, the process was started over with a consultation on March 15, 2017 with the township trustees, notification was provided for the public hearing, and asking the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation. It will go back to City Council on April 25, 2017 and then resubmitted to the state City Development Board. Mr. Kuester stated the proposed annexation territory is designated Urban Residential in the Ames Urban Fringe Plan, no development can occur until full city services and infrastructure are brought to the site. He stated that the proposed annexation is also designated in the land use policy as part of the Allowable North Growth Area, which allows for residential development. Sanitary sewer and water connection districts have been created in this area and most of the land can be served by the recently installed lines and the cities payback will occur as these lands are developed. Paving was also done from Hyde Avenue up to 190th street. The inclusion of the four properties that are non- consenting was done to create more uniform boundaries. Mr. Kuester explained by showing a map what the City is considering as a uniform boundary, the state code states that you can include non-consenting to create more uniform boundaries. He mentioned that the rest of the packet is the same as what was presented to the Commission in January. Debra Lee, Chairperson asked to confirm that no material has been changed since this was first presented in January. Mr. Diekmann stated that it has not and they have chosen to start over with the annexation so the record is very clear about the steps that were taken and how it was done. MOTION: (Ragaller/Bowers) moved to approve Alternative #1 to approve the annexation of 82.69 acres of land, including 14.50 acres of non-consenting property in order to create more uniform boundaries as shown on Attachment 1. MOTION PASSED: (5 -1) (nay: Minhas) ____________________________________________________________________________ REZONE OF 3505 SOUTH DUFF AVENUE Justin Moore, Case Planner, stated that the applicant, The United Pentecostal Church of Ames, property owner of 3505 South Duff Avenue is requesting to rezone their property of just over three acres from Agricultural zoning to Highway-Oriented Commercial zoning. The primary reason the church is requesting to rezone is to make some improvement to their site that will consist of creating some additional parking in the front yard between the building and the street which is currently not allowed in the Agricultural district. The current land use policy plan designates the property as Highway-Oriented Commercial, the building was constructed in the late 1970’s shortly after the property was annexed and has been Agricultural ever since. The primary neighborhood is a mixture of single family homes with the airport directly behind it to the west. The land use policy plan designation would support a Commercial zoning this would make the rezoning compatible and therefore staff would not see any reason to object. The site development process would be subject to a Special Use Permit that would go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Carlton Basjimian asked if the site currently has front parking. Mr. Moore stated they do but want to extend further out. Mr. Basjimian asked how that was done for front yard parking in an Agricultural zone. Mr. Diekmann stated that the building was originally done in 1970’s and the City didn’t have planning and zoning back then. Mr. Basjimian asked how much they are planning to extend the parking lot. Mr. Moore mentioned he is not sure but believes it would be about 7-8 parking stalls on each side. Ms. Wannemuehler asked if they would be backing onto Duff Avenue at all, it was stated as “no”. Mr. Basjimian asked if there was any parking behind the church, Mr. Moore stated there is some and the property is set back 100-200 feet. A discussion was had to make sure the church entrance did not affect any neighborhood driveways. MOTION: (Basmajian/Bowers) moved to approve Alternative #1 that recommends that the City Council approve the request for rezoning from “A” (Agricultural Zone) to “HOC” (Highway-Oriented Commercial Zone) for the property located at 3505 South Duff Avenue, based upon the applicant’s project description and staff’s analysis. MOTION PASSED: (6 - 0) ____________________________________________________________________________ ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR ON-STREET PARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERICAL ZONING DISTRICT Julie Gould, Case Planner, presented the text amendment for the neighborhood commercial district to allow on-street parking to be credited to the required amount of parking. This was sent to the planning staff after it was presented to City Council in January, the applicant is proposing to re-use the Doboy mill, at 4625 Reliable Street. Neighborhood commercial sites are scattered across the city and are existing transitional or remnant commercial sites that did not fit the other zoning districts that were established by the City in 2000. These locations are in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods and intended to be smaller commercial sites that are not necessarily highway or regionally oriented for their use. There are seven existing areas across the City that are zoned Neighborhood commercial. Ms. Gould indicated on a map the seven existing sites. There are two other areas that allow on-street parking as part of the off-street requirement which are the Village district (Somerset) and the Research and Innovation Zoning district (HUB Activity area). Staff believes this is a reasonable proposal since the Neighborhood commercial is defined as small areas that are to promote compatibility with the surrounding residential uses and promote pedestrian orientation of those uses. The applicant is proposing to do a café/art gallery and able to provide about five stalls and one ADA stall on the west side of the building. Ms. Gould mentioned that a parallel stall would be 22 feet long and indicated on the map where these would go along with noting that there is about 600 feet of frontage along the length of Reliable Street. The intent of the code change would be to allow only the parking that is immediately adjacent to the site to count towards their required parking. On street parking has to be approved by an ordinance through the City, currently Reliable Street does not allow on-street parking and would have to get the ordinance approved. Mr. Basmajian stated that with the need for a City ordinance for Reliable Street, he wanted to know if this would be a difficult task to go through. Mr. Diekmann stated it would not and is fairly routine. Ms. Minhas wanted to know with the four sites where no parking is available, is the parking not allowed. Ms. Gould stated that is correct and those areas would need to request an ordinance to be approved. Ms. Minhas asked if this zoning text amendment was approved today then would these areas be able to ask for an ordinance to be approved for on-street parking. Mr. Diekmann they could but more than likely it wouldn’t happen as those four sites have physical limitations. Ms. Minhas asked if the applicant has any other goals of getting the parking without going through a zoning text change. Mr. Diekmann stated they had several discussions regarding this in the fall and what choices the applicant had, the only way to accommodate the change of use was to build on site or to give credit for on-street parking. Elliot Thompson, 3211 Lettie Street, stated that he is the co-owner of the Reliable Street project and would be happy to answer any questions. Ms. Minhas did voice a concern about changing a zoning ordinance based on one site and worries about what will happen with future sites in the City of Ames. MOTION: (Basmajian/Wannemuehler) to accept Alternative #1 that recommends the City Council approve the amendment to allow on street parking to count toward off-street parking requirements for commercial uses within the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning district. MOTION PASSED: (6 - 0) ____________________________________________________________________________ ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR LANDSCAPE STANDARDS (PART 2, CONTINUED) Kelly Diekmann, Director of Planning stated this zoning text amendment has been presented at the last two meetings and in February the Commission asked for staff to bring more information back about the planting requirements and some concepts were given about overall site landscaping for apartments and whether to look for useable open space or a percentage landscape requirements in addition to what was being changed for parking lot landscaping and apartment foundation and front yard landscaping. After presenting the March planting options the Commission chose at that point to continue the discussion to tonight as only had four Commission Board members present for the past two meetings. Mr. Diekmann stated they do not have any new presentations or thoughts and are handing it back to Commission for debate. Mr. Basmajian stated that he has heard the commercial landscape standards but not the residential. Mr. Diekmann stated what the pivotal issues where for the Commission. The Commercial standars fundamentally changed how they were going to do landscaping, residential was going to maintain our normal buffering around a site and apply the parking lot landscaping standards that require internal landscaping throughout parking lots to apartment and commercial projects. Currently there are a lot of ways to minimize your landscaping through how you configure a parking lot. The new standard would be 10% of your parking lot area must be landscaped. The other item was to adjust the front yard planting requirements, the first proposal was to use the same standards as commercial but the debate was that the Commission thought it was too much to require so they brought it back at the March meeting and made it about 25% less than the February alternative. A table was presented showing the February and March planting alternatives showing the differences between the two months alternatives. The February totals for front yard and then the March proposal looked at parking lots with a little denser plantings. The foundation planting in the new proposal is not like today, today it is all about planting it next to a building, and this proposal encourages thought behind how you place plantings in the front yard. Mr. Diekmann stated there were two policy questions that were presented. RH was one of the few or only base zone in the City that has no landscaping requirement. Commercial sites have a base zone requirement of at least a 15% of the site, RH does not have this. Does the City want to look at having overall landscape percentage requirements, do we want to add aesthetic foundation plantings to buildings with the site, not just the front yard, and do we want to require useable open space. Ms. Lee mentioned that the first meeting in February there was a 2-2 split with a difference of opinion on the residential was if too much to ask for and then staff went back and reduced the amount they presented in March, but the Commission only had four members present so they decided to table it until more members were present Dr. Diekmann did note that on the Attachment A that was presented it says shrubs but does not have to be shrubs as it was hard to compare plant type to plant type, a ratio of 3 ornamental grasses to one shrub. Mr. Basmajian asked if they were voting on the entire packet all together. Mr. Diekmann stated that they can either vote for the entire package or they can pick individually what they would recommend. Ms. Lee asked that the Commission look at the front yard landscaping first to see if they can agree on the February or March alternatives. She stated that she is not in favor of going any lower than the March option. Mr. Basmajian asked why we are treating multi-family differently from commercial, as the February alternative is similar to the commercial. Mr. Diekmann stated that the comments from the work group move that the overall change in the totality, especially when layering in all the options, the numbers really ballooned in their eyes. Mr. Bowers stated that he doesn’t remember the exact numbers but the increase in landscaping was going to double the cost and double the amount in some circumstances that were provided. Justin Dodge, Hunziker Companies, 105 S. 16th Street, stated that on the table they had worked with Justin and Kelly it would have increased the cost by 178% on just one of the sites so everything was triple digit increases. A further discussion was had regarding street frontage and total parking and Mr. Diekmann went over a few examples that were shown on Attachment A. He noted that that February/March alternatives are total landscaping, not just front yards, the parking standards are the same for each column. Mr. Basmajian felt the February alternative seems fair and the March alternative is only a little different. Mr. Diekmann stated that staff felt to have any meaningful change you would have to go with at least the March alternative which is 25% less from February’s alternative but still 50% more than what is currently in place. A discussion was then had by the Commission members about the cost to the citizens. Ms. Wannemuehler stated she liked what Mr. Dodge proposed at the last meeting by starting out with the March Alternative and then can always add more. Ms. Minhas stated she was not at the last meeting but wanted to see if we could try the landscaping standard for a year and re-evaluate after that but would the developers be willing to go back and add landscaping. Mr. Diekmann stated they can’t go back but they can try it for a year and then before the next development season see if landscaping needs to be re- addressed. Ms. Lee stated she is uncomfortable with trying it for only a year as nothing will grow in that time. Mr. Diekmann you would be able to see on site plans what did and did not work, it would be from a plan view only. Ms. Lee stated that she has said before that more landscaping needs to be done and the March Alternative is the minimum she is willing to go with and we have heard from the developer community but haven’t heard anything from an Ames community organization, and it is up to the Commission to decide what the community residents will want to see. Mr. Diekmann stated that any recommendation(s) the Commission makes today will go to City Council next week and then will get City Council direction on where to go next. Mr. Diekmann mentioned that if you were to pick the February or March Alternative that is shown on the screen you are accepting a 10% parking standard along with the front yard standard. MOTION: (Bowers/Ragaller) that the Commission recommend that the parking lot requirement for residential areas be set to match the proposed commercial requirement. MOTION PASSED: (6 - 0) Ms. Lee then asked the commission to move onto the front yard requirement. Mr. Diekmann stated that the February Alternative is 8 shrubs and 12 grasses per 1,000 square feet of front yard area that is equivalent to 12 shrubs per thousand. The March Alternative is written as shrubs for comparative purposes but is also broken down to linear units, the rate is 12 shrubs in front of parking lots and 9 shrubs for the rest of the site this is about 25% less than the February ratios. Mr. Diekmann stated that the current standard is 6 shrubs per 60 feet plus parking lot screening. MOTION: (Ragaller/Bowers) to accept the March Alternative for the front yard landscaping requirements. MOTION PASSED: (5 -1) (nay, Basmajian) Mr. Diekmann stated the next issue is optional as it was part of the overall update of assessing landscape standards and there is no comparative. The two ideas are a base landscape percentage that would be used to result in either a concentrated open space on a site or more green area around each building. If you go the usable open space route it is defined that you want spaces that are large enough for an informal or precise activity for example, basketball court or amenity patio area, it has to have a utility to it. Mr. Diekmann mentioned that in the FS zoning districts you have to have 10% open space, the most common solution is to make it accessible to the residents of that development by adding a path or sidewalk, you could have woods but it would have be a picnic space or trail. Further discussion was had regarding the definition of open space. Mr. Diekmann recommending addressing the site percentage idea first, a table describing using 20% of site area to ensure it was more area than parking and setback. He stated that maybe the Commission just needs to say that buildings need to have or ornamental landscaping around them as this would enhance aesthetics. More discussion was had about how to calculate open space. Ms. Lee asked the Commission if they have any interest in adding more landscaping requirements than what they already did with the March Alternatives. It was noted that the Commission struggled with wanting to add more landscaping requirements at this time. No Motion was made in regards to usable open space. Mr. Diekmann then moved on to discuss the industrial element stating that was touched on at the last meeting and per the request of the development community as there is currently an L4 masonry wall buffer requirement that applies to about eight properties in the City, the developers were hoping for another option besides just a masonry wall. It is noted that they reduced setbacks in the mobile home requirement last year where this new standard would apply. MOTION: (Bowers/Ragaller) to expand the options in the general industrial interface. MOTION PASSED: (6 - 0) Mr. Diekmann stated that they will be going to City Council next Tuesday, April 11, 2017 and will report out the Commission’s recommendations and there will be a Public Hearing in May to get adopted. _________________________________________________________________________ LINCOLN CORRIDOR PLAN DISCUSSION (CONTINUED) Ms. Lee stated that they got the first introduction to this project at the last meeting and some of the Commission members felt they would like to look at each area separately and what the implications would be. Mr. Diekmann stated that they distributed the document last week. One question was what the implementation of this is and what they are looking for is any recommendations or comments that the Commission has on the plan. This will be presented to the City Council on April 11, 2017 and from there will take all the input and finalize the plan. Mr. Diekmann stated that they can’t do all of these at once so they are going to ask Council to prioritize the project, they feel that Kellogg Street will be the priority. Karen Marren, Case Planner presented a power point presentation regarding the draft Lincoln Way Corridor plan showing what policy questions each section had along with implementation steps. Ms. Lee asked how to respond to the Wilmoth/Franklin area and how the plan addresses pedestrian and traffic interaction. Ms. Marren stated that she responded through email to the residents that had the concerns, letting her know that the Franklin area is already out for bid for improvement and the resident was going to speak with our traffic engineer to further answer her questions. Ms. Lee stated that she would like to have a discussion on each focus area than a general discussion. Mr. Basmajian asked exactly what kind of feedback is wanted. Mr. Diekmann stated the policy questions slides are what should be discussed. Planning staff feel that a huge choice needs to be made as is there a public choice in the redevelopment in this area or is just what the market wants to build. He noted that some of the comments they have heard asked what the attraction is to go downtown. Are there things that the Commission wants in the plan, then we need to either negotiate or require them through zoning. The other part of this is you could see some mixed-use buildings probably in a four story range. How even the area would be different in uses than Campustown. Ms. Lee stated that if City Council adopts this plan then it is an essentially an endorsement for the ideas contained within it so it seemed worth the effort to take a closer look. Mr. Diekmann stated that it is not a blank slate and there will be challenges with some of the streets, alleys, and utilities. Ms. Lee asked if there was anything in the Downtown Gateway that the Commission members could not accept. Mr. Diekmann asked if there was something that the Commission members really would want to see developed. Mr. Basmajian wanted to know what kind of entertainment is needed. Mr. Diekmann stated that no one is driving anything but wanting to know what is missing, what can add nightlife as we would like to see this as an expansion of downtown. Mr. Basmajian stated that part of the problem is the density of buildings and space, there is too much concrete and dead parking spaces in the area. Mr. Basmajian asked if he anyone thought there was much interest in having housing on that side of the Lincoln Way by the train tracks. Mr. Diekmann stated there has been an expressed interest. Mr. Basmajian recommended maybe the City to loosen up on what the uses are and maybe structuring the building envelope, you get a sidewalk with buildings up to the street. Ms. Minhas agreed that there should be some building requirements and that all parking is on the side street or in the back of the building. Mr. Diekmann stated that one of their biggest obstacles by Gilchrist Road is the overhead power line as it is 160 kilovolt line that can’t go away and unable to go underground. Ms. Wannemuehler thought this would eliminate pawn shops in the area. Mr. Diekmann stated they would be allowed in any HOC area there are only restrictions on payday lending. Mr. Diekmann asked the Commission if anyone had any concerns if this was just stand alone residential and no commercial. The Commission noted if it was built correctly then no concerns for some limited residential. Ms. Minhas stated she would push for a mixed use especially along the Lincoln Way Corridor and the street frontage or ask for more of a design guideline for more of an urban development. Rob asked for the person left in the audience to come up so they can address their concerns. Joe Lease, 114 S. Riverside Drive, came up to the lectern stating that he lives in the Oak Riverside area and this is the biggest project the City has come up with in about 20-30 years. He felt that the way the City presented this project was not well done stating the information for this project was just being presented last week during Spring Break when everyone was gone was and then was the last item on the agenda tonight. He stated he there are several items that could do wonderful things for the City and the community but the section on Oak Riverside is a complete miss. He has been a resident there off and on since 2005 and to reduce the streets on Lincoln Way to one lane in each direction is a disaster as anytime there is an event at Hilton, a sporting event, or even rush hour traffic is completely backed up. Mr. Lease stated that this is an old part of Ames and his house was built in the 1900’s and is working to restore it, but if plan goes through there is no incentive to restore it as the way he reads the map he will lose his driveway, garage, shed and half his backyard are taken for an access alley way if not his entire lot, what incentive as a property owner does he have. It was asked if he lived on the south side of Riverside and he stated he did. He stated that on the north side a lot of those properties have been bought up and the property owners have not maintained them. Mr. Lease feels that to adopt this part of the plan would go against the “spirit of Ames”. He feels this is moving really fast with very little discourse especially if going to City Council next week. Mr. Diekmann stated that in the November concepts there was an alley that was shown but that has since been removed in the final version. He stated that they heard the comments at the workshop and what is happening on the north side is not in the plan for the south side. The south side is basically single family homes with no alley access but a goal would be shared driveways on the south side. Ms. Minhas asked with the second bullet point on the policy question will this address some of the neighbors’ concerns about supporting core neighborhood vitality on property condition. Mr. Diekmann stated they are not in any way arguing that the Oak Riverside is not a core neighborhood that has vitality but what is the best means going forward to support that. Ms. Lee mentioned that there is no doubt that some of the houses along this road have not been maintained and she does have an interest in seeing how some of those are preserved, the plan implies that there is going to be major changes all at once but in reality it is going to be that someone comes along with an idea for one or two lots. Mr. Basmajian stated they are not adopting the visuals but the policy behind it. Mr. Diekmann stated that the reason behind the visuals as they were asked “what would the policy look like” so they wanted to give an example. Ms. Lee noted that it seems to her that what ends up being proposed for the south side of Lincoln Way in this area, that the gain would be reducing the number of curb cuts on Lincoln Way in order to improve the traffic flow. Mr. Diekmann stated he is not sure if they have given any incentive in this plan to make that happen as they are not adding any density to the south side, maybe some relief from setbacks to help guide to shared driveways. Ms. Lee questioned what the value in even including the south side is. Ms. Marren stated you are clarifying that you want to maintain single family detached housing as well as the zoning. Mr. Basmajian stated the major change would be the “road diet” as that is a significant idea. Ms. Wannemuehler stated she noted that traffic was backed up on a Sunday. Mr. Diekmann stated that the traffic volumes were analyzed and that the traffic volumes are acceptable for a three lane road. Mr. Diekmann stated that the Commission hasn’t heard it as much, but the Transportation Division has heard a lot about for the pedestrian and biking for the past two years. They went through a long range transportation update that was adopted in the fall of 2015 but from a year and half of input they were told to add more bikes, more pedestrian walkways and minimize cars. Ms. Lee stated she has been having a hard time picturing improving bicycle and pedestrian transport thought the Lincoln-Way and Grand area. Mr. Diekmann stated they are not sure what strategies they are looking at for improvements but the intersection of Lincoln Way and Grand would not change to three lanes. He noted that if the “road diet” is done some traffic will be routed onto 4th Street. Ms. Lee asked if they endorsed the plan the way it is would be the last word? He stated that it is not in the CIP and there is clearly outreach that would need to be done that would set the tone for the project in the future. Ms. Minhas stated that she would be supportive of the “road diet” and the property conditions could be address when a detailed discussion is had a later time especially with properties located along the north edge of Lincoln Way, where the City may want to put in place some landscape standards etc. Mr. Diekmann stated that those properties currently meet City standards and from comments from the community is the City’s standards are too low. Mr. Diekmann stated that on the Lincoln and Grand focus area it is the lowest priority due to the Iowa DOT does not want to remove their existing property from their inventory. Ms. Lee stated that if she read correctly, residential use would not be allowed in this area right now. He stated that is correct as it is all HOC and if there is a possibility of adding housing they would want a purpose behind it. Ms. Minhas stated that she has noticed throughout the entire plan it doesn’t show where all the bus stops would be. She would like to see a little more detail into the bus stop across from Hy- Vee along West Lincoln Way. Mr. Diekmann stated that this plan does not address transit planning at all as Cy-Ride is in the middle of a route study right now and have two draft options out that would re-route their entire system, they were doing it as their own project. Mr. Diekmann pointed out briefly the West Side Retail focus area stating that at the far east side of Colorado and Wilmoth, there is a property owner that would like to pursue something. This is an RL zoned area with single family rental houses. If Council goes ahead with this plan then the Commission will probably see a proposal at a later time. Mr. Diekmann will bring all Commission comments to the City Council meeting. _________________________________________________________________________ COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mr. Bowers asked if possible to be to get in written form or in an update what is in staff review for new projects. Mr. Diekmann stated they intend to put a development activity report online for everyone to see that would be updated every week. ____________________________________________________________________________ STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Diekmann stated City Council hosted a public workshop regarding a City owned parcel behind the Fighting Burrito, wouldn’t be surprised if Council brought it back to the Commission at some time. He stated that there are few big projects coming up, Trinitas development and Bricktown. ____________________________________________________________________________ MOTION TO ADJOURN: MOTION: (Wannemuehler/Bowers) to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:52 PM. _________________________________ ____________________________________ Debra Lee, Chairperson Amy L. Colwell, Recording Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission Department of Planning & Housing S:\Planning.Dep\PLAN_SHR\Council Boards Commissions\PZ\Minutes\2017 Minutes\P&Z Minutes 04-05-17.docx