Loading...
04-24-2012 z City of Las Cruces® PEOPLE N E L P I N 0 PEOPLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA The following agenda will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico, at a public hearing held on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 beginning at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 700 N. Main Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, color, ancestry, serious medical condition, national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services. The City of Las Cruces will make reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual who wishes to attend this meeting. Please notify the City Community Development Department at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528-3043 (voice) or 1-800-659-8331 (TTY) if accommodation is necessary. This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. I. CALL TO ORDER II. CONFLICT OF INTEREST At the opening of each meeting, the chairperson shall ask if any member on the Commission or City staff has any known conflict of interest with any item on the agenda. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 28, 2012 Regular Meeting IV. POSTPONEMENTS — NONE V. CONSENT AGENDA — NONE VI. OLD BUSINESS — NONE VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case S-10-012: Application of Roger Lord for a replat known as University Mesa No. 3 Replat No. 4 to create 4 townhome parcels on a 1.187 ± acre lot located on the south side of Wall Avenue, 465 ± feet west of its intersection with Oleta Drive; 280 Wall Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-39673. Proposed Use: Townhouse Development. Council District 2. 2. Case Z2851: Application of Manuel M. & Leticia S. Pinon to rezone from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to M-1/M-2C (Industrial Standard-Conditional) on a 3.138 ± acre lot located on the north side of Picacho Avenue, 0.20 ± miles west of its intersection with Valley Drive; 1600 W. Picacho Avenue; Parcel ID# Page 1 of 2 02-01986. Proposed Use: Limited Commercial and Industrial Uses; Council District 4. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — NONE IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION X. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS XI. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 s t City of las Cruces" 1 PEOPLE NELPINO PEOPLE 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 FOR THE 4 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 5 City Council Chambers 6 April 24, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. 7 8 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 9 Charles Scholz, Chairman 10 Godfrey Crane, Vice Chair 11 Charles Beard, Secretary 12 William Stowe, Member 13 Ray Shipley, Member 14 Shawn Evans, Member 15 16 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 17 Donald Bustos, Member 18 19 STAFF PRESENT: 20 Robert Kyle, Building and Development Administrator, CLC 21 Katherine Harrison-Rogers, Senior Planner, CLC 22 Adam Ochoa, Acting Senior Planner, CLC 23 Mark Dubbin, CLC Fire Department 24 Rusty Babington, CLC Legal Staff 25 Bonnie Ennis, Recording Secretary, CLC 26 27 I. CALL TO ORDER (6:00 PM) 28 29 Scholz: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission 30 meeting for Tuesday, April 24, 2012. My name is Charlie Scholz. I am the 31 Chair of the Commission. Before we begin our work I'm going to introduce 32 the Members of the Commission. On my far right is Commissioner 33 Shipley, who represents District 6. Next to him Commissioner Crane and 34 he represents District 4. Commissioner Stowe, next to him, represents 35 District 1; and then next to him is Commissioner Evans he's District 5. 36 Right next to me is Commissioner Beard and he's District 2; and I am the 37 Mayor's appointee to the Commission 38 39 II. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 40 41 Scholz: We're supposed to read a Conflict of Interest Statement or ask if there's 42 any conflict of interest at the beginning of every meeting. So, let me ask 1 1 the Commission: any conflict of interest regarding these two items we're 2 going to deal with today> 3 4 All: No. 5 6 Scholz: Staff, any conflict of interest you want to declare? 7 8 Staff: No. 9 10 Scholz: No, and none on my part either. 11 12 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 13 14 1. February 28, 2012 Regular Meeting 15 16 Scholz: All right, I'll entertain the approval of the minutes for February 28th, our last 17 regular meeting. Any additions or corrections? 18 19 Crane: I've a couple of very minor corrections, Mr. Chairman. 20 21 Scholz: All right. 22 23 Crane: First, page 22, line 31... 24 25 Scholz: Go ahead. 26 27 Crane: "And then the other people her;" should be "here," of course, h-a-r-e; and 28 secondly, page 26, line 39, reads......and the Chair votes aye, findings, 29 discussion and site visit so `it' passes, 4-2." 30 31 Scholz: "it" passes. Right, not "its." Thank you. Any other additions or 32 corrections? Commissioner Shipley? 33 34 Shipley: On page 29, line number 29, it says, "We cannot 'reasonable' expect..." I 35 think that's "reasonably" expect. 36 37 Scholz: Line 29, you said? 38 39 Shipley: Yes, sir, page 29, line 29. 40 41 Scholz: We cannot "reasonably," right. Anything else? Yes, Commissioner 42 Stowe. 43 44 Stowe: I've got on page 9, line 29..."additional people that will 'be'working there." 45 2 I Scholz: All right...The "two additional people that will be working there." Actually, 2 it should be "who" will be working there, but that's all right. We'll allow that. 3 4 Stowe: Page 12, line 15. 5 6 Scholz: All right, and that is? 7 8 Stowe: "Kids playing and screaming 'all'day long." 9 10 Scholz: "all" day long." Thank you. 11 12 Stowe: Page 29, line 4. 13 14 Scholz: Go ahead. Oh, that's one..."I 'see' the need for more time." 15 16 Stowe: Yes, that is exactly it. 17 18 Scholz: "see"...good 19 20 Stowe: Two "e-s." Thank you. 21 22 Scholz: Okay, thank you, gentlemen. I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes 23 as amended. 24 25 Shipley: I move to approve the minutes as amended. 26 27 Scholz: Is there a second. 28 29 Beard: Second it. 30 31 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. 32 33 All: Aye. 34 35 Scholz: Those opposed same sign? Any abstentions? All right, the minutes are 36 approved as amended. 37 38 IV. POSTPONEMENTS — NONE 39 40 Scholz: Mr. Ochoa, any postponements? 41 42 Ochoa: None tonight, sir. 43 44 V. CONSENT AGENDA — NONE 45 46 Scholz: Okay, how about the Consent Agenda; nothing there either? 3 1 2 Ochoa: Nothing for tonight, sir. 3 4 VI. OLD BUSINESS — NONE 5 6 Scholz: And no Old Business? 7 8 Ochoa: Nope. 9 10 VII. NEW BUSINESS 11 12 Scholz: Which brings us to the New Business, which is Case S-10-012. For those 13 of you in the audience who haven't been here before the way we proceed 14 is: we ask the City to present its case first then we ask the applicant to 15 speak; then we open it to public discussion and after we close it from 16 public discussion the Commissioners discuss among themselves and then 17 we vote. 18 19 1. Case S-10-012: Application of Roger Lord for a replat known as University 20 Mesa No. 3, Replat No. 4 to create 4 townhome parcels on a 1.187 t acre lot 21 located on the south side of Wall Avenue, 465 t feet west of its intersection 22 with Oleta Drive; 280 Wall Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-39673. Proposed Use: 23 Townhouse Development. Council District 2. 24 25 Scholz: Mr. Ochoa, take it away. 26 27 Ochoa: Thank you, sir. For the record, Adam Ochoa with Development Services. 28 The first case we have tonight is the case S-10-012. It is a request for 29 approval of a replat of a final plat for a subdivision known as University 30 Mesa No. 3, Replat No. 4. Shown here on the vicinity map, the subject 31 property is located here in the hashed light blue marks. I apologize as my 32 hashing went a little too far north and incorporated this area but we're 33 actually just looking at this area here south of what would be south of Wall 34 Avenue, south of that cul-de-sac there. The subject property is located 35 directly east of the Las Cruces Lateral 36 Again, the subject property is located on the south side of Wall 37 Avenue, the south end of that cul-de-sac there. It is approximately 465- 38 feet west of its intersection with Oleta Drive; the address being 280 Wall 39 Avenue. The subject property is currently zoned R-3, which is Multi- 40 Dwelling Medium Density and currently encompasses approximately 41 1.187 acres. 42 The replat we're looking at tonight is basically replatting one 43 existing lot into four new residential lots that will be used for a townhouse 44 development. Just a little history on this property: it actually existed as 45 three lots in the past, with what was called University Mesa No. 3 Replat 46 No. 2. Those three lots were turned into the one lot that exists now. That 47 was done for the purpose of starting a condominium agreement and 4 I association on those properties with townhouses. That condominium 2 agreement is no longer desired by the property owner or the applicant and 3 they are now just trying to go back to a townhouse development, which 4 was there before. So, basically what we're doing now is just adding one 5 additional lot to what was existing there in the past. That additional lot is 6 basically splitting the two existing townhomes on the property, each one 7 on their own individual lot. Each lot where the townhomes are, do meet all 8 Development Standards of the 2001 Zoning Code when it comes to 9 setbacks, building height, and so on. 10 This University Mesa Replat No. 3, Replat No. 4 does comply with 11 all 2001 Zoning Code Requirements. It complies with all City of Las 12 Cruces Subdivision Code Requirements and it also follows all City of Las 13 Cruces Design Standards as well. 14 Here is a picture of that plat. I believe you do have a larger version 15 of this, including the 8 Y2 that was in your packet, showing the existing 16 1.187 acre lot to the south which is being split into four lots. Two of those 17 lots measure approximately .465 acres and the two lots where the existing 18 townhomes are now each measure a little under 0.26 acres. I apologize 19 about the blurriness of this plat. When we downloaded it, it came out too 20 blurry. 21 Here is an aerial picture. You can see a little bit better those two 22 existing townhomes that are being split down a common wall to have one 23 go on an individual lot and, of course, the remainder of the property, which 24 is currently undeveloped or vacant right now. 25 On March 28, 2012 the Development Review Committee, or the 26 DRC, reviewed the proposed replat and the DRC recommended approval 27 for the proposed replat. The Planning and Zoning Commission tonight, of 28 course, has final authority on such replats. 29 With that, your options tonight, gentlemen, are: 1) to vote "yes" to 30 approve the replat request as recommended by DRC for case S-10-012; 31 2) to vote "yes" to approve the replat request with conditions as seen fit by 32 the P & Z; 3) to vote "no" to deny the replat request, and; 4) table or 33 postpone the replat and direct staff accordingly. The representative of the 34 applicant and property owner is here to speak on his behalf if you have 35 any questions for him. I stand for questions as well. 36 37 Scholz: All right. Thank you, Mr. Ochoa. Any questions for this gentleman? 38 Commissioner Shipley. 39 40 Shipley: Mr. Ochoa, thank you for that presentation. In the history portion of this on 41 page 3 of the 7, it states this replat was approved administratively. When 42 was it approved? 43 44 Ochoa: The University Mesa No. 3, Replat No. 2 was approved in 2006, sir, which 45 is around the year it was filed. 46 5 I Shipley: 2006? 2 3 Ochoa: That is correct, sir. 4 5 Scholz: All right, any other questions? Commissioner Crane. 6 7 Crane: When I looked at that today, Mr. Ochoa, it didn't come clear to me from 8 looking at the property that exists that it was, in fact, two houses with 9 separate entrances. But I take it, it is? I guess I didn't look hard enough 10 and the idea is that there's now going to be a lot line division splitting the 11 common wall of these two houses? 12 13 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, that is correct. The two homes will 14 remain essentially as townhomes as well, but they will each be on their 15 own, individual lot instead of both being on one lot. So that is correct. 16 Each one will have their own property where the home will be located on; 17 down the common wall or the firewall on the property. 18 19 Crane: Thank you. 20 21 Ochoa: Sure. 22 23 Scholz: All right, anything else? May we hear from the applicant, please? 24 25 Magallanez: Hello, my name's Henry Magallanez with Moy Survey. We are the 26 surveyors who provided the documentation for the replat. As Mr. Ochoa 27 mentioned, it was three lots before and they winded up replatting it into 28 one. We're going back and we are splitting up the one condominium that 29 was there, the townhouse with the common wall, and making two lots of it. 30 The other two are remaining as they were before. Unless you have some 31 questions I think Mr. Ochoa did a great presentation and we hope we can 32 have approval from you all. 33 34 Scholz: All right. Any other questions for this gentleman? Okay, thank you very 35 much, sir. 36 37 Magallanez: Thank you. 38 39 Scholz: Anyone from the public wish to speak to this? Evidently not. All right, I'll 40 close it for public discussion. Gentlemen, what is your pleasure? 41 Commissioner Shipley? 42 43 Shipley: Just one question: to go back on the diagram that we have it shows 44 six...is that six buildings there outlined on this where it says "subject 45 property?" 46 6 1 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, that is correct, though the kind of 2 outlined small imprints of what would be buildings on that plat are kind of a 3 remnant, leftovers, of the condominium association. The County, 4 essentially, sets that up. The City has nothing to do with condominium 5 associations. It's a State and County issue; and, basically, when you pull 6 that up in our system it still shows that it has a condominium association 7 or agreement going on there. But we do have an actual signed 8 termination of the condominium association. That has been done and it's 9 been taken care of and filed with the County and the State. 10 11 Shipley: What I'm trying to understand is that you said there are two lots where the 12 existing townhouses are, because you're going to split that into two lots. 13 Is that correct? 14 15 Ochoa: Correct, sir. 16 17 Shipley: Then go back to that page right there, the last one you just sped by. 18 Okay, you have the two townhouses there and there'll be two parcels 19 there. 20 21 Ochoa: That is correct. 22 23 Shipley: And then you're going to split the remaining 1.8 acres into three more 24 parcels or four? 25 26 Ochoa: Two more parcels, sir. Essentially, it's going to be two vacant lots and the 27 two lots with the townhomes on them for a total of four lots. 28 29 Scholz: Okay? 30 31 Shipley: Thank you. 32 33 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 34 35 Scholz: All right, anything else? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve case S- 36 10-012. 37 38 Crane: So moved. 39 40 Scholz: All right, Crane moves. Is there a second? 41 42 Evans: I second. 43 44 Scholz: And Evans seconds so I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley? 45 46 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion. 7 1 2 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 3 4 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 5 6 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 7 8 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 9 10 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 11 12 Evans: Aye, findings, discussion. 13 14 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 15 16 Beard: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 17 18 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, findings, discussion and site visit. So it passes 19 6-0. 20 21 2. Case Z2851: Application of Manuel M. & Leticia S. Pinon to rezone from C-2 22 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to M-1/M-2C (Industrial Standard-Conditional) 23 on a 3.138 t acre lot located on the north side of Picacho Avenue, 0.20 ± 24 miles west of its intersection with Valley Drive; 1600 W. Picacho Avenue; 25 Parcel ID# 02-01986. Proposed Use: Limited Commercial and Industrial 26 Uses; Council District 4. 27 28 Scholz: All right, Mr. Ochoa, our next item is obviously a case Z2851. 29 30 Ochoa: Yes, sir. The last case tonight: it's a request for a zone change from a C- 31 2 to M-1/M-2C on the subject property located here on the vicinity map on 32 the light blue hashing here, located north on Picacho Avenue, directly 33 west of North Valley Drive and east of what would be the Seventeenth 34 Street area; which by one of my other slides you'll be able to see that 35 Seventeenth Street on there. 36 As I said, the subject property is located on the north side of 37 Picacho Avenue, approximately 0.2 miles west of its intersection with 38 Valley Drive. The subject property has the current address of 1600 West 39 Picacho Avenue. The subject property is currently zoned C-2, 40 Commercial Medium Intensity, and encompasses 3.138 acres. So, as we 41 speak now the current zoning on the property is out of compliance with the 42 2001 Zoning Code since the subject property is 3.138 acres. It exceeds 43 the maximum lot size for the C-2 Zoning District of 1.0 acre. Currently the 44 subject property is being used for truck and trailer rentals and a towing 45 service. 8 1 This zone change request is for the M-1/M-2C, Industrial Standard- 2 Conditional, zoning designation for the subject property, which will 3 facilitate the use of the subject property for limited commercial and 4 industrial uses. The applicant is seeing the zone change to: 1) try to bring 5 it into compliance and, 2) to facilitate the future relocation and expansion 6 of his business onto that property, which is a heating and cooling business 7 at which he will actually be manufacturing his own ducts and so forth on 8 the subject property, which is why he is requesting that M-1/M2 zoning 9 designation. 10 The subject property is located along a Principal Arterial roadway, 11 which is Picacho Avenue, where these types of land uses are encouraged 12 and it is located within the vicinity of Seventeenth Street, which is an area 13 in the City of Las Cruces where industrial uses are encouraged as well. 14 Staff and the applicant actually worked on going through the 15 permitted uses in the M-1/M-2 Zoning District and eliminating some of 16 those uses that were permitted in the M-1/M-2 Zoning District. By doing 17 this we're helping to eliminate any type of nuisances that may occur to the 18 surrounding residential properties to the north and northeast of the subject 19 property and this will also help for our compatibility with the area. The 20 subject properties directly west of the subject property are zoned PUD or 21 Planning Unit Development, with a list of permitted industrial uses that 22 were modified for that property. The applicant and staff met and kind of 23 went through the uses and tried to mimic that of the existing PUD, which 24 was previously approved to the west of the property; again, for more 25 compatibility and to be more in keeping with what's existing in the area 26 now. With that the applicant also agreed to install an opaque wall or fence 27 around the subject property to screen the view of the surrounding area 28 from his new, proposed industrial area that will be going onto the property. 29 Here's an aerial view of the subject property. As I said, it's 30 approximately 3.138 acres. It has a small building in the front, with that 31 PUD zoned area to the west, which allows the industrial uses as well. It 32 has the Mayfield Lateral running to the north and northeast of the subject 33 property. Actually the Mayfield Lateral is completely outside of this 34 property so it will not affect the Lateral at all. All around through this area 35 there are limited industrial zoning and uses around this area of West 36 Picacho Avenue. 37 Here's a site plan of the subject property, again showing the 38 existing...it says "Dwelling" on there but it is not really a dwelling. It is a 39 commercial building being utilized on that property. 40 With that, staff reviewed this proposed zone change and, based on 41 the findings outlined in the staff report, recommend approval with 42 conditions. The first condition is: the uses permitted on the subject 43 property shall be limited to those that were listed, that were actually part of 44 your staff report as Attachment #4, as the list of permitted uses. The 45 second condition placed on this zone change would be: the applicant 46 shall be required to install an opaque wall/fence around the perimeter of 9 s I the subject property to help with screening of the property. The Planning 2 and Zoning Commission is a recommending Body to City Council for zone 3 change cases so this recommendation will be forwarded on to City 4 Council. 5 With that, gentlemen, your options tonight for case Z2851 are: 1) to 6 vote "yes" to approve the request as recommended by staff for case 7 Z2851; 2) to vote "yes" to approve the request with additional or modified 8 conditions as deemed appropriate by the P & Z; 3) to vote "no" to deny the 9 request or; 4) table and postpone the zone change and direct staff 10 accordingly. The applicant is here, as well, to answer any questions. 11 To date we only had one public input from the neighbor to the west 12 simply just asking if there was going to be a buffer or a screen 13 requirement for the property. We made him aware that the applicant 14 would be required to put up an opaque wall or fence around the property 15 as he was required with his zone change to PUD, as well. With that, I 16 stand for questions. 17 18 Scholz: All right, any questions for this gentleman? Commissioner Shipley. 19 20 Shipley: Define the opaque wall or fence. What height is it going to be? 21 22 Ochoa: Opaque wall or fence, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, is a 6-foot 23 tall wall that you cannot see through so it would have to be completely 24 opaque from grade up to 6-feet in height, sir. That would be required 25 around the whole property on the subject property. 26 27 Shipley: And if it were a fence it would have to be what: a chain link fence with 28 slats? 29 30 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, whatever is required for the fence 31 to make it opaque. We have had instances in the past where they used 32 some type of a mesh, if you will, that is opaque, as well. Slats, chain link 33 with slats would be permitted as well, or a 6-foot tall wooden fence with 34 the slats right next to each other, something like that. The applicant does 35 have options to construct that opaque fence. 36 37 Scholz: All right, any other questions? Okay, may we hear from the applicant, 38 please? 39 40 Rion: (Inaudible — speaking from the audience) 41 42 Scholz: Well, we'd like you to come up and identify yourself anyway, by the 43 microphone. 44 45 Pinon: Hi, my name is Manuel Pinon and there's nothing to say. He did a pretty 46 good job. 10 1 2 Scholz: Okay, that's fine. Do you have any questions for this gentleman? No? All 3 right. Thank you, sir. 4 5 Pinon: Thank you. 6 7 Scholz: Anyone from the public wish to speak to this? No, evidently not. All right, 8 we'll close it for public discussion. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure? 9 10 Crane: I move that case Z2851 be approved with the conditions stipulated by the 11 staff. 12 13 Scholz: Okay. Would you read those conditions, please? They're on page 8. 14 15 Crane: That the uses permitted on the subject property should be limited to those 16 listed on Attachment #4, which is... 17 18 Scholz: Too long to read. Right. 19 20 Crane: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the applicant shall install an opaque wall 21 or fence around the perimeter of the subject property. 22 23 Scholz: All right, is there a second? 24 25 Evans: I second. 26 27 Scholz: Okay, Crane moved and Evans seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner 28 Shipley. 29 30 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 31 32 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 33 34 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 35 36 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 37 38 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 41 42 Evans: Aye, findings, discussion. 43 44 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 45 46 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 11 1 2 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, findings, discussion and site visit. So it is 3 approved 6-0. 4 5 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — NONE 6 7 Scholz: Is there any other business before us, Mr. Ochoa? 8 9 Ochoa: None tonight, sir. 10 11 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 12 13 Scholz: Okay, how about any other public participation? No? 14 15 X. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 16 17 Scholz: Seeing none, staff announcements? 18 19 Harrison-Rogers: I do have an announcement this evening. We do have a new staff 20 member with us. 21 22 Scholz: I was hoping you would introduce him. 23 24 Harrison-Rogers: He is one of our new staff, Todd Taylor, and you may see him from 25 time to time, joining us with the Planning Department. 26 27 Scholz: Welcome, Todd. I hope you enjoy these proceedings. They're usually 28 even more lively than this. Commissioner Beard, you have a comment or 29 question? 30 31 Beard: Just a question...I know there's some City Councillors that have been 32 thinking about, on this particular...this last item that we discussed now has 33 to go before the City Council to be approved. Is that correct? 34 35 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, that is correct. 36 37 Beard: There's been...is the City considering eliminating that process? 38 39 Ochoa: As of now, sir, no, sir. We haven't heard anything from anyone about it. 40 41 Beard: I'd heard two Councillors talk about that. 42 43 Ochoa: To our knowledge, I don't think so, sir. 44 45 Scholz: Kyle has a comment. Yes. 46 12 . 4 1 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, staff is not aware of any specific 2 plans to eliminate the current process. Again, we have not been made 3 aware of any discussions. There have been issues raised at previous 4 Council meetings from applicants about the process of going through the 5 Planning and Zoning Commission and discussing all the issues, etc. and 6 then going to the City Council and kind of rehashing some of those issues 7 before and an applicant raised the question of, "Why do we have to do this 8 twice?" But I am not aware of any specific initiatives at this point to 9 eliminate the Planning and Zoning Commission. 10 11 12 XI. ADJOURNMENT (6:28 pm) 13 14 Scholz: All right, anything else? Okay, then I declare we adjourn at 6:28. Thank 15 you. 16 17 / J 18 Chairperson 19 13