Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.14.20 P&Z Minutes_exppdf1 City Staff and Others: Scott Johnson – Economic Development Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant Chairman Rory Kunz opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Chairman Rory Kunz, Melanie Davenport, Greg Blacker, Steve Oakey, Vince Haley, Kristi Anderson, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx. Absent: Bruce Sutherland, John Bowen, Keith Esplin. Minutes: From Planning and Zoning meeting – May 7, 2020 p.2 She felt the change was being made for one particular sign. She was worried about infringing on existing signs in general. (These comments have already been addressed in the current draft of the minutes.) Paragraph 5 captures this comment in the following sentences: She felt the change was being made for one particular sign…. Melanie Davenport focused on the financial burden that may affect the existing businesses. Interaction with Mr. McDougal and Melanie Davenport needs to be included in the minutes because the discussion influenced her vote. (Discussion was already included in the minutes. Each speaker has been bolded for identification.) p. 4 paragraph 3 “Melanie Davenport asked if the Applicant contacted any of the adjacent properties. Why or why not? Ray McDougal has not talked to any neighbors. Jeff Lerwill to the east of the request could have been interested in being part of the request. Sephlin Hepworth talked about contacting Jeff via email and he was not in attendance. Jeff Lerwill sold the property to the Hepworths and identified the parcel should be able to be rezoned to Mixed Use.” MOTION. Motion to approve the minutes for May 7, 2020, with the identified amendments., Action: Approve, Moved by Kristi Anderson, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8). Yes: Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Kristi Anderson, Melanie Davenport, Steve Oakey, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes May 14, 2020 2 Public Hearings: 1. 6:35 p.m. – (20-00189) 266 W 3rd S - Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Dormitory in High- Density Residential 2 (HDR2). (action) Chairman Rory Kunz opened the public hearing at 6:36p.m. Applicant presentation: Johnny Watson – 1152 Bond Avenue – He is going to tell the Commission more than he feels they will want to know about the Development Code Ordinance. Johnny has been nervous about presenting at Planning & Zoning tonight. He feels additional pressure, due to how long he has been working on this project. A year and a half ago a group from Texas came in with a large project including about half the block. The current application is a partnership with three local groups: the Lofgrens own the property, Bart Stevens and his son, Kyle, and the Crapos. They inquired from Johnny how to start the process to build apartments. He told them they needed to get on an agenda to talk to the University about their needs. The University has a department that dictates when you can and cannot bring dormitory facilities online. Bart was shocked by the amount of work that is needed for the approval process with the University. The Applicants liked Windsor Manor and North Pointe. The group asked if they could do something like these developments. Johnny answered, yes and no. Citizens do not know about the Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED) imaginary line that follow S 2nd W, which parallels the University, North to South that changes what you can and cannot do. As an average citizen, you do not know the projects and what each zone they are in: ProZone, Mixed Use, HDR1, and HDR2. All you know is if you feel comfortable or uncomfortable as a pedestrian or in your vehicle. Landscaping and elements of architecture that are human scale provide a comfortable feeling. The building orientation next to the street prevent you from seeing some of the building stories taller than the 2nd level until you are blocks away. The elements from the ceiling height down are the elements that help you feel comfortable. The group talked to Troy at the University who asked, how many beds do you think you can put on that site? The Applicant researched the number of units that would be allowed on the parcel per the zone as described in the Development Code. The zone is High Density Residential 2 (HDR2), which the Applicant perceived is the most dense zone, however, this is not the case. He told them most of the facilities you see have been done in the Mixed Use zone without a commercial component. The development of these zones are a process and the Code has been evolving. He firmly believes this is a community, we are a team, and we work together. He shoulders just as much responsibility, due to all the projects Johnny has brought before the Commission, as Staff does. The fact is we have not gotten our Ordinance to where it needs to be. If we want our higher density closer to the University in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere, the HDR2 should be the one that does it. When it comes down to how the Development Code is enforced, the verbiage does not exist to allow us to achieve this project through HDR2. The purpose of Mixed Use talks about the higher densities existing in a Mixed Use zone. He sat down with City Staff, Craig Rindlisbacher and Val Christensen, knowing this project was coming up and talked to them about zoning to 3 HDR2, because there was no commercial component. Part of the project in the Comprehensive Plan was already in Mixed Use. A pedestrian friendly project can only be achieved in Mixed Use. The Cove was zoned MU to build it with the pedestrian-friendly elements. City Councilwoman, Sally Smith, told Johnny to stop bringing her projects for the Mixed Use zone without commercial included. When the current project came in, they were actually encouraged to rezone to HDR2 instead. Johnny knew he was going to run into the same problems. When he did Brigham’s Mill, it is actually HDR1. Many of the pedestrian friendly elements are going in to the form-based code currently in development for the downtown district: proximity of buildings to the street, types of materials, change of materials, and the elements that create human scale that make us feel good as a pedestrian. He talked it through with Staff and they were able to create this building in HDR1. The requirements of increased setbacks and lot coverage Lot coverage in HDR is less than the 90% lot coverage in Mixed Use. He sat down with Val, Craig and Scott and told them of this project that was coming. He told them the owners want to achieve something similar to Windsor Manor, Abri, Brigham’s Mill, or the Landing. Johnny and Staff agreed to rewrite the HDR2 zone Ordinance to achieve the goals in the Comprehensive Plan and Johnny requested this take place. Craig left, Val retired and only Scott was left. Johnny did not keep pestering Scott, and he knows how busy Scott is. He told Scott, since Planning & Zoning was his department for a time; Johnny needed a vehicle to get this project done in the HDR2 zone. Johnny did not keep reminding Scott. Then, Alan came and he was new. Johnny sat down with Tawnya and Alan in January 2020 and shared with them his need for the HDR2 zone rewrite. No vehicle has yet been created in the Ordinance that helps Johnny to create the residential project for dormitory housing. This is why Johnny is pursuing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) tonight. We have a lot of work to do for our Ordinance. When you read HDR2, it is geared more toward multi-family, high-density residential. It is difficult to create an Ordinance that covers every possibility that can happen in our town. From the Owner’s standpoint, they are a block and a half from the University. The location provides a great pedestrian access. It has been an uphill battle since then. The PED boundary means more parking is required at this location. The location of the property in the Infill/Redevelopment area has allowed them to achieve most of their goals. The overall lot coverage is the only goal they have not been able to achieve. As the project is drawn, there is 89% lot coverage. 80% lot coverage is what is permitted in the HDR2 zone. He has yet to do a housing project that comes anywhere near 80% lot coverage. Lot coverage has not been a review comment. North Point is probably 95% lot coverage; it might even be higher than this percentage. The goal for lot coverage is to increase the landscaping. He believes the green space should be for the benefit of the pedestrians and the community, for public enjoyment. North Pointe was shown as an example. The only green North Pointe has to come close to complying with the Ordinance, re is the grass for an interior court area, which does not benefit the citizens of the community. The Ivy is maybe 2% green space. On the site plan, the one advantage to this owner’s property is the parcel line; curb and gutter are a long way from parcel line to back of curb; 30’ from property line to back of curb. Already the perceived green space is increased from a pedestrian’s perspective. Mixed Use projects are allowed 0’ front yard and with the Infill/Redevelopment Area, the closest they could get is 5’. Typically, there is only a 7’ boulevard strip. Johnny’s site plan shows 8-9’ of blvd. strip with landscape trees 20’ on center, plus additional depth with the front yard and the lot line so far back. Johnny showed the pedestrian experience on the sidewalk. I am 15’ – 20’ from a 4-story structure. The scale of the brick, textures, colors, benches, light fixtures, etc. make me feel comfortable next to this big building. He showed Windsor Manor; he is showing projects that you have a good feel for. For all projects, the sidewalk is increased from 5’ to 8’ for students. There is 4 North Pointe Willows a 7’ blvd. strip, an 8’ sidewalk and 0’ lot line. (This is half the distance Sundance Apts., Johnny’s project has.) North Pointe has no blvd. of elements that make me feel comfortable as a pedestrian. The Willows has a 0’ front yard, but they still have a good feel to them. We feel like with 89% lot coverage, we feel like we are still providing maximum pedestrian and community experience of our project. 75% parking is required in HDR2; they are not asking for a reduction in parking. They are planning for 308 beds. The University requested the owners to do a men’s and a women’s building to allow the University more flexibility in the student population. The buildings will be four (4) stories. They are excited and have already started on Building B. The City has allowed Johnny to keep moving his project forward, even though the verbiage was not completed. Part of the situation is, when you go into an agreement with the University, you have to say you will have “x” amount of beds by fall 2021. Timing out all of the construction to be finished on time, the project had to start when they had to start. If it feels like we are starting, then asking for forgiveness, it is not that way; we have been working through the project for a long time. Chairman Rory Kunz asked is the project will fit on just the three parcels. No, there are actually five total parcels. Why are only three parcels included in the request? A lot combination will make all five parcels combined into one parcel, roughly 2.2 acres. They are not anywhere near what the density allows, due to the required 75% parking. The setbacks in the zone allow 25’. They want 0’ front yard and could not have this without changing the zone. In order to get the project going, Alan clarified in Infill/Redevelopment allows him to request a reduction to a 5’ front yard. Windsor Manor 5 Currently, one (1) building complies completely with the HDR2 zone. If the Applicant is not granted the lot coverage of 89%, building two (2) will have to be modified. So, this is why they have a Building Permit for one building. Steve Oakey reminded the other members that they had to pay $635 to make this request. He remembers having a discussion with Sally Smith from the City Council. She asked him if he felt it was difficult to do business in Rexburg. He answered, yes; he feels it is difficult to do business in Rexburg. Thank you for reminding us how difficult it is to satisfy the needs of the market and navigate through the difficult codes. Steve asked Johnny, does your project presented tonight on the screen represent what is being built? Plans cannot be changed at this point. Review comments indicate snow storage and parking are issues. Why couldn’t you reduce your parking when the market does not require it? Steve confirmed the project is currently under development. The Staff recommends approval with conditions. He is assuming the remaining comments are being hashed out in detail. His perception is to pass this procedure along in a timely manner. Melanie Davenport asked Johnny, if in discussions with the University, Troy Daugherty communicated a current surplus in student housing. Initially, Troy did communicate this fact and inquired about the Applicant’s timeline. When Troy learned it was the fall 2021, he approved the 308 additional beds. Melanie asked if Troy was the only person the Applicants spoke with at the University. Johnny conferred the question to Bart Stevens. Were the projections and historical data for student housing discussed? Bart Stevens stated the discussions with the University began in March of 2019. At this time, they had finished a previous project and were looking for potential possibilities. Troy Daugherty is the person the Applicant talked to and it went to committee. The Lofgrens were those who went to committee for the request with the University. Two of the homes on the site were already approved for student housing and had 28 girls living in them. A rental home was also on the site. There was a lot of remnant from the flood also on the property- old sinkholes from old homes. The Lofgrens wanted to do something with the property to keep it looking nice. Troy did talk to Bart Stevens’ group about projections and it was very in depth. March 4, 2019, Bart also visited with the City and received some estimations of building permit fees, as well as, impact fees to start to develop a budget for the Sundance Apartments project. The University’s process was completed for approval on December 11, 2019. The University has a lot to say about what they would like to see and how they would like to see it happen. The University dictates a student living plan and the student community. Attorney Spencer Rammell indicated the University projections are not contemplated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Rory Kunz indicated the customers are not in the purview of the Commissioners. As to decisions, we should not put heavy weight on the University and their projections. Let us keep our questions to those for the current application. Melanie Davenport responded, due to the extensive explanation Johnny Watson has provided; this opens the door to follow-up questions. She confirmed tandem parking is shown on the Site Plan. Vince Haley confirmed the final lot coverage of 89%, setback will be at 5’ in the front yard from the parcel line, no parking reduction, but there is tandem parking. At 75% parking, every parking stall has to be assigned to a specific individual. Tandem parking stalls will be assigned to students who share the same room. Johnny is required to provide a Parking Management Plan that details how the parking system works. Vince confirmed the project started 1 ½ years ago and asked why the Commission was being rushed on this request. Vince feels he is being rushed, because the regular meeting time was moved up a week. Johnny Watson said the solution for the Ordinance 6 initially discussed a year and a half ago was not changed to allow that would facilitate the project in the Ordinance without coming before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Melanie Davenport asked if you received all of the issues you want tonight, would this solve the parking and maneuvering issues that still need to be resolved? Johnny will modify the Site Plan to satisfy the review comments and allow the needed maneuvering. Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – Staff has multiple discussions with Johnny Watson. Staff like the look of the project. Solutions were able to be determined for the front yard: the request for a 5’ front yard and the 75% parking required in the Infill/Redevelopment area. Staff recognizes there are some challenges in the zoning code that need to be addressed. The request is a Conditional Use Permit for dormitory use. The plan has moved along well. A footing and foundation permit has been issued for Building 1 only. A Building Permit for Building 2 is contingent on meeting the requirements that are in line with the Code. This includes the 89% lot coverage; the Code says 80% lot coverage. The agreement with the Developer was they would meet the requirements of the Code by reducing the size of Building 2. Johnny chose to ask for this condition before Planning & Zoning. A typical comment “all storm drainage will have to be handled on site.” The Developer has agreed to this condition. Parking and maneuvering need to be addressed. Johnny Watson indicated tonight he has ways to do design the maneuvering and as long as he can still meet the parking requirements, this comment could be addressed. Chairman Rory Kunz asked what kind of maneuvering Staff meant. Maneuvering in the north parking lot where you see the tandem stalls, both lanes come to a dead end on the east side. A problem Public Works typically sees is if every stall is full, someone who drives to the end of the lane looking for a parking stall, has no way to turn around; they would have to back up the entire length of the lane. A combination of lots is needed to combine all lots into one parcel and the development will be included in the Conditional Use Permit. The Parking Management Plan is a condition, because the Applicant has not provided snow storage on site and has agreed to remove snow at each snowfall from the site. We want this agreement in the Parking Management Plan. With these conditions, Staff recommends the request be recommended to City Council. Todd Marx confirmed the current code requires 80% lot coverage in the HDR2 zone. Vince Haley asked about the traffic on 2nd W and 3rd S by Taco Time. Does the city anticipate a full stop sign where the current HAWK signal? City Planner, Alan Parkinson, answered, no, Public Works does not want to locate a light here because this creates a challenge with the light on 2nd S. Pedestrian traffic can be handled with the HAWK signal. Vehicles are anticipated to go to S 3rd W to the light to access W 2nd S and S 2nd W. Keith did not see a problem with the traffic at this time. Public Works is not present to speak to stoplights and pedestrian ways. Will you address why the building was able to start? He wonders if his vote counts. Commissioners’ decision tonight can still affect the size of Building 2. One lot already has a Conditional Use permit for dormitory use, and legally, Stephen Zollinger, City Attorney has indicated a lot combination could allow the current Conditional Use Permit for dormitory housing to apply to all combined lots. Staff felt bringing the request through regular processes was a better legal solution. The Conditional Use Permit for dormitory was for the property at 366 W 3rd W in September 2004 if conditions were met and in August 2007 if conditions were met. David Pulsipher asked if they could override Zone Code and allow the lot coverage for the Applicant. If it is written into the code, can we rewrite the code for this request? Chairman Rory Kunz answered, this is the nature of a Conditional Use Permit. The Commission says in this one 7 instance, the Commission can grant this opportunity, because the Applicant has made an argument that makes sense to the Commission. Attorney Spencer Rammell said, if the purpose was to change the Zoning Ordinance, which has to be done through a separate procedure outlined by Idaho Statutes to change the Zoning Ordinance to allow the lot coverage for all requests to be changed from 80% to 89% in the HDR2 zone. As a condition for a Conditional Use Permit, the code requirements can be adjusted for this parcel. Kristi Anderson says it would have been nice to see this request on the application so she could come more prepared. Officially, the request should be on the record that the lot coverage is part of the request. Alan Parkinson says it was not part of the original application and was brought to Staff after the application was submitted – the Applicant intended to request the lot coverage adjustment. Greg Blacker asked if the City Engineer did say that a stoplight was needed in this area, whose responsibility would it be to pay for that stoplight? This is a question for Public Works. Alan assumed this would have been a cost for the developer at time of development. Greg asked, if several years from now a stoplight is needed, what will happen? Impact fees paid by the Developer now will help pay for future infrastructure improvements in this area in the future. Melanie Davenport asked if the purpose of the Mixed Use zone was a step down between commercial and residential. Typical Mixed Use is commercial in the lower floors and residential up above those businesses. In the past, the commercial requirement was dropped out of the Mixed Use requirements. Mixed Use is filling a gap in the code right now. She feels it is frustrating that the project is already started. She feels the system has been circumvented in some ways. The decision for this application has been pursued after discussion with a group of Staff members, not a single individual. Due to a publishing date and the challenges with COVID-19, the meeting date for the second Planning & Zoning meeting in May was moved up; this application was supposed to be on the May 7th meeting. Concrete is in the ground and the required plumbing needed to be in the ground prior to the concrete. Chairman Rory Kunz confirmed the Applicant has not circumvented any processes. The Applicant has proceeded forward only on those items that currently comply with the Development Code. Chairman Rory Kunz says the Commissions’ purview tonight is to answer the questions: Does this project fit in the neighborhood? Does this request fit what the citizens are trying to accomplish in the City? Is the request for this permit in the correct zone? There are two issues at hand. The Applicant can move forward through the CUP process, be denied by the University and continue to use the project as a dormitory use for other people if the application is approved. Vince Haley says Troy Daugherty is not here to represent himself; this is irrelevant to the discussion. Keith Esplin joined the meeting. Chairman Rory Kunz asked the Commissioners if they had any conflicts of interest or had been approached by any parties relative to this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. 8 Melanie Davenport identified she owns student housing, but not near this location. The Crapos are a client of Vince Haley and he was not aware they were a part of the project. It was determined neither are official conflicts of interest. Chairman Rory Kunz opened the public input portion of the hearing at 7:39p.m. Written Correspondence: None Favor: Bart Stevens – 1232 Pleasant View Dr. – He appreciates Johnny Watson and all the work he has put in to this project. Bart wants to emphasize the time Johnny has spent working with City Staff. Bart has served on the Council and he has watched Johnny be very unselfish with his time and expertise to help projects move forward and draw up the codes we have now. He feels Johnny has done a great service to the community. Bart feels this is a great project. Those who have reduced parking look like good project, but then the projects’ cars line the streets. An average of 60% of the students have cars and they are not requesting reduced parking, because they feel the parking is needed and 75% will provide adequate parking. He appreciates the Commissioners and their time to hear this project. He hopes the Commissioners will feel good about supporting this project. Neutral: Catherine Stanton – 315 S 3rd W – She is worried a little about the timing of the project. Hearing that the project has been going on for months and the hearing is now after the project is under way, gives the appearance to the community that the hearing is a ruse and public input is not being considered. One of the questions is whose interests is this Commission is serving? Opposed: None Chairman Rory Kunz closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:46p.m. Rebuttal: Johnny Watson addressed the perceived feelings. The Applicant is allowed by right to build the building currently under construction. Without granting of tonight’s proposal, the size of Building 2 will be smaller. Nothing has been done against what the property owners are allowed to build right now by right or nothing that cannot be modified given the Commissions’ recommendation to City Council. Vince Haley is on the fence. The location of the project on the west side of the block is a concern for him to allow the 89% lot coverage, without any commercial or Mixed Use currently adjacent to this project. The 5’ setback buffer from existing residential seems like it makes the uses very close together. Tandem parking - students hate it, but it will not prohibit him from voting either way. Chairman Rory Kunz asked for the zoning map. Technically, even though there are still single-family residential, the zoning is High Density Residential 1 to the West of the project. As stated by Mr. Watson, the Applicant has the right to build two buildings on the property. The decision before the Commission is: Does dormitory-style housing make sense at this location? Does it make sense to increase the lot coverage requirement to 89%? Dormitory housing is already present on this block adjacent to the project and they do not meet the 80% requirement due to the nature of when they were built. Vince Haley identified those dormitory uses out of compliance are across the street from the PED zone. 9 Steve Oakey talked about the rarity that the parking lot would be filled. The developer should be able to dictate the parking needed to provide their customers’ parking. The City should not manage the developers parking, nor the requirements for a building. Parking is moot point; it is not an issue. A business has to serve a clientele. The Applicant is willing to discover on their dime, whether their business is going to work or not; they have to discover the wants and needs of their consumer. The City should only manage the parking on the city streets. The City should not manage any private businesses’ parking. Parking is not part of the decision tonight. Location of the project based an arbitrary, imaginary line dictated by the City is also a moot point for him. If, as a provider of a product, the Applicant is spending millions of dollars on a basis of win or lose, he grants them the opportunity to try. He believe a great deal of homework has been done by the Applicants to arrive at this meeting. He wants to give the Applicant the opportunity to try and he would vote along that line. Melanie Davenport identified if a reduction in lot coverage size, will the Applicant be able to provide safe pedestrian travel? The maneuvering in the parking lot is something to consider. Some confusion about the location of the property in the city and proximity of a highway. Beside Porter Park, the road was considered part of the Yellowstone Highway; however, it no longer holds this designation. The location of the parcels were shown on the GIS map. Todd Marx says that there is a possibility the PED could be expanded. Kristi Anderson asked about the possibility of changing the PED boundaries as the Comprehensive Plan changes. The decision has to be based on what the Commissioners knows now. David Pulsipher feels the Applicant is trying to mitigate the solutions with the lot coverage. He is also concerned of the current zoning ordinances and the gaps between HDR2, the Mixed Use and the PED zone that are allowed. It seems they are being asked to put a square peg in a round hole. He recommends the gap be fixed in the zoning code to prevent having to make these kinds of decisions again. Keith Esplin understands peoples’ concerns; he proposes to accept the proposal. Attorney Spencer Rammell in talking about special use permits; legally this is the use of a Conditional Use Permit for items that do not fit the Code exactly. No Ordinance is going to cover every example the City encounters. Special Use and Conditional Use are two terms for the same thing. Granting of a Special Use does not create any precedence for any other future projects and cannot be transferred. Steve Oakey says to increase density and increase pedestrian traffic in the HDR2 zone; we cannot put up roadblocks to prohibit developers to redevelop and infill the land with extra density. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve for a Conditional Use Permit for dormitory housing for Sundance Housing at 266 W 3rd S for three properties shown in the map below. The motion includes recommendation to approve the requested 89% lot coverage and expedite the request., Action: Amend, Moved by Steve Oakey, None seconded. 1. All storm drainage to be handled on -site. 10 2. Parking and maneuvering areas need to be resolved. 3. Lot Combination needs to be completed for all parcels included in the development. 4. Applicant will need to submit an approved Parking Management Plan. As part of the Parking Management Plan, Applicant will need to state : “snow storage will have to be removed from the site at each plowing.” Commission Discusses the Motion: Vince Haley asked if the CUP is transferrable from one property to another. When the lots are combined, would this CUP apply to the combined lots? Attorney Spencer Rammell said the most recent case law is a Conditional Use Permit is not transferrable from one property to another property. The vesting or inheriting of that conditional right is not represented in this current case law. There is no clear precedent that a lot combination would allow the CUP to be allowed to apply to the combined properties. It is appropriate to bring the request before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. Kristi Anderson confirmed the “expedited approval” clause in the motion. VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 2, Abstain = 0). Yes: Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Kristi Anderson, Melanie Davenport, Steve Oakey, Todd Marx. No: Greg Blacker, Vince Haley. *Application will be presented for vote before City Council on May 20, 2020. Items for Consideration: None Heads Up: May 21st – No P&Z meeting. Hearings: June 4th – (20-00266) – RPR6N40E203550 - Comprehensive Plan Map change (20-00268) – RPR6N40E203550 - Rezone to Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) (20-00076) – Thomson Farms – Comprehensive Plan Map change 11 Adjournment: Commissioner Rory Kunz adjourned the meeting at 8:08PM.