DRAFT
The New Castle City’s Planning Commission Meeting took place
on January 23, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the City of New Castle’s
Town Hall.
Members Present: Thomas Wilson, Chairman
George Freebery
Jane Miller
Dr. Jack Norsworthy
Elliott Tatum
Mary Davis
Staff Present: Jackie Seneschal
Member Absent: Jim Steele
Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order at 6:35
p.m. Roll call was taken. There are two vacancies currently on this
Commission.
Minutes – A motion to accept the minutes of the
12/19/05 meeting was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Business from the Mayor – The Chair said he did
discuss with the Mayor the vacancies on this Commission. If anyone
has a name they would like to submit to the Mayor, please do so in
the next week. We would like to fill these vacancies as soon as possible.
Business from the City Council – None.
SUBDIVISION & SITE PLANS
The Chair said the items on the agenda this evening will generate
a lot of discussion; therefore, presenters will have no more than
20 minutes to present their plan; comments from the floor will be
limited to three minutes per person.
Site Plan – 0 Delaware Street (Family Foundations
Academy, Inc. Charter School) – Jim Taylor, counsel to Family
Foundations Academy (FFA) introduced the party with him. He then provided
background on the project. The FFA received approval from the Board
of Adjustment to open this school at this location. This is an opportunity
to review the site plan and confirm their compliance with city codes.
Population of the school is 420 students at full enrollment, grades
1-4. The Board of Adjustment suggested we go through the State’s
Plus Process (12/28/05). We received their comments last week and
a copy of his response is in each Commission member’s pack.
The school will be a 38,500 sq. ft., one-story building on a site
leased from the Trustees. (Members reviewed the drawings of the school.)
Required setbacks have been met and city’s ordinances have been
complied with. There are two playground areas and landscaping plans.
Engineers are present to answer questions. DelDOT has noted in their
Plus comments that traffic impact is low, so low that a traffic impact
study is not necessary. There are two fenced-in playground areas.
Ours will be the first site plan approved by this Commission. Mr.
Freebery asked if they considered putting access to their entrance
on 141. The response was that the lot is oriented on 273 and based
on DelDOT’s comments, the entrance is one-way in (east) and
one-way out (west). (Discussion about what a charter school is, the
application process and who decided on this location took place.)
Ms. Miller feels there will be an impact on traffic at this site and
that we should have a traffic impact study. How much income is the
City receiving since it is Trustees’ land. Ms. Seneschal said
the arrangements between a property owner and a lessee are not part
of the zoning and review process. The site plan review that we have
is for compliance of the zoning ordinance. The setback requirements
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 2
and location of the building are subject to review by
the Board of Adjustment. They did approve those setbacks. We are reviewing
it for compliance with other requirements of the ordinance such as
parking, which they have met, and the landscaping requirements for
the parking area. The ordinance requires that 10% of the parking area
be landscaped. (The engineer explained the parking calculations.)
Ms. Senescal noted the filter strip that is to be mowed on a regular
basis; she suggested locating the fence outside the filter strip to
make maintenance easier. They had no problem with this suggestion.
She added that the particular species of tree that has been chosen
should be reviewed by the Tree Commission as a condition of approval.
You have the right number of trees shown. Another concern was whether
the trees you have chosen (red maples) for the islands have enough
room to survive. Either change the species or make the island bigger.
Ms. Davis suggested making the island bigger. They indicated they
would comply with this request.
Ms. Davis asked Ms. Seneschal to clarify that we cannot bring up traffic
impact with this property. Ms. Seneschal said that because the access
is on a State highway they can bring it up if they feel it is an issue.
This isn’t a subdivision and the City does not have a traffic
impact ordinance related to site plans. Up until a year ago this kind
of plan was approved by a building official.
Ms. Miller expressed concern about the quality of life being impacted
in New Castle as a result of this project. Ms. Davis asked the Chair,
as a member of the Trustees, what was behind the thinking of this
project. The Chair said the Trustees had been actively trying to lease
this property for several years. There was a large investment made
with the sewer line that was put in and they felt they had to recoup
their money. It was not a unanimous vote, but was approved. There
is a signed contract involved and he will abstain from any voting
on this project. Mr. Norsworthy questioned whether what Plus brought
up in their letter was addressed. Mr. Taylor said either everything
has been taken care of or implemented and explained why the generic
comments don’t apply. The Chair questioned the accessibility
of emergency apparatus to this building. Mr. Taylor responded that
they will not get a building permit if the Fire Marshal doesn’t
sign off on it and the code requires the building to be sprinklered.
Public Comment
Councilman John DiMondi – For the public record the Board of
Adjustment was out of order granting a conditional exception without
it first coming to the Planning Commission. It is in the City code.
He believes this proceeding is out of order because protocol was not
followed. There are problems with the plan. The drainage heads off
the property; do they have an easement from the Trustees because it
will drain onto a State roadway. The Chair said it is on the greenway
they are going to put in. He also questioned the lack of a fire lane
on the right side of the building. Lastly, he questioned the two play
areas on route 273. Board of Adjustment gave you approval, which you
don’t have by City code, only a recommendation. This is not
a community school and the City doesn’t get any real estate
taxes or other monetary benefit and the citizens should not have to
support it.
Ned Hutchison, 14 West 4th Street – The traffic impact will
be horrendous. Where is the WILMAPCO study that was done about 5 years
ago? The other item on tonight’s agenda, Parkway Gravel, will
add to the traffic also.
Councilperson Teel Petty – If this hasn’t been approved
for a building why are we discussing landscaping and parking? Also,
why does the State feel we need another school in this area? Colonial
School District just passed a referendum to increase taxes. Did the
Trustees ask the Council about the school they were going to lease?
These are major problems for the City of New Castle.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 3
David Byrd – Expressed concern about process.
At the Board of Adjustment meeting there was discussion about getting
the State’s input in the form of Plus. The Board of Adjustment
said they would go ahead with approval with the condition the applicants
would go to Plus, get their comments and respond accordingly. They
have done this. He agrees with Mr. DiMondi. His concern is that this
is the first time the Planning Commission has seen the site plan,
the State’s Plus letter and responses. Perhaps it would be prudent
to look further into what the Planning Commission can do in the review
process, look at the State Plus program and Mr. Taylor’s responses
and give the members of the public a chance to review what the State
said and the applicant’s response. In the city’s Land
Use Plan it did authorize this type of use in this area. He commended
the Chair for recognizing a potential conflict and abstaining from
any vote on this issue.
Dorothy Fisk, 26 E. 3rd Street – We need to look at this project
very carefully. Senator Connor was at the Trustee Meeting when it
was mentioned that the lease had been signed and she was unaware of
this project. She is concerned about traffic flow and asked them (Trustees)
to provide her with as much information as possible. At the December
Board of Adjustment meeting she felt that the lawyer for the school
was pushing the Board of Adjustment into agreeing to the plan before
the Plus program. At the Trustees Meeting it was indicated that the
charter school has to have a certificate of occupancy by June 16th
or it has to get a waiver. We should be concerned about what is good
for the town overall and requests this be considered. She does not
understand how Council can be completely shut out of this process.
John Houben, Washington Park – He is also glad to hear that
the Chair is recussing himself because he is a member of the Trustees.
The Trustees invested $125,000 into the sewer line and he understands
they want to recoup their investment. They never got a pre-approved
credit on the proposed tenant to see if he was financially capable
to handle the obligation so the Trustees made a bad investment with
our money. He lives in the area of the proposed school and it will
create more traffic congestion.
(Brief discussion about standards that apply to buildings in various
zones in the city took place.)
The Chair expressed concern about Councilman DiMondi’s statement
that this process may not be in sync with the law of the city and
we should consider this before going forward.
Ms. Seneschal said she is not aware of any circumstance where the
Board of Adjustment was to get a recommendation from the Planning
Commission, but she will look into this. Ms. Miller is concerned about
facts about what the procedures are or whether they are in sequence.
Mr. Taylor said he did speak with Mr. Kavanaugh before going to the
Board of Adjustment and he confirmed that this is the appropriate
order in process. The Board of Adjustment approved it with the condition
the school continue through the Plus process. The Board of Adjustment
has signed off, we have complied with the Plus process, and now before
this Commission is the opportunity to sign off on the landscape plans
and to confirm that it meets with zoning requirements. Because it
is a R3 zone there are other uses for this property that would have
more of an impact than a school. By tabling this project, it could
have the effect of keeping the school from opening for a full school
year.
Ms. Davis said our problem lies with the Trustees. Does the lessor
have the ability to ask what the building will look like? She wants
everyone to understand the Planning Commission has no ability to make
any recommendations on this building. We should address this issue
with the Trustees because they have a responsibility to make sure
the building is appropriate and fits in well. They need to be held
accountable for the impact on this community. We need to write a letter
or meet with them. Mr. Taylor added that the lease requires the Trustees
to review the final building plans.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 4
Ms. Miller feels it is unfair of the Trustees to drop
this on the Planning Commission. The Trustees have a responsibility
to talk to other people and agencies in the city before going ahead.
This is not a good idea for the City of New Castle.
David Byrd – The reason the public is here is to provide their
input to the Planning Commission to enable them to make their decision.
He feels the Planning Commission can look at the Plus process results
and what the applicant’s response is and make a decision on
whether to go ahead or get more information. We need to make sure
what we are doing is appropriate within the approval process and the
City counsel can indicate that. (Brief discussion about what is appropriate
then took place.)
Ms. Seneschal then reviewed the applicant’s responses to the
Plus process letter. Mr. Byrd expressed concern that this information
has not been communicated to the public yet. She said that with the
exception of rezoning the Planning Commission is not in a position
to tell someone they can’t use their property for a particular
use.
Jeff Davis, East 4th Street – He thinks the Board of Adjustment
usurp your authority on this ordinance and Council’s authority
by preapproval pending certain conditions. Is that your understanding?
The school has complied and we should give them a vote one way or
another then engage in dialogue with the Trustees or develop an ordinance
that follows a process we are all familiar with. We need to get on
with the vote.
Ms. Davis made a motion to approve the landscape design as this is
the only thing we have jurisdiction over, recommend that the Tree
Commission be consulted as to tree species, make the islands bigger,
and reposition the fence outside the filter strip.
Ms. Miller seconded the motion. Five voted in favor of the motion
with Mr. Wilson abstaining from the vote.
The Chair proposed scheduling a meeting with the Trustees. Ms. Miller
is confused as to how we got to this point. Many years ago when a
funeral home wanted to use that land it came to the Planning Commission.
The Chair said there are bad communications in the City with the three
entities, Municipal Services, Council and the Trustees. He has seen
the Planning Commission and Tree Commission get caught in the middle.
The Trustees are not above the law. He would like to see Council and
Municipal Services in a room with the Trustees. The first step is
to sit down with them and determine what the Planning Commission’s
responsibilities are and how they have to abide by the Comprehensive
Plan like everyone else in the City.
Audience – Suggested that the three groups meet once a month
or whatever to communicate with one another. The Chair said he would
initiate that request.
Councilperson Petty – This is disgusting to her. The Planning
Commission works for Council, we take our recommendation and if you
can only work on certain things, what good is your recommendation?
If the Trustees have more power than you do or Council who run the
City, something is wrong with the picture. City Council represents
the people and we need a public hearing.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Review of Parkway Gravel Request for Rezoning from IOP to R3 –
Donald Isken of Morris, Nichol, Arsht and Tunnel presented on behalf
of Parkway Gravel. He introduced his team members then followed with
a background and review of the project. A conceptual development plan
was provided to Commission members.
Ms. Davis asked what the Planning Commission is going to be recommending
this evening.
Ms. Seneschal said there are four questions the Planning Commission
needs to answer in their report to City Council. The first is related
to the comprehensive plan and an amendment to the transportation plan
that would remove the connector between Route 9 and Center Point
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 5
Industrial Park that connects to Route 273. The developer
has requested it be removed from the transportation plan. The second
is whether future use of this property in the comprehensive plan should
be industrial or residential. Third, if it is determined the future
use should be residential, what is the appropriate residential zoning
to be applied? Fourth, if you respond ‘residential’ to
the above two concerns, what term should be included in an amended
restrictions agreement? What conditions should apply to that rezoning?
When this property was annexed by the City there was a written agreement
that applied to the property. (Brief discussion about the kinds of
conditions applicable to the rezoning took place.) Ms. Seneschal referenced
a letter from Mr. Isken responding to the technical report that each
Commission member received. There is a clarification memo from the
Municipal Services Division that each member should also have. The
Plus review letter was distributed at the last Planning Commission
Meeting. There is also a technical staff report prepared on behalf
of the Technical Review Committee. The trip generation figures originally
submitted by the applicant have been updated by what has been submitted
this evening. Other background materials were also distributed to
Commission members. We have requested electronic versions be placed
on the City’s website. (Ms. Seneschal recognized the members
of the Technical Review Team.) Ms. Seneschal reviewed the Technical
Review Report. The technical report does not take any posture on the
rezoning or the comprehensive plan amendments; it merely captures
and reports technical information. We reported what the facts are
so you can make a decision.
Transportation Plan – Ms. Miller expressed concern about the
traffic situation. Mr. Isken responded that there are several reasons
why they are advocating the connector not be built. First, the project
will have private streets eliminating the burden on the City to maintain
the streets. If they are private it is incompatible with the concept
of making this connector between Routes 9 and 273. Second, it’s
inconsistent with building a residential subdivision to now create
a major bypass. Ms. Miller feels they are saying that our needs do
not fit. Mr. Isken explained that some reasons are out of their control.
They need the cooperation of the owner of the Center Point Business
Park and he has refused to cooperate and allow the connector to be
built. The owner doesn’t want additional traffic going through
his business park. It would also require a crossing over the railroad
and they don’t give out crossing agreements easily. (Brief discussion
about the railroad crossing and the history of a requested crossing
and a conceptual agreement between the railroad, the City, DelDOT
and Parkway Gravel in 2002 took place.) Ms. Davis asked if there was
a way to keep the connector issue open for possible future reconsideration.
The Chair said the concern is that if we insist on a connector road
it then becomes public and would those streets become the City’s
responsibility. The plan is that no City truck will enter the area
at any time. Ms. Seneschal added that it is possible to do an alignment
of a road between Route 9 and the entrance to the subdivision as a
public road. If you leave the road on the transportation plan, then
when the subdivision comes you will need to acquire the right-of-way
from the developer for the alignment. One of the major functions of
the subdivision regulations is to allow the jurisdiction to reserve
the land. (Additional discussion about a connector road and the project
took place amongst Commission members.)
Ms. Seneschal is concerned about zoning; R3 zoning can generate a
much different project. Mr. Isken feels there is a concern here that
in the future the age-restricted community might leave and it would
turn into an apartment complex. His client is prepared to impose restrictions
on the property that will provide the City with adequate assurance
that what is being built there will be restricted to a 210-unit, age-restricted
residential subdivision. It would be in the form of deed restrictions
and the number of units would be included in the document.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 6
Zoning – Ms. Seneschal said the zoning district
that most closely represents what the developer is proposing is R1.
The developer wants to continue to ask for R3. (Discussion took place
about the sizes of the dwellings and how they fit into R1. Ms. Seneschal
presented how an area per family is calculated.)
Municipal Services – Ms. Seneschal addressed utilities issues.
Municipal Services want to see utilities _____ to this. They propose
a route where the water lines could be ______. This is an issue related
more to subdivision than rezoning.
Emergency Access – Ms. Seneschal reported that the Fire Chief
expressed his preference for a connector road, but if that doesn’t
work or built initially the developer has proposed an emergency access
route. Literature about the type of materials to be used for that
emergency access has been distributed to Commission members.
Noise – Ms. Seneschal reported that the railroad track runs
immediately behind and landscaping for noise buffering was suggested.
The developer initially proposed a berm with landscaping. A berm design
that is consistent with DelDOT’s requirements for rail in those
locations was suggested by her firm. A fence that provides noise protection
was also suggested by her firm. (Berm dimensions and types of designs
were discussed.)
Crime – Police representatives said their type of police support
required for older residents is different but there would still need
to be a police presence in the community. They feel that even though
they are private streets, there are likely to be occasions where they
will respond. The security service could restrict who enters the community,
but the City police would respond if a crime takes place.
Buffers – Initially DNREC recommended a 100 ft. buffer. In speaking
with DNREC and environmental scientists at KCI there is a consensus
that if a buffer is at least 50 ft. wide it will provide appropriate
water quality benefits. In general that 50 ft. is a minimum. If landscaping
is being proposed 50 ft. would be appropriate.
Fiscal Impact – Ms. Seneschal said that either project would
have a financial impact for the City. There hasn’t been enough
detail analysis done to establish which would have a better fiscal
impact. Mr. Isken added that revenues derived from a 55+ community
will be greater than that of an industrial park.
Public Comment
Charles Cobb – He is concerned with the closing of the access
to the property. The railroad crossing was closed and the City received
verbal approval from DelDOT to have the crossing and they also agreed
that they would take Route 9 through Center Point, which is a city
street, and it would be a State road. The City would then have to
take over Washington Street and Seventh Street.
Joe DiAngelo, Washington Park – He is concerned with traffic.
He cited Deemer’s Landing and the traffic congestion it brought.
DelDOT needs to do something with Route 9 and Route 273. We need to
consider what is best for New Castle.
Councilman John DiMondi – The impact on buffering communities
matters to the people living in Washington Park and Dobbinsville.
He feels the developer has done everything we have asked him to do.
This is a good deal for the City and the people living around it.
Dobbinsville Resident – He would rather deal with 200 cars than
400 trucks.
John Houben – He did an informal survey of Washington Park,
covering Juniper Street and 12th Street. When he explained the situation
of industrial versus residential, everyone he spoke with preferred
residential. He surveyed 20-30 homes. The Chair concurred. He added
that Jim Steel sent him a letter saying he is in favor of the residential
project.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 7
David Byrd – Asked if the proposed bypass is on
the applicant’s property. The Chair responded ‘yes.’
Has there been something constructed on the property? The Chair responded
‘yes.’
Mr. Byrd questioned how this can be done. He was informed that they
received a permit from DelDOT. In the event this application is denied
they would continue their plans for an industrial park.
He would like to explore the possible bypass around the City in the
area and still work with the property owner to allow the type of development
they are proposing. He also feels we should look at another type of
zoning to work with the property owner to accommodate them and allow
the City to get what they want.
Dorothy Fisk – A residential development is far better than
an industrial park and there is a lot of money involved. She asked
how a person would qualify to live in this community. Ms. Isken said
the lender would require a photocopy of the buyer’s driver’s
license be submitted to them at the time of settlement.
Jeff Davis – He asked the Planning Commission to rezone to residential.
The type would depend on the credibility you have accessed to the
developer. It seems that traffic is always the last thing thought
of. The City isn’t forfeiting anything on the bypass because
you always have the right of imminent domain.
The Chair said he doesn’t feel putting in a bypass road would
fix anything. It may fix truck traffic, but nothing permanently. We
need DelDOT to do a legitimate bypass.
Charles Cobb – You don’t have to deny putting the road
through, but the provision should stand so we can proceed if something
happens.
Dorothy Fisk – A question was raised at a previous meeting about
garbage collection. Someone from Parkway Gravel said it won’t
be permanent. Residents will look at City residents and question why
they are paying for garbage collection. She believes this private
community that isn’t going to cost anything will likely cost
us in the long run.
Councilman John DiMondi – Two council members and he have been
given permission to enter into discussions with the developer to get
some issues out of the way. One is restrictions. Where the garbage
is concerned we want to keep City vehicles out, but will pay for tonnage
in a special account at the landfill. Delaware Solid Waste quoted
us a figure of under $19,000/year for the waste. Our vehicles will
never be in the development because it will be part of a restrictive
contract with a maintenance corporation. Regarding zoning, the developer
is willing to put deed covenant in place which permanently restricts
this property to an over 55 community. Whatever you zone it doesn’t
matter. Council will vote on the rezoning on the condition of this
plan that we are now looking at.
Mr. Norsworthy made a motion to change the land use plan to residential
from industrial. Ms. Davis seconded the motion. Mr. Freebery and Ms.
Miller voted no; Mr. Norsworthy, Ms. Davis and Mr. Tatum voted yes.
The motion passed 3-2.
Ms. Miller made a motion that the connector road not be removed through
the site to Center Point; Ms. Davis seconded the motion. Mr. Norsworthy
voted no; Ms. Miller, Ms. Davis, Mr. Tatum voted yes. The motion passed
3-1.
Concerning what zoning the Planning Commission recommends, the Chair
feels there is a need to consider a special zoning commission for
a 55 and over community in our town.
Mr. Norsworthy asked Ms. Seneschal what the potential impact is between
an R1 and R3 zoning. Ms. Seneschal said the difference is the development
potential on the property. If you have deed restrictions in R3 zoning
you can restrict the number of units allowed.
(Ms. Seneschal explained the differences in the zoning category and
the development potential for the site with deed restrictions.)
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 8
Ms. Miller made a motion to recommend to rezone to R1
zoning with deed restrictions.
Ms. Seneschal added that restricting to R1 it will force the developer
to a land development option. It’s a provision of the City code
that allows the Planning Commission to vary lot sizes, reduce setbacks
in return for the developer providing extra open space, etc. By zoning
R3 they could develop it by right under R3 provisions.
Mr. Isken said he has been informed by his consultants that an R1
zoning for this project as proposed will not work. In effect by rezoning
to R1 you are denying the project. He reiterated by using R3 zoning
they will agree to limit to 210 units, size and type of unit that
cannot be changed unless you vote to change it.
Lacking a second for Ms. Miller’s motion, the motion failed.
Mr. Norsworthy made a motion to recommend R3 zoning with restrictions
as stated earlier. Mr. Tatum seconded the motion. Mr. Norsworthy,
Mr. Tatum, Ms. Davis voted yes. Ms. Miller voted no. The motion passed
3-1.
Ms. Seneschal suggested that at the time of the subdivision review
a formal traffic study be submitted. This is a concern in the technical
report and with the City Engineer. It would be a standard type of
DelDOT type traffic study. (A discussion between the developer’s
reps and Ms. Seneschal about traffic took place.)
Ms. Seneschal reported this is an identified archeological site. It
was referenced at the time of annexation and there was a survey of
archeological sites that was done when the sewer line was put in and
found there was no impact on the sewer line itself, but that it was
likely there was an archeological site and this was brought up in
the Plus process. She suggested asking the developer for a phase one
archeological at the time they submit the subdivision plat and if
phase two is needed they can then start on that. The developer said
they have already initiated discussions with the State on this subject
and they intend to work directly with the State and follow their recommendations.
Ms. Seneschal said we want to be aware of what is going on.
Buffer width – They are proposing a buffer that will accomplish
what they are intended to accomplish. They are asking for latitude
where they are trying to accomplish things like preserving view sheds
and where the buffer won’t serve the purpose of filtering out.
Looking at the DNREC-sponsored studies the amount of filtration from
a 50 ft. buffer on a percentage basis is the equivalent of a 100 ft.
buffer. Ms. Seneschal reminded that this is true as long as you landscape
as you propose. Mr. Isken said it will only be below 50 ft. in non-critical
areas.
Mr. Norsworthy asked for an explanation of non-critical areas. The
developer indicated mostly the back of lots are considered non-critical
areas. Ms. Seneschal suggested deferring further discussion on this
issue until the developer presents a subdivision plat where we can
look at the details of where these areas are and answer questions
before the City signs a final agreement with the developer.
Mr. Isken said there are elements of the technical review committee
report that they do not agree with and they do not intend to have
them reflected in the final design of the plan. The Chair said the
developer may not agree with what we are doing, but the developer
will have to take the matter to Council. Ms. Seneschal said the technical
review committee report will be an attachment to our recommendations
to City Council. They will not endorse all of it because they have
already made changes to it.
Ms. Isken questioned the archeological issue and if the State recommends
that we don’t do a phase one he doesn’t want this to be
contrary to the Planning Commission’s recommendation. They have
the resources and the people with training to make a recommendation.
Ms. Seneschal said they should make their recommendation to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission should decide on this. If they
have a recommendation other than what was submitted in the Plus report
they need to inform the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 9
Ms. Miller made a motion that we recommend restrictions
applicable to R3 rezoning to 55+ community, restricted to 110 units,
open space and club amenities, pedestrian system as described, an
operational analysis/traffic study, voluntary contribution and the
archeological survey phase one. Mr. Norsworthy seconded the motion.
The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
Summary – The Planning Commission has recommended the change
of the comprehensive land use plan, not to approve a change in the
transportation plan, approve a recommendation of rezoning to R3 with
restrictions, and the restrictions applicable to the R3 rezoning.
NEW BUSINESS
No New Business was presented.
Adjournment – Mr. Norsworthy made a motion to
adjourn. The motion was seconded the meeting was adjourned at 10:05
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Turner
Stenographer
