HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 8.2.2022City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.
Courts and Council Buildiniz, located at 510 W. 91" Street, Georgetown, TX 78626
Commissioners Present: Travis Perthius, Chair; Chere Heintzmann; Mike Tiland; Tim Haynie;
Stephen Dickey; Chris Stanley
Alternate Commissioners Present: Alternate Jim Salyer; Alternate Michael Price
Commissioners Absent: Doug Noble
Alternate Commissioners Absent: Alternate Scott Allen
Staff Present: Current Planning; Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering; David Munk, Systems
Engineering Director; Chance Sparks; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Olivia Beams, Associate
Planner; Grant White, Planner; Ryan Clark, Planner; Patrick Collins, Senior Planner; Rachel
Hagan, Landscape Planner; Colleen Russell; Principal Planner; Cesar Acosta, Senior Long
Range Planner; Jessica Lemanski, Planning Specialist; and Kimberly Spencer, Development
Administration Program Manager
A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board.
Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that may be acted upon
with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed and
acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the July 19, 2022 regular meeting of
the Planning and Zoning Commission -- Kimberly Spencer, Development Administration Program
Manager
C Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for
a Traffic Impact Analysis, consisting of approximately 12.667 acres in the McCoy School Sub, Lot 1,
generally located at 1313 Williams Dr to be known as Rivery Boulevard Mixed Use (2022-2-TIA) — David
Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 10
August 2, 2022
D Consideration and possible action to approve application for a Traffic Impact Analysis, consisting of
approximately 7.741 acres in the Barney C. Low Survey Abs No. 385, generally located at 3900 FM 1460
to be known as Westinghouse Commercial (2022-6-TIA) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility
Engineering
E Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Preliminary Plat, consisting of
approximately 68.877 acres in the Isaac Donagan survey, Abstract No. 178, generally located at Wolf
Ranch --South of SH 29 West SW Bypass to be known as Wolf Ranch Phase 8 (2022-6-PP) — Patrick
Collins, Senior Planner
F Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Preliminary Plat, consisting of
approximately 104 acres in the Isaac Donagan Survey, Abstract 178, generally located at 3301 W. SH-29
to be known as Heights at San Gabriel Preliminary Plat - Revision 3 (2022-11-PP) — Colleen Russell,
Principal Planner
G Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for
Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 68.877 acres in the Isaac Donagan Survey Abs No. 178,
generally located at SW Bypass and SH 29 to be known as Wolf Ranch West Section 8 Phase 3 (2022-14-
CON) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering
H Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for
Construction Plans, consisting of approximately 77.83 acres in the Woodruff Stubblefield Survey A-556,
generally located at Bell Gin and Sam Houston to be known as Lawhon Tract (2021-47-CON) — David
Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering
Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Preliminary Final Plat Combo,
consisting of approximately 10.538 acres in the 10.538 acres out of the Lewis P. Dyches Survey, Abstract
No. 171, generally located at 7900 RM 2338 to be known as Furman Tierra Subdivision (2021-10-PFP) —
Colleen Russell, Principal Planner
J Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Preliminary Final Plat Combo, consisting of approximately 3.136 acres in the Burrell Eaves Survey,
Abstract No. 216, generally located at 1501 BCH Way to be known as Berry Creek Amenity Center (2021-
11-PFP) —Colleen Russell, Principal Planner
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10
August 2, 2022
K Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Preliminary Final Plat Combo,
consisting of approximately 70.082 acres in Lewis P. Dyches Survey, Abstract No. 180, generally located
at the Southwest Corner of Blue Springs Blvd. and SE Inner Loop to be known as Longhorn Junction
Logistics Center (2021-18-PFP) — Patrick Collins, Senior Planner
L Consideration and possible action to approve with the conditions set forth in the item an application
for a Final Plat, consisting of approximately 56.565 acres in the Isaac Donagan Survey, Abstract No. 178,
generally located at 3301 W SH 29 to be known as Heights of San Gabriel Phase 1 (2021-61-FP) — Patrick
Collins, Senior Planner
Patrick Collins approached the podium to address the Commission. Collins asked for item to be moved
from approved with conditions to fully approved, based on the fact that the comments specified were
more for informational purposes, not true conditions.
Motion by Commissioner Dickey to approve Item L for the reasons set forth. Second by Commissioner
Heintzmann. Approved (5-0)
M Consideration and possible action to approve an application for a Final Plat, consisting of
approximately 2.577 acres out of the Burrell Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 216, generally located at 2451
SH 195 to be known as Berry Creek Highlands Phase 4b (2021-62-FP) — Patrick Collins, Senior Planner
N Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for
a Stormwater Permit, consisting of 9.47 acres in the East View Ranchettes Sec One, generally located at
4301 E University Ave to be known as Nueces Power (2022-6-SWP) — David Munk, PE, and Lua Saluone,
Utility Engineering
David Munk presented on the project. Munk noted the comments to be addressed, including the
driveway separation and the peak hour trips (peak hour trips were mistakenly called average day instead
of peak hour in the application, but they were done correctly; this comment was resolved). Proper
driveway separation was not shown on the plan.
Applicant is here to address the Commission. Jen Henderson, Henderson Professional Engineers,
explained that they had a small AutoCAD issue, where they didn't snap the leader to the center of the
driveway and instead left it outside in the driveway, but it now has the correct separation. They emailed
the plan at 4:30 p.m. today, but it didn't get to the Commission before the meeting. Applicant would like
to approve now that the separation issue has been resolved.
David Munk agreed that the plans were adequate and is okay with approval of the motion.
Motion to approve Item N as recommended by the City Engineer by Commissioner Dickey. Second by
Commissioner Tiland. Approved unanimously (5-0).
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10
August 2, 2022
O Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item application for
a Stormwater Permit, consisting of Lot 3, Block 4, Lakewood Estates Section 2, generally located at 6609
S Lakewoods Dr to be known as Woods Pump Station Remodel (2022-15-SWP) — David Munk, PE, and
Lua Saluone, Utility Engineering
P Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, consisting of Lots 1 and 2, Dicotec Subdivision, David Wright Survey,
Abstract No. 13, generally located at 4407 Williams Drive to be known as Crown Castle "The Barn"
Tower Expansion (2022-3-SDP) -- Grant White, Planner
Q Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 5.888 acres in the Stubblefield, W. Survey,
Abstract No. 556, generally located at 2005 Patriot Way to be known as Lawhon Lift Station and
Forcemain (2022-6-SDP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II
R Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 2.167 acres in the Block A West Georgetown
Village 1, Block A, Lot 6, generally located at 4509 Williams Dr to be known as Amazing Explorer's
Academy Georgetown (2022-8-SDP) - Grant White, Planner
S Consideration and possible action to approve with the conditions set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 19.02 acres in the Barney C Low Survey,
Abstract No. 385, generally located at 5201 N Mays St to be known as Summit at Westinghouse Zone 2A
(2022-13-SDP) Ryan Clark, Planner
T Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 35 acres in the as described in a deed to
Georgetown ISD recorded in doc #2021015733 O.P.R.W.C.T., generally located at Parmer Ranch Blvd to
be known as Georgetown ISD I New Benold Middle School (2022-15-SDP) — Patrick Collins, Senior
Planner
U Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 12.365 acres in the Isaac Donagan Survey,
Abstract 178, generally located at 3301 W SH 29 to be known as Heights at San Gabriel Townhomes
(2022-19-SDP) —Colleen Russell, Principal Planner
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10
August 2, 2022
V Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, consisting of Lot 1, Block A, DG Westinghouse Addition, generally located
at 1300 Westinghouse Road to be known as Dollar General Store #23889 (2022-20-SDP) — Colleen
Russell, Principal Planner
W Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 14.465 acres in the Lot 2 Block A of the "DG
Westinghouse Addition", generally located at 1300 Westinghouse Road to be known as Freehill Site
Development Plan (2022-24-SDP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II
X Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, Teravista Sec G1 (Block A Lot 1 Replat), 1.86 acres, generally located at
2960 FM 1460 to be known as Georgetown Commons (2022-26-SDP) -- Grant White, Planner
Y Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 5.728 acres in the J. Robertson Survey, Abstract
No. 545, generally located at 2951 FM 1460 to be known as Highland Vista Office Condominiums (2022-
30-SDP) — Patrick Collins, Senior Planner
Z Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 5.82 acres in the AW0178 Donagan, I. Survey,
Acres 93.8327, generally located at 3301 W. SH 29 to be known as Heights at San Gabriel Amenity
Center (2022-33-SDP) — Patrick Collins, Senior Planner
AA Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an
application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 34 acres, Lots 1-6, Block 1 in the
Costco Georgetown Subdivision OPRWC, # 2021172589, generally located at 2201 N IH 35 to be known
as Costco Wholesale Georgetown (2021-36-SDP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II
AB Consideration and possible action to approve with the conditions set forth in the item an
application for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 54.5 acres in the L.J. Dyches Survey,
Abstract No. 180, generally located at Southeast Corner of IH 35 and SE Inner Loop to be known as
Longhorn Junction Logistics Center (2021-77-SDP) — Ryan Clark, Planner II
AC Consideration and possible action to disapprove for the reasons set forth in the item an application
for a Site Development Plan, consisting of approximately 24.326 acres in the Lewis J. Dyches Survey,
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 1C
August 2, 2022
Abstract No. 2, generally located at 3502 S. Austin Ave. to be known as Loram Technologies (2021-78-
SDP) — Patrick Collins, Planner
Motion to approve the Consent Agenda by Commissioner Stanley. Second by Commissioner Haynie.
Approved unanimously (5-0).
Legislative Regular Agenda
AD Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone a 12.695
acre tract and 2.010 acre tract known as parts of Lot 1 of the McCoy School Subdivision, from the
Residential Single -Family (RS) zoning district to a Planned Unit Development with the General
Commercial (C-3) and High -Density Multi -Family (MF-2) base zoning districts, for the property generally
located at Williams Drive and Rivery Boulevard (2021-12-PUD). Ryan Clark, Planner II
Ryan Clark presented the staff report and established that the applicant is requesting the Planned Unit
Development to create a mixed -use development that incorporates a mix of commercial, residential,
retail, and office uses. They are proposing base districts of C-3 and MF-2, with modifications restricting a
number of automotive, civic and special services such as Flea Markets, Hospitals, and Personal Services,
Restricted. Notable site features proposed include a parking garage for the Multi -Family and green
space for the commercial.
Clark spoke to the location of the property, existing and surrounding zoning, future land use zoning, and
the history of the property as a Georgetown ISD school. Clark also spoke to the Williams Drive Small
Area Plan General Policies 1 and 2 (in regard to the connections to the community, urban form and
character of the area).
Clark spoke about the Planned Unit Development proposal and the proposed zoning layout. Clark
pointed out that rather than setting a maximum dwelling unit density, typical of a MF-2 zoning district,
they simply state that there will be no more than 300 multifamily units across the 6 acres, generally
coming out to about 50 units per acre; high density in comparison to our existing zoning districts.
Clark spoke to the character of the property and propositions for the item. Horizontal mixed -use
development. Proposing 300 residential units across 14 acres (about 20 dwelling units an acre for the
overall site); Decreased amount of residential area but proposing a number of residential units for the
whole area that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation. Centralized green space
with multimodal drive area between the green space and the multifamily structure. Parking garage to
accommodate the high -density multifamily structure. Circulation opportunities for vehicles, pedestrians
and bicycles. Clark pointed out that the project diverges from the UDC by requesting not to have a
minimum front setback (typically 25 feet from the right of way to prohibit parking or structures from
being too close to the right of way); instead proposing to have a maximum setback of 100 feet, generally
pulling the built form closer to Williams Drive. Clark continued and pointed out that the request
proposes a 10-foot-wide sidewalk along Williams with additional street landscaping and street or
parking lot screening features.
Clark spoke to the deviations from the UDC standards and possible modifications proposed in the PUD.
The PUD proposes modifications to the allowed land uses in the proposed C-3 district (Area A and B on
the development plan) that prohibit a number of specialty and auto -oriented uses such as Personal
Planning &Zoning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10
August 2, 2022
Services (Restricted), Fuel Sales, Car Washes, and Hospitals. The C-3 area will have a maximum height of
35 feet and will be required to have 10 feet sidewalks along the proposed green space. The structures
will also be required to have the first two stories comprise of at least 20% glass or a glass appearance
and will have a maximum front yard setback of 100 feet along Williams Drive. The proposed MF-2
district (Area C) will have a maximum unit count of 300 units, an allowed building height of 60 feet, and
a parking garage to provide its required parking. The Transportation and Vehicular Access modifications
include features such as a landscaped median and parallel parking spaces on the internal drive, a 10'
sidewalk along Williams Drive, and 6' pedestrian trails in designated green space areas as shown on
Exhibit F of the Development Plan. The PUD makes additional modifications to the UDC's landscape
requirements for streetyards, parking lot screening, and bufferyards. It will utilize a green space internal
to the commercial buildings that will be at least 12,500 square feet and will also apply towards the
common amenity requirements for the multi -family site. The PUD will increase the amount of
Impervious Cover allowed on the site to 80% and may utilize the waivers set out in UDC Section 11.02 to
reach up to 90%. C-3 typically allows for a maximum of 70% when 5 acres or less in size.
Clark reviewed the approval criteria. Clark established that staff has reviewed the proposed rezoning
request and has found that it complies with four and partially complies with one of the five criteria
established in UDC Section 3.06.030 for a Zoning Map Amendment, as outlined in the staff report. In
addition to the rezoning criteria above, staff has reviewed the request and determined that the
proposed request complies with 3 and partially complies with 3 of the 6 criteria and objectives
established in UDC Section 3.06.040 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), as outlined in the staff
report.
Alternate Price left the meeting at 6:29 p.m.
Clark noted that as required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners and registered
neighborhood associations within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Zoning
Map Amendment request (71 notices), a legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in the
Sun Newspaper (Sunday, July 17, 2022) and signs were posted on -site. To date, staff has received 0
written comments in favor, and 0 in opposition to the request.
Clark discussed possible conditions to strengthen the PUD, including removing modifications to the tree
preservation requirements and providing a minimum amount of commercial building space that shall be
ready and available for lease or purchase prior to a set number of multifamily units being developed.
Applicant is present to answer any questions.
Chair Perthius asked about the minimum setback; clarified the request was for no minimum setback, but
rather a maximum? Why include a maximum setback? Clark replied that the maximum setback was
intended to secure that buildings would be pulled up to Williams Drive to a certain degree. Noted Policy
2 in Williams Drive Gateway Plan to pull buildings up to the street to make sure they are not too far
from Williams Drive.
Chair Perthius asked if the applicant would still have to meet sidewalk path requirements? Clark
confirmed yes.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10
August 2, 2022
Chair Perthius asked if there is a Williams Drive right of way. Clark said yes, and the rest of the
development would follow standard setback requirements.
Commissioner Dickey asked Nat Waggoner if this is what was envisioned for this space within the
Williams Drive Gateway Plan? Waggoner confirmed that generally speaking, the concept is meeting
those policies in the Williams Drive Gateway Plan. Given the site, it is in line with the connection
between Williams and Rivery Blvd. Circulation and movement would be supported by Rivery Blvd.
Providing pedestrian circulation within the site is in line with the urban built form policy. In terms of
open space, creating a built environment with plenty of open spaces is also in line with the Gateway
Plan.
Commissioner Dickey voiced concerned about height of residential and commercial buildings in
comparison to other structures on Williams Drive. Waggoner replied that applicant's proposal deviates
from Policy 2 in the Williams Drive Gateway Plan by proposing high density 60' MF-2 at the rear of the
property. The Williams Drive Gateway Plan envisions a lower density housing to create a better
transition for the neighbors to the north of the property. Waggoner noted that in the future, the plan
does call for a little bit higher density behind the property.
Commissioner Heintzmann clarified that the applicant is trying to waive the heritage tree variance and
cut trees necessary for the development? Clark: Rather than following the heritage tree and SDP
application process outlined in the UDC, where all possible avenues are explored on a case by case basis
to preserve a heritage tree, the PUD proposes a general minimum of 20% on the whole site.
Commissioner Heintzmann reiterated that the applicant is trying to go around the heritage tree
guidelines? Clark said that they are generally trying to lock in the desired building form.
Commissioner Heintzmann clarified the deviations from UDC standards the applicant: Reduce the
medium level buffer yards from 15 down to 10 feet. Eliminate a minimum setback. Reduce the number
of parking spots. Increase the maximum of 24 multifamily units per acre to a maximum 300 units per
acre. Increase overall impervious land cover to 80%. Reduce entryway from 15 feet from the drive aisle
to 10. Propose a 10-foot shared -use path (UDC calls for 6-foot sidewalk and 5-foot bike lanes); so, they
are actually reducing it by 1 foot. Increase maximum height from 45 to 60 feet. Does the staff believe
that is in code? Clark replied that staff leaves it up to the commission to make decisions on how much
deviation from the comprehensive plan. The specifications of the PUD have room for improvement.
Applicant approached the podium to address the Commission. Julie Ward, Partners Development
Company. Ward speaks to the company values, collaboration, Georgetown's uniqueness. She
establishes that they are not trying to replicate the town square but rather be a catalyst for the
development standards laid out in the Williams Drive Gateway Plan, promoting economic development
and sub -markets to maintain character and connection. Ward states that the site is a catalyst for high
density urban mixed use, and she appreciates tailored development standards. Ward stresses the
importance of the site for connection and community engagement, as well as its potential for being a
catalyst for new development and becoming a destination. The applicant paid a lot of attention to the
multi -family feature of the site and spoke to current and future zoning and land use. Ward also discusses
setbacks, buffer zones, using heritage trees as a buffer for the site, bike connectivity, especially for the
connection between Rivery Blvd. and Williams Dr, and states that the maximum setback was an attempt
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10
August 2, 2022
to regulate themselves and not push the buildings back in the established plaza area. She discusses
design considerations, including the Gateway Image plans, neighborhood surroundings, connectivity,
safety, and market demand. She elaborates on the heritage trees onsite, acknowledging that it's
important to save the trees in good condition, but noted the trees situated in the middle of the planned
site might be difficult to save. The goal is to save as many as possible, but they are in difficult areas.
Chair Perthius asked why the applicant wants to avoid the Heritage Tree permit process? We have had
many issues with heritage trees this year. Is there a really good reason you're trying to avoid that
process? Applicant replied that the primary reason was that they needed confirmation that they can
execute this development in the way it is planned today. Applicant said that staff told her they would
not get denied a permit because of the location of a heritage tree, which is the sole reason it was
incorporated into the PUD originally. Applicant also stated that they can try to be accommodating and
save as many as possible, but there was concern about not being able to proceed with the project as
planned if there was a heritage tree in the way of a building.
Commissioner Dickey asked if they were asking to under -park the retail/commercial area? Where does
the overflow go? Applicant said there would still be shared parking between the entire development,
with additional parking stalls and parallel parking still available. Would like for the parking consideration
to be across the entirety of the property, not just each individual building. Wants to push for more
pedestrian and bike amenities, but realizes parking is important for retail space.
Commissioner Dickey asked how much they are under -parking? Clark said it was hard to say without
retail specifications, potentially 10% less than the minimum.
Commissioner Heintzmann voiced her surprise that the applicant received no pushback from
neighboring residents, and asked how many residents they had reached out to and how many they
actually spoke to? Applicant said they reached out to around 200 residents, sent out flyers, and received
3-4 direct phone calls from residents, mostly people curious about timing, future tenants, and the fence
separating the areas, which is why they were obligated to put the masonry fence along the single family
and two family residences.
Commissioner Stanley asked why the applicant would not increase the parking garage to make up for
under -parking since its centrally located between the residential and commercial spaces? Applicant said
the number one goal was to keep the parking for residences and commercial separated to avoid any
safety concerns for residents and that they are looking for more smaller scale users that don't require so
many parking spots such as morning/evening restaurants, users coming in waves throughout the day
(not filling the center throughout the entire day).
Commissioner Heintzmann asked how many parking spots were available per resident in the parking
garage? Clark said that it is the same rate as the UDC standards. The applicant only modified the
commercial area. Chair Perthius said that it is 1.5 parking spots per 1-bedroom unit, and 2 parking spots
per 2-bedroom unit, with an additional 5% total spaces for visitor parking.
Chair Perthius opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forth to speak.
Motion by Commissioner Dickey to approve Item AD with the condition to remove modifications for
tree requirements and that a minimum commercial building space, as to be negotiated by staff, be
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10
August 2, 2022
ready and available for lease or purchase for a commercial business to finish out the space as needed;
Ready defined as eligible for building permit including but not limited to Certificate of occupancy or
Tenant Finish out. No second. Motion fails.
Motion by Commissioner Stanley to deny as presented. Second by Chair Perthius.
Commissioners Tiland, Heintzmann and Stanley discuss transition buildings for the area, and the amount
of deviations from the UDC being too much. Commissioner Heintzmann says she likes the idea of the
development, but not the location or the transition from the multifamily units to single family
neighborhoods. High density and height up against residential might be too aggressive. Commissioner
Dickey speaks to the future development of the West side of 1-35 in Georgetown, Heintzmann cites
transitional buildings as well.
Motion is approved (4-1).
AE Discussion Items:
Updates and Announcements (Sofia Nelson, Planning Director)
Nelson introduces Olivia Beams as new Planning Associate.
Nelson also updated the Commission on the Keystone multifamily/commercial PUD at the last City
Council Meeting and was approved, stating concerns of needing commercial in the area. No opposition
from the neighborhood at the meeting.
Commissioner Dickey asked how the Shot Clock Waiver process/modification going? Nelson said that we
will have a better idea at the next meeting after speaking to staff, but we have gotten a few applications
waiving the Shot Clock process.
Update from other Board and Commission meetings
Questions or comments from Alternate Members about the actions and matters considered on this
agenda.
Reminder of the August 16, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in Council Chambers
located at 510 W 9th St, starting at 6:00pm.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Chair Perthius. Second by Commissioner Haney. Approved (6-0)
Adjourned at 7:22pm.
Travis Perthuis, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2022
Attest, St e Dickel0ecretary
Page 10 of 10