Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 2008 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Thomas Fojtik, Paul Lowry, Paul Esslinger, Kathy Propp, Cathy Scherer, Shirley Mattox EXCUSED: Meredith Scheuermann, Jon Dell’Antonia STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Steven Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Scherer called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of January 15, 2008 were approved as presented. (Lowry/Esslinger) I.A. GRANT STORM SEWER EASEMENT FOR PROPERTY ADJACENT TO 2830 ATLAS AVENUE The Department of Public Works is requesting the granting of a storm sewer easement for property located on the north side of Atlas Avenue in the City’s Southwest Industrial Park. There was no discussion on this item. I.B. TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION AND SUBDIVISION VARIANCE AT 80 CRIMSON LANE The applicant is requesting a two-lot land division of a 1.71 acre parcel. As part of this land division, the applicant is also requesting a variance from the Subdivision Regulations to allow the creation of two lots that do not provide the required 30 feet minimum of public street frontage. As proposed, both lots will provide approximately 16 feet of public street frontage. Ms. Mattox inquired if Crimson Lane was a private road, why was it being treated as a public road. Mr. Burich responded that the City does not want to continue to exacerbate a bad land configuration pattern. By officially mapping the road, development will be prohibited within the mapped area and although the City has no immediate plans to construct a street connecting Crimson Lane to Beachcomber Street, the official map process assures the City that the connection can be made eventually. Susan Canziani, 80 Crimson Lane, stated that this is a very personal piece of property that has been in her family for many years and that she can no longer afford to live there into retirement and therefore has decided to divide the lot. She questioned the official mapping process and stated that she doesn’t mind giving up some land to satisfy the 60 feet of right-of-way necessary for the road dedication, but this will also involve taking 60 feet from some of her neighbor’s property as well and her neighbor already has an easement taking up space on their property. She wants to be fair to the neighbors and suggested that the road be extended to the south further so everyone would share in giving up some land for the street dedication instead of it being mapped to the west out to Fond du Lac Road. Plan Commission Minutes 1 February 5, 2008 Ms. Mattox questioned the curb cut north of Crimson Lane off of Fond du Lac Road and was wondering if that was for a future road. Mr. Nau replied that he did not know. Ms. Canziani stated that it may have been created when the apartments to the north were developed as development was also being considered for the back field behind the apartment development which never occurred. Mr. Fojtik inquired how the area was determined for the street right-of-way. Mr. Burich responded that it was laid out in a fashion that would not create a nonconforming issue for other homes that would not be able to meet required setbacks. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that the road was laid out to touch as many properties as possible and although all the neighbors were not being required to give up land for the street dedication, they would all share in the costs of the street improvement. Mr. Burich commented that the item could be laid over until further information is submitted. The official mapping process would follow if the land division is approved today, but plans to extend the road south could not be implemented as we do not have any information on the lots to the south and the City does not wish to make homes in that area nonconforming. Mr. Lowry asked if the petitioner was not requesting the land division for development of the lot, would the City still be considering the official mapping of this area for street dedication. Mr. Burich replied that the official mapping is in response to the land division request and we are taking the opportunity to try and make up for past mistakes with land use planning in this area. If the City does not map the road reservation now, development could take place in that area which would require the City to acquire the property in the future to put in the road. Ms. Propp questioned if we lay this item over for additional information, would it be the City’s responsibility to obtain surveys of the area involved. Mr. Burich responded that it appeared that the petitioner did not want the road reservation on her property. Ms. Canziani stated that she spent substantial money on a land surveyor for this division and she just feels that everybody should be sharing in giving up land for the road. The current layout would involve just a few people losing 60 feet of their land with others not losing any and she was concerned with creating hard feelings with her neighbors. Mr. Borsuk commented that he feels the petitioner is the only person to benefit from the land division and that she should withdraw the request if she is not happy with how it has been presented. Ms. Propp suggested that the item be laid over and see if the staff and petitioner could work something out. Mr. Borsuk stated that the petitioner did not have more information to submit and that she was just trying to move the street dedication to someone else’s property. Plan Commission Minutes 2 February 5, 2008 Mr. Bowen questioned if staff has seen a survey displaying the street dedication extending to the south as the petitioner was suggesting. Mr. Burich replied that we were trying to avoid making the homes nonconforming due to the dedication of the road. Mr. Nau commented that a portion of the property reserved for right-of-way could possibly be adjusted to skim off a bit and adjust the neighbor’s sites accordingly. Mr. Burich added that the certified survey map could be revised before final approval. Ms. Scherer questioned if the petitioner could withdraw the request at this time as she seems unhappy with the item as is. Mr. Burich replied that she could. Ms. Canziani stated that she would give up the land if that is the only way to resolve this, but she would like to see the current mapping area amended. Mr. Burich responded that if approved right now, the road reservation will be approved as well at its current location, but it could be amended after further consideration. Ms. Mattox questioned if 60 feet was standard for a road in a residential neighborhood and wondered if it could be made smaller. Mr. Burich replied that 60 feet was the standard. Mr. Gohde added that code states that 60 feet is the minimum for a street in the city and that the right-of- way is not excessive if you consider that room is also needed for the installation of utilities along the road. Ms. Propp commented that the item should be voted on today as the petitioner seems eager to proceed. Motion by Propp to approve the consent agenda as requested with the following conditions to be applied to Item I.B.: 1.Portion of property to be reserved for future right-of-way with the location approved by the Department of Public Works. Seconded by Fojtik. Motion carried 8-0. IIA. LAKE VIEW PARK ANNEXATION The petitioner is proposing direct annexation (by unanimous approval) of approximately 8.41 acres of land currently located in the Town of Oshkosh. Ms. Mattox questioned if this was missed when the preliminary plat was approved previously for this site. Mr. Burich responded that now that the site is preparing for development, it is the appropriate time for the annexation to be completed. Plan Commission Minutes 3 February 5, 2008 Motion by Esslinger to approve the Lake View Park annexation as requested. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. IIB. ZONE CHANGE FROM A-1 PD LIGHT AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TO MULTIPLE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STEARNS DRIVE AND COUNTY TRUNK HIGHWAY “T” (LAKE VIEW PARK SUBDIVISION) Zone change for 178 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Stearns Drive and County Trunk Highway “T” from A-1PD Light Agricultural District with Planned Development Overlay to the following zoning designations in order to subdivide and develop the property per previously approved preliminary development plan (Resolution 07-202): Identifier Proposed Zone change from Area (see map) A-1PD to: (in acres) A C-2PD 3.84 B R-3PD 14.05 C R-2PD 4.48 D R-1 117.4 E R-3PD 9.73 F R-3PD 12.66 G C-2PD 15.88 Total 178 There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Esslinger to approve the zone change for property located at the northeast corner of Stearns Drive and County Trunk Highway T (Lake View Park Subdivision) as requested. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DISTRIBUTION/FULFILLMENT CENTER AT 2551 JACKSON STREET The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to establish a distribution/fulfillment center for miscellaneous promotional products within the existing “big box” retail building formerly used for Copp’s Grocery Store. The distribution/fulfillment center, being a light industrial use, is permitted only with a conditional use permit in the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District. Mr. Burich presented the item and explained that the petitioner has indicated that the future expansion noted on the site plan would possibly involve a 100,000-110,000 square foot addition to the building. He also stated that after speaking with the petitioner, the conditions on this item would need to be amended to be no outdoor storage of materials and on-site storage of tractor trailers shall be limited to two trailers located only on the established loading docks on the west side of the building. Jack Ertmer, 2525 Wisconsin Street, stated that he was concerned with the petitioner removing the berm currently located on the west side of the site. Mr. Burich responded that the site has a required setback in this area and that the petitioner has not indicated that they have any intentions of removing this berm and would have to come to the Plan Commission for approval to do so. Plan Commission Minutes 4 February 5, 2008 Don Johnson, 2585 Wisconsin Street, stated that he was delighted to see something being considered for this vacant site, but voiced his concern with the amount of truck traffic in the area and noise issues. He was wondering if a bigger buffer between the site and Wisconsin Street would be possible. James Larson, Bayshore Development II, 40 W. Sixth Avenue, stated that Mr. Burich did a good job of explaining his proposal and that his company strives to put businesses in currently established locations to reuse old buildings and gave examples of some previous sites they were involved with. He further stated that the building has been vacant for seven years and they do not have any intention of removing the present berm on the site and that they would also be maintaining the landscaping present on site as well. He said he previously had a company looking at this site for another grocery store. He felt the distribution center would be a much less intensive use than the grocery store previously there and initially was told there would not be any trailer storage on site. Since the application was submitted, he was informed that the company operating the site may have trucks brought in and parked at night which was the reason for the amendment to the conditions. The operation could potentially expand to double its current size and the additional development would occur on the south end of the site. The company proposing to operate the facility would like some assurance that the future expansion would be acceptable as they have to present this site to their board of directors for approval and the ability to expand 50,000 – 120,000 square feet would be an issue. Mr. Burich commented that the addition to the site would have to come back before the Plan Commission for conditional use permit approval at the time of expansion. The light industrial use requires a conditional use permit, but the expansion would require additional approval. Ms. Scherer inquired about the amount of truck traffic expected on the site. Mr. Larson responded that currently it was anticipated to be two-three UPS and FedEx trucks and one semi truck daily, but this would increase with the expansion, however not dramatically. Ms. Mattox questioned if deliveries would be processed through the front of the store or through the loading dock area and also asked if the potential addition to the building would be harmonious with the existing structure. Mr. Larson replied that incoming deliveries would be handled through the locking dock area and outgoing shipments would be processed by the front canopy area, however the operation is still in the planning stages at this time. In regard to the addition to the structure, it would follow the same theme as what exists on the current building. Ms. Mattox then questioned if the proposed business already was operating in Oshkosh. Mr. Larson responded that he could comment on the identity of the business at this time. Mr. Borsuk asked about if there was a time line for the approval of the potential expansion. Mr. Burich replied that the expansion could not be approved at this time and that they would have to come back to the Plan Commission for conditional use permit approval when the expansion was ready to move forward. The petitioner is just trying to determine if the Plan Commission would be receptive to the concept of future expansion on the site. Mr. Larson added that the operation anticipated growing out of the site within two to three years. Plan Commission Minutes 5 February 5, 2008 Mr. Lowry commented that he was comfortable with this use at this location. Ms. Mattox asked if the bank located to the south of the site had any objections to the proposed use. Mr. Burich responded that the bank did receive a meeting notice and he has not been contacted with any concerns regarding the matter. The bank’s access goes through the southern portion of the site, and as long as that is not impeded, he did not foresee them having an issue with the use. Judith Angermeyer, 2650 Wisconsin Street, and president of the condo association located to the north, stated that the grocery store had already vacated the site when they bought into the condominiums there and she did not wish to see another 24/7 business on the site. She voiced her concerns with noise and truck traffic and stated she was not aware of the potential expansion on the site. She was not speaking for or against the proposal but was concerned with the identity of the business so she could do some research of their other operations. Mr. Burich replied that we do not have that information and that the petitioner had already stated that he could not disclose that information at this time. The basic conditional use permit standards would apply to any business on the site. Ms. Angermeyer commented that the maintenance of the landscaping on site was less than good and suggested that the truck traffic be limited to access from Jackson Street only and be limited to during regular business hours. William Trickel, owner of the duplexes located at 2400 and 2420 Wisconsin Street, questioned whether the property would be purchased or leased. Mr. Burich responded that Bayshore Development II would be purchasing the site and leasing it to the business operating the distribution center. Mr. Trickel stated that he was in favor of the use but his tenants are concerned with the truck traffic and was wondering if some type of limit could be placed on the hours for the trucks to avoid late night traffic. He also asked if a berm could be constructed on the south side of the site prior to the expansion. Mr. Burich replied that the additional berm could be dealt with at the time of the potential expansion and that he would have to discuss the needs of the business with the petitioner regarding limiting the hours of truck traffic and the conditions could be amended, if necessary, prior to the final approval step of going to the Common Council. Mr. Trickel stated that he would like to request the addition of a berm on the southwest side of the site now. Dennis McHugh, 1220 Greenfield Trail, asked if the delivery trucks servicing the site would be utilizing the backup beepers at 2:00 or 3:00 am. Mr. Larson responded that the likelihood of trucks coming and going at 3:00 am is not great, but that it was possible that a truck could arrive late at night and just be parked there overnight. He anticipates very minimal traffic with this operation. Ms. Scherer asked if there would be an issue with having truck access only off of Jackson Street or adding the berm mentioned to the southern lot line. Plan Commission Minutes 6 February 5, 2008 Mr. Larson replied that he could not guarantee that access would only be from Jackson Street and that since they would have to come back to the Plan Commission for approval of the expansion, that the landscaping, access and berm could be addressed at that time. Mr. Burich added that if the truck traffic turns out to be a lot more than anticipated, the conditional use permit would have to be reviewed. Bob Cornell, 548 W. Smith Avenue, stated that since the property to the north has been developed, there was a lot more traffic in the neighborhood. He further stated that the site has been vacant for so long and it needs upkeep and this operation would also provide employment and with the expansion, possibly less impervious surface. He commented that Wisconsin Street is not made for truck traffic and a lot of high school kids travel on Smith Avenue and he feels there could be a traffic situation; therefore he would like to see access for trucks be limited to Jackson Street only. Mr. Larson responded that he could approach the business with the recommendation. Mr. Esslinger stated that he feels we need to focus on what is being proposed today and the expansion issues could be dealt with when it actually happens, however the truck traffic issues may need to be dealt with now. Mr. Burich replied that if the board so chooses, a condition could be added that access for trucks was to be from Jackson Street only. Mr. Esslinger also asked if there was a berm on the north side of the site and suggested that a condition be added to construct a berm on both the north and south sides of the lot similar to the one on the west. Mr. Burich asked about the width and height of the suggested berms. Mr. Esslinger replied that it should be the same size as the one already constructed on the west side. Ms. Mattox asked if the existing exterior lights were according to present standards. Mr. Larson responded that he thought they were cut off lights but was not sure. Mr. Borsuk stated that he felt this was the type of infill project that our community would want and that it was much less intense than the previous use. He further stated that he feels the traffic concerns are being overstated and he did not see the necessity to require the owner to construct berms on the north and south sides at this time. He feels the concept can be a condition in conversation only and should be added as a condition at the time the expansion is moving forward. Mr. Fojtik and Mr. Lowry agreed. Mr. Burich asked if the addition of berms on the north and south sides would affect the grading and drainage for the site. Mr. Gohde replied that he was aware of detention areas in the parking lot, but he did not believe that the berms would negatively affect it. Ms. Propp agreed with Mr. Borsuk and stated that at the time of expansion, they would need to come back with a conditional use permit and the additional berms could be looked at then along with lighting, landscaping, setbacks, etc. Plan Commission Minutes 7 February 5, 2008 Mr. Esslinger stated that it is no longer a grocery store and the addition of berms should eliminate lights from the site now since it would not be coming back to the Commission for the expansion for three years. Mr. Bowen stated that he agreed with Mr. Borsuk on the intensity issue, but did feel that a restriction on the hours of operation for truck traffic and access only from Jackson Street may be appropriate. Motion by Esslinger to add a condition to construct additional berms on both the north and south sides of the property. Seconded by Propp. Motion denied 1-7. Ayes-Esslinger. Nays-Borsuk/Bowen/Fojtik/Lowry/ Propp/Scherer/Mattox. Motion by Bowen to add a condition to restrict truck access to Jackson Street only and limit truck deliveries to during normal business hours only Seconded by Lowry. Motion denied 3-5. Ayes-Bowen/Lowry/Propp. Nays-Borsuk/Fojtik/ Esslinger/Scherer/Mattox. Motion by Borsuk to approve the conditional use permit for the establishment of a distribution/ fulfillment center at 2551 Jackson Street as requested with the following conditions: 1.No outdoor storage of materials or products. 2.On-site storage of tractor trailers shall be limited to two (2) trailers located only on the established loading docks on the west side of the building. Seconded by Fojtik. Motion carried 8-0. IV. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE CHAPTER 30/ARTICLE XII: OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES Planning Services is requesting two modifications to sections of Article XII: Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities, which encompasses Section 30-36 of the Zoning Ordinance. One modification Nonconforming Parking Facilities involves setback reductions for and the other modifications Commercial Vehicles pertaining to parking of in residential districts. No other changes have been made or proposed to other sections of the Ordinance that the Plan commission has previously approved and no discussion on any other issues is requested at this time. The Common Council had referred this item back to the Plan Commission at its September 25th meeting. The Plan Commission subsequently reviewed additional changes to the proposed Ordinance on October 16th. Staff has two modifications to the proposed Ordinance based on comments received at the public hearing. Staff also is proposing some additional changes to the commercial vehicle parking section based on enforcement issues within the community. Mr. Burich stated that this was another proposed new concept to the nonconforming parking facilities section of the ordinance regarding the reconstruction of existing parking lots. These modifications are meant to prevent reducing the functionality of existing parking lots by allowing parking lots constructed prior to the effective date of this ordinance to be reconstructed with less setbacks subject to the approval of the layout plan by the Zoning Administrator. The layout plan shall be designed in accordance with the dimensions identified in an attached table with parking lot reductions only being provided in the following instances: ? To prevent the loss of ordinance required legal parking spaces ? To prevent the loss of required legal internal circulation aisle ways Plan Commission Minutes 8 February 5, 2008 ? To retain the functionality of the parking lot This will allow the City the flexibility to review every case differently and not require property owners to request variances for parking lot reconstruction projects that staff would typically support. Parking lots with 50 stalls or less would be exempt from curbing and internal landscaping. It also incorporates a provision that if the remaining setback area devoted to landscape buffer cannot support vegetation, the lot may be reconstructed to the existing setback with curbing or decorative fencing installed along the parking lot perimeter. The changes to the commercial vehicle parking provisions allows for one commercial vehicle to be parked outdoors per dwelling on residential property but prohibits the parking of large vehicles or equipment not normally associated with residential use such as construction equipment, dump trucks, etc. It also prohibits the parking of vehicles for the purpose of storage or living quarters. Ms. Esslinger questioned if the reconstruction regulations would only apply to businesses if they are reconstructing their parking lots. Mr. Burich responded yes and that removal of the asphalt surface constitutes reconstruction that was upheld by the Board of Appeals. Ms. Propp asked if the new revisions to the proposed amendment to the ordinance would take care of most concerns. Mr. Burich replied that it would not fully address every concern but they should satisfy most of the concerns raised. Ms. Mattox inquired how many nonconforming parking lots exist in the city. Mr. Burich responded that he did not have that information but the changes were meant to provide flexibility for these lots. Ms Scherer asked how the amount of green spaces would be affected by these revisions. Mr. Burich replied that would depend upon the setbacks on the site since the new revision provides for more flexibility to the code and some parcels could be more impacted than others. Mr. McHugh asked if the proposed revisions would not allow a plumbing van to be parked in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Burich responded that the revision would not prohibit the parking of a commercial van at a residence. It is meant to prohibit larger more nonresidential vehicles and equipment. Mr. McHugh then stated that the staff report alludes to amendments from August 17th and October 16th and questioned what the Commission is voting on today. Mr. Burich replied that today’s amendment only applies to revisions in the nonconforming parking facilities and commercial vehicle parking sections of the ordinance and that previously approved changes to the ordinance are not under discussion. The Commission is voting today on accepting the new proposed language to these sections only. Mr. McHugh questioned when on-street and off-street parking conditions apply. Plan Commission Minutes 9 February 5, 2008 Mr. Burich responded that some businesses are not required to provide parking lots by the zoning code. Carl Sosnoski, 2475 Knapp Street, stated that he thinks this whole thing is a can of worms. A proposal went to the Council a few months ago and these new amendments will be incorporated into that and will repeal the present ordinance. This whole thing is huge. He further stated that he has been dealing with the city on his parking lot at Player’s since July, 2005 and it still is not resolved. He feels the City is trying to take away Player’s parking lot and he cannot redo it without Board of Appeals variances being granted. Mr. Burich and John Fitzpatrick, the acting City Manager, met with him last week regarding the new proposed text amendment to the ordinance. He is disappointed with the proposed ordinance and feels he is losing business because of it. The Planning staff claims they spoke with businesses about the proposed changes, but that was a year ago. A City Council person contacted him to let him know that some more amendments were coming before the Plan Commission today or he would not have been aware of it. He feels that if the City wants trees and drainage facilities installed on every site, the City should help with the costs. A business can go to the Board of Appeals for a variance and they will work with you to some extent but it still is very costly to business owners. The City wants us to turn our parking lots into parks and he feels that business owners in the community should meet with City staff and figure out the right way to do this. Ms. Scherer questioned if Mr. Sosnoski had any specific ideas on the matter. Mr. Sosnoski responded that he brought up one but was told that it was not feasible. The City uses TIF money for certain individuals to improve their property and he feels that the City could offer tax credits to business owners to help alleviate expense. Mr. Burich stated that when Mr. Fitzpatrick and he met with Mr. Sosnoski last week, he was informed that the parking ordinance was going back to the Plan Commission today and he reviewed the section on nonconforming parking facilities and the loss of parking spaces. The staff did support a variance for Mr. Sosnoski’s parking lot and his variance request has been heard by the Board of Appeals and it is currently in the litigation process. In regard to the tax credit issue, it is illegal for the City to issue tax credits in this state. As far as discussing the ordinance with business owners, staff met with the Retail Development Committee on proposed changes and it was sent to the Chamber and retailers for comment prior to any proposed changes being presented. The intent of the amendment is to add flexibility to the ordinance that is not there now and if we do not move forward with the ordinance amendment, the current ordinance will stay in place. Ms. Propp commented that she did not feel that a better ordinance could be drafted that allows the flexibility that this does and she does not see any way it could be improved upon. She questioned if the Board of Appeals does not permit a variance, what is the next step in the process. Mr. Burich replied that the next step is litigation. Ms. Propp then questioned if things cannot be worked out with the Board of Appeals under the new ordinance, is the next step still litigation. Mr. Burich responded yes, but we are attempting to build an ordinance that would fit everyone’s needs. Mr. Fojtik stated that he would be in support of the proposed amendment, but wanted clarification on the class or types of vehicles to be prohibited to be parked in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Burich replied that there was a specific list in the amendment and that we tried to cover the whole gamut. Plan Commission Minutes 10 February 5, 2008 Mr. Esslinger stated that he thought the amendment applying to the parking of commercial vehicles was fantastic, but he did think the section dealing with parking lots was unnecessary. He further commented that at the last meeting that involved these ordinance changes, we had a room full of people who were upset about it and that these regulations were very costly to small businesses. Some businesses are probably not even aware of the proposed changes since they may not be involved with the Chamber or other organizations that reviewed and commented on the item. He did not feel the need to change anything in the current ordinance and did not see the necessity to require businesses to do all the things required in the proposed ordinance. He feels the item should not be voted on tonight and that it should be laid over until it could be discussed with all the business owners that came to the last meeting to get their opinions on the matter. They may have other ideas and conversations could be had on the issue first. Ms. Propp commented that small businesses have been exempt from the curbing and internal landscaping requirements and numerous discussions and workshops have already taken place regarding these text amendments to the ordinance and the latest version is even more flexible than before. She further stated that the Commission should not be discussing a party’s particular situation that we do not have any first-hand knowledge of and that the issue at hand is the parking ordinance changes. She reiterated that she thinks it is an excellent modification to the current ordinance. Ms. Scherer agreed and added that the last two revisions have been substantial compromises from the original version. Mr. Esslinger commented that he felt this was anti-business and we would be driving small businesses out of town. Mr. Fojtik agreed with Ms. Propp and Ms. Scherer and commented that he did not feel this was anti- business and he felt improving the community’s aesthetic appearance was encouraging to other businesses to want to be a part of our city. Mr. Esslinger disagreed. A brief discussion followed. Motion by Bowen to approve the proposed text amendment to the off-street parking and loading facilities as requested. Seconded by Fojtik. Motion carried 7-1. Ayes-Borsuk/Bowen/Fojtik/Lowry/Propp/Scherer/ Mattox. Nays-Esslinger. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:20 pm. (Mattox/Propp ) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 11 February 5, 2008