MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 18, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments Page 2
Under New Business
1740 Thunderbird
Gettemeier's Bar & Grill Page 2-8
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Study Report and Make Recommendations
to Amend the Zoning Code Regarding
Parking Ratios Page 8-11
Study Report and Make Recommendations
to Amend the Zoning Code Regarding
Taverns, Cocktail Lounges and Night Clubs Page 11-15
Child Daycare Centers Page 15-16
City Attorney Page 16
Future Meetings Page 16-17
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall Council Chambers on Monday, July 18, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., with Jim Ross presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Jim Ross, Jane Boyle, Dick Weller, Lee Baranowski, Daniel Call and Jim Hessel. Also present was Julia Bennett, Court Reporter and Phil Lum, Building Commissioner.
A quorum being present the Chair declared the Planning and Zoning Commission was in session for the transaction of business.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENTS
Jim Ross announced that Paul Stock had been excused from tonight's meeting.
Mr. Ross thanked Jane Boyle for filling in for him during his absence.
Jim Ross stated that the next order of business would be approval of minutes for the June 20, 2011 meeting.
Jim Hessel stated that the inaudible in Miscellaneous Item 4 should be amended to read Ruiz Restaurant. Phil Lum stated that the spelling of Tim Barra in Miscellaneous Item 8 should be amended to read Tim Barrett. Jim Ross made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Jim Hessel. All parties concur and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Item 1 1740 Thunderbird
PZ071811-1 Gettemeier's Bar & Grill
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - Ward 6
Request Recommended Approval to
Amend Special Use Permit, Ordinance
No. 6008, to Allow for an Outside
Dining Area in a B-3 Zoning District
The Chair stated Item Number One on the Agenda, Gettemeier's Bar and Grill located at 1740 Thunderbird; request recommended approval to amend Special Use Permit, Ordinance No. 6008, to allow for an outside dining area in a B-3 Zoning District.
Ted Thomas appeared before the Commission and stated that this business found itself in a precarious situation with the advent of the new smoking ordinances. Several remedies were reviewed with the goal of sustaining this business that has been a part of this community for 14 years by providing an area for clientele that smoked. Ultimately an agreement/waiver was reached with St. Louis County Health to establish an outdoor smoking area.
Mr. Thomas questioned whether the Commission had received a copy of the letter from the Health Department?
Phil Lum stated that staff had seen a copy of the approval letter which is based on the plans before the Commission.
A copy of the letter was provided to Daniel Call for his review.
Mr. Thomas stated that the approved plans consist of utilizing the adjacent space of 1,000 square feet and opening it at the front and back to create a covered outdoor deck area. The storefront and brick base will be removed and replaced with a decorative wrought iron grate. The front door will be alarmed to provide emergency egress only. The rear door will also be replaced with a similar grill structure and locking mechanism. Both of the existing devising walls between the bar, new deck area and adjacent tenant will remain and be sealed to the deck to mitigate the escape of smoke from one space to the other.
Mr. Thomas stated that one of the issues related to this renovation is parking. Re-striping of the lot will add a net of 8 parking spaces to the rear without breaking up additional asphalt. Recognizing that this does not comply with the required number of parking spaces the Petitioner is requesting that a one year trial period be granted to determine if the allotted parking is adequate. (A similar parking request was recommended by this Commission and found to be sufficient.)
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if there would be three entrances and exits; one for the restaurant and two for the outside dining area? Mr. Thomas stated that that was correct, and in addition there would be three fire exits.
Mr. Ross asked whether TV(s) and stereo equipment would be installed in the outside dining area? Mr. Thomas stated that his belief is that there is some provisions for a TV or two over the bar. Mr. Ross suggested that the Petitioner be cognizant of the fact that excessive noise could result in a violation of the Nuisance Ordinance.
Mr. Ross questioned whether this area would be available to patrons during the winter? Mr. Thomas stated that the intent is to create a three and a half season room by providing heat and ventilation.
Phil Lum stated that prior to the inception of Gettemeier's the number of parking spaces required for this shopping center, based on the building area alone, totaled 63.
When the Petitioner first came before this Commission seeking permission to open the bar the total number of parking spaces should have been increased however this Commission provided the Petitioner with a one week trial to determine if the existing parking was sufficient.
The last time the Special Use Permit was approved there was a one year trial period with respect to parking. Mr. Lum stated that he could not find any documentation pertaining to a follow up inspection, although it is obvious that the business has been in operation for some time.
Based on 150 square feet, the parking regulations require one space for every four seats in the restaurant and one for every two persons at the bar. Running those calculations the number of spaces required for the proposed outdoor dining area would be 13, plus 34 spaces for the remainder of the building, plus 6 spaces for employees, giving you a total of 53 required spaces.
Jim Ross asked how many parking spaces were on the entire lot? Mr. Lum stated that currently there are 70 spaces. The Petitioner's intent is to re-strip and add 8 new spaces, which would bring the site total to 78.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner whether all 53 spaces have ever been used by his establishment?
Jerry Gettemeier appeared before the Commission and stated that while many patrons park on the street, there are only three occasions throughout the year where all of the parking is utilized. Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if they had the ability to meet the required parking ratios? Mr. Thomas stated that there was no where to expand the parking. Mr. Gettemeier stated that since his expansion one year ago there has only been one occasion where the entire lot was filled and since January 1st his business has decreased significantly. So the goal of this new outdoor dining area is simply to recapture the business that was lost.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if the Petitioner was currently in violation of the parking code? Mr. Lum stated that he was not. He stated that the current calculations are based on the revised code, which the Commission could require the Petitioner to live up to. However a large percentage of commercial developments in the City of Florissant occurred between 1968 and 1980. This building is no exception and according to the code if a parking lot was constructed prior to 1983 it could be deemed a non-confirming, preexisting parking lot, although the Building Commissioner is encouraged to address the issue with business owners with a goal of reaching compliance as close as possible.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if he would address the issue concerning the ADA requirements for seating? Mr. Thomas stated that the existing high tables located inside will be replaced with 10 handicap accessible tables. Similar tables will be installed in the outdoor dining area.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if the rear parking area would be impacted by the outdoor dining area? Mr. Thomas stated that it would not.
Lee Baranowski asked Mr. Lum if the fire wall between the existing restaurant and the smoking area had to be tested for leaks or anything along those lines? Mr. Lum stated that the wall should be inspected to ensure that it is tied to the deck. Mr. Baranowski asked if the doors located in between the bar and outside dining would be spring-loaded to be either closed or opened? Mr. Thomas stated that they would be spring-loaded to close. Mr. Baranowski asked if any renovations were being made to the ceiling? Mr. Thomas stated that the ceiling would be removed and drop lights installed.
Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner if 1752 Thunderbird was currently vacant? Mr. Thomas stated that there had been a tenant occupying this space, although it may be vacant by now. Ms. Boyle stated that she was concerned about the impact the outside dining might have on the adjoining tenant and questioned whether the wall would be sufficient to prevent smoke from escaping? Mr. Lum stated that the wall is designed as a fire wall, should be consistent from the floor to the metal deck and should be able to suppress the smoke.
Ms. Boyle suggested that the additional 8 parking spaces as proposed be made a part of the recommendation.
Daniel Call stated that in the back there are 9 spaces that run parallel to the curb and creek. Three of those spaces, in his opinion, have to remain parallel because the building jets out farther than the remaining complex and therefore you would never be able to get a fire truck back there. This leaves 6 parallel spaces that may be large enough to be cut in half and provide 12 parking spaces. Mr. Call stated that it would seem more appropriate to say that the number of spaces is not firm because at this point in time there is no way to make a definite determination as to whether 8 spaces can be achieved in the rear. Mr. Thomas stated that Commissioner Call's calculations were fairly accurate, except for the allowance given to a parallel space making it longer than a normal space.
Mr. Call stated that he was not locked into a number as opposed to getting the maximum usage for the 6 parallel spaces in order to increase the parking. Mr. Thomas stated that they would also be amenable to reducing the seating if necessary. Mr. Call stated that the seating as is seems to be a little crowded and so there is a potential for removing a couple of tables.
Mr. Call noted that there were three handicap accessible parking spaces; two in front of the barber shop and one on the end by Gettemeier's. The one by Gettemeier's does not have the 5 foot loading zone and the only way to put that in there is to either go to the left, which would put you partially into the fire lane or to the right, which means you would lose a parking space.
Phil Lum stated that he would recommend going to the right because of the new State requirement that was signed into effect last week. This requirement states that a van accessible space is mandatory and requires an 8 foot wide loading space. As a result, one of the three parking spaces must be van accessible.
Steve Gettemeier of the Florissant Valley Fire Protection District appeared before the Commission and stated that he did not have a problem with the loading space encroaching upon the fire lane since it would not be the van that was encroaching, simply the space. He concluded that the modification of this space would not preclude the Fire Department from having the ability to get around the building.
Phil Lum stated that the handicapped space located by Gettemeier's did not have a loading zone and therefore was not a legal space. He added that State law also requires new signage if the correct verbiage is not exhibited on the existing sign.
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Lum how many handicapped parking spaces were required? Mr. Lum stated that based on the ratio of one space for every 25, you would need four once the number exceeds 75.
Jim Hessel stated that he had no problem with the Petitioner and Building Commissioner working together to resolve the issues related to parking, and that he also had no objection to some type of trial period.
Mr. Hessel questioned whether the County had any issues with smoke escaping from the doors going from the existing building to the new building? Mr. Thomas stated that they must be fire doors, which requires them to have closures.
Lee Baranowski stated that if the intent of handicap parking spaces was to minimize the distance that a disabled person had to walk, why were suggestions being made to move the space further and further away from the door? Mr. Lum stated that while that is the concept in a multi-tenant facility like this spaces are dispersed.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner how a waitress was supposed to enter in and out of the solid doors when she has a tray in her hand? Mr. Thomas stated that employees would have to use caution since sight glass is prohibited based on the limitations imposed for fire doors.
Mr. Weller asked if there would be ramps on the sidewalk leading to the parking lot? Mr. Thomas stated that there would be.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to recommend approval to amend the Special Use Permit, Ordinance No. 6008, to allow for an outside dining area in a B-3 Zoning District for the property located at 1740 Thunderbird; Gettemeier's Bar & Grill, with the following stipulations: that the parking arrangements be resolved by the Petitioner and Building Commissioner following an eighteen month trial period; that the restaurant provide accessible seating in the ratio and manner prescribed by the ADA in both the existing and outdoor dining areas and that the gates be alarmed, seconded by Daniel Call.
Jane Boyle questioned the need for an eighteen month trial period? Jim Ross stated that his intent was to address the existing open parking arrangement.
On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Boyle yes, Call yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski. Motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Item 3 Study Report and Make Recommendations to Amend the Zoning Code Regarding Parking Ratios
Phil Lum stated that this would be a fairly gargantuan task if it was conducted city-wide, so the packet assembled for this meeting only encompassed shopping centers within the City. The spreadsheet and report provided to each Commissioner contains data pertaining to 57 identified centers.
The spreadsheet defines shopping centers as two or more stores and although Lowe's and Target are single entities they were included at the end of the list. It is staff's opinion that the Lowe's parking lot is oversized and always empty, wherein the Target lot is full most of the time.
The spreadsheet only used one standard for the required number of spaces, which is one space for every 150 square feet however a review of the code deemed this to be an incorrect formula. While it is accurate that the code defines a shopping center as being two or more stores, The Parking Section of the code also refers to something called a "retail center". Although the code provides no definition of a retail center, the presumption would be that the two terms; retail center/shopping center are synonymous.
Under the code retail centers that vary in size require different ratios. For example, a retail center under 15,000 square feet should be figured at 6.5 per thousand, which equates to 153 square feet per parking space rather than the 150 square feet utilized in the spreadsheet; (150 square feet equates to 6.67 per thousand)
Daniel Call asked Mr. Lum how the 180 square feet on the spreadsheet was derived? Mr. Lum stated that it pertained to the square footage inside a legal parking space. Mr. Call questioned whether you should always round up to the next highest number when calculating the number of spaces? Mr. Lum stated that you should.
Mr. Lum informed the Commission that the chart had been reformulated based on this new discovery, although to minimize confusion he had not provided the revised spreadsheet for the Commission's review. The end result is that the new calculations reduce the numbers in the Required Column for each shopping center by a fraction.
RETAIL CENTERS
15,000 - 50,000 sq.ft. = 6 spaces per thousand
[There are very few retail centers over 50,000 square feet within Florissant.]
Under Staff's Analysis the code is quoted regarding similar studies conducted by this Commission citing the Commission's option to (a) make no recommendations, (b) make recommendations to talk about a certain size facility, (c) seek additional research or (d) request a professional study.
The St. Louis County Property Viewer which was utilized in this report included colored photographs of the City's largest parking lots which were taken mid-afternoon. Since this Commission has surmised that a vast majority of the City's parking lots are frequently empty or under-utilized one recommendation might be to conduct parking counts at a specific time of day or on weekends.
The majority of Florissant's commercial centers were built between the years 1968 and 1980. Therefore staff quoted the paragraph regarding non-conforming lots since it was determined that more than half of the parking lots fell into this category. In fact, even when the retail center ratios were applied only 47 percent of the centers illustrated were in compliance. Mr. Lum stated that it would appear as though the City encouraged business owners to increase the number of parking spaces wherever possible and that little effort was made to ensure that landscaping conformed to the number of spaces.
Daniel Call asked Mr. Lum if three ratios were actually needed? Mr. Lum stated that the County Study Group included more than three ratios and recommended that parking be regulated only by building use. However when contemplating that recommendation it was noted that you would have to name all of the uses, which then increases the code.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if this could be accomplished on an individual basis through the use of a mechanism similar to the Special Use Permit? Mr. Lum stated that that was an option, although the question would be the same; what standard do you use? For example, Pigeon Plaza first housed Grandpa's and then Value City. Today it is being considered for three or four different entities. So under this theory you would be saying that all of these original permitted uses are no longer a permitted use and every time a certain size entity comes into the City it would then require a Special Use Permit. Mr. Ross stated that his suggestion was to utilize something similar to the Special Use Permit, i.e., a Parking Use Permit.
Mr. Lum stated that the County Study Group was established as a reaction to MSD's requirement for a cleaner storm water management. The implications gleaned from that study is that perhaps blanket parking ratios at high numbers are not a good idea if we have to clean this water before it reenters the storm system. And as a result, one of their recommendations was that a further study be conducted to determine which uses could be lowered.
In conclusion Mr. Lum stated that roughly six municipalities that participated in the Study Group utilize lower ratios; 6 2/3 to 6.5. Therefore another option might be to ask staff to examine different municipalities in order to determine whether Florissant really is that much higher than the nation's average.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if Council was anticipating a recommendation from this Commission? Mr. Lum stated that they were not. Mr. Ross suggested that the item be tabled to allow Council an opportunity to review the information and provide the Commission with guidance on how they wished them to proceed.
Dick Weller stated that his first thought after reviewing this report was that if the parking requirements for larger centers were modified owners would immediately pursue their option to add out-lots or supplemental developments as a cash cow.
Mr. Weller then concurred with the suggestion made by Commissioner Ross.
Daniel Call stated that his understanding of MSD's requirement is to move away from storm water that runs off on asphalt and have it run off on natural grass or ground.
Jane Boyle stated that in her opinion more than likely the City is not going to reduce any existing asphalt.
Jim Hessel agreed, adding that new cities such as Wentzville have these ratios built into their zoning codes, so this type of an issue relates more to older communities. The problem is that once the infrastructure is in place there is only so much that can be done to resolve it.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to table this item and request that it be referred to City Council for further direction, seconded by Jim Hessel.
Phil Lum presented the Commission with a copy of the revised spreadsheet. He stated that another interesting fact is that the properties listed in the Total Column constitute 265 acres with a square footage of paving totaling 135 acres.
On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Boyle yes, Call yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carried.
Item 3 Study Report and Make
PZ071811-3 Recommendations to Amend the Zoning Code Regarding Taverns, Cocktail Lounges and Night Clubs.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if City Council had already imposed a six month moratorium on these types of establishments? Mr. Lum stated that they had. Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum for an explanation of the Commission's role in this study? Mr. Lum stated that this was a different agenda item than the one previously presented to the Commission, which stems from the enactment of the moratorium. Mr. Lum stated that once a moratorium takes effect the issue must then be studied, and Planning and Zoning is thereby designated as the Commission responsible for submitting a recommendation to Council on how to proceed. If no action is taken within the prescribed period of time the moratorium is terminated and the issue reverts back to the existing code.
Mr. Ross asked if the moratorium commenced June 2011 and would run through the remainder of the calendar year? Mr. Lum stated that that was correct. He then suggested that the Commission set a target date for making a recommendation to Council, since this is an item that they will be looking to receive a recommendation on.
Mr. Lum stated that he had asked the City Clerk to query other clerks across the country to determine if they had established ordinances related to night clubs. Related Ordinances were obtained from two sources and included within the Commission's packet, the City of Winston-Salem and the City of Chattanooga. Also included within the packet is the draft of a proposed ordinance and the definitions of a nightclub as defined by the Chattanooga Ordinance.
Mr. Lum stated that after discussing this matter with the City Attorney they concluded that the Chattanooga Ordinance clearly exemplifies the type of difficulty that a city can get into once such an Ordinance is adopted. To illustrate the complexity of this issue a newspaper article identified a business owner who makes a significant investment in a sports bar that is now, pursuant to the Ordinance, deemed to be a night club.
Mr. Lum advised the Commission that the problem associated with the creation of an Ordinance for night clubs is the difficulty in ones ability to distinguish the differences between individual establishments.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if historically taverns, night clubs and cocktail lounges fell under a Special Use Permit? Mr. Lum stated that currently commercial districts that allow taverns as a permitted use require restaurants/bars to obtain a Special Use Permit. So as it now stands you can have a tavern or cocktail lounge on every corner of commercial districts deemed applicable. He stated that the code only provides a definition for taverns/lounges, so the end result is that night clubs have been allowed to come into the City under a Special Use based on their claim of being a cocktail lounge. Therefore he concluded that a crucial part of this study would be to establish clear definitions for each category.
Jane Boyle noted that Club Situation was an example of a night club that came into the City under the guise of being a cocktail lounge.
Phil Lum stated that Staff's Analysis provided the following option:
(1) Ban night clubs
The City Attorney's opinion is that perhaps regulating night clubs by Special Use Permit is the answer because then it can be site specific.
The City Attorney also advised that if an entity did not fit within the definition it should not be permitted.
Daniel Call stated that the Chattanooga definition of a night club reads that, "It may or may not be held out to the public as a bar or social gathering place". He then stated that based on this definition the Commission would have to ascertain the definition of a bar or social gathering place in order to make a definitive decision.
Mr. Lum stated that in his opinion the definitions could reach further than a night club or bar/restaurant, although that is where the concentration should be placed.
Jim Ross noted that staff's recommendation was to amend the zoning code for taverns, cocktail lounges and night clubs, and as a result he found the inclusion of bars and restaurants somewhat confusing. Mr. Lum stated that in his opinion this Commission would have to establish definitions that extend outside of the box in order for them to work effectively.
To prevent this from turning into a bottomless pit, Dick Weller suggested that the Commission disregard the inclusion of bars/restaurants and social gathering places.
Jim Ross suggested that all such uses require a Special Use Permit.
Phil Lum read the City's current definition of a tavern into the record:
"An establishment or place of business primarily engaged in the preparation and retail sales of alcoholic beverages for consumption with a City and State approved liquor license, including bars, cocktail lounges and other similar uses, other than a restaurant, at which less than 50 percent of the total revenue is generated by food sales."
Mr. Lum then provided the Commission with a list of 2010-2011 liquor licenses. (The highlighted portions represent packaged liquor stores.)
Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if the creation of these definitions would cause harm to places like Applebee's, et cetera? Mr. Lum stated that once the definition of taverns is revised it could have an impact since establishments that sell food and alcohol on Sundays are considered to be a restaurant/bar.
Mr. Ross asked where businesses such as Conoco, who sold packaged liquor, would fall within these classifications? Mr. Lum stated that they are a considered a convenience store, unless fuel is their primary source of revenue.
Lee Baranowski suggested that percentages of sales be established to distinguish gas stations from convenience stores.
Dick Weller suggested that the Commission set a deadline for completion of this item for October to allow members an opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the information, highlighting areas they believe to be pertinent.
Jim Ross suggested that staff meet with the City Attorney to work on drafting the appropriate definition for each entity. He also suggested that consideration be given to regulating all three entities by a Special Use Permit.
Jane Boyle questioned whether the study could also establish the distance of an establishment from residential areas? Mr. Lum stated that this type of an element would be looked at as a part of the Special Use Permit. Ms. Boyle stated that the point she was trying to make was that by including this restriction within the definition it would automatically preclude some establishments from the process.
Phil Lum stated that staff could also provide the Commission with a list of regulated items, such as noise, that could be included within the definitions. One example would be the requirement of an air-lock; a series of two doors that are always kept shut in order to minimize the sound leaving the building.
Jane Boyle stated that she would also like more information on what type of regulations neighboring cities have in place. Mr. Lum stated that the City Clerk is currently contacting all national members of the City Clerk's Organization to ascertain this type of information.
Ms. Boyle stated that her belief is that City Council's request may have stemmed from problems associated with establishments located within residential areas that generate large groups of people and lead to parking and security-related issues. Mr. Lum stated that also among the list of suggestions is the ratio of certified off-duty police officers that must be hired by an establishment based on their occupancy rate.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion that staff meet with the City Attorney to work on drafting the appropriate definition for each entity; that consideration be given to regulating each entity through the Special Use Permit process; that City Staff provide the Commission with a list of regulated items to be considered within the definitions, specifically with regard to noise, distance and security; that City Staff provide the Commission with regulations from neighboring communities, and that all items be presented to the Commission by September 19, 2011. The motion was seconded by Jim Hessel and on roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Stock yes, Boyle yes, Call yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carried.
Item 3 Child Daycare Centers
Jane Boyle stated that she had met with two members of City Council; McKay and Hernandez, to go over the Commission's recommendations on chid daycare centers. Both members were very receptive to the ideas presented and believed that the Commission's recommendations were very comprehensive.
Two of the elements believed to be germane were:
(1) The need to increase the square footage of classrooms and playgrounds;
(2) The Commission's concerns related to the design and security of playgrounds.
Ms. Boyle noted that while a number of the items relating to State regulations could not be delved into, the City does have the authority to exceed State regulations with respect to square footage.
At the conclusion of the meeting Ms. McKay requested that this issue be placed on the August 2nd Work Session for Council and that she be in attendance. Ms. Boyle asked Mr. Ross if he would be available to attend the scheduled Work Session because soon thereafter she discovered that she had a conflict with the date? Mr. Ross stated that he would not be available on August 2nd.
Ms. Boyle advised the Commission that it is was not imperative that a Commission Member be in attendance and that she would speak to Ms. McKay about the matter.
Jim Ross stated that if Ms. McKay would be interesting in meeting with him prior to August 2nd he would be more than happy to do so.
Item 5 City Attorney
Jim Ross asked for an update on the Commission's previous request for permission to utilize the assistance of the City Attorney on an as-needed basis. Mr. Lum stated that dates to conduct several training sessions were currently being considered.
Mr. Ross stated that the Commission had also requested guidance on how to utilize the assistance of the City Attorney on specific agenda items. Mr. Lum stated that he has been meeting with Mr. Hessel on a regular basis to review every item on the agenda.
Mr. Ross requested that Mr. Lum again review the Commission's request to utilize the assistance of the City Attorney on an as-needed basis, with the cost of said services to be absorbed by the developer. Mr. Lum stated that he would do so.
Item 6 Future Meetings
The next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting will be held on Monday, August 1, 2011.
The next Council representative for the meeting of July 25th is Jim Hessel.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Daniel Call. All parties concur and the meeting is adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
