Planning & Zoning

July 10, 2014  A G E N D A Planning & Zoning Commission July 10, 2014, at 3:00 p.m. Item Page 1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Approval of the Agenda 3 Approval of the Minutes of the June 26, 2014 P&Z Meeting 93 4 Petition No. SUP 14-11 a request from Craig Burgess, for a special use permit for 1 chicken keeping on 2.00 acres located at 8450 Hood Mesa Trail. (Sam Montoia) 5 Petition No. PD 14-01 a request from Piñon Hills Community Church, 25 represented by Brad Salzman, for an amendment to the PD, Planned Development (PD 08-01) for property located at 5101 N. Dustin Avenue. (Cynthia Lopez) 6 Petition No. ZC 14-06 a request from Floyd Hinesley, represented by Sakura 51 Engineering & Surveying, for a zone change from the RE-20 Residential Estates District to the SF-10 Single-family Residential District for a parcel land of 14.3262 acres located north of Pinecroft Drive and east of English Drive. (Cynthia Lopez) 7 Petition No. ZC 14-07 a request from Floyd Hinesley, represented by Sakura 73 Engineering & Surveying, for a zone change from the RE-20 Residential Estates District to the SF-10 Single-family Residential District for a parcel land of 39.22 acres located at the end of English Drive, south of Antelope Junction. (Cynthia Lopez) 8 Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 9 Adjournment The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to be considered at the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, July 22, 2014.  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PETITION REPORT Petition SUP 14-11 –Special Use Permit for Chicken Keeping at 8450 Hood Mesa Trail A. STAFF REPORT, July 10, 2014 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Craig Burgess Representative None Date of Application June 10, 2014 Approval of a special use permit to allow two horses at a single- Requested Action family residence. Location 8450 Hood Mesa Trail Existing Land Use Single-family residence Existing Zoning RE-2 Residential Estates 2 District Surrounding Zoning North, South, East & West: RE-2 Residential Estates 2 District / & Land Use Residential Publication of Notice for public hearings of the Planning and Zoning Commission appeared in the Daily Times on Wednesday, Notice June 18, 2014. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, June 18, 2014 and a sign was posted on Thursday, June 27, 2013. Staff Planner Sam Montoia, Associate Planner STAFF ANALYSIS Petition Description and History The petitioner requests a special use permit to keep nine (9) chickens on 2.01 acres of property at 8450 Hood Mesa Trail. The petitioner has installed a chicken coop with the dimensions of 8’H x 12’W x 6’L to house and protect the fowl from wild predators. The petitioner states that the coop is not visible from Hood Mesa Trail or Foothills Drive. The petitioner has the chickens for personal use of the fresh eggs they produce. On April 11, 2006, the petitioner received approval of Petition S-06-05 to allow a horse, subject to conditions a. through e. as follows: a. The permit being approved for a period of five years beginning on the City Council approval date, at which time the use would automatically expire, or a new permit must be requested. b. The permit being limited to one horse, with no breeding or commercial boarding being allowed. c. The horse stall being located at least 100 feet from the property line d. A fenced corral of at least 10,000 square feet being maintained for the use of the horse, with the fencing being at least 35 feet from Hood Mesa Trail property line. e. A dumpster is contracted for the disposal of manure. 1 The property complied with the conditions listed above; however, an audit of expired SUPs conducted by staff in 2014 revealed that the property’s SUP from 2006 expired in 2011. Staff documented that the use had changed and the property owner had chickens. A copy of the petition report for S-06-05 accompanies this report. Applicable Codes According to Table 2.3 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC), keeping chickens (and other animals or fowl) require a special use permit in the RE-2 district. The applicant must comply with the use standards of Section 2.4.7, Animals or Fowl, of the UDC. According to this section, the minimum lot area per animal unit is determined by the SUP, but Section 11.1 of the UDC recommends that the minimum lot area per animal unit is 1 acre. A chicken is counted as 0.02 animal units as defined in Article 11 of the UDC. Further, Section 2.4.7 D states: “Adequate fencing, screening or separation from adjoining premises shall be provided based upon the type, number and size of animals … for protection of the animals; … protection of the public; and for control of dust, noise, odors or similar nuisance factors.” Special Use Permit Criteria – Section 8.9.4 of the UDC Section 8.9.4 of the UDC sets forth the criteria for review of a special use permit. The section states that an SUP may be approved where it is reasonably determined that there will be no significant negative impact upon residents of surrounding property or upon the public. Criteria are listed as follows: A. Effect on environment: The location, size, design and operation characteristics of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the health, welfare and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, not be substantially or permanently injurious to the neighboring property. The collective characteristics of this project will not be substantially detrimental to health, welfare and/or safety of the surrounding neighborhood. The petitioner intends to keep chickens for private consumption of their eggs and has plans to clean up their wastes on a weekly basis. The petitioner requests to have nine chickens would be allowed under the Section 11 definitions of the UDC. B. Compatible with surrounding area: The proposed site plan, circulation plan and schematic architectural designs shall be harmonious with the character of the surrounding area with relationship to scale, height, landscaping and screening and density. The proposed site plan locates the chicken coop in the petitioner’s back yard approximately 40’ from existing property lines to the South and to the West. The backyard is fenced along the West, East and South sides of the property. These factors ensure that the chickens will not be visible from the street nor the surrounding neighbors. C. External impacts minimized: The proposed use shall not have negative impacts on existing uses in the area and in the city through the creation of noise, glare, fumes, dust, smoke, vibration, fire hazard or other injurious or noxious impact. The applicant shall provide adequate mitigation responses to the impacts. The applicant proposes to clean the chicken coop once per week and remove wastes with the regular trash service or into an existing compost pile. These practices will mitigate hazards associated with smells. They propose to have no 2  roosters and therefore there will be no undue noises associated with their chicken keeping. D. Infrastructure impacts minimized: The proposed use shall not have negative impacts on existing uses in the area and in the city through impacts on public infrastructure such as roads, parking facilities and water and sewer systems, and on public services such as police and fire protection and solid waste collection, and the ability of existing infrastructure and services to provide services adequately. The proposed number of chickens and their waste will not have negative impacts on existing facilities. E. Consistent with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use will be consistent with purposes of this UDC, the Comprehensive Plan, and any other statutes, ordinances or policies that may be applicable, and will support rather than interfere with the uses otherwise permitted in the zone in which it is located. The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the UDC. The underlying zone district allows chickens with a special use permit. F. Parcel size: The proposed use may be required to have additional land area, in excess of the minimum lot area otherwise required by the underlying zoning district, as necessary to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts on surrounding land uses and the zoning district. The parcel size is more than adequate for the proposed 9 chickens. The underlying zone district allows chickens with a special use permit. The petitioner proposes to G. Site Plan: The proposed use shall be required to comply with the site plan review procedures and standards of Section 8.5, site plan review, as specified. The proposed site plan conforms to standards of Section 8.5. ISSUES Planning Division: Sam Montoia – 599-1333 • The subject property is approximately 2.01 acres. The animal unit capacity set forth in Section 11.1 of the UDC recommends 1.0 animal units per acre, and a chicken is 0.02 animal units. The petitioner is requesting to keep 9 chickens. The petitioner is responsible to ensure compliance with all local and state regulations relating to keeping the animals. FCC Chapter 6 and Section 2.4.7 of the UDC relate specifically to keeping animals. STAFF CONCLUSION Staff concludes that approval of SUP 14-11 is appropriate. The petitioner’s chickens are for personal use, and are contained in a structure that is intended for that use. The petitioner seeks permission for up to nine (9) chickens, approximately 1% of the recommended number of animal units given the amount of land area owned by the petitioner. Though it has since expired, the property has previously received a special use permit allowing other animals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition SUP 14-11, a request from Craig Burgess for a special use permit to keep 9 chickens at 8450 Hood Mesa Trail in the RE-2 Residential Estates 2 District. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 View from the southwest corner of the coop 11 View from the west edge of the coop 12 View from the east edge of the coop, with the roof of our house in the background 13 From the edge of our property on Hood Mesa Trail 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PIÑON HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH Planned Development Amendment PETITION PD 14-01 July 10, 2014 PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Piñon Hills Community Church Representative Bradley W. Salzman Date of Application June 12, 2014 Requested Action Planned Development Amendment (PD 08-01) Location 5101 N. Dustin Avenue Existing Land Use Church RE-1/PD Residential Estates with a Planned Development Existing Zoning Overlay North: RE-1 Residential Estates/Vacant South: SF-7, SF-10 Single-family Residential, OP Office Surrounding Zoning/ Professional/Residential Land Use East: RE-1 Residential Estates/Senior Home & Church West: RE-1 Residential Estates/Vacant Publication of Notice for this public hearing appeared in the Daily Times on Sunday, June 22, 2014. Adjoining property owners Notice were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, June 18, 2014 and a sign was posted on Friday, June 27, 2014. Staff Planner Cynthia A. Lopez, Senior Planner OTHER INFORMATION Number of Lots Two Acres of Land 58.99 acres Water: Required to City Standards Sewer: Required to City Standards Utilities Electric: As per Annexation Agreement Overhead Electric Service Access & Circulation Required to City Standards Street Lights Required to City Standards Drainage As approved by the City Engineer Street Signs Required to City Standards Neighborhood Unit Boxes Required to City Standards 25 STAFF ANALYSIS Project Description The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the approved Planned Development (PD 08- 01) that was approved by City Council on April 10, 2008. The property consists of two rectangular lots. The lot on the east is 30.75 acres and the lot on the west is 28.24 acres for a total of 58.99 acres. A well-site is on the property near Piñon Hills Boulevard. The original Planned Development (PD 08-01) was proposed to be developed in four phases with all phases completed in 2012. To date only Phase I is close to completion. A 38,000 square foot Worship Center and a 12,500 square foot Student/Adult Leadership Center have been completed. An existing pre-school facility currently exists as part of the Worship Center. The original planned development was approved with a mixture of uses including: 71 patio homes; two independent living centers totaling 100 residential units; administrative offices and adult ministry; an office building; a worship and children’s ministry with possible daycare; a student ministry and multi-purpose center; a clock bell tower; a storage building; a restaurant; an activity meadow; common open space; possible cell tower monument; and a columbarium facility. (see attached Findings of Fact for PD 08-01) The petitioner is requesting to amend the original planned development by adding a school use to the approved plan. They intend to build onto the current preschool facility to begin offering a K and Grade 1 programs in August 2014. They eventually would like to expand the facilities to be able to offer a K-8 school on site. Brad Salzman estimates that the K-8 school will have approximately 225 students and the pre-school will have approximately 160 children at build-out". Originally a restaurant space was included into the approved planned development and the church is requesting another retail type space be allowed as part of the plan. The two retail type uses will be located near the intersection of Dustin Avenue and Piñon Hills Boulevard. As part of the original approved planned development phase I, the petitioner included the construction and paving of N. Dustin Avenue to the north property line. Dustin Avenue has been constructed and paved to the intersection with Saguaro Trail only. The petitioner is requesting to amend the original planned development to postpone the paving of North Dustin until it is needed for: 1) access to PHCC Senior Living facilities; 2) a dedicated easement is obtained from Dennis Bickford to facilitate access to the north; or 3) necessity of access to the east for the proposed residential subdivision. In March of 2009, the Piñon Hills Community Church submitted a summary plat (SD-SP 09- 08) to the Community Development Department for the dedication of North Dustin to the City. This process has not been completed. ISSUES City Engineer – Nica Westerling – 599-1316 • Giving them this delay in constructing Dustin complicates the burden of this road construction with the adjoining property. This is the fifth time they have asked for a delay of infrastructure both for the Traffic Signal at Pinon Hills/Dustin intersection and/or Dustin extension beyond their 1st entrance, with the private improvements placing additional impacts on the public infrastructure. Per the TIA the traffic signal was to have been split between the City and the developer. The majority of the signal cost was paid for by the City. When the original PD was approved the PD had as part of the conditions of approval 26  of the conditions of approval (requirements of the TIA) this traffic signal as well as improvements to Dustin to their far north property line. The patrons use this part of Dustin on a daily basis, especially on Sundays when the parking lot is full. Construction of Dustin is not a future condition of a future residential phase but of this phase. It's not City Policy to shift these costs from the developer to either the public or the adjoining property owner. • In addition, as part of the design, for Dustin there is a drainage issue the Church needs to address since it was caused by construction of their project. The development was designed/constructed substantially below Dustin street grade. • They need to update the TIA to incorporate the new uses. Engineering – Virginia King – 599-1306 • Dustin Ave will need to be paved up to the property line. Curb and gutter will be required. • The problem of keeping offsite runoff from the property needs to be resolved if the asphalt hump that is directing runoff from Saguaro Trail to Dustin is removed. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the all of the amendments to the planned development except for the additional delay in the construction and paving of North Dustin to the north property line. The additional spaces for the school and the retail space will be appropriate additions to the planned development. However, the church currently uses the dirt extension of Dustin for access to their back parking lot and this portion of Dustin should be paved as soon as possible. Also there are drainage issues in that area that can be mitigated by the proper paving with curb, gutter and sidewalk of Dustin Avenue to the north property line. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition PD 14-01, from Piñon Hills Community Church, represented by Bradley W. Salzman, for all amendments to the PD Planned Development (PD 08-01), except denial of the request for an extension of time to complete the paving of N. Dustin Avenue to the north property line, for property located at 5101 N. Dustin Avenue, with the condition that the Piñon Hills Community Church complete the plat process for the dedication of N. Dustin Avenue to the north property line. 27 28 29 30  RE-1 31 RE-1 PD RE-1 PD RE-1 OP SF-7 SF-10 5101 N. Dustin Avenue N 32 33 34  COMMENT SUMMARY PD 14-01 – AMENDMENT TO PINON HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH Deadline: June 20, 2014 City of Farmington Departments CD Director – Mary L. Holton Comments are incorporated in the staff memo. CD Addressing – Planning Division No Comments CD Chief Building Inspector – Leo Hardie No Comments CD MPO - Joe Delmagori No comments from the MPO CD Oil & Gas Inspector No Comments City Manager’s Office – Bob Campbell No objections ELEC Customer Care Manager – Nicki Parks No Response No conflict; Electric underground line in the ELEC Engineering - Luwil Aligarbes vicinity ELEC T & D - Rodney Romero No Response Fire Department criteria will be met through the FIRE Fire Marshall – Bob Popa Building Inspection process. LEGAL Deputy City Attorney – Jennifer Breakell No Comments POLICE Code Compliance No Response The Farmington Police Department has no POLICE Sergeant Flores immediate concerns PRCA Roger Drayer No comment from PRCA PW Engineering- Virginia King Dustin Ave will need to be paved up to the property line. Curb and gutter will be required. The problem of keeping offsite runoff from the property needs to be resolved if the asphalt hump that is directing runoff from Saguaro Trail to Dustin is removed. PW Engineering – Nica Westerling Giving them this delay in constructing Dustin complicates the burden of this road construction with the adjoining property. This is the fifth time they have asked for a delay of infrastructure both for the Traffic Signal at Pinon Hills/Dustin intersection and/or Dustin extension beyond their 1st entrance, with the private improvements placing additional impacts on the public infrastructure. Per the TIA the traffic signal was to have been split between the City and the developer. The majority of the signal cost was paid for by the City. When the original PD was approved the PD had as part of the conditions of approval (requirements of the TIA) this traffic signal as well as improvements to Dustin to their far north property line. The patrons use this part of Dustin on a daily basis, especially on Sundays when the parking lot is full. Construction of Dustin is not a future condition 35  of a future residential phase but of this phase. It's not City Policy to shift these costs from the developer to either the public or the adjoining property owner. In addition, as part of the design, for Dustin there is a drainage issue the Church needs to address since it was caused by construction of their project. The development was designed/constructed substantially below Dustin street grade. PW Streets Superintendent - Jim Couch No Response PW Traffic Engineering Admin – Steve Krest No Response PW Water/Wastewater Admin – Ruben Salcido No Comments Other Entities CH2MHILL OMI No Response Comcast Cable - Mark Johnson No Response New Mexico Gas Company Ronnie Owens No Response Enterprise Field Services No Response Farmington School District No Response CenturyLink – Laurence Joe No Comments U.S. Post Office No Response Williams Field Services - Lloyd Bell No Response 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 N Hinesley Zone Change from RE-20 to SF-10 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79  RE-1 80 N Hinesley Zone Change from RE-20 to SF-10 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92  M I N U T E S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 26, 2014 The Planning and Zoning Commission met in a regular session on June 26, 2014, at 3:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. P&Z Members Present: Chair: Joyce Cardon Commissioners: Daniel Arnold Shay Davis Clint Freeman Kristin Langenfeld Cheryl Ragsdale Paul Thompson Del Washburn (Alt) P&Z Members Absent: Commissioner: Rory Jaques Cody Waldroup Staff Present: Mary Holton Sam Montoia Dee Dee Moore Others Who Addressed the Commission: Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chair Cardon. There being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Presentation of the Agenda Community Development Director Mary Holton explained that the petitioner for SUP 14- 10 was not in attendance and that a previous special use permit for horse keeping had expired a few years ago. The Commission needs to decide if they would like to proceed with the consideration of the petition, or postpone, table, approve or deny it. Chair Cardon asked for clarification about how the expired special use permit was brought to staff’s attention. Director Holton stated that an intern had researched all past special use permits looking for expired permits and staff had been verifying if the use still existed, and if so the property owner(s) would be notified to redo their special use permit. Director Holton stated that the petitioner was notified that the special use permit had expired and he was required to submit an application for a new permit for horse keeping. Chair Cardon asked the Commission if they were okay with waiting until 3:10 pm to see if the petitioner attends the meeting. Commissioner Thompson informed the Commission that he knows Mr. Carley personally, he lives in the neighborhood of the subject property, and that Mr. Carley’s 93 daughter works for him, but that there is no financial gain involved nor did Commissioner Thompson receive a 100-foot notification letter. Chair Cardon asked for the commissioners to discuss how they would like to proceed with this petition. Commissioner Thompson stated he would like to hear the staff report first and have the ability to ask any questions of staff. Commissioner Davis seconded that suggestion. The Commissioners turned to other items on the agenda (page 1065). Approval of the Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Langenfeld to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2014 P&Z Meeting. This motion was approved unanimously by an 8-0 vote. Chair Cardon advised that the following proceeding would be held as a quasi-judicial meeting and provided a brief explanation of how the meeting would be run. Anyone wishing to speak on behalf of a petition was sworn in by Secretary Dee Dee Moore. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PETITION REPORT SUP 14-10 – 5524 Hill N Dale Drive Horse keeping Planning and Zoning Commission Discussion of SUP 14-10 on June 26, 2014 Associate Planner Sam Montoia presented the staff report for a request by Brad Carley, for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for Horses on 2.45 acres located at 5524 Hill N Dale Drive in the SF-10 Residential district. The original SUP #1888 was granted in 2001 to allow 2 horses, with conditions that were all met, and expired in 5 years, or in 2006. Mr. Montoia stated that horses are permitted in this zoning district with a SUP and that the allowed number of animal units for the 2.44 acres is two. Mr. Montoia presented the aerial photo showing the existing fenced area and barn location. He stated that the petitioner did not propose any changes to the site and that all waste is composted on site. Mr. Montoia identified there is more than 30 feet to other property structures. Chair Cardon asked about the appearance of the property line going through the barn. Mr. Montoia stated that the aerial is taken at an oblique angle so the line appears to intersect the barn, but according to the previously granted petition (1888) the barn is actually 4 feet from the property line. Staff recommended approval of SUP 14-10 with two conditions. Commissioner Thompson stated that the agenda provided information that neither Code Compliance nor Zoning Compliance had received any complaints for this location. Mr. Montoia stated that was correct. Chair Cardon asked if staff had received any calls from anyone regarding this petition and Mr. Montoia stated that he had received no contact about the petition. Chair Cardon asked if staff knew why the petitioner had not filed for a renewal of the petition, and Mr. Montoia stated that he did not know why, but the petitioner had indicated he thought that the permit did not expire. He added that the 94 petitioner believed that the special use permit would renew automatically and did not understand that it was up to him to renew the special use permit. Commissioner Arnold asked if a 5 year expiration date was required. Mr. Montoia stated that the Commission has the discretion regarding any timeframe for the permit. He added that the original petition did have one neighbor who was in opposition at that time. Chair Cardon if the 5 year timeframe was being recommended by staff. Director Holton stated it was not, but that the original conditions a and d from Petition #1888 were part of staff’s recommendation. She added that they would be changed to a and b for presentation to the City Council, depending on what the Commission recommends. The petitioner was not in attendance for this meeting. There were no affected parties to speak in favor or opposition to this petition. There were no interested parties to speak in favor or opposition to this petition. Commissioner Freeman felt that the petition should be tabled to give the owner an opportunity to show up. Commissioner Thompson felt that he could go either way with voting or tabling the petition. He felt that since the horses have been in place for 12 years and there are no persons to speak for or against this petition, that the Commission should go ahead and vote because 30 minutes have already been spent hearing the staff report. He added that he too felt that the absence of the petitioner was disrespectful. Chair Cardon felt she too could table the petition until later or vote today. She added that there have been petitions approved without the petitioner in attendance, and that these horses have been at this location for a long time. Commissioner Ragsdale felt the petition should be voted on today. Commissioner’s Thompson, Arnold, Davis, Langenfeld, and Washburn also felt that there should be a vote today. Commissioner Ragsdale made a motion to approve SUP14-10 with conditions a and d as stated by staff. Commissioner Thompson seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Action of SUP 14-10 on June 26, 2014 A motion was made by Commissioner Ragsdale, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to approve SUP 14-10 as recommended by staff. This request is from Brad Carley for a special use permit to keep 2 horses in the SF-10 Residential District on property located at 5524 Hill N Dale Drive. AYE: Chair Cardon, Commissioners Arnold, Davis, Freeman, Langenfeld, Ragsdale, Thompson, and Washburn (Alt) NAY: None ABSTAINED: None ABSENT: Commissioners Jaques and Waldroup Motion passed 8-0 Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. 95 Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from Members: There was no business from the Members. Business from Staff: Director Holton reminded the Commission that the PRCA Master Plan will be heard at the July 24, 2014, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. She informed the Commission that there were three petitions that went to City Council on June 24, 2014. The petition for a Special Use Permit for a Craft Distillery was approved on the consent agenda. The Special Use Permit for the Crematory at 6719 E. Main Street that was heard by the Commission on April 24, 2014 and May 29, 2014, was revoked by the City Council. The property owner has 60 days from the filing of the findings of fact to cease operations. He is planning to move the operation back to the Bloomfield Highway location. The City Council has provided a 4 month postponement for the zone change from IND to MU for petitioner Debbie Hernandez for property located at 505 W. Maple to allow time to provide plans and be scheduled for review before the Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency (MRA) before returning to the City Council agenda. Director Holton stated the 2014 New Mexico American Planning Association (NMAPA) planning conference will be held in Albuquerque, September 21-24, 2014 at the downtown Doubletree Hotel. If any of the Commissioner’s would like to attend the Commissioners Training on Monday, please contact Cindy Lopez or Dee Dee Moore. The proposed changes to the Unified Development Code (UDC) is planned to be presented on the July 24, 2014, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Adjournment The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 26, 2014, was adjourned at 3:27p.m. __________________________ ____________________________ Joyce Cardon Dee Dee Moore Chair Office Manager 96