HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-02-1997 - 9a 1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 2. 1997
Action Agenda
Item#
SUBJECT: STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes_X No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED Yes—X—No,
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
-2-24-97 Public Hearing Minutes Gene Bell
-Proposed Plan&Ordinance Amendments Extension 2589
-Draft 5-7-97 Planning Board Minutes
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough-732-8181
Durham -688-733 T
Mebane -227-2031
Chapel Hill-967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider adoption of proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision
Regulations for implementation of the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan.
BACKGROUND: A public hearing was held on May 28, 1996 to present the proposed Stoney
Creek Basin Small Area Plan. The plan emphasized retaining the area's
rural character and protecting landowner's rights and also contained
recommendations for implementation. The Board of County
Commissioners adopted the small area plan on August 5, 1996.
Following adoption,the 22 member citizen planning group worked with
county staff to develop proposed ordinance amendments for plan
implementation. The proposed amendments would:
• Incorporate appropriate references to the Stoney Creek Basin Small
Area Plan in the Comprehensive Plan(CP-1-97);
• define the Overlay District boundaries on the Zoning Atlas (Z-2-97);
• create a Stoney Creek Basin Overlay Zoning District; and
• modify Flexible Development provisions in the Subdivision
Regulations as applied to the District to provide consistency between
the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
2
The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing on February 24, r
1997. Planning staff indicated it had not been possible to translate some of
the Planning Group's recommendations related to the Flexible Development
Village Option into ordinance language due to a lack of specificity. Public
comment was limited to one planning group member who spoke in favor of
the proposed amendments,but asked if it might be possible to re-visit the
Village Option recommendations to see if greater specificity was possible.
A meeting was held in the Planning Department Conference Room on April
7 to review the following Village Option recommendations developed by the
Planning Group at meetings on August 22 and September 19, 1996:
1. Limit Village Proper to higher and intermediate intensity areas;
2. Commercial cannot be visible from road;
3. Village Green must be surrounded on four sides by Village Proper;
4. Village Proper shall be surrounded on four sides by the Village
Conservancy;
5. Buildings should be permitted to front to pedestrian access with
streets/alleys in rear;
6. Lower the maximum Village Proper from 100 acres to 50 acres;
7. Increase the required open space to 50%.
Only four Planning Group members were in attendance(Clint Burklin,Lee
Rafalow,Bob Strayhorn,and David Yelton),but they were all residents of
the area who had been active in the process from the beginning. They also
represented a broad cross section of landowner opinion regarding the small
area plan and implementation strategies.
Staff pointed out that items 1 and 6 had been included in the proposed plan
and ordinance amendments presented at public hearing.Upon further
discussion,it was group consensus that items 2,3,4,and 5 were either
addressed adequately by the existing Flexible Development standards or that
their incorporation into ordinance requirements might otherwise limit the
ability to incorporate certain desirable features,e.g., scenic views, in a village
development. There was some misunderstanding regarding the status of item
7 and staff pointed out that it had=been included in the public hearing
package due to a lack of specificity as previously mentioned. Some
disappointment was expressed(in that item 7 was not included),but group
consensus was to stay with the Village Option recommendations as
presented at public hearing and not recommend any changes.
The Planning Board met on May 7 and recommended approval of the
proposed plan and ordinance amendments as presented at public hearing
on February 24, 1997. The vote was unanimous.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance,and Subdivision Regulations.
E
1 APPROVED APRIL 1. 1997 3
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 AND
4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
5 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
6 FEBRUARY 24, 1997
7
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on
10 Monday, February 24, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Court Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of
11 holding a joint public hearing.
12
13 ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair William Crowther, and Commissioners Stephen
14 Halkiotis, Alice M. Gordon, Margaret W. Brown and Moses Carey, Jr.
15 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows, and members H. Paul
16 Hoecke, Nell Andrews, Renee Price, S.A.M. Brooks, Leo Allison, Elizabeth Walters, Joan Jobsis, and Amie Katz.
17 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Robert Strayhom
18 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
19 STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link,Jr., Planners Gene Bell, Mary Willis, Emily Cameron,
20 Eddie Kirk and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker
21
22 NOTE : ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
23 PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE . ALL RECORDING
24 TAPES OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR FIVE (5) YEARS.
25 _
26 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN
27 Chair Crowther convened the meeting and requested that those who want to Speak to sign up on the speakers
28 list. He stated that the Chair of the Planning Board, Karen Barrows, would chair Items C1 through C3.
29
30 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
31 Chair Crowther dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
32
33 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS _Planning Board Chair. Karen Barrows. Chaired the following items.
34
35 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
36 f CP-1-97 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
37 1) Section 3.3- Land Use Plan Categories
38 2) Section 3.4- Locational Criteria
39 3) Section 3.9-Hillsborough Township
40 4) Section 3.10- Eno Township
41 5) Section 3.12-Chapel Hill Township
42 6) Appendix F-Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Map
43 Gene Bell presented this item for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on the proposed
44 amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Atlas,Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
45 Regulations. Those items in the agenda are numbered as 1 a, 2.b, 3a &4a. He mentioned that a public hearing was
46 held on May 28, 1996 to present the proposed Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan. The plan emphasized retaining
47 the area's rural character and protecting landowner's rights and also contained recommendations for implementation.
48 The Board of County Commissioners adopted the small area plan on August 5, 1996. Following adoption, the 22
49 member citizen planning group worked with county staff to develop proposed ordinance amendments for
50 implementation of the plan. The proposed amendments would:
51 • Incorporate appropriate references to the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan in the Comprehensive Plan (CP-1-
52 97);
53 • define the Overlay District boundaries on the Zoning Atlas (Z-2-97)
54 • create a Stoney Creek Basin Overlay Zoning District; and
55 . modify Flexible Development provisions in the Subdivision Regulations as applied to the District to provide
56 consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations
57
58 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None.
59 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None.
60
61 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS:
4
2
1 Lee Rafalow, a member of the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Committee, said that this group's effort could be
2 used as a model for other Small Area Plans. He complimented Gene Bell on the work that he did with this Committee.
3 He endorsed the plan in general, but he requested that several areas be reviewed again by the Planning Board along
4 with several members of the Stoney Creek Committee. He mentioned in particular that there was a concern about the
5 setback options for the Village Option. Several members felt that the commercial center of the Village Option should
6 be buffered and set back so as not to be visible from the road. They had come up with recommendations which would
7 encourage that outcome.
8
9 Cheri Rosemond, a resident of the Stoney Creek Basin area, appreciated being notified about this being an
10 agenda item. She is concerned about the possibility that the Stoney Creek Planning process as well as the regular
11 Flexible Development Plan process could go forward without notification to the local homeowners. She would very
12 much like to have homeowners notified when items impacting their neighborhood come before the Planning Board.
13 She also requested information regarding the 30 acre park that was mentioned as a part of another development. She
14 hoped that if a similar situation existed in the Stoney Creek Basin the residents would be notified and the County would
15 work with the landowners about how the park would be developed and used.
16
17 County Manger John Link indicated that the Master Plan for Recreation and Parks would be revisited by the
18 Board of Commissioners in the near future. At that time they will be asked to appoint a committee to review the current
19 plan. A part of that review would certainly be to include the area residents in discussion and planning.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, Jr., seconded by Commissioner Gordon,to refer the proposed
22 amendments (Cl a, 2b, 3a, &4a)to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
23 Commissioners no sooner than April 1, 1997.
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 2. Zoning Atlas Amendments
27 f Z-1-97 Carden's Body and Paint Service
28 This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a rezoning
29 proposal of the Planning Staff to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas. The properties are located on the east side of NC
30 157 between Wagoner Dairy Road and Blalock Road. The rezoning involves two contiguous parcels: Tax Map
31 No.1.10..10G at 7700 NC 157, containing 2.02 acres and owned by Charlie and Jeroline Mangum; and Tax Map No.
32 1.10..10G at 7709 NC 157, having 10.97 acres and owned by William H. Carden, Jr. (Carden's Paint and Body
33 Service).
34
35 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None.
36 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None.
37 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: None.
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey, Jr.,to refer the
40 proposed Zoning Atlas amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
41 Commissioners no sooner than April 1, 1997.
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 LbI Z-2-97 Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District
45 This item was heard concurrent with Item C1(a).
46
47 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
48 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
49 1) Article 4.2.32-Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District
50 2) Article 6.30 Extra Requirements for the Stoney Creek Basin
51 Overlay District
52 This item was heard concurrent with Item C1(a).
53 Lbl Golf Courses
54 1) Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table
55 2) Article 6.16.10 Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses
56 Recreational Facilities(Profit/Non-Profit): Golf Club and Golf
57 Country club.
58 3) Article 6.23 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
1
5
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN
1. Section 3.3: Land Use Plan Categories ,
• To the basic category heading of RURAL,add Stoney Creek Basin.
• Under LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS, add:
STONEY CREEK BASIN. Land within the boundaries of the 4,696 acre Stoney Creek
Drainage Basin southeast of the Town of Hillsborough in portions of Hillsborough, Eno,
and Chapel Hill Townships. The area is triangular in shape and is bounded generally by
I-85 to the north, the University Spur of Southern Railroad to the east, and NC Highway
86 to the west. The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan was adopted by the Orange
County Board of Commissioners on August 5, 1996. The plan emphasizes retaining the
area's rural character and protecting landowners' rights (see APPENDIX F - Stoney
Creek Small Area Plan Map).
2. Section 3.4: L.ocational Criteria-Add the following:
(Refer to the Spring 1995 LTNC Students' Report- "Three Development Options: Conventional,
Density-Neutral,Neo-Traditional"and the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan adopted by the
Orange County Board of Commissioners on August 5, 1996, for details.)
PLAN CATEGORY: STONEY CREEK BASIN
Land Slone. No evaluation.
Hydrology. Located within the boundaries of the 4,696 acre Stoney Creek Drainage
Basin southeast of the Town of Hillsborough in portions of Hillsborough, Eno, and
Chapel Hill Townships.
Flora and Fauna. No evaluation.
,Soil Conditions. No evaluation.
Public Services/Utilities.No evaluation.
Transportation System.. No evaluation.
Energy Use. No evaluation.
Existing Land Use. No evaluation.
Agriculture and Forestry. No evaluation.
1
6
r
Population Density. No evaluation.
Historic and Cultural. No evaluation.
3. Section 3.9 Hillsborough Township
Distribution of Land Use Plan Categories - Add the following:
STONEY CREEK BASIN. Land within the boundaries of the 4,696 acre Stoney Creek
Drainage Basin southeast of the Town of Hillsborough. The area is triangular in shape
and is bounded generally by I-85 to the north, the University Spur of Southern Railroad
to the east, and NC Highway 86 to the west. A portion of the area lies in the southeast
portion of Hillsborough Township. The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan was adopted
by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on August 5, 1996. The plan
emphasizes retaining the area's rural character and protecting landowners' rights (see
APPENDIX F - Stoney Creek Small Area Plan Map).
4. Section 3.10 Eno Township
Distribution of Land Use Plan_ Categories Add the following:
STONEY CREEK BASIN. Land within the boundaries of the 4,696 acre Stoney Creek
Drainage Basin southeast of the Town of Hillsborough. The area is triangular in shape
and is bounded generally by I-85 to the north, the University Spur of Southern Railroad
to the east, and NC Highway 86 to the west. A portion of the area lies in the southwest -
portion of Eno Township. The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan was adopted by the
Orange County Board of Commissioners on August 5, 1996. The plan emphasizes
retaining the area's rural character and protecting landowners' rights (see APPENDIX F -
Stoney Creek Small Area Plan Map).
5. Section 3.12 Chapel Hill Township
DistriblWon of Land Use Plan Categories -Add the following:
STONEY CREEK BASIN. Land within the boundaries of the 4,696 acre Stoney Creek
Drainage Basin southeast of the Town of Hillsborough. The area is triangular in shape
and is bounded gcncmU!by 1-85 to the north, the University Spur of Southern Railroad
to the east,and NC Highway 86 to the west. A portion of the area lies in the north-central
portion of Chapel Hill Township. The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan was adopted
by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on August 5, 1996. The plan
emphasizes retaining the area's rural character and protecting landowners' rights(see
APPENDIX F - Stoney Creek Small Area Plan Map).
6. APPENDIX
Add APPENDIX F - Stoney Creek Small Area Plan Map
2
7
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE REVISIONS
ARTICLE 4.2 DISTRICT STATEl2ENTS OF INTENT AND APPLICATION
CRITERIA
4.2.32 Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District (NEW)
a) Intent
The purpose of the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District is to implement the
Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan by encouraging the creation of open
space and by limiting density increases within the more rural portions of the
area generally defined as the Stoney Creek drainage basin.
b) Application Criteria
This district will be applied to all of the areas contained in the Stoney Creek
Basin Small Area Plan, except for the portion of the Plan area located within
the Rural Buffer Zoning District. The Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan and
Map was adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on August 5,
1996. The Map is included as Appendix F of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
ARTICLE 6 APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
6.30 Extra Requirements for the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District
(NEW)
6.30.1 Purpose
The Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District is intended to implement the Stoney Creek
Basin Small Area Plan by modifying certain Flexible Development regulations as
contained in Section IV-B-10 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations,to
encourage the distribution and intensity of development areas and open space as
specified in the Plan.
630.2 Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations Generally Applicable
Within the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District, provisions of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations for the underlying zoning districts are
applicable, except for certain provisions as specified in Article 6.30.4.
I
A
►v'. 7 r W
it Milli,
wits _� \ ��� _►� Diu— •-
....m-l—
to
WE
OUR
NMI
W59, IWO
P, MIN
IVY
OEM-r> � r- 5oii'� I." I gyp•r! �.� '�
r
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REVISIONS
Section IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section B Applicability
Flexible Development is permitted in all residential zoning districts except
the Rural Buffer(RB)zoning district, but only upon approval of a Major
Subdivision Preliminary Plat by the Board of County Commissioners. All
Flexible Development subdivision plats shall comply with the
requirements and standards specified herein and in all respects with other
applicable codes and ordinances to the extent that they are not in conflict
with these provisions, provided however. that Flexible Developments
located within the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District shall comply with
provision- of Article 6.30 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
Applicants seeking approval of a Minor Subdivision Final Plat by the
Planning Department are encouraged to work with the Planning
Department staff in identifying and preserving open space areas as part of
such developments.
c
DRAFT 5-7-97 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12
4
AGENDA ITEM#9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 2/24/97
a. Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
Presentation by Gene Bell.
This item is to consider a recommendation on proposed amendments to
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Atlas,Zoning
Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations for implementation of the
Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan.
A public hearing was held on May 28, 1996 to present the proposed
Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan. The plan emphasized retaining the
area's rural character and protecting landowner's rights and also
contained recommendations for implementation. The Board of County
Commissioners adopted the small area plan on August 5, 1996.
The Planning Group identified key resource areas and then identified
three levels of land use intensity to help protect these resources. Using a
map,Bell indicated the areas composing the three levels. The areas of
lower intensity lie adjacent to resource areas such as Duke Forest,Stoney
Creek Wildlife Corridor and best typify the area's remaining rural
character.
The intermediate intensity areas are intended to provide a transition
between the lower and higher intensity. The higher intensity areas are
adjacent to areas experiencing urban growth pressures.
When the planning group began discussing implementation strategies,the
issue of zoning to promote plan consistency became a potentially
divisive issue for the group. There was a fear that some properties
would be down-zoned and one of the primary goals in the planning
process would be violated. After much discussion,the group opted for
the voluntary flexible development standards and modifications of those
specifically for the Stoney Creek Area. The density bonus provision of
flexible development was at the heart of the planning group's
recommendations; specifically,the threshold at which the density bonus
kicks in and where it can be used in the Stoney Creek Planning Area.
Bell noted the variations from flexible development provisions and
referred the Board to the Table providing this information. A copy of
that table is an attachment to these minutes on page
One of the planning group members spoke at the May 28, 1996 public
hearing and asked if it would be possible to revisit the village option
since the Planning Group had operated under the assumption that it
would not be included in Flexible Development,but ultimately was.
Following adoption,the 22 member citizen planning group worked with
county staff to develop proposed ordinance amendments for plan
implementation. The proposed amendments would:
Incorporate appropriate references to the Stoney Creek Basin Small
Area Plan in the Comprehensive Plan(CP-1-97);
define the Overlay District boundaries on the Zoning Atlas(Z-2-97);
3
13
5
create a Stoney Creek Basin Overlay Zoning District;and
modify Flexible Development provisions in the Subdivision
Regulations as applied to the District to provide consistency between
the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing on
February 24, 1997. Planning staff indicated it had not been possible to
translate some of the Planning Group's recommendations related to the
Flexible Development Village Option into ordinance language due to a
lack of specificity. Public comment was limited to one planning group
member who spoke in favor of the proposed amendments,but asked if
it might be possible to re-visit the Village Option recommendations to
see if greater specificity was possible.
A meeting was held in the Planning Conference Room on April 7 to
review the following Village Option recommendations developed by
the Planning Group at meetings on August 22 and September 19, 1996:
1. Limit Village Proper to higher and intermediate intensity areas;
2. Commercial cannot be visible from road;
3. Village Green must be surrounded on four sides by Village Proper;
4. Village Proper shall be surrounded on four sides by the Village
Conservancy;
5. Buildings should be permitted to front to pedestrian access with
streets/alleys in rear;
6. Lower the maximum Village Proper from 100 acres to 50 acres;
7. Increase the required open space to 50%.
Only four Planning Group members were in attendance,but they were
all residents of the area who had been active in the process from the
beginning. They also represented a broad cross section of landowner
opinion regarding the small area plan and implementation strategies.
Staff pointed out that items l and 6 had been included in the proposed
plan and ordinance amendments presented at public hearing. Upon
further discussion,it was group consensus that items 2,3,4,and 5 were
either addressed adequately by the existing Flexible Development
standards or that the incorporation into ordinance requirements might
otherwise limit the ability to incorporate certain desirable features,e.g.,
scenic views,in a village development. There was some
misunderstanding regarding the status of item 7 and staff pointed out
that it had not been included in the public hearing package due to a lack
of specificity as previously mentioned. Some disappointment was
expressed,but group consenus was to stay with the Village Option
recommendations as presented at public hearing and not recommend any
changes.
The Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Atlas,Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
Barrows asked the difference between higher density and intermediate
density as it applies to the location of bonus units. Bell responded
noting that the key word was intensity rather than density with the
difference being that density applies to zoning and refers to the number
t
14
6
of units per acre that may be placed on a site. The discussions by the
Planning Group were more on a conceptual level and the
recommendations were made consistent with the existing character of the
area. Bell continued that the intermediate areas contained 1 1/2 to 13/4
acre lots and the higher intensity areas,when public water and sewer is
available,contains 1/2 acre lots. Bell emphasized that the planning group
used the term intensity noting that density refers to specific zoning.
Zoning,in regard to this plan,was not to be an implementation tool.
Bell clarified locations for bonus units referring to the table included as
an attachment to these minutes on page . He stated that bonus units
generated in the lower intensity area could not be used there,but could be
used in the intermediate intensity or higher intensity areas;bonus units
generated in the intermediate intensity areas could be used in that area or
in the higher intensity areas;and bonus units generated in the higher
intensity areas could only be used in that area.
Searles asked about the mechanism for the transfer of bonus units and did
they have to be in the same ownership. Bell responded that they would
not have to be same ownership. He stated that it is in the flexible
development provisions that allow a density bonus for preserving open
space either on-site or off-site such as a conservation easement.
Price stated that it was a way of moving the intensity around and not
concentrating it in one area having built-in controls and spreading the
development out.
Strayhorn expressed appreciation for the patience of Bell noting that it
had been a long,tedious process. He continued that something has to be
done to assure those who are willing to live on the land and hold it as
open space that they are not losing tremendous value over those who are
developing property.
Bell noted that,hopefully, this item will be presented to the Board of
Commissioners at their June 2, 1997 meeting.
MOTION: Allison moved approval as presented by the Planning Staff at public
hearing. Seconded by Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM#10: MATTERS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC HEARING 5/27/97
Presentation of all public hearing items by Mary Willis and abstract
information an attachment to these minutes on pages
a. Special Use Permits
(1)SUP(A)-4-97 Local Government Employees Credit Union