Motion by Member Nathan Watkins, Second by Member Randall Limbach Member Fickett noted two misspellings in the meeting minutes, which were noted by staff. These changes were subsequently corrected prior to finalization of the minutes.

Vote: 6 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Member Gerry Gonzalez 
Case planner Taylor provided a staff presentation, which is preserved in the files. Applicant Mohamad Hodai, who was present at the meeting, offered to answer any questions posed by the commission.

Commission discussion: There were no specific questions posed to staff or the applicant.

Staff recommended forwarding a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Jim Martzke, Second by Member Gerry Gonzalez Case planner Taylor provided a staff presentation, which is preserved in the files. Applicant Clinton Gray, who was present at the meeting, provided an applicant's statement. Joe Scelso, an adjacent property owner, spoke in favor of the request, stating veterinary services were needed in the area.

Commission discussion: Chair DePew commented that the request seemed like a perfect fit.

Staff recommended forwarding a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Jim Martzke, Second by Member Randall Limbach Case planner Taylor provided a staff presentation, which is preserved in the files. Applicant Charles Blevins, who was present at the meeting, provided an applicant's statement. There was no one else present to speak for or against the item.

Commission discussion: Chair DePew asked case planner Taylor to comment on the potential impact of the request on the land use pattern. Case planner Taylor explained this will impact the development standards. However, because a residential project is proposed, the impact will be minimal. Also, this area will be examined further during the Comprehensive Plan update. Chair DePew noted that all changes from residential to rural zoning also add additional premitted uses. Member Watkins asked whether the county had a residential zoning with a minimum lot size of 4-acres. Case planner Taylor responded that the county did have such a designation, called SR-174. However, Case Planner Taylor noted that most downzoning applicants prefer to request rural zoning and mentioned that the commission could condition only residential development to the rezoning. Chair DePew suggested that staff note that the northeastern portion of the area may be better suited for category D land use.

Staff recommended forwarding a recommendation of approval for CPA 23-04 and RZ23-23 to the Board of Supervisors.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved