Loading...
05-27-2003 PC MIN e e e MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, May 27,2003 Members Present: Chair Pederson, Commissioners Franz, Jenson, Lemke, Offerman and Ropp Members Absent: Commissioner Anderson Staff Present: Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Chris Leeseberg, Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 1. Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Pederson. 2. Consider 5/27103 Planning Commission Agenda COMMISSIONER JENSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 27,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3. Consider 4/2203 Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 22,2003, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER JENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 4. Planning Commission Representative to Attend June 16. 2003 City Council Meeting Commissioner Franz will attend the June 16, 2003 City Council meeting. 5.1. Request by James and Stephanie Zaczkowski for Preliminary Plat Approval (Kingdom Estates). Public Hearing - Case No. P 03-02 Staff report by Chris Leeseberg. James and Stephanie Zaczkowski request preliminary plat approval to subdivide 77 acres containing 2 existing homes into 7 lots. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed the location and layout of the plat, lot sizes, access issues, and park dedication recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the request with the 7 conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Pederson stated that he received a call from a resident who had concerns regarding the curve on County Road 33 and the additional traffic the plat would create. Chair Pederson noted that the County has identified this roadway as an urban collector and is designed to handle the additional traffic. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 2 Planner Chris Leeseberg stated that he spoke with a resident with concerns regarding the possibility of the detention pond overflowing. He noted that City Engineer T eny Maurer has stated that a culvert will be installed to prevent the pond from overflowing. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Ed Crawford, 10401 209th Avenue, property owner to the east of the proposed plat, asked if a turn lane would be required, and if so, how long it would be and when it would be constructed. Mr. Crawford stated that he was concerned that cars would end up near his home if a driver went off the road. Chair Pederson stated that the turn lane would be constructed when the plat was developed. Mr. Harlicker stated that turn lanes are typically constructed within the County right-of-way and should not impact Mr. Crawford's property. Jim Brown, representing the applicant, explained that the County may not require a turn lane with the revised design. Chair Pederson reviewed the County's recommendations in the letter dated March 4, 2003, regarding relocation of the neighbors' driveways to the east. Mr. Brown stated that based on recent conversations with the County, this condition may not be required until Phase 2. Mr. Harlicker noted that the City typically accepts the County's requirements. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Chair Pederson asked what would happen if Mr. Crawford did not agree to having his driveway relocated. Mr. Harlicker stated that the City Council will not give their approval until all conditions are met. Commissioner Offerman asked for clarification on Item #4 in the City Engineer's memo regarding the the .02-acre parcel near the intersection with County Road 33. Mr. Brown stated that this item will be clarified before final plat review. Commissioner Lemke stated that since Mr. Crawford's house was approximately 300 feet from the proposed Olson Street, the turn lane would be tapered away by the time it reached the Crawfords' house and they should not be impacted. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY JAMES AND STEPHANIE ZACZKOWSKI FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (KINGDOM ESTATES), CASE NO. P 03-02, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ADDRESSED, AND SPECIFICALLY, THAT ITEM #4 BE ClARIFIED REGARDING THE .02-ACRE UNIDENTIFIED PARCEL NEAR THE INTERSECTION WITH COUNTY ROAD 33. 2. ALL COMMENTS OF SHERBURNE COUNTY SHALL BE ADDRESSED. 3. A SEALCOAT FEE SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 4. A LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF 100% OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING. 5. THE APPLICANT SHALL EXECUTE A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT OUTLINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 3 6. PARK DEDICATION SHALL BE IN CASH FOR FIVE LOTS. 7. THE PLAT SHALL COMPLY WITH THEA1 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.2. Request by Lisa Shields- Ergen for a Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Montessori School Staff report by Chris Leeseberg. Lisa Shields-Ergen requests a conditional use permit to operate a Montessori School at 508 Freeport Avenue (Lot 5, Block 1 Elk River Plaza 2nd Addition). Mr. Leeseberg reviewed the site conditions, parking and circulation, staffing, number of students, and hours of operation. Staff recommends approval of the request with the six conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Jenson questioned why Condition #2 stated a maximum of 55 students, when the applicant states she will have 45 students. Mr. Leeseberg stated that a limit of 55 students would allow some growth. Chair Pederson asked if the applicant was willing to provide the striping of the crosswalk. Ms. Shields-Ergen stated that the State of Minnesota does not require striping. She stated that she plans to use cones and signage to designate the walkway from the school to the play area. Chair Pederson stated that this requirement was made for another school of this type. Ms. Shields- Ergen stated that since speaking with the owner of the Karate Studio she feels that the parking will be adequate for the last hour of the school day. She noted that employees of the businesses have been parking in the front and will now be required to park in the back of the building, which will provide more customer parking. Commissioner Jenson stated that he feels the location of the playground area is a poor choice and that he is not comfortable with the students crossing a parking lot to access the playground. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY LISA SHIELDS-ERGEN FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A MONTESSORI SCHOOL, CASE NO. CU 03-13 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. IF MORE THAN A TOTAL OF 10 EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE ON SITE, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FORAN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 2. IF MORE THAN A TOTAL OF 55 STUDENTS ARE TO BE ENROLLED, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FORAN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 3. IF THE LOCATION OF THE PLAY AREA IS MOVED, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FORAN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 4. CLIENTS SHALL ABIDE BY THE DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP SCHEDULE SET BY THE OPERATOR. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 4 5. PAVEMENT MARKINGS, CONES SIGNAGE ANNOUNCING CHILDREN CROSSING. 6. MAINTAIN STATE LICENSE. COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1. Commissioner Jenson opposed. 5.3. Request by Trails End Holdings - Elk River, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit for Auto Parts Store, Public Hearing - Case No. CO 03-12 Staff report by Senior Planner, Scott Harlicker. Trails End Holdings requests a conditional use permit for a 7,000 square foot auto parts store. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the standards for issuance of a conditional use permit, parking and circulation, building elevations, landscaping requirements, signage and design standards required in the Planned Unit Development agreement. Mr. Harlicker noted that staff has not had an opportunity to review the revised building elevations, but that the applicant is present to provide this information for the Commissioner's review tonight. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Paul Barrett, representing the applicant, reviewed the revised building design and provided samples of the building materials. Mr. Barrett reviewed the changes made in the site plan to address staff's concerns regarding the location of the dumpster, drive lane location, and landscaping. Mr. Harlicker asked how deep the breaks were in the elevations on the north and south sides of the building. Mr. Barrett stated that there were 4" breaks. Mr. Harlicker stated that the ordinance requires that the wall projection or recess should be a depth of approximately 3% of the length of the uninterrupted building length. Chair Pederson asked if the trim color could be bronze instead of red. Mr. Barrett explained that the red was only used on the window frames. Commissioner Ropp asked if the red was used on the side facing Highway 169 also. Mr. Barrett stated no. Commissioner Franz asked for clarification on the building signage. Mr. Barrett stated that it appears to be individual letters, but the letters are actually mounted on a track. Commissioner Ropp asked if the applicant would be able to meet the 3% break in elevation requirement. Mr. Barrett stated that he would need to see how this change would affect the floor plan. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Franz stated that he was not comfortable with the changes that have been made and would like to allow staff more time to review. Senior Planner Scott Harlicker stated that he is comfortable with the changes to the site plan, noting that the Planned Unit Development standards were meant to be flexible. Chair Pederson stated that standards, which are quantified, such as the break in elevation requirement, should be enforced. Chair Pederson stated that he felt the revised plan is a significant improvement. Commissioner Offerman stated that he would like to see more architectural detail and felt the design was rather plain for such a highly visible site. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2003 Page 5 Mr. Barrett stated that he felt they could work with staff on the issue of the side elevations if the Conunission moved the application on to the City Council. Conunissioner Jenson asked what the distance was between the back of the building and Highway 169. Mr. Harlicker stated that he did not know the exact distance, but that it is consistent with the existing buildings. Conunissioner Franz stated that he agreed with Conunissioner Offerman that the building does not reflect the character elements they are seeking. He felt that the request should be tabled to allow the applicant time to find a better solution to meet the intent of the PUD design standards. Conunissioner Jenson concurred and stated that he felt the Conunission would like to see the final design before making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Harlicker asked what elements the Conunission is looking for. Conunissioner Jenson stated that he would like to see more windows. Conunissioner Franz suggested awnings, and some type of lighting to break up the elevation. Conunissioner Franz stated that he also felt the current design appeared to simplistic. Conunissioner Offerman suggested that there should be more combinations of architectural details on the fa~ade of the building. COMMISSIONER JENSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE REQUEST BE TABLED TO THE JUNE 10,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING. COMMISSIONER FRANZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO EXTEND THE 60-DAY TIME PERIOD FOR ACTING ON AN APPLICATION TO AUGUST 26,2003. COMMISSIONER JENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.4. Request by S1M Development for a Multi-Tenant Building. Public Hearing - Case No. CO 03-11 Staff report by Chris Leeseberg. S1M Development request a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an 7,950 square foot multi-tenant retail building (Lot 2, Block 1 Elk River Crossing 4th Addition). Mr. Leeseberg reviewed the building design, landscaping, parking and circulation. He noted that the City Engineer has recommended that the driveway be moved further south to provide adequate spacing between access points and provide better access to the existing lift station. Staff recommends tabling the request in order to address the three issues listed in the staff report. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Russ McGinty, representing the applicant, stated that the original plan submitted was similar to the Panera Bread building with some differences. The revised plan has different articulations and a different look. He reviewed the new design for the Conunission, and noted that some type of "chain diner" will be a tenant in the building. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2003 Page 6 Chair Pederson stated that he preferred the original design and did not feel there was anything wrong with the buildings looking similar. He felt the original design blended in better and that he liked the floor-to-ceiling windows versus the knee-walls shown in the second design. Commissioner Jenson concurred, stating that he also felt the original design blended well and that a change in the color may be enough to make a distinction between this building and the Panera Bread site. Chair Pederson agreed that moving the driveway makes sense. Commissioner Franz concurred. He stated that he felt the original design is in compliance with the design standards and felt that requiring a different color would be adequate to address the duplication in design to the Panera Bread site. He did not support tabling the request. Chair Pederson asked if the PUD design standards prohibited duplication of a building design. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the standards do not specifically prohibit duplication. Commissioner Ropp stated that he felt that color has a significant visual impact and that alone may be enough to distinguish one building from another. Commissioner Offerman concurred. There being no public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY STM DEVELOPMENT FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CASE NO. CU 03-11 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE BUILDING FA<;AI)E AND TRIM COLORS SHALL VARY FROM THE ADJACENT MULTI-TENANT BUILDINGS AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 2. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGIENER SHALL BE ADDRESSED. COMMISSIONER LEMKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.5. Request by S & Z Investments. Inc. for Rezoning of Certain Property from R1c Single Family Residential to R3 Townhouse/Multiple-Family Residential. Public Hearing - Case No. ZC 03-03 5.6. Request by S & Z Investments. Inc for Preliminary Plat Approval (West Oaks). Public Hearing - Case No. P 03-04 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the rezoning request, proposed density of the plat, layout of the streets and lots, parking, wedands, tree preservation, park dedication, and landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the zone change and preliminary plat with the findings and conditions oudined in the staff report. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. George Sanford, representing S&Z Investments, applicant, stated that he and his partner, Mike Ziegler, have owned the subject property since July of 1994. They requested city sewer and water and have been paying on the $25,000 in assessments. Mr.. Sanford . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2003 Page 7 stated that he felt the development was a good transition between the businesses along Highway 10 and the single family residential. He explained that the townhome association would maintain the wedands. Mr. Sanford discussed the connection of the road with Big Lake Township, where trees would be preserved and additional trees planted, and the location of the proposed park He indicated where sidewalks would be installed. Judy Thompson, 14122 182nd Avenue, stated that it was her understanding that the Gty placed a moratorium on townhomes because there were too many being built. She stated that she did not feel that density of this plat created a transition between the single family and highway. She asked how many single-family homes are included in the plat. Mr. Harlicker stated that there are 15 single-family homes proposed along the southern boundary of the plat. Ms. Thompson asked that the Planning Commission deny the plat. ?? Kelly Barry, 14415183rdth Avenue, stated that she did not receive a notice of the public hearing. He stated that he owns the property to the west from 183rd to the south end of the proposed plat. She expressed concerns with the impact on wedands and the high water table. She asked the Commission to deny the plat. Mark Fuslet, 182nd Avenue, stated that he moved to Elk River 1 ~ years ago to get away from the city. He stated that he felt it is mandatory to show a need for additional housing in order to approve a zone change to multiple family. He stated that the public has not been shown what type of townhomes will be built. He felt there doesn't appear to be a need for this type of housing and asked that the Planning Commission deny the request. Tom Warner, 14189145th Street, Big Lake Township, stated the he asked Big Lake Township if they were aware of this plat and was told they were not aware. He explained Mr. Warner stated that this plat could potentially be dumping up to 300 vehicles a day onto their rural Big Lake Township road. He was aware the township wanted the road to be connected for fire access. Mr. Warner stated that when the frontage road along Highway 10 is connected, a large amount of traffic would end up on their rural township road. He stated that the road is narrow and not designed to handle the additional traffic, and that residents would end up being assessed for improvements. A petition signed by the residents of Royal Oaks Estates will be presented to Big Lake Township Board on Wednesday, May 28th, requesting that the Board not allow extension of the road, stating that the does not benefit the residents, and asking for the use of knock-down barriers to provide emergency access. The residents feel that if the street is connected, the Gty of Elk River should pay for the cost of the improvements to their road in Big Lake Township, as well as providing a pedestrian pathway. Mr. Warner noted that the Big Lake Township residents were not notified of the public hearing until Saturday, May 24th. Heath Peterson, 18285 Yankton Street, asked if a berm was being proposed as in the first plat proposal. Mr. Sanford stated that no berm is being proposed and that the buffer of trees on the southern boundary of the plat will be left instead. Mr. Peterson asked what the price range would be for the townhomes. He expressed his concern for the additional traffic this plat would create. Mabel Schultz, 14494 County Road 30, Big Lake Township, stated that she did not receive her notice of the public hearing until Saturday, May 24m. She stated she did not feel the proposed plat fits in the rural residential setting. She stated that her family owns 80 acres and is zoned agricultural. Ms. Schultz expressed concerns regarding tree loss, runoff, the impact on existing wells, increased traffic, and the potential for snowmobiles and 4-wheelers coming onto their property. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Sanford stated that Big Lake Township requested that he bring in a design to connect the plat with the street in the township, and after review by the Road Committee, directed him to connect the streets. Tom Warner, 14189 145th Street, stated that the residents will meet with the Township Board at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday. He felt that the traffic issue is critical and that the City of Elk River should be liable for upgrading the township road. Mr. Sanford that the single-family homes will be in the $250,000 range. He explained that the townhomes would be done in phases. He stated that a portion of the property south of the wetlands is high enough to allow basements. Pricing of the townhomes will range from $200,000 - $250,000. He noted that the units closer to Highway 10 would be priced somewhat lower. Mr. Sanford stated that if the State Transportation Plan moves forward, the service road along Highway 10 would be extended. He felt that a majority of the traffic would use the service road and not the road within the plat leading Royal Oaks Estates. Commissioner Ropp stated that based on conversations with the City and the Township, knock-down barricades can create maintenance issues. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Franz asked where the frontage road would go if it was extended west. Mr. Harlicker stated that eventually the frontage road would connect with County Road 14 in Big Lake Township. Chair Pederson asked how many single family homes could be constructed on this property if it were not rezoned. Mr. Sanford stated that approximately 75 - 85 homes could be constructed. Commissioner Offerman stated that he was concerned about the impact on Big Lake Township residents. Mr. Harlicker stated that the City has a letter on file from Big Lake Township requesting that the roads be connected. Chair Pederson stated that he does not feel the area is rural residential any longer, given the Commercial area to the north, the Business and Commercial to the east, and the potential for further Commercial/Business Park development along the Highway 10 corridor. He stated that he feels the frontage road will eventually be extended. Chair Pederson stated that 85 single family homes if the current zoning were to remain in place is a significant amount. He stated that he felt the proposed project is a significant improvement over the first proposal. He stated that design standards are in place to regulate the townhomes. He noted that the townhome association will monitor the wetlands, and no monitoring would be done if the property were developed as traditional single family. He stated that the property value of the adjacent properties would actually go up, not down. Commissioner Ropp stated that he had concerns regarding the affect on adjacent land uses. He felt that the residents were not concerned about property values and rather, that they were concerned with maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. Commissioner Lemke stated that he would need further information regarding whether or not the project would adversely impact the surrounding land uses. He asked if Mr. Sanford felt the future residents of the plat would use 183rd Avenue as a cut-through to Big Lake. . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2003 Page 9 Mr. Sanford stated that it would be a much shorter trip to Elk River, and that there is a maintenance issue with the knock-down barricades. He stated that he would have to wait and see what happened at the Big Lake Township meeting. Commissioner Franz stated based on the City's Comprehensive Plan, the area is designated for medium density resident, and that this request is for medium density. He felt that the break -away barriers may be a compromise. Commissioner Offerman agreed that the request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He did not feel the Commission has enough information to make a decision, since they know very- little about the property to the west in Big Lake Township. He stated that he felt it is important to know what is going on in other townships with issues that are adjacent to the City of Elk River, and would assume that they would want the same. Commissioner Franz asked when the public hearing notices were mailed out. Debbie Huebner, Administrative Planning Assistant, explained that residents were mailed out to Elk River property owners within 350 feet of the subject property 10 days prior to the hearing date. She stated that on Friday, May 23 she became aware that property owners in Big Lake Township within 350 feet of the project were not included on the property owner list and labels, which the applicant obtained from Sherburne County. Upon checking with the County, she learned that the Auditor/Treasurer's office no longer provides property owner information outside the City of Elk River city limits, and that applicants must take the responsibility of going to a particular bordering township to obtain a property owner list and labels. Subsequently, staff obtained a list of property addresses from the previous application file and notices were then sent to those Big Lake property owners on that same Friday afternoon. COMMISSIONER LEMKE MOVED TO TABLE THE REQUESTS BY S & Z INVESTMENTS, INC. FORA REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO JUNE 24, 2003 IN ORDER TO OBTAIN FURTHER INFORMATION FROM BIG LAKE TOWNSHIP, AND ALSO TO EXTEND THE 60 DAY TIME PERIOD FOR ACTING ON THE REQUEST TO AUGUST 26, 2003. COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1. Commissioner Franz opposed. 5.7. Request by the City of Elk River to Rezone Certain Property from R1e Single Family Residential to R1c and R1d Single Family Residential. Public Hearing - Case No. ZC 03-01 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the history- of R1e Zoning District and reasons for the proposed changes. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR A REZONING FROM R1E TO R1CAND R1D, CASE NO. ZC 03-01. COMMISSIONER]ENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Planning Commission Minutes May 27,2003 Page 10 e 5.8. Request by the City of Elk River for art Ordinance Amendment. Section 30-796 Regarding Fences. Public Hearing - Case No. OA 03-04 Staff report by Chris Leeseberg. The City of Elk River request an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance to revise the language regarding fences. Staff recommends approval of the amendment as presented. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FORAN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING FENCES, CASE NO. OA 03-04. COMMISSIONER JENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on May 19. 2003 City Council Meeting Commissioner Anderson provided an update on the May 19, 2003 City Council meetmg. 6.2. Special Meeting Dates e COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING DATES OF JULY 17 AND JULY 31, 2003. COMMISSIONER ROPP SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Chair Pederson noted that he would be unable to attend the July 31, 2003 meeting. 8. Adiournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, IJ~~ Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary e