Loading...
11-25-1986 PC MIN . . 3. . UUUI,Al\ MlillTINU OJ 'fiUi: ILl< RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION MILD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY NOVEMBER 25. 1986 Members Present: Chairman Wilson. Commissioners Kropuenske. Fuchs. Temple. Morton. and Kimball Members Absent: Commissioner Barrett Staff Present: Stephen Rohlf. Building & Zoning Administrator 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilson. 2. Agenda Item 13 se1ec tion its place. Discussion with Mayor Elect Estelle Gunkel was deleted. and of Growth Management Task Force Representative was inserted in COMMISSIONER FUCHS MOVED APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 25. 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. OCTOBER 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6. Item 5. last paragraph. should read Mr. Pat "McCabe". COMMISSIONER TEMPLE MOVED APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 28, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER FUCHS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. 4. Variance Request by Oak Crest Partnership/Public Hearing Chairman Wilson introduced the request of Oak Crest Partnership for a 5 foot encroachment on the 10 foot rear setback for a garage in an R4 district. and also a 3 foot encroachment on the 5 foot side yard setback for the same garage. Chairman Wilson explained that the rear yard setback encroachment is requested in order to keep the garage on Parcel C in line with the garage on Parcel B. Lot 10. Block 4. Auditor's Subdivision No. 5. which is also only 5 feet from the lot line. Mr. Rohlf stated that this setback was missed by staff during inspection of the garage on Parcel B. Mr. Rohlf noted that he was informed the developer own the property to the north of the garages so that if the variance is denied. 5 feet could be added to the parcel to create the proper setback. With this in mind. Mr. Rohlf. stated that he did allow the developer to pour the slab for the garage. . . . PAGE 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 25. 1986 Chairman Wilson questioned whether or not any additional variances would be needed for future development of the adjourning property. Mr. Rohlf stated that there is room for one more garage on Parcel A. so another variance would probably be requested for that parcel. Mr. Rohlf stated that the 3 foot side yard setback encroachment resulted when the developer misread the surveying stakes and placed the slab for the garage on the north side of Parcel C two feet from the property line between Parcel C and B. Chairman Wilson opposition of hearing. opened the public hearing. No one appeared for or in the variance request. Chairman Wilson closed the public COMMISSIONER FUCHS MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE 5 FOOT REAR YARD ENCROACHMENT AND THAT 5 FEET OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY BE ADDED TO MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK. COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6'""0. COMMISSIONER FUCHS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR A 3 rOOT SIDB YAlW BNCROACHMlNT. WI'l'R 'l'RE STIPULATION THAT A ONE HOUR FIRE WALL BE PLACED ON THE END' OF THE GARAGE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION.' THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. Mr. Rohlf questioned the reason for denial of the 5 foot rear yard encroachment. Commissioner Kropuenske stated that if the 5 feet is added to the property it will eliminate the need for any additional variances in the future. Commissioner Fuchs stated that if a mistake was made once. there is no reason to make a second one. 5. Conditional Use Permit Request by Oak Crest Partnership/Public Hearing Chairman Wilson introduced this request for a conditional use permit to allow a metal skinned garage in an R-4 district. Chairman Wilson stated that the City Council made these structures a conditional use to gain some control over their use in residential settings. He stated that there was a great deal of concern when the existing metal skinned garages were put up by the petitioner. mainly because of the galvanized roofs. Mr. Rohlf stated that he allowed the slab to be poured since it could be used for either a metal-skinned or wooden structure. Chairman Wilson opened the public heaing. Mrs. Bernie Pipenhagen of 326 Gates stated that this is a prime building area and that she objects to the buildings that look like pole barns to be constructed. She stated that in three to four years this type of building will not look very accommodating and will be degrading to the area. PAGE 3 . Planning Commission Minutes November 25. 1986 Chairman Wilson asked Mrs. Pipenhagen what she would consider acceptable. Mrs. Pipenhagen stated that a nice building with a brick front. such as the Kreusers build would be appropriate. not a metal skinned building that will be run into by garbage trucks and residents. The developer. Mr. Wojtanowicz stated that it would be difficult to put fourteen garages. 10 feet wide with 9 foot doors in a row and have room to put brick fronts on them. He stated that wood rots and paint deteriorates. requiring more maintenance than the colored steel he plans to use. Chairman Wilson explained that the metal skinned buildings in R4 districts were made a conditional use. so that the City would have the authority to either deny a request or to approve it and be able to set conditions to make the structure compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Harry Kreuser. property owner on Gates Avenue. expressed his concern that if the Planning Commission were to approve this request. they would be setting a precedent. and then he or anyone else in the area should be able to do the same. . Commissioner Temple stated that it was her understanding that when the property was rezoned. that the density would not be increased significantly. She expressed her concern that there will be very little green space left when the property is fully developed. She also expressed her concern that it also was her understanding that there was a natural buffer there. the peat bog. and how did it happen that the density became so intense. Mr. Rohlf stated that there is no buffer there. that the peat bog is north of Al Hopper's property. He further stated that there is no site plan required for an administrative subdivision. He noted that the City cannot make a zone change with condiions that such-a-such type of use be placed on a property and that anything allowed in that zone can be put there. Mr. Al Hopper. 402 Gates. expressed his opposition to the metal skinned building and agreed with Mrs. Pipenhagen's comment that the present buildings look like pole barns. Mr. Hopper stated that he also agreed with Mr. Kreuser's comment that if the developer. is allowed to put in this type of building. they must allow others to do the same. . Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Hopper what he would consider appropriate construction for the type of building proposed. Mr. Hopper stated that a wood construction building with a shingled roof would be far superior to that which is being proposed. Chairman Wilson questioned what kind of control the City would have to ensure that a wooden structure is maintained. such as repainting or replacing siding? . . . PAGE 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 1986 Mr. Rohlf stated that maintence would be difficult to enforce unless it was to the point that it fell under the nuisance ordinance. Mr. Harry Kreuser stated that he felt the biggest distraction was the roof, that if it would have been shingled and had a decent overhang, the steel buildings would not have been so objectional. He also expressed his concern as a member of the fire department, that the garages and buildings are too close together and that there wouldn't be room to get a fire truck in there if needed. Mr. Rohlf stated that he has met with the Fire Chief, Russ Anderson and has agreed to 40 feet from building to garage and 30 feet from garage to parking areas. Mr. Pipenhagen expressed her concern as to why the metal skinned buildings are permitted as a conditional use at all. Chairman Wilson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Morton stated that objections to the metal skinned, metal roof buildings also came from the nursing home and the high rise residents. He stated that he felt the neighborhood in general was of high quality. Commissioner Morton expressed his opposition to the conditional use permit for two reasons; (1) they would be setting a precedent for this type of construction in the area, and (2) he feels it is the citys intent to attract high quality development in this area. Commissioner Fuchs expressed his opposition to the request. Chairman Wilson questioned why the use was made a conditional use and not just left out altogether as an allowable use. Mr. Rohlf stated that the Council determined that there should be some flexibility so that the use could be allowed with conditions, such as a shingled roof or brick veneer. Commissioner Kropuenske expressed his opposition to the request, based on the appearance of the existing structures. Discussion was carried on regarding metal skinned buildings in other zones, how the metal skinned structures were allowed to be built, and screening of trash receptic1es. Mr. Rohlf stated that metal skinned buildings are not allowed in R1-C and R1-B districts. in R1-A and A-1, they are required to have a 300 foot setback from neighboring residences and are a conditona1 use in platted areas in the R1-A and A-1 zones. Mr. Rohlf also stated that the existing metal skin building on Parcel B was allowed because at that time, there was nothing in the ordinance saying that they weren't allowed. Mr. Rohlf explained that the City ordinance does not give them authority to require a locked gate on trash receptic1es. . . . PAGE 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 25. 1986 COMMISSIONER MORTON MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY OAK CREST PARTNERSHIP FOR A METAL-SIGNNED STRUCTURE IN A 1\=4 ZONED DISTRICT. COMMISSIONER TEMPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. ~I V~fi~ne@ 1\cquc.t by Joseph Bistodeau/Public Hearing Chairman Wilson stated that Mr. Joseph Bistodeau has requested a 10 foot . encroachment on the 20 foot side yard setback required in an R1-B district to accommodate a garage. Mr. Bistodeau stated that he planned to build an unattached garage and turn his present attached garage into living quarters. Mr. Bistodeau explained that the variance was necessary because of his lot configuration. which was pie-shaped (92 feet wide at the front and 400 feet at the rear). and also because of the location of his drainfield. He also explained that his closest neighbor has an unattached garage behind his house. and has not expressed any concern regarding his plans. Mr. Rohlf stated that staff has no particular problems with this request. Chairman Wilson opened the pulbic hearing. No one appeared for or in opposition of the variance request. Chairman Wilson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KIMBALL MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 10 FOOT ENCROACHMENT ON THE 20 FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST BY JOSEPH BISTODEAU. COMMISSIONER. KROPUENSKE . SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. 7. Zone Change Request by Lyle Talbot/Public Hearing Chairman Wilson stated that Mr. Lyle Talbot of Dayton, Minnesota has requested a zone change for property he owns which is located east of the Burlington Northern right-of-way adjacent to the Industrial Park and north of County Road #1. He explained that the property is currently zoned R1-B residential and Mr. Talbot is requesting that it be changed to I-1 light industrial. Mr. Jerry Hofmeister of Century 21 representing Mr. Talbot, explained their request. Chairman Wilson questioned what the zoning of the adjacent property is. Mr. Rohlf stated that it was I-1 to the south and Rl-A on the other three sides. Chairman Wilson requested that staff write in the zoning of adjacent properties on the maps provided with future zone change requests. . . . PAGE 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 1986 Mr. Rohlf stated that staff does not have a recommendation either for or against this request. he noted that reasons in favor of the zone change would be increased tax base, value of industrial property, and also, that the land use map shows light industrial as being planned for this area in the future. Mr. Rohlf also noted reasons for objection to the zone change. He stated that often it is hard to find buffers for industrial uses adj acent to residential uses in this area, County Road-n would- act as a buffer if the property in question were to remain residential. Chairman Wilson stated that he agreed County Road #1 would be a good natural buffer, but that he was not sure the property was appropriate for residential and may be better suited for industrial use. Chairman Wilson questioned the size of Mr. Talbot's property. Mr. Jerry Hofmeister stated that the property was 5.75 acres. Discussion question. Road 111 up was carried on regarding the exact location of the property in Mr. Rohlf stated that this piece of property runs from County to the dirt road, 193rd Avenue. Commissioner Temple expressed her concern for what may be planned for the adjacent properties. since the zoning is residential. Chairman Wilson opened the public hearing. Mr. Bob Jacobs stated that he and his wife owned property in the area and that he was concerned what kind of use is being proposed if the zone change to light industrial is approved. He also expressed his opposition to the zone change. Mr. Rohlf stated the uses that would be allowed in the 1-1 light industrial zone. Discussion who would notices. was carried on regarding the type of business being proposed. own the business. type of structure. and the public hearing Mr. Bill Brady. property owner to the north of the subject property, expressed his objection to the proposed zone change. He stated that this same issue has come up at least once before and he feels there is a need for stability in zoning. He stated that although there are no houses in the immediate area that doesn't mean there won't be any in the future. Mr. Brady further stated that there are plenty of industrial sites available in the industrial park that should be developed first. Chairman Wilson closed the public hearing. Mr. Rohlf stated that it was correct that there is industrial property available both in the Elk River Industrial Park and the McChesney Industrial Park. He also stated that the City has recently given preliminary plat approval for the "Rail 10" project which consists of seven one-acre industrial lots. . . . PAGE 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 25. 1986 Commissioner Temple expressed her agreement that County Road #1 makes a good natural buffer and that she feels the City should be concerned about developing the industrial property that currently exists before rezoning residential property to industrial. Chairman not be area. Wilson stated that he felt the access off County Road #1 would good for residential because of the high traffic speeds in that Commissioner Temple suggested that 193rd Avenue could be used to access the area. Commissioner Fuchs agreed that County Road #1 would be a good dividing line between residential and industrial. COMMISSIONER FUCHS MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY MR. LYLE TALBOT. COMMISSIONER. KIMBALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 5-1. CHAIRMAN WILSON OPPOSED. 8. Zone Change Request by Ronald and Myra Werner/Public Hearing Wilson explained that Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Werner of 210 Main are requesting a zone change for the northern one-half of their located at the north western corner of the intersection of #169 and Main Street. Chairman Wilson stated that the southern zoned C3-A highway commercial and they wish to change the half from its current R4 zone to C3-A also. Chairman Street property Highway ha1 f is northern Mr. Gi1 Darkenwa1d. representing the Werners stated that the Werners have a buyer for the property. but that in order to consumate the deal before the end of the year. they need to have the whole piece with one zoning c1assifiction. the C3-A. Mr. Rohlf noted that if the zone change is approved. the land use map should be amended to reflect the change. Discussion was carried on regarding zoning of commercial property adjacent to the Guardian Angels property. Mr. Darkenwa1d stated that he has met with Carol Mills. representative for Guardian Angels. who stated that she would inform the board of directors of the proposed zone change and would let them know if there were any objections. Mr. darkenwo1d stated that he has not been contacted. so he assumes there are no obj ections. Chairman Wilson opened the public hearing. No one appeared for or in opposition of the zone change request. Chairman Wilson closed the public hearing. . . . PAGE 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 1986 COMMISSIONER KROPUENSKE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE rOR THE NORTH HALF OF PROPERTY OWNED BY RONALD AND MYRA WERNER LOCATED NORTH OF MAIN STREET AND WEST OF. HIGHWAY 1169 FROM R4 TO C3-A HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. COMMISSIONER TEMPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. COMMISSIONER TEMPLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE LAND USE MAP BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE ACTION OF THE PROCEEDING MOTION, CHANGING THE NORTH HALF OF PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF MAIN STREET AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 1169 FROM HR- HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TO lIB-HIGHWAY BUSINESS. COMMISSIONER MORTION SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTIN PASSED 6-0. 9. Variance Request by Larry Loken/Public Hearing Chairman Wilson explained the request of Mr. Larry Loken of 17451 Tyler Street, for the following: an 1,800 square foot variance on the 1,000 square foot maximum garage size to build a 2,800 square foot garage, a 9.5 foot encroachment on the 12 foot maximum height of a garage to build the garage 21.5 feet in total height, and also a 150 foot encroachment on the 300 foot setback required from a metal skinned building to neighboring residences. He further explained that the property is located where Tyler Street and 175th Avenue meet. Mr. Loken stated that the structure would be used primarily of the semi-trailer trucks driven by the prospective buyers, Manning but would also be used for storage of equipment such tractor, etc. for storage Mr. & Mrs. as a garden Mr. Rohlf stated that he building this large, and plans, he had the option certified design engineer. would have to see the footing design for a that if he did not feel comfortable with the of requiring that the design be approved by a Mr. Dick Anderson representing Mr. Loken, stated that the Mannings would like to store their trucks inside so that they would not have to sit outside in the yard. He further stated that the proposedbuildi.ng would be placed near wnere die existing pole Darn on an adjacent lot. Discussion was carried on regarding placement of the building in relation to the amount of space needed to turn the semi-trucks around in the yard, to avoid the need to back out onto the street. Mr. Rohlf stated that he could not recommend approval if there is not sufficient turn around room because of the hazardous traffic situation potential. Mr. Norm Lieder, neighbor of Mr. Loken, stated that he felt the use of the building should be classified as commercial. Discussion was carried on regarding the City ordinance which restricts parking of semis on public property (streets) and its failure to restrict parking in private yards and driveways. . . . PAGE 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 25. 1986 Discussion was carried on regarding placement of the proposed building on the lot. Mr. Leider expressed his concern that if he were to build a house on the five acres he owns to the east of Mr. Loken's property. the proposed building would be too close. Mr. Rohlf stated that the 300 foot setback applies to residences currently in existence. Mr. Lieder expressed his objection to this. Commissioner Fuchs questioned how large Mr. Lieder's empty lot was. Mr. Lieder stated that it was 4.85 acres. Chairman Wilson closed the public hearing . The five standards for the granting of a variance were reviewed with Mr. Loken. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that all the standards could not be met. It was also the consensus that the use proposed did not constitute a commercial use. COMMI SSIONER MORTON MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY MR. LARRY LOKEN. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (1) ALLOWABLE SETBACK. SIZE THE MAJOR LIMITATION INCURSIONS IN THE MAXIMUM AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. (2) THE POTENTIAL FOR SETTING A PRECEDENT. COMMISSIONER FUCHS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. Mr. Loken questioned what the Planning Commission would find acceptable. Commissioner Mortion stated that he was not prepared to give a definite number of feet appropriate for setbacks or height of the building. but that he felt those requested were just too excessive. 10. Shopping Center Expansion by Barthel Construction-Site Plan Review Mr. Dick Nelson. representing Mr. Ken Barthel explained the proposed 220 foot long by 250 foot wide expansion which would connect the Pamida building with the present Elk River Mall. Mr. Nelson stated that there would be a commercial area in the front of the building and a five house. (898 seat total) movie theater in the back (toward Highway #169). Mr. Nelson explained that the shopping center would not connect internally with the Pamida Store. but that there would be an outside walkway between the two shopping areas which would be covered with a canopy. Mr. Nelson further explained the parking for the proposed expansion. and noted that the total parking and drive areas for the shopping area would cover 7.55 acres. with a total of 566 parking stalls. Mr. Nelson noted that a pizza restaurant is proposed to cover approximately 25% of the front commercial area in the expansion. . . . PAGE 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 25. 1986 Mr. Rohlf reviewed the six requirements for the expansion of the shopping center as outlined in his memo to the Planning Commission dated November 20. 1986. with the following comments being noted: (1) Forty apartment units have been constructed and will be occupied by February 1. 1987. and seven single family residences have been built. Mr. Rohlf stated that he feels the intent has been met to complete the required fifty housing units and soon will exceed that amount. (2) The shopping center is 89.7% occupied and the developer has provided two letters of intent to lease space. Again. the intent for 90% occupancy has been met. (3) An easement agreement was entered into some time ago. The developer will provide the documentation for proof. (4) 7.55 acres with 566 parking stalls will be provided. (6) This requirement has been met. Staff will double check to be sure a pizza restaurant is allowed. Discussion was carried on regarding the Fire Chief's recommendation. drainage. signage. lighting and hours. Commissioner Fuchs noted that he has received a complaint that the lighting on the Pamida store which is directed to the east is too bright. COMMISSIONER KIMBALL MOVED APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN FOR THE ELK RIVER SHOPPING CENTER EXPANSION WHICH INCLUDES UP TO A FIVE HOUSE MOVIE THEATER AND FOOD RETAIL. AS PRESENTED. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THERE BE A TWENTY FOOT FIRE LANE IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. AND SUFFICIENT LOADING AREA IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. (2) THAT THE LANDSCAPING BE DONE AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. (3) THAT THE LIGHTING NOT INTERFERE WITH HIGHWAY TRAFFIC OR NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES. (4) THAT SIGNAGE BE PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGN AGREEMENT FOR THE SHOPPING CENTER. AND THAT ANY. SIGNAGE OTHER THAN ALLOWED IN THE AGREEMENT WILL REQUIRE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER KROPUENSKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. . . . PAGE 11 Planning Commission Minutes November 25. 1986 . U. ConcUtional Use Permit Request by City of Elk River/Public Hearing Chairman Wilson explained that Mr. Wes Anderson is interested in leasing the lower level of the City Hall that is presently unoccupied to operate a health club. Mr. Anderson explained the type of operation he is proposing. He stated that he is presently leasing space in Princeton and that he would like to open in Elk River because of the improved exposure. Mr. Anderson stated that he would be making the necessary repairs to make the leased area useable. Discussion was carried on regarding shower facilities. signage and parking. COMMISSIONER FUCHS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR MR. WES ANDERSON TO LOCATE A HEALTH CLUB FACILITY IN THE UNOCCUPIED LOWER LEVEL OF THE CITY HALL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS; (1) THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED SHALL BE PER THE CITY CODE. (2) THAT THE SIGNAGE SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET. IT SHALL BE FLUSH WITH THE BUILDING AND NOT PERPENDICULAR. AND SHALL NOT BE RED IN COLOR. . (3) THAT THE HOURS OF OPERATION BE FROM 9:00 AM TO 10:00 PM. (4) THAT THE FACILITY SHALL INCLUDE SHOWER/BATHROOM FACILITIES AS PER THE STATE HEAL TH CODE~ (5) THAT THE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A ONE-YEAR REVIEW. COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. 12. Discussion on November 12. 1986 RDF Motion Commissioner Temple stated that it was her understanding that approval of the RDF Conditional Use Permit would be contingent upon approval of the Solid Waste Ordinance by the City Council. Commissioner Kropuenske stated that as makerof the motion. it was not his intent to tie the two issues together and that each motion should stand independently. although related. It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that the Solid Waste Ordinance should be adopted and the Conditional Use Permit for the RDF facility should be independent of it. 13. Growth Management Task Force . Commissioners Fuchs and Morton agreed to serve on this committee as the Planning Commission representatives. . . . PAGE 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 1986 14. Planning Commission Representatives to attend Council December 1, 1986. Meeting on It was the consensus of the Kropuenske and Commissioner that Commissioner this meeting. Planning Commission Fuchs would attend Other Business: Discussion was carried on regarding grading of out-lots, screening of dumpsters, and parking of simi-trucks in residential neighborhoods. COMMISSIONER TEMPLE MOVED MORTION SECONDED THE MOTION. THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. THE MOTION PASSED 6~0. COMMISSIONER The meeting adjourned at 12:05 am. Respectfully submitted, ]~cJf1tt~ Jd~ Snu Deborah Kleckner Recording Secretary