Loading...
2006-01-31 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting January 31, 2006 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 31, 2006 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:30 pm. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Betlej, Dolan, Hesse and M. McManus. Those excused: Commissioner B. McManus. City Staff present were City Engineer Sue McDermott and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. Chair Lorberbaum turned over the meeting to Commissioner Betlej. Approval of November 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2006 AS PRESENTED. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #06 -01 Mittelstaedt Brothers Construction 1280 Lakeview Avenue Wetlands Permit Mr. Grittman shared a map indicating the location of 1280 Lakeview Avenue, in which the applicant is seeking a wetland permit to allow for the construction of a new single family home within the 100 -ft buffer area adjacent to Rogers Lake. Mr. Grittman explained how the home would be situated and how the grading would be done to accommodate the sloping from the building, continuing to maintain the natural flow. Staff suggested that the applicant ensure that the landscaping adjacent to the wetland is planted in a way that will create and provide for a filter from any runoff toward the lake. Mr. Grittman said the plans meet all requirements and suggests that the applicant prepare and submit a landscape plan with some measure of naturalized plantings of 25 -ft. Mr. Grittman said he would like to point out that this site was previously considered for construction where a house was able to be constructed outside of the 10 -ft. buffer area, and the present applicants are proposing a house of different design and a larger structure. It is also pointed out that with the three -car garage, it would be impossible to construct the garage without having the driveway encroach into the 100 -ft. area. Mr. Grittman said Staff recommends approval of this permit. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the proposed retaining walls will be positioned in such a way to help mitigate any runoff. Mr. Grittman said it will not change the direction of the draining as it will continue toward the lake and not affect any surrounding property. Commissioner Hesse asked why the previous application did not go forward. Mr. Grittman said the original application was for a house to replace the existing one, which had burnt down, in the existing foundation, and then decided not to pursue that plan. Commissioner Hesse asked for clarification of a "look out ". Acting Chair Betlej explained that a look out was where the ground level came up to the bottom of the windows, and how it applies to the rear of the proposed home. Planning Commission Meeting January 31, 2006 Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Grittman if he has any concerns with this application. Mr. Grittman said the most obvious case for reason for denial would be if the applicant was attempting to alter the wetland in anyway, and/or if there were a parcel adjacent to the property that may be affected by any runoff from impervious surface. Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Grittman if he recommends anything particular in regards to the landscape plan. Mr. Grittman said it is preferred to have a naturalized design and not a manicured lawn, and there are a number of species that are adjacent to the area the applicant can duplicate, and the City can offer some guidance of what will be acceptable. Acting Chair Betlej said the speed of runoff is an issue and asked if the flatter portion will deter this runoff into the lake. Mr. Grittman explained how the runoff will be directed around that flatter area. Commissioner Miller asked if the applicant will need to come back to the City if he decides to put in gutters and downspouts for building permit. Mr. Grittman said that was correct. Mr. Don Mittelstaedt, Project Manager of Mittelstaedt Construction, said a silt fence will be placed around the site during the course of construction. Mr. Mittelstaedt said Scott and Gina Norling (purchasers of the home) will most likely be in a hurry to get into the home and from a builders standpoint, during closing when ownership goes to the purchaser, there will need to be some arrangements through escrow to set aside funds for additional landscaping costs, and the landscaping would most likely occur later in the year. Commissioner Dolan referred to the applicant's letter to the City, dated December 30, 2005, which states that the Norling's have compromised on the house plan and asked what the compromise was. Mr. Mittelstaedt said one reason was to change the direction and approach of the driveway and showed on the map how the driveway is situated. Mr. Mittelstaedt said the roofline was also a challenge. Commissioner Miller asked for a start date. Mr. Mittelstaedt said they would like to start as soon as possible. Acting Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Acting Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS PRESENTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE WETLAND IS ADEQUATELY PROTECTED AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENTION OF THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT A PROPOSAL REQUIRES SILT FENCING BE PROVIDED DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS AN EXCAVATION AND LANDSCAPE PLAN BE PROVIDED SHOWING 25 -FT NATURAL BUFFER ALONG EDGE OF WETLAND. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #06 -02 Planning Commission Meeting January 31, 2006 Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Driveway Replacement and Driveway Gate Mr. Grittman reviewed a proposal for amending the zoning ordinance relating to driveway construction which include reconstruction of driveway and construction of gates. Mr. Grittman said last fall, the City has dealt with a number of requests for replacement of existing driveways that had deteriorated over time as a result of weather or wear. Applicants were proposing to replace those driveways which lead to their garages, but to get access to their garages, they needed setback variances as some garages were built too close to side property lines. Reconstruction of Driveway: Mr. Grittman said City Council and Planning Commission considered approved of a number of them, and City Council has directed Staff to draft an amendment to streamline that process as they were routinely approving these cases. The ordinance would allow for property owners to reconstruct driveways that currently violate existing setback requirements in the same location as the original driveway without the need for a variance as long as they do not further encroach into the required setback. Gates Across Driveway: Mr. Grittman said the City has previously reviewed requests for gates in driveway areas. The current zoning ordinance does not have a provision for gates and were reviewed as fences, all of which required some measure of variance for either height or setback. The current fence ordinance allows front yard fences to be no more than 3 -ft high and most of the gates requested were taller than that. The issue that came up with gates across driveways was whether or not they would adequately accommodate emergency vehicle access to the property. Staff met with the Police Department to discuss how gates might be allowed and have proposed the following amendment that would accommodate gates across driveways with a maximum height of 60 -in., but also requirements that they be no closer than 25 -ft to the paved edge of the street to allow a vehicle to pull off the roadway and wait for the gates to open. The gates would need to be reviewed by the Police Department to ensure emergency vehicles access in the event of power failures (should the gates be electronically operated). Gates must also adhere to the fencing requirements relating to openness and other construction standards. The recommended processes will alleviate the difficulty of the variance process when finding a hardship and unique conditions that relates to these requests. Mr. Grittman said Staff is recommending approval of these amendments Acting Chair asked for some feedback on the Council's perspective relating to the gates. Mr. Hollister said he thinks these driveway gates are a relatively recent phenomenon and have only seen them pop up in the last year or two. The Planning Commission recently recommended approval of a similar request at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway last year, and the Police Chief had the primary concern that those gates, when necessary, be able to admit emergency service vehicles. There are no current requirements on the books that these gates are passable by those vehicles and this requirement has been imposed on the property owner of 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway, but then it also occurred to Staff to enshrine that requirement into our ordinance. Acting Chair Betlej asked if there were any consideration to make this a conditional use permit rather than an outright allowance. Mr. Grittman said that would be possible but Staff did not set it up that way as it was felt that the applicant would meet all the requirements imposed upon them and they would be entitled to receive approval. Commissioner M. McManus asked if there were any concerns regarding the width of the driveway /gate for emergency vehicles? Mr. Grittman said the Police Department and Fire Department would establish practical standards for the ordinance, and maintain a register of the properties with gates. Commissioner Hesse said he has a concern that there are no limitations, other than the 25 -ft rule from the street, where a homeowner could put a gate across his driveway at any closeness to the home, and there may be too many gates in the community. Commissioner Hesse said he does not see the need for gates on about 95% of the homes in the city as the driveways are not long enough to justify the need for a gate. There are no requirements /conditions on the materials and type of gates allowed. Mr. Grittman said the materials would most likely match that of the existing fence. Planning Commission Meeting January 31, 2006 Commissioner Dolan said it does not appear that the City sees a lot of applications for gates. In regards to reconstruction of driveways in existing locations, the City may want to continue reviewing these cases in the chance an application is a safety hazard where it is. It would be good for the City to at lease have the ability to review and impose some conditions, and feels uncomfortable to authorize these requests without any City input, and same goes with the gates. Mr. Grittman asked if the amendments were switched to a conditional use permit process, would that cover these issues. Commissioner Dolan said that would be one way to solve it, but then the City may be defeating its purpose to streamline, although the need to find hardship for a variance would be eliminated. Mr. Grittman said it seems that the comments heard are saying the streamlining objective is less important than the ability to take a look at each application. Commissioner Dolan said the Planning Commission would most likely feel more comfortable in reviewing under the CUP and would support that. Chair Lorberbaum asked who would open gates during power failure. Mr. Grittman said this was a request by the Police Chief, that some gates with electronic closures would be designed that if the power goes out, they would still get in. Chair Lorberbaum said she wants to be more inclusive in the language to specify who would open that gate. Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to see something in the language to address building materials even if it's added to Number 5 so say "Gates shall be considered fences for the purposes of this ordinance, requiring a building permit, and subject to all other applicable fence regulations, including but not exclusive to building materials. Mr. Grittman said any concerns about grandfathering in existing conditions will most likely have to be reviewed. Acting Chair Betlej said the Planning Commission is hearing a number of comments regarding whether this might be consistent with the character of the City, or the land use objectives of the City, and he thinks it calls into question whether this (the gates) is appropriate to do without having some additional mechanism for additional reviews of projects. Acting Chair Betlej asked why Staff suggests a 5 -ft. gate while keeping the 3 -ft requirement on the fence. Mr. Grittman said the previous requests for gates gave reason to believe that 3 -ft. is not adequate to serve the purpose of the gate and it was Staff's understanding that there was an interest for a taller gate. Acting Chair Betlej said there may be some conditions imposed on the location of the gate that it must be a certain distance away from the building, probably a minimum of 15 -ft to allow for the stacking of a couple of vehicles. This would probably eliminate 98% of the situations of the city. Acting Chair Betlje said there should be a maximum width of a driveway to keep from having greater than 2 lanes of driveway, and that the City should keep to a higher standard of design on gates than that of the current fences. Acting Chair Betlej said he would be in favor of a conditional use permit. Commissioner Miller said the driveway replacement is a streamlining issue and said this would be a good idea. He believes the amendment proposed is to clarify the language in the code rather than being a streamlining issue. The CUP process should be used to give the City more power to review cases. Acting Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY ACTING CHAIR BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 31, 2006 Acting Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. Further Discussion Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to have the Planner come back with this proposal with the addition of some of the comments heard, including the conditional use permit. Mr. Grittman said he does not believe the Planning Commission is under any pressure to have this done. ACTING CHAIR BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LANGUAGE AS SUGGESTED IN THE PLANNERS REPORT FOR SECTION 12- IE -I.C.4 REGARDING DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT. Commissioner M. McManus said she seconds this motion by supporting that the City will still be able to review cases if the applicant wishes to do work above and beyond simply replacing what is already there. Commissioner Dolan said that even if there is something unique, he does not know if that would trigger a variance to require the application to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hollister said he is in favor of adoption of this provision as it is the intent of City Staff , (and the City Council is also leaning in that direction), to have the City forfeit any review of cases where there is a replacement of an existing non - conforming driveway, because there have been so many of such cases go through the process, and that the City Council is probably of the mind to let these cases go. Commissioner Hesse said the Building Inspector will probably be reviewing these cases and would be able to raise any red flags on concerns. Commissioner Dolan asked for a friendly amendment to the motion that the last sentence of the proposed amendment be reworded to eliminate the last sentence "Said replacement driveway shall not encroach farther into the required setback than the existing driveway" as this sentence is redundant. Acting Chair Betlej and Commissioner M. McManus accepted the friendly amendment. 4 AYES 2 NAYS (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioner Dolan) MOTION CARRIED ACTING CHAIR BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO TABLE DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE FENCE REGULATIONS RELATING TO DRIVEWAY GATES TO A LATER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW THE PLANNER TO INCORPORATE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND PREPARE THE LANGUAGE TO BE PRESENTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting January 31, 2006 PLANNING CASE #06 -03 Hoffman — Mendota Shore LLC Lemay Shores PUD Concept Plan Mr. Grittman reviewed the proposed PUD Concept Plan for the development of cottage -style twin homes south of the Augusta Shores development. The concept calls for 31 twin homes, and is almost identical to the Augusta Shores project which was built by the same developer Hoffman- Mendota Shore LLC. Mr. Grittman reviewed the location and layout of the project indicating the only access to Lemay Lake Road, with an emergency access to Resurrection Cemetery. There is also a walking path connecting the proposed development to August Shores. The roadway through the project is essentially one road ending in a cul -de -sac. The site is currently zoned R -1 and the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to R -1 PUD to allow for flexibility from the cul- de -sac length and lot area requirements of the Ordinance, and to allow single family attached units. From a gross acreage standpoint, the property is .91 units per acre and the gross density includes land that is currently under water. The outland density is just about 11/4 units per acre, which is below the typical low density residential threshold. Staff believes there is adequate room to shift units around if necessary to minimize impacts on grading. Mr. Grittman reviewed a sketch plan as a lot of the drawings are preliminary. There may be an opportunity to maximize tree preservation as the units are spaced out quite a bit and there may be opportunities to incorporate trees around the units instead of one central location. It's important to review a landscape plan that will compliment the natural landscape and pedestrian trails, as well as open spaces in the project. The submission materials indicate that impervious surface coverage is just over 10 %, keeping under the 25% maximum. There is a requirement in the subdivision ordinance to discourage construction and grading on slopes steeper than 80 %, and there are some steep slopes in this area Commissioner Miller asked who the owner of the property is. Mr. Grittman said Catholic Cemeteries is the owner. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the Park Commission reviews this project. Mr. Grittman said they do. Commissioner Dolan asked if the emergency access is a paved area and what keeps others from using this access. Mr. Grittman said the City must determine how this will be protected. Commissioner Dolan asked what the Comprehensive Plan designation is for this area. Mr. Grittman said it was for low density residential. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the applicant will be giving cash or land dedication. Mr. Grittman said he did not know. Acting Chair Betlej asked if anyone has reviewed the access of the road onto the Lemay Lake Road. Mr. Grittman said this has not been reviewed in detail and will need to look closer at this. Acting Chair Betlej asked if the Planner has any concerns about the grading in any specific spots on the property, or any concerns for sections of the road. Mr. Grittman said there is no grading plan at this time, but they do have some topographic information and have identified some specific locations and will work with the developer on these concerned areas. Acting Chair Betlej expressed his concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and if the small bump -outs along the road to the south of the property will be adequate enough for large vehicles to turn around. Mr. Grittman said the design does provide for this. Commissioner Miller asked why the Commission is looking at this project if there is a moratorium on developments. Mr. Grittman said the City has placed a moratorium on subdivisions, but the applicant in this case is asking for feedback on a PUD concept stage and this is not a formal stage for approval. Patrick Hoffinan, President of Hoffinan- Mendota Shore, LLC, was in attendance and introduced Brian Howard with Hoffinan- Mendota Shore, LLC, and Glen Huebner, Hedlund Engineering. Mr. Patrick gave a brief description of the preliminary concept plan and asked Planning Commission Meeting January 31, 2006 the Commission for their input on this project. Mr. Hoffman said neighborhood meetings have been held and incorporated their input in these drawings. Mr. Hoffman reviewed the layout plans. The project is a continuation of Augusta Shores project and Mr. Hoffinan shared some brief history of Augusta Shores. Mr. Hoffinan reviewed the following highlights: • Most of the residents are originally from the Mendota Heights area, and primarily consist of empty nesters; there are no young families in this area. • The estimated prices of the new units will exceed $500,000. • Augusta Shores also had sloping problems and the new project will be designed in similar form to address the continuation of the sloping in that area. • Garage doors will be staggered — some facing the street, others facing in other directions. • Two gardens will be created near the bump outs in the roadway. There will be room for additional parking in that area. • Airport noise will be less of an impact than what Augusta Shores had. • Treescapes will be incorporated into the plat for the formal submittals. Treescapes are incorporating existing trees into the plat. • Additional landscaping around the wetland will also be planned. • Park dedication will be done in cash, as well as putting some conservation improvements as well. A trailway will be established along a natural ridge between August Shores and the new development. • Grading plans will show where the 18% or greater grades will be located. Grading will be done to accomplish the 6% requirement. Commissioner M. McManus asked if the applicant would be willing to incorporate more space to allow for more walkable areas of this development. Mr. Hoffinan said there would be definite consideration on that. Mr. Hoffinan said the homes are pulled back from the roadway and residents will be able to walk along the roadway as well. Mr. Hoffman commented on the plans for garden space in areas. Commissioner M. McManus asked for more clarification on the designs of the homes. Mr. Hoffinan reviewed the pictures provided to the Commissioners. Commissioner Hesse expressed his concerns regarding circulation, the cul -de -sac, and would the bump out be big enough to allow large emergency vehicles to turn around. Mr. Hoffinan said the answer to that would be better answered by the Fire Marshall. Mr. Hoffman said there is also enough room to create additional bump outs. Commissioner Dolan asked if the plan reflects any comments made from the neighbors. Mr. Hoffman said this was the plan shown to the neighbors and comments were received. One of the most notable comments was the desire to leave the 68 acres as is. There were about seven homes represented. One issue relates to traffic speed of 45 mph on Lemay Road. Other issues related to site lines, and the developer believes that the tree buffers will soften that site line. Water quality concerns have been raised. Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Grittman if there will be a traffic study on this project. Mr. Grittman said traffic will be easy to figure out and will make some comments to the traffic engineer's office as part of the preliminary plat review. Commissioner Dolan said the Planners Report states that Augusta Shores, when constructed, the airplane noise was worse there than it will be over the new project. Mr. Hoffman said that was correct. Chair Lorberbaum said when August Shores was built, she was concerned about airport noise. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant has made good on his predictions on the selling and resales of the Augusta Shores units, and that the residents seem very happy. Chair Lorberbaum said she is concerned about the cul -de -sac and would like to have the Fire Chief review the circulation issues. Acting Chair Betlej asked what the average distance between the homes will be. Mr. Hoffman said about 20 -ft. Acting Chair Betlej said he wants to see the building materials, especially brick work, to be at the same caliber /consistency as was used in Augusta Shores. Acting Chair Betlej said he would to have the speed limit issue address. Planning Commission Meeting January 31, 2006 Acting Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Colleen Kahn, 2370 Lemay Lake Road, indicated her home on the map and identified it as the Hussman House. Ms. Kahn said she is new to the neighborhood and asked how the moratorium works. She also commented that the cemetery was a strange use for a low density, residential zoned parcel. Commissioner Dolan said the cemetery use is a conditional use allowed within the low density, residential zoning. Mr. Grittman explained what a subdivision was. Acting Chair Betlej explained how the comprehensive plan works. Ms. Kahn said she really enjoyed the openness of the area. Chair Lorberbaum explained that the owner has the right to develop his land. Ms. Kahn commented on the wildlife and environmental concerns and would like to see a traffic study and water quality study completed. Chad Lecky, Metropolitan Airports Commission is the Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs. Mr. Lecky provided updated information on the dovetails on previous information that was supplied a few years ago on the Augusta Shores property. Mr. Lecky reviewed some graphical representation of the noise environment in terms of airport operations in this area. One of the reasons the airport uses the Eagan/Bloomington corridor for departures is because of the large commercial / industrial areas. Mr. Lecky spoke on how many flights are passing over the proposed property. Mr. Lecky said the proposed area is located in a manner which will not have a lesser noise impact. With the new runway being planned for the future, noise levels will eventually drop in this area. Mr. Lecky spoke of arrivals coming over this area at a rate of about 6,500 per month. Mr. Lecky said it is important that the developer make sure potential buyers are aware of the noise and airplane passover patters, and all standards are used as was in Augusta Shores. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Lecky if he has a number of complaints from Augusta Shores' residents. Mr. Lecky said he has no actual numbers, but they are very minimal. Elllsworth Stein, Lakeview Avenue, is a member of ANC (Airport Noise Commission) asked if the units will be 2 -story. Acting Chair said they are 2 'h story with a walkout. Mr. Stein said he wonders if the developer is aware that there is a spring under where the proposed road will be going. Mr. Stein said there are also power lines in that area. Mr. Stein asked if the developer will be requesting a noise waiver like they did for Augusta Shores. Acting Chair said that would be an appropriate thing to do. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Acting Chair Betlej closed the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum asked the developer if he has sufficient information. Mr. Hoffinan said he did and thanked the Commission for their time. VERBAL REVIEW— Sue McDermott PLANNING CASE #05 -58 Ronald Buelow — Critical Area Permit Planning Commission Meeting January 31, 2006 • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -59 Jeromy Shultz — Conditional Use Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -60 Jim Losleben — Wetland Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -61 Peter Jackson — Variance Request to add porch to structure • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -62 Daniel Nelson — Variance for small addition • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -63 Darrell Guessford — Variance for addition • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -64 Mike and Kathy Doyle— Variance for sign • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -65 Lloyds BBQ — Conditional Use Permit • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -57 Mendota Heights Elem. School — Conditional Use Permit / Variance • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #05 -52 St. Peters Church — Conditional Use Permit for accessory structures • City Council approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. This is the last meeting for Commissioners Marina McManus, Mark Miller, and Joe Betlej. The departing commissioners thanked their colleagues and City Staff for all their work and fellowship. Chair Lorberbaum thanked the three commissioners for their service to the city. ACTING CHAIR BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:30 PM. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary