Loading...
2004-02-24 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting February 24, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2004 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Betlej, Dolan, and Hesse. Those excused: Commissioner M. McManus. City Staff present were City Engineer Marc Mogan and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Lorberbaum received nominations for Chair and Vice Chair for the Planning Commission for 2004 -2005. Commissioner Betlej nominated Sally Lorberbaum for the Chair position. Commissioner Dolan nominated Commissioner Betlej for Vice -Chair position. There were no other nominations received. CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED TO ELECT SALLY LORBERBAUM FOR CHAIR, AND JOE BETLEJ FOR VICE CHAIR TO THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE 2004 — 2005 YEAR. AYES NAYS APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page 2, 1"paragraph, 8th sentence should read: "To repair the sign in the same location would keep the sign non - conforming as it would continue to be on the parcel that is not part of the property it is identifying." Page 2, 4th paragraph, last sentence should read: "Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan, and explained how the subdivision would be created and the location of the sign. Page 3, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: "Chair Lorberbaum said there have been cases in the area of Highway 55 and Pilot Knob Road where the City has allowed for a warehouse area and allowed for directional signs, which were larger than this one ". Page 6, 3rd paragraph, l" sentence should read: "Chair Lorberbaum asked why the driveway of the proposed home leads to the back of the home." Page 7, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence should read: "Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Mogan if he saw a problem where the driveway could be placed which would be a reasonable location to the house." COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2004 AS CORRECTED. AYES NAYS ABSTENTION (Commissioner Betlej) MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2004 HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #04 -04 KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PUD CONCEPT PLAN Mr. Grittman reviewed the map showing the location of the proposed Waters Drive Business Center at the intersection of Highways 13 and 55. Mr. Grittman said Waters Drive is a public street that abuts the angles of the northeast corner of the property, and the site would be developed as a series of small town office buildings. Mr. Grittman said the site plan shows a series of small, individual office units, which would have access from Waters Drive via two driveways. Mr. Grittman said previous plans show Waters Drive being vacated to allow for construction of Phase 2 expansion. There were two options presented, in which Option #1 accommodated a larger corner office structure in the northeast comer. The preliminary office plan being reviewed at this time is for a planned unit development for Phase 1 of that option, now being identified as "Phase I". These plans include a preliminary plat, request for wetlands permit, and a request for a variance in which the applicant is seeking to address parking. Mr. Grittman pointed out the new map provided at the meeting, which differs slightly from the one previously sent in the packets. The original map shows handicap parking, which is far beyond what the State requires. The new map shows a decrease in the handicap spaces, thus allowing for an increase of about 6 parking spaces. Mr. Grittman said the plans meet the concept plan requirements and recommendations obtained from City Council at its previous review. There was one issue still outstanding, that being the supply of parking on the site. Mr. Grittman said there are two standards for office parking: small office building requirements, and large office building requirements. In this case, there is a combination of small office buildings being attached, and Staff has proposed a modified parking requirement. This proposed modification is based on one space for 200 sq. ft. office space, discounting the gross area at a rate of 70 %. The ordinance allows for discounting this space for common areas. The applicant is discounting at 64 %. If the small office building standard is being used, there would be extra parking, and there is some flexibility in the ordinance as it is an interpretational issue. The concern is from the standpoint that there is not extensive available overflow parking and may need to have on- street parking. Mr. Grittman said Staff recommends approval of the PUD, the variance for the parking, the preliminary plat, and the wetland permit with conditions as outlined in the Planners Report. Commissioner Hesse referred to Page 7 of the Planners Report, regarding Wetlands Permit. Commissioner Hesse said in previous discussions, it was undetermined as to whether there is a wetland present, or is this actually a storm water area. Mr. Grittman said the wetland permit request was carried forward as the applicant was being conservative in his application and did not wish to contest this issue, therefore applied for the wetland permit in the case it is needed. It was previously agreed that there is no wetland impact in this case. Commissioner Betlej asked if the wetland was shown on the city map. Mr. Mogen said the map shows a wetland. Mr. Hollister said if the City determines this is not a wetland, all related fees for the permit would be refunded back to the applicant. Commissioner Hesse asked about the trash management, where there is only one dumpster located in the middle of the plan. Mr. Grittman said there are no standards for the quantity of the trash containment. Commissioner Hesse expressed his concern regarding people other than those in the complex using the dumpster, creating excess trash. Commissioner Dolan referred to Page 6 of the Planners Report, regarding lot area variance. Commissioner Dolan said that typically, the City does not approve PUD unless the development consists of 10 acres or more, and asked if the ordinance gives flexibility for less than 5 acres. Mr. Grittman said anything under 5 acres would require a variance, and that the ordinance says the recommendation is for 10 acres, however, there is flexibility to go down to 5 without having any other procedural requirements if deemed to be appropriate for the existing conditions. Chair Lorberbaum asked how often the City has gone to 5. Mr. Grittman said he was not aware of any case in which this happened. Commissioner Dolan asked why the required standard for a PUD is 10. Mr. Grittman where cities have adopted areas to be PUD's, it has typically been specified to avoid small, single lot PUD requests. The theory is to exchange some of the standards for some higher standards in some other areas. Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2004 Commissioner Dolan asked if there would be landscape buffers. Mr. Grittman said there would be. Commissioner Dolan asked if there were any guarantees that Phase 2 would be completed. If it were known that Phase 2 would not be built, would the Planner feel comfortable with this plan. Mr. Grittman said if they knew Phase 2 would not be built, the parking would probably be design to be more internalized. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there are any guarantees that MnDOT will give up the right of way. Mr. Grittman said there are none. Chair Lorberbaum said this project must be reviewed based on its own merits, as there are no guarantees of anything else. And given this application will be reviewed on its own merits, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a definition of hardship required for the variance. Mr. Grittman said a classic hardship analysis would be very difficult to find, except to revert to previous discussion about the City finding the proposal to be a reasonable use of the property versus any other reasonable use for this property. In this case, based on the City Attorney's findings, the City Council determined this was a reasonable use of the property. Commissioner Betlej expressed his concerns regarding the frontage road and asked for clarification. Mr. Grittman said MnDOT sells right of ways because they find they don't need it, and therefore will offer it to the City for purchase. The City in turn will offer it to the adjoining property owners. Commissioner Betlej asked if the frontage road would be included with the right of way. Mr. Grittman said he was not aware of any reason MnDOT would not give it up, and that the applicant may have more information on this process. There is no requirement that the property owner has to purchase this frontage road and right of way land. Commissioner Betlej asked if this parcel would be feasible to be developed on its own? Mr. Grittman said that would not appear to be so. Commissioner Miller asked if there could be a condition in the Planners recommendation to title these two separated parcels together into one. Mr. Grittman said he was not sure how this could be done, except nothing will be approved until the entire parcel was planned, and the advantage would be to dispose of the 5 -acre issue that way. Chair Lorberbaum asked how long it would take to bring the 5 acres into the process. Mr. Grittman said it may take about 2 years, and that depends on MnDOT's motivation to give up the property. Commissioner B. McManus asked for clarification of the parking issue between the Planner and the applicant. Mr. Grittman said Staff has been in discussions with the applicant to find an agreeable number of parking spaces (the City is looking for 172 spaces, and the applicant is offering 157). Commissioner B. McManus asked how the parking for Phase 1 could be agreed to. Mr. Grittman said the buildings could be placed closer together to allow for more parking area, or the developer could eliminate one or two units. Mr. Grittman said he is concerned that there will not be appropriate over -flow parking available. Commissioner B. McManus said over- flow parking could be accommodated along Waters Drive if needed. Mr. Grittman said there is adequate space to allow for that. Chair Lorberbaum asked how the Commission could recommend the application with there being no guarantees, and the design may be changed. Mr. Grittman said the Commission can negotiate for parking during this discussion and can therefore recommend 172 spaces, adding in the on- street parking. Terry Schneider, 600 So. Highway 169, St. Louis Park, is the representative for Klingelhutz Development. Mr. Schneider said there have been extension discussions with the City Council, and the direction from them is to do everything possible to accommodate Phase 2, which is 5.72 acres. Phase 1 is one - quarter acre short of the requirement, but is the only way this type of product can be developed. Mr. Schneider said the Council has recognized the hardship was the topography of the land that there is a 30 -ft. drop in elevation between Waters Drive and the pond, and for industrial zoned property, that would be considered a hardship. Mr. Schneider said the Council was very comfortable with the one - quarter acre variance in the PUD to get this accomplished. Mr. Schneider addressed the guarantee issue. The City needs to incorporate into the development agreement the obligation to use best efforts to pursue a Phase 2 as presented in concept. Mr. Schneider said the developer is giving up substantial flexibility in square footage and parking in Phase 1 to accommodate Phase 2. The 12 -space difference in parking has been traded off by incorporating the intention of Phase 2. Mr. Schneider said Council was very supportive of this plan. Mr. Schneider reviewed the Building Area/Parking Summary sheet included in the packets. He said he believes this is a reasonable compromise because the developer is giving up income and units. The timing issue is affected by MnDOT, as the primary piece of property is considered excess right of way. The State has a process for handling the paperwork, and in this case, most of the Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2004 paperwork was completed by a former prospective developer. The issue of Waters Drive is another process, which is called a "tumback of road ", and the intent is that when Highway 55 improvements are made, Waters Drive will be turned back to the City. Mr. Schneider said he estimates this process to be completed in about 2 years, in which Phase 2 can begin. Mr. Schneider said the typical parking layout in the metro area of similar building complexes is 1 parking space per 250 square foot of usable area, which was felt more than needed. Eden Prairie is the only one with the 1 parking space per 200 square foot, and referred to the Aztec Town Office Project in that city, and found that they incorporate the 1:200 ratio and are currently having a 26% to 30% utilization of their parking, and showed a map of the project indicating a back lot that is not currently being used. Mr. Schneider said he feels he is giving a reasonable compromise to change the parking to 160. Mr. Schneider indicated where the trash area is located and in their experience, in these types of projects, there is not a lot of trash accumulated due to recycling of office paper. Commissioner Hesse asked for clarification regarding the hardship expressed by the Council. Mr. Schneider said this is industrial property with a slope of over 30 feet on a small parcel, making this difficult to accommodate any typical type of industrial building, and a PUD is reasonable as the lot line for these buildings would be zero. Commissioner Hesse referred to the grading plan, which shows the silt fencing running the length of the south and east sides of the property and asked how the culvert along Highway 13 is affected. Mr. Schneider said this culvert belongs to MnDOT and there will be no affect on this. Commissioner Hesse expressed his concern about erosion. Mr. Schneider said hay bales could be placed where necessary. Commissioner Hesse said the applicant is proposing a compromise to give up two units on Phase 2 to accommodate the decrease in parking spaces. Mr. Schneider said this was the case. Commissioner Dolan asked if most of these units would be used as professional offices and asked for examples of use. Mr. Schneider said most likely they would be CPA, Accountants, Planning Consultants, etc., and there are no plans for any warehousing/storage spaces. Commissioner Dolan asked if industrial zoning allows professional office use. Mr. Grittman said it does. Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Schneider if he agrees with the conditions outlined in the Planner's Report. Mr. Schneider said he had issue on #6, and asked for modification. Mr. Schneider indicated how the monument sign would be placed, indicating first choice to be on the northeast corner, and the alternative to be at the existing entrance of Waters Drive. He noted that the Council preferred the first choice on the northeast corner, but the land needs to be acquired first. Mr. Schneider said the monument would show "Waters Drive Business Park ". Chair Lorberbaum said she has concerns for on- street parking and the lack of handicap parking. Mr. Schneider said the current plan does not show the entire handicap parking as proposed due to architect's error, and showed the strategic layout of the handicap parking. Chair Lorberbaum said she would like to see the handicap parking located closer to the entrances of the building. Mr. Grittman said the State has guidelines on the number of required handicap spaces. Mr. Schneider will have the architect update the plan to show the required spaces. Chair Lorberbaum said she is concerned that although the spaces provided meets the State's requirements, and would like to insure there is sufficient handicap spaces to allow handicap persons closer access to buildings. Chair Lorberbaum indicated a handicap parking space that was located near the end of the row, and closer to the corner of the building. Mr. Schneider said it was to provide access to the back of the building, which contains walkout offices on the lower level. Commissioner Betlej said he would like to have the parking issues addressed before this goes to Council and asked Staff to look at the zoning ordinance book to verify the information needed, especially given the topography of the land and the difficulty of handicap persons accessing the buildings. Commissioner Betlej asked about the building materials. Mr. Schneider reviewed the elevation plans and indicated the brickwork to be used, as well as a standing seam roof. Commissioner Betlej had questions whether there will be building signage. The applicant replied that there would be, but he had not decided. Commissioner Betlej said this should have been part of this application and it was not clear whether there would be building signage that was in compliance with the zoning ordinance. 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2004 Commissioner Miller asked if the wetlands permit is needed. Mr. Schneider said there is no wetlands on the site, but instead there is a storm water pond, and therefore does not technically need a wetlands permit. Mr. Schneider said he paid the permit fee in the case the City finds the area around the storm water pond to be a wetland. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Schneider to show where additional parking could be located. Mr. Schneider indicated the two roadways where over -flow parking could be utilized. Commissioner B. McManus said this type of parking could be used as a last resort. Commissioner B. McManus asked how the trash containment would be constructed. Mr. Schneider explained how the trash enclosure would be constructed and maintained. Commissioner B. McManus asked if the handicap parking spots are affected by the square footage of the second floors of the buildings. Mr. Schneider said they do not need to be included in the calculations. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. Further Discussion Commissioner Betlej said there are a couple of issues relating to the City Engineer asking questions regarding public streets, right of ways, etc. and asked for the City Engineer's opinion. Mr. Mogan said he would very comfortable with the drainage plan, and the wetlands permit. Mr. Mogan said he has not reviewed landscape plan, but sees no issues of concern. Mr. Mogan will review the street layout and feels the width of the streets is appropriate for additional parking. Mr. Mogan said as far as emergency vehicles, he cannot determine and would need to have discussions with the fire department. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the width of the parking spaces are. Mr. Schneider said they were 9 ft. Commissioner B. McManus asked about the future of the five trees on the northeast corner. Mr. Schneider said he would prefer to keep the trees where they are, but may move them later to a better area, as they will be young enough to move without any negative impact. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW TIME TO RESOLVE PARKING AND SIGNAGE ISSUES. 2 AYES (Chair Lorberbaum and Commissioner Betlej) 4 NAYS (Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Dolan, Hesse) MOTION FAILED Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2004 CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VARIANCE REQUEST (WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THE TOPOGRAPHY), THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND A WETLAND PERMIT AS PRESENTED, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY THE PLANNER, INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BE NOT LESS THAN 172 STALLS, WITH THE ADDITIONAL OF AT LEAST TWO HANDICAP SPACES. Further Discussion It was pointed out by Mr. Grittman that by adding parking stalls, the impervious surface percentage would increase, but still remain below the maximum. Chair Lorberbaum said she motioned for the two additional handicap spaces to better allow access to buildings for handicap people. 4 AYES (Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Hesse) 2 NAYS (Commissioners Betlej, Dolan) MOTION CARRIED Mr. Hollister informed the Commission that the next City Council Meeting would be held on Monday, March I" due to the Minnesota Political Caucus Night. Mr. Schneider asked for clarification, that the Commission is suggesting the developer must work on coming up with 172 spaces, hereby taking Staff's recommendation of saying 10 of those spaces could be proof of parking in order to preserve green space, and asked if this was an acceptable method of coming up with the additional spaces. Commissioner Betlej said this would be acceptable as long as it is incorporated into the ownership- proofed documents where everyone would step up and pay for it at the time needed. Mr. Grittman said one option would be to shift the buildings slightly north a few feet, making the driveway on the south of the property 28 -ft. wide, thus allowing for some extra 20 parallel parking. Mr. Schneider said that makes common sense. Chair Lorberbaum said she would like this reviewed with the Fire Chief as well before the City Council meeting. Commissioner B. McManus asked if some agreement could be made between the City Council and the developer, showing the intent of continuing with Phase 2. Chair Lorberbaum said that was not included in the motion, but it seems that is the sense of the City Council and feels this is efficient. PLANNING CASE #04 -06 ZONING AMENDMENT - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Mr. Grittman reviewed the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment, which arose from some previous applications related to parking and uses in the industrial district. There have been some issues raised from the City Council meetings, most recently for a suggestion for a proposed wellness center where medical personnel would train potential diabetes patients in an approved training setting. Also, Brown College has raised the issue as well as they have evolved over the years from a trade school to more of a four - year degree college. Mr. Grittman said as a result in dealing with these issues, the Council has directed Staff to ask the Planning Commission, their interpretation of these uses, and then defining the industrial zoning's regulations on these uses. Mr. Grittman recommended that colleges and trade schools become a conditional use permit in industrial districts. Currently, trade schools are a permitted use, and the proposal is to move this to a conditional use class as they are significantly different than other office /industrial use in that district (traffic patterns, parking requirements, nature of use) and it is felt that it is appropriate to review those uses as conditional use permits rather than permitted uses. Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2004 Mr. Grittman said the recommendation is to add parking definition to the ordinance, as currently there are schools, high schools, and colleges classed together, and does not include trade schools. It is desired to have high schools retain the current parking standards, and have trade schools and colleges, add more intensive parking requirements. Commissioner B. McManus referred to Section 1: "A college may include accessory facilities including housing, recreation facilities, and other uses for the convenience of the student population ". Mr. Grittman suggested sticking with the "facilities" and not the "uses" would be a better way to word this. Commissioner Miller asked if the goal of this amendment is not to negatively affect Brown College or other users. Mr. Grittman said this would not be taking them out of the district, but would put them in a conditional use permit class. Chair Lorberbaum said anything they have now would be grandfathered in. Commissioner Betlej said under Section 1, the "commercial offices shall not include direct retail commercial transaction activities ", and how would a mortgage loan office apply. Commissioner Dolan asked if that would be considered retail. Commissioner Betlej said individuals would be coming in on a daily basis to transact. Commissioner Dolan said he would interpret that to be retail. Mr. Grittman said it would typically not be considered retail activity, but could understand where it would seem to be retail. Commissioner Betlej asked how Mendota Heights Athletic Association would apply as it's been located in retail and in industrial districts. There is quite a bit of drive up activity on occasion. Commissioner Betlej is concerned about the language causing some problems and there are certain uses that could be interpreted different ways. Chair Lorberbaum asked if anything would be lost by removing the "retail" wordage. Commissioner Miller suggested to delete that whole phrase. Commissioner Dolan said if it were removed, that would include retail usage. Commissioner B. McManus said the amendment takes out the issue of what's a commercial retail transaction, and leaves the amendment open for interpretation to avoid penalizing someone who already involved. Chair Lorberbaum asked if Staff is looking for specific language approval tonight or will this come back again for further review? Mr. Hollister said there is no specific timeframe. When the medical usage for diabetes patients came up, the ordinance was viewed as being rather vague as to whether or not it was permitted. The Council determined it was substantially similar to other uses in the industrial district and could therefore go forward. Discussion was held at the Council to amend the ordinance to specifically allow this type of business and allow colleges to be included in the amendment. Brown College came to Mendota Heights as a trade school, but since has changed to offer four -year degrees. The city does not have any ordinances relating to colleges as a permitted use in the industrial district, and it was suggested by Council to have this included. Mr. Hollister said it would be good to define whether or not colleges would be considered a conditional use or a permitted use. There have been issues in the past regarding parking at Brown College, and expansions plans are being considered. There are administrative advantages to making this a permitted use, because to make them conditional, the city may run the risk of putting Brown Institute's current facility into an existing non - conforming use, and this may set a precedence for other entities, such as banks. Further discussion was held to define where entities should be placed: • Wellness center — defined as a professional training class, or training of lay citizens on coping with diabetes. • Universities — should be with the same category as colleges. • Academy / Charter Schools — should this be considered as a "school ". Commissioner Betlej said he would consider "dance academy" and "martial arts academy" as a retail usage. Mr. Hollister said there is currently a martial arts academy located in the B1 zone and does not recall any attempts to have one placed in an industrial zone. Commissioner Betlej said it might be appropriate to place these in a land -use destination. Chair Lorberbaum said if these were a conditional use, the city has the opportunity to judge individually. Mr. Hollister said making these a conditional use would be appropriate. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the 1 space for 7 students is standard. Mr. Grittman said it was standard for high school. Chair Lorberbaum said parking spaces should be taken into consideration because there are more students driving. Mr. Grittman said this was a common standard for schools, but does not seem nearly enough. Chair Lorberbaum asked if this was an old standard that may need to be updated. Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 2004 Mr. Hollister said there may be some questions regarding the overall use of the industrial zone because as a whole, these zones contain very high end office space, and asked how elaborate does the city want to lay out the welcome mat to non - conventional office uses. Commissioner Dolan said he was concerned that by doing this, they would lose flexibility of the city, but may make it easier on an administrative standpoint. Commissioner Dolan asked about colleges and housing in an industrial zone. Mr. Grittman said that is considered an accessory to the college would be allowed. Mr. Grittman said a conditional use would allow the city to view each entity individually. Commissioner Hesse asked if the city believes that traffic and parking patterns are similar for trade schools and colleges. Commissioner Hesse sees trade schools generating more traffic flow on an hourly basis. Mr. Grittman said colleges now have more students commuting and may have more as well. Commissioner Hesse asked if colleges coming into the city looking for a place to settle be comfortable with this type of parking allowance. Mr. Grittman said the standards would apply well to accommodate them. Commissioner Hesse asked if a trade school coming in would find too much parking. Mr. Grittman said that would not be likely. Mr. Grittman said this amendment will be further tweaked and will be coming back to the Commission for review. VERBAL REVIEW Planning Case 04 -01: Dennis Trooien, 1110 Centre Point Curve • Variance for Monument Sign: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission with the conditions that the sign be limited to 100 sq. ft. per side, and if the parcel to the north ever develops, a portion of that property be broken off and combined with the main parcel. Planning Case 04 -02: Robert Fink • Request for subdivision: Delayed at the applicant's request. Planning Case 04 -03: Patterson Dental, 1031 Mendota Heights Road • CUP for PUD and Wetlands Permit: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Wetlands Permit was not required. Chair Lorberbaum encouraged residents to come out for the caucuses on March 2nd OPEN DISCUSSION None. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:45 PM. 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully submitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary