Session 09-11, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Minsch at 7:00 p.m. on June 17, 2009 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.

PRESENT:      COMMISSIONER BOS, HAINA, KRANICH, MINSCH, MOORE, SINN

STAFF:                   CITY PLANNER ABBOUD

                   PLANNING TECHINCIAN HARNESS

                                DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

 

AGENDA APPROVAL

 

The agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

The Public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not scheduled for public hearing. (3 minute time limit) Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

 

There were no public comments.

 

RECONSIDERATION

 

There were no items for reconsideration.

 

ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA

All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the Planning Commission and are approved in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the Public, in which case the item will be moved to the regular agenda and considered in normal sequence.

 

1.       Approval of Minutes of June 3, 2009

2.       Time Extension Requests

3.       Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g.

4.       KPB Coastal Management Program Reports

5.       Approval of Draft Decision and Findings regarding a Request for a Conditional Use Permit at 173 W. Pioneer Avenue, a request for more than one building containing a permitted principle use on a lot, to allow a detached single family home to be constructed behind Northwind Home Collections

6.       Approval of Draft Decision and Findings regarding a Request for a Conditional Use Permit at 353 Grubstake, a request for a reduction in the setback from a dedicated right-of-way to construct a deck then feet into the twenty foot setback

 

Request was made to remove item 6 and place it under new business for discussion.  

 

The amended consent agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

 

PRESENTATIONS

Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

 

There were no presentations.

 

REPORTS

 

A.       Borough Report

 

There was no Borough Report.

 

B.       Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

 

There was no KBAPC report.

 

C.       Planning Director’s Report

          1.       Staff Report PL09-59, City Planner’s Report

 

City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report. He provided an update on the Spit Comprehensive Plan process and recognized successful clean up of a lot on Forest Glen Drive.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and the acting on the Public Hearing items. (3 minute time limit) The commission may question the public. Once the public hearing is closed the Commission cannot hear additional comments on the topic.

 

A.   Staff Report PL 09-44, An Appeal of a Rooming House Determination for Refuge Chapel at 397 E. Pioneer Avenue, Lot 4&5, Block 6, and Lot 5 Block 7 of the Glacier View Subdivision No. 2. Tax ID 177-20-203, 177-20-307, and177-10-504.

 

Chair Minsch explained that this is a continuation of the June 3, 2009 hearing due to a public notification error. She asked if any member had any potentially disqualifying interests or partiality in this matter. 

 

Commissioner Moore said he has a potential conflict of interest.

 

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED THAT MR. MOORE BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE AND THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

 

There was brief discussion regarding the wording of the motion.

 

Commissioner Moore commented that as he stated at the last meeting, he does business with Mr. Williams who is a representative of the Refuge Chapel. The dollar amount does not exceed City Code which states $5000 in a calendar year or $1000 in a single transaction. The amount of the transactions with Mr. Moore’s water company last year was approximately $1300 and change. He currently does not provide any other services to Mr. Williams or the Refuge Chapel. He does know other members who attend the Refuge Chapel and he thinks the Refuge Chapel is a good thing.

 

When asked if he believed he could make a fair and impartial decision on the merits of the appeal, Commissioner Moore responded yes I do.

 

VOTE: YES: BOS, MINSCH, HAINA, KRANICH, SINN

 

Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Kranich disclosed an ex parte communication. He explained that he met with the City Manager and City Clerk to ask specific questions pertaining to the remand. The replies are in the record and he kept the conversation purposefully very short and to the point. He does not feel he has any information from that conversation other than what is in the record.

 

At the request of the Chair, City Planner Abboud explained that the notice distributed to the affected property owners, radio, and newspaper had the hearing scheduled for June 3rd, but the notice sent to Mr. Griswold and Mr. Williams had the date scheduled as June 17th.

 

Chair Minsch noted items included to supplement the record since the June 3rd meeting. Those items included the City of Homer Board of Adjustment Decision on Appeal Dated September 5, 2007, an excerpt of the HAPC regular meeting minutes of February 21, 2007, and a memorandum dated June 11, 2009 to the Planning Commission from City Manager Wrede regarding Commission Questions/Refuge Chapel appeal, and also Mr. Griswold’s appeal brief dated June 16, 2009.  There was no objection expressed to accepting these items into the record.

 

Chair Minsch opened the floor for Mr. Griswold to present his arguments. Mr. Griswold stated he would like to discuss some preliminary matters. Chair Minsch stated that he would be given 30 minutes to use as he pleased to discuss preliminary matters and the merits of the appeal.

 

Mr. Griswold stated he received no notice of time limits and code says they shall conduct the hearing until they have a complete record. He will need more than 30 minutes to establish a full record. It can be dealt with when they get to 30 minutes if they want. He stated he would not be repeating the information in his 13 page brief, that is the reason he provided the brief ahead of time and hopes they will take the time to read it.

 

There was discussion on how to proceed. Chair Minsch asked how much extra time he felt he needed. Mr. Griswold stated he doesn’t need extra time; he needs time as he has 32 questions he would like to ask of Mr. Abboud. Some are yes and no questions, it might take 30 minutes, it might take an hour, it depends on the thoroughness of his answers. He said he also has a few preliminary matters.

 

Chair Minsch requested guidance from the Clerk. Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen commented that the Code does allow the Commission the discretion to accept new testimony or other evidence including public testimony or oral arguments as necessary to develop a full record. Unless the Commission decides to take live testimony under oath, presentations at the hearing should be limited to oral argument by the parties. In presenting argument, the parties are not offering testimony and don’t need to be under oath. It is an opportunity to provide arguments, not cross examine witnesses. When asked how to proceed, Ms. Jacobsen suggested the Chair could stand by the original decision to allow Mr. Griswold 30 minutes to present his preliminary case, his arguments, and move forward. Chair Minsch said they would start there.

 

Mr. Griswold said he is very disappointed that the Commission is not represented tonight by legal counsel, as they are starting right off with legal questions including his constitutional right to cross examine. He believes the June 3rd proceeding should be totally stricken from the record because the matter was not properly noticed, he has not listened to the tapes, he asked if it would be stricken, he requested it well in advance. That testimony and meeting was in violation of Homer City Code 21.93.710 (b)(2)(b). He thinks there needs to be a motion and it wouldn’t be all that difficult for those who testified to re-testify. Maybe they can get it better. Mr. Griswold said he has a right to hear it in person, he believes he has a right to cross examine and his personal belief is any testimony given in a quasi-judicial forum that isn’t sworn testimony is worthless. He doesn’t know what the big deal is about asking people to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and etcetera. Regarding other issues, Mr. Griswold believes Commissioner Moore does have substantial conflict of interest and a disqualifying bias, and if he didn’t before, he just made a statement “I do think Refuge Chapel is a good thing” and that indicates a bias towards the Refuge Chapel. Prior to that if he had no conflict of interest, that is a public statement showing his bias and he should be disqualified. Also anyone who attends services at Refuge Chapel has a disqualifying bias, in his view, and he doesn’t know if anyone does. Mr. Griswold further commented that he did not think Commissioner Kranich’s questions to the City Manager are ex parte. He thinks those are excluded under code, and the Commission has the right to discuss matters with staff as long as staff is not the party. It was appropriate that Commissioner Kranich took that beyond the City Planner. He asked if the Commission would rule on that stuff, and he would begin his questions.

 

Chair Minsch stated that he is asking the Commission to consider these issues in addition to the merits of his appeal. The Commission will take them under advisement and address the additional issues during deliberation. The only issue the Commission can consider here and now is the administrative decision regarding the lodging activities at the Refuge site.

 

Mr. Griswold said they had a meeting that was not noticed, an improper meeting. Now there is testimony that is in the record. It is invalid, it’s got to be out of there and we have to start over. This is the start of the meeting. He questioned what is the big deal of having Mr. Abboud make his presentation again, it was no error on Mr. Griswold’s part, he had no knowledge of that meeting, and it was on his calendar for June 17th.

 

Chair Minsch said the direction of the City Attorney is that this is a continuation, and that is how we are supposed to handle it. Mr. Griswold said it is the body’s decision and asked them to vote. He said he is not there to give them legal advice but one possible solution which may or may not be legal is for them to swear testimony after the fact, he suspects they can’t. His main concern is he would like his questions answered on the record. Chair Minsch stated they are not questions the Commission is prepared to answer and will stay focused on Mr. Griswold’s oral arguments about the issue. If the rest of it is going to have to be dealt with by Attorneys then it is beyond their level of expertise. Mr. Griswold disagreed; and said they have to make a decision. He asked if he may question the City Planner about the testimony he gave previously.

 

Chair Minsch clarified that this 30 minutes is Mr. Griswold’s time to provide his oral argument. Mr. Griswold responded that he gave his oral argument in writing. Those are all his arguments in writing and he wants to dedicate his time to getting his questions answered, and all his questions go right to the crux of the matter.

 

Chair Minsch reiterated that the direction the Planning Commission is to deal with the question on the floor which is the administrative decision made by the City Planner. She asked him to use his time to deal with that and then he can take what ever actions necessary to move forward. Mr. Griswold said he could do it in 30 minutes if the answers are short. He would like a ruling from the body if he may question the City Planner.

Chair Minsch continued to reiterate the Commissions direction and Mr. Griswold continued to ask for a ruling. Mr. Griswold began questioning. He asked Mr. Abboud what his educational background is in the field of zoning.  Chair Minsch interrupted that this is the time for oral arguments. Mr. Griswold stated that he has a constitutional right to cross examine anyone providing testimony and it is their fault for not having an attorney here to make these decisions. He suggested they may want to recess to call an attorney and get an opinion. He said he would be happy to wait. Chair Minsch said they have advice from the attorney that this is how they are to proceed and so this is what they are planning to do. Mr. Griswold said this issue is not raised and he just raised it. Chair Minsch repeated the Commissions direction. Mr. Griswold said he is waiting for an answer to his first question. He stated there was an opportunity for them to give the parties notice of the procedures of this meeting, no procedures went out. If they wanted to make this decision in advance they should have. Because they did not provide the parties in advance a notice of the procedures that would be followed, they have to decide them now and he thinks they have to decide them by the vote of the body. You can’t just arbitrarily sit there and decide to torpedo his case because you know he has 32 questions and because he tells them they are relevant to this appeal. Chair Minsch restated their direction. Mr. Griswold said she could say that six more times and it won’t have any affect. He said he has given them all his argument in writing and he has 32 questions. Chair Minsch restated this is time for oral argument, not question and answer. Mr. Griswold asked where this was set for oral argument.

 

Chair Minsch asked for assistance from the Clerk. Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen said City Code outlines how an appeal should be held. The advice received is that this is an opportunity to present facts; we don’t have to sit here and argue back and forth. We can let the clock run out and move on. It is an opportunity to present arguments, not cross examine witnesses. This isn’t a trial. Mr. Griswold said in two previous hearings he has been allowed to cross examine. One was the City Manager regarding denial of his records request and the other was Robert Stewart in COB versus City of Homer, there is a precedent. Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen commented she recalled in the hearing with the City Manager, they were not going to let Mr. Griswold cross examine but City Manager Wrede agreed to it. She said she didn’t believe that was the case here. Mr. Griswold countered that if she would review the record she would see that is not the case, the City Attorney said he did have the right to cross examine him. Again, they could take a ten minute recess and contact legal counsel.

 

Chair Minsch said Mr. Griswold’s 30 minutes is to present his oral argument. She can only do what she has been told. He argued no she can’t. She could put it to a vote, this body has the authority to allow him to ask his questions. He said he spent all day on these questions, by not allowing him to ask the questions they have seriously prejudiced his case, and it will be a point on appeal. He said if she changed her mind, he will be here.

 

Chair Minsch stated she assumed that Mr. Griswold had no further oral argument and opened the floor to public comments. There were no public comments.

 

Chair Minsch explained that the Commission began deliberations on this appeal on the incorrect assumption that all parties who wished to present oral arguments had been heard. Mr. Griswold has had an opportunity to present his case and the Commission must restart deliberations on the appeal. The may commence tonight and continue from time to time until necessary and the Chair will entertain a motion.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO POSTPONE DELIBERATIONS UNTIL AFTER COMPLETION OF THE REST OF BUSINESS TONIGHT.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

B.   Staff Report PL 09-58, Draft Homer Comprehensive Plan: New Energy Chapter


City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report.

 

Chair Minsch opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and Chair Minsch closed the public hearing.

 

HAINA/MOORE MOVED TO DISCUSS AND RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NEW ENERGY CHAPTER.

 

The motion passed by consensus and discussion ensued.

 

The Commission commended staff on their work in making this chapter fit with the rest of the plan.

 

MINSCH/KRANICH MOVED TO FORWARD THIS DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NEW ENERGY CHAPTER ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDING ITS ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION INTO THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

 

Motion carried.

 

C.   Staff Report PL 09-57, A Draft Ordinance for Wend Energy Systems (WES)

 

Planning Technician Harness reviewed the staff report and advised that there was a representative from HEA present to talk about the electrical components of the system and how it connects into their public utility. She noted laydown information that was provided.

 

Brad Hibbard with Homer Electric Association addressed the Commission. He said he appreciates all the efforts that Ms. Harness has been putting into this. He said he read through the ordinance and thanked them for being specific in it regarding UL listings, national electric code references, and so forth. He said he has been with HEA for 17 years and for the first 15 years he never had a phone call regarding interconnections to the system. The tariff has always allowed him to install them and in the last two years his phone has been ringing off the hook regarding wind energy and solar alternatives. Since September of 2008 HEA has interconnected seven small wind turbines and or solar energy systems to our grid, and there are eight pending that will be connected in the next couple months.

 

Question was raised regarding hooking to the grid. Mr. Hibbard explained that when a consumer comes in they have the opportunity to be self sufficient and connect alternative energy to provide power to themselves and feed into a battery system or allow an interconnection to the HEA system. When energy is produced by the alternative energy source the excess electricity that is produced can flow back to him and tie back into the system so it is available for all of us to use. It is metered and is mandatory that they buy it back. When the systems are installed, it is a good idea to advise HEA. He gets all the calls regarding residential or small commercial of 25 kW or less. He provided a brief history of the old metering system and the effects of interconnecting through the meter. Today with the electronic meters, when someone is interconnected and doesn’t tell him, the flow back looks like load. He can provide a special meter with two registers to show flow in and flow out. If the WES is not going to be hooked into the grid, no notification is needed for HEA.

 

Regarding a question about a 10 kW cap for residential, Mr. Hibbard responded that it may be restrictive but it is still reasonable. Most that are installed for residential are less than 5 kW.

 

Chair Minsch opened the public hearing.

 

Erik Schreier said he is one of the people who live off the grid and is an installer and in sales of these. He said he has not had a chance to read the ordinance yet. He commented regarding the 35 foot height restriction in City limits. He said some of the anticipated installations are up near Baycrest Hill and East End Road and the 35 foot restriction is impeding the maximum potential of the units as the higher they are off the ground the more efficient and cost effective to the user. There was discussion with Mr. Schreier regarding the set back with relation to height. When questioned about the wind, he said the wind in Homer is phenomenal. Anything along the coast they are seeing 75% efficiency on up. They are getting some information from NOAA for installing wind speed indicators and the potential is there. A minimum wind speed is about 8 mph. To build downtown an average height would be 40 to 45 feet. Trees and buildings are the biggest obstacles. Mr. Schreier also commented regarding grants and available funding opportunities.  Question was raised about measuring height. He said the height is usually measured from the middle of the unit. It was noted that the language in code referenced from the top of the blade. The tallest unit they have done so far is a 65 foot apparatus pole with guy lines. They have the capability of doing a 60 foot monopole. The highest wattage is 15 kW. The foundation is fairly consistent on the poles with a 36 inch diameter sonotube with six feet of concrete on most all installations. They do have engineers on staff as safety is most important.

 

Don McNamara, city resident, said he has read the ordinance and they did a good job. He questioned the 1 acre parcel requirement. He said he lives right on the ocean and has pretty good wind speed. The average wind speed at the airport is about 5 mph. Once the systems are upgraded to accommodate that speed he is interested in pursuing it. It was explained the Commission’s thought was safety; the tower is contained on the lot and won’t damage neighboring structures. At this time there is no area of consideration for a conditional use permit.

There were no further comments and Chair Minsch closed the public hearing.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO DISCUSS AND POSSIBLY AMEND THE WIND ENERGY SYSTEM ORDINANCE CONTAINED IN STAFF REPORT PL 09-57.

 

There was discussion regarding line 108 that it could be allowed by recorded document to have a setback through another persons property. Planning Technician Harness commented that it has been in the draft and came from examples in other communities. The issue is that there are often times neighbors that want to go in together and share the power and the expense of the system. Comments were made that it was not the intent to have that allowance and that the one acre lot size is a good start. It was recognized that this is a starting point and can be revisited as things come to light. Further comment was made that the setback allowance should be included and that a smaller lot size could be acceptable.

 

Commissioner Moore expressed his opposition to the ordinance. He feels it is a knee jerk reaction to something that isn’t an issue. His only issue with WES is blocking the view where people have spent a lot of money to get rid of power lines and power poles and then a neighbor puts a pole up right in front of their window. Plus he wants to be able to put a light on the pole.

 

Commissioner Sinn expressed his understanding that this came to be through an understanding by the group. In light of tonight’s testimony he would consider more discussion on lot size. If in the future people want something different, they will bring it to our attention as the people in Homer have an opinion and will share it. It is going to be easier to come down from an acre if the need is there than it would be for someone to spend the money on a system on a small lot, then not allow it. This is a good starting point and the document can be reviewed.

 

MINSCH/KRANICH MOVED TO DELETE LINE 108 NUMBER A “AFFECTED LAND OWNERS WRITTEN PERMISSION” TO THE END OF THE “ABUTTING PROPERTY” SENTENCE.

 

There was brief discussion about the point of this in prior discussion was residential use, one house, except in commercial zone.

 

It was clarified it would delete line 108 through 110 and the word “unless” should be removed.

 

VOTE: YES: KRANICH, BOS, HAINA, SINN, MINSCH

          NO: MOORE

 

Motion carried.

 

 

There was discussion of neutral colors but no specific recommendation was made.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO AMEND LINE 79 AND DELETE THE WORD TOWERS AND CHANGE SYSTEM TO SYSTEMS.

 

There was brief discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

MOORE/KRANICH MOVED TO ADD WHERE YOU CAN PUT LIGHTING AT LINE 132.

 

Commissioner Moore questioned why you would need four poles in your yard when you could accommodate downward lighting on a WES tower if it falls within the lighting guidelines in our other codes. 

 

VOTE: YES: MOORE, KRANICH

          NO: MINSCH, HAINA, SINN, BOS

 

Motion failed.

 

During discussion of 170 foot pole height, there was comment that lot size will determine height and people aren’t going to build 170 feet if they don’t have to. There was brief discussion of measuring height on building mounted systems, but no amendments were made.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO FORWARD THE AMENDED ORDINANCE TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: YES: MINSCH, SINN, KRANICH, BOS, HAINA

          NO: MOORE

 

Motion carried.

 

PLAT CONSIDERATION

The Commission hears a staff report, testimony from applicants and the public, The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public, The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant.

 

A.   Staff Report PL 09-56, Fairview Subdivision Halpin Addition Preliminary Plat

 

Commissioner Moore stated he may have a conflict of interest.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER MOORE HAS A CONFLICT OF INTERESET.

 

Commissioner Moore stated that he does business with Mr. Halpin. He has a dumpster placed adjacent to this lot. The dollar amount does not exceed City Code.

 

When asked if he could be fair and impartial in this issue, Commissioner Moore responded, “Yes I do.”

 

VOTE: NO: MINSCH, HAINA, KNANICH, SINN BOS

 

Motion failed.

 

City Planner Abboud reviewed the staff report.

 

There were no applicant or public comments.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF REPORT PL 09-56 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO ELIMINATE LOT LINES, FAIRVIEW SUBDIVISION HALPIN ADDITION WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

Comment was made that this is counter our plan by taking little lots and making big ones and reducing density, but it does meet borough code.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

PENDING BUSINESS

 

No pending business items were scheduled.

 

NEW BUSINESS

The Commission hears a report from staff. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public. Any items brought before the Commission for discussion are on the floor for discussion following introduction of the item. The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant (such as acceptance of a non conformity).

 

A.   Approval of Draft Decision and Findings regarding a Request for a Conditional Use Permit at 353 Grubstake, a request for a reduction in the setback from a dedicated right-of-way to construct a deck then feet into the twenty foot setback

 

Commissioner Kranich referenced the first paragraph in the introduction and commented their indentations were not to reduce the setback but to allow construction into the setback.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO ELIMINATE THE WORDS TO REDUCE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SETBACK.

 

Commissioner Kranich clarified it would read “for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a deck ten feet into the twenty foot right-of-way building setback”.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

KRANICH/BOS MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDED FINDINGS DOCUMENT FOR CUP AT353 GRUBSTAKE.

 

There was no discussion.

 

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

 

Motion carried.

 

There was brief discussion about making motions.

 

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

 

A.   City Managers Report Dated June 8, 2009

 

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

Members of the Audience may address the Commission on any subject.

 

There were no audience comments.

 

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

 

Commissioner Moore commented that we wouldn’t really need to learn about making motions, since we pretty much rely on Ray, so he just needs to get it right.

 

Commissioner Kranich said he would be absent from the July 15th meeting.

 

Commissioner Sinn said he would be absent on July 15th also.

 

Commissioner Bos thanked Ray for being thorough. He congratulated Sharon for being reappointed, and congratulated Kent for getting on top of the Halibut Derby leader board.

 

Commissioner Haina thanked Commissioner Bos and welcomed Commissioner Minsch back with her reappointment.

 

Commissioner Sinn congratulated Commissioner Minsch on her reappointment.

 

Chair Minsch said she didn’t expect to have so much discussion on wind energy but they are moving and she commended the group on their work.

 

ADJOURN

Meetings adjourn promptly at 10 p.m. An extension is allowed by a vote of the Commission. Notice of the next regular or special meeting or work session will appear on the agenda following “adjournment”.

 

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:48  p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for July 15, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There is a worksession at 5:30 p.m. prior to the meeting.

 

 

                                                         

MELISSA JACOBSEN, CMC, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved: