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
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,
Approved: