Session 08-11, a
Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order
by Chair Kranich at
PRESENT: COMMISSIONER FOSTER, HESS, KRANICH, MINSCH,
STORM, ZAK
STAFF:
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
MEYER
DEPUTY
AGENDA APPROVAL
The agenda was approved
as presented 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 was no public
comment.
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 the Minutes
of
2. Time Extension Requests
3. Approval of City of
4. KPB Coastal Management Program
5. Commissioner Excused Absences
MINSCH/STORM MOVE TO
APPROVE.
There was no
discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
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 scheduled.
REPORTS
A. Borough Report
Commissioner Foster
noted the Borough Planning Commission meeting will be Tuesday, May 27th. There is one meeting in
July which will likely be postponed to the last Monday of the month and he said
he will miss the meeting on the 27th and both meetings in June.
B.
There was no KBAPC
report.
C. Planning Director’s Report
City Planner
McKibben reviewed the staff report.
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.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Chair Kranich opened
the public hearing. There was no public testimony. Chair Kranich closed the
public hearing.
MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO
ADOPT
Chair Kranich
commented briefly that this amendment is based on Councilmember Heimbuch’s
concern about the requirements with regard to City owned property and
leaseholders responsibility for the sign permits. There was brief discussion
about property owners being responsible for lease holders getting their own
permits. Question was raised regarding another area of the sign code and City
Planner McKibben responded that this amendment is specific to cluster
businesses and amendments to other sections could be dealt with separately.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Foster
disclosed for the record that he has a professional and personal relationship
with a staff member who contributed to this report. No motion was made
regarding his situation of personal interest.
Joseph Kaplan,
applicant, introduced his wife Ruth and commented that initially they were applying
for CUP for four dwelling units however they have no issue with staff’s
recommendation and concede to amend their application to 2 dwelling units
rather than 4. They had asked for 4 units to maximize value of property,
however after reading the report they better understand issues of City. He
asked that they approve the findings. He thanked the Commission for their
consideration.
Chair Kranich opened
the public hearing.
Bill Marley,
property owner in the area, provided written comments to the Commission that
state opposition to allowing 4 dwelling units on the property. Dr. Marley
commented that Mr. Kaplan’s comments changed his testimony a little bit. He
gave a brief overview of the history of the development of Binocular Bluff
Subdivision and
Judy Marley,
property owner, asked for clarification that the two dwellings on the property
are the only ones that will be allowed in this action. It was confirmed that only
the two dwellings will be permitted. There was brief discussion that the two
dwellings were already in place when the Kaplan’s purchased the property.
There were no
further public comments and Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.
Mr. Kaplan explained
his understanding that when the house was being built 8 years ago the builder
was living in the apartment while building the main home.
MINSCH/FOSTER MOVED
TO ADOPT
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission approve a CUP for more than one building containing
a permitted principal use per
Question was raised
regarding the original request for the PUD. City Planner McKibben responded
that staff didn’t feel the PUD was appropriate because of health and safety relating
to density based on minimum lot size so a CUP was recommended. She noted that their
septic does not qualify for community septic.
Commissioner Foster
commented that the Commission should take the covenants into consideration, not
with regard to enforcement, but to address the harmony and scale as noted in
questions c and e in the findings. He added that neither the Comp Plan nor the
Code addresses specific neighborhoods. The only way to address these questions
is in looking at the covenants.
Commissioner Hess
commented in support of moving toward a paradigm of greater density in
development in an effort to reduce dependence on automobiles. He referenced the
information provided by City Planner McKibben on the importance of this issue.
Point was raised that when looking at increasing density, consideration also
has to be given to the capability of the land to handle higher density.
Further comment was
made regarding the Commission referencing the covenants in a recommendation.
Opposition was express and input from the City Attorney was requested.
VOTE (Main Motion):
YES: MINSCH, HESS, KRANICH, FOSTER, STORM
NO: ZAK
Motion carried.
C. Staff Report PL 08-45,
CUP 08-02, A Request to Amend Conditional Use Permit 97-02 to Allow One
Building Housing Seven (7) Garage-Boat Storage Units at Land’s End Condominiums
Located at 4799 Homer Spit Road
Commissioner Foster
disclosed for the record that he has a professional and personal relationship
with a staff member who contributed to this report. No motion was made
regarding his situation of personal interest.
City Planner
McKibben reviewed the staff report.
Jon Faulkner,
applicant, requested that Public Works Director Meyer comment first regarding
the drainage.
Public Works Director
Meyer commented that in the past he thinks the drainage moved from the City’s
lot to the bay and perhaps sometimes through the land where the condominiums
are. With construction of the condos there is a need to ditch and ultimately add
a storm drain on the north side of the condo property and the south side of the
City property. There will be an outfall to the beach on the west side of the
condo property. Currently there is a
five foot building setback on the condo property, and no other restrictions.
Public Works Director Meyer said he and Mr. Faulkner spoke prior to the meeting
and agreed on the idea of dedicating an 11 foot drainage easement. The 5 feet closest
to Mr. Faulkner’s development would also be there for a berm or vegetative
screen between the two properties. Mr. Meyer said it uses the space most
effectively by having a 10 foot corridor on the condo property that could
become part of a piped drainage easement in the future and also allow some of
it to be used as a vegetated buffer. Normally plantings are encumbrances in an
easement like this, but this is a corridor set aside for future drainage
improvements when the City’s lot is developed to the same density as the condo
lot.
There was discussion
regarding whether the Commission should recommend a ten foot drainage easement
as referenced in the staff report or and eleven foot easement as recommended by
Public Works Director Meyer. It was suggested that the Commission could amend
the recommendation to allow the applicant to work with Public Works to
establish a drainage easement on the north property line and specify a time
frame. Public Work Director said 60 to 90 days would not be unreasonable.
Public Works
Director clarified that the easement isn’t required along the entire lot line
and clarified on the aerial photo the location from the access road to the end
of the property line.
Commissioner Hess
disclosed that he worked on the condo project several years ago during phase 1.
He has no relationship with the applicant now and hasn’t had one for many
years. No motion was made regarding a conflict of interest.
Mr. Faulkner introduced
Lea Miner, project manager and manager of the Home Owners Association. He recognized the planning staff, particularly
Planning Technician Harness for doing an outstanding job in research and
preparation of the staff report. He
commended City Planner McKibben and said she will be sorely missed by the town
with her professional approach to planning and her fastidious attention to
detail. He wished her the best of luck in
Mr. Faulkner said he
was in attendance to answer questions the Commission may have. He doesn’t feel
the application is as complex as it appears on paper. He provided a copy of an
individual property owner consent and approval of the concept of this addition.
He said there was unanimous agreement from the property owners and all the
signed forms can be presented. Mr. Faulkner said he supports Public Works
Director Meyer’s representation of the drainage solution. He pointed that the
planning staff is calling for a vegetated buffer between his property and the
City’s and it is very hard to maintain a vegetated buffer in the same location
to perform a drainage easement. The compromise that Mr. Meyer alluded to has
their support and they are prepared to implement the five foot buffer as well
as a five or six foot drainage easement to the north of that. They are prepared
to accept a 10 foot wide drainage easement and no buffer if that is the City’s
preference, but he explained that they have already built the buffer because
that was one of the requirements from 1998. It isn’t wholly planted but they
are prepared to complete it. He asked that the record reflect the location for
the easement is from the gravel access, and the easement to the east does not
require a drainage easement. He noted the area to the east of the gravel access
has extensive planted landscaping as well as retaining walls for parking.
Chair Kranich opened
the public hearing. There was no public testimony. Chair Kranich closed the
public hearing.
Ms. Miner responded
to questions from the Commission, stating that the form signed by condo owners
giving consent for the project states that it is a draft and the property
owners understand it is a draft proposal that is not final and is subject to
the association, developer, and city approval. She also stated the drawings in
the packets are copies and the plans with the surveyor’s stamp are on file with
planning. Mr. Faulkner added that everything that has representation to square
footage is stamped by a registered surveyor.
Commissioner Zak
encouraged creative landscaping, which could include upside down trees for the
eagles to sit on.
There was discussion
regarding a 25 foot setback from the drainage easement as referenced in
recommendation h on page 71 of the staff report. City Planner McKibben
commented that if they are going to leave the details of the drainage easement
to be worked out later it should be amended to say the garage-boat storage
building will be set back in accordance with
Question was raised
to why the buildings are located so close to the property line. Ms. Miner
clarified that the garages are located close to the property line to meet the
minimum requirement and allow room for maneuverability.
MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO
ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 08-45 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO AMEND CUP 97-02 TO
ALLOW THE COMPLETION OF PHASE 8, UNITS 20, 21,
STAFF
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit requires five
yes votes.
Staff
recommends amending CUP 97-02 to allow the completion of Phase 8, Units 20, 21
and 22 of
If the Planning Commission approves the request, staff
recommends:
a. (Minimum: completion of Phase 8) - CUP 97-02 Condition
2: Total floor area of the residential
condominiums shall not exceed 52,500 square feet.
b.
(Full request: completion of Phase 8 plus the garage-boat
storage building) - CUP 97-02 Condition 2:
Total floor area of the residential condominiums and the garage-boat
storage building, shall not exceed 56,500 square feet. No
further expansion will be granted on Lot 24-B-1 Lands End
Subdivision No.
c.
CUP 97-02 Condition 3: Lot Coverage of the residential condominiums
and the garage-boat storage building shall not exceed 32,500 square feet.
d.
Update
CUP 97-02 Conditions 11,12,13,14,17,and 21 by replacing the word cottage with
condominium.
e.
Amend CUP 97-02 Condition 13: A detailed landscaping plan will be provided
and adhered to in conjunction with zoning permit approval for the conjunction
with building permit approval for the construction of the condominium. Replacing dead evergreens along
f.
Establish a timeline for Condition 14: The Land’s End Condominium property
will be paved by
g.
Modify Condition 21: The number
of residential condominiums is limited to 22 units.
h.
Maximum garage floor area is 4,750 square
feet. Maximum building height for the
garage-boat storage units will be 26 feet.
The garage-boat storage building will be setback 25 feet from north
property line.
i.
Fire Marshal approval for the garage-boat
storage building required prior to construction. Flood Elevation Certification required upon
completion.
j. With the completion of the final expansion of the
hotel lobby-spa scheduled for 2009-10, the applicant agrees to no further
expansion on Lot 24-C-1 Lands End Subdivision No.
Approve Finding:
Approve Finding: The number of condominium units
is reduced from 28 to 22.
Approve Finding: No further expansion is allowed
on the condominium lot, Lot 24-B-1 Lands End Subdivision No.
Approve Finding: Traffic demands are not
increased by this proposal.
Approve Finding:
The Decision of Appeal, pg 4 & 6, signed
Approve Finding: The Decision of Appeal, pg 6, signed
Approve Finding: The Decision of Appeal, pg 7, signed
Approve Finding:
The 1999 Homer Comprehension Plan Update, page 5 the Homer Spit Plan
states “Require appropriate engineer’s approval for structural integrity for
any large additions to existing structures.”
The applicant has submitted FEMA’s
Floodplain Elevation Certificate, Summary of Building Inspections and Notice of Completion for Phases
1-7. Phase 8 is under construction.
If the Planning Commission denies the request, staff recommends:
k.
Update
CUP 97-02 Conditions 11,12,13,14,17,and 21 by replacing the word cottage with
condominium.
l.
CUP 97-02 Condition
13: A detailed landscaping plan will be
provided and adhered to in conjunction with zoning permit approval for the
conjunction with building permit approval for the construction of the
condominium. Replacing dead evergreens
along
m.
Establish a timeline for Condition 14: The Land’s End Condominium property will be
paved by
n.
Modify Condition 21: The number
of residential condominiums is limited to 22 units.
Denial Finding: The existing project exceeds CUP 97-02 Condition 2.
Denial Finding: The proposed addition exceeds CUP 97-02 Condition 3.
Question was raised
regarding the applicant wanting to exceed CUP 97-02 condition 2. Mr. Faulkner explained
that the reason for asking permission to exceed the original limits is that it
is in keeping with the intent of the project and there is proven demand. These
are all pre-sold. He said there are three reasons they are at this point. First,
the design from phase 1 hasn’t changed, with the exception of the stand alone
unit built in phase 6. If they built nothing more than what they built in phase
1 they wouldn’t be in the in the overage situation. The interior of the units
changed, not the exterior. They decked over the second level on two or three
units and added interior decking in the units through a customization process,
which added square footage, but didn’t increase the building footprint or lot
coverage. These were all requests for interior customizations. Second, when
they started the project there wasn’t a lot of demand for customization. When
they got to phase 3, each unit has been customized. The planning horizon from
planning construction to the time they finish is about a year and a half. They
applied for phase
Confirmation was
requested regarding the amendment to CUP 97-02 Condition 21 that the number of
condos is limited to 22 units. Mr. Faulkner said the original plan called for
28 and they are willing to limit it to the 22 that exist or are under
construction now.
Question was raised
regarding reference to code citation
Chair Kranich called
for a break at
ZAK/MINSCH MOVED ON
PAGE 72 OF THE STAFF REPORT WE ELIMINATE FROM THE TOP BOLD PRINT THROUGH THE
SECOND DENIAL FINDING.
If the Planning Commission denies the request, staff recommends:
o.
Update CUP 97-02 Conditions 11,12,13,14,17,and 21 by
replacing the word cottage with condominium.
p.
CUP 97-02
Condition 13: A detailed landscaping
plan will be provided and adhered to in conjunction with
zoning permit approval for the conjunction with building permit approval for
the construction of the condominium.
Replacing dead evergreens along Land’s End Way to be completed by July 31,
2008. Extend the tree planting along the entire
length of the north property line by July 31, 2009.
q.
Establish a timeline for
Condition 14: The Land’s End Condominium
property will be paved by August 31, 2009 per the Paving Plan
dated 4/16/08.
r.
Modify Condition 21: The number
of residential condominiums is limited to 22 units.
Denial Finding: The existing project exceeds CUP 97-02 Condition 2.
Denial Finding: The proposed addition exceeds CUP 97-02 Condition 3.
There was brief
discussion regarding modifying condition 21, it was noted that it is referenced
in the approval recommendations too.
VOTE (Primary
amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO
DELETE STAFF RECOMMENDATION A ON PAGE 70.
(Minimum: completion of
Phase 8) - CUP 97-02 Condition 2: Total
floor area of the residential condominiums shall not exceed 52,500 square feet.
Commissioner Minsch
commented that she understood that they needed to take action to remove either
a or b. City Planner McKibben concurred.
VOTE (Primary
amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO
ADD A NEW CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT IS TO DEDICATE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT,
WORKING WITH PUBLIC WORKS TO ESTABLISH A DOCUMENT, ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY
LINE ADJACENT TO THE
There was brief
comment regarding the drainage easement and buffers. In other instances around
town the drainage easement is to be counted in as part of the buffer. City
Planner McKibben cited code and read the setback requirement from drainage:
Where open ditch construction is
used to handle drainage within the tract the minimum of 15 feet shall be
provided between any structures and the top of the bank of the defined channel.
She said it wasn’t
intended to be a setback from the easement. She suggested that condition h
might be amended to be the storage building w
Mr. Faulkner
referenced CUP 97-02 condition 13 and said they have submitted a detailed
landscaping plan that calls for a 5 foot vegetated buffer along the lot line.
The berm exists along the north lot line and the eastern third has been
planted.
VOTE (Primary
amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
MINSCH/FOSTER MOVED
TO ADOPT ANOTHER FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS TO COMPLY WITH
There was no
discussion.
VOTE (Primary
amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
MINSCH/HESS MOVED TO
AMEND ITEM H SO THE SECOND SENTENCE READS THE GARAGE-BOAT STORAGE BUILDING WILL
BE SET BACK FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
Maximum garage floor area is 4,750 square
feet. Maximum building height for the
garage-boat storage units w
There was no
discussion.
VOTE (Primary
amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
ZAK/MINSCH MOVED TO
ADD A RECOMMENDATION THAT UPSIDE DOWN EAGLE TREES BE ALLOWED TO SUBSTITUTE FOR
EVERGREEN TREES IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT/LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
There was discussion
that the eagles w
VOTE (Primary
amendment): YES: MINSCH, ZAK, STORM, FOSTER
NO: KRANICH, HESS
Motion carried.
There was no further
discussion on the main motion as amended.
VOTE (Main motion as
amended): YES: MINSCH, ZAK, KRANICH, HESS, STORM, FOSTER
Motion carried.
Mr. Faulkner thanked
the Commission and staff.
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.
There were no plats
for consideration.
PENDING BUSINESS
City Planner McKibben
reviewed the staff report and the current worklist. Regarding the Technical
re-write of Title 21, City Planner McKibben reminded the Commission that it is not
a policy re-write and to stay focused on the technical part of it. The policy
changes should be saved until after the Comprehensive Plan.
Points of discussion
included:
·
Move overslope down to the un-prioritized list
and address it after the spit plan is developed.
·
Move residential office district regulations to
the prioritized list as item 5.
·
Permitting for higher density development
should be prioritized. It could be included in the title 21 re-write as it is a
major theme in the plan.
·
Zoning permit requirements might be clarified
with the technical re-write as there has been a difference in opinion and the
re-write may clear it up.
·
Integrate building standards into #6.
·
Remove interim CUP process (item 6 second
bullet)
·
Integrate grading and f
·
Add the dark skies initiative and lighting
standards in all districts.
Chair Kranich reviewed the amendments that were recommended during the
worksession.
·
Applicant presentation 10 minutes
·
Public Testimony 3 minutes.
·
Rebut of evidence by applicant 5 minutes.
·
Definitions for exparte.
·
What items are quasi-judicial or legislative.
Review standards for
rezone need to be included in code and removed from policy and procedures. It
was requested that it be added to the worklist with the un-prioritized items.
ZAK/STORM MOVED TO
SEND THE POLICY
There was no discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
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).
City Planner
McKibben reviewed the staff report and recommended the Commission make this
recommendation to Council.
MINSCH/ZAK SO MOVED TO
RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL.
There was brief
discussion regarding funding, the title of the memorandum, and spit parking.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.
The Commission
briefly discussed the meeting notes and summary. Commissioner Hess noted a correction in the
meeting notes at the top of page 7. He recalled saying that there was $50,000
that may be an availability of funds for the plan and would like to have it
amended.
MINSCH/STORM MOVED
TO APPROVE
There was brief discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
City Planner
McKibben reviewed the staff report.
City Planner
clarified that if the recommendation for nonconformity is going to be handled
by the Planning Commission, it should go through a public hearing process. If the
Commission decides it is an administrative process, there is no public hearing
required and would be appealable to the Planning Commission. She hasn’t found a
code that requires public hearing before the Commission. In some municipalities
it is done administratively.
MINSCH/ZAK MOVED TO
DISCUSS AMENDING THE NONCONFORMING PORTION,
There was consensus
and discussion ensued.
There was discussion
regarding nonconformity and annexation. City Planner McKibben expressed that
nonconformity should be addressed when the annexation happens and the area is
zoned. A timeline would be established and property owners would have a
timeframe to document their nonconformity through an established process.
Comment was made that it is incumbent on the City to determine what
exists. Other points included:
·
A subchapter in the nonconformity code to deal
with annexed properties.
·
When annexation is proposed, send a letter to
property owners to make them aware of the uses allowed in their district and
ask them to contact the City to go through the nonconforming process.
·
We need to deal with the issues from this
current annexation. It would be good for staff to deal with nonconformity and
if issues arise, then the nonconformity can come before the Commission with a
public hearing.
·
Changes to permitting requirements shouldn’t
have anything to do with getting nonconforming status.
The Commission
agreed to schedule this for discussion at their next worksession.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
A. Letter from City
Planner McKibben, to Mary Toll, Platting Officer dated
COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE
Members
of the Audience may address the Commission on any subject.
Public Works
Director Meyer said that Public Works will miss working with City Planner
McKibben. He said he attended the Borough Planning Commission meeting on May 12
and the City’s preliminary plat was approved for the Water Treatment Plant, and
they secured a permit of entry to allow the City to begin construction. Oral
argument on the eminent domain issue is scheduled for Friday so the whole issue
of ownership and being able to carry through with the project should be
resolved by the end of the week. Mr. Meyer said he spoke during the public
testimony period on Country Club Estates. He thinks the Borough understands the
issue is bigger than just the 5 acre property. The Borough appears to recognize
that it is an issue that runs all along the bay, and is looking forward to
getting before a judge to get a decision. It has huge implications to all the
property along the bay, along the
Question was raised
regarding whether it is feasible to put a bike path along the sewer line. Mr.
Meyer said not as part of this project. The funds that are authorized to be
used are water and sewer funds. The City won’t be doing anything to preclude it
from happening, but we don’t have the dollars to accomplish it.
Chair Kranich noted
that this is something that should be addressed in the Comp Plan. They say the
City is at the end of the road so we don’t have to worry about through traffic,
but according to the last estimate from the Borough, 50% of the population
lives past us. He feels the City and DOT should be working hand in glove to
figure out what is going to be the way of the future to accommodate the ever
increasing traffic.
COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION
Commissioners
may comments on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for
excused absence.
The Commissioners
thanked City Planner McKibben and wished her good luck in
Commissioner Foster
added that he doesn’t think he has been in a department that has worked so
smoothly as the Planning Division. A lot of that has to do with her leadership to
drive that.
Chair Kranich
reminded the Commission about the public workshops on the landscape suitability
map and encouraged people to attend.
ADJOURN
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
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved: