Loading...
PL 02/09/1983 - 30588�'�'1 � /'� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 1983 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the February 9, 1983, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Saba Members Absent: Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Goodspeed Others Present: Bill Deblon, Associate Planner Jerrold Boar�nan, City Planner Dennis Schneider, Councilman APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 22. 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SABA, SEC�NDED BY MS. GABEL, TO APPROVE THE DEC. 22� I982� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION: PAGE 6, PARAGRAPH 3� Sth LINE: CNANGE °STORE" TO"STORY". UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOAIAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TXE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. RECEIVE DEC_EMBER 9, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TD RECEIVE THE DEC. 9� 1982� HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTXORITY MINUTES. , UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. RECEIVE JANUARY 6, 1983, COMMUNITY COMMISSION JOINT MEETING INUTES: VELOPMENT COMMISSION/HUMAN RESDURCES MOTION BY 1�lR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY 1yR. SABA� TO RECEIVE TXE JAN. 6� 1983, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION/HUMAN RESDURCES COMMISSION JOINT MEETING MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, QiAI1�OMAN SCSNABEL DECLARED Z'HE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 1983 PAGE 2 � 3. RECEIVE Jti�UARY 10, 1983, SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO RECEIVE TXE JAN. 10� 1983� SPECIAL PARKS � RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VQ1'E� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TNE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE JANUARY 18, 1983, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST� TD RECEIVE THE JAN. 18� 1983� APPEALS COMMISSION MINi1TES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE JANUARY 24, 1983, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TD RECENE THE JANUARY 24� Z983, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TNE MOTION ^ GARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated that on page 4, the Parks & Recreation Commission had made a motion to recommend to City Council that the 1983 Diseased Tree Program be repealed, but to continue to provide a tree inspector who would be on call for inspections and to have a public relations program to encourage voluntary participation in the removal of diseased trees and the replanting of those trees. Mr. Deblon stated this item was on the Feb. 7 City Council agenda but was tabled in order to get Planning Commission input. Ms. Schnabel stated she has heard some criticism that the city tree inspector is not well enough educated in this field. A lot of mistakes have been made and non- diseased trees have been cut down, She felt they should be very careful that the person in charge of this program has a lot of education and training in forestry. Maybe there is someone who would be available on an as-needed basis who is fully educated. She was not so sure that person should be from the Parks & Recreation Department. She would like to see some money budgeted for hiring someone outside city staff to do the inspecting when calls or complaints are registered at City Hall. Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Dick Young's philosophy in that he would rather see the money spent in some other areas such as reforestation. Mr. Saba stated that would probably benefit the City more than in hiring someone to inspect the old trees. New trees can be planted that are resistent to disease. He also felt the City really needed more trees, especially along the parkways. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 1983 PAGE 3 Mr. Oquist agreed. He stated that when leaves are dying and falling off a tree in the surrmertime, the homeowner could almost do his own inspection and have the tree taken down. It did not really seem necessary to have someone come out to just reaffirm that the tree is dying. MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY l�t. OQUIST� TO CONCUR WITH THE PARKS � RECREATION COMMISSION AND TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE 1983 DISEASED TREE PROGRAM BE REPEALED, BUT TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE A TREE INSPECTOR WXO WOULD BE ON CALL FOR INSPECTIONS AND TO HAVE A PUBLIC RELATIONS PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE VOLUNTARY PARTICI- PATION IN THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES AND THE REPLANTING OF THOSE TREES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTIOIV CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. R_ECE_IVE JAhUARY 25, 1983, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: 1NOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY 1NS. GABEL, TO RECEIVE TNE JAN. 25� 1983, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TXE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE MIPJUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION/ � UNITY DE E P EN CO ISSIO : ,' $; MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY 1�. SABA� TO RECEIVE TXE MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE HUAlAN RESOURCES COMMISSION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ON JAN. 27, 1983. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Oquist stated that at this meeting, the Human Resources Comnission and the Community Development Conmission made three motions recomrnending projects to the City Council for CDBG funds. They had recortenended that $10,000 from the remaining 1982 CDBG funds ($111,322) be allocated to The Alexandra House, $30,000 be allo- cated to Acquisition/Relocation Center City Project, and $71,322 be allocated to Rehab-Handicap Retrofit Weatherization. They had also made a motion recommending eight projects for 1983 CDBG funds. MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO CONCUR WITH THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT $10�000 OUT OF THE 1982 CDBG FUNDS BE ALLOCAI'ED TO TXE ALEXANDRA HOUSE. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Gabel asked how they justify CDBG monies going into .the Center City Project. � Mr. Deblon stated it was being used to remove blight and blighted conditions which � was one of the criteria HUD requires for CDBG funding. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9. 1983 PAGE 4 � , Ms. Schnabel stated it was her understanding that the HRA was a total entity in the City; it funds itself. and she felt if the HRA cannot afford to do its own acquisition, then the HRA should not be doing it. Mr. Saba stated he had the same question, and maybe some of these projects shouldn't be done. Mr. Oquist stated this conversation was really irrelevant as he had just found out at this meeting that the City Council had already taken an action on the $30,000 at their last meeting. Ms. Gabel stated that did not preclude the Planning Commission from making comments on what they think about this. She stated she was very perturbed when these oppor- tunities are presented to them after the fact. What is the Planning Commission doing here anyway? It is ridiculous for the Planning Commission to get this informa- tion and sit here wasting their time when this has already gone to the City Council and the City Council has already approved it. Ms. Schnabel stated that in reading the Jan. 27th Human Resources Commission/ Community Development Commission minutes, she wondered what the criteria was for CDBG funding. She wanted to know why that allocation was made to the Center City Project, because she truthfully felt that was an HRA project and that the HRA should be generating funds solely on their own and HUD monies should not be used for that when they can be used for another project that has no funding at all. � She was even more upset after reading that the City Council had already acted on this allocation at their Jan. 24th meeting. Why did the Community Development Commission and the Human Resources Comnission go through the exercise of recommend- ing when the City Council had already passed a resolution and acted upon it? Ms. Gabel stated she thought someone from the City Council should respond to the Planning Commission on why this had taken place, Ms. Schnabel stated this is not the first time this type of thing has happened. It has happened, not only to the Planning Commission, but to other corrmissions. MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, THAT BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE REASONS BEHIND ALLOCATING $30�000 OF THE 1982 CDBG FUNDS FOR PROJECT 1�ACQUISITION/RELOCATION IN THE CENTER CITY PROJECT� THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT CONCUR WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE XUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ON JAN. 27� I983. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SQiNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO CONCUR WITH Z7iE RECOMMENDATION BY TEE EUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSI017/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE $71�322 TO PROJECT 2� REHABILITATION-HANDICAP RETROFIT WEATHERIZATIDN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED � UNANIMOUSLY. �"'�� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 1983 PAGE 5 Mr. Schneider and Mr. Boardman arrived at the meeting. Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Boardman to state the criteria for CDBG funding. Mr. Boardman stated there are three criteria: (1) must benefit low and moderate income persons (50�); (2) removal of slum and blight; (3) emergency funding. Ms. Schnabel stated the Planning Comnission had made a motion stating they did not concur with the use of CDBG monies for acquisition/relocation in the Center City Project. She stated the Planning Comnission was unhappy when they discovered at this meeting that the City Council had taken an action on the $30,000 before the joint Human Resources Commission/Comnunity Development Commission meeting on Jan. 27, and those commissioners were not notified of that action. Mr. Boardman stated the correnissioners were notified of the City Council action at that meeting. There was $111,322 left from CDBG funds. In a discussion with the Comnunity Development Comnission in December, he had told the Comnission that money could be allocated by the City Council for another project. They had talked about whether the Correnunity Development Comnission would have a chance to voice an opinion on the 1982 monies. Mr. Boardman stated that at that time, he had said he wasn't sure if the City Council would do that or not and that the City Council could allocate that money since it has to be allocated and spent by the end of � June. Mr. Qoardman stated that at the Jan. 6, 1983, joint Human Resources Commission/ Comnunity Development Commission meeting, he had brought up the point that there was $30,000 that was going to be allocated by the City Council to the HRA, and that was a discussion between the City Council and the HRA. The HRA had requested assistance from the City Counci� for the Center City plaza area (modification to the Firemen's parking lot and some items within the plaza such as signage). Mr. Oquist stated the commissions did discuss the possibility of the $30,000 being used in the Center City Project, but what Ms. Schnabel was saying was that at the Jan. 27th meeting, this money had already been allocated by the City Council. Mr. Boardman stated he had told the commissioners that the $30,000 had already been allocated and that was why he put that in as an item to show the monies had been allocated, He had told the commissioners there was $81,000 left (out of the $111,000) and did the cortenissioners want to have a voice in that allocation. The commissioners had responded that they did want a voice in that allocation. Mr. Boardman stated the thing the commissio�s �re really working on was�the allo- cation of 1983 monies. The allocation of 1983 CDBG monies has not been to the City Council. Ms. Schnabel stated the over-riding philosophical question that has triggered this concern is that the Planning Commission does not know why the City Council is n spending CDBG monies on an HRA project. Why doesn't the HRA generate the money within its own project? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 1983 PAGE 6 � Mr. Boardman stated the HRA and the City made a compromise on the use of those funds. The HRA had requested some assistance from the City, whether it came from CDBG funds or directly from the City. It was not a question of whether the HRA could handle the financial part of it themselves. When the HRA gets invo7ved in development, it gets involved with either private or public developers. The HRA is doing the plaza for the City of Fridley. That plaza is being developed on City of Fridley property. Since the HRA is developing a plaza for the City of Fridley in the interest of the City of Fridley, the HRA felt maybe there should be some assistance from the City for some of the items within the project that are directly related to the City of Fridley. The actual monies the City Council gave to the HRA was for the Firemen's parking lot and for signage and other items that relate directly to city activity that will be happening in the plaza. Mr. Boardman stated the City could have used the CDBG monies for the development of the plaza; but by putting HUD monies into the plaza. the cost would probably have increased about $40-50,000 by following the Davis Bacon Act. Instead of doing that, they had an agreement with the City Council that the money would go toward the acquisition and relocation in which they would not have to fo7low the Davis Bacon Act. It would not increase the cost to the HRA; however, it would still benefit the HRA, and the HRA would get that benefit in doing the Firemen's parking lot and the items in the plaza directly related to city activity. They can use CDBG monies because it fulfills the criteria of being used to remove slum and blight. � Mr. Schneider stated it wasn't a question of whether the HRA was financially able to do the project. Since the project was benefitting the City as well as the HRA, the City Council had to decide if it was worth contributing $30,000 from the City. Mr. Boardman stated that if the City Council had wanted to, they could take the whole 1982 and 1983 CDBG monies and put them into the Center City Project, because it is an eligible project. Mr. Oquist stated that at the Jan. 27th meeting, he did not recall the comnission members being aware that the $30,000 had already been allocated. If Mr. Boardman had told them that, then he apologized for that lack of communication. Mr. Saba stated the Planning' Comnission had disagreed with the Cammunity Development Commission/Human Resources Commission's motion on Jan. 27th because of the lack of understanding about CDBG monies and the communication problem. He had expressed the same concerns as the other Planning Commission members, and would not have made that motion had he known what he knows now. He would recomnend the Plannin Cor!�nission concur with the Human Resources Comm ssion/Communit eve o ment ornmission s recommendation t at t e 30, 00 e use or e ac u s tion relocation n t e Center Citv Pro.iect, ase on t e eaitimacY o r. oa �man s exp anation unds are and whv the monev was allocated the way it w�s Ms. Schnabel stated that regarding the 1983 CDBG projects recomnended by the two commissions, she also agreed with the concept of low interest loans. � ;� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 1983 PAGE 7 MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY 1�2. SABA� TO CONCUR WITH THE XUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION/COMMUNITY DEVEIAPMENT COMMISSION�S MOTION TO REG�OMMEND TD CITY COUNCIL T6E FOLLOWING YROJECTS FOR 1983 CDBG FUNDS (NOT PRIORITIZED): - TRAFFIC STUDY MOORE LAKE - DRAINAGE STUDY A/ORTN AREA - PUBLIC FACILITIES BARRIER REMOVAL - HUMAN 3ERVICES/PUBLIC FUNDING REQUESTS - SENIOR NOUSING ROLL-OVER STUDY - LCJW INTEREST LOANS FOR BARRIER REMOVAL - PRIORITIZED GROUPINGS - LOW INTEREST LOANS FOR COMMERCIAL REHAB - REDEVELOPN�'NT AREAS - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY� PXASE III� CENTER CITY MARKET ANALYSIS UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Schnabel stated that at the Dec. 22 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission members had felt perhaps something should be done with the way the commissions are operating at this time. She stated she did call Mayor Nee and talked to him about it, she had also discussed this with Mr. Qureshi, the City � Manager, and Mr. Flora, Public Works Director. The information she had received was that there is a plan to restructure the Planning Commission and its o�erating procedures. The thinking is to possibly combine the Energy Commission and the Environmental Quality Commission. The people who are members of the comnissions at the present time will be encouraged to stay and continue their terms. Mr. Qureshi strongly emphasized that at no time would anyone be� asked to step aside and ti�at the City wants input from al] those who are interested in continuing. However, as terms expire, the size of the commissions may be reduced. Ms. Schnabel stated there has been no actual decision on what to do about the Community Development Comnission. They°ar� thinking possibly some type of task force could be established,but the chairperson would sti]1 remain on the Planning Commission. There is the possibility of creating a non-profit corporation, and the Comnunity Development Co�nission could possibly become that group. Ms. Schnabel stated she had talked to Mr. Flora about the Community Development Cortmission's feeling that they are so global in scope and they felt samewhat reluctant to get into other areas, because they did not want to enfringe upon other commissions' areas. Mr. Flora thought that was not such a bad feature, He suggested that, for example, right now perhaps both the Comnunity Development Commission and the Environmental Quality Commission should be discussing hazardous waste because of the proposal for such a facility in Fridley. The Community Development Comnission's perspective could be: What happens to the businesses that might be considering locating in Fridley? If a hazardous waste facility is located in Fridley, does that diminish Fridley's attractiveness to new business? The other side would be the community's awareness in terms of receiving feelings �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9. 1983 PAGE 8 �--� or information from the comnunity at large. Rig�t now, there is no vehicle to receive that type of information. Maybe the Corr�nunity Development Corrr�nnission could hold public hearings so the public becomes aware of what is being proposed and get input from the public. These are all areas in which the Community Development Comnission could still operate as a v�able commission. Mr. Oquist stated the concern he had regarding the commission members meeting only when there is a specific issue or project was that if there is a time lapse between discussions, he did not see how they could keep the commission members together and interested. Mr. Boardman stated if they are going to have a reacting commission, it should be set up as a project committee on a project-by-project basis. In other words, they get people involved who are interested in a certain issue at the time the issues comes up. With the commissions, they have tried to set up more of a pro-action comnission, like the Environmental Quality Commission, Energy Commission, Human Resources Commission, and Community Development Commission, where they are generating ideas, following through on the ideas, and recommending to Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission is a reaction corr�nission in the sense that they react on specific issues. If it is the intent to set up a commission process to react to projects and issues that come from the Planning Commission and the City Council, then maybe they should look at the elimination of that commission and set it up as a project committee to look at specific items. �,, Mr. Schneider stated he and Mr. Hamernik share the concern that by comb.ining the � Energy and Environmental Quality Correnissions and eliminating the Community Develop- ment Cortm�ission, that eliminated ten citizens from the Planning Comnission process and left only five members on the Planning Commission. Mr. Hamernik felt very strongly that "comnunity development" was an important aspect of the City and there should be input to the Planning Cortanission in that area. Mr. Schneider stated that perhaps there should be some redirection of the co►runission. One idea he had was to have some type.of coordinating body for volunteer functions in the City. The idea of a community development corporation was brought up. He stated there seems to be a need for the City to be more in touch with the business people and neighbor�ng conmwnities to make them aware of what is happening in the City of Fridley. He stated there were many ideas expressed at the City Council conference meeting on Jan. 31, but no decision was made, other than not doing away with the Comnunity Development Comnission entirely but to change the role, either through a task force or comnittee or restructuring the commission. Mr. Oquist stated that in his discussions with Mr. Hamernik, he agreed that maybe they don't have to eliminate the corranission, but it definitely has to be redefined. He felt correnunity development has been downplayed considerably just because it is so global. He stated he felt the City Council is rea7ly going to have to do some thinking about this and decide what they really want to see this commission doing. Mr. Boardman stated he would caution them about setting up a commission and then trying to find things f.or that commission to do. If they want to maintain � a commission, the whole idea behind the cormnission process in the first place was to have a pro-active type of comnission, rather than a reactive type of commission. That was the reason the work plan process was set up--to be an idea-generating process by the comnissioners. The City Council is not going to get the study or PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 1983 PAGE 9 the information they need to make a decision on a specific project by sending it to an established comnission, because the people involved in that commission may not be at all interested in that issue and are not going to give the City Council the reaction needed. Mr. Schneider stated he agreed with Mr. Oquist--that at least some general direction will have to be given to the Community Development Commission. Ms. Schnabel stated she was a little bit concerned about the combining of the Energy Commission and Environmental Quality Comnission. She would urge the City Council to move very carefully when they make that decision. Mr, boardman stated he did not feel it would hurt, because there are environmental issues that are also energy issues. He thought the combination of the two commissions into one commission would be a good marriage. Mr. Saba stated the problem with combining the two comnissions is the expertise. The expertise in the environmental field such as wel] pollution, traffic pollution, noise pollution, etc., are not similar issues, and there could be some problems in working together. In energy, they want people who are knowledgeable and excited about energy issues and who want to work in that area. ^ Mr. Schneider stated he, too, was a]ittle uncomfortable with combining the two commissions. The Energy Commission is a very pro-active commission, whereas the Environmental Quality Cortmission seems to be a staff-dominated commission. With all the environmental issues th�t are happening right now, he would expect to be getting calls f rom every one of the EQC members to find out what is going on, and to be taking some actions, setting up meetings, etc. Mr. Boardman stated Staff is trying to get out of the business of creating business for commissions. Staff will help as much as possible �o carry out the ideas already generated by the ca�nnissions. The work has to be generated by the commissions. If it isn't, then the commission process has to be rethought, and it has to be done right now. That is why the work plan process is so important, because the ideas being generated by the commission members are things the cor�nission members are interested in doing. Mr. Oquist stated he agreed with Mr. Saba that there are two different kinds of expertise involved with energy and environmental issues. Those are two commissions that really require their own expertise. Mr. Saba stated there are times when it would be very advantageous for the two canmissions to meet jointly, but in terms of hazardous waste, noise pollution, water pollution, and traffic pollution, those are not energy-re]ated issues. MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� THAT BECAUSE OF THE DISPARITY BETWEEN T8E ENERGY COMMISSION AND TXE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION IN TERMS OF SUCH ISSUES AS WATER POLLUTION, HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL, NOISE POLLUTION� AND TRAFFIC i� POLLUTION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE ENERGY , COMMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSIOA/ NOT BE COMBINED. UPON A VOICE VO�"E� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SC�IIABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 1983 PAGE 10 � ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO ADJDURN THE MEETING. UPON A VDICE VOTE� ALL V017NG AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCXNABSL DECLARED THE FEBRUARY 9� 1983� PLANNING CO1�lMZSSIDN MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � Ly n Saba Recording Secretary n