Loading...
PLM 11/15/2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2017 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rachel Schwankl, Mike Heintz, David Kondrick, Brad Sielaff, and Mark Hansen MEMBERS ABSENT: Leroy Oquist and David Ostwald OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Approval of Minutes: October 18, 2017 Ms. Stromberg stated at the Council Meeting on November 13, Councilmember Bolkcom had a few modifications of the minutes as follows: (1) page 2, at the bottom of the page, it should read Stacks VII instead of Stacks VIII; (2) page 3, second to the last paragraph, removing the first sentence, so it now reads “Mr. Hyde replied, we have all worked very well together”; and (3) the second line of page 4 should say “stripe” and not “strike” the truck parking. MOTION by Commissioner Hansen to approve the minutes as corrected. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING. Consideration of a Text Amendment, TA 17-02, by the City of Fridley, to amend Chapter 205.30 O- 5 Telecommunication Towers and Facilities District, to accommodate recent legislative changes related to small wireless installations in the right of way. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:06 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, Planner, stated in October 2016 the Planning Commission and City Council approved changes to City Code Chapter 205.30 Telecommunications and Towers to allow small cell technology within the right-of-way provided certain conditions could be met. The City was proactive by creating its own set of regulations because it was getting requests from telecommunication users to locate their equipment in the right-of-way which was not allowed at the time. Ms. Stromberg stated the wireless telecommunications industry has since lobbied for legislation to make it easier for them to locate their facilities within the public right-of-way as quickly and inexpensively as possible. As a result the Legislature has created standard regulations for cities that address small wireless facilities (what the City had defined as DAS in its ordinance) in state law and there are limits on local governments’ abilities to regulate them. The changes she is going to go through are required by new legislation. Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 2 of 11 Ms. Stromberg stated they are modifying some definitions because previously there was no universal definition of small wireless facilities, and the City developed its own definition. The ordinance now needs to be updated to reflect this universal definition of small wireless facilities and to include other new definitions created by the legislation. Ms. Stromberg stated other definitions that will be added include “collocate, micro wireless facility, local government unit, utility pole, wireless backhaul facility, wireless facility, wireless service, and wireless support structure”. All of those things are referenced in the new legislative language, and the City needs to define them in its Code. Ms. Stromberg stated there also was a change related to land use. These wireless facilities are permitted uses in all districts except for residential districts, and they are letting cities grant special use permits if this type of equipment wants to be in a residential area. Staff has laid that out in the Code and provided some additional standards, too. The following are a couple of examples of those provisions: (1) They need to be 900 feet apart from each other. Staff came up with that number which is roughly a block or two so the City is not having several of these on the same block; and (2) The equipment has to be placed at least two feet from the trail or sidewalk. Therefore, if you are riding your bike along the sidewalk you are not getting hit by the equipment. (3) They need to be placed at least 12 feet up from the ground level, so again if you are walking or biking on a trail or sidewalk, the equipment is tall enough that it won’t hit you. Ms. Stromberg stated as to collocation issues, the Legislature allows installation of the equipment on City utility poles and places restrictions on the amount of rent the City can gain from that. That is $150 a year to occupy the space with up to $25 a year for maintenance associated with the space occupied. The City can add a monthly charge for electricity if they are not paying Xcel directly for the electricity. Commissioner Heintz asked what about damage to a City pole if they cause that when they are in the process of maintenance or installation? Ms. Stromberg replied, that is a good question. It says specific to $25 a year for maintenance. That is not going to go very far if there is damage. These are the numbers which the City Attorney gave staff as to what the City can charge. Commissioner Hansen stated to clarify he believed the fee and rent are set by State Statute. Ms. Stromberg replied, they are. Commissioner Heintz stated but it says for rent, occupy, or for maintenance; but it does not state anything for damage. Commissioner Schwankl stated liability insurance she thinks would come into play. Ms. Stromberg stated she will look into that further. The City does require an escrow be submitted in the event they do not remove their equipment, and the City needs to do it for them. They will have some money set aside already, but that is a great question. Commissioner Heintz stated, for example, they are backing their truck into the pole and they knock it over, who pays for that pole? Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 3 of 11 Ms. Stromberg replied, exactly. She will look into that and get back to them next month with an answer. Ms. Stromberg stated they also created an application process the City needs to follow along with creating a special timeline. As most of you know the City’s land use items need to go through a process within 60 days. The City runs a strict calendar. That is why you meet once a month, and the Council gets this item within 60 days. This provision is going to allow 90 days for review and approval, and it is also going to allow up to 15 locations on one permit application. For example, the provider wants to put one on Fifth Street, one on Seventh Street, and one on Hickory Drive, they can list all of those locations on one application. She is not sure how that relates to $150 a year for rent to occupy the space. That might be per location. Commissioner Heintz asked if there is a fee when they apply for related to the permit? Ms. Stromberg replied there is a right-of-way permit fee and a building permit fee. Those the City can charge. Commissioner Heintz asked and when they come in for the special use permit, is there a fee for that? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, it is $1,500.00. Commissioner Heintz asked whether they can change that at all? They are doing 15 things instead of 1 item. The City should be able to increase that fee for this? Ms. Stromberg replied, she thinks the City would have to stick to the $1,500 that we charge for a special use permit. Commissioner Hansen asked if all of these permits are approved by staff? Do they require any kind of hearing or other review? Ms. Stromberg replied, no, unless they are in a residential district then they will come to the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval. If they are in an industrial or commercial zoning district, then we just issue through a right-of-way permit and a building permit. It all depends if it is the City’s right-of-way, it could be MnDOT right-of-way and then they would have to sign off on it. There are a lot of players who could be involved. Commissioner Sielaff asked as to residential districts, what does that include? Single-family? Multi- family? Ms. Stromberg replied, only single-family. Commissioner Sielaff asked so they are allowed by this ordinance to put it in a single-family residential district with a special use permit? Ms. Stromberg replied, correct. Commissioner Sielaff asked whether they are going to go over what those limitations are for this special use permit which are outlined in their packet? Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 4 of 11 Ms. Stromberg replied, she was not planning on going over them. There are quite a few of them, which we went over in detail last time. She can go over them if they want her to. The ones she did note earlier about being 900 feet apart, 2 feet from a trail, 12 feet off the ground, those are just 3 of the provisions the City is requiring. They also have to be a certain size; it cannot be a huge thing on the pole. She presented a couple of examples of what they might look like, showing them attached to a light or utility pole. The City does have a provision prohibiting it from being on a semaphore. The reason this technology is coming to the City is because there are so many people who need to use the technology in high traffic areas like shopping malls, movie theaters, churches, hospitals, where there are a lot of people at one time. That is when the cell companies are losing coverage, and that is the purpose of this small technology to work with the large tower together. Commissioner Sielaff asked if you are in a residential area could they put a pole in just for this purpose? Ms. Stromberg replied, they could put in a new pole. There is a stipulation they have to put it on the corner of the lot so it cannot be in the center of the lot. Staff did think about that a little bit. However, again, those will be ones the Planning Commission will see so that will give them a little bit more discretion. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends approval of the text amendment. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this item at their November 27, 2017 meeting. – Note the public hearing is actually scheduled for December 11, 2017. Chairperson Kondrick stated staff has spent a lot of time with this deal. There is a lot of information here they have looked into as to setbacks, how high, how far away, etc. They have done their homework. MOTION by Commissioner Hansen to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Schwankl. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:18 P.M. MOTION by Commissioner Hansen approving Consideration of a Text Amendment, TA 17-02, by the City of Fridley, to amend Chapter 205.30 O-5 Telecommunication Towers and Facilities District, to accommodate recent legislative changes related to small wireless installations in the right of way. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RECEIVE MINUTES FROM OTHER COMMISSIONS: 1. Receive the minutes of the October 2, 2017, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting MOTION by Commissioner Heintz to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 5 of 11 2. Receive the minutes of the October 5, 2017, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Hansen. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Redevelopment District Review of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Stromberg stated she wants this to be a dialogue between Planning Commission and staff. She is looking for the Commission’s feedback more than anything. This is a draft of the City’s potential redevelopment districts. As the Commission knows staff is working to get this Comp Plan update completed, which we do every ten years. She is going to give them a brief presentation to go over just a few of the ones staff has identified and the differences from last time around. There are 22 redevelopment areas identified so hopefully the Commission has had a chance to look at them and, if they have any questions, suggestions, ideas, she is certainly open to those tonight. Chairperson Kondrick stated he read this whole thing twice, went through things, and tried to find some objections to be critical. He could not find anything he thought was totally out of place. The staff did a good job on this and it is complete. He was really impressed. Ms. Stromberg stated the first slide she presented is the 2030 Comprehensive Plan redevelopment areas vs. the 2040 Comprehensive Plan redevelopment areas. They will notice that the 2030 Plan shows about 10 redevelopment areas, 3 of them are very large, geographical areas. This time around staff wanted to be specific about what might need some changes, some updating. Ms. Stromberg stated the City has seen a lot of changes in ten years, a lot of redevelopment has occurred since the last time the Comp Plan update. All of those redevelopment requests have had to go through the Planning Commission at one point and she shared a list of those projects. White Pines Assisted Living over on Central was constructed, Landmark of Fridley Assisted Living was constructed (where the old Sandee’s site was), Triland (the Cub Foods) has completely redeveloped in the last ten years, the Interlude Building at Unity Hospital was constructed, the Cielo apartment building, and the amazing changes at Northern Stacks. They are almost ready to begin construction of Building VII. Starbucks redevelopment rd on the corner of Central and 53 used to be a little gas station that was not doing too well, and now the City has a thriving little strip mall. Then there is all the new construction and development at the Columbia Arena site. Ms. Stromberg stated she also wanted to point out a couple of smaller-scale projects. Riverboat Shopping Center on East River Road was in the City’s plan last time, but they have done some improvements to their site. They have done a facelift to the building, and they have thriving tenants. Those little things just really help the community. Trojan Storage on Central Avenue took an old industrial building and completely did an exterior revision, new landscaping, it is gorgeous. Crooner’s did a complete remodel, they added a patio, they did a lot of modifications there. Miller Funeral Home bought an old architectural building on University Avenue and completely redid that, they opened it as a second site for them in Fridley. This summer Taste of Thailand did a bunch of interior and exterior Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 6 of 11 renovations. The old Domino’s Pizza building was torn down and is currently being rebuilt as Fridley Optical. So, the City has seen a lot of redevelopment in the last 10 years. Some of the redevelopment has occurred with the City’s help and some with private reinvestment. It has been an exciting ten years. Ms. Stromberg stated as to the redevelopment areas staff selected for the 2040 Plan, they took into consideration what was decided in 2030, what has changed, what has been developed, what can come out of those large geographical areas. They also took a look at existing land use patterns, what makes sense for something to be redeveloped, to be in a redevelopment district. The City also did a community survey and they had some public meetings. They did not do the big group meetings like they did ten years ago because they have a hard time getting people just to attend those things. They did smaller things, such as being at National Night Out, handing out cards to the community for people to take surveys on-line so they do it at their own free will. The other thing they took into consideration are staff recommendations. Ms. Stromberg stated just a reminder, redevelopment is a form of community revitalization that transforms undesirable elements of a site into desirable elements that reflect the community’s vision. Over the last ten years they have seen a lot of those undesirable properties turn over and become something great for the City. Chairperson Kondrick asked if she feels the City has done it all needs to do to encourage, not force, and to make people aware of the input that is necessary, how much it is necessary that they contribute to ideas, to future planning ideas. Ms. Stromberg replied, she just actually asked Julie Jones, Planning Manager, that tonight who told her through the City’s survey results they got better feedback than in other years. Perhaps it is because people are anonymous, and they feel they can just respond with what is on their mind. It is easier to fill something out that way and speak their mind rather than when you are in a big group. Ms. Stromberg stated she picked six sites to look at for tonight’s discussion. The first two are along East River Road. The first is along the northern end of the City, Fairmont Street and East River Road. Maybe five to eight years ago staff did a study with Anoka County and the City of Coon Rapids on East River Road and what they can do to make East River Road better. A lot of the changes were amenity or aesthetic type things. Ms. Stromberg stated but one of the ideas that came out of that study was to reroute how Fairmont Street approaches Fairmont Circle and line them up. In order to do that the City needs to take some property from what used to be Texaco, which Anoka County owns. It is a nice option to use a portion of that parcel to realign the right-of-way. Staff is proposing the area south of the aligned road be for a single- family home and then the area to the north would be guided for commercial. There are commercial uses in there now; however they are probably not the best uses for that little area. Perhaps some other quick service type business there. It is a small parcel but it is a good potential redevelopment site. th Chairperson Kondrick asked whether the County has plans for widening the East River Road from 85 to 694? Ms. Stromberg replied, she did not believe so. She referred to Commissioner Hansen. Commissioner Hansen replied, his sense is it would stay as it currently is, a four-line divided road. Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 7 of 11 Ms. Stromberg stated the next potential area is also on East River Road and was part of another study, the Northstar TOD (transit-oriented district) development master plan. They hired a consultant to do that. All of these studies have been approved by the Council so it just a matter of adding these areas to the Comp Plan to reference the study and the vision already approved for these areas. Ms. Stromberg referred to the area generally around Georgetown Apartments which are overall in pretty good condition. There are the apartments to the north that have needed some reinvestment for quite some time. This master plan takes that these properties into account and redesigns the entrances. There is a beautiful park behind the apartments which is owned by the County, this plan wants to make that more visible, and add a parkway, bringing more people to the park and the river. Chairperson Kondrick asked with the activities done by the DNR to change the riverfront area from the 694 bridge northward on the Fridley side of the area, are they imposing any new restrictions on building a larger apartment building that would overlook the river, etc.? Are there any encumbrances being placed upon the City and other agencies that might prohibit that type of development? Ms. Stromberg replied, that whole area from East River Road to the river is in what is called a Critical Area which puts additional regulations on the City and on the development. This master plan did take this into account, the picture they are seeing now on the screen. The City still has to abide by the 100- foot setback from the ordinary high-water mark and the 40-foot setback from the bluff. But something can still be built there; the City can still see some kind of new development in this area. Chairperson Kondrick asked Ms. Stromberg she does not see any additional restrictions applied to the City at this point as to what can be built there? Ms. Stromberg replied, no. Commissioner Hansen asked whether a use was proposed on the northeastern quadrant of East River Road and 694 envisioned in that master plan? What was the use for that? There was a building there some time ago and is currently being used for construction and utility storage. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, that is the John Allen site owned by Industrial Equities. That was part of this master plan, too. That property was actually master planned through a TOD approval the City did back in 2013 or 2014, and the proposal there is an industrial use along the rail and a high-end office th building and a multi-family building. That took into play the potential extension of 57 Avenue over the rail and all those design details would still have to be worked out. Commissioner Hansen asked whether they would be all market-rate apartments? Ms. Stromberg replied, at the time the property went through the master plan, the developer said market rate or senior, he had not decided. The individual who owns it, his forte is the industrial piece of it; and so he was trying to find partners to help him develop the rest of it. Commissioner Sielaff asked whether they had used focus groups at all to get input? Ms. Stromberg replied she would say not focus groups per se. They have had some community meetings. Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 8 of 11 Commissioner Sielaff stated focus groups are different because certain individuals commit to being part of the group, etc. and give input. Whereas if you have public meetings you do not know who is going to show up, if anyone does. He is wondering whether that would be useful? Ms. Stromberg replied they have committees at City Hall for each chapter in the Comp Plan. However, they do not have a focus group outside of City Hall. That is a good suggestion. Ms. Stromberg stated the next redevelopment area she has for discussion is the Girl Scout Camp on East River Road. That property recently sold to Met Council. They have a sewer line that goes through the bottom portion of the property so they would need to retain a certain amount of land on the southern end for utility purposes. She has not had conversations with Met Council to know exactly what their ideas are for this piece of land, however staff understands that they are open to ideas provided they get the portion they need for their utility. Chairperson Kondrick stated he was surprised to learn that so much of that land is wetland. Ms. Stromberg stated she thinks as time goes on they will have to do some studies out there to see if it is indeed as large as it is showing on the map. Chairperson Kondrick stated what service does that wetland serve for the City? Could it be filled with a couple of hundred trucks of dirt to make it livable and viable home sites in the future, and what argument would the DNR or another agency have for that being done? Ms. Stromberg replied, it is on the National Wetland Inventory List. There would need to be a delineation of it to determine its size and location. Commissioner Sielaff asked, is it not subject to no net loss? Commissioner Hansen stated you would have to go through a functions and values review of the wetland and determine whether credits can be purchased or they would have to step through a wetlands sequence and process. He does not think necessarily the regulators always look at purely development for the sake of development as being a reason to fill a wetland. Chairperson Kondrick stated just that it is such an opportune place to have homes. To have something other than nothing there. Commissioner Hansen stated this would be a good site to have an open house and forums. Personally he would be sad to see the Girl Scout Camp go. Ms. Stromberg stated she isn’t sure if Met Council has a contract with the Girl Scouts to let them use it for the next years or how long of a time period they have left to use it. Commissioner Hansen stated that is not what he has heard. He does like the vision of putting trails or a boardwalk through there. It would be really important to connect that. There is no way to get from that neighborhood that is north of Mahnomen Park. It is kind of isolated and not connected by any trails. Ms. Stromberg stated that is what staff is envisioning to allow development of single-family homes on the northern portion of the land with a connection to the already existing single-family homes. Also Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 9 of 11 create a boardwalk and a walkway around the wetland so it is a feature and an amenity to the neighborhood. She does note in the City’s description that when the City did the Cielo apartment project and when they did the Columbia Arena project, the City hired the HCI Group to do community vision meetings. Staff would definitely recommend doing that again here because it is such an opportunity that the City does not have very often. We want to be able to engage the neighborhood to hear their vision. Ms. Stromberg stated another example of a redevelopment area is Moon Plaza. It was listed in the last Comp Plan too. The mall was built in the 1960’s and is tired and could use a facelift, like Holly Center, which is listed as another redevelopment area. It is over parked, there is way more parking than there is need. The businesses struggle there because it is not easy to access them. rd Ms. Stromberg stated then staff decided to add the three parcels to the north, 350 63 Avenue is currently vacant. There was an office building there that was removed. A portion of the lot is used for utility; however staff can see some kind of medical office use maybe redeveloping this area. Chairperson Kondrick stated it really would be a good site for a major apartment complex. Access would not be the most critical thing. Ms. Stromberg stated the church is to the south and Brandes Place to the east and then there is that other th senior living facility at 6200 5 Street. Both are fairly new uses to that neighborhood and seem to be doing well. Ms. Stromberg stated last time they had developed the City View Project which would connect Medtronic Parkway to University Avenue by going through that existing neighborhood with the hope that th 57 Avenue could be expanded over the tracks and provide that east/west connection the City is missing. It would also connect Medtronic employees to all the retail that is over there now. Ms. Stromberg stated staff is still going with that vision and think it is a good idea. That neighborhood is a mixture of multi-family and single-family housing and do not see that changing. We need to provide a better way to get from Highway 65 to University; extending Medtronic Parkway, the boulevard, the green area, to provide a nice look. Ms. Stromberg stated that is the last one she decided to highlight for them tonight. Again, she is looking for the Commission’s feedback, questions, comments. This is a draft so if they think of anything tonight or over the weekend, please send her an e-mail, she’d be happy to hear from them. Commissioner Hansen asked whether there has been any thought about where the former Godfather’s restaurant is? Ms. Stromberg replied, it is not on there now, but staff did talk about it at one time. At that time when it was in a redevelopment area, Taste of Thailand was in, too. Then Taste of Thailand did a bunch of improvements over the summer and staff decided to remove it. It is a small parcel, but the City has recently seen development of other small parcels, such as the car wash on Highway 65 and the development north of the Orthopedic Center is proposed to be developed. The Godfather’s parcel could probably redevelop on its own without the City having to put it in a district, but it is something staff has thought of for sure. Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 10 of 11 Chairperson Kondrick stated it is tough to plan a master plan opposed to a piecemeal deal. It is hard because you want to get things going and, at the same time, you would like to have as best of an organization to the overall property as you can. Ms. Stromberg stated the City wants its businesses to know that we want them to stay and when you put in a redevelopment district, what does that speak to them. Staff has been having such great business retention visits with the businesses, and we are just trying to be very mindful this time around about the areas we are choosing. Commissioner Schwankl asked, when it comes to Site 22, the Pawn America site, she is curious about the thoughts on that. She does not know if there is a master lease in place that would limit what retail can be on that pad. Ms. Stromberg replied, those properties used to be part of that Target parcel and what makes them hard to redevelop is they do not have any frontage on a right-of-way. You have to get to them by going through Target’s parking lot which is through an access easement. The other thing that is difficult with those lots is that they are too small for the zoning district they are in. They are all zoned C-3, General Shopping, which is what Target is. It fits for Target but not for the others. The best thing she can see happening there is a rezoning to C-2, General Business, which allows smaller type businesses with a reduced lot size. Commissioner Schwankl asked but does Target have its hooks in there? She has seen a lot of leases for retail sites that are part of the Target family parcel, and they are very restrictive as far as what is allowed for a 50-year time period. Ms. Stromberg replied, in this situation, no, there is not one of those. This was one of the first Target stores built in the metro and that originally building was demolished and has been re-built. Maybe back when it was originally constructed there were restrictive covenants on the type of periphery developments around it but there is nothing now prohibiting the type of retail. Commissioner Schwankl stated she knows that this Pawn America takes guns which is not something that all Pawn Americas do. It does not sell them, but takes them in. So she wonders if it has a bit of a reputation and if there is some confusion about that Target. Ms. Stromberg stated that might explain why the City’s police department has such a good program with the City’s pawn businesses. They work well together. Commissioner Sielaff asked what is the timeline for this? Ms. Stromberg replied, staff would love to have a final copy to the Commission next month, of all the chapters not just the land use chapter. That might be a tad ambitious, so they might see a portion of it in December and then another portion in January. Commissioner Sielaff asked and this is due at the Met Council when? Ms. Stromberg replied at the end of 2018. However, the City is required to send it to neighboring jurisdictions and give them six months to comment. That is why they need to get it through the Planning Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 11 of 11 Commission first, then the Council, send it out to neighboring jurisdictions, and then it comes back to the City for final approval. Commissioner Sielaff asked are they going to have any public meetings then between now and the next draft? Ms. Stromberg replied they will have the public hearings at the Planning Commission and the Council. She thinks the Parks and Recreation Department have seen a few chapters. She is not sure if Environmental Quality Commission has seen anything yet. Commissioner Hansen stated they have seen some of the park and trail chapter and they do have some other things they have gone through for the Comp Plan. As he understands, they have an opportunity to give staff more feedback before the public hearing in December. Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. ADJOURN: MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:57 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary