Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-25 PACKET 08. City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission October 28, 2013 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, October 28, 2013, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Rostad called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Wayne Johnson, Lise’ Rediske, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Randall Wehrle, Maureen Ventura, Jody Imdieke Members Absent: Elijah Harter Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Reese made a motion to approve the agenda. Brittain seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Open Forum Rostad asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non-agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Chair’s Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Rostad explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 PHS/Cottage Grove 2nd Addition – Case PP13-032 PHS/CG Center LLC has applied for a preliminary plat named PHS/Cottage Grove 2nd Addition, which creates two commercial lots and one outlot, to be located at 8200 Hadley Avenue South, which is west of Hadley Avenue and south of 80th Street. Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013 211 Page of Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. The Applicant, John Mehrkens of Presbyterian Homes, 2845 Hamline Avenue, Roseville, Minnesota, spoke and stated they were excited about the project and he was there to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Brittain commented that with the expansion of the park area it seemed like that was going to reduce the amount of usable area for commercial, as it was originally intended. He asked what went into the changes there. Burbank replied that in the 2006 master plan, there were two different seating areas that would be associated with any outdoor seating for a future restaurant pad, coffee shop, etc. In 2006, the outlot was 10,000 square feet and now it’s up to just over 15,000 square feet; most of that increase was if you went south on Hadley Avenue .The two pads in the original PDO got combined into one and the square footage is about equivalent but it’s just not broken into two. Brittain said it seemed a little odd to expand the open space area as he wasn’t sure how much utilization that was going to get, as it’s a prime commercial-type setting, without maintaining a spot for a business to come on the Hadley side. Burbank stated that was an accurate assessment and deferred to the Applicant for their decisions on that. Mehrkens stated as it related to the ability for them to identify and bring forward potential Applicants when the Rademacher family came to them with this particular site plan, their criteria was a two- access point, one point off of Hadley and one off of 80th Street, and this was a means to accommodate that entry at the furthest, northernmost location, which left kind of a small area that either could have been incorporated into the park or was likely not to be utilized at all for commercial purposes so it was around the site planning for this specific buyer of the property. Brittain asked if there was a ghost plat on what the rest of it might look like and how it was going to change from the original intent. Mehrkens stated it would largely depend on the Applicants coming forward or the people who were interested in developing that for commercial use. Their challenge to date had been finding people who were interested in being in that location on that side of the highway. Mehrkens stated he honestly didn’t believe they were going to see a resurgence of that interest any time in the near future so they were leaving that as kind of a pending discussion as to the best use going forward. If they got commercial applicants, they would definitely bring those forward but if another use makes more sense down the road, they would also explore that with the Commission. Rostad then asked if it would be accurate to say that the access off of Hadley Avenue was moved north. Mehrkens stated that was correct but they had eliminated one entry point and moved it to the north. Rostad asked if there was potentially room for a larger building in the commercial space in the southeast corner and Mehrkens stated that was correct. Johnson asked if G-Will Liquors was just moving across the street and Mehrkens stated that was correct. Johnson asked why they were moving. Mehrkens deferred to Glen Rademacher, the Operations Manager of Rademacher Companies, to answer that question. Rademacher stated they didn’t own the current G-Will Liquors building and they were at the end of their lease. Johnson asked if that would create a problem with where G-Will Liquors was now and asked if there were any plans on what was going to happen with the development on that side of the street. Johnson stated G-Will Liquors was like an anchor in that shopping mall. Burbank stated they’d had Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013 311 Page of that discussion, but the property owner had several things they were looking to do, as one of their major tenants was now relocating, and they were having those discussions. Reese asked where the outlot on the PDO fit. Burbank showed the current approved master plan and stated those were outdoor seating areas for future restaurants. He stated there was green space along those areas and it would be privately owned so in the future if there were going to be restaurants, etc. the owners would have the ability to approach the City and to change those plans and modify the plaza design to fit any future users. Brittain asked if future owners could say they didn’t want to have the park space there now. Burbank replied that no, what he was referring to was the original approval had the outdoor seating areas as a part of the conceptual approval for that, so if the use was to change, that was part of the original design so they’d have to bring it before the Commission and the Council as a proposed modification to the site. There would be some other changes that would be required as a result of that, so either additional landscaping or some other site amenities. Part of the approval was that they would have to have it landscaped and irrigated. Reese asked if you followed along Hadley, past the outlot, there could still be a restaurant pad put in there based on the proposed outlot. Burbank said the access would be eliminated so as part of any additional development, they would redo the site plan to get to that area. That access was no longer part of the approval based on the modification that was being made. So, most likely the pad would shift down and they’d reconfigure the parking areas. It would depend on the building configuration and size and it could go a couple different ways. Brittain commented it said traffic access included connections to 80th Street and Hadley Avenue. Burbank stated that in the next application on the agenda, that along the property line there was the potential for future curb cuts to get access to that additional site but right now they’re going to have full curb along that area. Burbank stated right now they were trying to get the development in the door and deal with the situation they had at hand and identify those issues. The traffic study indicated that the relocation was appropriate so any subsequent redevelopment would entail redoing the site plan. Reese asked if a restaurant chose to come in and ended up farther down, if they would do an access off of Hadley if they would have to then re-plat that area. Burbank stated the site would shift south and any lot that was created as part of the sale of that property for development would require cross access and cross parking easements to service all those properties. Reese asked if G-Will Liquors moved in, if they got another development further down and wanted to add an access off of Hadley Avenue, if they would have to rip up their parking area to reconfigure it. Burbank stated they’d have to say no on the access to Hadley. Brittan stated there would probably be an L-shaped building in the southeast corner or something along those lines. Burbank said there would be a building and the access would come in the same shared access. Brittan asked instead of the restaurant on the north of that access if it would shift to the south. Burbank replied affirmatively. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve. Ventura seconded. Reese asked where storm water would go directly from this piece. Burbank stated surface water management was handled by the existing depressions that were created with the first phase of the development. Since that time, there’d been additional changes in the plan and those will be met. Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013 411 Page of Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.2 G-Will Liquors Building – Case SP13-031 Grant Rademacher, Rademacher Companies, has applied for a site plan review of a new 13,000 square foot retail building for G-Will Liquors to be built on a 1.641-acre lot in Norris Marketplace, which is generally located south of 80th Street and west of Hadley Avenue. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. The Applicant, Grant Rademacher with Rademacher Companies in Andover, Minnesota, stated he’d had a good working experience with the City staff so far and there were a few issues still outstanding but stated they’d like to have the Commission’s approval and move forward to the City Council so they could get the project going immediately, in the latter half of November. Reese wanted to know if the building materials would be brick. Burbank replied it would be brick, some stacked stone, some rock-based block around the middle, and a variety of different metals as well as the windows. Reese asked if the majority of the building would be brick; Burbank replied that yes, the areas in the darker brown were a face brick. Reese wanted to know regarding the traffic access if this would be amended because it was showing on Page 5 of the report there were truck-turning patterns with the trucks coming in off of Hadley Avenue. Reese asked if the Hadley Avenue access was going to be closed. Burbank replied that no, it was not, it was just going to be moved to the north. Reese wanted to know regarding the building if there was the chance of having more of a stone finish across the top just to make it look a little bit more finished. He stated it seemed to not have an end to it. He liked the materials but stated it seemed to have an unfinished look to it. Burbank replied the Applicant had provided additional stacked stone above the doorway and on one of the corners. Rediske had a question regarding the plaza. She stated she heard that it was privately owned but stated it wouldn’t be managed by the Applicant so was just curious as to who would be managing it. Burbank stated the conditions of approval would require that the Applicant maintain it until such time that PHS develops it. It would be maintained and irrigated and those were some of the things they were trying to fine tune but it would be privately maintained. Rediske asked if that was for the short term and not the long term. Burbank said long term it would still be privately maintained with public access to it. Brittain had concerns with the door that was typically in front of the trash enclosure and in the past stated materials that had been used for that hadn’t been maintenance free. He asked what the City’s requirements were for that and if they’d moved to more of a maintenance free requirement for the doors in front of the enclosures or what that could be. Burbank stated they were requiring composite materials so they wouldn’t break up, like cedar wood and other previous materials had, so the opening could be screened and typically they’re seeing composite-material boards going in there. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013 511 Page of Reese asked if Burbank would let the developer discuss the stone. Rademacher advised the stone was a 30% increase over the spec brick. He said that they had a budget to maintain on this building and they’d already exceeded it. Rademacher stated they’d done as much as they felt they could afford in their best effort to match the PHS development. Brittain made a motion to approve. Rediske seconded. Reese asked if just that plat would be a paved surface. Burbank stated that was correct and just that site was developing, which led to his discussion about the curb cuts on the southern part of the parking lot. They were requiring curbing along the southern portion of the parking lot to 1) Keep traffic from going onto the vacant parcel, and 2) To have a landscaping opportunity to soften that site so it’s not just an undeveloped parcel. Reese asked if there was landscaping going in immediately behind that. Burbank replied affirmatively. Reese asked if there was a curb cut there that led back to where the overflow parking for Presbyterian Homes tended to go. Burbank replied affirmatively. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). 6.3 61 Marine & Sports Expansion – Case TA13-034 and CUP13-035 61 Marine & Sports has applied for a zoning ordinance text amendment to allow for the expansion of nonconforming uses under certain circumstances and a conditional use permit for the expansion of a nonconforming use at 11730 Point Douglas Drive South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Reese asked why there wouldn’t have to be a variance for outdoor storage. Burbank replied it was outdoor sales, a permitted use for the recreational vehicles, boats, and eliciting outdoor sales use is a permitted use in the B3 zoning district so that was the nonconformity portion and how it was processed before. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the proposed text amendment as drafted in the planning staff report. Ventura seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Reese made a motion to approve the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions listed in the planning staff report. Johnson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Noise Ordinance Amendment McCool summarized the staff report and requested comments on the draft ordinance amendment for purposes of finalizing the ordinance amendment and scheduling a public hearing for a future Planning Commission meeting. Brittain asked if homeowners could work inside their home any day and time if their doors and windows were closed. McCool replied affirmatively. Brittain asked what section of the city code this Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013 611 Page of proposed ordinance covered. McCool responded that it would be 4-9-8(B) which states that any mechanical or power equipment or tool operated by fuel or electric power are allowed only if the work is performed inside an enclosed building. Brittain asked if this ordinance was referring to outdoor homeowner noise only. McCool replied that it is primarily for outdoor activities and provides some guidance to address outdoor roofing noise as well as site-grading activities, and things like pouring concrete for driveways or commercial activities that take place. McCool stated they would now be able to alter or identify what the construction limits were for a commercial building. If commercial workers want to work extended hours, that could be addressed in the CUP as a condition. The ordinance amendment would have the guidelines but would also have the caveat “or otherwise approved by City Council.” Ventura questioned if there had been a CUP previously approved with a decibel level attached to the CUP and if so, if that would be grandfathered in? Ventura also asked if somebody called with a complaint and if the ordinance was more of a reasonable standard, how it would affect previous CUPs. McCool said he’d question the City Attorney about that and then report the answer at the next meeting. Ventura questioned what other cities did regarding the exception list and if theirs were more general or if it was as specific as drafted? McCool stated that noise ordinances from other cities were reviewed and the proposed ordinance amendment includes various exception elements from the other cities. Johnson expressed concerns for a subjective determination if a noise violation exists from a reasonable person. McCool stated that could be a challenge if there is a disagreement and whether it’s a valid complaint. Johnson asked if a reasonable person’s subjective decision could be a problem in court. McCool stated that the draft ordinance had been reviewed by the City Attorney who has been involved with noise enforcement in other communities. McCool stated air-conditioning units were identified as an exception in the proposed noise ordinance amendment and reported that occasionally someone will call to complain about the neighbor’s A/C running. Generally, an A/C unit will be allowed to run. Ventura agreed with the reasonable standard and thought it will work itself out. Ventura said the proposed ordinance will allow enforcement of unnecessary and/or excessive noise when such noise events might not exceed the current decibel limitations. McCool reported that the Public Safety staff assisted in preparing the draft noise ordinance amendment. The proposed ordinance amendment was presented to the Public Safety, Health and Welfare Commission at their October meeting. The Public Safety Commission had questions concerning barking dog type complaints. McCool stated that the enforcement Officer will talk to the property owner about the dog’s barking. Public Safety is confident that this type of noise ordinance will be manageable for their Officers. McCool explained that the Planning Commission is asked to provide comment and direction on the proposed noise ordinance amendment. City staff will continue to work on the proposed ordinance and will possibly schedule a public hearing for the Planning Commission meeting in November. Johnson felt the draft ordinance leaves it open for the Police Department to say, “I think you’re too noisy.” Johnson expressed his concern that the proposed ordinance is too subjective. Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013 711 Page of Brittain said he initially had concerns about a subjective type of decision versus a quantitative type of decision. However, a decibel reading and varying environmental conditions might not achieve a solution in a timely manner. Brittain thought the proposed noise ordinance amendment might be a reasonable compromise and believes the Public Safety Department does a good job being fair. Brittain acknowledged Johnson’s point and concerns, but did not think a decibel reading as a quantitative measurement will resolve all noise complaints and saw the proposed noise ordinance as a better solution. Olsen said he has discussed this matter with the Public Safety Department regarding Johnson’s concerns for Officers' discretion, and their discretion is actually what is currently being used for the majority of noise-related disputes because people tend to respect a uniformed officer. Olsen stated that Judges, Courts and members of any law enforcement community are comfortable with and familiar with the reasonable person standard. Rostad agreed most of the noise issues are successfully resolved by a reasonable standard. Ventura said “reasonable” is a term that’s used all the time and is a standard that most people are familiar with. She thought trained professionals and law enforcement understand its intent and meaning. Rediske asked if animal noise standards will be placed into this new section of the City Code. McCool stated there’s no change to the animal noise standards, but it will be moved to or referenced in the proposed new section of the code. Rediske asked if the car wash noise at the Holiday station at Hinton and 70th Street was compliant with City ordinances. McCool responded that the conditional use permit for that property does limit the car wash operations and notice will be mailed to the business owner concerning late night car wash operations. The Planning Commission was agreeable in scheduling a public hearing next month. Reese asked if other cities had condensed their noise ordinance regulations into one area of their city codes. McCool replied by saying that there were a variety of ordinance regulations and formats by other cities. Reese asked if other cities were revising their noise ordinances. McCool replied that he was unaware of other cities amending their noise ordinances and it was the general consensus by city staff the combining all the noise regulation into one chapter will benefit the public wanting to review the regulations. The Planning Commission did not express any objection to proceed with scheduling a public hearing for their meeting in November 2013. 7.2 Architectural Ordinance Amendment – Exterior Materials McCool introduced a draft ordinance amendment for purposes of modifying the architecture requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. McCool explained the idea of changing the class of certain exterior building materials and the purpose of allowing building additions that are greater than 50 percent of the existing building’s footprint the opportunity to continue using the same exterior materials. Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013 811 Page of Imdieke stated she was not familiar with synthetic stone and asked if that material faded over time. McCool did not believe most of these types of materials faded, but would get more information. He said they would not allow synthetic stone to be painted. Rostad stated he thought it made sense for additions to existing buildings the opportunity to use the same exterior materials. 7.3 Seasonal Commercial Entertainment Events Ordinance Burbank explained the purpose of the proposed seasonal commercial entertainment events ordinance. Johnson asked what a “zombie shoot” was. Burbank explained it was people sitting on a hay wagon as they travel through a field and shoot zombies with paintball guns. Brittain stated he thought the proposed ordinance amendment was a good idea for commercial outdoor events because these types of activities could require certain city services that should be evaluated and approved by the city before the private event takes place. Rediske asked what would qualify for this type of event and if it would apply to somebody selling a product. Burbank said the definition of “special event” is likely a large indoor/outdoor event that occurs in any zoning district. The event needs to be temporary in duration and has the potential to increase the intensity of the site’s impact on City services. Reese asked if that would be like the Holiday Train. Burbank said it would not apply to a City- sponsored event. Rediske asked of it would apply to National Night Out/Night to Unite, where some neighborhoods had 300 people and construction barricades were installed. Burbank stated that example is also a City- sponsored event so the proposed outdoor event ordinance would not apply. Rostad asked if the proposed ordinance would affect commercial businesses that currently sponsor these types of events or if it would apply to a private landowner that wanted to do a corn maze or something similar? Burbank responded that it would apply to both and any large event that didn’t have current city approval, staff would recommend it be subject to the special event standards. Rostad asked what the proposed application fee will be. Burbank responded that the fee might be equivalent to the $300 fee for an interim conditional use permit. Rediske asked if the fee would vary depending on how long the event occurred. Burbank replied that could be part of the discussion. Imdieke asked if it would apply to the Fall Festival for a church. Burbank replied that it would depend on the performance standards and impact it might have on City services. Rostad said he thought that was probably the trickiest part of it, where you defined what was something that would stress the City’s resources and what would not. He said there were plenty of Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013 911 Page of church events in parking lots that were one-day events but don’t stress any resources, but yet would require a permit and paying probably half of what they make at the event. Burbank responded that recently, in St. Paul Park, a barn raising event required people from outside the community to help with the construction of that structure. People were camping at the site. Burbank asked the Commission members to discuss whether or not an annual or one-time fee should be paid by the applicant. Rostad asked if the fee should be based on the number of attendees. Reese asked if some reason they decided to hold their annual Pride parade in Cottage Grove that would take up a lot of Public Safety resources, but there would definitely be someone filing for the permit. If we were an event center and hosted weddings or whatever, you require them to have security and pay a fee for that service. Reese agreed with Brittain’s comments. Reese said it’s a good idea but sees it along those lines with some exemptions, like church festivals or whatever. Rostad stated he found the challenge will be to define what that event is and what exceptions would be allowed because certain events may not put any stress on City resources. A $300 application fee will not cover the expense of Police Officers working overtime. Rostad said he thought that would be our challenge to zero in on what those events are, defining them, and what the exceptions would be to those. Rediske asked what we’d done in the past for those types of events and was a fee collected? Burbank stated that outdoor greenhouses are an interim condition use permit and an annual fee was collected. Rediske stated that Mississippi Dunes did an outdoor concert and lots of people were asked to help with parking, etc. Rediske asked if the City would bill the property owner or is that something the property owner would request or require police officers to attend. Does he pay for that out of his pocket? Is this something that the $300 fee would have paid for the police officers? Burbank stated that the $300 fee would only be for the application fee. The additional costs for security would be borne by the applicant or the promoter of the event. Burbank said it might be necessary to have several classes of that for one-day events and a one-month event, and wasn’t sure about the answer on that yet, but it’s something the City should address. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of September 23, 2013 Wehrle made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 23, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Reese seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of October City Council Meetings Olsen thanked Brian Pearson for his service on the Planning Commission. Olsen reported that there were good applicants. He welcomed Jody Imdieke and thanked her for taking the time to both apply and interview. Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013 1011 Page of Olsen also reported that the City Council decided to create a Commission on the Arts. Olsen said a number of members in the community felt there was an opportunity or a specific need to focus around this sort of activity. The delegated responsibilities for this newly created advisory commission is to bring all of the various perspectives under one roof in a Commission environment, similar to what was done with Human Rights and Human Services, etc., where people can bring forward their thoughts and ideas on how we can integrate the arts into the community further or how we can utilize what’s already there in a better way. Olsen announced that there will be an informational meeting prior to the November 6 City Council meeting, at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. All of the City Council members would be there, and he invited anybody interested in learning more or providing the city with any thoughts or feedback on how this Commission should be formed and some of the possible goals and objectives. Olsen continued to explain that this work will continue for the next couple months. At the goal-setting session in January, a list of specific goals and objectives will be discussed. Selecting Commissioners, a chairperson and Council liaison will be determined. Olsen said city staff has been preparing the Capital Improvement Plan and City Council members have reviewed and discussed the Plan at various workshops and Council meetings. Olsen stated that the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review the document before the City Council’s final action on the document in December 2013. Olsen reported that this year’s Holiday Train event will be a big deal and more news will follow. Johnson asked if the Goodwill building was still on track. Olsen stated yes, it got approved, and they felt pretty good about the way in which the site plan laid out, the construction materials were going to be of high quality, and the building was going to look nice. They were going to do a little work behind the building to finish off the trail system. Their landscaping plan looked very attractive and he thought it was going to be a nice-looking site. Reese asked about Crossroads Church. Olsen reported that Crossroads Church never sold their old building, but had leased it out for various uses and programs. Reese asked if something was happening with Blockbuster. He stated he’d noticed the lights had been on a lot more and it looked like it was being repainted inside. Olsen stated he thought the landlord was just doing some standard cleaning to try to market it, but he didn’t know of anything pending at this point. He knew that a couple people had asked around about it but nothing that he was aware of. Reese stated that during the Parade of Homes this year, D.R. Horton was marketing their new model home as being in the Woodbury school district. Reese asked if the City was going to inform D.R. Horton that the new model home is in ISD 833. Olsen said Horton’s marketing perspective might be to entice new home buyers with the idea of East Ridge High School, even though school boundaries can change. Rediske asked what the status of the proposed senior home at 70th and Hinton. Olsen replied it was his understanding that things were on hold right now and thought the property owner was shopping around. Rediske stated that in July, or maybe earlier, they had talked about the train and the light rail coming through Cottage Grove and where it would stop. She never heard any feedback from the Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013 1111 Page of survey or the results that they were going to get from that. Olsen asked if there was an update they could provide. Burbank believed that at next month’s Red Rock Corridor Commission meeting they would receive the survey results. It was part of the bus rapid transit analysis that’s being completed. Olsen told Rediske if she ever wanted to get information on Red Rock Corridor, she should call Councilmember Peterson because she sits on the Red Rock Corridor Commission. Rediske asked if there would be a stop in Cottage Grove. Olsen replied that he didn’t know for sure. Reese asked how we’ve done this year on building permits and if we were on track for what we were expecting for this year. Olsen stated he wasn’t on the EDA anymore so he didn’t see all that information as often as he used to. Levitt stated that the number of this year’s building permits was probably 40% below the projected number. She reported that with the number of developable lots in the D.R. Horton, Mississippi Dunes Fourth and the Everwood Fourth additions, the number of newly constructed single-family houses will be greater in 2014. Olsen stated the good news was we had a huge amount of infrastructure work was completed this year. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Rediske made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Imdieke seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 9:00p.m.