SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Prescott Muir, Vice-Chair, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Principal Planner Doug Dansie, Principal Planner Joel Paterson; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:47 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Chair Muir asked the Planning Commission to review the letters submitted by Mr. Peter Hoodes. The letters pertain to the approval of the minutes, specifically regarding Petition No. 410-653, which was a planned development for the Westminster College and was approved by the Planning Commission at the meeting on January 14, 2004.
Commissioner Daniels referred to the statements in the letters which alludes to aerial photographs of Westminster College. Mr. Hoodes stated in his letters that he believed, “that the pictures may have some bearing on the feasibility of the Parking Structure project, particularly from a ‘health and safety’ standpoint.” The said photographs were not submitted to the Commission with the letters. Commissioner Daniels said that he would like to see the photographs if the Commission was expected to take action this evening regarding the new information.
Chair Muir stated that he had reviewed the photographs and felt that they supported Mr. Hoodes’ argument. He described the options available to the Commission. A Commissioner who voted with the majority to approve the project may make a motion at this time to question the new information and reopen the public hearing. Another course of action is for the Commission to add an additional condition to the original motion, requesting the attention of the Salt Lake County Flood Control, and asking that they specifically review the new information and pass judgment on it. Chair Muir said that if they find an issue with the project it would have to come back before the Planning Commission for another public hearing.
Commissioner De Lay referred to the statement in Mr. Hoodes’ letter “to proceed carefully with any approvals, permits, etc.” Commissioner De Lay said that there is a check and balance system in place of which she is confident.
Commissioner Scott noted that she voted with the majority to approve the project and she supported the notion of adding an additional condition to the original approval that the Public Works and Salt Lake County Flood Control look into the issues presented in Mr. Hoodes’ letter. The Commission is aware of a potential disconnect in the original stream alignment, but the Commission is not certain of this highly technical matter.
Commissioner Diamond was curious if the letters submitted by Mr. Hoodes have been discussed among Staff. He asked if the planning of that portion of the Westminster Campus had been discussed with Westminster representatives and Planning Staff. Commissioner Diamond said that he assumed there have been soil studies of the project area and that Westminster is ready to begin as soon as possible. He worried that the City’s checks and balances might not catch something like this in a standard practice. He said that unless it was under a microscope some of these issues may not be caught. He wondered if there is a timeline in place that affects this project in regard to past modification of stream beds and the flow of water.
Mr. Zunguze said that he met with the Applicant and Principal Planner Doug Dansie. There has been discussion regarding this matter among Staff. The issue before the Commission is whether the issues being raised by Mr. Hoodes warrant the reopening of the case. He said that there are checks and balances in place and this is a large project which requires studies to take place. He said that Staff will review this project for however long it takes to get the stream issues addressed. Mr. Zunguze said that there will also be a multi-jurisdictional review by the City as well as the County. He said that Staff is sensitive to the issues raised and if the Commission would be more comfortable by adding an additional condition, it would be acceptable.
Commissioner Diamond said that he was questioning the timeline as to how far back a project is required to research. He said that a lot of projects have modified the stream beds over the course of history.
Mr. Wheelwright said that before 1981 there was no prohibition on grading activities. The first regulations were part of the site development regulations and regulations regarding flood plains which were adopted by the City Council in 1981 or 1982. He said that if this occurred before those regulations were adopted then there were no regulations to prevent it.
Commissioner Daniels said that due to the fact that this item was not advertised to be discussed this evening, he asked to remand this information back to Staff for review and bring before the Commission after advertising for a public hearing.
Chair Muir was concerned that that course of action would hold up the development. He said that if the Commission added an additional condition, the Applicant could proceed with the project. If the Planning Commission remanded this information back to Staff then the Commission could not endorse the January 14, 2004 minutes this evening. Chair Muir said that he did not think it was wise to incorporate standard plan check criteria into conditions of approval; however, in this case he supported the suggestion by Commissioner Scott that the Commission recognize the potential geotechnical concerns. He said that that would put the Applicant and the appropriate public agencies on notice regarding those issues.
Motion for Petition No. 410-653
Regarding Petition No. 410-653 which was considered at the January 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Scott made a motion that a condition be added to the original approval because of potential geotechnical concerns that have been brought to the attention of the Planning Commission this evening.
• Public Works, Salt Lake County Flood Control and other public agencies carefully scrutinize conditions that have been brought to the Planning Commission’s attention by Mr. Peter Hoodes’ letter of January 28, 2004.
Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
Approval of minutes from Wednesday, January 14, 2004
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as stated are reflected in the January 14, 2004 ratified minutes.
Mr. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney reminded the Planning Commission that the minutes are a reflection of what was said during the meeting, not what the Commission meant to say or how it would best read. The time spent correcting the minutes is not an opportunity for the Commission to redraft them.
Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Commissioner McDonough abstained. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Seven Commissioners voted in favor, and one Commissioner abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 6:09 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze asked the Planning Commission to initiate a petition to modify the sign ordinance to allow standardized parking lot identification or entrance signs for the Downtown area. The Mayor’s Office and the Transportation Division are proposing signage to help identify parking lots in the Downtown area. Commissioner Diamond initiated the said petition.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the first edition of the Salt Lake City Planning Office Newsletter which was distributed to the Commissioners. He noted the purpose of the newsletter is to keep the public informed of the Planning Office activities as well as highlight major issues that the Planning Commission and Staff are working on.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Zunguze who will be receiving the newsletter. Mr. Zunguze answered that various community groups, as well as those in the business community will be receiving the newsletter.
Commissioner Daniels thanked the Planning Director and Staff for the various new and different actions taken to keep the Commission better informed. He specifically noted the “Summary of Action taken by the Planning Commission,“ procedure. The Commission agreed.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the back of the agenda and noted that there is a notice for a public hearing. She stated that there is no opportunity for the public to speak this evening and wondered if there is an issue from a procedural standpoint.
Mr. Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director replied that the information on the back of the agenda is standard formatting, to inform the public of the procedures for a public hearing. He said that in the event that there is not a public hearing, perhaps that could be looked at differently in the future. He noted that it is rare for the Commission to only have presentations on the agenda.
Commissioner Seelig worried that the legitimacy of the discussions this evening may be jeopardized. Mr. Wilde said that he did not see an issue there.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
This item was heard at 6:13 p.m.
Chair Muir said that the Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair met with the new City Council Chair and Vice-Chair. He said that most of the discussion dealt with managing the Master Plans in a more cohesive manner. He said that City Council appreciates and supports what the Planning Commission is doing and they want to contribute to the progress. Commissioner Chambless reaffirmed the desires of the City Council Chair and Vice-Chair that there be greater communication and coordination.
OTHER BUSINESS
Presentation of the Intermodal Small Area Master Plan by IBI Consulting Firm, and presentation of the Intermodal Light Rail Extension by Parsons Consulting Firm.
This presentation began at 6:15 p.m.
Principal Planner Doug Dansie gave a brief history of planning for the Downtown area and then introduced the Small Area Master Plan and the Intermodal Light Rail Expansion. He said that the Small Area Master Plan will generally cover the area between 400 West to I-15 and North Temple to 400 South. He said concurrently the City is proposing an extension of the TRAX line which will go from the Delta Center stop, south on 400 West to 200 South, and west on 200 South to 600 West into the Intermodal Hub. Mr. Dansie said that the following presentation is intended to brief the Planning Commission on the development and receive input regarding the issues they may raise. He noted that the City has a policy of expanding Downtown development to the west and south of Downtown and have made decisions to implement that policy. He noted that the area west and south of Downtown can handle the increased density.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the area proposed for the TRAX expansion and said that it may be an attraction for more people to live in the City. Mr. Dansie agreed and said that this is one area of the City which can handle increased density.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Dansie if affordable housing is envisioned to be developed in that area. Mr. Dansie answered that the City policy is not to create neighborhoods of exclusive affordable housing, rather to develop a broad range of mixed housing types.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Dansie if an I-15 ramp is envisioned to exit onto 100 South. Mr. Dansie said that there was discussion to add an additional ramp for carpools, onto North Temple which met opposition; the compromise was to exit the freeway at 100 South and 600 West.
Mr. Ray Witchurch representing IBI Consulting Firm addressed the Commission saying that IBI was retained to review the Gateway area, considering the recent impacts and determine ways to create a more walkable community. He referred to the proposed TRAX extension and Intermodal Hub and said that IBI is taking into consideration the fact that this is a unique neighborhood which is in transition. He said that the study will review the block patterns and the connections from the external neighborhoods which come into this area. He added that the design guidelines and policies for the Gateway area will also be reviewed.
Chair Muir asked Mr. Witchurch to describe the boundaries of the study area. Mr. Witchurch replied that it will cover the area from North Temple to 400 South and I-15 to 400 West.
Chair Muir stated that the study will obviously include the Gateway and asked if the study will include an analysis of how the regional shopping area meshes with localized retail. Mr. Witchurch answered that they will not deal with the market analysis; however, they will analyze the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in a theoretical manner.
Mr. Dansie added that Gateway takes up a large part of the area for the study but there are several large property owners as well, and part of this process is working with those property owners to discover their development plans and try to tie them all together to make sure that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Commissioner Chambless asked how many years into the future is this proposal planned for. Mr. Dansie answered that it is difficult to foresee technological advances; however, Light Rail Transit contracts are for 50 years.
Commissioner Chambless asked what type of lighting is proposed. He worried that the crime in the area may increase due to the neighborhood being in transition.
Mr. Witchurch said that the lighting will be comparable to that of Main Street.
Mr. Dansie added that the lighting will be defined by district. There have been discussions regarding the notion that this area is a separate district from Downtown as well as the idea that the same light fixtures in the Downtown District should be carried over to this area. He noted that the lighting will be pedestrian friendly.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the concept of bringing City Creek above ground. He wondered if fountains are envisioned to be incorporated into the walkable community. Mr. Dansie said that the City has conceptually brought City Creek above ground in different areas of the City such as City Creek Park, The LDS Church Conference Center and the fountains in Gateway to create the image of City Creek. At 500 West the Army Corps of Engineers is working with the City to bring the water from the aqueduct at North Temple along an abandoned rail line to the Jordan River which would be actual City Creek Water.
Commissioner McDonough wondered how this study will address the relationship between the Gateway District and Main Street. She asked how the issues will be identified initially to set the stage for the proposed expansion. Mr. Witchurch answered that one issue that they are identifying is establishing precincts that would have different character in that area. Mr. Paterson added that some of the guidance is coming from the Design Guidelines in the Gateway Master Plan; in that the Gateway area is broken into smaller sub-districts which will have their own character.
Mr. Zunguze added that the project must have synergy with the entire Downtown. He said that one interesting feature which is being carried over from the discussions regarding department store definitions, is the notion of not creating a one size fits all approach to the Downtown. The intent is to create differentiated areas which offer different things and still create synergy to bring liveliness to Downtown.
Chair Muir referred to when the department store definitions were analyzed and said that he felt that the Gateway Master Plan did not prescribe what the Gateway Development turned out to be. He said that that issue needed to be addressed and he felt that this study is the vehicle to do so. He said that perhaps the Gateway Plan needs to be reinvented.
Mr. Witchurch said that the TRAX stops are going to be the key to how the areas develop. The activity centers will basically spread out from the TRAX stop locations.
Chair Muir referred to the HUD standards for noise and proximity to homes, he wondered if there are mitigation measures in place if the surrounding area of the rail corridor is expected to be highly residential. Mr. Dansie answered that the Federal Government now allows the creation of quiet zones. The City is in the process of putting gates in several locations along the rail road line with the goal that trains would be able to run throughout the City with out blowing their horns.
Mr. Evan Nixon representing Parsons Consulting Firm spoke to the Planning Commission saying that Parsons has been hired by the City to work on the preliminary engineering of the TRAX extension. He referred to a diagram of the extension and described the area. He said that the alignment of the extension was decided by environmental studies done of the area. He said some of the issues that they are working out are where to place the TRAX along the road. He said that they found that the center of the road is the best option. Another issue they are currently working through is where to have stops along the line.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Nixon if the only section proposed to be extended is the area from South Temple to the Intermodal Hub. Mr. Nixon answered that at this time, that is correct, but there are options in the future.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Nixon what his recommendation is as to how many stations there should be and their locations along the line. Mr. Nixon referred to a diagram of the existing North and South TRAX line and University TRAX line which had 1,300 foot radius circles on it. He said that the circles represent the distance a person is willing to walk before it becomes an inconvenience. One idea of the extension is to have the same feel as Downtown and create a similar spacing; however, from an operation point of view the more stations there are, the slower the ride is going to seem.
Chair Muir asked the Commission’s perspective as to the importance of an intermediate station mid distant between the Delta Station and the Intermodal Hub at the expense of the opportunity to continue the 500 West Park Blocks; or does that opportunity create a higher priority, and the station should be adjusted subordinate to that opportunity.
Mr. Nixon said that if there is a stop at 475 West it must be pushed up against the intersection of the existing 500 West, not the potential 500 West, to minimize the amount of jay-walking to get to the station platforms.
Commissioner De Lay asked if Mr. Nixon is aware of the high amount of pedestrian traffic at the potential 485 West 200 South station. She mentioned the concern that a completely new traffic flow would be created due to the amount of people who do not use the crosswalk. Mr. Nixon said that the hope is that the public would use the crosswalk which is not being eliminated. He added that he appreciated that concern and that is an issue that needs to be reviewed.
Chair Muir added that as he has been working with the Homeless and Humanitarian Committee, trying to deal with the Homeless situation, he has found the access to public transportation is paramount to the success of social programs.
Commissioner De Lay agreed but felt that that block has a large amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and she felt it is ridiculous to have a stop there. Mr. Nixon said that all of the impacts mentioned are probably going to be there whether there is a stop or not due to the fact that there will be a train moving down the center of the street. He added that there will be a curb line along TRAX to minimize U-turns and such.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the events at the Delta Center have been taken into account. She mentioned concerns with the amount of traffic which those events create along 400 South. Mr. Nixon said that they have prepared a computer simulation to illustrate different scenarios that have been taken into account.
Mr. Dave Garish addressed the Commission as a representative of Fehrn Peers Consulting Firm, which is a sub-consulting firm to Parsons on this project. He presented three computer simulations which illustrate the one station alternative, the two station alternative, and the train conductor’s view while moving down the extension. He said that the Delta Center events raise concerns that the left turning lane is available at 500 West, as well as the Gateway summer parking garage access. He mentioned that they figured current traffic counts and projected them into the future 20 years and then completed an evaluation on existing and future conditions.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the different scenarios presented and asked if the scenario with the 475 West station is the only scenario which prevents the 500 West Boulevard continuing south. Mr. Dansie answered that that is correct.
Mr. Nixon described the layout of TRAX entering the Intermodal Hub and the different configurations that have been studied.
Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Nixon to describe the efforts in place to accommodate the elderly and people with disabilities. Mr. Nixon stated that both ends of a station have mini high blocks in place to accommodate a level entrance to the train.
Commissioner Diamond suggested another alternative which would reroute the extension from 400 West south to 400 South then turn right going west. Mr. Nixon said that he did not think UDOT would approve using 400 West for another TRAX line, as well as the viaduct altered or avoided in that case.
Ms. Mary Guy-Sell noted that the alignment of the rail between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub was determined in the late 1990’s when the original Airport to University EIS and the Intermodal Hub EA was completed. The alignment is not an issue which should be addressed at this point.
Commissioner McDonough felt that it is more important to allow the City to have the flexibility to execute the vision of 500 West and deal with the technical issues as they come. She said that she would support the elimination of the 475 West station location, which would narrow the debates between whether there should be one or two stations. She felt that certainly one station is necessary to contribute to a walkable community.
Commissioner Daniels agreed with Commissioner McDonough that there must be one stop minimum to serve those in that community.
Commissioner Noda agreed and said that the future will probably bring more growth in that area. She said that a walkable community is definitely something that should be encouraged. She did not think that one additional stop, in the two stations scenario would deter people from riding TRAX.
Commissioner De Lay said that as a resident of the neighborhood she felt that one stop would be better than two because of the noise factor which will impact the neighborhood.
Commissioner Diamond asked how difficult would it be to design a future station. Mr. Nixon answered that that is an option. Commissioner Diamond suggested that the proposed station be moved to about 600 West rather than 500 West to accommodate a future stop and future growth. Mr. Dansie said that if the stop is moved too far west then the TRAX train would be making a 90 degree turn which is not feasible.
Commissioner Chambless referred to the future growth of the City and the population and said that the current planning must give the City as much flexibility as possible to accommodate future growth.
Commissioner McDonough encouraged the consultants to maintain the 500 West Boulevard and the pedestrian crossing. Mr. Dansie said that anywhere there is a station there will be a pedestrian crossing. He referred to South Temple near Crossroads Mall and Temple Square where there is a mid-block crossing and no station, and said that a mid-block crossing may be an option here as well.
Chair Muir summarized by saying that the Commission is concerned with maintaining the 500 West Corridor and not precluding with what is done with the light rail that opportunity in the future. He said that they support that idea of one station minimum between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub and possibly two while trying to maintain pedestrian connectivity. He added that it is important that the left turn into the summer parking garage at the Gateway be maintained.
Mr. Nixon said that the comments given this evening are appreciated. He said that both the station on 400 West and the turn lane are not possible. Chair Muir said that he realized that and suggested that the left turn be maintained initially and not preclude a station in the future, which may come at the expense of the left turn. He said that the consultants would have to weight which alternative is more reasonable.
The Commission took a short break.
Presentation by Kevin Horn, A.I.A. and Richard Sheinberg, Developer, representing Capitol Park Condominiums L.L.C, for a proposed residential condominium conversion project for the old Veteran’s Administration Hospital and Annex buildings, on a 5.1 acre parcel located west of the intersection of 13th Avenue and “F” Streets, in the Foothill Residential “FR-3” zoning district. A total of 32 residential units are proposed for the two existing buildings.
This presentation began at 8:14 p.m.
Mr. Kevin Horn of Horn and Partners Architecture spoke to the Planning Commission describing the proposed project for the old V.A. Hospital. He said that the site consists of two structures the original hospital and the annex building. The two structures are currently linked by a four story structure. Mr. Horn stated that they are proposing to convert the original hospital into 26 penthouse style condominium units. He described the parking proposed for the units. He described the proposed architectural elements of the structure. Mr. Horn described a roof top garden as well as an exercise facility and possibly a water feature. The lower two floors of the Annex building are planned to be converted into two-story town homes. The third floor of the Annex building will be converted into two condominium units. There are 32 units proposed between the two structures. Mr. Horn said that this proposal will assimilate well with the neighboring development. He stated that the developers are ready to move forward with the approval process immediately. He added that they support the suggestion by Staff to consider this proposal as phase 5 of the original 1995 planned development and proceed through a new planned development and condominium approval process.
Commissioner De Lay noted that the two buildings are old and asked if the Applicant will be required to add additional structural support for earthquakes. Mr. Horn agreed that the structures are old and said they are covered by curtain walls, below that the concrete frame consisting of two foot by two foot columns and frame work which is in good condition. He said that they have not seen many signs of stress on the frame work and minimal additional support will be needed.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the community will be gated. Mr. Horn said that that is not the intention, the surrounding neighborhood is not currently gated and the Applicant does not see a need to do so.
Commissioner Chambless asked when the structure was constructed. Mr. Horn said that it was built in 1931. Commissioner Chambless referred to the tornado of 1999 and the damaged vegetation on the property; he asked if there was damage to the structure itself. Mr. Horn said that there were no signs of cracking to the frame work; he said that there were minor cosmetic damages such as loss of a few brick and shingles but nothing more.
Chair Muir restated the three alternatives recommended by Staff in reviewing this proposal and asked the Commission how they would like to proceed.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the Applicant can meet the originally approved parking requirement for 44 units. Mr. Horn said that they could meet that requirement at 1.5 per unit at 66 parking stalls.
Commissioner De Lay stated that she supports the more expedited process and asked the Applicant how long the project will take to be complete once approved, and if the two structures will be converted concurrently. Mr. Horn stated that they modifications will happen simultaneously and they predict construction will take one year.
Chair Muir stated that this is more compatible with the adjoining residences than the original proposal of 44 units. He asked if the underlying zoning will create problems going forward. Mr. Wheelwright said that it could be argued both ways, that this is the fifth phase of the concept that was approved in 1995 and move forward, or that too much time has passed since the original approval.
Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Wheelwright if there is a time line attached to the original agreement. Mr. Wheelwright answered that there is a one year approval window which was satisfied when the Applicant recorded the final plat. The problem now is that the approval in 1995 was for the 5.1 acre parcel to front on a private street. No definitive layout of the buildings or definitive number of units was ever proposed. He said that the minimal expectation would be to hold an issues only hearing and request that the Applicant file planned development and subdivision applications to finalize the development within this 5.1 acre parcel, which would be followed by condominium plats for the two different buildings.
Chair Muir asked if a motion is need at this time to support that. Mr. Zunguze said that a motion is not needed. Staff understands that this is the course that the Commission would like the Applicant to pursue. He referred to the underlying zoning and said that Staff will work to explain how the zoning is reconciled with the reduced density proposed, given the length of time that has passed from the original approval.
Chair Muir clarified that with a rezoning petition a planned development would still be necessary. He asked if the two petitions could go through the processes concurrently, which would reconcile the zoning issue.
Mr. Wheelwright noted that if the Commission does not elect the rezoning option then all of the approval decisions are the Planning Commission’s. He said that if the Commission elects for the rezoning and the master plan amendment then the City Council is the decision making body. Mr. Wheelwright said that the City Council has been briefed regarding this project and they have not suggested issues with not taking this through the rezoning master plan amendment.
Chair Muir said that there is no reason to encumber the approval process by one more hoop, although he did not want to deny the City Council the opportunity to weigh in on the issue. He said that it is peculiar that there was a rezone that did not anticipate this development.
Commissioner Scott asked if there are surrounding properties around where the same type of thing could happen. She felt that the Commission is in agreement that is project is an exciting reuse of a wonderful building and the Commission is just struggling with the process.
Chair Muir asked if the Applicant would agree that the project go through a rezone as well as a planned development. He did not sense opposition and it may make it easier for the Applicant in the future when selling the units. The Applicant worried that the length of time for approval would be extended by adding another approval to the process.
Chair Muir said that if it would not cause title or sale problems then the Commission would be supportive of the planned development and not the zoning change. The Commission agreed.
Mr. Zunguze said that Staff is comfortable with the direction from the Commission; however, he indicated that he needed to have further discussions with his Staff and the City Attorney’s Office.
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.