Planning - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. if I turn my microphone on, calling to order the June 22nd, 2026 Cottage Grove Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Our first item of business is roll call. And for that tonight, we go to Commissioner Stechman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Woodman. Here. Commissioner Madison.

Here.

Commissioner Britton.

Here.

Commissioner Chair Fisher.

Here.

And I'm here. Commissioner Bott is excused.

Thank you very much. Our next item on our agenda is approval of the agenda. Unless there are any additions or corrections, I would look for a motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve from Commissioner Woodman. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second from Commissioner Steckman. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. The agenda is approved. Next item on our agenda is for open forum. So this is a time when anybody in the audience, if you would like to address the Planning Commission for an item that is not already on our agenda for tonight, now is the time to do so. Please step to the podium, state your name and address for the record. I am seeing no movement, so I'm going to close the open forum. Our next item is the Chair's explanation of the hearing process. The Planning Commission is a volunteer advisory group to the City Council. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings and make recommendations on land use and zoning matters. The purpose of these public hearings is to provide an opportunity for each applicant and citizens to present information, ask questions, and express opinions. Since these proceedings are televised and recorded for the public record, anyone wishing to speak must step up to the podium, give their name and address before addressing the Commission. Staff reports are prepared and provided to the applicant and Planning Commission in advance of the meeting. The first step in the hearing will be for staff to present a summary of the report. The applicant will then have the opportunity to briefly explain the proposal and provide additional information or comments. Anyone wanting to speak in favor or against the proposal will then be heard. Upon completion of the testimony, the hearing will be closed to public comments. The Planning Commission will then discuss and act on the matter. Two complete agenda packets are available for viewing on the back table. Please do not remove those items. The City Council will act on both items on our agenda at their meeting on Wednesday, July 15th, 2025, which starts here at 7 p.m. OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING AND APPLICATION TONIGHT IS 6A, 8077 RIVER ACRES ROAD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE VARIANCE, CASE V, 2026-016. AND I BELIEVE OUR PLANNER KELLY BECKER WILL BE PRESENTING.

ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. BEFORE YOU IS AN APPLICATION FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 8077 RIVER ACRES ROAD. The subject site is located on a .81-acre lot adjacent to the Mississippi River. The property is zoned R3 single-family residential and is guided as low-density residential on the 2048 comprehensive plan. Also being adjacent to the Mississippi River, the property is within the Merca District, specifically the River Neighborhood Overlay District. The lot is located within the house's River Acres subdivision plot, which was recorded in 1958. The property currently has a single family dwelling and 756 square foot detached accessory structure, which serves as the primary garage. To note, the house does not have an attached garage. The property is also located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, or MUSA. However, it is still currently served by private septic. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing detached accessory structure with a new 2,176 square foot detached accessory structure. A portion of the driveway will also need to be expanded to align with the new garage door furthest on the right. The accessory structure will be constructed of materials to match the house, which include cedar shake panels and natural stone wainscoting, which is compliant with code standards. Also to note, accessory structures are permitted within the front yard in the MRCA district due to limitations with bluff and shoreline setbacks provided that structure meet all other development standards. Per Title 1135, a primary garage either detached or attached up to 1200 square feet and one accessory structure up to 1000 square feet is permitted in the R3 district. However, due to the fact that an attached garage does not exist and likely could not be achieved on this property, a total combined allowance of up to 2200 square feet has been permitted for one detached accessory structure. The lot is considered a corner lot and a 20-foot setback applies to the property line abutting the right-of-way on corner lots. The applicant is requesting this variance to allow the accessory structure setback to be reduced to 10 feet from the property line at the right-of-way abutting the east side of River Acres Road. The accessory structure would be located at the exterior of the curve in the road, therefore not creating any sightline issues, which is typically a concern that we see in corner lots. All other development standards have been met and setbacks have been met, including the MRCA standards. There are several unique characteristics on this property which limit building in an otherwise compliant location, one of which is the shape of the lot itself. The lot is situated around two bends in the road with a narrow portion only about 67 feet wide on the north half of the property. The applicant did explore locating the detached accessory structure on that north portion of the property. However, corner yard setbacks also limit development in that location and the current location of the drain fields blocks access to that area from the existing driveway. Another option that was explored was a second driveway. However, only one driveway is permitted in the R3 district, so that was not a feasible option to reach that area either. Additionally, the location of the septic tanks on the east side of the house may limit building area on that side as well for either a detached or attached garage. And lastly, the slope on the River Ward side of the property and the development standards in the Merca District further limit building a structure behind the home, whereas the proposed location is already relatively flat. The north half of the lot contains dense vegetation, and the property owner has stated that there are several mature oak trees on the property surrounding the home that they would like to preserve. The applicant has also noted that no trees would need to be required, would need to be removed for the requested location of the accessory structure. The intent of the Merca District is to sustain and enhance vegetation, as well as preserve the natural character and topography of the area. The proposed location of the accessory structure prevents any impact to slopes or mature vegetation on the property, and thus is preserving the natural character and intent of the district. So with that, the recommendation is listed on the screen before you, and the property owners are present as well for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Would the property owners like to add anything? Yeah, come on up, John.

I'm not sure if you have all these pictures, I assume.

Yes, we do. Can you state your name and your address?

John Coturia, 8077 River Acres Road. Yeah, good job, Kelly. I can't say much more than what she's added. She hit everything on our application that we wanted to point out. But we do have the plans here and extra plans if you want to look at that with all the sizes. But do you have any questions at all for me? had all my thoughts expressed, so. Sure.

Thank you, Mr. Couturier. Does anybody have any questions for either staff or for the applicant themselves?

I have a question for staff.

Commissioner Seckman.

Sure. For staff, actually, so, yeah. If I could just ask the staff a question.

I can't hear. Okay.

I would like to ask a question of the staff.

Oh.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CONFIRM THAT THE CITY DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES FROM ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS WHEN THEY LEARNED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE PROPOSED.

CORRECT, COMMISSIONER SUCHMAN. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CONFIRMATION.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER MADISON.

THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WOULD THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY THE SHAPE OF BE OBVIOUSLY THE SHAPE OF THE LOT AND THE LOCATION OF THE LOT AND THE LOCATION OF THE SEPTICS AND WHATNOT. THE SEPTICS AND WHATNOT. SO I'M LOOKING AT SLIDE 17 IN SO I'M LOOKING AT SLIDE 17 IN OUR PACKAGE WHICH SHOWS THE MAP. OUR PACKAGE WHICH SHOWS THE MAP. AND IT SHOWS WHERE IT WOULD BE to the 10 foot setback from the 20. And I'm noticing that the overall width of that building is 51 foot. Had it been considered to make it 41 foot, that section, to keep it within the 20 foot setback?

Commissioner Madison, I believe the applicant might be able to attest a little bit better to the shape and the layout and how that fits their needs.

Sure. Being on the river, we have a pontoon boat, and with that, we wanted to have that side fit that length, and we also have a small truck camper that we'd put in there as well that's now sitting outside the garage. But that was our plan, was to get as much length as we could to fit that stuff in there. We don't have storage of any kind. We don't have a basement. We don't have any other storage besides that smaller garage right now. So, that was the reason for the, we were told we could have 22, so we went as close as we could to that, 2,200 square feet.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, if not, then I'm going to open the public hearing now. If anybody in the audience would like to speak for or against the application, now is your time to do so. Please step to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'm going to close public hearing. Is there further discussion from the Commission on this application?

No, I think the only comment I had, if I can, the fact that it is so close to that line and it does come off the 20 down to the 10, that's a concern always, but it is bumping up against, in that specific location, back up against what the city owns for that roadway. So it's not as if they're approaching on a neighbor, which we would have more concerns with, I think. So that was the only thing I wanted to call out specifically knowing we were talking about that. So less of a concern in my book.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Woodman. Does anybody else have any comments or questions? I would have to agree with you just because of the way the road is situated. I mean, it really fits every other criteria except for that one line and that one spot. So with that, I would look for a motion from the commission.

Motion to approve subject to the findings of fact and conditions stipulated in the staff report.

Thank you. Commissioner Britton has made a motion to approve subject to stipulation and conditions in the staff report. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second from Commissioner Madison. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

OPPOSED, SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES FIVE TO ZERO. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT APPLICATION IS FOR 6B ON OUR AGENDA, 10590 EAST POINT DOUGLAS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE VARIANCE CASE V2026-019. AND THIS WILL BE PRESENTED BY OUR SENIOR PLANNER, SAM PURET.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Tonight, Gary and Colleen Millard have applied for a variance to allow the use of a metal exterior on a new accessory building on their property at 10590 East Point Douglas Road. The property is 5.21 acres zoned R1 rural residential district and guided rural residential in the 2040 comprehensive plan. The property is surrounded by R1 zoned properties to the west and south and land zone agricultural to the east and the north. The city's overall zoning map is shown on the screen on the right-hand side with the R1 areas shown in dark green, and the applicant's property is denoted by the red rectangle on the screen down in the southeast corner. The property currently contains a dwelling and accessory shed with metal exterior. The shed was constructed in 1985. A loafing shed for pigs and a hoop building with a canvas or tarp covering. Metal exterior materials were allowed in the rural residential zoning district in 1985 when that accessory building was constructed. The applicants have proposed to replace that existing hoop building with a 30 by 40 accessory building with metal exterior. The proposed metal exterior would be similar to that existing pole building using metal that is commonly seen on agricultural properties around the area and region. City code requires that all accessory buildings in residential districts use wood, split-face block, vinyl, or cement board materials complementary to the color of the principal building. Those current code standards that disallow metal exteriors in the R1 zone were reviewed by the planning commission in 2022, subsequently adopted by council in 2023. As part of the comprehensive code updates, metal exteriors on accessory buildings outside of the R1 district and all the other residential districts have been disallowed since 2012. The reason for the code update in 2023 to disallow metal exteriors in the R1 district was to ensure consistency with all accessory building materials across the community in all of our residential zones. And there has been several requests in the past, some that have come before this board requesting metal exterior, and those have been denied in the past, and other buildings have been constructed with the appropriate materials. As a reminder, for the commission, variance requesters must show practical difficulty in complying with all of the city codes. This is required by state statute. Key requirements include that the plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances created by the landowner, and economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. With that information, the recommendation is on the screen before you, and the applicants are in the audience tonight for any questions you may have.

All right, thank you so much. Do we have any questions for Sam before I invite the, go ahead, Commissioner Woodman.

Yeah, I've got one. Here it says principal buildings and accessory structures in residential districts may use steel lap siding as exterior materials. Is that just a specific type of siding? So versus your typical egg, which is gonna be just extruded or steel that's vertical. We're talking about like steel that's, looks like vinyl siding, that type of thing?

Yeah, Commissioner Woodman, Madam Chair, you are exactly right. So the item we're talking about today is the metal. You'd see it on a typical pole building in an agricultural area. The steel lap siding is actually pretty common now on residential homes. You can't really tell a difference unless you're touching the metal that it is actually steel.

Just wanted to clarify, because it was saying that exterior metal wasn't allowed, but it is allowed if it's this particular type. Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff before I invite the applicant up for any additions? No? If not, I think the applicants are in the audience. If you have anything you'd like to add, now you can do so. If you could just state your name and address for the record.

My name is Colleen Millard. We live at 10590 East Point Douglas Road South. What I wanted to say is that we wanted to put the shed up to look identical to the one we already have on the property, which I feel makes it a more cohesive look. We are, no one can see the building from our neighbors and that because our whole property is surrounded by trees. There are Kimbrough Avenue is the Musa line, and on our side it's only one per 40 acres, but it is considered rural residential now, but actually everything out there pretty much is ag except for a few houses surrounding us. If you go on the other side of Kimbrough, there's 12 pole bar buildings made with the same steel that you're denying, would deny, that are already built on that road. So I'm hoping the cost to put up what you're recommending would be 10 to $15,000 more. And my husband and we're older, we couldn't afford it. So we'd end up doing the tarp shed again, which is not option because they don't last very long because of the winds and stuff out in our area. My husband's very knowledgeable on putting up pole buildings, and he's done it years ago as a side job, and the structure we want to put up with the steel siding, would be, for the cost, would be built the way we would like it to be built. So I'm hoping that you give us a variance. If you have any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Millard. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. At this point, I'm going to open the public hearing. If anybody in the audience would like to speak for or against the application, now is the time to do so. Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Are there any questions or discussion from the commission members? Commissioner Stackman?

I seem to recall the first time that I appeared at the Planning Commission, we had kind of a similar request asking for a variance on the construction materials. And in that there was a similar request because it was behind sight lines so nobody could see it from the roadway and it was gonna save a lot of money and it was going to be, the ask was for like metal structure instead of like the materials that are required by the ordinance. And I recall making the difficult decision in that particular case that I could not support a variance because even though this is a kind of a somewhat recent change to the ordinance, I found that it was necessary to enforce it uniformly. And because I voted against that variance back then, I am inclined to also vote to deny the variance in this particular case. That's where I'm at.

Thank you, Commissioner Stackman. Anybody else? Commissioner Madison.

SO AS MUCH AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR AND UNDERSTAND THE HARDSHIPS IT COULD CREATE, THE THING I THINK ABOUT IS THAT CODES CAN CHANGE ALL THE TIME FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, WHETHER IT BE FOR SAFETY OR COHESIVENESS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. THE THING I'M THINKING OF IS ALTHOUGH THIS IS MORE OF AN AESTHETIC SORT OF CODE CHANGE, IF IT WAS, FOR INSTANCE, A CODE CHANGE THAT WAS ELECTRICAL AND IT WAS A SAFETY ISSUE, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GRANDFATHER IN AND DO A LESS SAFE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION BECAUSE A PREVIOUS BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY HAD A LESS SAFE ELECTRICAL CODE THAT IT FOLLOWED. SO I THINK EVEN THOUGH THIS IS AESTHETIC, WE HAVE TO KIND OF FOLLOW THE SAME SUIT WITH IF A CODE CHANGES, YOU NEED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MADISON. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO WEIGH IN? COMMISSIONER WOODMAN.

Going to staff or either of our support, do we have any records of this type of thing being approved by the city council in the last few years? I know that one was off on the northwest side. Have we approved any variances for construction materials in the last few years?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Woodman, we have not in the last handful of years since we updated the code.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Woodman. Anybody else have anything to add? No, Ken? Okay. Okay, I would have to agree with the gentleman to my left too. It's difficult for us up in this position because we understand what you're asking for, but applying uniformly the code that's been adopted by our city staff is ultimately what we are charged to do up here. So I would agree with these two.

Since we just had a similar one to that went this way so with that being said I would look for a motion from one of my fellow commissioners All right madam chair mmm regrettably I do move to recommend a denial of this application For the reasons stated in the report in the discussion we had today

Thank you. So Commissioner Stechman has made a motion to deny subject to the conditions and stipulations outlined in the staff report. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second from Commissioner Britton. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Okay. The motion is denied then. Is that how I say that? Okay. Motion or the application has been denied. OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THOSE MINUTES? IF NOT, I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER WOODMAN. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

I SECOND.

SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MADISON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES 5-0. MOVING ON TO REPORTS. With a recap of May and June City Council meetings, we look to our Community Development Director, Emily Schmitz.

Madam Chair, Commissioners, two months, it's been, goodness gracious. But going back all the way to May 6th, the Council did review the request for a variance off of Kimbrough Circle that you all heard in April for an accessory structure in front of a principal structure. The Council did approve that. VARIANCE REQUESTS AT THE MAY 6th MEETING. MAY 20th MEETING, THE COUNCIL REVIEWED THE QUICK TRIP APPLICATION FOR THEIR LOCATION ON HIGHWAY 61 IN MANNING. down at the south end of the city, so exciting there to have that second approval. I will offer that we have issued the building permit for the first Quick Trip location at 95th and Jamaica. I'm almost afraid to say that out loud, but I'm hopeful that is one step closer to actually seeing some dirt move out there at 95th and Jamaica. And then moving to June 3rd, that meeting, the only note that I would make, and hopefully I'm not stealing any thunder, but they did welcome Officer Wellen and Kai, her canine dog who they both finished their training. And if you want to learn more about that, it is awfully impressive, the strenuous work that goes into training that dog and the handler. And then finally on June 17th, I would just note the council did approve the Geneva Meadows second preliminary plat that is over there kind of in the on the other side of the the community just adjacent to St. Paul Park at 85th and I'll call it Geneva Avenue, but it is a private drive. But neither here nor there, those 23 lots have been approved and will work through that final plat, hopefully in the next handful of months. But with that, that is a brief recap of May and June. Council Member Olson, if you've got anything additional to share, by all means. I know you're always available for questions as well.

Thank you very much. I'll share a couple things and then open the floor to you for questions, should you have any. With respect to the variance that was mentioned on Kimbrough Circle, that variance did pass. I personally voted against the variance. And the reason I did is, as you heard this evening, financial considerations are not considered a practical difficulty, and to me that was the real root of the issue for that particular variance application. It was a challenging conversation. And even with our attorney present in the room, she wasn't a whole lot of help because she said, well, you could look at it either way. So I clearly looked at it a different way than the rest of the council. But that variance did pass. despite my no vote. I wanted to also let you know that I know we are running a person down currently on our commission, but we do have a candidate to fill the open spot. That individual will hopefully be approved in July at our regular council meeting in July. our meeting schedule gets a little weird this time of year because it's budget time. So we have meetings that take place that are purely budget, and then we also have business meetings that take place. So we have to wait for that business meeting before that individual can be approved for a spot on the Planning Commission, and then we should be back to full strength. We're looking forward to that. And as I mentioned earlier, it is budget time, so this is that time of year when staff and council are on pins and needles because we're waiting for so much information to come in from all these other various sources, including the county for home valuations and so on and so forth. ECONOMIC INDICATORS, ET CETERA. SO WE'LL BE VERY BUSY OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. THE GOOD NEWS IS WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND SOME TIME HAVING FUN THIS LAST WEEKEND AT STRAWBERRY FEST. THE WEATHER FRIDAY NIGHT DIDN'T NECESSARILY COOPERATE WITH US TO THE DEGREE WE'D LIKE IT TO, BUT SATURDAY MORE THAN MADE UP FOR IT. IT WAS A RECORD-BREAKING NIGHT. I can speak from the perspective of our Cottage Grove Lions Club. We had a very good night that night under the Lions tent for food and beverage. So we thank everybody who came out on both evenings. And then Thursday night was family night as well. It was a great weekend. The weather was perfect Saturday. The parade route was packed. So always my favorite time of year, Strawberry Fest. GOT SOME GREAT PICTURES, INCLUDING SOME FROM COMMISSIONER STECHMAN. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE ANNUAL FREEDOM WEEKEND FESTIVAL IS COMING UP HERE. JULY 4TH IS A SATURDAY IN COTTAGE GROVE. WE DO OUR FIREWORKS ON SUNDAY, WHICH IS JULY THE 5TH. IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG SHOW OUT AT KINGSTON PARK. WE'RE LOOKING AT HALF AGAIN AS MUCH THAT WE'RE SPENDING ON OUR FIREWORKS SHOW THIS YEAR AS A COTTAGE GROVE LIONS CLUB. And it promises to be a really, really great show. With the additional support of the business community, we've raised over $40,000 for our fireworks show this year, which means longer show, bigger shells, bigger booms. Should be a really good time. So that takes place on the 5th. at Kingston Park, start at five o'clock. There'll be food, soda, water, et cetera. We have several different vendors who will be present as well. Mic Mart will be there. We have the roasted corn vendor and the cheese curd vendor will have SOME FIRE TRUCKS OUT THERE, SOME PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND WE EVEN HAVE A MILITARY BAND WHO'S GOING TO BE OUT PLAYING FOR US. SO SHOULD BE A REALLY GREAT NIGHT. I HOPE TO SEE ALL OF YOU THERE, AND I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU, MADAM CHAIR, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER?

FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER? I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I HAVE A LITTLE COMMENT. BUT I HAVE A LITTLE COMMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, MY WIFE AND I UNFORTUNATELY, MY WIFE AND I WERE NOT ABLE TO GO TO WERE NOT ABLE TO GO TO STRAWBERRY FEST TO KINGSTON STRAWBERRY FEST TO KINGSTON PARK BECAUSE WE WERE HOLDING PARK BECAUSE WE WERE HOLDING EVENTS AT OUR BUSINESS. EVENTS AT OUR BUSINESS.

BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THOSE BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THOSE BANDS DO ROCK OUT OVER THERE BANDS VERY WELL DONE AND YEAH THE BANDS DID A GREAT JOB IT WAS IT WAS A LOT OF FUN EVEN IN THE RAIN ON FRIDAY NIGHT THE BAND WAS CALLED THEM PESKY KIDS AND THEY WERE DEFINITELY HAVING A GOOD TIME ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FUNNY ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, LOOKS LIKE ALL RIGHT, LOOKS LIKE WE'RE DONE. WE'RE DONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS RESPONSE TO COMMISSION INQUIRIES. RESPONSE TO COMMISSION INQUIRIES. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY. 8C, PLANNING COMMISSION 8C, PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTS. REQUESTS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY REQUESTS DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY REQUESTS THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS? THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS? ALL RIGHT, I SEE NOTHING. ALL RIGHT, I SEE NOTHING. SO THAT BRINGS US TO THE END. SO THAT BRINGS US TO THE END. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn from Commissioner Woodman. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second from Commissioner Britton. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. We are adjourned. Thank you very much.