Loading...
2005-02-02 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 02/02/2005 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION February 2, 2005 Buffalo Grove Park District, Bison Park, 905 Dundee Road Special Use concerning proposed cellular communications tower Buffalo Grove Park District, Busch Grove Park, 801 McHenry Road Special Use concerning proposed cellular communications tower Buffalo Grove Park District, Rolling Hills North Park, 1951 Sheridan Road— Special Use concerning proposed cellular Communications tower Prestige Automobile Leasing, 88 Dundee Road—Rezoning to the B-4 District and approval of a Preliminary Plan —Workshop #2 Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Mr. Smith Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Stark Mr. Cohn Commissioners absent: None Also present: Mr. Marc Schwartz, Schwartz Wolf& Bernstein Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd Mr. Jeffrey Braiman, Village Trustee Mr. Bruce Kahn, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 15, 2004. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Moved by Commissioner Teplinsky, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to approve the minutes of the public hearing of January 5, 2005. Chairman Ottenheimer noted that Trustee Kahn should be listed under the also present category. All Commissioners were in favor of the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously with Chairman Ottenheimer abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 5, 2005. Chairman Ottenheimer again noted that Trustee Kahn should be added to the also present category. All commissioners were in favor of the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously with Chairman Ottenheimer abstaining. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Commissioner Cohn stated he attended the Village Board meeting on January 31, 2005 and there were no referrals to the Plan Commission. BUFFALO GROVE PARK DISTRICT, BISON PARK, 905 DUNDEE ROAD— SPECIAL USE CONCERNING PROPOSED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval by the Board of a Special Use in the R-1 District with the following variations: Zoning Ordinance — Section 17.40.020.B. (to allow a heights of 80 feet instead of the standard maximum building height of 35 feet) and Section 17.40.020.A. (to allow a setback of 16 feet instead of 80 feet from the west property line and to allow a setback of 142 feet instead of 160 feet from the south property line), to build a cellular communications antenna and tower of 80 feet in height and a ground level equipment shelter on the property commonly known as Bison Park, pursuant to the evidence submitted at the public hearing previously conducted. Commissioner Teplinsky stated there were a lot of fundamental discussions during the public hearing as to whether a cellular tower belongs in a park. It is his view that is not the central question nor should it be relevant. Rather, the application is for a Special Use and the Special Use criteria must be gone through. With respect to the Bison Park location there are few criteria that seem to stick out more than others: 1. First is that the special use will serve the public convenience at the location of the subject property; or the establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Commissioner Teplinsky stated that the proposed use will not endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare at that location. But more importantly is the criteria that states: 2. The location and size of the special use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with said special use, the size of the subject property in relation to such special use, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it shall be such that it will be in harmony with the appropriate, orderly development of the district it is located. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he does not believe the Bison Park location and the proposed use in that location is in harmony with the development of that particular district. 3. Furthermore, with respect to the criteria that the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of that property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property for the purposes already permitted in such zoning district, nor substantially diminish and impair other property valuations with the neighborhood. Commissioner Teplinsky stated given the proposed location and the proximity of that park to the adjoining baseball field and residences, he feels the proposed use would be injurious to the enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity and for those reasons with respect to the Bison Park location he will not be voting in favor of the recommendation. Commissioner Samuels stated there is something that will go forward through all three considerations of the petitions which does have everything to do with the fact of these locations being in a park. He noted he was not here when it was voted to modify the ordinance to allow this type of development in the park. If he had been present he would not have voted against it. Although the Village Board did enact the law he does not believe it was in the best interests of the Village as a whole. Therefore, he believes in general regard to parks that this type of development is the antithesis of what we have parks for. He feels a park is supposed to be a respite from development where aesthetics are important almost to the point of being overriding. When we do have development in the parks it is there fore a specific recreational purpose. When we build buildings, put up lights and build facilities of any type, they are there to enhance the use of the park for the people who go to the parks. These towers are nothing but a detriment to anybody who is using the park and do not belong here. Specifically with respect to the proposal for Bison Park he believes that the evidence failed to show that there was a lack of other locations available. Specifically, there was evidence that this could be located even as close as the school property or sites in Arlington Heights and any number of sites around here. To put this into the park is wrong. He stated he does not believe the evidence showed a need for this facility in this location in terms of the number of subscribers and percentage of complaints. There were some bare bones evidence given of complaints within the area but they were not specific and there was no causal effect given as far as the lack of an antenna in this location to any of those complaints nor was there any specifics with regards to what each complaint was or who registered it or when. He further noted he feels the petitioner failed to follow the ordinance stated goal of providing capacity for multiple carriers in order to limit and reduce the amount of these antennas overall. Further they failed to show a hardship or a need for variance as far as the request for such a setback variance. Therefore he does not believe this motion deserves a favorable recommendation. Commissioner Bocek stated there are so many different factors that go into determining what level of service there is going to be in different areas and the commission was also presented with the benefit of having additional income given to the Park District but no specifics on exactly that income was. The evidence provided relating to complaints did not have enough information regarding what period of time they were, how many customers were involved and where were the calls from. Based on these factors she does not feel there was sufficient evidence given for the need for this particular use and she will be giving a negative recommendation. Commissioner Cohn stated with respect to Bison Park he is not convinced the Park District addressed the compatibility requirement of 17.34.040.H4 of the Telecommunications Ordinance. Alternative tower design including camouflage and stealth techniques have not been adequately considered or addressed. He is also not convinced the proposal for Bison Park satisfies the Special Use requirement of 17.28.040.A3 and does believe the proposal is injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property for the purposes already permitted in the zoning district. The use interferes with the aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of the area and he will be voting no for Bison Park. Commissioner Stark stated he based his decision on the plan itself. He stated he does not feel this case has met the criteria of the Special Use and he will be voting no on this. Commissioner Smith stated he commends the Park District for attempting to raise money in different ways with the way the tax cap situation is. Regarding this proposal at Bison Park he agrees with everything that has been said. He does not believe it meets the Special Use criteria of being in harmony with the area nor does it meet the criteria as to being injurious to the area around it. He stated he agrees that the Park District did not convince him the need was there for this area and he will be voting no. Commissioner Khan stated he agrees with Commissioner Smith's first comment. He also feels that the lack of financial disclosure as to the monthly income from this proposal was not right. He also will be voting no. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: None NAPES: Ottenheimer, Samuels, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion failed 9 to 0. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Smith to direct Village staff to prepare Findings of Fact for review and signature by the Chairman of the Plan Commission. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. BUFFALO GROVE PARK DISTRICT, BUSCH GROVE PARK, 801 MCHENRY ROAD — SPECIAL USE CONCERNING PROPOSED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval by the Village Board of a petitioner for Special Use in the R-E District with the following variations: Zoning Ordinance — Section 17.40.020.B. (to allow a heights of 120 feet instead of the standard maximum building height of 35 feet); Section 17.40.020.A. (allow a setback of 86 feet instead of 240 feet from the north property line (abutting a separate real estate parcel in Busch Grove Park) and Section 17.34.040.H.7. (to allow lights for a playing field to be attached to the tower) for the purpose of construction of a cellular communications antenna and tower of 120 feet in height and a ground level equipment shelter on the property commonly known as Busch Grove Park, pursuant to the evidence and testimony given in the public hearing. Commissioner Teplinsky stated that once again his deliberation is not based on an issue of whether these things belong in parks or not. Nor is it based upon whether the Park District presented evidence of how much money they would garner as a result of having these cell towers up. In his view those are not relevant criteria in determining whether or not they are entitled to the special use they are requesting. Specifically with request to the criteria, contrary to his findings on Bison Park, he did see a need based on the coverage map for a cell tower in this location. This is relevant to the issue of whether the proposed use there will serve the public convenience with the public being the people who live in Buffalo Grove and drive through Buffalo Grove. He further stated he does not view this tower as endangering the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. He stated he also finds that because the cell tower will be a replacement of an existing light standard that its proposed use is in harmony with the existing area. He stated he does not believe the proposed will be injurious to the enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, he will be in favor of the tower at Busch Grove Park Commissioner Smith stated he agrees 100 percent with Commissioner Teplinsky and stated this location and use of a light standard is exactly where these type of towers should go. Commissioner Cohn stated he still believes that the proposal is injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and he does believe the appearance does have an interference with the aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of the area and does not satisfy the requirement of a special use and will vote no. Commissioner Bocek stated she does not feel the evidence provides proof of the need in this park as well. We do not know how many T-Mobile customers are affected by the complaints and will vote negatively on this motion. Commissioner Samuels stated he agrees with Commission Cohn and does not believe that these belong in parks. Commissioner Stark stated once again he is not basing his decision on whether or not there is sufficient coverage or whether T-Mobile's customers can get good reception. He is making his decision strictly based on the plan. He stated he believes the Park District meets the criteria for a special use in Busch Grove Park and he will support the motion. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Smith, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Ottenheimer NAPES: Samuels, Bocek, Cohn ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 6 to 3. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to recommend Village staff prepare Findings of Fact for review and signature by the Chairman of the Plan Commission. All Commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. BUFFALO GROVE PARK DISTRICT, ROLLING HILLS NORTH PARK, 1951 SHERIDAN ROAD — SPECIAL USE CONCERNING PROPOSED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER Moved by Commissioner Samuels, seconded by Commissioner Smith to recommend approval to the Village Board of the petition for a Special Use in the R-3 District with the following variations: Zoning Ordinance — Section 17.40.020.B. (to allow a heights of 90 feet instead of the standard maximum building height of 35 feet) and Section 17.40.020.A. (to allow a setback of 16 feet instead of 180 feet from the southwest property line (abutting Commonwealth Edison electrical transmission lines), to construction a cellular communications antenna and tower of 90 feet in height and a ground level equipment shelter on the property commonly known as the Rolling Hills North Park, pursuant to documents and testimony submitted at the public hearing. Commissioner Kenski-Sroka stated you cannot consider whether this is a park or not when reviewing uses for a special use. This project meets criteria number #1 under a special use permit. But when you go into some of the other points of the criteria such as whether it is in harmony with the surroundings or appropriate and whether or not it is injurious to the use and enjoyment of this property, the Park District has been unable to present cogent arguments to support this plan. She stated she has not seen demonstrable need on the part of the Park District to put this facility in and there appears to be no need. In this park it appears the tower would be too close to the baseball fields and would absolutely impair the use of the property. Therefore she will vote no. Commissioner Teplinsky stated he did find he could not justify this location based on the coverage exhibit which appeared adequate. He stated he cannot think of a reason why this location would serve the public convenience and he sees no reason for the tower at this location. However, the proposed structure was creative and compliments the Park District and Mr. Green on the design. He stated it is not, however, in harmony with the location and the proposed use will be injurious to the enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity at Rolling Hills and will not support this motion. Commissioner Stark stated the Park District holds public meetings wherein this matter has been discussed for quite some time. It has also been in the newspapers several months ago and even after that only one person from this area called for information. He noted that there had been a comment about splitting the money with Com Ed if they shared their towers and stated that would not work. He further noted the fencing and shrubbery around the maintenance building is Village code and the Park District's plan did come up to Village code. He stated the coverage here is good and he does not feel a tower is needed here and therefore will not support the motion. Commissioner Cohn stated he is not convinced the Park District has addressed the compatibility requirement in the telecommunication ordinance. He also stated the alternative tower design including camouflage and stealth techniques have not been adequate, considered or addressed. He stated he is also not convinced that the proposal satisfies the special use requirement of Section 17.28.040.A.3. and believes the proposal is injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property for the purposes already permitted in the zoning district. The use interferes with the aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of the area and he will vote no. Commissioner Cohn noted that the perceptions left by the Park District were not good. Many times the Park District left the impression that it was out of touch with the residents. Throughout the hearing the Park District left an impression to many that it did not have an interest in talking with the residents. A resident asked what was located in the area of Rolling Hills Park where the proposed cell tower was planned. Mr. Green responded by saying nothing. The area of the proposed cell tower is viewed by many residents as not "nothing" but rather as a patch of green earth on the suburban landscape. It is viewed as public open space with intrinsic value and many view having such spaces a purpose and intended function of a park. Having a Park District that wants to put cell towers in this park and describes areas of its parks as nothing is just viewed by many as hard to understand. That is not what the people at the Park District think but the response to that question left a bad impression. The Park District had also left an impression that it was not interested in talking to the public because the Park District only presented John Green, thus limiting the cross-examination by the public only to him. Then during the closing comment period a commission and the president of the Park District spoke. When they spoke they spoke about how the Park District meetings were open and they valued input. From my perspective I view that if the Park District was really interested in a dialogue with the residents, these two people would have been presented as witnesses during the hearing and subject to cross-examination. The appearance left was that the difficult questions from the public would be addressed by John Green the architect while the commissioner and president would speak to the public without taking questions during that portion of the hearing where they do not have to respond to questions. At times he felt Mr. Green provided short and non-responsive answers to questions from the residents. Commissioner Cohn noted there is much controversy in the community surrounding the Park District's desire to raise funds by leasing park space to the telecommunications companies but most of the public debate thus far has occurred in the plan commission process. A proposal as significant as this deserves to be openly debated and argued in a forum directed and hosted by the elected representatives of the Park District. It is the Park District officials' burden to understand what its residents want. If the residents do not come to its meetings, perhaps special meetings should have been scheduled with notice to each resident near the three parks. The Park District also sent out a survey months ago and perhaps a question or two could have been presented to address this specific issue. Commissioner Cohn stated this proposal was not politically ripe for a hearing before the Village and he is not convinced the Park District had the backing of its constituents. It seems that with a proposal such as this, the residents of Buffalo Grove deserve more due process from the governmental unit responsible before it involves other entities such as the Plan Commission. Commissioner Samuels stated he really believes that had these proposals been made by adjoining landowners on private property next to the parks, the Park District would be here testifying in opposition to the location of the cell towers on adjoining property because they would be despoiling their parks. This does not belong in the parks. Commissioner Smith stated that the Park District messed up on strategy as far as who spoke and who did not. Perhaps that was the way it had to be and perhaps they could not reveal all the information the commission wanted to hear. The strategy was not good and did not work. However, that has no bearing on his decision. It all comes back to the special use criteria and this one was somewhat difficult as he does believe this one is harmonious with the area because there are Com Ed towers there. However, do we need to add more to it just because there are already towers there. He stated he does not believe it is necessary to add more and there does not appear to be a need for cell towers in this area and he will vote against it. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: None NAPES: Samuels, Smith, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Stark, Cohn, Ottenheimer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion failed 9 to 0. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka to recommend to the Village Board to direct Village staff to prepare Findings of Fact for review and signature by the Chairman of the Plan Commission All commissioners were in favor of the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Schwartz. on behalf of the Park District, stated this forum is not the place to be attacking the good intentions or the efforts of the Buffalo Grove Park District. He stated he feels everyone should recognize that even though they spent more than ten hours working on this project in this public setting, approximately 200 appeared. The Park District services over 43,000 people in this community and he does not know if this is a majority of the people speaking about this subject. This Commission needs to be very careful in how they represent their opinions and what they say concerning the Park District because the Park District is here to serve 43,000 plus people. They did everything they could for the best interests of those people. They held public hearings and meetings and public testimony showed that no one showed up at the Park District. This is not the forum for us to talk to the community on behalf of the Park District. This forum is for us to talk to the Buffalo Grove Plan Commission about whether or this location we have presented is proper. On behalf of the Park District he stated he truly takes offense to the comments that were made. PRESTIGE AUTOMOBILE LEASING, 88 DUNDEE ROAD — REZONING TO THE B-4 DISTRICT AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN—WORKSHOP 92 Mr. John Schiess stated one of the clarifications they were asked to do was to give the gross square footage for the building which is 10,492 square feet. By that square footage the total number of parking spaces required are 21. They have listed 10 customer spaces on the site plan He stated he is not sure how that will be determined in terms of whether they are code compliant for the number of parking spaces or not. He stated they have set up their site plan so as to maximize the number of stacked parking spaces. The stacked parking spaces are directly related to the operator's volume of business. The more cars that are allowed to be placed safely and securely on the site has a direct correlation. So naturally they would like to maximize the number of stacked parking spaces while also being code compliant. Mr. Schiess noted another clarification relates to the number of full time employees. They expect 15 full time employees and no part time employees once the facility is up and fully operational. Mr. Schiess stated there was a recommendation to either modify or change some of their proposed grasscrete to something else. They also had a request to some excess paving on the northwest/southeast corner. He stated they would be glad to consider that. Another recommendation was some solid fence screening for the stacked cars. They have no objection to that. He noted the Fire Department has recommended the first 20 feet of grasscrete to be 12 foot blacktop due to the fire trucks entering and turnaround and they have no objection to that. The Fire Department asks for the building to have an automatic sprinkler system and it is in their plans. They are also recommending an additional fire hydrant at the back of the building. They are not sure of the location but it is something they will comply with. Mr. Bou-Saab stated they received a few comments regarding the preliminary traffic report they conducted. They have some differences but believe they can provide the evidence based on the documentation in their report. They did the manual traffic turning movement counts on both intersections at Buffalo Grove Road and Dundee as well as Huntington Lane/Dundee. They have found that the generated traffic from the proposed dealership will not be a major impact on the two intersection AM/PM peak flows. However, they did find that the two intersections need some improvements in timing to improve the level of service at the two intersections. They will provide all this information in their updated traffic report addressing the Benes comments. Mr. Schiess stated that between the receipt of the traffic consultant's comments and the next time they appear before the commission, they will have worked out the differences between the Village's traffic engineer relating to the points that are raised and Mr. Bou-Saab's traffic counts. Commissioner Samuels noted their appears to be a degradation of service on Buffalo Grove Road and Dundee Road from D to E both in the AM and PM peak hours. He asked if the future conditions means adjusting for this development or does it refer to some other factor. Mr. Bou-Saab stated the effect at the intersection for future conditions is that timing will improve that condition and that needs to be discussed with IDOT but not much can be done to improve it much. He noted the level of service is already at the edge between D and E. The delay is so few seconds that adding these few more cars makes the change. Commissioner Samuels asked how this can be improved. Mr. Bou-Saab stated the timing sequence for the traffic signals, especially where we have the delay can be adjusted by IDOT after approval and concurrence of the report to make sure that at least the east/west traffic will have less seconds to hold which means there will be a longer green light on Dundee. Commissioner Samuels asked what is happening on Buffalo Grove Road at this time. Mr. Bou-Saab stated they are going to go back and check the timing exactly and make a recommendation to IDOT or the Village to improve these timings. Commissioner Samuels stated he is trying to find out if Buffalo Grove Road is operating at C, D or E levels at that same location. Mr. Bou-Saab stated they are missing one piece of information as to the exact timing of the signal change between green, yellow and red for the whole intersection. Because of that they must monitor the timing of the signal changes to see where most of the delay is happening. They believe from the initial traffic counts it is the east/west track that is causing the level of service to go down. But a final analysis would include checking the exact existing timing of the signals at the two intersections. Mr. Bou-Saab noted the level of service at the whole intersection based on the turning movement is D or C or E. When they get the timing of the signals they will know exactly where the most delay is occurring. They believe from the numbers right now that is the east/west track. Commissioner Samuels asked if the displays are permanent or to be pulled on and off nightly. Mr. Schiess stated it will not be a daily shifting but rather a weekly shifting in order to keep interest up in their displays. Commissioner Samuels asked what the reason is then for the grasscrete as opposed to just a regular paved surface. Mr. Schiess stated they thought it was a better transition and blended in better with the site and also because of the percolation it allows for water through the soil. Commissioner Samuels noted that can be a maintenance issue. Ms. Josephine Bellalta stated it can be a maintenance issue when it is very hot. Some of the grass in between the spaces can get quite dry. There are several things that can be done. First, an irrigation system which would not be cost effective for the client. Another is to use concrete pavers that do not have the gaps but still allow for moisture to go through as opposed to a bituminous pavement. Commissioner Samuels stated that from a personal standpoint it would be preferable to have pavers. Commissioner Khan asked that the north/south Buffalo Grove Road leg be included in the future traffic report. He also asked that the report include the capacity analysis. He noted there has been no level of service analysis for the driveway and he is looking for an analysis of the gaps since there are no signals at this location and the only time someone can make a left turn movement going eastbound on Dundee is through the gaps. Commissioner Khan noted the Village code calls for a 24 foot driveway and only a 21 foot driveway is proposed. He stated he does not even feel a 24 foot driveway is sufficient here since this is an uncontrolled intersection and you would not want someone coming out from the parking lot who wants to go westbound behind someone who wants to go eastbound. He suggests one lane going in and two lanes coming out for east and west turns. This way you will increase the level of service on the driveway. Mr. Bou-Saab stated it is a good idea and will check to see if IDOT will allow this. He noted the use on this dealership does not create much volume and may not warrant a third lane. Commissioner Khan asked where there will be so much stacked parking. Mr. Schiess noted the spaces are not always filled. The cars are often jockeyed around. The plan now shows 61 stacked spaces as opposed to the previous plan that had 64. It also does not represent cars rather just available slots within that grid. Commissioner Khan stated this site is more than one acre and Village code requires its own site detention when a site is more than one acre. He stated in his mind this site is clearly a candidate for on site detention. Mr. Bou-Saab stated they have not had any direction to provide detention. However, at this point he can only see providing detention if there would be any increase in the impervious area from what exists. That would be a very fair compromise. However, they will discuss this with the Village Engineer. The Commission agreed that this project is ready for public hearing. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT—None FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next meeting will be held on February 16, 2005. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Khan and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair