Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-16-2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING August 16, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Myhrum. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Tanya Bowers No. 2 Joseph Campos No. 3 Paul Mendez No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Abel Campos No. 6 Isaac Myhrum No. 7 Zahra Roach No. 8 Pam Bykonen No. 9 Gabriel Portugal STAFF PRESENT: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director Michael Morales, Community & Economic Development Deputy Director Darcy Bourcier, Planner I Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II MEETING VIDEO ON DEMAND: This meeting in its entirety has been posted and can be viewed on the City’s webpage at https://psctv.viebit.com. APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Myhrum read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. There were three declarations:  Commissioner J. Campos for agenda item VI(F) – Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in a C-1 Zone (MF# SP 2018-008)  Commissioner Bowers for agenda item V(B) – Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (High Density Residential) (MF# Z 2018-004) Chairman Myhrum then asked the audience and the Planning Commission if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Myhrum explained that state law re quires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. -2- Chairman Myhrum swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen that the minutes dated July 19, 2018 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR (Regional Commercial) (Russ Dean RV, Inc.) (MF# Z 2018- 003) - Withdrawn Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, explained that the applicant has withdrawn their rezone application so no further action is necessary from the Planning Commission. B. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (High Density Residential) (Rigo Rangel) (MF# Z 2018- 004) Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (High Density Residential). She stated that there were no further comments to add since the previous meeting. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions, therefrom, as contained in the August 16, 2018 staff report. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Bowers recused. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the parcel at the southwest corner of West A Street and South 20 th Avenue from I-1 to R-3. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Bowers recused. C. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to C-3 (General Business) (Pati Hull) (MF# Z 2018-005) Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone application from RT (Residential Transition) to C-3 (General Business). He stated that since the public hearing, property owners of the neighboring parcel that was included with this rezone wished to be left out of the rezone so staff has offered a motion to only rezone the applicant’s parcel. -3- Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 16, 2018 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone Short Plat 99-22, Lot 2 (3004 E. George Street; parcel # 113-780- 104) from RT to C-3, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Preliminary Plat Burgess Plat, 170 lots (Big Sky Developers) (MF# PP 2018-006) – Continued from July 19, 2018 Meeting Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, discussed the preliminary plat application for Burgess Plat, 170 lots. She discussed changes to the plat approval conditions, in particular to the sewer, since the public hearing that included comments from a letter that was received by the developer and per the City Engineer, the changes have been approved. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that estate fencing will still be required along arterial roads and abutting the commercial property but alternatives may be considered. Commissioner A. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations to form a recommendation to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner A. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions, therefrom, as contained in the August 16, 2018 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner A. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat for the Burgess Plat with conditions as listed in the August 16, 2018 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Preliminary Plat Serrano Heights, 109 lots (RP Development) (MF# PP 2018-007) – Continued from July 19, 2018 Meeting Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the preliminary -4- plat application for Serrano Heights, 109 lots. This item was continued from the previous hearing because the applicant did not receive their packet in time for the last hearing. That has been corrected and the applicant was present. He clarified discrepancies on the agenda and other places on the number of lots proposed. There will either be 104 or 109 lots based on street connections and Planning Commission decision. Staff felt the Planning Commission should look at options to avoid a direct connection from Valley View Place to Road 68 to prevent any issues with traffic safety on Road 68 and existing Valley View Place. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the number of proposed lots. Mr. White said either 104 or 109 lots depending on what the Planning Commission decides on street connections. Stephen Bauman, 5114 Maxim Court, spoke on behalf of his application. He stated that the preliminary plat will be spelled “Sorano” but they are still working out the details. Street names will not continue with the river theme because these homes will be in a different price point than the adjoining neighborhoods so he wishes to have them stand out. He addressed several issues he had with the approval conditions; one of his main concerns being the requirement to sign a non-protest agreement to the LID. He stated that he would not move forward if he is required to sign the agreement – he would seek legal counsel. Commissioner Greenaway asked Mr. Bauman if he would like the Planning Commission to continue the hearing to allow him time to speak with City staff to work out some of the approval conditions. Mr. Bauman replied that he was told by staff that wasn’t an option at this point. He asked the Commissioner where he could go at this point because he felt he has been burned but the City in the past and was not in agreement of the conditions. Commissioner Greenaway asked if Mr. Bauman should withdraw his application and seek legal counsel. Mr. White replied that the staff recommendation will not change. The DNR properties are very problematic. The area is completely unserved by access, it has significant impacts on adjoining and existing street intersections. This is why there is a ne ed for a traffic study. The City has to cover the bases if the LID is formed or if the LID isn’t formed. It is unknown at this time. Staff was hoping the LID decision would be made at this point but it still is not made so the City doesn’t have a lot of options. The City will not adversely impact public health and safety by funneling traffic onto intersections that aren’t improved or capable of handling the additional traffic. And the City must cover all bases in case the LID is the chosen method of addressing traffic concerns. The non- protest agreement involves the assessment of fees on the participants of the LID. With each plat that occurs, there will be another 104 or 109 property owners to deal with. Mr. White said he could clarify the conditions for the Commission or he could pull examples from other approved plats within the DNR property to provide if the hearing were continued. -5- Mr. Bauman stated that he was very clear of the consequences of signing the agreement. He said it cancels his vote and he regrets signing one on the last plat he did. Commissioner Portugal asked the applicant if he was withdrawing his application. Mr. Bauman said he was not willing to accept the plat conditions as they exist since there were too many unanswered questions and fees he felt he would have to pay for twice. Commissioner Portugal asked what options were available in moving forward for the applicant. Mr. White said the Commission needs to address the direction they would like to give to staff. They could approve the plat with the conditions as presented, the hearing could be continued to allow staff to clarify the conditions or they could recommend staff prepare findings and facts for denial of the plat. Commissioner J. Campos stated that as the Planning Commission, it is there job to make decisions and recommendations based on land usage issues. What was before them he felt was past that point and he felt they were asked to provide legal counsel which did not fit their job. The City has made their position clear that they will no t change their recommendation. Commissioner Portugal asked the applicant if he would be willing to continue the hearing to try to work things out with the City or if he wants to withdraw. Mr. Bauman said he was torn on what needs to happen. He will not sign a non-protest agreement as he didn’t feel it was fair and if he signed he wouldn’t get a vote in the LID . Michael Morales, Community & Economic Development Deputy Director, gave clarification on LID’s. The City would act as a financing instrument to make something happen. If the developer doesn’t want an LID, they can pay for all the costs themselves. The vote is right now during this process with one property owner – rather than waiting five years from now when there are hundreds of property owners who had no idea what went into constructing that subdivision. This is a standard urban planning practice all over the country and state. The best way to do an LID is when there is one property owner. Mr. Bauman said the he disagreed. He said he was at an impasse because the City has said they will not budge but neither would he. Chairman Myhrum offered to continue the hearing at this time. Commissioner J. Campos said that the Planning Commission has to make a motion based on what’s in front of them. Mr. White went over the options one more time for the applicant and Commissioners. -6- Mr. Bauman asked about the appeal process. Chairman Myhrum stated that the applicant can appeal whatever decision the Planning Commission makes. Mr. Bauman asked what the appeal would do. Mr. White replied that it would go to a closed record hearing with City Council and they would make the final decision. There was further discussion on the options and process. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos moved to continue the hearing and deliberations to the September 20, 2018 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Preliminary Plat Black Belle Estates, 22 lots (J&J Kelly Construction) (MF# PP 2018-008) – Continued from July 19, 2018 Meeting Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the preliminary plat application for Black Belle Estates, 22 lots. She stated that there were many items still needing to be discussed in terms of possibly rezoning the property and a cost-sharing agreement with the City for sewer connection, eliminating the need for septic systems. The applicant and his engineer will later be meeting with the Public Works Director to come to a n agreement. City Staff at this time recommended continuing the hearing. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner J. Campos to continue the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat to the September 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Rezone Rezone from RS-20 to RS-1 (Colette Steinwert) (MF# Z 2018-006) Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from RS-20 to RS-1. The site is approximately 6.5 acres and was annexed into the City in 2015 as low density. According to the Comprehensive Plan, low density includes zones RS-20, RS-12, RS-1 and R-1. The applicant intends to rezone to RS-1 and later plat the site which would permit a minimum of 10,000 square foot lots or approximately 4.3 dwelling units per acre. Staff believes the density is appropriate giving that low density should range anywhere from 2-5 dwelling units per acre. If the property were developed with the existing RS-20 zoning designation each lot would have to be at minimum 20,000 square feet in size so the rezone essentially doubles the amount of lots to be created. This can be considered infill property and developing infill property with the appropriate density to accommodate Pasco’s population growth has become one of the City’s priorities. At this -7- time, the City does not have a proposed layout from the applicant but that would come at a later date. This application is for the rezone. Colette Steinwert, 4011 N. Road 96, spoke on behalf of her rezone application. She stated that they do not have a plan at this time. She stated that at this time she would leave 1 acre for an existing house and the 5 other acres for development. Thomas Legard, 4203 Prairie Lane, spoke in opposition to the rezone application with his main concern being the increased traffic as Balfour Lane is already a small road that people cut through and speed down. Jeff Jenson, 3914 Road 92, spoke in opposition to the rezone application. He addressed a petition that he had signed with over 50 signatures from neighbors with their 3 points of opposition; (1) Traffic and safety risks, (2) Perceived “Spot Zoning” and its impact on property values, and (3) Keeping 4011 at RS-20 still allows its owner to subdivide if needed. He also stated that the 300’ radius notification that was sent out is not a large enough radius notification and that many of the property owners that signed the petition are outside of that 300’ radius notification sent by the City. Commissioner Greenaway stated that the City follows State law for radius notifications and that the 300’ radius notification has been brought up before and may be addressed in the future but at this time the 300’ radius notification meets requirements. Jeff Tucksen, 9321 Sunset Trail, spoke in opposition to the rezone application stating that the rezoning to RS-1 would not fit the character of the existing neighborhood. He said that he would have no issue with ½ acre lots. Forrest Gibson, 9521 Merlot Drive, spoke in opposition to the rezone application. He was concerned about increased traffic as there is already a traffic problem and speeding through the neighborhood. Isidoro Martinez, 4104 Prairie Lane, spoke in opposition to the rezone application. He was concerned with the increased traffic when there are already issues with people dangerously cutting through the neighborhood. Kevin Litke, 4139 Prairie Lane, spoke in opposition to the rezone application. He discussed a traffic study that was done in their neighborhood by the Engineering Department but never knew what came from it. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing to research the results of the traffic study. Forrest Gibson, 9521 Merlot Drive, spoke again to the rezone application. He added that he remembered when the area was annexed in 2015 that they were promised acre lots for the next 5 years. Mr. White said that was something he could look into for the next hearing should it be -8- continued. Commissioner Portugal suggested Staff research Police calls for the next hearing pertaining to traffic. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers to continue the public hearing on the rezone application from RS-20 to RS-1 to the September 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. E. Special Permit Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in an R-4 Zone (Sprint Spectrum LP) (MF# SP 2018- 007) Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of wireless communications facilities in an R-4 zone. The proposed site is located at an existing apartment complex on Chapel Hill Boulevard. This will be a stealth tower disguised as a building architectural feature. Commissioner Portugal asked how the City keeps up with technological advances and public concerns. Mr. White replied that the City and State will probably be seeing pre -emption on a Federal level pertaining to wireless communications. The State of Washington considered this in the past for 5G facilities. It did not happen but likely will in 2019. This will probably happen at the Federal level as well. Ed Maginn, Hoss Consulting, Idaho Falls, ID spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the nearby tower at GESA Stadium was full as was another tower, which is why they are proposing a new stealth tower. Co-locating on another tower would have been the preferred and cheaper option but it was not available. The need for a new tower was growth driven, not technology upgrade driven. Commissioner A. Capos asked what happens to the tower if Sprint leaves. Patrick Kelley, Hoss Consulting, Denver, CO stated that the terms of the lease state that Sprint would have to return the site to its original condition should the contract be terminated. Amanda Cameron, 5206 Roosevelt Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. She addressed he thoughts on the ability to make 911 emergency calls. Chris Acevedo, 4619 Phoenix Lane, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. He voiced concern over the applicant being able to increase the height of the tower once this is permitted. -9- Patrick Kelley, Hoss Consulting, Denver, CO addressed the co mments and concerns from the audience and stated that each cell carrier has different coverage and technology. Commissioner J. Campos responded to the permitting concerns and how they are located where they are located and whether or not they need speci al permits. He reminded the audience that the Planning Commission cannot deny special permits based on health concerns per the FCC. Commissioner Greenaway addressed permitting concerns and stated that the applicant could not raise the height of the tower without coming back to the Planning Commission because there are approval conditions as a part of the special permit. Eduardo Hernandez, 5301 Montpelier Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permit application and said they already had coverage in the area. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the hearing on the proposed Sprint Spectrum antennae and equipment proposal, and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the September 20, 2018 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. F. Special Permit Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in a C-1 Zone (Sprint Spectrum LP) (MF# SP 2018- 008) Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of wireless communication facilities in a C-1 zone. The proposed location is the Fiesta Food Grocery Store. He briefly went over three different stealth options that the Commission could consider with graphics presented on the overhead. Ed Maginn, Hoss Consulting, Idaho Falls, ID spoke on behalf of the applicant. The three options for the antennae were a result of City Staff, an engineer hired by Sprint and Hoss Consulting to see what options would be supported by the existing structure. They went with the option that wasn’t the best for coverage, however, it was the better option for the building and for the community and the most stealth. Stephen Bauman, 7114 Maxim Court, spoke in favor of the application. He said that he appreciated how the company was presenting this application and how they are operating. Commissioner Bykonen discussed the fact that the majority of people have cell phones – often multiple cell phones per home. Cell towers are inevitable and unavoidable. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the hearing on the proposed Sprint Spectrum antennae and equipment proposals, and -10- initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the September 20, 2018 meeting. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner J. Campos recused. G. Special Permit Location of a Wireless Communication Facilities in an RS-1 Zone (Sprint Spectrum LP) (MF# SP 2018-009) Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit for the location of wireless communication facilities in an R-4 Zone. This application involves the location of a relay on top of an existing church at 5304 Burden Boulevard. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) establishes priorities for locating wireless facilities, with a preference in commercial or C-3 Zones. If not applicable, they may be permitted by the special permit process in other zones if they are attached to an existing building or structure at least 35’ in height or located within a publicly owned facility. The PMC contains standards for the aesthetics of the tower itself. The staff report contains information that that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not allow a cell tower site to be rejected based on health effects provided that equipment meets the federal standards and regulations. This particular tower would be disguised in an existing steeple that will be raised approximately 6 ½ feet. Drawings of the before and after plans were presented of what the church will look like. Commissioner Bowers asked where the nearest C-3 zoning was to the proposed site. Mr. White said that he was unsure but nothing on Burden Boulevard. Commissioner Bykonen noted that in several letters received from the public there were comments that mentioned declining property values due nearby cell towers. Since this tower would be completely disguised and enclosed, she asked if there was any obligation on neighboring property owners to disclose of the nearby cell tower. Mr. White said he was not aware of any disclosure the nearby property owners would need to make. This topic has been discussed in prior public hearings regarding cell towers and the problem is that there are hundreds of internet articles and research indicating property value declines as well as adverse health effects and articles and research stating the opposite. Commissioner J. Campos stated that the proposed cell tower is mu ch less invasive than many of the other cell towers the Planning Commission has approved in the past. Commissioner Bowers stated that she found the comments regarding declining property values interesting because everyone wants great cell phone reception. Ed Maginn, Hoss Consulting, Idaho Falls, ID spoke on behalf of his client, Sprint Spectrum LP. As Pasco continues to grow cell providers are trying to keep up with the growth. Sprint hired Hoss Consulting and they identified gaps in their coverage in Pasco. -11- They were hired to find the best locations to serve. Commissioner J. Campos asked the applicant why they decided on a stealth tower rather than a traditional tower. Mr. Maginn responded that it was due to the zoning and the locations needing coverage. Commissioner J. Campos asked if they could co-locate on other existing towers. Mr. Maginn answered that they looked at all of the options and that would have been their preferred option, however, all nearby towers were already at capacity. Commissioner Bowers asked if Sprint will pay the property owners to locate the tower on their building. Mr. Maginn said yes, they will lease the space. Commissioner Bowers discussed a map with other cell phone towers located nearby that she remembered seeing in previous special permit hearings. Mike Koontz, 5213 Montpelier Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. He stated that his property adjoined the proposed site and while the towers cannot be denied based on health terms, it didn’t relieve his concerns as a neighbor as well as property value concerns. He questioned if he would have to disclose the cell tower if he were to sell his home and asked who would be responsible if studies come out in the future stating that the towers do cause issues with people. Amanda Cameron, 5206 Roosevelt Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. She stated that her home was located directly behind the church and the steeple can be seen from her windows. She had many concerns about health and addressed studies that relate to people who live near cell towers. She was also concerned about home values. Irving Brown, 4701 Phoenix Lane, spoke in opposition to the special permit application siting health issues. He was also concerned with transparency and felt that the stealth tower was to conceal and hide the problem. Amanda Cameron, 5206 Roosevelt Drive, spoke again to add that she spoke with neighbors who did not receive their notice about the hearing. Mike Koontz, 5213 Montpelier Drive, spoke again to ask the Planning Commissioner’s if any of them would want the tower in their backyards. Chris Acevedo, 4619 Phoenix Lane, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. He asked if the City was getting any money from the tower and if the City would benefit from the tower in any way and where would that money go. He also addressed decreasing property values and how it could hurt the community. -12- Eduardo Hernandez, 5301 Montpelier Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permi t application. He said his home was behind the church and he was concerned with health issues and property values. He suggested placing the tower elsewhere. Silbestre Hernandez, 5305 Montpelier Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. He addressed health issues and property values and asked what gains the City would make. He said the towers should be located in nearby commercial. Irving Brown, 4701 Phoenix Lane, spoke again in opposition to the application and proposed some questions. Ed Maginn, Hoss Consulting, Idaho Falls, ID, addressed concerns discussed by the audience. He stated that the proposed stealth tower was not intended to “hide” anything but rather to protect properties values and be more aesthetically pleasing. The church is the only property that would have to disclose a wireless tower on a title report but not nearby property owners. Since the tower is under 35’, it will not be reported on the FAA websites as taller towers are so it will be difficult for people to search for this tower unless they know what they are looking for. The reason for this site is because one tower could service the entire area. If this site were denied and they would have to do towers, they would need three towers around the neighborhood just to make the same coverage as this one tower. Chairman Myhrum asked for clarification on the coverage and density pertaining to the cell tower. Patrick Kelley, Hoss Consulting, Denver, CO, clarified that the site selected is considered a “capacity site” and he explained what that meant. Most homes in the neighborhood don’t have landlines, they rely on cell phones. This service becomes a public safety issues for emergencies. Commissioner Myhrum asked if Sprint could lease this tower to other ca rriers in the future. Mr. Kelley said no, this is only a single carrier tower. Commissioner Portugal asked the applicant how they process community concerns when they select a location for a tower. Mr. Kelley replied that they do so through the process of special permits and attending public hearings which is the typical process in most communities. Ed Maginn, Hoss Consulting, Idaho Falls, ID added comments addressing their transparency and reminded the audience and Commissioner’s that if they were locating in a C-3 zone, they wouldn’t have to have a public hearing but with it being in a residential they have the special permit and hearings to be transparent and receive public feedback. -13- Commissioner Bowers referenced a cell tower the Planning Commission recommended for City Council approval that was disguised as a pine tree because people did not want to see a cell tower so it is common to disguise them and make them but had nothing to do with transparency. She also asked the applicant to address money to the applicant or City. Mr. Kelley said that they cannot disclose the amount in the agreement with the church but no money was to go to the City. Commissioner Bowers asked who would be liable if studies later prove cell towers effect health. Mr. Kelley said that would be up to the FCC. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the proposed Sprint Spectrum antennae and equipment proposal, and init iate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the September 20, 2018 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Comp. Plan Amend. Comp. Plan Amendment – Goals/Policies, Volume 1 (MF# CPA 2017-001) Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the amendments to Goals/Policies, Volume 1 in the Comprehensive Plan. He addressed a memo that was included from the consulting group. There will be additional goals/policies that come to the Planning Commission in the future. Commissioner Bowers gave feedback and listed details she would like to see included in the goals/policies. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Dept.