►
From YouTube: October 22, 2020 Bloomington Planning Commission Meeting
Description
Bloomington Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
october
22nd
bloomington
planning
commission
meeting,
the
planning
commission
advises
the
city
council
on
development
proposals,
development
standards,
long
range
planning
and
transportation
issues
some
items.
The
planning
commission
has
the
final
decision
authority.
Others,
the
city
council,
will
make
decisions
tonight.
A
Both
the
the
first
two
items
will
be
moved
forward
to
the
city
council
after
recommendations
and
the
third.
We
will
hear
on
issue
of
a
continuance
tonight,
there's
a
total
of
three
items.
The
fourth
item
is
a
study
item,
which
means
it
will
not
be
televised,
but
it
is
public
before
we
start
tonight.
B
Sure,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
planning
commission
tonight,
is
our
13th
remote
meeting
since
the
start
of
the
pandemic.
We
have
just
two
people
here
in
the
council,
chambers
and
all
of
the
commissioners
and
applicants,
and
members
of
the
public
will
be
joining
remotely
and
you
can
call
in
at
any
time
if
you'd
like
to
testify
and
receive
instructions
on
how
to
do
that.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
marker
guard
and
again
for
those
not
familiar
with
how
the
public
process
works
during
the
planning
commission.
The
planning
commission
opens
the
hearing
and
gives,
and
staff
will
give
a
report
on
the
item.
After
the
staff
report,
the
public
and
the
applicant
may
speak.
Those
will
be
called
upon
first,
the
applicant
and
then
the
public.
If
there's
a
large
number
of
people
that
would
like
to
speak
to
an
item,
they
will
be
asked
to
limit
their
time
so
that
all
people
can
participate
in
the
event
at
the
conclusion.
A
If
there's
additional
that
they
would
like
to
talk
to,
they
can
come
back
up
to
the
or
call
in
all,
questions
should
be
directed
to
the
chair
and
then
after
the
chin.
After
the
public's
had
a
chance
to
speak,
the
public
hearing
will
be
closed
and
the
planning
commission
will
deliberate
on
the
application
and
make
a
decision
or
recommendation
and
that's
pretty
much
how
the
the
process
works.
So
tonight,
let's
start
with
our
first
item
cup
and
final
site
and
building
plans
for
verizon
wireless
and
mr
johnson.
Can
we
have
the
staff.
A
C
Okay,
thank
you
again.
This
application,
as
you
said,
is
a
cup
a
conditioner's
permit
and
a
final
site
in
building
plans.
It's
for
a
30-foot
tower.
The
subject.
Property
is
110801
bush
lake
road.
That's
the
verizon
wireless
data
facility
right
at
the
intersection
of
bush
lake
road
in
west
hill
chuck
b.
So
you
can
here
is
a
location
map
or
a
site
map
showing
you
the
subject
property
as
well
as
the
surrounding
uses.
So
this
is
an
industrial
area.
C
C
This
is
the
same
site,
but
it's
two
different
working
groups
who
have
operations
here
at
this
facility
by
verizon
wireless,
and
so
what
they're
proposing
to
construct
or
to
install
on
this
site
is
a
30-foot
tower
which
would
host
seven
small
cell
antennas
and
other
associated
equipment
like
radios
and
cables
and
other
things
as
part
of
a
wireless
antenna.
Testing
network
you'll
often
hear
these
facilities
referred
to
as
small
cell
wireless,
so
these
are
smaller
antennas
with
more
limited
range,
as
opposed
to
the
macro
cell
antennas
that
you
see
on
very
tall
towers.
C
The
only
other
thing
I'll
mention
on
this
slide
is
that
they
have
gotten
approval
for
other
antennas
to
be
deployed
on-site.
That
is
an
administrative
approval
per
ordinance.
They
have
to
meet
certain
performance
standards,
but
if
you
saw
on
the
staff
report,
they
recently
got
approval
to
deploy
some
antennas.
Those
antennas
are
also
part
of
this,
this
testing
network.
So
it's
really
a
research
and
development
component.
C
We've
gotten
some
questions
about
radio
frequency
emissions
and
other
aspects
of
wireless
technology,
and
I
want
to
we
don't
do
this
very
often
we
don't
get
into
these
kind
of
more
federal
regulations,
but
just
as
a
reminder
to
the
planning
commission
and
for
the
benefit
of
the
public
wireless
technology
and
radio
frequency
emissions
are
regulated
by
the
federal
communications
commission.
The
fcc
and
the
the
governing
actor
similar
to
an
ordinance
would
be
the
federal
federal
telecommunications
act
of
1996
and
what
this
act
does
is.
C
C
I
believe
most
of
you
or
many
of
you
were
on
the
planning
commission
when
we
previously
processed
and
reviewed
some
small
cell
facilities
elsewhere
in
the
community.
We
processed
a
couple
of
those
applications
and
if
you
recall,
we
made
some
changes
to
city
codes
that
removed
the
conditional
use
permit
requirements
on
some
of
those
facilities
and
it
may
be
confusing
in
terms
of
okay.
We
did
that
we
made
some
ordinance
changes.
Why
are
we
seeing
this
application
now?
C
Those
ordinance
changes
were
derived
or
stemmed
from
changes
to
state
law
in
2017
that
made
the
deployment
of
small
cell
wireless
facilities
in
public
right-of-way
a
permitted
use,
and
so,
if
you
recall
those
other
facilities
that
we've
reviewed
in
the
past,
those
were
within
public
right
of
way.
This
is
on
private
property
and
it
the
the
approvals
particularly
the
conditional
use
permit,
is
specifically
focused
on
the
tower
and
so
towers
on
outside
of
the
public.
C
Right-Of-Way
are
a
conditional
use
and
again
we
want
to
limit
the
deployment
of
those
and
we'll
get
into
the
reasons
why,
with
our
co-location
analysis
but
towers
on
new
towers
on
sites
that
are
zoned
industrial
in
this
case,
industrial
park,
ip
require
a
conditional
use
permit
per
our
zoning
code.
Support
structures
that
are
taller
than
15
feet
are
defined
or
designated
as
a
tower.
C
So
all
these
support
structures
on
private
lands
that
be
taller
than
that
would
be
would
be
a
conditional
use
just
as
a
point
of
clarification
or
for
the
benefit
of
the
planning
commission.
If
they
were
able
to
co-locate
these
antennas
and
equipment
on
a
light
pole
on
site
and
still
comply
with
their
light
pole
standards,
they
would
not
have
had
to
get
a
conditional
use
permit.
C
They
would
have
not
had
not
had
to
erect
a
this
tower
because
that
would
be
considered
a
co-location
so
just
from
a
kind
of
educational
standpoint
and
understanding
the
nuances
of
these
ordinances
and
processes
if
they
were
able
to
do
that,
they
wouldn't
be
going
through
this
process.
The
reason
they're
going
through
this
process
is
because
the
equipment
that
they
want
to
host
is
too
substantial
to
be
hosted
by
a
light
pole.
C
We'll
talk
more
about
that
in
the
co-location
as
well.
Getting
to
the
site
plan
itself,
I
pointed
out
the
location
where
they're
proposing
to
do
this.
Again,
you
see
the
ballasted
tower.
If
you
can
see
my
cursor
it's
on
the
east
side
of
the
facility,
as
I
mentioned,
on
the
eastern
side
of
the
drive
aisle,
what
we're
really
looking
at
with
the
site
plan
is
making
sure
that
the
tower
meets
all
the
minimum
setback
requirements
in
city
code
and
it
it
greatly
exceeds
all
the
required
setbacks.
C
The
other
thing
we're
looking
at
is
that
to
ensure
that
they're
maintaining
a
clear
drive,
aisle
or
fire
lane,
so
that
emergency
vehicles
can
circulate
around
this
site
that
there's
no,
you
know
no
blockages
or
anything
that
would
impede
access.
Another
issue
that
came
up
in
the
review
pertains
to
a
private
water
main
on
site.
C
I
think
that
is
all
I
wanted
to
mention
from
a
site
plan
perspective
last
thing
is:
there
is
a
restriction
on
towers
in
in
between
public
streets
and
buildings.
However,
there
is
an
exemption
for
that
when
the
tower
is
in
between
a
building
and
a
street
that
serves
industrial
development,
so
internal
streets
that
are
internal,
the
industrial
areas
are
exempt
from
that
tower
locational
standard
in
between
a
building
and
a
street.
So
just
to
keep
a
point
on
that.
C
C
If
this
was
a
typical
small
cell
antenna,
what
you'd
likely
see
is
just
two
or
three
or
maybe
even
less
antennas,
with
a
more
focused
direction
in
order
to
boost
wireless
service,
but
again
because
of
the
testing
aspect,
there's
more
and
again,
that's
also
why
it
cannot
be
hosted
on
a
light.
Pole
is
just
the
amount
of
equipment
that
is
being
deployed
here.
C
It
does
have
a
baluster
design.
So
typically,
one
of
these
towers
would
have
you
know,
an
a
very
deep
footing
and
need
to
be
anchored
for
wind
load
and
just
making
it
structurally
sound.
This
has
a
different
type
of
design
where
they
ballast
or
they
counterweight
the
the
tower
they
do.
You
know
screw
the
plates
into
the
ground,
but
they're
basically
counter
balanced,
with
a
significant
amount
of
weight,
concrete
blocks
and
other
kind
of
binding
equipment.
That
kind
of
binds
it
all
together.
C
C
C
So
one
of
the
ways
that
again
one
of
the
things
we
can
regulate
in
city
code
as
opposed
to
the
fcc,
what
what
their
roles
and
responsibilities
are,
is
the
city
of
bloomington
many
years
ago
adopted
co-location
requirements
for
towers
and
the
reason
being
is
that
what
we
don't
want
to
have
happen
is
that
each
provider
erect
their
own
individual
tower
for
each.
You
know
wireless
facility
that
they
want
are
wrecked
in
town.
C
C
In
addition
to
that,
the
ordinance
lays
out
several
tests
that
the
facility
must
meet
in
order
to
be
considered
by
the
city,
council
and
approved,
and
so
this
facility
and
staff's
judgment
meets
three
out
of
those
four
tests.
First
of
all,
the
amount
of
equipment
that
they're
proposing
would
exceed
the
structural
capacity
for
a
light
pole.
So
again
you
could
collate
on
a
co-locate
on
a
light
bulb.
Excuse
me
if
it
was
a
smaller
facility,
there
is
no
suitable
host
sites
or
towers
nearby.
C
I
took
I
spoke
about
nearby
towers
in
the
area,
but
you
theoretically
could
install
antennas
on
a
taller
building
as
well,
but
there's
not
actually
any
buildings
nearby
that
are
of
the
height
and
proximity
that
would
make
them
good
candidates
either
and
then,
in
addition
to
that,
as
verizon
has
noted
this,
these,
this
testing
network
is
not
to
serve
cellular
customers
in
the
area.
It
is
more
of
a
research
and
development
purpose
as
a
testing
network
in
terms
of
testing
different
small
cell
antennas
at
different
frequencies
with
one
another
and
so
based
on
this.
C
C
So
in
staff's
judgment
and
looking
at
the
city
code
and
that's
part
of
the
conditioning's
permit
review,
as
does
this
meet
the
co-location
requirements,
this
does
meet
the
co-location
requirements.
Last
thing
I'll
say
about
that
is
that
towers
above
a
certain
height
have
to
be
able
to
host
other
providers
antennas.
This
does
not
meet
that
criteria,
it's
not
a
tall
tower,
so
they
don't
have
to
host
other
antennas
from
other
providers
on
this
tower
additional
information.
Again,
I
stated
once
before,
but
just
to
reiterate
to
the
public.
C
C
Just
to
note,
the
verizon
did
submit
some
a
compliance
letter
with
respect
to
the
antennas
that
they're
deploying
that
they
do
comply
with
the
fcc's
emission
requirements.
So
they
are
on
the
record
on
that
and
then
just
a
final
procedural
point.
Typically,
these
applications
land
use
applications
have
a
60
day
and
then
120
day
shot
clock
for
a
decision
this
this
particular
case,
because
this
is
a
small
cell
wireless
facility.
There
are
some
federal
regulations
that
also
are
in
play
and
those
federal
regulations
would
limit
the
city
decision-making
process
to
90
days.
C
So,
in
terms
of
action
deadlines,
the
the
city
would
not
have
the
ability
to
extend
beyond
90
days.
In
this
case,
based
on
that
federal
ruling,
we
have
received
five
emails
for
this
case.
All
of
them
oppose
the
proposed
tower.
They
list
three
main
reasons,
one
being
the
health
impacts
of
5g
and
other
small
cell
antenna
technology
again
related
to
radio
emissions,
something
that
the
city
does
not
have
the
authority
to
regulate,
but
nonetheless
understand
that
there
and
then
the
aesthetic
appearance
of
a
tower.
C
Some
people
object
to
that
as
well
and
in
terms
of
again
falling
off
from
the
facility
expansion.
On
your
other
case
as
well
as
just
overall,
I
think
in
the
judgment
of
some
neighbors
just
overuse
at
this
site.
They
certainly
did
not
want
to
add
to
that.
So
that's
the
that's
kind
of
an
overview
of
the
comments
that
I've
seen.
Hopefully
you
all
receive
those
and
have
the
ability
to
review
them.
C
A
C
Chairman
solberg
thanks
for
that
question.
If
they
were
able
to
host
this
equipment
on
a
replacement
light
pole
on
site,
they
would
not
need
a
cup
because,
in
effect
you
would
not
be
erecting
a
new
tower.
It
wouldn't
be
a
new
support
structure.
So
when
you're
replacing
one
for
one
on
a
light
pole,
that's
considered
a
co-location.
D
Thanks,
mr
chair,
yes,
I
have
a
question
for
mr
johnson
around
this
ballasted
design
of
the
tower.
So
one
of
the
things
I
see
in
this
this
picture
is
the
location
of
where
this
tower
is
and
proximity
to
you
know
the
drive
aisle.
What
concerns
do
staff
have
if
any
of
protecting
that
tower
from
cars
backing
in
and
out
or
even
in
the
drive
aisle?
C
Yeah
chairman
solberg,
commissioner
goldsman
thanks
for
that
question,
so
the
main
interest
of
the
city
is
that
access
is
maintained.
That's
the
the
key
thing,
so
the
the
location
of
it
does
maintain
a
minimum
fire
lane
of
20
feet
and
it
does
provide
adequate
ingress
and
egress
to
the
the
parking
stalls
that
are
kind
of
in
that
area.
C
C
E
C
Yeah
you're
correct
commissioner
albrecht
there's
other
antennas
that
are
building
mounted
so
when
antennas
get
mounted
on
a
building.
That's
an
administrative
zoning
approval
process
in
the
city.
There's
antennas
mounted
on
buildings
all
over
the
city
as
opposed
and
the
city
does
not
allow
roof
mounted
antennas.
What
we,
what
our?
What
our
code
requires,
is
that
you
mount
it
on
the
facade
of
a
building
and
that
it
not
extend
above
the
roof
line
and
that
these
antennas
be
painted
to
match
whatever
building
they're
on.
C
A
F
F
Good
evening,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
planning
commission,
as
you
mentioned,
my
name
is
julie
plant.
I
represent
verizon
wireless
on
antenna
projects
and
I'm
here
tonight
to
answer
any
questions
you
might
have
regarding
the
antenna
tower
conditional
use.
Permit
nick
johnson
did
prepare
a
detailed
description
of
our
request.
We
find
it
to
be
very
accurate.
F
F
D
Thanks,
mr
chair
yeah,
so
my
question
was
really
kind
of
both
thinking
about
the
the
cars
or
type
of
equipment,
but
then
also
you
know
if
somebody
would
hit
that
tower
and
let's
just
say
it
would
fall
into
that
retaining
pond
or
onto
the
property.
I
was
just
thinking
you
know:
how
would
you
protect
that
from
any
damage.
F
Okay,
thank
you
for
the
clarification
commissioner,
but
to
answer
the
question,
the
car
would
would
get
quite
a
bit
of
damage
if
a
car
backed
into
it
because
of
the
ballast
they're,
typically
cinderblock
style,
very
large
they're
they're
taller
than
perhaps
what
you
could
imagine
right
now.
But
if
somebody
did
back
into
it,
there
would
be
damage
to
the
vehicle
it
would
take.
Such
grand
force
of
any
vehicle
to
run
into
the
cinder
blocks
to
even
move
that
tower
slightly.
F
So
there's
not
a
concern
from
verizon
that
something
would
happen
to
that
tower
and
part
of
the
structural
analysis
that
is
submitted
with
our
application
and
the
building
permit
does
address
that
to
a
degree
and
hopefully
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
city
and
the
inspections
department.
So
to
that
end
we
do
not
plan.
There's
two
reasons:
we
don't
plan
to
put
any
ballasts
around
this
one.
F
It
would
create
an
additional
hindrance
for
the
drive
area
and
we
wanted
to
be
very
cognizant
about
making
sure
that
any
emergency
vehicles
would
have
the
proper
amount
of
space
to
ingress
and
egress
from
that
area.
So
ballast
would
actually
further
impede
on
that
drive
area,
so
we
didn't
want
to
put
the
ballast
any
ballers
there.
Excuse
me,
we
don't
want
to
put
any
bollards
there
outside
of
that.
F
So
in
this
particular
area,
if
the
private
area
is
gated
and
so
public
is
not
able
to
go
back
there
or
guests
visiting
the
facility,
that
was
a
very
long
answer
to
your
question.
So
I'm
sorry
about
that.
But
if
you
have
further
questions
or
need
further
clarification,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
outside
of
that,
I
will
take
any
questions
that
anybody
has
any
of
the
commissioners.
A
All
right,
julie
plant-
this
is
john
solberg
again
the
the
chair
just
one
other
question
because
it
looked
like
there
was
a
bit
of
a
discrepancy,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
fully
understand
if
we
can
go
to
the
next
plan
document.
Mr
johnson,
the
ballast
looks
like
there.
It's
these
cinder
blocks
on
these
legs,
but
the
picture
to
the
left
doesn't
necessarily
indicate
it
in
relationship
to
the
screening
wall
are
those
the
ballast?
Are
they
shorter?
Are
they
taller?
What
what
could
we
expect
out
of
that.
F
F
A
F
A
B
G
E
D
C
A
F
F
The
antennas
that
we
intend
to
place.
There
are
all
small
cell
antennas,
they're,
all
relatively
small
in
size,
and
so
we
may
have
to
change
what
frequency
they're
working
on
or
change.
Some
of
our
radios
and
how
those
are
transmitting
and
receiving,
but
our
intent
isn't
to
consistently
modify
the
antennas
that
are
on
the
tower.
A
G
F
A
C
I
was
speaking
with
the
planning
manager
about
this
earlier
because
I
think
there's
some
question
on
the
part
of
the
public
of
how.
How
does
some
of
this
equipment
get
regulated
by
fcc?
And
I
believe
that
it's
a.
I
believe
that
there's
multiple
ways
that
they
do
that,
but
one
of
the
ways
in
which
they
do
that
is
they
actually
test
various
types
of
equipment
before
it
gets
deployed
and
it
in
effect,
gets
approved
by
the
fcc.
C
A
A
E
A
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
agree
with
your
comments.
I
have
no
issues
and
I
appreciate
the
actual
images
of
what,
where
the
the
tower
will
be
located,
what
that
might
look
like
on
site
very
helpful
for
us,
as
a
planning
commission
to
actually
under
kind
of
understand
what
that
will
look
like
based
on
its
location.
A
E
A
A
D
A
D
E
E
A
Commissioner
cook
done
hi
and
I
for
myself
motion
passes
so
this
cup
and
final
site
and
building
plans
will
go
to
the
city
council
meeting
on
november
9th
2020.
all
right.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Applicants
and
public
for
talking
to
that
item.
Item
number
two
tonight
is
to
amend
a
conditional
use
permit
and
is
it
mr
centenario,
you
have
the
staff
report
for
us.
Please.
H
All
right,
thank
you
item
two
on
your
agenda
is
a
change
of
condition.
More
specifically,
a
change
of
a
previously
approved
conditional
use
permit
for
a
dog
grooming
business.
That's
located
within
a
single
family,
home
city
called
the
city.
Co-Standards
refer
to
these
as
home
businesses,
and
this
is
a
type
2
home
business
which
requires
a
conditional
use
permit.
H
H
H
So
this
is
what
the
property
looks
like
from
from
the
street
and
when
we're
thinking
about
home-based
businesses,
we
we
think
about
access,
folks
entering
or
leaving
the
property.
Could
there
be
some
sort
of
issue
if
they're
dropping
off
in
this
case,
if
they're
dropping
off
a
dog
for
grooming,
is
there
going
to
be
some
sort
of
constraint
or
issue
with
with
that
relative
to
noise
or
just
to
the
mechanics
of
dropping
a
dog
off?
And
you
know
in
this
particular
case
this.
This
property
has
a
nice
wide
long.
H
Driveway
so
folks
that
are
using
this
business
aren't
going
to
obstruct
the
sidewalk
or
there's
plenty
of
room
for
them
to
drive
into
the
site
where
they
wouldn't
be.
They
wouldn't
need
to
stop
in
the
driveway
apron,
therefore,
causing
some
sort
of
congestion
on
the
xerxes,
so
it
you
know,
there's
a
railroad
right-of-way
to
the
north.
H
So
from
a
noise
perspective,
obviously
a
railroad
is
going
to
be
more
impactful
than
a
dog
grooming
business,
most
likely,
and
so
we
didn't
really
see
anything
when
we
reviewed
this
change
of
condition
that
was
caused
for
concern.
This
is
a
home-based
business.
That's
been
in
operation
for
for
over
a
decade.
H
Also,
there's
always
a
concern
that
folks
that
live
around
this
business
would
have
would
be
opposed
to
any
sort
of
change
and
oftentimes
when
folks
get
a
notice
from
the
city
about
a
home-based
business
or
anything
that
they're
opposed
to
that's,
usually
a
trigger
for
them
to
communicate
with
the
city
about
some
issue
that
they
have,
we
did
get
one
phone
call
from
a
neighbor.
It
was.
There
was
no
opposition.
H
H
The
applicant
would
like
to
operate
the
same
number
of
days,
but
from
7
30
a.m,
to
5
30
p.m,
so,
essentially
extending
the
hours
of
operation
two
hours
for
those
days.
We
don't
really
see
a
concern,
especially
with
work
schedules.
If
so,
a
dog
needs
to
be
dropped
off
before
work.
Having
that
extra
half
an
hour
in
the
morning
certainly
is
reasonable,
and
then,
when
you're,
if
you're
picking
up
your
dog
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it
might
be
difficult
to
get
there
by
by
4
pm.
H
So
generally,
we
think
that's
an
acceptable
time
frame
for
kind
of
your
day-to-day
running
errands
and
from
a
noise
code
perspective.
If
we're
really
thinking
about
kind
of,
what's
from
a
city
code
perspective,
what's
daytime
what's
night
time,
daytime
is
7
a.m
to
10
p.m,
and
so
they
would
operate
this
business
until
5,
30
p.m.
So
well,
well,
earlier
than
essentially
what
we
consider
night
time,
which
generally
means
quieter
operations.
H
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
G
E
A
Commissioner,
abdi
aye
and
commissioner
cook
done,
and
I
for
myself
motion
passes
this
conditional
use.
The
amendment
for
the
conditional
use
permit
will
move
on
to
the
city
council
meeting
on
november
9th
of
this
year.
Right
item
number
three:
is
a
continuation
of
the
verizon
wireless
building,
expansion,
major
revision,
final
site
and
building
plans
from
two
weeks
ago.
H
Essentially,
what
what
they're
looking
to
do
is
rework
or
create
a
more
robust
noise
model
to
take
into
consideration
a
lot
of
the
comments
and
concerns
from
the
planning
commission,
as
well
as
members
of
the
public
they
did.
They
did
hear
that
and
they're
doing
their
best
to
incorporate
incorporate
that
information
into
the
model.
The
challenge
is:
is
that
it?
You
know
this
is
a
fairly
complex
issue,
and
so
they
are,
will
not
be
able
to
have
the
adjusted
model
prepared
for
on
the
november
5th
planning
commission
meeting
two
weeks.
H
Rather
they
they
are
very
confident
that
they
will
be
able
to
resubmit
the
study
in
time
for
a
november
november,
19th
meeting
and
so
generally
we
we
want
them
to
prepare
the
best
possible
study.
So
having
that
additional
time
will
be
will
benefit
everyone,
I
believe,
but
the
concern
was
given
a
november
19th
meeting.
Are
we
going
to
run
us
to
some
problems
with
our
agency
action
timeline?
H
The
reason
we
were
concerned
about
that
is,
we
already
had
a
resident
who
identified
their
intent
to
appeal,
so
we
have
to
plan
for
that.
But
thankfully,
the
verizon
team
agreed
to
extend
the
agency
action
timeline
by
a
month
to
give
the
city
council
a
little
more
room
to
review
this
proposal.
Should
it
get
to
them.
So
our
long
story
short
our
our
recommendation-
is
to
continue
the
item
to
the
november
19th
planning
commission
meeting.
A
E
A
D
G
A
B
A
Commissioner
clerk
done
I
and
I
for
myself
the
case
pl2020-166-
will
continue
until
the
november
19th
2020
planning
commission
meeting,
at
which
point
we
will
reopen
the
hearing
all
right.
Thank
you.
So
that
concludes
the
public.
The
planning
commission
meeting
for
tonight
immediately
following
we
will
have
a
study
session
that
will
not
be
televised
but
is
open
to
the
public
to
continue
to
listen
in
and
with
that
will
conclude
the
october
22nd
regular
business.