Based on the context provided and the internal dialogue of the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names assigned. **Note on Speakers:** * **Chair Scanlan** is the presiding officer. * **Sydney** is a City Planner (identified in the text). * **Tim Benetti** (Community Development Director) handles staff responses regarding city policy and staffing. * **Schindler, Mikold, Hollis, Sandell, and Mah** are Planning Commissioners (identified by the Chair during motions). * **Applicant Representative** is the spokesperson for the wireless tower project. *** [0:00] Chair Scanlan: [Music] [Music] [Music] We call this meeting to order for the March 19th, 2025 Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting. The first item on [0:47] Chair Scanlan: the agenda is the approval of the agenda. And do we have any changes from staff? [0:52] Tim Benetti: Uh, good evening, Mr. Chair, members of commission. We do not have any more changes for your uh approval for tonight. [0:58] Chair Scanlan: Okay. Thank you. [1:00] Commissioner Schindler: Move approval. [1:01] Commissioner Mikold: Second. [1:02] Chair Scanlan: Moved by Schindler and seconded by Mikold. Um motion for approval is um please indicate um approval by I or name. [1:17] Commission Members: I. [1:21] Chair Scanlan: Okay. That um motion carries. The next item on the agenda is approval of the um consent agenda. The next this um item is considered routine and will be enacted um with a single motion unless the commissioner requests to pull the item. [1:41] Chair Scanlan: Could I have a motion for approval? [1:42] Commissioner Schindler: So moved. [1:42] Commissioner Hollis: Second. [1:43] Chair Scanlan: Moved by Schindler and seconded by um Hollis. All in favor indicate um I. [1:53] Commission Members: I. [1:54] Chair Scanlan: That also carries and then we move to um public hearings which we do not have any of uh public hearings uh this evening and the next item is land use action items 5A and um that is the Bethel Assembly of God Church wireless communication tower and uh Sydney is presenting from the city. [2:20] Sydney (City Planner): Good evening, Chair Scanlan and commissioners. Tonight, I'll be presenting to you the application for conditional use permit for the Bethel Assembly's Church wireless communications tower. So, you all saw this request at the March 3rd planning commission meeting with the public hearing for this conditional use permit. Specifically, the request is for an 86 foot tall wireless communications tower at the existing Bethel Assemblies of God Church property. [2:50] Sydney (City Planner): The site is located at 14201 Cedar Avenue with the proposed tower site being at the southern end of the existing parcel adjacent to 143rd Street West. There was a similar conditional use permit approved at the site in 2017 for a tower located in a large um parking lot island curb. Um and the building permit was never issued for this approved tower. Therefore, the cup has lapsed and the applicant has come back with a new approval for a tower at a new site on the existing property. [3:29] Sydney (City Planner): The property is zoned institutional and in this district towers are allowed as a conditional use. The performance standards that tower must adhere to are set out in section 155.358 of city code. Um the applicant has submitted a memo that includes details on meeting each performance standard. Uh I will highlight a couple of the general standards here. So first uh first off the applicant has to document that the planned equipment cannot be accommodated on an existing tower or existing building within the 0.5 mile radius of the proposed site. Um there was a question asked on the collocation requirements in the public hearing. So I do have a question that we will go over more detail later in the presentation. [4:15] Sydney (City Planner): Next there are general tower construction requirements like the uh that it's preferred that the tower is a monopole uh using stealth technology. The applicant has proposed a tower that is a monopole with the antennas flush mounted to the pole. It must be designed to accommodate an additional user. The applicant has submitted a letter stating that they would accommodate additional user if um requested. Uh there has to be a fence that prevents climbing. We have a proposed fence that would be surrounding the equipment um and the tower. Uh we'll go over this later, but there also we have a condition in the resolution that would include a updated fence material because it was was proposed as a chain link. Um there are additional requirements for related to tower color material screening and landscaping. Again, we'll see see some conditions related to that later in the presentation. No signs or advertising can be um included in a prop proposed tower. The applicant has not proposed anything like that. [5:19] Sydney (City Planner): uh an obsolete or unused tower has to be removed. The applicant has stated that they would comply with that if if the tower was unused. Um and then there must be statements from the FFA, FCC and any appropriate state review required at building permits. So once if approved, once the tower comes in for building permit, the applicant would be required to submit um letters of review from the FFA, the FAA and FCC stating that it meets their general federal regulations as well. And then lastly, the tower standards and requirements, which are just general height and setback requirements. [6:00] Sydney (City Planner): The plan show the tower location um the 30 by 25 equipment pad and the driveway access for the tower. The tower would meet all required setbacks to both property lines as well as any adjacent structures. There are recommended conditions to update the gravel driveway to a paved material as well as to include sidewalk installation along the southern property line. [6:28] Sydney (City Planner): The proposed tower is again designed as a monopole with the antennas mounted flush to the tower. In terms of conditions related to the design and elevations staff suggests additional landscaping adjacent to 143rd Street, so kind of along this open area here. Upgraded fence material from the chain link to a more solid opaque fence material. Um and then continued maintenance of existing trees surrounding the the tower to ensure that long-term screening is provided to any adjacent property. Staff also suggests that the tower color shall be subject to further review and approval by the planning department at building permit. So getting into the public hearing questions um kind of made some general themes and clump them into to each question. [7:13] Sydney (City Planner): Starting off, why was the 2017 tower never constructed? What was the previous tower height and color? And then why is a new site proposed? So again, the previous tower did not receive a building permit um and the cup was not utilized within one year of approval, which is required in our city code. Therefore, this 20 2017 CUP lapsed. Um the previous tower plan showed a total height of 84 feet with a 4ft uh lightning rod attached to the top. And then it also showed that the tower would be painted a yellow color that matched the existing church building. The applicant has stated that the original location was agreed to by the previous property owner which was Mount Olivet Church. Um and then the new location for this new CUP is to accommodate the new users future development plans. [8:01] Sydney (City Planner): What other sites were considered for this tower? Are there any other locations on Bethel Church property where the proposed tower could be located? Um, so in terms of other sites, there are collocation requirements for towers. Uh the proposal of a new tower must provide reasoning as to why the communication equipment cannot be accommodated on an existing tower or building within that 0.5 mile radius. After further review, um this wasn't noted in the first staff report, but we did see that there isn't a tower within the one half mile of the proposed Bethel church site and that was located at Apple Valley High School. [8:47] Sydney (City Planner): Um the applicant has stated as to why they could not locate onto that Apple Valley High School pole and um it's based on the height of the pole. So, similar to buildings within the 0.5 mile radius, the tower as well does not accommodate the height that is needed for this planned um communication equipment and the service needed. Um, additionally, the city reviews the project and site based on what has been proposed by the petitioner. The city does not suggest or staff does not suggest a new site so long as the applicant is showing to meet all performance standards and setbacks. [9:28] Sydney (City Planner): How many existing towers are there in Apple Valley? Um, in the staff report, I believe there was listed that there are 10 towers. Just after further review of building permits and uh land use application, previous land use applications. It was found that there are actually seven existing towers. Um, this does not include antennas attached to buildings. And for some examples, uh there's a picture of a approved monopole tower at Christ Church, uh located off of Johnny Cake and McAndrews. So this would be similar to the proposed tower that we have for Bethel Bethel's Church. [10:03] Sydney (City Planner): Um so it's a monopole with the antennas mounted flush to the pole. Another example of a tower is the communication tower at Corey Point Park. Um, this tower is more of the standard uh array with the antennas kind of dis uh outward of the actual tower. Um, this map shows the proposed Bethel Tower site with the 0.5 mile radius. So, you can see that the Apple Valley High School Tower is just on the edge of that radius. [10:38] Sydney (City Planner): Um the other existing tower sites are also located on this map. Again, this is not include anything that is attached to a building. Um next would be general comments and questions related to radio frequency emissions. Um, so in terms of the city review and staff review, it is not within our purview to determine or monitor RF emissions and it is not an adopted performance standard within the city code. This would be regulated by the FCC. The city may not deny a communications tower based on concerns of RF emissions. in terms of how emissions are measured and what is that FCC requirement. I will h defer to the applicant for those questions and the applicant also has a slideshow um that they can pull up after this going over more of those detailed questions. [11:23] Sydney (City Planner): Um general comments on prohibiting towers near near schools. So in Apple Valley, school properties are generally zoned as institutional and this zone allows for towers as a conditional use. Secondly, there are existing towers that are already near schools as well as located on school properties. For instance, Apple Valley High School. Uh the city cannot prohibit the location of a proposed tower in a zoning district where is currently allowed as a conditional use. Um there were general concerns for the property values of residential properties when adjacent to a tower. So property values are determined by a complex set of var variables that are difficult to attribute to a single adjacent land use. Property values are impacted by overall city development patterns. There's been no documentation provided of a decrease in property property value due to being adjacent to a cell tower. [12:09] Sydney (City Planner): General questions related to construction. Um and then how many trees would be removed due to construction. So staff does not have concerns with the proposed construction of the tower. Um in terms of tree and tree preservation that will be reviewed by natural resources department and we do have a condition related to that in the uh recommended conditions and resolution. Um and then again a building permit would be required uh once approved. So the cup you know if approved next it would go to building permit where we determined that yes the tower would meet all of the conditions that we set out in the in the conditional use permit. um as well as um things like the FFA, FAA and FCC letters of approval. Um the applicant has stated that access will come from construction access will come from 143rd Street primarily um except for underground electric construction is construction is phased and would take about six weeks. [13:25] Sydney (City Planner): And then lastly, one 24inch tree and brush will be removed due to the construction of a tower. And again, the final tree preservation plan will be reviewed um at before building permit is issued. Um there were some concerns with uh contacting the pipeline um related to the pipeline easement adjacent to the site. So, the submitted plans show the tower and equipment pad outside of this pipeline easement and the applicant is stating a similar statement. [13:57] Sydney (City Planner): Lastly, what is the city's authority when reviewing cups? So, the city exercises more of a judicial role when reviewing the request of a conditional use permit. Meaning that we're reviewing the requests based on the requirements that are currently adopted in city code. So, we're reviewing the conditional use permit for this specific tower based on the performance standards that are set out in section 155.385. Um, if the applicant provides plans and documentation that meet the performance standards, which they have, and requirements set out in city code, the applicant is entitled to the CUP. [14:32] Sydney (City Planner): The city may place reasonable conditions that are related to the adopted performance standards on a conditional use to mitigate adverse impacts associated with the use. So that would include our conditions, our suggested conditions related to the fence material, the maintenance of trees for screening, um the drive paved driveway. So conditions that are related to those per um adopted performance standards. Again, I do have those uh suggested conditions listed out here. If we want to go over any of them again tonight, we can. Um and then finally, our recommendation is for approval of the conditional use permit and um subject to those suggested conditions as well. And then we do have the applicant here tonight who also has a presentation. Thank you. [15:24] Chair Scanlan: Does anybody have a question for Sydney [Music] before applicant comes forward? Okay. Thanks Sydney. [15:37] Applicant Representative: Uh, good evening. Um, so there's just a couple things uh that I'd like to add. Um, and Sydney, could you help me? Oh, yep. If you could stop moving the mouse, I could pull up the presentation. Okay. One second. [16:02] Applicant Representative: Okay, there we go. Um, so yeah, we I can skip over all the items that Sydney went over. Um, the few things uh I would like to discuss that I know um a couple of uh you asked last time um specifically about how uh the FCC um uh governs frequencies and then how they um monitor them. There is no strict monitor monitoring requirement. This is really a function of how many cell sites are out there between um macro towers which is a tower and small cell sites which is mounted on small you know street lights and that kind of thing. There's close to half a million towers in the country and growing. So it's really it would be a herculean task. So that's why they don't monitor it. [16:54] Applicant Representative: Um, and let's see, we went over the pipeline. Uh, construction. Um, like Sydney says, it's phase. So, it's not like, um, major construction every day for six weeks. It's going to be chunks here that are, uh, you know, um, bothering the public and then, um, off for a week or two. So, uh, yeah. So, they regulate emissions based on ERP, which is um the radiated power of an antenna. Um, couple things to note. Uh, when you're at the top of a tower or if you're on a rooftop standing in front of an antenna, the emissions are much much greater. When you're at the base of a tower or at the, you know, like in this room, we obviously have uh radiation coming in that feeds our cell phone towers or cell phones, excuse me. um the level is much much uh further below the FCC mandated level. [17:40] Applicant Representative: Um so we included a couple articles uh references to uh the FCC website and then a um a group called CTIA which uh lobbies for the wireless um industry and they provide a lot of good uh health and safety resources. The photo simulations uh which are renderings of the tower. So you can see this is from uh Cedar Avenue and 143rd. Um and you just let me know when you want to move on. There's two other ones. [18:37] Applicant Representative: Next one. Um so this is Glenda and 143rd. And then finally we have uh from the church parking lot. And then I have a real life example. This is the one I mentioned that's in Eden Prairie. Um this one is 79 feet I believe. So approximately the same height and it incorporates the same mounting design, the flush mount to the tower. Um this one is painted brown to match the uh hockey uh warming house that you can't quite see in this um picture. Uh surrounding Verizon sites. [19:06] Applicant Representative: So there's six surrounding sites. Um here is where is the church? Right about here. Um so you have them basically in each cardinal direction. Um you can see there is uh quite a sizable hole right here. Um so the the site would really benefit the residential and commercial area. Um and this is the collocation exclusion radius. As you see it's um it's right on the edge which is why we didn't incorporate it initially. [19:37] Applicant Representative: Um it is I don't know the height of the tower but I know the available height to Verizon would be 45 feet which is almost half of what they would need. So we wouldn't even consider it as an option. Um and then uh before I close there is one um uh issue I'd like to bring up related to the sidewalk. Um so one of the conditions is that we install a sidewalk over about 124 125 ft. Um we feel that that is uh a bit of an onerous requirement. Um reason being uh we understand the you know the city's goal to connect um uh connect the sidewalks make it a bikeable and walkable city. Um this is not a project that would increase any pedestrian traffic um or have any any market effect on that. [20:36] Applicant Representative: Um also let's see if I go back to here. So, there's um there's kind of a berm or a hill right here. And as I was driving by it tonight again, uh it just really doesn't make a lot of sense that you would ever build a sidewalk here. So I think in reality there's a good chance that you would end up um with kind of an island of sidewalk right here. Um so we would respect respectfully ask that that be waved as one of the conditions. Um and I'm happy to answer any questions. [21:28] Chair Scanlan: Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Go ahead. [21:31] Commissioner Mikold: Thank you, chair. Um, I I did drive past that location and I and I it it is a a much better site than what they had proposed and and approved back in I think it was 2017 up on top of the hill. It was stuck up on the on the very top of the hill. This is somewhat enclosed down amongst the trees down below and um I saw that it really doesn't um show itself except for the top area to the residential side of the side of the area to the west. Um I do have a question in regards to um somewhat of the sidewalk that you just talked about and then in regards to I think in the last meeting we talked about a some kind of a walkway or something up to the tower or some driveway. [22:19] Applicant Representative: Yeah. So, uh, we would have a walkway. Um, I'm sorry, not a walkway, a driveway. Uh, see, so this would be a paved area coming from 143rd. And then this is a little parking turnaround area. [22:36] Commissioner Mikold: Okay. And then and what is proposed by the city is that you put a sidewalk in in adjacent to that. [22:42] Applicant Representative: Yeah. the direction we've received um essentially the property line is about right here or I actually can show you on the survey. So it would be you know approximately uh from where the cursor is here to the edge of that property line. Um we're not you know disputing uh the city's ability to impose a restriction like that. Um you obviously have the ability to uh you know do what you will with your own right of way. Um we just feel that uh when you look at the cost of installing the sidewalk versus the cost of the project itself, it's a much outsized uh cost. Um you know, whereas when the bank went in um a similar uh portion of sidewalk would have been a fraction of the project cost. [23:25] Commissioner Mikold: So and and you're what you're saying is that there is not a sidewalk in by the bank to the east of that. [23:30] Applicant Representative: No. So this would currently right it would be an island essentially between the two. So it would require either the city to invest in um developing the sidewalk or uh requiring at some stage for the uh adjacent property owners to to put in their own sidewalk. [23:39] Commissioner Mikold: Okay. Thank you. [23:44] Chair Scanlan: I had a couple of questions. Um some of them just to bring some clarity to anybody that's watching from the public and and then um myself. Um, I was noticing in what city just mentioned, they said the electric was not going to be buried. Could you explain? [23:59] Applicant Representative: Oh, no. I'm sorry. It It will be buried. Okay. Um, so the transformer, you can't see it here. It's right about where that cursor is. So, it's on this property. It's in a different um easement just coming south there. So, that's the reason. [24:14] Chair Scanlan: So, is it going to be underground? [24:16] Applicant Representative: It will be subsurface. Correct. Underground. [24:19] Chair Scanlan: Okay. So that brings clarity to that. Thank you. Um and then also could you go back and talk about the high school location. [24:28] Applicant Representative: Sure. [24:30] Chair Scanlan: Um and you were mentioning that the pole isn't high enough there to accommodate what you're trying to achieve at the 80 plus feet versus the lower height that that pole is at. Correct. But could that pole be replaced by a 80 plus foot? [24:47] Applicant Representative: You know, not necessarily. And there's another factor that um I would add to that. Um so this is a it's a a light pole for the football field. Um so it's not a it's not a certainty that you could just drop a tower um build another you know it would have to be well over 100 ft to um accommodate the lights and then the two carriers that are already there. So you would have a three carrier tower plus lights. Um you know you'd be well over 100 probably 125 feet. Um in addition the other concern is that ground space. Um it's kind of it's tucked against uh if I recall correctly the it's like a the snack area and the bleachers and it's kind of tucked in there. So there's not ample room for us to put um uh the ground equipment and really uh more importantly is it's too close uh particularly to these um southern sites. So if you can imagine if we put a site here it might you know it might help up to Cedar Avenue but then as you get to the aquatic center it wouldn't work as well. So that's why we try to target our sites so that we minimize it because you potentially to to get the same coverage as we're proposing with the Bethel Rock site, you would have to do the school and then a second site. [26:17] Chair Scanlan: Okay. Um with now I'm going to this question is going back to the proposed site that we're talking about this evening. Is that some uh um besides Verizon, is that something other carriers could co-mingle like that at the future date? And what would that look like? [26:35] Applicant Representative: Yes. So um actually you can see in the picture here. So that would be Verizon at the top that is uh theoretical carrier under here. Um so it is designed for multiple carriers. Um in addition let me get to the right slide. There's uh added ground space here. So, we not only provide space on the tower, but we provide space for a future carrier's ground equipment so they're not having to expand it, knock down more trees. Um, and it it's kind of a plug-and-play if you can think of it that way. [27:18] Chair Scanlan: Okay. So, all right. Um, then your comment on the FCC just um that um with how these the equipment is regulated and so forth and there's not testing done because of the the volume of cell towers um nationwide that think that they would be individually be looked at on a consistent basis. But the equipment you're using um is all certified and brought to below or at the specifications that the um FCC allows for this type of operation. [28:02] Applicant Representative: Right. Yep. It is. And um in addition uh part of their FCC license is that they um is that they operate within those uh guidelines. So they are they take that very seriously. That is their lifeblood as a as a company. So they would not do anything to jeopardize their FCC license. [28:21] Chair Scanlan: Okay. And then last and finally I have here, do you have any concerns with the items that has been outlined in the staff report 1 through 15 as far as things that need to be um accommodated to move forward with the exception of uh your bringing up the sidewalk this evening? [28:44] Applicant Representative: No, no issues other than the sidewalk. [28:46] Chair Scanlan: Okay. And I'll comment on the sidewalk. Um, one thing we do as a planning commissioner is what we don't do is we don't consider cost into our consideration of um when we look at a particular um project. So, um, and I, from my opinion, and I'll let the other commissioners, uh, express theirs that, um, it's not uncommon for projects within Apple Valley to work on our we're trying very hard with our conductivity or connection points for bikes and pedestrians to make that request. And at this point, I would um, prefer just to leave it there. And at this next level of um if the this does go forward is that can be considered at the next level of approval. So and that would be the the building permit stage or the city council council stage. [29:21] Applicant Representative: Yeah. Got it. Council stage. [29:24] Chair Scanlan: So with that I don't have any more questions unless commissioners. Commissioner Sandell. [29:30] Commissioner Sandell: Thank you chair. Yes. Um I um appreciate those pictures that you had of um what it will look like um potentially. So thank you for that and for just for the whole report. Um, I appreciate the time you put into it. Um, I just wanted to state my opinion on the sidewalk. Um, I'm a little bit torn on it and so I think I'm I'm feeling similar to um what um what our chair has said in that I would um I think I would be tempted to leave it in and then let the city council kind of make that decision. I don't feel like I've had enough time to think it through right now. Um because I can see what you're saying about it being an island and the possibility of it getting connected where the homes are seems small to me. Um however, having it connected to the other side seems like it could potentially happen. And um and I agree that having the sidewalks, having the connectivity um is important. And so all that to say, I have an opinion that's not an opinion. [30:35] Applicant Representative: and we we of course respect that and and you know personally I think that's a great goal to achieve um the bikeable and walkable city. So it it's really it's kind of the the specific circumstance that we feel um doesn't quite apply. [30:51] Tim Benetti: Mr. Chair, I think we're okay unless unless any of the commissioners want any additional explanation on the city's position with the the sidewalk, but it sounds like you might Yeah, you might have your answer. [31:08] Chair Scanlan: I'm fine personally. Um, Commissioner Mah, go ahead. [31:14] Commissioner Mah: Sure, Chair. Uh, just can can uh can the sidewalk be conditioned on I mean it's it's it's built into your memo which is built into the um conditions of approval. Can the construction of or addition of a sidewalk be conditioned upon adjacent the adjacent land owners construction of a sidewalk in the future or does it have to be done right now? [31:38] Tim Benetti: Mr. chair, commissioner. Uh so our our position or the city's method of approach for these sidewalks um gaps to be closed would be a combination of with redevelopment activity, development activity, and then the city's capital improvement plan. So, while there's no plan or or activity to the bank to the east of this property, at at any future redevelopment or potentially as we continue to close gaps with the city's capital improvement plan, the city may proactively decide to to close that gap. It's hard to say specifically to the bank property. If we look at the residential component south, west, and east of this, it's very likely that the city would be the one kind of programming that with capital improvement, sidewalk extension in that component. [32:32] Tim Benetti: Um, so to to directly answer your question, we wouldn't recommend conditioning the sidewalk approval to a future city project because on one end we might have a development related a second development related extension and on the other end it could be further down the line several more years before we're looking at capital improvement projects on the adjacent streets. Um, so I think like like Chair Scanlan said, it's not uncommon for us to have these kind of stray segments installed and that may or may not, you know, accelerate certain portions into the capital improvement plan to close those sidewalk gaps. [33:04] Chair Scanlan: Thank you. I think I was going to mention to the point of that um the um housing project on 140th Street with the uh former golf course that we're adding there's being sidewalks added I believe along that uh were part of that project to add the sidewalks and there's a connection point of about a half a block or a block along just to the north that isn't connected at this point but I know that is something that uh that we had discussed at that time is on the radar of the city to take and as part of their capital improvement to make those connections. So those are things that are have already been mentioned on an ongoing discussion and you know um when they that can be done is is fit into that those those programs. So there is a little um there there is a plan but um whether it's uh um not set in stone at this point but it there's the big picture that we're looking at is the city. So that helps you get a better perspective of that hopefully. So thank you. [34:25] Applicant Representative: Yeah. appreciate your Sydney. [34:31] Chair Scanlan: I had one more question I was going to ask you on the landscape. Um who has responsibility for the landscape after it's whether it's the trees or added landscape to this? Is it the applicant or is it the um church at a later the church? [34:47] Sydney (City Planner): Chair Scanlan. Yes. Correct. in the conditions we have it uh to the property owner. [34:54] Chair Scanlan: Okay. And then moving forward with the landscape, is that something that you're work there the applicant and you're working with uh to try to address where it needs those needs of uh filling in there. [35:05] Sydney (City Planner): Correct. So we have the required landscape plan which will be reviewed by both planning as well as natural resources uh planning in terms of the location um to ensure screening and then natural resources in terms of the species and um the tree preservation. [35:22] Chair Scanlan: Okay. All right. Is that something that's going to be available then before that goes to the city council or we have that required um prior to issuance of the building permit which would be after city council. [35:32] Sydney (City Planner): Okay. All right. Thank you for the clarification. Thanks. [35:36] Chair Scanlan: With that, if nobody has any more questions, um, could I have a motion, please? [35:41] Commissioner Schindler: Mr. Chair, I move we recommend approval of a conditional use permit, CUP, for an 86 foot tall wireless communications tower at the existing Bethel Assemblies of God Church property, 14201 Cedar Avenue, subject to conditions 1 through 15 in the staff report. [36:04] Commissioner Hollis: I would second that. [36:06] Chair Scanlan: Moved by Commissioner Schindler and seconded by Commissioner Hollis. Um those in favor of the um motion um please indicate by indicate by approval by uh indicating I and um disapproval. Nay. [36:24] Commission Members: I. [36:28] Chair Scanlan: I. With that um the motion has approved and we'll go forward. Thank you. Next item on tonight's agenda 6B is review of upcoming schedule and updates. [36:51] Tim Benetti: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um just want to remind you our next meeting of Wednesday, April 2nd. Uh we hope to have uh all of you here. We have a very very busy scheduled meeting for that night. So we'd love to have as many people or many commissioners here as possible followed by April 16th uh uh two weeks after that. Our council March 27th and April 10th are respectively noted on on your agenda as well. [37:21] Tim Benetti: Uh if you would indulge me, I'd like to introduce uh uh Jennifer Hasamp. Jennifer is the president owner of Swanson Hascamp Consulting Services out of St. Paul. Jennifer is helping us because we are still short staffed as you probably could tell. And Jennifer has bailed me out more times than I can count. And she's uh a wonderful uh planning uh consultant. Uh she's very well-versed, very well experienced, and she's just a a remarkable friend. I'm happy to have her. uh she's got along very well with people so far, but you're going to see her in a few weeks here uh presenting on some planning stuff. [38:05] Tim Benetti: Uh good news, we do have an offer out for our planner one and we're getting soon to be interviewing for our city planner positions as well. So, we hope to be full staffed, but uh Jennifer is probably gonna stick around for a little bit and uh love to have you talk to her afterwards. But, uh she'll be at the next meeting where I might not be here for a family medical uh issue. But, uh but Jennifer is happy to help and uh I I I hope you can welcome her. And again, feel free to introduce yourself after the meeting if you if you so wish. [38:34] Tim Benetti: Thank you, Tim. [38:35] Chair Scanlan: You're welcome. I have one item that I was going to mention. Um on the main page of the um Apple Valley website, there is a survey for the um bike and pedestrian path um update that we're looking at doing. And um any u audience members that are out there is to please take note of that or commissioners that um to do the survey would be greatly appreciated as we go forward with that um project. So with that I will entertain a motion for adjournment. [39:08] Commissioner Hollis: So a motion. [39:09] Commissioner Sandell: Second. [39:10] Chair Scanlan: Moved by um Commissioner Hollis and seconded by Commissioner Sandell. All in favor by saying I. [39:13] Commission Members: I. [39:15] Chair Scanlan: I. [Music] [Music] [39:52] Hey hey hey. [Music]