Loading...
06-09-08 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, June 9, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes May 28, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Eck referred to page one and noted that Mark Grimes should have been listed as present. Eck referred to the second sentence in the fourth paragraph on page two and stated that the word "than" should be the word "then". Waldhauser referred to the second paragraph on page five and stated that the last sentence should be changed to read... how significant the grade change will be, rather than how significant the grade is. Waldhauser referred to the last sentence in the ninth paragraph on page seven and stated that the word "existing" should be added before the words "drainage problems". MOVED by Eck, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 28, 2008 minutes with the above noted changes. 2. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Honeywell - 1985 Douglas Drive - CU-122 Applicant: Honeywell Address: 1985 Douglas Drive Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit will allow for the construction of 92' tall communications tower Hogeboom stated that Honeywell is proposing to construct a 92-foot tall communications tower on their property located at 1985 Douglas Drive which is zoned Industrial. He explained that communications towers are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the Industrial zoning district. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 2 Hogeboom explained that the applicant has stated that the proposed tower will be used for GPS fixed positioning testing and video camera research. The tower will be a lattice design because of the need to climb it for maintenance and research-related tasks. He referred to the City's design and performance standards and noted that these standards require telecommunications towers over 60 feet to be designed to accommodate additional antennas from at least one other user. He added that City Code states that landowners must allow the shared use of telecommunication towers with other comparable uses if an agreement is reached which binds additional users to provisions described in the Code. Hogeboom referred to his staff report and reviewed the ten factors the Planning Commission must use to make findings when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit application. He noted that Honeywell has demonstrated a need for this use, the proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and staff does not believe there will be an adverse effect on property values in the area. He added that staff is recommending approval of the proposal with the conditions listed in his staff report. Keysser asked if there will be a security fence around the base of the tower. Hogeboom said he wasn't sure and suggested the applicant address that issue. Keysser asked about illumination of the tower. Hogeboom referred to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and noted that most of the requirements apply to towers that are 100 feet or taller. Cera asked the height of the tower in relation to the height of the building. Hogeboom said he wasn't sure how tall the building is but the existing water tower on the Honeywell site is approximately 120 feet in height. Kluchka referred to the staff report regarding landscaping and asked what "adequately landscaped" means. Hogeboom stated that it basically means that any current trees or landscaping that would act as a buffer would have to remain. Kluchka questioned if condition number 4 regarding landscaping really applies. Grimes added that that base of the tower probably won't be visible from the street. Hogeboom suggested adding the installation of security fencing as a condition of approval. Eck asked about the height of the City's water tower. Grimes said he wasn't sure but assumed it is over 120 feet in height. Leon Trout, Honeywell Project Manager, reiterated that the proposed tower will be used for research and that they will not be broadcasting anything. He explained that Honeywell is moving this function from their Camden location to their Golden Valley location and that the proposed tower needs to be 92 feet in height in order to see the horizon. Keysser asked Mr. Trout how he feels about adding a security fence around the base of the tower. Trout said he feels fine about adding a 10-foot high, lockable security fence around the tower. He explained that the proposed tower will also be camouflaged by the existing building. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 3 Keysser asked about the type of lighting that will be used. Trout said they will not need any lighting on the tower. He added that the cameras on the proposed tower will be watching their own parking lot. McCarty asked how the City can be sure the cameras will only be watching the parking lot. Trout said that Honeywell would be willing to sign an agreement. McCarty questioned the things Honeywell will be doing that they are not willing to talk about. Trout stated that Honeywell will be doing customer research and that they don't want to name their customers. He reiterated that they will only be doing scientific research and testing and no broadcasting. Kluchka asked about the color of the proposed tower. Trout said the tower will not be painted. It will be a galvanized tri-pod tower. Keysser asked about the likelihood of interference with cell phones, telephones, televisions, etc. Trout said he is not aware of any interference issues. Eck asked if the location of the proposed tower was a deliberate choice. Trout said yes and explained that there are limitations on how far away the tower can be from the access equipment in the building. Keysser opened the public hearing. Pat Lamon, 1701 Hampshire Lane, stated that she has gone through a lot of things with Honeywell where they've said they will do things and they have not done them. She said she doesn't feel the City can approve this proposal without knowing how it will affect cell phones, televisions or GPS systems. Lynn Jacobs, 6500 Hampshire Place, stated that she lives right across the street from Honeywell and she will walk into her yard and look up and see this tower. She said she is concerned about her property value and aviation lights lighting up her yard. She said she is also concerned about the cameras and interference with her television and cell phone. She urged the Planning Commission to consider the potential impact to homeowners. Keith Heimer, 6405 Hampshire Place, said he has similar concerns as the previous speakers. He said he would like to know more about future antennas being located on the proposed tower and he wants to know the exact location and design of the proposed tower. He said there is another tower located on Douglas Drive and questioned the necessity of another one. He said he doesn't want to see this tower from his home and it will de-value his property and he wants to see a limit placed on future height expansion. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Keysser asked the applicant if there will be aviation lights on the tower. Trout said no. Keysser asked the applicant about future expansion of the tower. Trout said there will not be any future expansion of the tower. He showed the Commissioners a drawing of the proposed tower. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 4 Keysser asked about potential interference with other electronics. Trout reiterated that he is confident there will be no interference. Grimes explained that the City's lighting ordinance doesn't allow towers to be lit unless the FAA requires lighting. He referred to the City's telecommunication ordinance and explained that the City wants to make sure that when towers are built they can support additional antennas rather than having to build towers all over the City. Trout reiterated that the tower being proposed is not a transmittal tower. He said he thinks if it were going to be a cell tower they would have to come back to the City for approval because it would be a different use. Kluchka stated that the Planning Commission isn't approving the use of the tower they are just supposed to be considering the height and the land use. He referred to the questions regarding interference and said he thinks that would be an FCC issue not a City issue. Grimes noted that he has never had a complaint regarding interference from towers. Kluchka said he would like to add a condition of approval regarding the installation of a security fence. Keysser suggested adding the fence requirement to number eight in the conditions of approval. Kluchka said he would also like to add a condition that the tower can only be a maximum of 92 feet in height or a height that doesn't require lighting. Keysser said he thinks that if Honeywell wanted a taller tower they would have to come back to the City for approval. Grimes agreed that if Honeywell changes their proposal from what they've submitted they would have to come back for approval. He suggested that a condition of approval be added to state that the plans submitted with this application shall become a part of the approval. Schmidgall stated that the addition of the 12-foot whip antenna would make the proposed tower 100 feet in height. Grimes referred to the telecommunications ordinance and discussed antenna location and mounting and stated that he would consider the proposed structure to be 92 feet in height. Waldhauser noted that the 12-foot whip antenna may be a horizontal antenna. McCarty asked if there would be an increase in noise as a result of this tower. Trout said there will not be any noise. McCarty said he is not comfortable with this proposal because the use is not clearly defined. Eck stated that no one wants to have to look at towers, but they are everywhere. He said he doesn't want to discount people's concerns but there are so many towers and poles and wires around that people get accustomed to seeing them. Cera suggesting adding a condition of approval that states that the tower will only be for receiving and not transmitting. Grimes stated that Honeywell could sell or lease their facility in the future and if the tower is there they might as well use it. He stated that if the concern is about the cameras, there could be a condition added that states that they can only be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 5 aimed atHoneywell's property. He noted that the residential properties are 800 feet or further away from Honeywell. Keysser clarified that the additional conditions discussed have been as follows: add language regarding a 1 a-foot high, locking fence around the tower to condition number 8, add a condition number 11 that states all camera angles will be on Honeywell property and add a condition number 12 that states that the plans submitted with the application shall become a part of the Conditional Use Permit. McCarty stated that condition number 6 regarding the shared use of the tower "if reasonable" seems to conflict with City Code which states that towers are required to co- locate. Keysser stated that if another antenna is installed on this proposed tower then it becomes a part of this conditional use permit. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 92-foot telecommunications tower to be located at 1985 Douglas Drive - Honeywell, subject to the following conditions: 1. No signage may be located on the tower or any attached antenna, except those that provide necessary information as required by federal or state laws. 2. The tower or any attached antennas may not be artificially illuminated, unless required by law or the Federal Aviation Administration. 3. Adequate access to the tower must be provided from a public right of way. 4. The tower must be adequately landscaped and screened with natural vegetation to lessen its visual impact. The natural vegetation on the site must be documented on site and landscaping plans submitted to the City. 5. The placement, design, use, and operation of the tower must comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. 6. The owners of the tower must allow shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use and signs the Conditional Use Permit agreeing to requirements set therein. 7. No guy wires shall be permitted on the tower. 8. Reasonable security measures must be provided for the tower. A 1 a-foot high, lockable fence must be installed around the base of the tower. 9. The tower must be approved by a licensed professional structural engineer. It must conform to the City's Building Code. 10. All other applicable local, state and federal requirements shall be met at all times. 11. All cameras mounted on the tower must be aimed on Honeywell's property. 12. The plans for the tower submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application prepared by Radian and dated April 16, 2008 shall become a part of this approval. 13. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this permit shall be grounds for revocation. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 6 3. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit Amendment #1 - HLM Sports, LLC - CU-1 05 Applicant: HLM Sports, LLC Address: 8300 10th Avenue North Purpose: The Conditional Use Permit Amendment will allow for the construction of an outdoor sports court Grimes noted that this is a request by HLM Sports doing business as Hey Coach at 8300 10th Avenue North. He stated that the conditional use permit would allow the applicant to construct a sports court to the rear of the building. Grimes explained that when the original conditional use permit was issued to Home Run Hitters the use was more baseball oriented. The new owners want to expand and have the proposed outdoor sports court for basketball training. He noted that there was a concern when the original conditional use permit was issued that all activities be done inside the building. Grimes referred to a site plan and discussed the location of the proposed sports court. He noted that the proposal meets the setback requirements and the applicant has stated that they would like to add some lighting as well. Grimes stated that the applicant originally wanted to place a tent structure over the proposed sports court but he has not provided staff with the necessary structural engineering information so at this point the conditional use permit request is only for the outdoor sports court. He noted that if the applicant intends to put the tent structure over the sports court in the future he will need to come back to the City for another conditional use permit amendment. Grimes stated that he doesn't think there will be any parking issues as a result of the proposed sports court. He said there may be some concern about noise issues so staff is recommending that there be no music, speaker systems or whistles allowed on the sports court. He stated that the owners of the neighboring property to the west have some security concerns and there is also some concern about what happens when the court is closed and have questioned if the property has cameras or a locked fence. He stated that staff feels the proposed sports court will be ok if there is no lighting after 9 pm and the security concerns are addressed. McCarty asked for information regarding the proposed retaining wall. Grimes stated that a grading permit will be required. McCarty said he is more concerned about a child potentially falling off of a 5-foot high retaining wall. Kluchka asked about the current parking situation. Grimes stated that there are other tenants in the building but the applicant's business mostly occurs off-hours on weekends or Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 7 after 5 pm so parking should not be a problem. He stated that the property owners to the west are concerned about cars parking in their lot rather than in the parking lot on the applicant's property. He added that many of the customers are kids who are dropped off and picked up by their parents. Andrew Atkin, Owner of Hey Coach, applicant, stated that he purchased Home Run Hitters in January and that customers are supportive of the baseball use part of the year but the only viable business option is to have a multi-season, full year-round business. He stated that he has partnered with Minnesota Developmental Basketball who will provide coaches and training. He added that they've also added a teen fitness center and a lounge area for teens. Keysser asked about the teen fitness center. Atkin explained that the fitness center is a combination of traditional weightlifting with "excergaming" which is a computerized circuit training system. Keysser asked if the center is membership based. Atkin stated that he offers both member and non-member rates. Keysser asked the applicant how he felt about installing a security fence around the proposed sports court. Atkin said installing a 10-foot high security fence around the sports court might not be aesthetically pleasing and when they come back for approvals for the tent structure over the sports court the fence would have to be taken out. Keysser asked about the tent structure. Atkin explained that the tent structure is 45 feet by 55 feet and is barn-like in shape. Waldhauser suggested the hoops be taken down after hours. Atkin said he would consider hoops that retract or fold up. He noted that they are quite a distance from residential areas. Grimes stated that there is a residential area to the north. Grimes asked if the sports court will be a "half-court". Atkin said the sports court is approximately a "half-court" and stated that there will be three basketball standards so they can give three private lessons at the same time but they won't have three basketball games at the same time. Cera asked for clarification of the hours of operation. Atkin stated that his longest hours would be in summer and they would be 9 am to 9 pm on weekdays, 10 am to 5 pm on Saturdays and 12 pm to 5 pm on Sundays. Grimes added that the original conditional use permit for this property had different hours. He explained that in his recommendation listed in his staff report he said the business could be open until 10 pm in order to give the applicant some flexibility. He added that the City doesn't typically restrict businesses hours. Waldhauser asked the applicant if he needs to be open until 10 pm. Atkin said no, they don't work past 9 pm. Cera asked the applicant why he isn't proposing the tent structure now with this request. Atkin said he hasn't made a decision about the tent structure yet but he wants to get the basketball program up and running this summer. Cera referred to the fence suggestion and Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 8 asked if it would be taken down in six months or whenever the tent structure is installed. Atkin said that he would consider having a fabric type fence or retractable hoops. McCarty asked the applicant to address the retaining wall. Atkin said it is more of a landscape wall than a concrete retaining wall. He said it will be a boulder wall and will "grade down" and into the berm. McCarty asked if the proposed court will be at the grade of the parking lot. Atkin said no, it will be at the grade of the building. McCarty questioned if there will be a guard rail installed. Atkin said he would address that. McCarty referred to condition number six in the staff report regarding no whistles and asked how that would work. Atkin said the referees would just say "foul". Keysser asked if there would be basketball leagues. Atkin said he is exploring that option but the use will be mainly training and having fun. McCarty asked about the interior building height dimension. Atkin said it is approximately 14 feet in height inside the building which is too short for basketball. Keysser opened the public hearing. Walter Sellman, 1290 Yukon Court, stated that when Home Run Hitters originally opened he was concerned about nois.e. He said he was misled by the lack of detail in the hearing notice he received because he thought this request was for outdoor baseball. He said he wants there to be security fencing around the proposed sports court and he would only want the sports court open during business hours. He said he also wants to know more about the lighting. Greg Wagner, General Manager/President at Midco AN, 8360 10th Avenue, stated that he is located at the property directly to the west of the applicant's property. He said there have been some issues with their customers parking in his lot and they have been confrontational at times. He said that sometimes their customers also use his parking lot as a park and play baseball around the cars. He said he is concerned about people loitering around the area. He suggested that a privacy fence be installed along the property line between their two properties. He asked if there have been any studies done on other similar operations regarding the impacts in demographics or impacts on properties. He said he is not necessarily opposed to the proposal he is just concerned about having to chase people off his property. Terry Steen, 1149 Orkla Drive, stated that he also thought the hearing notice meant that there were going to be baseball batting cages outside. He said he can hear baseball games from Wesley Park a mile away so he will be impacted if people are closer. He said he is concerned about lighting, noise, whistles and people loitering. He stated that he is also speaking for his neighbors located at 1286 Yukon Court and 1288 Yukon Court who are not in favor of any change in use for this property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 9 Bruce Russell, 1145 Orkla Drive, said he also thought the proposal was for outdoor batting cages. He said if the sports court is enclosed it will be more private and he is open to the idea if over the long-term he is assured that the noise will be limited. Nancy Wagner, Midco AN, 8350 10th Avenue, stated that their building been defaced and their trucks have been broken into and have had the gas siphoned out of them so there is an element of crime in the area. She stated that a lot of trucks come in and out of their parking lot so she is concerned about the children's safety. Keysser asked about the location of Midco AN's loading docks. Nancy Wagner stated that their loading docks are located on the east side of their building and reiterated that it will be very dangerous if children are there during the day. John Lindblom, 1293 Yukon Court, said he has a three-season porch that is quiet and he wants to keep it that way. He said he is concerned about lighting, noise and outdoor baseball. Grimes reiterated that one of the conditions of approval states that there can be no music, whistles or loud speakers outside. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Keysser asked the applicant to discuss the lighting. Atkin stated that there would be two stanchions, one on each end of the sports court. He said that the light fixtures would be aimed down, not toward the residential neighborhood. Schmidgall added that the City's lighting ordinance would prohibit the light from shining on other properties. Grimes stated that the conditional use permit could specify that lights have to be turned off at 9 pm, but throughout most of the summer, they probably won't even need to use the lights. Keysser asked the applicant to address security. Atkin said he thinks it is important to point out that this proposed sports court is not a playground. He stated that anytime someone is on the court they will be with a coach or a referee. Waldhauser asked about people using the parking lot of the property to the west and the truck traffic going in and out and people being disrespectful. Atkin said the best way for the neighbors to deal with those types of issues is to make him aware of the problems. He said he would be happy to install "no parking" signs so his customers are aware that they shouldn't be parking in the next door neighbor's lot. McCarty asked about the age of the customers. Atkin said most of the program participants are 8 to 16 years old. Cera asked the applicant how he felt about installing a fence along the property line between this property and the property to the west. Atkin stated that it would be redundant and expensive if he has to install fencing around the sports court and along the property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 10 Eck asked the applicant if he was planning to construct the tent structure as soon as possible and if the tent structure would extend the use of the sports court throughout the winter months. Atkin said yes, his plan is to construct the tent structure as soon as possible so he can have year-round business. Eck asked if the tent structure will be heated. Atk.in said yes. Eck asked if the tent is considered a permanent structure. Atkin said no, because it can be taken down. Grimes explained that staff hasn't yet determined if it will be considered a permanent structure because they haven't received any structural engineering information about the tent as of yet. He added that typically if a structure is up for less than 180 days it is considered temporary and if it is up for more than 180 days it is considered permanent. Grimes suggesting adding conditions of approval that state lighting needs to be turned off after hours and that the applicant should work with the property owner to the west regarding the parking of Hey Coach customers in their lot. Atkin said he was surprised to learn that his customers were parking in the neighbors' parking lot because his parking lot is never full. Hogeboom added that most of the residents he spoke with were concerned about security after hours. Waldhauser stated that making the basketball hoops inaccessible after hours will help with the security issues. Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval that the sports court will not be usable after business hours. Cera said he would like to change the hours of operation listed in the staff report to state that the closing time would be 9 pm instead of 10 pm. Grimes suggested saying no outside use after 9 pm. Kluchka referred to recommendation number eight in the staff report and stated that it should be changed to read that all lights shall be shielded to minimize lighting spillover on to other properties. Waldhauser added that that the language about the sports court lighting being turned off at 9 pm should also be added to recommendation number eight. Kluchka referred to recommendation number eleven in the staff report and stated that the words "boom boxes" should be taken out. He said he is concerned about people parking at the property next door and he thinks a fence between the two properties is appropriate to prevent people from going on the property next door. Grimes reiterated that he would like the applicant to talk to the property owners next door to try and resolve the issues. Keysser said he is not inclined to require a fence between the two properties because it will be redundant once the applicant comes back to the City for approvals for the tent structure. Kluchka said he would be voting no on this proposal until he sees a fence between the two properties. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Eck and motion carried 6 to 1 to recommend approval of an amended Conditional Use Permit at 8300 10th Avenue North which would allow Hey Coach to construct an outdoor sports court with the following conditions. Commissioner Kluchka voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 11 1. The site plan of the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by HTG Architects and dated June 8, 2001 shall become a part of this approval. This plan indicates parking spaces on the site. 2. A revised site plan prepared by HTG Architects and dated May 14,2008 shall become a part of this approval. This plan indicates the location of the sports court. 3. The interior plan for the 8300 10th Ave. N. building prepared by WCL Associates and dated September 26, 2003 shall become a part of this approval. This indicates the layout of the interior of the space. Changes to the interior can be made as long as it does not increase the size of the space for Hey Coach and the changes are consistent with the Hey Coach use. 4. A drainage and erosion control permit must be issued for the construction of the sport court. 5. When the outdoor sports court is in use, a staff member shall be present outdoors. 6. The outdoor sports court shall be closed outside of business hours. The basketball hoops shall be retractable or be made unusable after business hours. 7. Doors are to remain closed at all times. 8. All outdoor lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's lighting code. All lights shall be shielded so as to minimize lighting spillover on to other properties. All outdoor lighting shall be turned off at 9 pm. 9. All signs shall meet the requirements of the Sign Code. 10. A bike rack for at least 10 bikes shall be placed near the front door. 11. No loud speakers, public address system, or whistles shall be used outside. 12. At least 30 parking spaces shall be available. 13. Operating hours shall be as follows: 9 am to 9 pm. 14. Hey Coach shall work with the property owners at 8360 10th Avenue North regarding prohibiting customers parking and playing in their parking lot. 15. All other state, local, and federal requirements shall be met. 16. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. 4. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning - Rezoning the Properties in the 1~394 Corridor to Mixed Use Zoning District Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To rezone the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their current zoning district to the Mixed Use zoning district Hogeboom reminded the Commission that at their August 13, 2007 meeting they tabled the public hearing regarding rezoning the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their current zoning district to the Mixed Use zoning district. Kluchka asked why the item was tabled. Keysser said he thought it was tabled because of non-conforming land use issues and property owner issues. He asked for clarification regarding existing land uses becoming non-conforming once the properties are rezoned. Hogeboom stated that some existing land uses will become non-conforming uses but they Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 9, 2008 Page 12 can continue to operate in their current capacity. Grimes added that non-conforming uses can be improved and maintained, they just can't be expanded. Waldhauser questioned if an exception should be made for properties that could potentially expand if they have the space. Grimes explained that rezoning the properties isn't saying that a property can't be a particular use, it is just saying that is has to be mixed use. Cera asked if a property owner could ask for a variance if they wanted to expand. Grimes explained that the 1-394 Corridor Mixed Use zoning ordinance has already been approved and that this public hearing is just about where the Mixed Use zoning district will apply. Cera asked if the Speak the Word church property will be included in the Mixed Use zoning district. Hogeboom said no and stated that it provides a good buffer for the neighborhood to the north and it is consistent with the General Land Use Plan Map to leave it zoned Institutional. Waldhauser noted that the zoning can be looked at again in the future. Keysser asked if the Zoning Map will be in compliance with the General Land Use Plan Map. Hogeboom said yes. Keysser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the properties in the 1-394 Corridor study area from their current zoning district to the Mixed Use zoning district. ---Short Recess--- 5. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Grimes reminded the Commission that there will be a Douglas Drive Corridor Study Committee meeting on June 10 at 7:30 am at Brookview. 6. Other Business Waldhauser asked if there was an update on the proposed subdivision on Janalyn Circle that was tabled at their last meeting. Grimes stated that staff is still working on getting the updated drainage study. 7. Adjournment eeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm.