Loading...
11-23-09 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 23, 2009 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, November 23, 2009. 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, Finance Director Sue Virnig, Director of Public Works Jeannine Clancy, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, LHB Consultant Michael Schroeder and Administrative AssIstant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes November 9, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Eck, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 9, 2009 minutes as submitted. 2. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program 2010-2014 - Sue Virnig, City Finance Director Virnig explained that the Capital Improvement Program is a five year fiscal planning document to identify capital projects over $10,000 and financing sources. She stated that this document has financing services made up of general obligation bonds, equipment certificates, municipal state aid allotments, tax increment, general fund transfers, special assessments and user fees from the enterprise funds. She added that this year the City Council decertified the Valley Square Tax Increment District which will help ease the property taxes in 2010. She explained that the Planning Commission's role is to review the Capital Improvement Program because it is part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. After the Planning Commission approves the document it will go to the City Council on December 8 for review and again for final approval on December 15. Eck referred to Page 9, exhibit 3 and asked about the golf course projections. Virnig stated that the weather, along with the economy this past year caused significantly less revenue for the golf course. Eck referred to Page 11, exhibit 5 and asked why the carryover doesn't match when the year changes from 2013 to 2014. Virnig stated that was done in error and she would correct it. Eck referred to Page 14, exhibit 8 and asked about the three million dollars being spent this year for Douglas Drive improvements. Virnig stated that it is part of the Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) grant and as a part of that grant the City would have to match the grant funding. Clancy added that the TLC grant application is to do some interim improvements on Douglas Drive by adding a sidewalk on the east side between Golden Valley Road and Duluth Street. She explained that TLC also feels it is important to restripe Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 23, 2009 Page 2 the roadway to a three lane design and to make traffic improvements to accommodate bicycle lanes on both sides of the roadway. She stated that the project is in the very preliminary stage and has not been approved by Hennepin County or by MnDOT. She stated that the placeholder was put in the Capital Improvement Program and reiterated that if the City desires to use the funds from the TLC grant then it needs to set aside money to match the grant. Waldhauser asked Virnig to highlight some of the biggest changes in the Capital Improvement Plan since last year's plan. Virnig explained that the vehicle equipment replacement level has stayed the same, there were some delays in the building fund and the golf course has also considered delaying some of their equipment replacing as well. MOVED by Eck, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program with Commissioner Eck's above noted correction, as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Continued Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding the Number of Street Curb Cut Access Points Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To limit the number of street curb cut access points to one per parcel in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1) Hogeboom reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at their September 29 meeting. He explained that the proposed ordinance language would restrict curb cuts in the Residential Zoning District to one with a few exceptions. He added that by putting the language in the Zoning Code residents could ask for a variance if there is a hardship present. Oliver stated that prior to 1999 Public Works staff had the practice of replacing existing driveways as they were. He explained that during the 1999-2000 Pavement Management Program the City Council received several complaints about driveway widths and secondary driveways. The Council at that time asked staff to gather information regarding the codes and policies in place. That discussion led to the City's current policy which limits driveway widths to 25 feet maximum, eliminates all boulevard parking areas and eliminates second driveways where no hardships exists. He stated that since 2000-2001 there have been approximately 50 properties where these types of issues have been addressed and there have been several people each year who have appealed the decisions. Based on recent appeals from residents to the City Council staff has been directed to codify the existing policies and practices. He reviewed the proposed new language regarding second driveways and explained that lots containing two legally constructed garages, lots with a person residing on the property with a physical disability that would require additional driveway access, and lots that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 23, 2009 Page 3 contain an existing horseshoe driveway would be allowed to have up to two curb cuts with the costs assessed to the property owner. He stated that discussions regarding this issue have included reduction of impervious surface area and the associated storm water runoff, the costs of installing driveway aprons which varies from $500 to $1500 per driveway apron and the ongoing maintenance costs of driveway aprons, safety issues particularly on arterial roads and the desire to treat all residential properties the same. Keysser asked about permitting new horseshoe driveways. Oliver stated that the proposed code does not allow for new horseshoe driveways. Cera asked if the hardship standards used in the Zoning Code when considering variances are the same standards used when evaluating curb cut requests and appeals. Oliver stated that when evaluating requests for second driveways they consider the actual need for the second driveway including handicap access, legally built second garages, etc. Hogeboom added that if the conditions in the proposed new driveway language were met, residents wouldn't have to go the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. Oliver explained that each case would be looked at individually but the intent is to remove secondary driveways. McCarty asked about the procedure when a second driveway is removed. Oliver stated that typically these issues happen during a pavement management program and in all cases the secondary driveway or auxiliary boulevard parking space has been removed and the yard restored. Keysser asked what the argument is against allowing horseshoe driveways for new construction since they are safer. Oliver reiterated that the number of driveways particularly on an arterial road is a safety concern and allowing horseshoe driveways for new construction is an issue of equity. He suggested the Planning Commission forward their concerns onto the City Council. Clancy added that another concern regarding secondary driveways is the City's need to reduce long term infrastructure costs. Keysser opened the public hearing. Don Lundquist, 1338 Edgewood, asked the Planning Commission to understand that the City isn't absorbing the cost for secondary driveways, the taxpayers are. Bruce Johnson, 6842 Olympia Street, said the issue hasn't been addressed regarding a person who wants extra driveways and is willing to pay for them. He said this is a nonsense issue and he doesn't see what the issue is if a resident is willing to pay for extra driveways. Grimes stated that a typical lot in Golden Valley is only 80 feet wide so there isn't always room for a second driveway and sometimes having more than one driveway can cause other issues in terms of traffic and safety. Kluchka reviewed the proposed new language and reiterated that some property owners will be allowed to have second curb cuts. Johnson questioned the safety concerns that have been discussed. Oliver explained that on high volume roads the more driveway points entering and exiting the flow of traffic Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 23, 2009 Page 4 presents a safety concern. He added that most developing communities do not permit driveways onto high volume roadways. Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, noted that there is an increase in impervious surface with horseshoe driveways and thinks the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission might have concerns. She added that horseshoe driveways might be safer for the driver coming out of the driveway, but not necessarily for other people driving or walking by. She also questioned if more curb cuts are easier or safer for pedestrians or people in wheelchairs. David Comb, 200 Jersey Avenue North, stated that he has a horseshoe driveway and he just spent $6,000 repaving it. He is concerned about being forced to remove it if the City deems it necessary. Oliver stated that Jersey Avenue between Laurel and Glenwood was reconstructed in 1995 and he anticipates a long life for that roadway. Grimes reiterated that the language in the Code allows existing horseshoe driveways to remain. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing. Waldhauser agreed that part of the safety issue is not just for drivers but also for pedestrians. McCarty noted that the proposed new language affects the remaining properties in the Pavement Management Program and questioned if it is too late in the process now to codify these requirements. He asked how many properties would be affected by these proposed new requirements. Oliver stated that some years have seen no second driveway issues and other years there have been 10 or 12 issues. He stated that these proposed requirements would apply to approximately 3 to 8 percent of properties. Kluchka said he supports this proposal because it gives people a process to appeal. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of limiting the number of street curb cut access points to one per parcel in the Single Family Zoning District (R-1). 4. Informal Public Hearing - General Land Use Comprehensive Plan Amendment - adopting the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To recommend the adoption of the Douglas Drive Corridor study as a part of the Special Planning Districts chapter of the Comprehensive Plan Hogeboom stated that the Douglas Drive Corridor Study began in July of 2008. He explained that the study was overseen by the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Advisory Committee which was comprised of three Planning Commissioners, three City Council Members and three staff members. He stated that the study looked at long term solutions Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 23, 2009 Page 5 to some of the issues along Douglas Drive and tried to predict what the future traffic and land use patterns might be and how to best address them. He stated that the study will be added to the Comprehensive Plan as a planning study so in the future, if funds become available for possible projects along Douglas Drive, the study or vision will already be in place. He added that there are no proposals to amend the General Land Use Plan Map or the Zoning Map at this point. Michael Schroeder, LHB, referred to a PowerPoint presentation. He stated that the content of his presentation is substantially the same as what was presented at the open house held several months ago. He discussed the study area and the parameters of the study which includes: studying current and future land uses, offering options for roadway design and finding ways to accommodate existing users, especially pedestrians and bicyclists. Schroeder next discussed the principles of the study and the various ways the public and stakeholders were included in the study process. He talked about the character of the corridor, the potential for change and how to accommodate long term change. He also discussed the limiting conditions and the priority issues in the corridor such as: narrow right-of-way, unlinked transit facilities, little accommodation of modes other than vehicles, discontinuous pedestrian ways, increasing traffic congestion and unsafe pedestrian facilities. Schroeder explained the potential long term land use evolution and discussed the various concepts proposed throughout the corridor in the next 20 years including: the TH 55 Campus Concept, Douglas Drive Residential (south) Concept, Mixed Use Node Concept, Douglas Drive Residential (north) Concept and the Mixed Use Village Concept. Schroeder talked about the roadway evolution and explained that expected growth, number of trips and consideration of the road's ability to accommodate new traffic were all taken into consideration when considering a three-lane or four-lane roadway. He showed several conceptual roadway drawings and discussed permanent improvements with amenity zones for sidewalks and planting easements. He also showed several intersection concepts including roundabouts and configurations with enhanced signals. Kluchka asked Hogeboom to describe the value of incorporating this study into the Comprehensive Plan. Hogeboom explained that there is a chapter in the Comprehensive Plan devoted to planning studies and this study is a guiding document but doesn't hold the City to any specific design, it just recognizes that the study was done. Schroeder added that it also won't put the City in the position of having adopted a plan that creates non-conforming uses along Douglas Drive and it won't take away existing property owner's rights. Kluchka asked what the study will make easier for developers and the City in the future. Hogeboom stated part of the process includes the HRA creating a redevelopment area and this study would give an overall vision should the City decide to focus development in a particular area. Schroeder added that the development community is looking for some amount of certainty that their investment will be following a vision or a pattern laid out by Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 23, 2009 Page 6 the City. So this study offers a guide for the evolution of Douglas Drive without having a specific timeframe for that evolution. Grimes noted that the City has done several planning studies over the last 30 years in areas like Valley Square, Golden Hills, etc. He added that planning is incremental and helps guide what happens in the future. He said another issue that needs to be considered is how much development can go in this area without changing the character of the community and having a study or a plan gives the City a baseline to start from. Kluchka asked about feedback the City has received so far. Hogeboom stated that the study information has been on the City's website since July of 2008 and as of November 11, 2009 there have been 2,761 views of the website. He stated that there has also been approximately 50 written comments submitted which will become part of the study documents. He stated that many of the comments were in regard to streets being closed off to Douglas Drive and keeping Olympia Street open. He said this option was looked at on a very preliminary basis and has since been taken out of the study. Schroeder added that there was also concern expressed about the impact to the railroad crossing and the traffic on a 3-lane road design which is still being analyzed. Keysser opened the public hearing. Michael Hunegs, 6621 Olympia Street, said he doesn't believe anyone would have an objection to pedestrian safety considering there have been two fatalities. He said the Douglas Drive system needs to be judged by the maximum stress that is put on the system especially during winter days with southbound traffic backed up trying to turn onto TH 55 which causes a spillover effect across the entire area. He suggested that the traffic be studied during the worst possible times in order to gauge what is going on. He said the pictures shown in the study are beautiful but they represent an ideal situation and there will not be 10,000 to 15,000 pedestrians using this system no matter how beautiful it is. The fact is most people have to use the system and don't have a choice. He said he thinks there is gross underestimation of the volume of change that will be brought to this area and he wants to make sure that there is a realistic assessment of the likely traffic because he feels the system is stretched to its maximum amount now. He said he is also concerned about the possibility of a 6-story building on Douglas Drive and wants to know what shadows will be cast and how people's gardens will be affected. He said this study looks good on paper but there are many questions he hasn't heard answered yet. John Paulson, 1370 Douglas Drive, asked if Douglas Drive is a city road or a county road. He said that one of the considerations in determining if this study is advisable are the costs involved. He wants to know if the residents will be assessed for these changes. Keysser stated that Douglas Drive is a county road and Golden Valley Road is a city road. Paulson said we need to get back to common sense and do things that are practical when we've got the money. Gary Anderson, 1100 Douglas Drive, asked what this study cost. He questioned who would be interested in what is going to happen to the Douglas Drive Corridor 20 years from now. He said he's interested in what is going to happen a year or five years from now and he is not interested in roundabouts that don't work. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 23, 2009 Page 7 Stacy Hoschka, 6400 Golden Valley Road, said she is glad the study incorporated existing land uses in the corridor. She said her concern is the right turn lane going west bound from Douglas Drive onto Golden Valley Road which is a very dangerous intersection. She said she has three small children and every time they go for a bike ride or a walk they have to stop twice as they cross Golden Valley Road or Douglas Drive because of the turn lane island. She said she lived in England for a year and knows that roundabouts work great and could beautify the corridor so she would be in support of that decision. Lowell Hammer, 6800 Olympia Street, questioned the density and the amount of houses and condos being proposed for the corridor because where there is high density there are high problems. He asked how many people are expected to be living in the corridor. He added that more traffic is not needed on Olympia Street because it is practically a highway now with stop signs that aren't obeyed. Linda Johnson, 2417 Douglas Drive, said she appreciates planning so far ahead because that is the only way things will get done in less than a haphazard way. She questioned if those who own property in the corridor should go forward with home improvement plans and how the study will affect property values. Mark Schulte, 6336 Phoenix Street, said he noticed there was a lot of talk about mixed use in the long term projection. He said a lot of people on the west side of Douglas Drive like to live in a residential neighborhood and he is concerned about people putting more money into remodeling their houses only to have property values drop because of high density developments. He said he is concerned about the character of the neighborhood and doesn't necessarily want a mixed use environment in his back yard. Bruce Johnson, 6842 Olympia Street, said he thinks long range planning is terrific. He said he agrees that high density isn't always good. He asked how long the planning took for the 1-394 corridor and what has changed as a result because he hasn't seen much change in the last 10 to 15 years. He added that a lot of planning was done in the 1-394 corridor and he's not sure that has worked out so well because he has not seen things get any better. Shep Harris, 2425 lane Avenue North, said he is concerned about the cost and he would like to know the cost estimates and who is paying for the things being proposed. He said he is also concerned about the safety issues, the beautification and image of the city and Bassett Creek. He expressed concerned about the impact downstream in the Bassett Creek Park neighborhood and the impact of the run-off from mixed use types of developments. Emily Delaney, 1618 Kelly Drive, said she waits for the bus every morning at the corner of Olympia Street and Kelly Drive and that 7 out of 10 cars don't stop at the stop sign on that corner. She said it is really dangerous with all the traffic so she would like to see less traffic go through that area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 23, 2009 Page 8 David Comb, 1300 Douglas Drive, said he is concerned about the 3-lane roadway being proposed because there will be one lane of continuous traffic at all times. He said that proposing high density with fewer traffic lanes concerns him. Charles Ostrov, 1788 Maryland Avenue North, said the traffic patterns getting from Olympia and all the side streets onto Douglas are a problem. He said he has observed that the traffic problems on Olympia started when Plymouth Avenue was closed. Chip Johnson, 2417 Douglas Drive, said he is concerned about converting four lanes to three lanes especially when it rains or snows and suggested traffic be diverted to other areas. Michelle Jorgenson, 1035 Sumter Avenue North, said she is also concerned about traffic. She said that it is really hard to get to TH 55 on Douglas from Golden Valley Road already and more traffic would make it worse. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to speak Keysser closed the public hearing. Kluchka asked staff to address the three lane road configuration, the impact to traffic and the railroad crossing issue. Clancy stated that the three lane design is being considered for a number of reasons. One is because Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) is potentially providing the City funding for some improvements. She explained that the City and the County are trying to collaborate to find a design that will work for Douglas Drive and will intrude the least on the neighborhood so when the improvements are made the City won't have to purchase right-of-way to build a larger roadway than what would be necessary. Another reason for looking at the three lane design is that four lane, undivided roadways tend to cause speeds to increase and are harder for police to manage in terms of traffic control. They also tend to have higher speed limits placed on them than three lane roads have. She stated that the City is trying to accommodate the existing traffic, encourage the users of the roadway to drive the speed limit, accommodate pedestrians and accommodate the turning movements that are needed. She discussed other four lane roadways that were converted to three lane roads and the positive feedback the changes in striping has had. She explained that Golden Valley does not want to build an improvement that causes traffic to divert onto neighborhood streets or onto other county roads. She explained that Douglas Drive is considered to be a minor arterial and is considered by the Metropolitan Council to be a reliever to traffic problems on Highway 100. She added that Hennepin County is comfortable with the three lane road design given the volume of 11,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day. She stated that the issue of the railroad crossing is still being studied. Keysser asked about a three lane roadway accommodating 15,000 vehicles per day as suggested in the study. Clancy stated that Hennepin County's comfort level is probably conservative and the three lane roadway could accommodate 15,000 vehicles per day. Waldhauser asked if am and pm traffic has been considered. Clancy said it is considered on a traffic distribution basis and there will be peak periods of congestion. Grimes noted that Douglas Drive south of Golden Valley Road will remain a four lane roadway. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 23, 2009 Page 9 Clancy referred to the intersection of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road and said she is also concerned about the free right turn lane. She said the safety issue at that intersection will be addressed as part of a long term project. She referred to the question asked about the costs of the project and the assessments to the property owners. She stated that a very preliminary estimate for the construction costs for the project from TH 55 to Medicine Lake Road will be approximately 18 to 20 million dollars. She explained that Hennepin County will pay for most of the roadway construction costs, the City will pay a portion of the sidewalk improvements and the City is responsible for extending and upgrading the utility systems. She explained that the City is working with the County regarding funding and is looking at several different funding opportunities including TLC funds and federal funds. She discussed the City's assessing policy and stated that assessment values have not yet been determined. Grimes asked Clancy about the County's schedule to reconstruct Douglas Drive. Clancy explained that it is on the County's schedule for 2016-2017. Clancy referred to the questions regarding Bassett Creek water quality and stated that all property owners during redevelopment will have to follow the Watershed's requirements will be responsible for water quality treatment. Kluchka asked about limiting traffic overflow and the concerns about traffic. Clancy explained that Olympia Street is a state aid street and carries approximately 1,500 vehicles per day which is considered to be a reasonable volume for a state aid or collector street. She said she doesn't see anything in the study that would divert traffic into any neighborhoods. Keysser asked Grimes to address the questions regarding high density. Grimes stated that study shows the Douglas Drive Apartment properties at about the same density. The other side of Douglas Drive is all single family homes could double in density which would mean there could be 40 units of housing instead of 20 single family homes. Waldhauser stated that the Douglas Drive Study Committee wants any development to be an enhancement to the adjacent residential areas and they want higher density to be a good thing for the neighborhood, not a detriment. Kluchka asked why higher density is a good idea. Schroeder said the City won't get redevelopment opportunities if it redevelops with the same amount of density that is there today. He stated that the term "high density" in this case means higher density than what currently exists today. Kluchka asked about what developer's interest might be in the properties in the corridor if the density were to remain the same. Schroeder stated there would be no interest from developers if the density stays the same. Kluchka asked about the Metropolitan Council expectations for density in Golden Valley. Grimes stated that the Metropolitan Council is projecting growth of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 more people which equates to approximately 1,500 to 2,000 new households which will most likely be accommodated in multi-family housing. Some of which is designated along the 1-394 Corridor and some of which is in the Douglas Drive Corridor. Schroeder added that people also want a variety of housing choices. Kluchka asked if the City should be worried about the perceived problems related to high density housing. Grimes stated that Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 23, 2009 Page 10 in his experience, owner occupied housing units have not been a problem and in fact offer people an opportunity to stay in Golden Valley. Schroeder added that the problems typically associated with multi-family housing tend to be connected to bad management. Kluchka asked about the cost of this study. Grimes stated that the study cost approximately $100,000 and approximately $50,000 was received in grant money. Kluchka asked how much implementation will cost and who will pay for it. Schroeder explained that the primary source of funding for redevelopment is tax increment financing or tax abatement. He stated that there is usually some combination of grant money and developer capital tied with city resources. Grimes added that much of the upgrading of Douglas Drive will be paid for by Hennepin County. Kluchka asked about the costs for developing the land, not the road. Grimes stated at this point in time the City is not going to acquire property and sell it back to developers. Tax increment is most likely what would be used for any redevelopment. He added that the plan is just a way to show developers the City's vision for the corridor. Kluchka referred to the questions asked by residents regarding remodeling their homes and planning for any future redevelopment. Schroeder stated that properties, as they are acquired, would be acquired based on fair market value through an appraisal or through the uniform relocation act which is a mandated process used to define what the acquisition price will be. He suggests to people in redevelopment areas not let their properties decline, particularly in an area that looks out over 20 years for redevelopment and doesn't predict when redevelopment will happen. The value of the property is based on the condition of the property when it is acquired so it is worth it for property owners to maintain and improve their property. He discussed the federally mandated process for property acquisition when a city is involved in purchasing properties and suggested residents talk to real estate professionals or appraisal acquisition experts to help with improvement decisions. Grimes discussed the changes that have occurred since the mid-1980s in the 1-394 corridor. He stated that no property in that corridor has been devalued and in fact property values have been enhanced. Kluchka said he is interested in knowing if developments are helped or hindered by these planning studies. Keysser said he thinks within the next 20 years the market will change significantly. Kluchka asked how the Douglas Drive Corridor Study addresses maintaining residential character along the corridor and the potential impact to neighboring property. Schroeder stated that the intention is to use redevelopment to create a higher level of amenity, not only to the corridor but to the neighborhoods near the corridor. He stated that the study also tries to stabilize the negative impacts of the roadways and create character that encourages more walking and more movement and enhances the image of the corridor while still feeling residential in character. McCarty referred to the northeast corner of Douglas Drive and Golden Valley Road and asked how the study addresses that area. Schroeder stated that area differs from the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 23, 2009 Page 11 Comprehensive Plan which suggests a multi-family use. Grimes stated that the Comprehensive Plan designates that area as high density. Grimes referred to the concern heard earlier about 6-story buildings in the Douglas Drive Corridor and stated that they would be located only along TH 55. Schroeder agreed and added that every other area is either 3 or 4 story, multi-family buildings. McCarty said he thinks the study is very well thought out but he is not convinced that the idea of front yards facing Douglas Drive will work, especially for families with children. Grimes agreed that wouldn't be the typical choice for families with children. It is probably more appropriate for single people or families without children. Schmidgall said he would cheerfully live in the community that is depicted in the study. He said he understands that 25 years from now the community will look different than what has been depicted because the study is a starting off point or guideline. He said it is an excellent plan that involved wide participation by members of community and it is an excellent direction for the future of this area. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to recommend the adoption of the Douglas Drive Corridor study as a part of the Special Planning Districts chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. --Short Recess-- 6. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka stated that the District 281 Divestiture Committee has continued to meet and discuss options for the district's properties. 7. Other Business No other business was discussed. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. ~~a- Lester Eck, Secretary