Loading...
11-24-14 PC Minutes Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 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 24, 2014. Chair Kluchka called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Cera, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. Approval of Minutes November 10, 2014, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Waldhauser referred to the sixth paragraph on page four and asked that the sentence be corrected to say there are a group of property owners who don't want see the property developed. Waldhauser referred to the third paragraph on page nine and suggested the word "prohibit" be changed to "discourage." MOVED by Baker, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to approve the November 10, 2014, minutes with the above noted changes. 2. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program 2015-2019 — Sue Virnig, City Finance Director Sue Virnig, Finance Director, explained that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a 5-year financing planning instrument used to identify needed capital projects and to delineate the financing and timing of associated projects. Because of its relationship with the City's Comprehensive Plan the CIP is reviewed by the Planning Commission annually. Waldhauser referred to the Winnetka Avenue/Highway 55 intersection and Douglas Drive improvements and asked if the CIP anticipates and supports higher density uses, or if the proposed projects would just alleviate the current traffic issues. Virnig explained that the individual projects in the CIP will be reviewed again by the City Council. Baker asked if there is anything in the CIP that raises questions regarding its compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan. Virnig noted that the community center is not listed in the CIP yet. Kluchka questioned how the cammunity center would be accounted for. Virnig said it would be in the building fund, or it would be on its own funding. Segelbaum asked if the Golden Hills TIF district is concluding at the end of this year. Virnig said the TIF district will be decertified this year and that there is a bond payment in February. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 2 Waldhauser referred to the Three Rivers trail system plans and asked how close the items listed in the CIP gets the City to completion of the trail system. Virnig explained that the funding listed in the CIP is for existing trails and that the City would need to review further plans for any new trails. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Consideration of Resolution No. 14-01 Finding that Modification No. 2 of the Redevelopment Plan for the Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District No. 1 Conform to the General Plan for the Development and Redevelopment of the City, as Amended (Amended 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update) Zimmerman reminded the Commission that in 2012 a TIF plan was approved for the Highway 55 Redevelopment area. At that time it was anticipated that the Tiburon apartment project would move forward, but it has not. There is now a new project proposed for that site so the TIF plan needs to be modified to revise the budget and amend the timeline to make it current with the new Golden Villas proposal. Kluchka asked if anything else in the TIF plan has changed. Zimmerman said the area of the district has not changed, but the budget needs have changed. Kluchka asked if the time period of the TIF district has changed. Zimmerman said no, it is still 15 years. Waldhauser asked if there would be another modification required if the Golden Villas proposal doesn't move forward. She asked if the budget is entirely dependent on what a developer asks for. Zimmerman said not entirely, there may be some negotiation involved. Blum asked if it is correct say that the City is taking on a debt that's underwritten by future tax revenues based on projected values, and using that revenue to improve the land to make it a financially doable project and if part of the incentive to the City is that right now it is not a very well used property. Zimmerman said yes, ultimately the TIF assistance allaws a project to take place, that otherwise couldn't. Blum asked if the money comes from the State and County. Virnig said the TIF money comes from the jurisdiction it actually involves. In this case, Hennepin County, School District 270 and City taxes. Baker asked why the Tiburon apartment project failed. Zimmerman said it involved financing. He explained that the Tiburon developer was not asking for TIF money, the City was asking for it in order to do necessary improvements in the area. Baker asked if it is decided up front how TIF funds will be used. Zimmerman explained that the TIF plan is for the district and that there is a separate development plan for specific properties. Baker said there should be a benefit to the City and he wants to be clear on what the City is getting. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 3 He said the City doesn't use TIF very often and he would like to see it used more often. Zimmerman said there are specific things the funds can be used for such as soil correction, street improvements, site clearing, and improved access. Waldhauser asked about the downside to the developer of using TIF. She questioned why a developer wouldn't automatically ask to use TIF. Virnig said each developer is different. She stated that the developer of the Golden Villas project has used TIF in the past in other cities, and that the City has to see a benefit in using TIF. She clarified that this TIF plan is the financing plan for seven parcels in the area. She added that any proposal has to pass the "but for" test which means that a development would not happen "but for" the use of TIF. Baker asked if there are affordable housing units included in the proposed development. Zimmerman explained that if this were a housing TIF they would have to have an affordable housing component to their plans, hawever this is a renewal district so they do not. Baker questioned if the Planning Commission should require there to be an affordable housing component. Zimmerman said it may have been an HRA decision to not have this be a housing district. Waldhauser said there are clearly benefits to the City in what will be covered by this TIF district including sidewalk connections and infrastructure improvements. Kluchka agreed and said he thinks this is the right place for TIF to be used. Johnson referred to the estimated project costs in the TIF plan and questioned why half of the costs are administration and interest. Virnig explained that the City would pay over a period of time and that the final terms haven't been negotiated yet. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to adopt Resolution 14-01 finding that Modification Na. 2 of the Redevelopment Plan for the Highway 55 West Redevelopment Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Renewal and Renovation) District No. 1 Conform to the General Plan for the Development and Redevelopment of the City, as Amended (Amended 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update) 4. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 108 Brunswick Ave N — Brunswick Estates — SU12-17 Applicant: Wooddale Edina LLC Address: 108 Brunswick Avenue North Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into two new single family residential lots. Kluchka stated that the Planning Commission has already reviewed this proposal. However, due to an administrative issue, they have to review it again. Zimmerman explained that the software used to generate mailing labels for the hearing notices did Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 4 not produce the correct information and many of the neighboring property owners were not informed of the first public hearing held for this item at the October 13 Planning Commission meeting. As a result, the developer is being required to go through Planning Commission and City Council consideration a second time. Zimmerman explained the applicant's request to subdivide the property at 108 Brunswick Avenue North into two new lots. The existing single family home would be demolished, and two new single family homes would be constructed. Zimmerman referred to a site plan of the property and explained that Lot 1 would be 19,100 square feet in size with 113.62 feet of width at the front setback line, and Lot 2 would be 19,510 square feet in size with 126.75 feet of width at the front setback line. He added that the minimum lot size requirement is 10,000 square feet and the minimum required width at the front setback line is 80 feet. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed subdivision as it meets all of the requirements outlined in the City Code. Baker asked Zimmerman to clarify where the front setback line is located on this property and added that the street really only touches a portion of this property, the rest of the property touches other lots. Zimmerman agreed that the frontage on this property is unusual. However, the width of a lot is measured at the front setback line, which is 35 feet away from the front property line, not right at the front property line abutting the street right-of-way. Blum asked if this proposal has been modified at all from the previous proposal they reviewed. Zimmerman said no, it is the same application, the City Attorney advised the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the proposal again since the mailing labels for the first hearing notice were incorrect. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Diane Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, said no one in the neighborhood received hearing notices and they did not have a neighborhood meeting. She said she would appreciate the applicant showing her what he wants to build, and that more information would be appreciated. Jennifer Berg, 70 Brunswick Avenue North, said she hasn't received any mailings and questioned why she hasn't. She said the only reason she knew anything about this proposal is that she is friends with the property owner. Zimmerman explained that it wasn't until it was brought to his attention that he realized the mailing labels weren't generated properly. Once the issue was realized, the proposal was scheduled for tre next available Planning Commission meeting and new public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. Shauna Crowe, 55 Brunswick Avenue North, stated that the property across the street from her was already subdivided and two large homes were built. She said she has Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 5 endured construction for the last four years and her soundtrack has been beeping, pounding, etc. that seems like it will never end. She said this neighborhood was a key factor in her choosing where to live because coming from south Minneapolis the homes were crowded. She said this area seemed like a haven but she is not as optimistic as she was. She said the Tralee neighborhood is being split up, there are no sidewalks, and there will be more traffic in the area. She said she is concerned about dust, debris, and noise, and added that she is not a morning person and people in the neighborhood are retired or work from home. She said the street was new when they first moved in and has since been torn up for utilities and more traffic will cause more wear and tear on the street. She said clay and mud get tracked all over, and traffic uses her driveway to turn around in, covering her driveway with mud and tire tracks and wearing it down. She said in the winter she doesn't get the full benefit of plowing and it is important that utility vehicles have access because there is not a lot of room on this cul-de-sac. She said her front yard was torn up twice without notice and she can't get grass to grow in the area so she grew a garden instead. She said she is also concerned about the environment and the disruption of neighborhood homes. Parking is overflowing when someone has an event and she is not sure how two more driveways will fit on the end of the cul-de-sac. She said her brick rambler house will no longer fit in with the neighborhood and she feels her curb appeal will be lackluster and out of place where it once fit it. She said she fears other neighbors will be moving on and their lots will also be developed. She said she is concerned about the renovations she's done to her home and feels like she is being taken over and has lost enthusiasm to update her home, because it will be seen as a tear down. She asked if developers have plans to develop in the future, how long it will take to build the proposed new homes, and if they will be built simultaneously. She said she was surprised to not get notice of the original public hearing for this items because she has received notices in the past. Donna Fredkove, 26 Paisley Lane, said she is concerned about drainage because some homes on Meander Road are having drainage problems they've never had before. She said it is important that she has all of the information and that this is an issue of due process, and she should have full due process. Kathy Watkins, 112 Paisley Lane, said she did not receive a hearing notice. She said she is also speaking for her neighbor Ruth Hetman at 124 Paisley Lane. She said she is concerned about the size of the new homes and if they will block the view. She said she is also concerned about destroying the land and the constant noise. She stated that people buying these houses will find that they are too big and will sell them again, so it is not a stable neighborhood. She said "millenials" these days are not properly employed, and not saving money so she questions who is going to buy these houses. She referred to plans she saw on the internet and stated that they referred to the homes proximity to Breck School, when these homes are located in the Hopkins school district which should be cited on the developer's web site as well. Tom Berscheid, 120 King Hill Road, questioned where the City is in the moratorium process. He said he understands the emotional aspects and the commerce aspects. He said he wants to preserve green space and the pastoral setting particularly in this area and losing this negates the livability of Golden Valley. He said he wants the City to keep Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 6 this in mind when considering subdivisions. He said he also wants the City to think of their grandchildren and what attracts people to the City. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka reiterated that there was a notification issue and stated that staff will continue to work on the problem. Cera said he is concerned because one of the people who spoke said they did not get a hearing notice for this meeting either. Zimmerman stated that the mailing list for this meeting was double checked, but he would look into what happened. Waldhauser asked if a neighborhood meeting with the developer was held for this proposal. Zimmerman said yes, and added that the same, incorrect, mailing labels were used for that meeting as well. Kluchka asked about the approach the City takes regarding construction management controls. Zimmerman said that construction issues are handled on a complaint basis. He added that the City Council has asked staff to create a list of construction issues that developers would be required to sign stating that they are aware of the requirements. Kluchka asked if a parking plan would be included in that document. Zimmerman said a parking plan would be required at the building stage, not at the subdivision stage of a proposal. Kluchka stated that this is a tight area and there should be a plan in place. Waldhauser said she doesn't know where else construction parking could occur, because this is a cul-de-sac. Cera added that a developer might know the City's rules, but all the contractors and subcontractors won't necessarily know them. Segelbaum suggesting posting the document at the job site. Kluchka asked if the City has construction management staff. Zimmerman said no and added that any issues are handled on a complaint basis. Segelbaum asked if there are limits regarding the number of years construction can span, or the times of day construction can occur. Zimmerman stated that the City Code requires that "progress is being made" if there is an open building permit. Kluchka stated that the Planning Commission is really only considering the subdivision itself. He stated that they have a history of reviewing and researching "McMansions" regarding setbacks and other issues, and that Golden Valley has many more restrictions than other communities. Segelbaum added that they don't approve house plans or designs, just the envelope area where a house could be built. Baker said there has been a process violation and that the full presentation hasn't been presented at this meeting. Kluchka stated that the full presentation has been presented. Baker said he doesn't like the idea that the presentation was shortened and didn't include all of the details they normally see. Kluchka reiterated that they have seen all the details and he wants to be careful about saying there has been a process violation. Kluchka asked about the status of the subdivision moratorium. Zimmerman said no new subdivision applications were received after September 25 and that this proposal was Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 7 submitted on September 16. He stated that the City has hired a consultant and there will be a community listening session on December 11. Segelbaum referred to the comments regarding sidewalks in this area and asked if neighbors can get together and ask for sidewalks to be built. Zimmerman said that neighbors can petition the City to have sidewalks installed. Segelbaum asked if there are other subdivisions proposed in this area. Zimmerman said there is a subdivision proposal pending for the property at 250 Paisley Lane. Segelbaum asked if it is possible that the neighbor's lawn could be torn up and not repaired as was mentioned in the public hearing. Zimmerman said he doesn't think that is the normal process. Segelbaum asked if the streets will be torn up. Zimmerman said there will be some work done in the cul-de-sac in order to add utilities for the second home. Johnson said he has heard concerns about drainage, noise, dust and access. He referred to the criteria regarding the approval of subdivisions and asked if there is an opportunity to review the requirements in the Single Family zoning district. Kluchka said that the rules that are currently in place are the only ones the Planning Commission is allowed to consider by statute. He added that the other issues discussed can be evaluated as part of the subdivision moratorium. Johnson asked about the neighbor's recourse. Kluchka said developers need to work with the City and the contractors to help them understand. Baker encouraged residents to speak at the subdivision moratorium listening session and added that concerns should also be addressed as part of the future Comprehensive Plan update process. Blum asked about the minimum lot size requirements. Zimmerman said the minimum lot size requirement is 10,000 square feet, and these proposed lots will be approximately 19,000 square feet in size. Segelbaum noted that there are eight criteria required to be met when subdividing property and one of the criteria is that if they are all met, the subdivision cannot be denied, so the Planning Commission should not deny this application. Cera said he is still concerned that the neighbor next door to this proposal hasn't received any of the City's notifications. Waldhauser also questioned how there could people who didn't know about this meeting. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Cera to recommend approval of the Brunswick Estates Subdivision proposal subject to the following findings and conditions: Findin s: 1. Both of the lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 8 Conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 2. A park dedication fee of$3,080 shall be paid prior to Final Plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated October 7, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Segelbaum asked if they figured out any parking limitations during construction. Kluchka said the parking was worth commenting on, but he doesn't know if it can be added as a condition of approval. He stated there was a motion on the table. The motion carried unanimously. 5. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 250 Paisley Lane — Paisley Fields — SU12-19 Applicant: Andrew Dornbusch Address: 250 Paisley Lane Purpose: To reconfigure the existing single family residential lot into three new single family residential lots. Zimmerman explained the applicant's proposal to subdivide the lot at 250 Paisley Lane into three new lots. He stated that the existing single family home would be demolished and three new single family homes would be constructed. He referred to a site plan and stated that this subdivision also requires a lot line adjustment with the neighboring praperty at 245 Paisley Lane in order to eliminate an existing driveway encroachment. He stated that the minimum lot size requirement in the R-1 Single Family zoning district is 10,000 square feet. Lot 1 (245 Paisley) will be 52,262 square feet, Lot 2 will be 19,510 square feet, Lot 3 will be 21,756 square feet, and Lot 4 will be 20,714 square feet. All of the proposed new lots will have 80 feet of width at the front setback line. He noted that there are a number of trees on the existing lot and six will be removed, four of which are significant trees. He stated that Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision proposal as it meets all of the requirements of the City Code. Kluchka said it is interesting that all of the proposed new lots are exactly 80 feet in width and questioned if modifying the property line for the neighboring driveway encroachment issue affected the ability to get 80 feet of width. Zimmerman stated that the property line adjustment allowed the lots to have 80 feet of width. Kluchka said he is concerned that a lot line has been established because of the location of the driveway on the neighboring property. Zimmerman explained a different plan the Applicant had considered which had the frontage of the proposed new lots on the south end of the property. However, that plan is not ideal as the south end of the property is adjacent to a park area. Drew Dornbusch, Applicant, reiterated that his original proposal had the frontage along the park area, but that the preference of the neighbors was to not put the front of a house Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 9 along the park because they consider that park area a gathering place. He referred to a site plan of the property and stated that the existing hame is 6,200 square feet with a 1,700 square foot foundation, on 1.45 acres of land. He showed photos of the existing house and stated that the proposed new homes will reflect a decrease in overall impervious surface and will increase the amount of green space. He stated that the average lot size of the new lots will be more than 20,Q00 square feet in size and that he will be saving 88% of the significant trees on the property. Johnsan asked if the amount of impervious surface includes the existing driveway. Qornbusch said yes. Segelbaum asked about issues discussed at the neighborhood meeting. Dornbusch said that the issues discussed included traffic control, the installation of speed bumps or stop signs, and the design of the new homes. Segelbaum asked about the timing of the project. Dornbusch said he would like to start this year. Baker stated that the site plans suggest there is a wetland on the southeast corner of the property, but said it is not obvious to him when he looked at the property on an aerial photo. Zimmerman stated that the map isn't indicating a wetland, it is referring to a rain garden that was installed to help control run-off. Matt Pavek, Engineer for the project, stated that the rain garden is off site and was installed during the street reconstruction. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Diane Richard, 217 Paisley Lane, said the idea of a speed bump was brought forward at the neighborhood meeting in order to protect children riding their bikes. She stated that the placement of the driveway on Lot 3 is due to the location of an oak tree and she appreciates that, but she is concerned that the driveway might be too close to the bike path and might cause traffic confusion with the park. She said she appreciates the trees the applicant is keeping, but she is concerned about buckthorn and would appreciate if the developer could remove it as part of this plan. She said she wants to know more about the timing of the construction, and she would like to see all three homes constructed at once. She said there are 36 homes in the Tralee neighborhood and there are six LDK homes so she would like to know who the builder will be. She stated that the neighborhood park is a gathering spot and she wants assurance that the homes will complement the park and aesthetically blend in. She said she wants to hear about the developers obligations to carry forward with what he has agreed to. She said she is disappointed that the applicant isn't splitting the property into two lots instead of three, but she appreciates the applicant's sensitivity. Jennifer Berg, 70 Brunswick Avenue North, said she was concerned about building her home to look timeless and not building a "McMansion." She said the City is delusional about how water moves around this city and stated that these new homes will have irrigation systems that will have a huge impact on the water, sewer and street. She said the City is also delusional about tree preservation. She said she was required to raise Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 10 her home a foot, an elm tree had to be removed, and she only had to replace two trees, She added that she would have replaced more trees but there are ugly power lines in her yard so she can't. She said she called the City and begged for a plow and a street sweeper and she spent $15,000 in permits that were worthless because she now has to spend thousands of dollars on code violations that were missed during inspections and she wasn't protected by the City. She said parking is a major menace and the City does nothing about it. She said that the developer hasn't mentioned if the proposed homes will be lookouts or walkouts because that will make a difference in how the water flows. She said LDK is making Golden Valley look like Maple Grove. She said this area is extremely special and rare and there are plenty of other areas to build tract homes. She said nobody wants to look at tract homes, they want something beautiful that will stand the test of time and make Golden Valley special. She said they want something better and they deserve something better. Shauna Crowe, 55 Brunswick Avenue North, asked how many homes can be constructed simultaneausly because there are 10 in their area of 36 homes. She said she agrees that speed bumps would help with the traffic. Chris Gaspard, 6125 Wynnwood Road, said the City just approved a proposal to put 27 homes on a really small lot so this proposal is good compared to that. He said this propasal looks like it is being done right with beautiful homes and large sized lots and the neighbors should be happy with the renewed interest in their neighborhood. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Kluchka referred to the question regarding construction limits in a neighborhood and said that is an interesting idea worth consideration. Zimmerman agreed it is worth consideration, but said it would be hard to administer and to decide who would get a building permit and who wouldn't. Kluchka asked if the impact of irrigation systems is relevant. Zimmerman said he didn't know, but he would check with the City Engineer. Waldhauser stated that new irrigation systems have to be based on rain fall and moisture in the ground. She added that there needs to be more education of homeowners. Kluchka asked if the developer has an obligation to build anything, or if there is only a timeline associated with a building permit. Zimmerman stated that developers aren't required to build anything by a certain time. Kluchka asked if the building envelope on the lot adjacent to the park was required to be moved further to the north. Dornbusch said placing the house further away from park was preferable by the neighbors so that the rain garden and park area wouldn't act like the home's front yard. Waldhauser questioned how the home placement would be enforced if a future property owner wants to build in a different location, but still within the allowed buildable area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 11 Kluchka asked if there has been an agreement regarding the style or design of the homes. Segelbaum asked about the developer's obligations regarding style or design. Zimmerman stated that the subdivision process considers lot size, lot width, setbacks, etc. but not style or design. Kluchka asked about the traffic controls mentioned by the neighbors. Zimmerman said he would talk to the City Engineer about the traffic control concerns. Kluchka referred to the neighbor's suggestion that buckthorn be removed from the property and said he doesn't think developers are obligated to remove buckthorn. Johnson asked what other cities do in regard to construction management issues. Waldhauser said Edina has hired someone to make sure construction management issues are dealt with correctly. MOVED by Blum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Paisley Fields Minor Subdivision subject to the following findings and conditions: Findinqs: 1, All three of the lots of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. 2. The City Engineer finds that the lots are buildable. 3. The addition of the new lots will not place an undue strain on City utility systems. Conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 2, A park dedication fee of$2,146.67 shall be paid before Final Plat approval. 3. The City Engineer's memorandum, dated November 19, 2014, shall become part of this approval. 4. All applicable City permits shall be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 6. Informal Public Hearing — Preliminary PUD Plan — Central Park West— Southwest Quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100 — PU-121 Applicant: DLC Residential, LLC Address: Southwest Quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100 Purpose: To allow two six-story multiple family residential buildings, a six-story hotel, two 11-story office buildings, a parking ramp and a linear park in both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. Goellner explained the applicant's proposal to develop in both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley, two 6-story residential buildings, two 11-story office buildings, one 6-story hotel, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 12 one 7-story parking ramp, and a public park that would be privately owned and maintained. She stated that the properties located in Golden Valley are zoned Business and Professional Offices and guided for office use. She explained that this is the same site as the 2009 Towers at West End proposal for 4 office buildings and a parking ramp which received preliminary approval, but was never built. She showed the Commissioners several renderings of the proposed site and explained where the park and the phase one residential portion of the proposal would be located. She explained that generally, traffic circulates around the site on the soon to be reconstructed Utica Avenue South and the Wayzata Boulevard frontage road. Goellner referred ta the residential buildings and stated that they will both be six stories in height with 550 to 1,500 square foot units that will rent for $1,000 to $2,800 per month. The phase 1 residential building will have approximately 200 units and 299 parking spaces and the phase 2 building will have approximately 164 units and 252 parking spaces. Goellner referred to the proposed hotel and explained that it will be a limited services hotel which means there won't be a restaurant or a pool. It will have approximately 150 rooms in a six story building with 93 parking spaces. She stated that the hotel use is required to have 1.5 spaces per room so it doesn't meet the number of required spaces. She added that staff has been talking with the Applicant regarding additional parking. Goellner referred to the proposed office buildings and the parking ramp and explained that there will two, 11 story buildings totaling approximately 700,000 square feet with 100 parking spaces. The parking ramp will have 2,534 spaces. Zimmerman stated that because this proposal crosses city boundaries there will be a Joint Powers Agreement between the two cities that will address issues such as inspections, permitting, emergency response, assessing, utilities, addressing, etc. He stated that there was a Joint Powers Agreement that was drafted for the previous proposal by Duke that will be revisited as a part of this proposal. He discussed the traffic impacts and reviewed the Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) completed in 2007 and updated in 2013 and 2014. He stated that additional review is underway regarding traffic impacts on the neighborhood to the east of Highway 100 and that the previous project had called for the some improvements to the Quentin/Wayzata Boulevard intersection to help regulate the flow of traffic potentially coming from this project and some traffic calming along Wayzata Boulevard. At that point it was asked that the developer pay for those improvements. He stated that the preliminary review of the updated AUAR indicated the traffic impacts will be less given the mix of the uses in this current proposal. Zimmerman referred to the stormwater and impervious surface on the site and stated that this proposal is located in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and as phased development occurs, individual properties within Golden Valley will be required to obtain Stormwater Management permits from the City. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commissian November 24, 2014 Page 13 Zimmerman referred to the parking on the properties and stated that 3,597.5 spaces are required and that that applicant is proposing 3,278 parking spaces, a difference of 319.5 spaces. He added that applicant has agreed to provide bicycle parking spaces as well. Zimmerman discussed the landscaping plan and stated that the applicant is proposing to remove approximately 36 trees and to plant 245 new trees and 19,742 square feet of shrubs and perennials. Zimmerman stated that the Applicant is proposing 79% overall impervious surface and that PUDs of this type are allowed up to 90% impervious surface. He added that there will also be underground stormwater storage as a part of this proposal as well. Zimmerman referred a site plan and discussed the access and circulation. He stated that the woonerf, which is the shared parking area for the residential buildings, also provides a service for the hotel. He stated that staff has also asked the developer to have one garbage hauler. He referred to the two access points for the hotel and stated that the Applicant has agreed to shift one access further north away from the Lilac Drive intersection. Kluchka referred to the site plan and asked if the hotel access could be limited to business use only. Zimmerman stated that the idea it to make that area difficult for cut- through traffic. Cera questioned if the connection service access is needed. Kluchka said he has seen renderings of the proposal that show public art being installed. He questioned if that is a PUD requirement. Zimmerman said that St. Louis Park requires public art. Johnson questioned how voting would be handled. Goellner said there will probably be a St. Louis Park address assigned to each of the residential buildings since that is where the front doors will be located. Blum questioned how the tax benefits would be handled between the two cities. Goellner said the value of the residential phase 1, lot 1 would be split into a percentage between the two cities. Segelbaum said the parking seems limited and asked how St. Louis Park responded. Goellner stated that the proposal meets St. Louis Park's requirements which are less stringent than Golden Valley's. Segelbaum asked what issues are being reviewed at a later date. Zimmerman stated that the woonerf area, the resolution of the hotel access point would need to be resolved befare the Final PUD Plans are submitted. The offices, and the parking ramps will be developed in phase 2 and will probably require a PUD amendment. He added that the traffic flow to the east and the traffic on Wayzata Boulevard are still being reviewed and there will be more elevations along with building materials reviewed in the future. Goellner stated that Staff has also asked the Applicant for a lighting plan and for more detailed plans regarding the sidewalk connections. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 14 Baker asked if the parking is phased to meet the needs of construction. Goellner said for the hotel, yes. Blum referred to the easement along the linear park and asked if it completely bisects the site. Zimmerman said there will be sidewalk connections all the way through the park. Blum asked how the intersecting pathways for pedestrians and bicyclists would work. Goellner said the sidewalk layout would change. Blum questioned where snow would be stored. Goellner said the snow could stay on site until the office buildings are constructed, after that it would have to be removed off site. Kluchka suggested making that a condition of approval. Blum questioned how much snow from the current West End development ends up in this location. Johnson asked if people will be looking at blacktop until phases 2 and 3 are built. Zimmerman stated that the park is included in phase 1. Johnson said this proposal will have a big impact for little revenue. He asked about the trade-off for the increase in traffic congestion. Baker asked if improvements could be made to Wayzata Boulevard. Zimmerman stated that the traffic engineers are reviewing the plans to determine what improvements are necessary. Baker asked if the Joint Powers Agreement could include sharing the tax benefits if there is a disproportionate impact on Golden Valley. David Graham, ESG Architects, said this proposal completes the extension of the Shops at West End. He stated that this proposal lowers the density of office space from Duke's previous proposal of 1.1 million square feet to 700,000 square feet. He discussed the park, the sidewalks, the hotel access points, and the bicycle and pedestrian traffic. He stated that this proposal is also much more green and permeable and provides a well- connected parking ramp. He stated that it made sense to locate the parking ramp, rather than the residential use, against the freeway. He said he would like to have green screens on buildings to make them look like "living buildings." He stated that the units in the residential buildings will be luxury rental condominiums and aside from the 3% affordable units, will cost $1,000 to $2,500 p�r month. Forty percent of the units will have 2 or 3 bedrooms to attract a wide variety of users. He stated that another key element in this project is the re-building of Utica. He showed several renderings and stated that the vision is to create a beautiful tree lined environment with residential that wraps around the parking to make it less of a suburban place and more of an integrated, pedestrian, mixed use environment. Segelbaum stated that there was a different design shown at the neighborhood meeting and asked about the reconfiguration to this current design. Graham stated that they did consider flipping the office and residential buildings, but it made more sense to create a village effect and they didn't want to have parking on the corner, they wanted that to be more of an office campus. Blum asked about the farade of the parking structure. Graham said the parking structure will be cast concrete with scrim walls and green screening to be more artful where Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 15 pedestrians will see it. Kluchka said he wants to make sure that the parking ramp doesn't look like the back of the house. He asked if the intent is to make the entire structure have some visual interest. Graham said yes. He added that they will probably focus the green walls on the west facing sides and use other strategies on the side facing the freeway. Kluchka reiterated that he wants that side to matter too. Blum referred to the site plan and asked about the small area shown between Lilac Dr. and Highway 100. Graham said that is a retaining wall and there will also be some landscaping done in that area. Luke Payne, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Civil Engineer representing DLC Residential, discussed the access points. He referred to a site plan and noted that there is an existing curb cut on Wayzata and the intent of that access point is to serve as a hotel exit and a service entrance. He said there will be underground parking, but through traffic will be discouraged. Baker asked how people would walk from the parking ramp to the hotel. Payne stated that there would most likely be a valet parking service. Kluchka said he doesn't understand how a valet would work in a low-service type of hotel. Payne said using the parking ramp is not their desirable solution as it relates to the parking shortage, it is just one option. He said that Golden Valley's parking requirement of 1.5 parking spaces per hotel room is high, one parking space per room is more typical. Waldhauser stated that there could be a street level corridor through the residential building. Segelbaum added that the goal as far as traffic flow is to stay away from the developed West End area and to channel traffic onto Utica and around onto Wayzata Boulevard. Payne said yes, Utica has been designed as the primary access point for this entire segment of the development. He discussed some of the mitigation factors mentioned in the AUAR and explained that the original AUAR assumed 1.1 million square feet of office space which is the biggest trip generator, and that this proposal is for less than that. Cera stated that the concern of the residents to the east is with traffic going through their neighborhood. He asked if there is any agreement regarding traffic calming along Wayzata Boulevard and the Highway 100 frontage road and what the applicant's thoughts are about paying for traffic calming measures. Payne said they will continue to work with staff and that they will be responsible for the improvements necessary to make this development function properly. He stated that the traffic issues and improvements brought up in the original AUAR may or may not be necessary in this development as they were in Duke's previous proposal. Cera stated that traffic is difficult in the area now, and that he would really like the Applicant to seriously consider additional traffic calming measures. Baker added that that piece of Wayzata Boulevard needs to be redesigned to accommodate bike traffic. Kluchka asked what type of hotel could be in this proposal. Graham said that the hotel will be a high quality, low-service hotel such as a Radisson Red for example. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 16 Kluchka asked if the office space will be multi-tenant or single use. Graham said it could go either way. Cera asked about the timing and the phasing schedule. Graham stated that they would like to break ground on the phase 1 residential building in spring/summer of 2015, following right away with phase 2. Richard Kauffman, DLC Residential, added that the hotel construction could overlap with the phase 1 or 2 residential and that there has been strong interest in the office proposal which could begin as early as fall of 2015, or more likely 2016. Kluchka said a lot of design work has gone into the residential portion of the proposal and asked if it would be fair to say that the hotel and office plans are more conceptual at this point. Graham said they are conceptual plans, but they represent the general direction they are going with high quality, contemporary materials. Segelbaum questioned if the design of the office buildings could change if a single user wants a different design. Graham said the design could possibly change, but it would still be made of high quality materials. Kluchka opened the public hearing. Margaret Macneale, 4530 Douglas Avenue, said she and her husband became aware of this proposal through an article in the newspaper and that surprised them because the last time there was a proposal far this site the South Tyrol and Kennedy neighborhoods received several meeting notices. She said there is a great deal about DLC's plans that she likes and parts of the plans are superior to previous proposals, but her concern is traffic. She said east bound traffic on the frontage road stacks up during the evening rush hour. She said the traffic is not coming home to her neighborhood they are just trying to avoid I-394. She said the neighborhood's input in 2007 and 2008 helped identify several traffic calming strategies including a 3-way stop at Quentin and the frontage road and the narrowing of the frontage road as it passes Natchez and Fairlawn. She said she knows the AUAR has been updated and it states that the lower density proposal may make some of the traffic improvements unnecessary. She said if more of her neighbors had an opportunity to know about this proposal and had opportunity for input she is confident that they would all want to keep every possible traffic calming strategy identified and more. She said she likes this proposal, she just wants to be sure it is a win-win for everybady. She said she fears this is flying through the process without any input from their neighborhood. Robert Lazear, 1519 Natchez Avenue South, said this is phase 2 to the whole West End project. He said there has been no attempt at communication and people haven't had a lot of time ta study the proposal. He said the reduced office density is appreciated, but it is a real "rocket docket" to say they are going to build in the spring and he thinks it needs to slow down. He asked if there has been an independent traffic study done showing the impact of the current West End site because an intelligent decision can't be made without that information. He said they only have two ways out of their neighborhood and people come around the curves at 50 miles per hour. He said he likes the straight line park idea, but he thinks the parking ramp is mammoth, and he is going to be looking at Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 17 and ugly ramp looming over the highway. He said pulling onto Wayzata Boulevard is tough now and emergency vehicles and accidents need to be considered as well. Dan Steinberg, 1033 Sumter Avenue South, said he was the chairman of the Cedarhurst neighborhood when the original proposal from Duke was considered. He said he is concerned he had to read about this proposal in the newspaper. He said we should be getting revenue into this area and should be looking at other needs such as a data center underneath the parking lot. He said one of the reasons the project collapsed last time is because of the sewer system and that the Environmental Commission should be addressing the watershed issues. He asked that this proposal be tabled to study the notes from the last proposal. Gary Cohen, 4530 Douglas Avenue, said he is concerned about the voting issue and it will make life really hard if people live in one city and vote in another. He said he read about this proposal in the Star Tribune and that this is a better proposal than the Duke proposal, but he is extremely frustrated to have learned about this from the newspaper. He said the 500 foot notification area is not sufficient and he has seen little or no commentary from the neighborhood. He said it would be simple to have a meeting scheduled with the neighborhood and he would be happy to help facilitate. He said the Planning Commission needs to discuss traffic calming and it is very important to him. He urged the Planning Commission to slow down and the City to do a better job of communicating because this could be a win-win for everyone if they all have a discussion. Chris Gaspard, 6125 Wynnwood Road, said 3/5 of the project is in St. Louis Park and 2/5 is in Golden Valley. He questioned why Golden Valley doesn't get 2/5 of the tax revenue of the entire site. He said we need to share everything or not because there is not much in this for Golden Valley. He said he thinks this is the most valuable land in the City and we are giving everything away for a parking ramp. He said this is a bad time of year with the holidays to be going through this process. He proposed a development called Diamond in the Valley with more residential units because this area needs more density. He questioned what is in this proposal for Golden Valley. Donna Huber, 1420 Alpine Pass, said she wants to emphasize the need for a traffic study, especially this time of year. She said snow removal in the morning is horrible, there are ice slicks on the frontage road, and she is concerned about additional traffic. Daon Karpan, 1400 Natchez Avenue South, said she wants to reinforce the need to do a traffic study. She said she wants the neighborhood voices heard. She said they need access and they need safety. Lori Komoto, 1505 Natchez Avenue South, said her main concern is traffic. She said she had to fight with the school district to get a bus stop removed from Wayzata Boulevard because of the high traffic flow in the morning. She said she feels the area is already at capacity and it is quite dangerous with the speed and the icy roads. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Kluchka closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 18 Kluchka asked if a neighborhood meeting can be scheduled. Zimmerman said another neighborhood meeting can be held. He explained that hearing notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the subject properties, but that distance could be increased. Segelbaum said they need to discuss how far to expand that distance and if doing that wauld set a precedent going forward. Cera said he thinks the developer can hold a neighborhood meeting that includes all of South Tyrol. Baker said he thinks this kind of project is a category of its own and calls for a larger area to be notified. He added that it is the traffic issue that begs the need for a neighborhood meeting. Kluchka said he takes the idea of a pause seriously. He questioned the need for a neighborhood meeting and what type of conditions to put in their recommendation. Segelbaum asked about the status of the traffic study. Zimmerman stated that an AUAR was done in 2007, was updated in 2013 still using the information from the previous proposal, and was updated again for this proposal in 2014. Baker questioned to what extent the study focused on Wayzata Boulevard. Waldhauser stated that the traffic study should start from a new baseline. Kluchka said there is a re-study situation, and a winter situation that he would like to hear more about. John Crawford, Kimley Horn, explained that the 2007 study projected future background traffic and added in to that traffic the site generated which included the 1 million square feet of office space originally proposed. In 2013 the plan was updated for the reduced use of the site and the trip generation for the site was compared to the original AUAR and showed that the trip generation was less than what was originally planned. Now in 2014 this new plan has less traffic than what was in the original plan except in the morning there are more people leaving the site because of the residential use. There has not been a new traffic study since 2007 because it predicted what would happen under this development scenario. Baker said there is a new baseline now that should be taken into consideration because there has been development that wasn't predicted in 2007. Grawfard said the study did predict future baseline traffic growth. Segelbaum said he thinks they need a presentation on the traffic study to determine if it is adequate for today's proposal. Baker stated that he would also like to see if there was any consideration for bicycle and pedestrian traffic in the study as well. Kluchka agreed that whatever was predicted in 2007 is not adequate today. Johnson said he left the neighborhood meeting with the understanding that the traffic in the area was at a level D, all the changes that were going to be made have been made, and there was a contingency to do something if traffic got worse, but a D is not an F. Segelbaum said he was at the same meeting and that there were some positive things about this plan, but he doesn't feel they've addressed the issues along Wayzata Boulevard. Waldhauser stated that the traffic issues along Wayzata Boulevard aren't necessarily caused by this development, but this proposal could make it worse. Kluchka stated that they need to see some better elevations of the parking ramp. Specifically, what the neighbors will see. Segelbaum said he doesn't know how the applicant will be able to provide that considering the developer will be selling it and letting someone else develop that portion. Kluchka asked if the water and sewer work has been done. Zimmerman stated that the last part of that work will be done in the spring. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 19 Kluchka said he would like conditions added regarding a snow removal plan, and a design review process. Baker said they need to encourage a different revenue plan and suggested Golden Valley share the TIF revenue. Goellner said the two cities have been talking about cost and revenue sharing. Cera said he thinks the underground parking can be expanded. He said he likes the proposal and thinks it is a vast improvement over the previous proposal, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. He questioned if the proposal should be tabled or if the outstanding issues can be addressed during the Final PUD Plan process. Zimmerman said it seems that the majority of the concerns are the off-site concerns about traffic which are separate from the site concerns. Baker said he is not ready to move forward. He said he likes the proposal but he doesn't have enough information. Segelbaum agreed that he would like to see additional information, but he wants the proposal to proceed. He suggested adding conditions to allow the proposal to move forward, but still be able preserve their ability to review these issues. Waldhauser said she is wondering if more of the site could be residential. Baker said the market will drive that. Cera stated that they could vote on this Preliminary Plan with some added conditions and ask the Applicant to come back for an interim meeting. He reiterated that he thinks the proposal is good and he doesn't know if they should table it. Segelbaum asked about the impacts to the schedule if the proposal is tabled. Zimmerman stated that Staff has worked with St. Louis Park to try and align meetings so one city doesn't get too far ahead of the other. Goellner added that the cities also need time to put together the Joint Powers Agreement. Kauffman stated there are some details in the nature of the deal with Duke that requires them to move forward. He stated the previous Duke Preliminary PUD Plan proposal was approved with the same information. He added that he doesn't want to overlook the traffic concerns, but it is important to them to get a positive recommendation at this meeting. Cera said one thing that would help is if DLC would commit to a traffic calming discussion and agree to what Duke had previously agreed to do. Waldhauser said this proposal may have different needs. She suggested that the Commission recommend approval contingent on a plan that demonstrates no increase in traffic in the South Tyrol area. That way they would allow the proposal to move forward while that issue gets worked on. Baker said he would like to know whether a new traffic study is needed. If it is not needed, then this proposal can move ahead, but he is leaning toward tabling the proposal at this point. Kluchka reviewed the items he sees as potential conditions including: a snow storage plan, an updated traffic design plan, a completed neighborhood meeting, a design review for all elements, a hotel parking plan, and limiting, or not allowing any impact to the South Tyrol area. Cera asked that condition number 14 in the staff report regarding the traffic plan be changed to state that the owner shall, instead of may, submit an updated traffic plan. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 20 Segelbaum suggested adding a condition number 19 stating that there shall be a neighborhood meeting, with an expanded hearing notice area, after an updated traffic study is provided, prior to the Final PUD proposal. Kluchka suggested adding a condition number 20 stating that the final design of all the elements shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. Cera stated that condition number 12 should be modified to state that the plans shall, instead of could, require additional underground parking. Waldhauser said she doesn't think condition number 12 needs to change because an increase in parking doesn't have to occur underground, there just needs to be additional parking. The Commissioners agreed. Segelbaum questioned if they should state that the issues they've heard about have to be addressed. Cera said there should be options to alleviate the neighbors' concerns. Segelbaum said there should be language added regarding traffic mitigation steps. Baker said there should be bicycle and pedestrian language added to the traffic mitigation steps as well. Kluchka suggested that condition 14 should be amended to include neighborhood traffic including bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Baker said this is with the understanding that the Planning Commission won't hear this proposal again until the Final PUD plan process. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the Central Park West Preliminary PUD Plan subject to the following findings and conditions: Findin s: 1. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and design than generally expected under conventional provisions of the ordinance. 2. The PUD plan preserves and protects substantial desirable portions of the site's characteristics, open space and sensitive environmental features including steep slopes, trees, scenic views, creeks, wetlands, and open waters. 3. The PUD plan includes efficient and effective use (which includes preservation) of the land. 4. The PUD Plan results in development compatible with adjacent uses and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plans and goals. 5. The PUD plan is consistent with preserving and improving the general health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 6. The PUD plan meets the PUD Intent and Purpose provision and all other PUD ordinance provisions. Conditions: 1. The plans prepared by DLC Residential, LLC, submitted with the application on October 20, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 21 2. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 17, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 3. The recommendations and requirements outlined in the memo from the Fire Department to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 17, 2014, shall become a part of this approval. 4. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20). 5. A park dedication fee of$70,568 (2% of the estimated land value) shall be paid prior to approval of the Final Plat. 6. The Final Plat shall include "P.U.D. No. 121" in its title. 7. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws with authority over this development. 8. The Final PUD plan submittal shall include continuous pedestrian connections between the hotel and parking ramp as well as around the north and east sides of the residential phase 1 building. 9. The developer shall submit a plan before the City council meeting that shows the private driveway access point shifted north on Wayzata Boulevard, as discussed in the memo from the Engineering Division to Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, dated November 17, 2014. 10. The Developer shall address concerns and comments from the Fire Department regarding fire hydrant locations, fire truck access on Lilac Drive, and fire suppression water sources and reflect changes in the final PUD submittal. 11. The City of St. Louis Park approves that portion of the preliminary planned unit development within its jurisdiction 12. Prior to City Cauncil preliminary review, the Developer shall present strategies to meet parking requirements for the Lot 3 hotel use, which could include additional underground hotel parking and/or a shared parking agreement with the nearby parking ramp. 13. The Final PUD plan submittal shall include bicycle parking counts and locations. 14. The property owners of any parcel in the Central Park West PUD shall follow the travel demand management plans approved for the West End Redevelopment, which will serve to reduce traffic congestion. The owner shall be required to update the plan or submit a new plan to the Golden Valley and St. Louis Park I-394 Joint Task Force prior to Final PUD approval. The Plan shall also include bicycle and pedestrian traffic data. 15. The Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Golden Valley for public use of the park outlot. 16. The Final PUD plan submitted shall include a detailed Lighting Plan in accordance with the City's Outdoor Lighting requirements (Section 11.73). 17. The Applicant shall submit a snow storage plan. 18. A neighborhood meeting with the developer shall be held after an updated traffic study has been completed, but before Final PUD Plan review. The notification area for this meeting shall be expanded to include the entire South Tyrol area. 19. A final design plan shall be reviewed by the City prior to Final Plan approval. --Short Recess-- Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 24, 2014 Page 22 7. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Kluchka stated that the Community Center Task Force is going to get together to do a dry run of the presentation they are going to give to the City Council at the December 9 Council/Manager meeting. Baker gave an update on the recent Bottineau open house. He said there was a large turnout with an enormaus amount of unhappiness about not being notified. Zimmerman stated that Staff is working with the County on ways to better communicate. Segelbaum stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals needs a Planning Commission representative to attend their November 25 meeting. Kluchka said he could attend. 8. Other Business • Council Liaison Report No report was given. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 pm. � � r :�x . � �;���I�.'�... Charles D. Segel um, Secretary Lis Wittman, Administrative Assistant