Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/09/1983 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission 10Monday, May 9, 1983 7:30 p.m., City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. HIDDEN GLEN, by R. M. Feerick Associates. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review of 104 acres for 195 single family detached units and 58 multi-family units; Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5, and R1-22 for 22.8 acres for residential use; and Preliminary Plat of 22.8 acres for 59 single family lots. Location: East of Highway 101 and South of Townline Road. A continued public hearing. B. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER, by Ryan Construction. Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning from Rural to I-2, and Preliminary Plat of 14.05 acres into two lots for office/service/storage uses. Location: Northeast of Shady Oak Road, west of I-494. A public hearing. C. NORTHMARK 4TH ADDITION, by Hans Hagen Homes. Request for Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development District approval of five acres for multiple residential land use and preliminary plat for 32 townhouse units. Location: West of Center Way, north of Nesbitt Preserve Park. A public hearing. D. EDENVALE 17TH ADDITION, by Equitable Life Assurance. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning from Rural to RM-6.5 and Preliminary Plat of 9.77 acres for medium density residential use for 21 duplex lots, or 42 units. Location: North of Edenvale Boulevard, south of Birch Island Road. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT A. Review of the Revised Tax Increment Financing Plan for Major Center Area VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 9, 1983 City Hall, 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck (10:25 p.m. ), Hakon Torjesen (9:15 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman William Bearman STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to alter the order of the agenda items under IV. Development Proposals to be A, D, B, C. Motion carried--4-0-0 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes to approve the minutes as written with the following change: Page 4, paragraph 1, to read (additions underlined), "He stated that he felt the parking and exterior improvements proposed by the owner would improve the property immensely, and that he did not feel it would be detrimental to allow for the expansion as proposed. Johannes suggested that perhaps the economic feasibility of correcting the violations and making the exterior improvements should be taken into consideration, as opposed to considering the use only in terms of 'making it legal. '" Motion carried--4-0-0 III. MEMBERS REPORTS None. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. HIDDEN GLEN, by R. M. Feerick Associates. Request for Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 9, 1983 Planned Unit Development District Review of 104 acres for 195 single family detached units and 58 multi-family units; Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5, and R1-22 for 22.8 acres for residential use; and Preliminary Plat of 22.8 acres for 59 single family lots. Location: East of Highway 101 and South of Townline Road. A continued public hearing. At its meeting of April 25, 1983, the Planning Commission recommended a continuance of this item pending resolution of major site design issues involving thoroughfares, utilities, and public facilities. Staff had been directed to work with proponent and the other governmental agencies involved, including the Cities of Chanhassen and Minnetonka, Hennepin County, and the State of Minnesota, to resolve these matters. Dick Krier, Westwood Planning and Engineering, representing the proponent, reviewed the changes proposed since the previous meeting. He pointed out the following amendments: 1) Dell Road had been realigned through the site to meet the criteria of the various agencies concerned; 2) The number of single family units had been changed from 195 to 185, and the number of multiple family units had been changed from 58 to 60; 3) The Highway #101 alignment had been redesigned to accommodate a 40 mile per hour speed curve; 4) Storm water drainage for the site has been redirected to the vicinity of Purgatory Creek, instead of overground to the City of Chanhassen; and, 5) The park has been relocated to the southeast corner of the site, and acreage has been added to it. Planner Enger reviewed the Staff Report on the amended proposal. He indicated the advantages of the proposed realignment of Dell Road, pointed out the greater variety of uses available to the park due to its relocation, and stated that the developer would receive a density credit transfer from the lowland area to the remainder of the site. Staff stated that a development plan had not been submitted for the Phase I portion of the project, which would show no two similar units adjacent, directly or diagonally across from each other, and that no more than three units of a similar type, such as garage front, would be located in a row. Another matter of concern to the area residents was the proposed extension of Lochanburn Road through this project. Staff stated that the recommendation was now to delete this connection to the Lochanburn neighborhood from this project. The reasons for this included that the connection would make it necessary for the City to align the road through a substantial hill, and that the connection would tend to make the road a "collector" street between Dell Road and Duck Lake Trail. • Acting Chairman Gartner opened the meeting to comments from members of the audience. Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 9, 1983 Joe Dolesji, 6445-192nd Avenue W., asked if it would be necessary to have stop signs at each intersection along Dell Road, and, if so, if the purpose of the road as a collector would be defeated by causing constant stopping along the travelled route. Planner Enger responded that the stop signs would only be necessary at the major intersection, not at each intersection, along Dell Road. This would tend to keep the road as a neighborhood collector, rather than an arterial roadway between the three communities in the area. Bonnie Riegert, 6611 Lochanburn Road, asked how the lots in the Lochanburn Addition would be affected by the redesigned drainage plans. Planner Enger responded that the revised design should keep the area from flooding as badly as it had in the past. There would not be as much water retention on these lots as in the past. Matthew Stroedel , 6610 Lochanburn Road, asked if the tree line between the Lochanburn Addition and this project would be preserved and also questioned the purpose of the ponds located at the southwest corner of the site. Staff responded that the tree line would be preserved and that the purpose of the ponds was for storm water holding of on-site drainage. Gene Woelffer, 18735 Partridge Circle, stated that he was concerned about the potential traffic problems due to the location of Dell Road through this project. Staff responded that measures were being taken to assure that this roadway would be an inter-City collector roadway, rather than a roadway to connect Eden Prairie with other communities. Hallett questioned whether Dell Road would be capable of being a four-lane road from Highway #5 to the south, all the way to Townline Road. Staff responded that^the road would be a four-lane road, but not a divided road. Dick Krier stated that he was concerned with the wording of item #10 of the Staff recommendations, regarding the extension of Dell Road being required prior to construction of Phase II. Mr. Krier stated that he would prefer that the word "extension of" be changed 'to "provision for." Planner Enger stated that it has always been the plan of the City to service this area from the southwest in order to keep the project from being dependent upon Highway #101 . He pointed out that a 12 in. watermain, the park, Dell Road, and sanitary sewer were all to be provided by Phase II, while this would not be available with Phase I. Only services necessary to deal with the proposed housing units would be provided. Planner Enger stated that, from a City services standpoint, it would be preferred to have Phase II, Phase III, then Phase I, in that order. Richard Feerick, proponent, stated that Phase III would likely be developed with Phase II. Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 9, 1983 MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by' Johannes, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development District Review of 104 acres for 195 single family detached units and 58 multi-family units for the Hidden Glen project of R. M. Feerick Associates, based on revised plans dated May 6, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 6, 1983. Motion carried--3-0-1 (Marhula abstained) MOTION 3: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend approval of zoning from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5, and R1-22 for 22.8 acres for residential use, for the Hidden Glen project of R. M. Feerick Associates, based on revised plans dated May 6, 1983, and . subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 6, 1983. Motion carried--3-0-1 (Marhula abstained) MOTION 4: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of 22.8 acres for 59 single family lots for the Hidden Glen project of R. M. Feerick Associates, based on revised plans dated May 6, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 6, 1983. Motion carried--3-0-1 (Marhula abstained) D. EDENVALE 17TH ADDITION, by Equitable Life Assurance. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning from Rural to RM-6.5 and Preliminary Plat of 9.77 acres for Medium Density Residential use for 21 duplex lots, or 42 units. Location: North of Edenvale Boulevard, south of Birch Island Road. A public hearing. Dick Krier, Westwood Planning and Engineering, representing proponent, presented slides depicting the features of the site proposed for development, as well as the surrounding area. He • stated that proponent had no objections to any of the recommendations of the Staff Report. Johannes questioned whether there was an existing sidewalk system within the overall Edenvale area, and if this project would be Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 9, 1983 • connected to it. Planner Enger responded that a sidewalk would exist along Edenvale Boulevard when it was built. The City would also be locating a sidewalk or trail from Valley View Road to the Crosstown Highway. It was pointed out that the decision regarding the requirement for sidewalks was based on a project's size. This project was considered small in size, with adequate access to adjacent projects with sidewalks to have access to the City's overall system. People would not be expected to "cut through" this project to obtain access to adjacent properties, as routes with sidewalks would be readily available. Also, Birch Island Road would remain a graveled, rural section road until the properties on either side were developed, which would require the upgrading of the road. Hallett suggested that it would be prudent to require a sidewalk now, when the City could deal with one land owner, instead of requiring it at a later date and forcing the City to participate in assessments hearings with potentially 42 land owners. Acting Chairman Gartner stated the Crosstown Highway would be completed in approximately five years, and at that time, the Crosstown would be the quickest access to the north, leaving Birch Island Road as a secondary access. Marhula questioned the current status of the Edenvale Boulevard road • improvement project. Staff responded that the City was currently under contract for completion of the road. (Torjesen arrived at 9:15 p.m.) Acting Chairman Gartner asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. Harry Picha stated that he had sold this land originally to the Edenvale project developers. His farmstead was located to the north and west of the site of the 17th Addition. His concerns involved the driveway and sanitary sewer easements for his property, which were not represented on the drawings presented. He stated that the easements had been filed at the County offices. Mr. Picha stated that he was concerned also about the potential of flooding of his lot by the pond located at the southwest end. Mr. Krier stated that the plans would be corrected to reflect the easements. As to the pond at the southwest end of the proposal, it had been designed to hold only a certain amount of storm water, and, therefore, would not be the cause of any flooding to his property. The remainder of the storm water drainage was to be directed away from the Picha homestead. Lee Garber, 15085 Ironwood Court, stated that he was against duplexes as a unit type in this area. He stated that he felt there were enough duplexes in the overall Edenvale project at this time. Terry Johnson, 15020 Ironwood Court, stated that she was concerned that this development would be like the others in the area whereby the developers had not preserved any of the natural features of the Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 9, 1983 land. She asked if it was necessary that the road for this proposal be aligned through the only pond on the site, which supported ducks and other wildlife. She questioned whether development of this type was too harsh of a treatment for this property. Marilyn Beckerman, 14980 Ironwood Court, stated that she was against the duplex unit type in this area. She stated that she felt the Ironwood Court area would slowly become an island of single family amongst duplex units, and asked the Commission to consider conditions which would place a minimum value on each unit within the project. Dan Beckerman, 14980 Ironwood Court, asked that development of this area be restricted until such time as Edenvale Boulevard was built. He stated that he felt traffic was already a problem in this area, and that additional units, particularly multiple units, would only add to the problem. He added that he, too, was concerned about property values going down because of duplex development in the area. He suggested that the developer consider developing this property as single family instead. Brad Orndorff, 15100 Ironwood Court, referring to the requested variances, stated that he felt it was improper for the City to consider action on the proposal until such time as the project was idrawn according to Code. Staff explained that the types of changes requested in this case were quite minor and could be easily handled by the developer in a short period of time. Mr. Krier explained that the lot lines would be shifted to make the non-conforming lots be in compliance with the Code requirements. Torjesen questioned the discrepancy between the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, which designated this area as Low Density Residential, and the use proposed. Planner Enger explained that the overall Edenvale Planned Unit Development had been approved by the City showing this area as Medium Density Residential. In effect, the Edenvale Planned Unit Development had amended the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan when it had been approved. In response to questions from members of the audience, Mr. Krier pointed out that an Environmental Impact Statement had been completed by the developer on the entire Edenvale Planned Unit Development in 1973, which covered this site. The proposal was being developed in accordance with it. Also, he stated that the project would not be developed prior to the construction of Edenvale Boulevard. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Hallett, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 9, 1983 MOTION 2• Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development District Review for Medium Density Residential use for 21 duplex lots, or 42 units for Edenvale 17th Addition by Equitable Life Assurance, based on plans dated April 4, 1983, and written materials dated April 5, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 6, 1983, with the addition of the following two conditions: 5) No similar units shall be placed adjacent, diagonally, or directly across from each other, nor shall any similar unit, such as garage front, be placed more than three in a row along the street frontage; and 6) The matter of the driveway and sanitary sewer easements for the Harry Picha property be resolved prior to Council review. Motion carried--4-0-1 (Marhula abstained) MOTION 3: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend approval of zoning from Rural to RM-6.5 for 9.77 acres for medium density residential use for 21 duplex lots, or 42 units, for Edenvale 17th Addition by Equitable Life Assurance, based on plans dated April 4, 1983, and written materials dated April 5, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 6, 1983, with the addition of the following two conditions: 1) No similar units shall be placed adjacent, diagonally, or directly across from each other, nor shall any similar unit, such as garage front, be placed more than three in a row along the street frontage; and 6) The matter of the driveway and sanitary sewer easements for the Harry Picha property be resolved prior to Council review. Motion carried--4-0-1 (Marhula abstained) MOTION 4: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Hallett, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of 9.77 acres for medium density residential use for 21 duplex lots, or 42 units, for Edenvale 17th Addition by Equitable Life Assurance, based on plans dated April 4, 1983, and written materials dated April 5, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 6, 1983, with the addition of the following two conditions: 1) 5) No similar units shall be placed adjacent, diagonally, or directly across from each other, nor shall any similar unit, the street frontage; and 6) The matter of the driveway and sanitary sewer easements for the Harry Picha property be resolved prior to Council review. • (Schuck arrived at 10:25 p.m. ) B. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER, by Ryan Construction. Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning from Rural to I-2, and Preliminary Plat of 14.05 acres into two lots for Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 9, 1983 office/service/storage uses. Location: Northeast of Shady Oak Road, west of I-494. A public hearing. Steve Swanson, Ryan Construction, presented the proposed development to the Commission pointing out significant features, such as the interior truck docking area, the screening of the mechanical equipment, and the landscaping proposed for the site. Al Schackman, Ryan Construction, explained the type of tenants proposed for the building as basically office type uses for "high tech" businesses, such as computer design companies, which required an amount of warehousing less than was provided for in Industrial districts, but more than was provided in Office districts by the City Code. Scott Anderson, ADI, representing the owners of the City West project, stated that it was their intention to complete a 2,800 ft. pedestrian trail system around Outlot B. Two pedestrian bridges were proposed for crossing the waterways. Planner Enger stated that the original City West Planned Unit Development was approved in concept for 100% office use. He reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report with the Commission. • Torjesen stated that he felt the proposal represented a substantial change from the original Planned Unit Development in that the requested change was from Office to Industrial zoning. Marhula questioned the ponding on the site. Mr. Anderson responded that a system of pumps was proposed, which would be used to maintain ponding elevations. Marhula asked if this system would affect the aquifer. Mr. Anderson stated that it would not. Marhula questioned why the proponent had not requested Office zoning with variances, instead of I-2 Park. Mr. Schackman stated that they had debated the idea at length. It was pointed out that office use was allowed within the I-2 Park district, but warehouse usage was not allowed within the Office district. Torjesen stated that he felt it would be difficult for the City to control the uses after the property was zoned and built. He questioned whether this was the highest and best use of the land. Acting Chairman Gartner stated that she agreed with Torjesen. Planner Enger explained that, during discussion of the original City West Planned Unit Development, it was proposed that the proportion of office allowed within this development be limited so as not to compete with the office districts of the Major Center Area, thereby actually disallowing competition with the Major Center Area. Marhula questioned -how many acres of the Major Center Area had been designated for industrial usage. Planner Enger responded that approximately 60 acres were so designated. Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 9, 1983 • Acting Chairman Gartner asked for questions and comments from members of the audience. . Janet Gerricky, 6622 Golden Ridge Drive, explained that she had a different understanding of the approved plan from 1981 . She stated that she had understood that the plan called for office usage that, on the exterior, had the appearance of multiple residential buildings, along with a portion of the site being designated for multiple residential use. She questioned how the plan had been changed to allow for industrial use without the public being notified. Jerry Steelman, 6601 Golden Ridge Drive, stated that he, too, understood that the buildings were to have the appearance of condominiums, with buffering to be done along Shady Oak Road. Staff responded that the change had taken place between the first and second readings of the zoning for this site at the Council level . Mrs. Gerricky questioned how the City could recommend development which was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Mr. Anderson stated that his firm had gone to great lengths to create an attractive area for development, as well as for the surrounding neighborhood. He explained, in detail, the improvements which had been made and which would be made in this development. Mr. Steelman stated that Mr. Anderson had guaranteed him that screening would be provided on his lot from the City West development; however,' to date, he had not seen Mr. Anderson, nor had Mr. Anderson contacted him regarding the screening to be done on his property. Mr. Anderson stated that he would rectify the matter immediately. He stated that he would gladly provide any landscaping material the Steelmans desired prior to issuance of any building permit within the City West project. Mr. Schackman suggested that perhaps there was misunderstanding between parties taking place. He restated the types of uses and tenants that would be proposed for the Ryan buildings, which would be mainly office users. Mr. Schackman suggested that perhaps the parties concerned could meet to review the uses allowed in the I-2 Park district and eliminate those uses which were considered to be objectionable to the residents. Hallett stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to eliminate uses in other portions of the City so as to eliminate competition with the Major Center Area. He stated that he felt each area should be reviewed on its own merits. . Marhula stated that perhaps limits, or maximums could be placed on the percentage of uses in these buildings such as a maximum percentage of office, warehousing, and assembling uses. He also suggested that the City may wish to consider an alternate zoning Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 9, 1983 district for this type of use to be incorporated into the City Code. Torjesen stated that he agreed with Marhula regarding a possible new zoning district for the Code. Mr. Steelman stated that he was not opposed to the development on the the interior of the Planned Unit Development; however, the residents had been told the development would appear to be residential . Marhula stated that he felt the basis for the problem was that the use changed without the public being aware of the change. He stated that he felt the Commission should review the previous records, including the approved Developer's Agreement for the project, before taking action on this proposal. MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to continue the public hearing on this item pending the following: 1) Planning Staff is requested to furnish the Commission with copies of the Developer's Agreement for the project with an interpretation of the agreement as it related to the issues • of use. 2) The permitted uses in the I-2 Park district should be reviewed and those found to be objectionable for this area should be eliminated from those allowed by the district as a whole at the time of zoning of this site. This shall be incorporated into a revised Developer's Agreement for the site. 3) A ratio shall be established for a maximum percentage of types of uses to be allowed, such as the percentage of office, warehousing, and assembling within this portion of the Planned Unit Development. Motion carried--3-2-1 (Acting Chairman Gartner, Marhula, and Torjesen in favor; Johannes and Hallett against; Schuck abstained) C. NORTHMARK 4TH ADDITION, by Hans Hagen Homes. Request for Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development District approval of five acres for multiple residential land use and preliminary plat for 32 townhouse units. Location: West of Center Way, north of Nesbitt Preserve Park. A public hearing. • Hans Hagen, Hans Hagen Homes, reviewed the request with the Commission for amendment to the request for development of Northmark 4th Addition. Previously, the project had been approved for four- plexes. Proponent was requesting a change to townhouse units for Planning Commission Minutes 11 May 9, 1983 • the development. Mr. Hagen pointed out that the proposed units would be five feet lower in height than the original plan. He stated that there were no objections to the recommendations of the Staff in the Staff Report. Acting Chairman Gartner asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. Al Schirmack, 11180 Lanewood Circle, asked why proponent was requesting the change in the plan. Mr. Hagen stated that market conditions indicated that townhouse units were more desired now than four-plex type units. Mr. Schirmack stated that extensive meetings had been held with the neighborhood regarding the height and location of one- and two-unit buildings. He questioned where the one- and two-unit buildings would be located. Mr. Hagen pointed out these areas to Mr. Schirmack and stated that the overall view of the units would be five feet lower from the area where Mr. Schirmack's home was located. Mr. Hagen stated that the values of the units would be between $65- 75,000 per unit. David MacIntosh, 11210 Lanewood Circle, asked about the exterior finish of the units. Mr. Hagen responded that the exterior material would consist of shingles with a cedar roofing material. Marhula asked about the drainage of the site overall and how the drainage plan affected the trail on the west side of the site. Upon review, it was pointed out that the drainage to the trail would require correction so as not to flow across the trail. Mr. Hagen stated that he would have the drainage corrected in that area. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett, to recommend approval of the Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development District approval of five acres for multiple residential land use for Northmark 4th Addition by Hans Hagen Homes, based on plans dated • April 7, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 6, 1983, and subject to correction of the storm water drainage to the trail along the west side of the site. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 9, 1983 MOTION 3• Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Northmark 4th Addition of five acres for 32 townhouse units by Hans Hagen Homes, based on plans dated April 7, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 6, 1983, subject to the correction of the storm water drainage to the trail along the west side of the site. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT A. Review of the Revised Tax Increment Financing Plan for Major Center Area • Staff presented a memorandum from the Finance Director, John Frane, asking the Planning Commission to consider affirmation of the MCA road system, stating that it was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Eden Prairie. Torjesen stated he still had objections to the overall concept of Tax Increment Financing adding that he felt it stimulated growth inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and further, that such decisions should be left to the general public. MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council, to affirm that the revised Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Major Center Area does conform to the Comprehensive Plan for development of the City of Eden Prairie. Motion carried--5-1-0 (Torjesen voted against) VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Torjesen, seconded by Johannes. Acting Chairman Gartner adjourned the meeting at 1 :05 a.m. • Respectfully submitted, Kate Karnas Planning Secretary