Planning Commission - 04/14/2003 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY,APRIL 14, 2003 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Frantz Corneille, Randy Foote,
Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Fred Seymour, Paul
Sodt, Dave Steppat, Ray Stoelting, Bill Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Al Gray, City Engineer
Jane Hovind, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting,
Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Seymour, Sodt, Steppat, and Sutherland.
II. SWEARING IN OF NEW BOARD MEMBER
Michael Franzen, City Planner, swore William Sutherland in as a new Board member.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Steppat, second by Foote, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 9-0.
IV. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the March 24, 2003 Community Planning Board Meeting
Koenig stated on page 6, third paragraph, first sentence should read as a question.
"Koenig asked if legally...". Stoelting stated on the same page, first paragraph, last
sentence should read "He questioned how...."
MOTION by Steppat, second by Koenig, to approve the minutes of the March 24,
2003 Community Planning Board Meeting. Motion carried, 4-0
Brooks, Foote, Seymour, Sodt, and Sutherland abstained
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2003
Page 2
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. LIFETOUCH by Lifetouch. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 16.22 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.22 acres,
Zoning District Change From Commercial Regional to Office on 3.539 acres, Site
Plan Review on 16.22 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres into 1 lot and one
outlot. Location: Viking Drive.
Mike Perkins of Welsh Companies presented the project. He stated seven years ago
Lifetouch applied for the first phase of the project, a 132,000 square foot building
accommodating 350 employees which is now the corporate headquarters. Lifetouch
is the largest provider of church, school and retail pictures in the country. They are
now looking at the second phase of the development which will be larger than the
first with an additional 450 employees added to their workforce.
Steve Doughty of Pope Architects showed a display of the proposed building for
phase two which includes 157,500 square feet of expansion. He stated the new
building will connect via an enclosed walkway with the existing building and will
act as one building with a total footage of 290,705 square feet. The preliminary plat
combines lots 1 and 2. The proof of parking is on the east portion of the site.
He said they are planning for the entrance to the site to remain the same. In the
entrance area there will be a plaza, with a fountain and signage, which will be the
focus of the site. He asked for merge lanes to allow vehicles time to negotiate
speed, particularly the western section of Viking Drive.
Franzen stated staff recommends approval according to pages 5 and 6 of the staff
report. It's a work in progress in providing the best access, and site vision distance.
One of the first things staff did regarding the traffic situation was to have the Police
Department do a saturation patrol which involved warning and ticketing speeders.
They also posted a meter to tell drivers their speed. The curve of the road can't be
changed but staff has looked at the entrance area and changes to the landscaping.
The parking lot is screened according to code and it creates a problem because of
the blockage of site distance. An alternative to closing the entrance would be
modifying berms to improve site vision. Randy Newton, the City's Traffic
Engineer, looked at the merge lanes in relation to the design of a road. Merge lanes
are generally used on highways or freeways. Merge lanes are not appropriate on
city streets. The best solution would be to reevaluate the landscaping to improve
site vision. The City is open to Lifetouch having a traffic consultant look at the
traffic situation and determine other solutions.
Nelson asked about the main driveway. She stated she's aware of the issue with the
curve but without a main entrance it's going to look odd. She asked Lifetouch if
they looked at having that an in-only type entrance. She stated she thought turn
lanes may be a good alternative. She said the site won't look right without that main
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2003
Page 3
entrance. She asked whether there had been any thought about the entrance being
an in-only.
Gray responded that an in-only would be a major part of the solution and along with
correcting the site distance. It might be a good idea to have an independent traffic
consultant to look at the issues and determine options. He said there may be a
tendency for employees to favor certain egress patterns if there are site distance
issues. He asked whether Lifetouch was aware as to how their employees felt about
the entrance area.
Perkins responded he was unaware of what employees thought but that Lifetouch
invested quite a bit into the entrance. The concern they have is the speed of the cars
coming around the curve, this is the crux of the problem and how to control the
speed of traffic is an issue.
Stoelting asked if modification of berms and landscaping would be acceptable.
Perkins responded that is an option but traffic and safety are the primary concerns.
One means to deal with this may be a stop sign.
Steppat stated there will be a larger number of employees with the expansion and
that will create more traffic. He asked staff if there will be any changes in the
timing of the lights on Viking Drive.
Gray responded the intersection of Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive will have
more signal coordination and timing through that area. The major problem is the
backup due to regional highways and freeways such as Highway 169 and I-494.
There will be additional linking of traffic signals. Hopefully, improvements to 169
and 494 should help reduce some of the traffic in our system. But there will always
be peak hours in the morning and afternoon with heavier levels of traffic.
Companies, including Lifetouch, can adjust employee hours and encourage car
pools and transit whenever possible. The future of traffic controls lies in a number
of those types of tools.
Steppat asked if Lifetouch offers flexible scheduling Perkins responded Lifetouch
has quite a few programs for their employees. As part of the project they are
working with the I-494 corridor, car pooling and vans. Lifetouch is trying to
minimize the number of cars using the site.
Sodt asked how much visitor or public traffic Lifetouch has coming to the
headquarters. He said he thought Lifetouch goes out to its customers, consequently,
it would be the employees using entrances. Perkins responded that there is very
little public traffic and some vendors. Sodt stated it appeared a horseshoe entrance
might work well.
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2003
Page 4
Doughty stated it would be important to look at the options for the entrance. The
owner wants to retain the entrance. It's the west area that's problem due to the curve
in the road.
Sodt stated according to Lifetouch they need 500 spaces, staff quotes 1,042. He
asked what proof of parking is and why there was such a disparity. Perkins
responded that 372 is currently working well and 500 spaces will be required when
the building is completed. So there will be 500 stalls. The surface to the east will
be for proof of parking and will be seeded and available if needed in the future.
Sodt asked about drainage into Lake Smetana. He said Lifetouch said it wouldn't
drain into the lake but it looks as though it's sloped to go in that direction. Doughty
responded there will be storm sewer piping that will drain into the existing storm
water pond to the east. The area to the east will be construction parking during the
development of the site. There will be shuttles for employees so they can avoid the
construction.
Seymour said it seems they should explore eliminating the main entrance but
maintain the showcase integrity. He asked if signage which includes three different
signs meets the code. Franzen responded that at this point in the project, staff
doesn't look that closely at signage. The signs aren't designed until building plans
are presented. They are allowed to have signs on all four sides of the building.
Brooks asked if there was an accident count for this area from the Police
Department to determine if there are problems in that area with traffic. Franzen
responded police did a saturation study, gave warning and speeding tickets but he is
unaware of accidents in that area. Brooks stated he was concerned about that and if
there were accidents it might make a difference as to how to approach the traffic
situation. He stated he could see the reason for Lieftouch to want to maintain the
entrance. He stated it's important to look at other alternatives. The proof of parking
is an important issue. Since the City never knows who the next user of that site
might be, the additional parking may be needed in the future.
Foote agreed that the main entrance should be left. He said when he was traveling
in Colorado they had merge lanes which worked very well. He stated he thought the
site visibility would be improved with the landscaping and berms reduced.
Koenig asked Fox to address the sidewalk issue. She asked if there had been a
decision on the timing of that. Fox responded the sidewalks will be concurrent with
the construction of the project; the sidewalk should be done as soon as possible.
Eventually the trail along the lake will be connected to the sidewalk. Koenig asked
if the Board would need to recommend that as a part of the motion. Fox responded
they would. Koenig asked about buffering for wetlands and easements. Franzen
responded that there is an ordinance that requires the establishment of a
conservation easement. There are two ways to look at it. The easement could be
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2003
Page 5
dedicated to the city or the owner may choose to give the property to the city in the
future. The City has an obligation to protect the wetland buffers. It would be their
choice in how they do that. Koenig asked that when the Board makes a
recommendation should it include both those items.
Sodt stated he was not taking issue with the setback. Lake Smetana is controlled by
the DNR. He asked if they had a voice in granting the waivers. Franzen responded
the DNR can make comments regarding it and the City has not heard back from the
DNR regarding this. The DNR does not have approval authority. Sodt stated that
he was surprised that code states a maximum of 30 foot height for buildings and
with this project, the first building is 65 feet and the new one will be 90 feet.
Franzen responded that the code was written with areas for residents, but there are
appropriate locations for taller buildings along interstates and highways.
Koenig stated the 15 acre wooded hill is part of the reason for the variance and
setback. She asked if that could have something to do with building height too.
Franzen responded that in 1984 there was a master plan for 2 million square feet of
retail and commercial office along Prairie Center Drive bordered by Golden
Triangle Drive and along the north side of I-494 the City was trying to determine
how to maintain the natural features. The Lifetouch site consisted of four car
dealerships in 1973. The west end didn't have any trees and it made sense to have
tall buildings. On the east side there was wetland and mature oak trees.
Doughty stated that they have asked for a delay in building the sidewalk and
assume the assessment for the sidewalk at a later date.
Gray said that it is a challenge for the City which would have to assess it and it
would be difficult to do a cost estimate for that. He said the sidewalk should be
timed with their construction. The question is how do we decide what is workable
in an assessment agreement. Generally, the City avoids assessment agreements for
these kinds of projects.
Doughty stated the existing neighbors to the east will be assessed at one point and
Lifetouch would like to wait until they are assessed and do it at that time. Gray
responded there are no plans for that area now and they will need to do the sidewalk
during the construction phase.
Brooks asked Gray if he sees any challenges in aligning the sidewalk a few years
from now. Gray responded Lifetouch can deal with the design project and work it
into their landscaping plan. The challenge is going to be aligning the sidewalk when
the other sites are developed. It's easier to resolve these problems when it's done
privately rather than the City doing it.
Brooks stated it reduces the challenges we have to get through and it's easier to
assess three projects. Fox stated in these types of situations the City has asked
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2003
Page 6
people to grade-in the sidewalk area. If they wait to do it and a lot of improvements
are made, when the city comes in to put in a trail or sidewalk, we're faced with
grading and relocation issues. A halfway point would be to grade it and when the
City is ready to put in and Lifetouch would pay for the assessments.
Perkins stated they don't have plans for the sidewalk. Lifetouch is being asked to do
something that no one else has been asked to do. The sidewalk would go from one
edge of the property to the other edge of the property. If the sidewalk system is built
up to Valley View it encompass a large area. If it's built now, no one else will have
access to it. It doesn't' make sense. Lifetouch believes that when The City is ready
to assess all the properties equally then they will do it. Sodt stated that he couldn't
understand arguments about design changes and what changes need to be made
currently to accommodate the sidewalk. Doughty responded it is the existing light
and hydrant that would be affected.
Brooks stated that regarding the sidewalk it's seems reasonable to develop a plan for
grading that both the City and Lifetouch can agree on and do the improvements
later. It has to get started at some point.
Koenig asked Doughty to address the grading issue. Doughty replied that it would
be an acceptable option since they will be looking at doing some grading. The area
could be rough graded and prepared for a sidewalk.
Koenig asked if this is acceptable to the City. Fox responded that would be fine but
they also need to address the question of assessments. They could grade it in but
the assessment would go to Lifetouch for that portion of the sidewalk. The
assessment would go for that portion of the sidewalk; they would be responsible for
the linear footage.
Steppat stated that there are two issues. One is traffic and the other the sidewalk.
Improving the site by lowering berms and changing landscaping could affect the
location of the sidewalk. It would make sense to do the grading of the sidewalk at
the same time. He asked Lifetouch if they would be amenable to staff s suggestion
to hire a traffic consultant.
Stoelting responded that the motion would be worded such that the sidewalk
solution be agreed to by Lifetouch and City staff. Koenig asked if staff was
comfortable with that, they responded they were.
Sodt asked if it should be worded that the sidewalk not be built now. Stoelting
responded the staff needs to work it out with the proponent.
MOTION by Nelson, second by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 9-0.
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2003
Page 7
Koenig stated the appropriate wetland buffer zone should be maintained per City
ordinance and the wetland be put in a conservation easement. Sodt stated he likes
the project but is reluctant to approve a project with a dangerous entrance and
would like to see a better design and a traffic solution or show the City Council a
plan as to why it would not be a good idea. Brooks stated he doesn't have a
problem approving the project but has a hard time asking a proponent to spend the
money to redesign the existing entrance. Koenig agreed with Brooks. Steppat
stated that the entrance is acceptable and he agreed he couldn't see asking them to
come up with a new plan but he said they do need to come up with a plan to
accommodate traffic. Sodt stated that Lifetouch hasn't given the Board enough of a
reason for the entrance to remain. Foote stated that he agreed with Brooks that he
doesn't want them to redesign it and he likes the entrance as it is. Koenig stated
that she wants the city staff to be comfortable with the assessment issue and the
timing of sidewalk construction. Koenig asked if Lifetouch would be agreeable to
working though this with staff and coming back to address the Board again.
Franzen stated the Board has two choices. They can approve the project with the
recommendation to work the details out before the May 6 City Council meeting.
The second option is to continue the item, publish it for the May 6 City Council
meeting, so Lifetouch can stay on their construction schedule, and see what they
can accomplish by the April 28 Planning Board meeting
Brooks stated he didn't believe the Board needs to see the project again. The two
main issues should be resolved between staff and the proponent and shouldn't have
to come back.
Koenig asked Lifetouch about coming back before the Board. Doughty responded
their construction schedule is very tight. Koenig asked about them coming back
before the Board in two weeks and whether that would be feasible. Doughty stated
the modifications on the berming might take time. Stoelting stated you would work
with staff to come up with appropriate solutions. If you are willing to accept our
suggestions you need to revisit these problems with the City staff and come back to
share the modifications with us.
Stoelting asked staff if they continued the project to the next meeting when they
would go in front of City Council. Franzen replied if it was continued without
publishing for May 6, they would be in front of the Council in June. Stoelting said
the Board's preference seems to be to come back in a couple weeks.
Koenig stated the Board needs something more definitive on the issues before
sending it to the City Council.
MOTION by Nelson, second by Sutherland to recommend approval of a Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 16.22 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 16.22 acres, Zoning District Change From Commercial
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2003
Page 8
Regional to Office on 3.539 acres, Site Plan Review on 16.22 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres into 1 lot and one outlot, based on plans dated April
11, 2003, subject to the recommendations of the staff report prior to City Council a)
stays as is, reducing berms and relocating trees, b) redesign the main road entrance
allowing for berm and landscape redesign, c) take out the words "eliminate merge
lane" and in its place have "grant an easement for and provide sidewalk along
Viking Drive," d) take out the wording "eliminate one driveway entrance" and
instead have it say "right of conservation easement along Bryant Lake for a required
buffer zone." Vote: — Brooks — ney, Foote -ney, Koenig - ney, Nelson aye,
Seymour - ney, Sodt - ney, Steppat - ney, Stoelting - ney, and Sutherland aye.
Motion failed, 7 ney, 2 aye.
MOTION by Koenig, second by Foote to recommend a continuance to the April
28, 2003, meeting. Vote: Brooks - aye, Foote - aye, Koenig - aye, Nelson - aye,
Seymour - aye, Sodt - aye, Steppat - aye, Stoelting aye, and Sutherland - aye.
Motion carried, 9-0.
Nelson asked if staff needs to be directed to do what's necessary for the
continuance. Franzen stated the Board should direct staff to send a notice to the
newspaper for the May 6 Council meeting. These are things we've done before
when the Board feels details need to be resolved while trying to accommodate the
developer's schedule.
B. WEDDING DAY JEWELERS by Marquis Jewelers. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 0.68 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 0.68 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial-
Regional-Service Zoning District on 0.68 acres, and Site Plan Review on 0.68
acres. Location: 8320 Crystal View Road.
Ken Piper with Tanek Architects presented the project. He stated that the building
they are considering has had a number of restaurant uses and they would like to
convert the use from restaurant to retail. He described the building and signage.
Franzen stated that the project meets all city requirements and staff recommends
approval.
Brooks said he liked the design of the building but would like to know what
discussion they have had regarding the neighbors on either side of you and how do
you expect this will be successful in drawing traffic in. Piper responded that they
have been in similar locations and Wedding Day Jewelers is a destination however
the building will be positioned in such a way to provide name recognition. It's
visibility will bring people there. The jewelry business has very little traffic in and
out. Brooks asked if Franzen has any thoughts about the building and the location in
this area.
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2003
Page 9
Franzen responded that this is a business decision. The high traffic volumes on 212
and the success of the Eden Prairie Mall are reasons they selected the site.
Seymour asked it staff could explain the easement for the sidewalk along 212. Fox
responded that 212 is a state highway and the City doesn't control the right-of-way.
The high density of residential development is going to require a major trail or
sidewalk project throughout the commercial area.
MOTION by Sodt, second by Steppat, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 9-0.
MOTION by Sodt, second by Koenig to recommend approval of a Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 0.68 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 0.68 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial-
Regional-Service Zoning District on 0.68 acres, and Site Plan Review on 0.68
acres, based on plans dated April 4, 2003, subject to the recommendations of the
staff report dated April 11, 2003, to the City Council. MOTION carried, 9-0.
C. INGRAM PROPERTY by Todd Ingram. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 5.19 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers on 5.19 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.19 acres,
and Preliminary Plat of 5.19 acres into 10 lots and road right-of-way. Location:
9500 Stable Path.
Darrin Laberee presented the project. He stated Scott Carlston will be involved in
the project so that it blends well with his Stonegate project. Mr. Ingram wants to
maintain the current structure. Six lots to the east will be constructed, utilities and
road will be put in. There are four waivers and the reason for granting the waivers
is to permit the proposed road to align opposite the intersection of Stable Path at
Geisler Road, there is no feasible way to connect the cul de sac, the wetland buffer
is the same as the project to the north and the accessory structures are temporary.
Franzen stated that staff report calls for approval according to recommendations on
page 4 and 5 on the staff report. The project will be phased in over a two year
period.
Koenig stated she thinks it's a good project and will be a good addition. She was
pleased that there was not going to be too much tree loss with the project.
MOTION by Sodt, second by Nelson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried,
9-0.
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Nelson, recommend approval of a Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 5.19 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on 5.19 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2003
Page 10
R1-13.5 on 5.19 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 5.19 acres into 10 lots and road
right-of-way, based on plans dated April 10, 2003, subject to the recommendations
of the staff report dated April 11, 2003, to the City Council. Motion carried, 9-0.
D. WILLIAM A. SMALL PROPERTY by The Pemtom Land Company. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5 acres. Location: 16525
Beverly Drive.
Herbst stated this project is a joint venture with Small and Pemtom. In 1978 a
concept plan was proposed for this property, there were 10 - five acre lots. This
project consists of nine lots on the 5 acres. Small's existing home will remain on site
as a home in the new development. Approximately 2.7 acres of the property will
drain to the west end of the property, the remaining 6.1 acres will drain to the
northeast corner of the property and discharge into an existing storm sewer system.
A neighborhood meeting was held to inform neighbors to the property of the project.
Although sewer and water is not in place yet, a concept plan is anticipated.
Franzen stated that this is the first project the Board has looked at that is concept
only. Although this plan meets R1-13.5 zoning requirements the property cannot be
rezoned until City sewer and water are available. To the west it's planned low
density residential. There is a mix of townhouse and single family in the east. Staff
is recommending approval with two conditions. Prior to any development, grading,
or construction on the property, municipal sewer and water must be extended to
serve the property. Prior to any grading, development, or construction on the
property, the proponent will need to submit rezoning and development plans for
review and approval by the Community Planning Board and City Council.
Nelson asked staff about street A in the plans and whether that will be connecting
with another street or will it be a dead end as it shows. Gray responded there would
be a street connection.
Koenig asked if we approved the PUD and they're guessing at 49% tree loss. Does
that mean we're committed to that number? Franzen responded that we are not
obligated to the exact sizes of lots, tree loss, etc. The Board will have another chance
to review those issues when a plan is submitted for rezoning.
Koenig asked whether five and ten acre lots are all going to be R1-13.5 in the future.
Franzen responded yes, the land is guided for 2.5 units per acre and the likely zoning
will be R1-13.5. On the other hand, we may not want to preclude other possibilities
such as another Hennepin Village. Hennepin Village benefited the City by its
dedication of land and creek corridor, and it's use of special historical architecture.
Koenig asked if this would be setting a precedent? Franzen responded if something
is allowed by ordinance, it's not setting a precedence.
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2003
Page 11
Sodt commented that he recalled when Hennepin Village was up before the Board
there was a lot of unhappy residents. He stated he did not like the concept. He said
it's out of character with property to the west with very large lots and nice homes.
He stated in looking at the proposal he can't see a reason not to approve it, but he
just doesn't like it. If there was even one waiver on this property, he would vote
against it.
Koenig stated she hates to see the last large lots in Eden Prairie disappear.
Nelson stated she likes that it is being proposed for single family homes.
Steppat agreed the large lots are nice but need to have a certain number of units to
pay for sewer and water. It fits in well with the city as a whole.
Foote stated he agreed with Nelson about the single family lots.
MOTION by Steppat, second by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 9-0.
MOTION by Brooks, second by Steppat, to recommend approval of a Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 5 acres, based on plans dated April 10, 2003,
subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated April 11, 2003, to the City
Council. MOTION carried, 9-0.
VII. MEMBERS REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
Brooks asked about landscaping of new areas. Franzen stated landscape bond is required. Fox
responded that they have one year from closing.
X. PLANNERS'REPORTS
A. Ruby Tuesday Update SW Station
Franzen presented plans for Ruby Tuesday. He said there is a new plan to change
the shape of the outdoor seating. The entrance will move more towards the middle.
Unless the Board sees the need for other changes, staff will be proceeding with the
changes administrively.
Nelson asked when the rest of the restaurants are going to be built? Franzen stated
Culvers is under construction. They are putting footings in for retail buildings.
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2003
Page 12
Ruby Tuesday will be started in June. Krispy Kreme is talking to building
inspections for a foundation permit.
B. Community Planning Board Meeting Cancelled May 26th—Memorial Day
Franzen stated the next meeting is May 12. The Community Planning Board
meeting for May 26 is cancelled as it is Memorial Day. The first meeting in June is
the 9th.
C. Joint Planning Board City Council Meeting Golden Triangle Study
Franzen said there is a Joint Planning Board/City Council meeting on May 15th At
this meeting there will be a report of findings as to the Golden Triangle study. This
study is of value to the City and the traffic problems inherent in the Golden Triangle
area. The study looked at road improvements, changes in land use, and cost to the
public.
D. Summer Vacations
Franzen stated that they Board should let staff know their vacation plans so that a
quorum is available for meetings.
Stoelting asked the best procedure to let Franzen know if they are not going to make
it to the meetings. Franzen stated it would be best to let staff know at least two
weeks ahead of time to determine if there will not be a quorum. Occasionally
things come up and they may need to continue items to another meeting. The
reason we went from seven members to nine on the Community Planning Board has
made it easier to have a quorum.
E. Awards Banquet
Franzen reminded the Board members of the awards banquet on April 23 and to get
their RSVPs in soon.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Nelson, second by Sodt to adjourn. Motion carried, 9-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.