Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC February 15, 2000 ~ ()L) I...OU.tCV1 3-(.".-CV REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15,2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGENDA APPROVAL. ..................................................... 1 CONSENT AGENDA Approve street sweeping quotes <Astech Technologies, $60/Hour) ................ 1 Authorization to sell used equipment. , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Resolution R036-00 accepting feasibilityIIP99-35/Woodland Estates 2nd . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Resolution R037-00 accepting feasibilityIIP99-36/Sunridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Resolution R038-00 awarding bidlIP98-22A1Well-pumphouse #7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Approve purchase/Capital Improvement Plan software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Approve request for proposal for water system plan ............................ 1 Resolution R039-00 approving Change Order #1 (IP98-33IIP98-34IIP98-36) ........ 1 Release escrow/Woodland CreeklIP87-27 . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Release escrow/Woodland Creek 4th/IP93-31 ...,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . .. 1 Reduce escrow/Woodland Creek 5th/IP95-1 .................................. 1 Release escrow/Crown PointelIP93-17 ...................................... 2 Release escrow/Crown Pointe East 2ndlIP97 - 7 ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES· ................................................. 2 PRESENT A TIONINEW RESIDENT SURVEY BY DAVID MADSEN, EAGLE SCOUT . 2 GREY OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ............................... 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/RM TO RU and REZONINGIM-2 TO R-4/GREY OAKS Motion to table to second meeting in April ................................... 7 DISCUSS SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS .....,.,........................ 7 Motion to refer back to Planning and Zoning Commission for public hearing ........ 8 ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WEST OF PUBLIC WORKS Motion to refer the matter to the City Attorney for negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 MA YORlCOUNC1L INPUT New high school. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Density housing/Comprehensive Plan amendment for Grey Oaks .........,....... 8 City/county meeting .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS ................................................... 9 DISCIPLINARY ACTION............................,..................... 10 ADJOURNMENT ........................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 L,..tY~~""""'~i 3-~ -co CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 15,2000 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey, February 15,2000,7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Julie Johnson, Mike Knight, Ken Orttel Councilmember absent: Don Jacobson Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins City Engineer, Scott Erickson City Finance Director, Jim Dickinson Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg City Administrator, Richard Fursman Others AGENDA APPROVAL Remove Item 9, Appoint Street Supervisor, from the agenda. Motion by Knight, Seconded by Johnson, approval of the agenda as amended. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-Absent (Jacobson) vote. CONSENT AGENDA Item 10 Approve Street Sweeping Quotes (Astech Technologies Corp, $60/Hour) Item 11 Authorization to Sell Used Equipment Item 12 Accept Feasibility ReportlIP99-35/Woodland Estates 2nd Addition (Resolution R036-00) Item 13 Accept Feasibility ReportlIP99-36/Sunridge (Resolution R037-00) Item 14 Award Bid/IP98-22A/Well-Pumphouse #7 (Magney Construction, Inc., $374,400) (Resolution R038-00) Item 15 Approve Purchase/Capital Improvement Plan Software Item 16 Approve Request for Proposal for Water System Plan Item 17 Approve Change Order #1 (IP98-33) Cambridge Estates 2nd, (lP98-34) Chesterton Commons 3rd, (IP98-36) Chesterton Commons North (Resolution R039-00) Item 18 Release Escrow/Woodland CreeklIP87-27 Item 19 Release Escrow/Woodland Creek 4th AdditionlIP93-31 Item 20 Reduce Escrow/Woodland Creek 5th AdditionlIP95-1 Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 15, 2000 Page 2 (Consent Agenda, Continued) Item 21 Release Escrow/Crown PointelIP93-17 Item 22 Release Escrow/Crown Pointe East 2nd Addition/lP97-7 Motion by Johnson, Seconded by Orttel, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-Absent (Jacobson) vote. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES November 23, 1999, Special Closed Meeting: Correct as written. February 1, 2000, Regular Meeting: Page 1, Resident Forum relating to house to be abated, and Page 6, LuAnn Jackson: Correct address to 3542 142nd Avenue NW. Page 8, first paragraph under extension for Grey Oaks, last sentence, to read: "The final plat is on the February 15 Agenda provided everything is complete." Next paragraph, fifth line, insert "final" plat. Motion by Johnson, Seconded by Knight, to approve the Minutes with those corrections. Motion carried on a 3- Yes, I-No (Orttel in protest of having no official secretary taking minutes at the November 23 meeting), I-Absent (Jacobson) vote. PRESENTATION/NEW RESIDENT SURVEY BY DA VID MADSEN, EAGLE SCOUT David Madsen, Troop 406, explained he did a new resident survey as a part of his project for Eagle Scouts. On January 7, 8 and 15,379 surveys were hand delivered to residents in Andover, then picked up about an hour later. He had a 93.4 percent return. The results indicated: - The majority of people lived in Andover three years or less. - The majority expect to live in Andover for over 10 years. - Things liked most about Andover were location, rural character, quiet, schools, the physical environment. - Things liked least about Andover were access to services, cost of housing, schools, especially the new high school issue, location and police service. - The majority are young families in their early to mid-30s with children. - There is an overwhelming number of professionals with many earning over $105,000 per household. - Employed adults in the households were 473 full-time, 104 part-time, 19 retired, 18 unemployed. - The overwhelming response was the desire to see more restaurants in the City, then shopping such as clothing stores or a Daytons. - People ranked the desired recreational facilities as neighborhood parks, nature parks, a community recreation center, indoor/outdoor pool and indoor/outdoor ice arena. - 83 percent utilized the parks sometime in the past year. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 15, 2000 Page 3 (Presentation/New Resident Survey by David Madsen, Eagle Scout, Continued) - Many people used the Bunker Hills park and complained the City's parks do not have ID signs. - Many used the Lions Park in Coon Rapids - Responses on getting to a park included 117 walkers, 150 bikers and 129 driving. - The majority preferred the development of trails be for walkers and joggers, then for bicycles, then for roller bladers. - There was a 50-50 split on the construction of sidewalks to serve residential areas. - People envisioned Andover remaining a bedroom community, a good place to raise children. ' - Many wanted a new high school but not in their neighborhood. - In responding to the question on what would make Andover a better place, comments were the need for restaurants and shopping centers, liking the rural character and the quiet environment, enjoying the outdoors and spending time with families, developing more parks and marking them with signs. Overall he found people thought this is a good place to raise their children and they like the community. The Council commended Mr. Madsen for his project and thanked him for sharing the results. GREY OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Mr. Carlberg stated this item was placed on the Agenda at the request of Staff to discuss issues related to the Grey Oaks development. There have been a number of changes made to the plat since the Council approved the preliminary plat on March 2, 1999. Staff would like clear direction on how to proceed with those changes. The association documents, the changes to the preliminary plat and the development standards with the variances of the project need to be discussed. Attorney Hawkins stated he reviewed the association documents last week and spoke briefly with Mr. Finley, the attorney for the developer. It was his opinion the language in the documents does not meet the requirement of the approval of the PUD. Those documents were to include the language that the development fit in the requirements of the state and federal statutes regarding housing for the elderly. Those statutes allow the exemption to the state and federal law that prohibit age discrimination in housing and allows the City to establish criteria for people age 55 and older. Mr. Finley indicated to him that the developer would like criteria included in the development contract as opposed to the covenants themselves. He indicated he did not feel that would meet the intent of the City Council. He would look at any language they submit to put the criteria in the development contract with language that would enable the City to enforce the provisions of the contract, but to date he didn't believe the documents meet the requirements of the City Council. The covenants would give members of the association more say in the future. It was the consensus of the Council that the conditions and restrictions regarding the age restrictions be included in the covenant, not the development agreement. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 15, 2000 Page 4 (Grey Oaks PUD, Continued) Mr. Carlberg reported a major change in the preliminary plat is the additional 275 parking spaces which equates to 2.5 parking spaces per unit. In turn that resulted in a loss in some of the amenities and recreational features. The gazebo and some trails have been removed to be replaced with a parking lot, the putting green has been shifted and the green spaces have been reduced. Other major changes have been the shifting of units in Blocks 3 and 4 and the change in the drainage because of the increased parking. In the sixth review of this project, Staff noted some encroachments in the easements along the streets, including the tennis court. The City's policy is to keep structures out of the easement area. The green space areas in the multi-family area was shown on the preliminary plat of March 2, 1999, as 20 feet from the street. Nothing was approved in the development standard. In discussing the parking standards, Mr. Carlberg noted the Resolution states the parking shall be 2.5 spaces per unit except for those units marketed for seniors or empty nesters. It is up to the developer as to how many units and which ones are for seniors. If SO percent of the units are designated for senior, then the parking can reflect that. To date it is unclear how the SO percent parking requirements will be met. Staff needs to know what will be under the SO percent rule and how the developer will achieve that. Councilmember Orttel recalled the issue was how to achieve the SO-20 ratio on each building. He thought it was left open. He believed the original intent was the entire development would be over age 55 but occasionally there will be someone under that age. If that is the case, then the parking spots would be designed for seniors at 1.5 spaces per unit and the other 20 percent would be 2.5 spaces per unit. Councilmember Knight stated logically if the housing is to be SO-20 for seniors, then the parking is also SO-20. Councilmember Orttel stated his idea would be a majority of the people would be from ages 55 to 63, some will be under 55 and some will be older. The idea is that there will not be the younger population living there. A building for younger people should be avoided, though it wouldn't be quite as risky ifit is for sale. Councilmember Johnson stated she would be comfortable with the SO- 20 split in every building to get some of the green space back. Mayor McKelvey agreed to integrate the development rather than designate specific buildings for seniors. Council member Knight also agreed. Mr. Carlberg clarified SO percent of the 352 units will be age restricted. They are still trying to resolve how that will be done, but it will be up to the developer to tell the City how the parking will be met. The Council did approve a TIF district, but the developer has not pursued it. That would require an accounting regarding the SO-20 percent age restriction. Councilmember Knight asked how the SO-20 age restriction will be enforced. Attorney Hawkins stated the covenants of record on the property would be recorded and could be enforced by the association. The conditions of the Special Use Permit give the City the ability to enforce it in case the association does not. Mr. Carlberg noted there is a small maintenance shed on the western edge of the plat, and they will be looking at screening that area from the adjacent development to the west. Mayor McKelvey Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 15, 2000 Page 5 (Grey Oaks PUD, Continued) stated he would like to see the shed placed as far north as possible so people living across the street don't have to look into it. He stated once the plan has met the SO-20 percent age restriction requirement and how that will be designated, Staff will bring the plat back to the Council to approve that concept. He asked about the encroachments into the easements. The tennis court with the 12- foot fence encroaches the easement. The streets and some of the trails are public, but everything else is private. There must be language in the covenant that has guarantees to the City relating to the public areas. The City will have a trail along Hanson Boulevard. There is no trail system connecting Grey Oaks to Fox Hollow and down to the school except possibly for Hummingbird. There is no connection to the north or west, as it is a private development. The intent is to direct people toward Hanson Boulevard and then south to the school. Mr. Erickson stated they are reviewing the provisions for the additional runoff from the added parking stalls. Councilmember Orttel noted there are three versions of the development standards for this plat. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the differences between the versions. The development standard allows flexibility in developing commercial and housing in the district. If additional standards are desired, they must be reapproved by the Council. There are a number of things that were not approved originally. Some are very minor changes. Does the Council want to allow less than 20 feet of setback in the residential areas? Mayor McKelvey noted that if the parking is changed, many of the development standards may change also. He'd prefer everything be completed, then brought back before agreeing to any variances. The Council discussed the procedure of either bringing back the preliminary plat with proposed changes to the Councilor referring those changes back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was suggested a summary sheet showing the changes be prepared. At this point, the preference was to have the plat brought back to the City Council. Jerry Windschitl stated there is no restriction on who can own the units. According to the state and federal statutes, only one person has to be over age 55. Theoretically a unit could consist of a young family with four children and a grandparent, and that would meet the guidelines. When looking at parking, that needs to be considered. He felt the project could end up not being what the Council envisions by applying the federal and state laws only, with only one person in SO percent of the units over age 55. By averaging that type of housing, there is a different number regarding parking stalls per unit than by simply using people in unassisted care regardless of age. He explained the parking issue resulted from the two resolutions passed by the Council which conflict each other. Item 11 of the preliminary plat approval states the number of parking spaces shall be consistent with the use. Item 20 states all units not marketed for senior or empty nester shall provide a minimum parking of 2.5 parking spaces per unit. The ordinance has a definition for senior type housing but it has none for the empty nester. They have tried to provide for the worst case situation and tried to provide engineering and storm water runoff requirements for that worse case. They have approval from the Coon Creek Watershed for the changes. If the Council wants 1.5 parking spaces, they will show the remainder as potential future parking. Parking lots cost him money as well, but he didn't feel he has a choice but to provide at least the engineering for the maximum that someone might want. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 15, 2000 Page 6 (Grey Oaks PUD, Continued) Mr. Windschitl went on to explain the senior market is different than the empty nester market. Typically the empty nester market will be more affluent with more cars and still working. That increases their need for parking. He argued they are not pulling any amenities from the plat. At one time there was a spoke wheel trail system, but it was taken out at a Council meeting because of the crossing of the incoming street. Secondly, the Fire Department wanted a road to be able to get to the back side of the building. He stated the tennis court has not been moved and was shown in the same place on the original plat. The green space encroachments were not on their standards but they were on the approved plat. The day care, the two commercial lots and some of the condo units and all of the town homes have encroachments; and they were there when the plat was approved. He felt the development standards process is very confusing, as typically this type of document isn't needed on a PUD. Joe Finley, Attorney for Mr. Windschitl, understood the federal and state prohibit discrimination based on age, but has established a volunteer standard for senior housing if certain standards are met. He accused the Council of coercion by forcing the developer to establish rules to force people to discriminate based on age. Mr. Windschitl has consistently said he wants empty nester housing, and that is not under the state or federal statutes. Even on March 2, 1999, he said he wanted empty nester development. But the City imposed on him the requirement under state and federal housing statutes. He believed that violated the anti-coercion rules of the federal housing amendment. They prefer marketing to the empty nesters, who are typically 45 to 58 years old with no children. They can't rent to those people under the City's directive. He felt the provisions set by the Council may not really be what they want. Under the federal statute, only one person per unit must be over age 55, but the others can be much younger or even children; and the City may end up with exactly the population they don't want. By requiring the over age 55 restriction, the developer is not able to market to the empty nester market. They have proposed controlling the marketing of the units rather than regulating the age. Councilmember Johnson argued many of those age 45 and older still have children in schoo!. They could still move into this development under the 20 percent portion of the requirement. Mr. Finley agreed anybody can move into the remaining 20 percent of the units. Councilmember Orttel stated the original vision when this was first rezoned was for a development similar to the unassisted portion of The Farmstead. Now they are being told the developer never agreed to that. He agreed Mr. Windschitl had mentioned empty nester at times, but the Council had always said it was talking about senior housing. The concept of no restriction in this development is unacceptable to the Council and to the neighbors. Just leaving it to marketing provides no protection whatsoever and is unacceptable. This was a difficult package to work out starting with the rezoning, and he was offended that at this point the Council is accused of coercing the developer to meet the senior housing requirements. It was the result of many hours of negotiation in front of the public, feeling it was always done in good faith. The only reason the Council had agreed to the rezoning and to the proposed development is because it would be for seniors. He didn't think there was any misunderstanding of what the Council had intended. Mr. Finley is saying some seniors and mostly Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 15. 2000 Page 7 (Grey Oaks PUD, Continued) empty nesters. That is a drastic difference. Councilmember Knight agreed that from day one, the discussions have been on the type of housing. Many people in their 40s do have children, and he didn't see that as a definition of the empty nester. Mr. Windschitl argued the City's own documents talk about empty nesters. The property was rezoned with no restriction regarding senior or elderly housing. He also referenced several Planning Commission and Council meeting minutes dated back to December, 1997, where he discussed empty nester housing. He stated he never mislead anyone. The Council countered the provisions added on March 2, 1999, were the conditions added to meet the guarantees, the PUD also alluded to the senior housing. Attorney Hawkins stated the Resolutions clearly cite the conditions that have already been approved. The developer has until April 30 to submit documents that comply with that approval, as an extension was granted at the request of the developer. No further action was taken on this item. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/RMTO RU/GREY OAKS and REZONING/M-2 TO R-4/GREY OAKS Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Johnson, to table Items 2 and 3 until the second meeting in April. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-Absent (Jacobson) vote. DISCUSS SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Mr. Carlberg stated a variance request for a sign on Prairie Road several months ago prompted the Council to ask the Planning Commission to look at the sign requirements in residential districts. The City allows only four-foot square signs. The Commission looked at signs in excess of 16 square feet on hobby farm type settings. The idea is to allow the larger identification signs in agricultural settings, but not signs to advertise items for sale. The Planning Commission recommended the existing requirement remain the same for all platted parcels and unplatted parcels ofless than five acres. On unplatted parcels of five acres or greater, a maximum of 32-square feet of signage would be allowed. The Staff had proposed the maximum square footage of sign allowed on less than five acres remain at four square feet. On five acres but less than 20 acres, a maximum of 16 square feet would be allowed. On 20 acres or greater, 24 or 32 square feet of signage would be allowed. He asked for the Council's opinion before taking this to a public hearing. The Council noted many other locations allow very nice signs identifYing the farms. It was agreed these would not be commercial signs but identification signs regarding horse breeding, vegetable farms, orchards, sod farms, etc. The Council generally ab'I'eed to refer the item back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to schedule a public hearing with the recommendation by Staff on the graduated scale of four square feet on less than five acres, 16 square feet on five but less than 20 acres and 32 square feet on 20 acres of greater. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 15, 2000 Page 8 (Discuss Signs in Residential Districts, Continued) Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to so move. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-Absent (Jacobson) vote. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WEST OF PUBLIC WORKS Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to refer the matter to the City Attorney to negotiate the purchase of the property (1813 Crosstown Boulevard NW). Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-Absent (Jacobson) vote. The Council recessed at this time to hold an HRA meeting, 9:00; reconvened at 9:20 p.m. MA YOR/COUNCIL INPUT New high school - Mayor McKelvey reported because many of the school board members are sensitive to displacing people for a new high school, the board is back to considering the Eveland site off Crosstown Boulevard. The price is also more attractive if there is some sharing of the sports fields at Sunshine Park. Councilmember Orttel noted one of the greatest concerns of the residents in that area is the traffic. He suggested the Engineering Department look at the possibility of closing Crosstown to through traffic so traffic is not so intensive through there. He understood the county really doesn't want to keep Crosstown has a county road. Mayor McKelvey noted the City had discussed the possibility of an under or over pass in that vicinity in the past, and that would need serious consideration if Sunshine Park will be used by the school. An issue with the Eveland property is the Ag Preserve designation. The Council discussed the proposal and reasons other sites are no longer favorable, noting the school board will be discussing it again next Thursday. Density housing/Comprehensive Plan amendment for Grey Oaks - Mr. Carlberg explained the map before the Council relates to the proposed land exchange with Grey Oaks indicating other areas that may be appropriate for life-cycle housing. There are five or six Comprehensive Plan amendments prepared in case the Council wants to proceed with the exchange. Two sketch plans have already come in proposing town homes. Those may lend themselves well to the discussion relating to the Metropolitan Council and the City's Comprehensive Plan issues. Councilmember Knight stated the residents have expressed a concern that Eldorado Street would be extended through the wetland to CoRd 116. Mayor McKelvey stated the City was told at the time of the development that that would never happen. Mr. Carlberg explained one of the proposals is to extend Woodbine all the way to CoRd 116, but that would not be a major road. He asked for general direction on proceeding with the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Councilmember Orttel stated he was told that if the City goes Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 15. 2000 Page 9 (Mayor/Council Input, Continued) ahead with the rezoning of Grey Oaks, that the Metropolitan Council would not approve anything relating to the new high school, as they felt the City was trying to reduce multiple housing by doing so. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff did meet with the Metropolitan Council staff and discussed swapping other areas for multiple housing in lieu of the Grey Oaks area. The City is not looking to reduce the amount ofland for multiple housing. Councilmember Orttel was concerned that the notices for the public hearings were already out that the City is requesting high density zoning, and the Council didn't approve it nor even know about it. Who can go ahead with the rezoning without going through the Council? He was also concerned that an understanding was reached with the Metropolitan Council last week regarding multiple housing in the City's next Comprehensive Plan, but all of the areas talked about are coming in for multiple housing now under the current Plan. He's afraid nothing will be left for that housing in the future except in the northern portion of the MUSA, which is where the City does not want higher densities. Also, the Council had talked about changing the multiple zoning to allow only one or two units, and anything beyond that would be a negotiated density increase so the City gets what it wants out of the contract. He would not support unlimited multiple housing. Mr. Carlberg stated when the City Council initiated the rezoning of the Grey Oaks areas, the discussion was that some swap would have to occur in order for it to be approved. The proposal is before the Council now, though the hearings are already in process unless the Council directs otherwise. Mr. Fursman accepted responsibility for the gap in the process. The school issues and rezoning of Grey Oaks were evolving so rapidly, it has put the Council in an awkward position. The reason for bringing this up tonight is to provide information and get direction from the Council. The hearings can be canceled if more time is needed. After further discussion, the Council agreed the public hearings should proceed to obtain input from the residents, but the intent is to get feedback, nothing else. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff wi!! contact the Metropolitan Council staff to let them know what the City is doing. City!county meeting - Mayor McKelvey reminded the Council of the meeting with the county on February 24. There is also a school board meeting that evening, and he plans to be at that meeting instead of the county meeting. Councilmember Johnson stated she too would be at the school district meeting. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Motion by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, the payment of Claims. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-Absent (Jacobson) vote. Regular Andover Ci'Y Council Meeting Minutes - February 15, 2000 Page 10 The Council recessed at this time to meet in executive session with the City Attorney regarding a personnel matter, 9:5S; reconvened at 10:OS p.m. DISCIPLINARY ACTION Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Johnson, approving the Order (upholding the demotion of Raymond Sowada). DISCUSSION: Both Counci1member Orttel and Mayor McKelvey expressed deep regrets over the situation, stating the entire matter is very unfortunate. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-Absent (Jacobson) vote. Motion by Knight, Seconded by Johnson, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-Absent (Jacobson) vote. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,~~L Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary