Loading...
041508 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 15 APRIL 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Gagne called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Acting Chair Gagne; Commissioners Geng, Gniffke, Hutchins, Ruoff, and Vilett; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: Chair Schmitt APPROVAL OF MINUTES ? 1 April 2008 Hutchins moved, Ruoff seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 1 April 2008 as presented. Motion passed 4/0/2 with Gagne and Geng abstaining due to their absence at the meeting. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING –. C.U.P. – CITY HALL BUILDING ADDITION Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: 5755 Country Club Road Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. Director Nielsen stated because he would not be attending the April 28, 2008, City Council meeting he would ask the item be placed on the May 12, 2008, meeting agenda. Council Liaison Woodruff suggested it be placed on the April 28, 2008, agenda so the request could be considered and if approved the City could initiate the bidding process. Director Nielsen stated the City had selected Collaborative Design Group, an architectural firm, to prepare plans for the renovation of the Shorewood City Hall building, located at 5755 Country Club Road. The building was constructed in 1981 and it was expanded to its current size during the mid 1980s.The building was located on the 9.86-acre Badger Field complex which was zoned R-1C, Single- Family Residential. The City proposed adding approximately 1236 square feet of new space as part of a renovation project. Because governmental buildings were conditional uses in residential districts, the City had requested a revision to its current conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for the project. Nielsen explained the existing structure contained approximately 5046 square feet of floor area, not including the basement area. The basement area was not ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible, and it was currently used for dead storage. That usage would remain the same after the renovation. The proposed renovation would include a 12-foot by 35-foot extension on the rear of the building and a 24-foot by 34-foot extension on the north side of the building. The extension on the north CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 April 2008 Page 2 of 10 side of the building would allow for the Council Chambers to remain on site. A new entry would also be added on the north side. He reviewed the site plan depicting the additions. He noted that the setback requirements would be satisfied. Nielsen then explained the renovation would make the existing space more functional. The conference room, common work space and employee break room would be enlarged somewhat. The restrooms would also be enlarged to comply with current ADA standards. Mechanical systems would be updated for greater efficiency and site drainage would be improved. The exterior of the building would be updated considerably. Nielsen stated the City held a public meeting on Saturday, April 12, 2008, to provide the public an opportunity to review the proposed renovation plan and comment on it. The meeting was attended by the Councilmembers, two staff members, and two representatives from Collaborative Design Group (CDG). The meeting was not well attended by the public. One suggestion that did come out at the meeting was to attempt to incorporate more glass on the north side of the building which CDC was going to try and do. Nielsen reviewed how the proposed renovation would comply with the conditions set forth in Section 1201.11 Subd. 4. of the City’s Zoning Code for a governmental building in a residential zoning district. 1. The property was relatively well screened and landscaped where it abutted residential uses. The thick vegetation located south of the building should be preserved during construction. While the west elevation did not abut a residential use, it did face the street. Therefore, landscaping should be done on the west side of the building to soften and break up the mass of the structure. 2. The project was considered to be consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. The Badger Field property was designated for public use. 3. The City Hall building, including its proposed expansion was not incompatible with surrounding uses. In fact the office use of the property served as a transition between the commercial areas to the north and west and to the residential areas to the south and east. 4. The existence of City Hall had not depreciated the value of the surrounding area. 5. The proposed renovation, including the expansion, would have no adverse impact on City services (i.e. utilities, police or fire). Nielsen stated based on the preceding, Staff recommended approval of the revision to the City’s current conditional use permit for the City Hall renovation project, subject to a landscape plan being developed for the west side of the building. Nielsen noted that he had received a call from a property owner who had sued the City many years ago, along with some of his neighbors, when the City had proposed a different expansion which did not materialize. The property owner had indicated he would have no issue with the proposed expansion as he would not be able to see it. Council Liaison Woodruff requested the opportunity to speak for the applicant. He stated he wanted to provide background on the project. A subcommittee had been established to work with CDG. The subcommittee had conducted several meetings to date. Council had discussed the renovation plan at two work sessions. During the last discussion representatives from CDG reviewed the proposed floor plan and CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 April 2008 Page 3 of 10 the finishes. He then stated landscaping of the property would not be done until the spring of 2009, and some type of green landscaping (e.g. rain gardens) would likely be considered. He commented that from his perspective there was Council consensus to treat the furniture component of the project as a separate project; the City had furniture so there was no urgent need to address that right away. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gagne opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. The following comments and clarifications were made by Council Liaison Woodruff and Director Nielsen in response to questions from the Planning Commissioners. The plan was to solicit construction bids for the project during May 2008. The renovation ? was planned to be substantially completed in October 2008, but that did not imply that all of the finishing work would be done. Landscaping, furniture replacement, and signage would be completed in 2009. The proposed change to have more windows for openness on the north side of the ? building was well received. The hallway located next to the server room was an ADA compliant ramp and would ? allow access to the new Council Chambers. There would be a window in the server room to allow a video recorder a view of the ? Council Chambers. The double doors in the Council Chambers were closet doors. ? An exact budget had not been agreed upon, but CDG stated they thought the renovations ? costs would be in the $850,000 range. The proposed public coat closet was smaller than the existing one, but the existing one ? was not used frequently. The City was obligated to go through a bidding process for the project and to take the ? lowest responsible bid. Three-quarter inch diameter holes had been drilled in the exterior walls, and a lighted ? borescope had been used to look inside the wall cavities and under the siding. In one location the siding was pulled back to exposing the sheathing. In another location an approximately 4 by 5 inch hole was cut allowing full access to the wall cavity. Several horizontal wood batten trims covering the window sills were removed. No moisture or ice was visible in the inspections. With regard to findings, there didn’t appear to be any damage behind the window sill structure. The sill plate resting on top of the basement wall on one corner was deteriorated; it was likely the result of water coming from below the plate because it was located close to grade. In order to mitigate the drainage issues, excavation would be done around three sides of ? the structure, and the drain tile would be reestablished along with some granular fill to help take water away from the structure. The water below the structure could not be controlled. The drainage issues could be reduced but there was no guarantee they would be eliminated. The renovation effort would be quite disruptive to Staff. ? Acting Administrator Brown clarified that he had very recently received an email from CDG stating CDC had become aware that the City had adopted the updates to the Minnesota State Fire Code which would require the City to install a sprinkler system in the building. The cost to do so would be approximately $75,000 and that cost was not included in the $850,000 cost estimate. Staff recommended the City adheres to its own rules and should not apply for an exception. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 April 2008 Page 4 of 10 Gniffke moved, Geng seconded, recommending approval of a revision to the City’s current conditional use permit for the City Hall building for a renovation project, subject to a landscape plan being developed for the west side of the building. Motion passed 6/0. Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing at 7:29 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING –. C.U.P. AMENDMENT (continued from 1 April 2008) Applicant: Minnetonka School District 276 Location: Minnewashta Elementary – 26350 Smithtown Road Acting Chair Gagne re-opened the Public Hearing at 7:29 P.M. (which was continued from 1 April 2008). Director Nielsen stated the public hearing for the Minnewashta Elementary School conditional use permit was continued from the 1 April 2008 Planning Commission meeting to this meeting pending the applicant addressed issues raised in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated 26 March 2008 and in the Planning st Director’s memorandum dated 27 March 2008. Since the April 1 meeting Staff and Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Fire Inspector Lee Berglund had met with the applicant’s engineer to go over the concerns. With regard to the front parking lot which was proposed for total redesign, Nielsen explained the initial plan did not conform to the City’s Zoning Code requirements. The applicant had redesigned the parking lot to comply with the dimensional requirements set forth in the Code. The revised plan for the parking lot would accommodate an 8-foot by 33-foot ladder fire truck as requested by Fire Inspector Berglund. The revised plan also showed the driveway entries had been widened to 20 feet to meet Fire Code requirements. With regard to the elimination of the drop-off area in the front of the building, the revised plan proposed restricting the northernmost 11 parking spaces to parking after 9:00 A.M. It was suggested there be a similar no parking restriction during the afternoon student pick-up time. The revised plan would result in increasing the number of parking spaces to 42 (including those in the 11-space drop-off are) from 26. With regard to special event / overflow parking, Nielsen stated his 27 March 2008 report explained the paved playground area on the north side of the building was intended to be used for overflow parking for special events. A gate across the access to the driveway was to be opened for the special events, and visitors were to be directed to the overflow area. The playground area did get used for overflow parking; however, due to lack of stripping and supervision it was extremely inefficient. He noted the driveway leading to the north side of the building was used for parking during the day. Because that driveway served as fire access, the driveway should be posted as “Fire Lane – No Parking”. The applicant had recently provided a special event parking plan which proposed to use the angled bus parking area more efficiently. Because that area could not be striped as shown on the special event parking plan, it would be difficult to achieve the 30 spaces shown on the plan even with sufficient supervision. Nielsen stated based on the additional parking that would be provided in the revised front parking lot plan and on the special event parking plan Staff thought there could be sufficient parking for the Phase 1 expansion. Nielsen related that the applicant had again stated that school officials would have to provide parking lot supervision for special event parking. He stated Staff recommended the School District provide a detailed written plan outlining when supervision would be provided, how parking would be managed, and who would do the supervision (volunteers or school personnel). The recommended written plan should also include an educational/notice component which would remind parents to carpool where possible, and advise them that parking restrictions near the school would be enforced. That plan should be monitored for at least one full school year before any consideration would be given for the Phase 2 expansion. The applicant was requested to provide a calendar of special events for that purpose. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 April 2008 Page 5 of 10 Nielsen stated Staff was skeptical the Phase 2 expansion could be done without additional parking being added. He related that the School District had told its consultant that it would not sacrifice the ball field and play area on the north side of the building to add more parking. Mike Condon, the Supervisor for Buildings and Grounds for the Minnetonka School District, stated he and Cliff Buhman, with INSPEC (the consulting engineering firm representing the Minnetonka School District) were present this evening. Mr. Condon stated the District wanted to be good neighbors to residents in the Minnewashta Elementary School area. He commented that he had met with Fire Inspector Berglund to discuss concerns about parking. He explained that with the Phase 1 expansion the front parking lot would be expanded to increase the number of parking spaces by 20. On the west parking lot the District was anticipating having multiple striping plans which would be well posted; for example red could be for fire, green could be for special events, blue could be fore activities, and white could be for regular parking. It would be difficult to have multiple striping plans for the overflow parking area because of the playground area; that area would require very strict supervision. The multiple striping plans on the west parking lot would account for the addition of 62 parking spaces. That would equate to 82 more parking spaces for special events then there currently were. He cautioned that would not eliminate parking on the side of the streets and grass for special events for the entire school population and their parents. He explained that for some school areas the District worked out an early notification system with the local police department; the police department would go to the area prior to those very large events and bag the “Fire Lane – No Parking” signs and it would allow the public to park on the streets. Mr. Buhman thanked Director Nielsen, Engineer Landini, and Fire Inspector Berglund for their assistance. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gagne opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Director Nielsen stated School staff would park in the spaces in front of the drop-off area. Mr. Condon stated the northernmost 11 parking spaces in the front parking lot that were would be designated no parking during drop-off and pick-up times during regular school days would be used for visitor parking during the other times. In response to another question from Hutchins, Nielsen clarified that bus drop-off was on the west side of the building. Commissioner Ruoff stated that there was approximately a 15-minute window during the morning drop- off and afternoon pick-up time periods when it was very congested and during that time the attendants worked diligently to keep the traffic flowing. Traffic was also congested when there were the very large school events which did not happen that frequently. During the times where there were multiple non- school related sporting events traffic congestion occurred with regularity. The road which went past the water tower would have cars parked on it to the point where a single car could not get through because there would be cars parked on both sides of that road. Vehicles also would be double parked off the road near the area where there was a slope on the property. He commented about a situation last summer when a storm developed during the time of various sporting events and it turned into a precarious situation when all the people tried to get to their vehicles and leave. Director Nielsen suggested maybe the park and recreation coordinators for that property should schedule events so there would be less overlap. He stated the coordinators for the City were diligent about minimizing the overlap of events and allowing sufficient time between the events. Commissioner Ruoff suggested the coordinators do some form of public notification about parking regulations for events. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 April 2008 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Condon suggested both sides of the road that went past the water tower should be posted “Fire Lane – No Parking”. In response to a comment from Acting Chair Gagne, Director Nielsen clarified the Fire Inspector had more authority than the police to issue parking tickets for parking in fire lanes. Acting Chair Gagne suggested bagging the no parking signs during the peak event times. He stated the City made the decision to construct streets to narrow to have on street parking; therefore, maybe the City should try and be more accommodating. He then stated he did not think it would be right to lose the children’s play area. Commissioner Gniffke stated during the public hearing on 1 April 2008 there were issues other than parking that were discussed and he wondered if they had been addressed. Director Nielsen stated with regard to landscaping the revised plan showed additional width and it depicted a new sidewalk that would circle the east side of the parking area. The applicant still needed to provide a detailed landscaping plan. He explained the enlarged NURP pond would accommodate the additional storm water runoff resulting from both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 expansions as well as the relocation of the driveway. If additional parking was required for the Phase 2 expansion the NURP pond may have to be increased again. The applicant had submitted an overall plan as requested. Mr. Buhman clarified the calculations used to determine the increased size for NURP pond included a significant factor for safety; approximately 3,000 square feet would be added so he did not think there would be any need to have to enlarge the pond again. He stated a detailed parking plan had no value if it was not enforced; there had to a consequence for breaking rules. In response to a comment from Acting Chair Gagne, Mr. Condon stated it was his understanding there were people directing traffic at the school during the morning drop-off and the afternoon pick-up times. That did not occur after hours. Director Nielsen suggested the detailed parking plan should address field management at the school for park and recreation sporting events. Commissioner Ruoff stated the parking attendants kept traffic flowing during the drop-off and pick-up times on school days. The parking problem was with non-school activities. Council Liaison Woodruff stated if cars were towed from the no-parking areas people would begin to stop parking in those areas. That would necessitate someone monitor the areas for violations. In response to a question from Council Liaison Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated shifting the driveway would result in it encroaching on a wetland area near the water tower and therefore require the applicant to go through a wetland mitigation process. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Mr. Condon stated the Phase 1 and Phase 2 expansions should support the School’s student population needs for the next 25 years. Council Liaison Woodruff questioned if the District had considered alternate space plans such as purchasing nearby residential property to solve its space problems. He also questioned if the expansion could done by creating a second story on the school. Mr. Condon stated some thought had been given to purchasing two different residential properties; it had not been discussed with the residents. He explained CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 April 2008 Page 7 of 10 when the building was constructed it was designed with footings that would only support 1.5 stories; underpinning would have to be done to the footing to add extra structure to allow for a second story to be added on and that would be extremely expensive. Woodruff stated allowing for expansion of a second story would give the District more flexibility. Mr. Condon stated based on the demographics he had reviewed he was confident the District would be come before the City at a later date to get approval for the Phase 2 expansion. He then stated the District would like to have the Planning Commission recommend approval for the Phase 1 expansion this evening as the District was planning on breaking ground on Phase 1 on April 29, 2008; if it did not start the effort then it would not be completed by the start of school in the fall of 2009. He went on to state that he had done parking plans with other cities that the District could use as templates for the plan the City requested; that development plan could prepared well before approval for the Phase 2 effort was requested. Council Liaison Woodruff stated parking on the fire access lane was a Phase 1 expansion issue. Mr. Condon stated both sides of the driveway would be posted “Fire Lane – No Parking”. The Fire District would then have the right to ticket violators. With regard to towing, Mr. Condon explained towing companies were refusing to tow cars unless they were paid upfront because violators have taken the towing companies to court to fight the charges. The Minnetonka High School the District purchased “boots” to put on vehicles in violation which would prohibit the vehicles from moving until a fine was paid. Commissioner Geng stated the problem with using the boot would be the vehicles would be stuck in the fire lane in the event of an emergency. Mr. Condon stated the District could enforce parking during school hours; it was during non-school hours when enforcement was an issue. Director Nielsen clarified that the detailed parking plan be developed for the Phase 1 expansion. Hutchins moved, Ruoff seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for the Minnetonka School District for the Phase 1 expansion of the Minnewashta Elementary School, 26450 Smithtown Road, subject to the applicant submitting a detailed written parking lot management plan that would be acceptable to the City and to the Excelsior Fire District. Motion passed 6/0. Director Nielsen stated he would try to have this request put on the April 28, 2008, City Council meeting agenda. He noted he was not going to be in attendance at that meeting. Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing at 8:11 P.M. 3. DISCUSS PLANNING DISTRICT 6 This item was discussed after Item 7 on the agenda. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission had already had numerous discussions regarding the commercial redevelopment potential of Planning District 6 as well as the commercial properties located on the south side of County Road 19 across from Planning District 6. That combined area included the following commercial sites: 1) the Shorewood Yacht Club; 2) the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company; 3) the South Lake Office Building; 4) the Garden Patch Nursery; and 5) the property between the South Lake Office Building and the Garden Patch Nursery (the old Crepeau Dock location which was owned by the same individual who owned the Garden Patch Nursery). The South Lake Office Building property was zoned R-C, Residential Commercial; the R-C District was intended to transition from lower intensity uses to higher intensity uses. The Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company (MPDCo), the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 April 2008 Page 8 of 10 Garden Patch Nursery, and the old Crepeau Dock property were all in the C-2, Commercial Service zoning district (which had previously been named the C-4 District); the C-2 District was also a specialized district that was established to address existing industrial uses in that area. Nielsen stated discussion of redevelopment possibilities for the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) property began in 2005 when the SYC was put up for sale. All developers interested in the SYC property were also interested in the MPDCo, which was not for sale. Redevelopment discussions basically ceased once the SYC had been purchased by the current owners. Nielsen explained during 2007 the owners of those businesses were invited to a Planning Commission study session to provide their input on the future redevelopment of the properties. Most of the owners had no plans to change the use of their properties in the future and they had no immediate plans to sell their properties. Nielsen explained the current use of the SYC property was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the L-R (Lakeshore Recreational) zoning of the property. In 2007 the new owners of the SYC property submitted a request to allow the SYC to use a portion of its boat slips for powerboat use; that requested required an amendment to the City Code and the issuance of an interim conditional use permit (C.U.P.). The request was approved after numerous discussions and after a public hearing was held. One of the four piers at the SYC could be used for powerboats. Nielsen stated if the MPDCo ever went away the C-2 District could go away. The other two properties in the C-2 District, the Garden Patch Nursery property and the old Crepeau Dock property, could possible be rezoned to R-C, Residential Commercial, and that would make their zoning the same as the South Lake Office Building property. Nielsen highlighted a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which addressed the redevelopment of Planning District 6. It stated in the event the yacht club or the dredging company ceased to exist, reuse of the properties should be directed to residential, at similar densities as the surrounding area (both in Shorewood and Excelsior). The reason for the lower density was there were limitations on the land, with access being the most significant. Currently both properties butted against West Lake Street right-of-way. West Lake Street served a residential neighborhood in Excelsior, but the portion of West Lake Street that could provide access into Shorewood was blocked off (but not vacated). Both of the companies currently used a driveway off of County Road 19; the driveway crosses over the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) LRT Trail, and it is there by license from HCRRA. The HCRRA could revoke the license at its discretion. Access to the properties would then have to come from West Lake Street, which would require the City to prepare a compelling case to reopen the street. He commented those two properties could be suitable for a planned unit development and should be consistent with the recommendations of the County Road 19 Corridor Study which would be incorporated by reference in the Plan. Nielsen stated his initial thought had been to recommend the change be incorporated into the overall update to the Comprehensive Plan. Acting Chair Gagne stated there could be some vulnerability should a developer approach the City with a redevelopment request prior to the overall update to the Plan being approved. Commissioner Gniffke suggested the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the text amendment rather than include it for approval as part of the overall Plan update. Council Liaison Woodruff suggested the text amendment be modified to clarify the City’s decision to recently relax the restrictions on power boats at the SCY was for a three-year trial period. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 April 2008 Page 9 of 10 Gniffke moved, Hutchins seconded, scheduling a public hearing for the proposed text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding Planning District 6 at the 20 May 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Director Nielsen stated in addition to the legal notice the specific property owners and the property owners within 500 feet of the area would be notified of the meeting. Motion passed 6/0. 4. DISCUSS COMP PLAN – NATURAL RESOURCES AND LAND USE CHAPTERS Director Nielsen stated he had sent the Planning Commissioners an email suggesting the Commission discuss the goals, objectives and policies (GOPs) of the Natural Resources and Land Use chapters of the Comprehensive Plan this evening. He stated from his vantage point the majority of GOPs were still quite pertinent and there was not much that needed to be changed even though new issues had been added. The GOPs were used to evaluate requests for change (e.g. a change in a land use application). He suggested the Natural Resources chapter be amended to adopt the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan by reference. The Natural Resources chapter should be expanded to address how the City planned to address invasive vegetation. He commented there were many other agencies already work on managing aquatic invasive species. There should also be some reference to managing wildlife. Nielsen stated he would draft language to address the recommended changes to the GOPs sections of the two chapters which the Commission could discuss at its 6 May 2008 meeting. He would attempt to define a way the Land Use chapter could address the construction of McMansions by possibly incorporating a floor-ratio to land-area approach to controlling house sizes. Commissioner Hutchins stated the Natural Resources objectives did mention protection of the natural wildlife habitat. He suggested an objective be added to protect and manage the wildlife within the habitat. Director Nielsen commented the policies section in Land Use chapter was used extensively by the Planning Commission when it evaluated the CUB proposal. Council Liaison Woodruff suggested the Commissioners read the entire Comprehensive Plan. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated he had distributed sample city surveys to the Planning Commissioners and he asked them to consider what types of planning related questions they would want to see included in the City-wide survey. He stated the questions would be discussed at the 6 May 2008 Planning Commission study session during which there would also be continued discussion of the updates to the Natural Resources and Land Use Chapters of Comprehensive Plan. 7. REPORTS This item was discussed after Item 2 on the agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 April 2008 Page 10 of 10 Commissioner Ruoff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the April 14, 2008, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Council Liaison Woodruff stated the actual search for a new City Administrator would start on May 1, 2008, with the hope of a June or July 2008 start date. He stated resident John Garfunkel made a request at the April 14, 2008, Council meeting to have Council re-evaluate the ward system and to possibly consider returning to an at-large election system, and he suggested the City hold a public forum to hear public comment on it. Woodruff stated he thought the Council would be discussing the ward system over the next couple of months before residents would file for City election. He went on to state Council had been working on a City-wide survey. • SLUC Commissioner Villet stated she was going to attend the Sensible Land Use Coalition session on “Great Neighborhoods – Great Places: Reality or Wishful Thinking?” scheduled for 30 April 2008. • Other None. The discussion returned to Item 3 on the agenda. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hutchins moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 15 April 2008 at 8:50 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder