Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-07 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 11/7/12 PREPARED BY Community Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT John McCool STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on September 24, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on September 24, 2012. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION: DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ® PLANNING 10/26/12 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on September 24, 2012 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS ❑ 'City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission September 24, 2012 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, September 24, 2012, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Rostad called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Elijah Harter, Neal Heurung, Brian Pearson, Lise' Rediske, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Maureen Ventura, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: None Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner; John M. Burbank, Senior Planner; Robin Roland, Finance and Community Development Director; Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director; Danette Parr, Economic Development Director; Jen Peterson, City Council Approval of Agenda Reese made a motion to approve the agenda. Ventura seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Rostad asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Rostad explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capac- ity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he ex- plained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 Koch Pool Variance — Case V2012 -026 Robert Koch has applied for a variance to setback requirements for in- ground pools to allow a swimming pool to be six feet from the rear property line when ten feet is the minimum and to allow the pool decking to encroach four feet into the south Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012 Page 2 of 12 drainage /utility easement and ten feet into the east drainage /utility easement at 7595 63rd Street Circle South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Robert Koch, 7595 63rd Street Circle South, asked about the 15 -foot setback from the rear property line, stating that it was his understanding that it was 10 feet. McCool responded that the easement is 10 feet wide; the setback in the R -2.5 zoning district is 15 feet. Koch noted that the pool handout references 10 feet from the rear lot line. McCool explained that there are different setbacks for different zoning districts. Koch stated the reason they feel a four - foot setback from the rear property line is appropriate is because there are no neighboring yards behind his property. He also noted they have never seen water get more than a third of the way up in the overflow pond area, even during heavy rains. They want to use more of their yard and try to get the pool as far from the deck as they can. Koch stated that the easement line on his application is wrong, so instead of encroaching 10 feet into the east easement, they would only need about six feet. McCool stated that the City Code for swimming pools, surrounding aprons, and decks must meet the established accessory structure setbacks for the appropriate districts. The ordin- ance requirement for accessory structure setbacks for property zoned R -2.5 is 15 feet. Koch noted that the handout was inaccurate. McCool stated that staff would correct it. Koch reiterated that he is asking for variances to both the rear and side setbacks to allow the pool into the easements, noting that there is sand under the overflow pond and drainage easement. Reese stated that he is a nearby property owner and recused himself from the discussion and vote on this application. Harter asked when Koch received the handout. Koch responded that the pool contractor picked it up a month ago. Harter stated that his understanding is that as construction contin- ues to occur, there becomes a significantly higher risk for damage to the pool structure. He asked if the risk that would be borne by only this property owner or will other property owners be affected by the construction of the pool. McCool responded that displacement of the storage capacity of the basin due to filling in around the base of the swimming pool, capacity will be lost and the water has to go someplace else, which would be to other properties. Harter asked if the concern is only for this one specific instance or for setting a precedent for granting other variances in the area. McCool responded that staff is concerned about this application. The pond and stormwater system have been designed with a certain flow and storage capacity. Staff acknowledges that there is very little water in the stormwater basins but it could fill up and cause an overflow issue. Koch stated that they are not going to level that area off; they are replacing dirt with a structure. There may be a one -foot wall on that side to get it level. Heurung asked if the dimensions include the deck around the pool and if it is concrete. Koch responded yes. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012 Page 3of12 Wehrle asked where the high water mark is. McCool stated that high water elevation is in the stormwater basin and the overflow drainage swale is along the tree line. He explained that water would fill in the drainage swale and once that fills up to the high water elevation, it will go into the drainage utility easement on the property. Pearson asked if Koch talked to the pool contractor about concerns if the drainage area fills up with water. Koch responded that they will put a solid concrete wall on that side. He stated that he has never seen water in there and is comfortable taking that risk. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Heurung asked how much the concrete apron would change the elevation of the existing ground. Koch responded about one to two feet higher. Heurung asked about the normal water level in the pond and how far it is below the yard. McCool displayed the as -built survey of the property, which shows the high water elevation. He explained that the platting and grading for the development took place and the easements determined before any homes were built in this subdivision. Within the area of the south basin, the normal water elevation is 910.0 and the high water elevation is 913.2. The high water elevation does encroach onto this property. The back of the house is at an elevation of 918.6. Heurung asked how the ca- pacity of the drainage pond would be affected by the pool and decking and if stormwater could end up in the pool. McCool responded that based on the proposed location of the pool and the design of the stormwater basins in this area, in the event of a 100 -year flood the pool area would be flooded. City staff does not feel storage capacity of the basin should be jeopardized. Heurung stated that this could be an insurance issue. Pearson asked if there is room elsewhere on the property for the pool. Koch responded yes, but ideally wants to tuck it back. He stated that if the pool could be located 10 feet from the property line instead of 15 feet, it would not encroach on any easements. Pearson stated he is concerned about the concrete buckling over time. He is also concerned about granting a variance when there are other options available on the property that would not encroach on any easements and about setting a precedent. Koch stated that with the 15 -foot setback, the pool size will need to be reduced. Brittain expressed confidence in the City's engineering department's plans for these storm - water basins and their recommendation on whether or not something can encroach on easements. He suggested discussing allowing the pool and decking to be setback 10 feet in- stead of the required 15 feet if it does not encroach on easements. Rostad agreed with Brittain. Rostad stated he more concerned about encroaching on the drainage easement than the rear yard setback. Koch stated that when they bought the house, they were told that there was a pond. They were also informed by city officials that the pond would never fill, which is why he believes it is safe to encroach on the easement. McCool stated that staff did discuss with the applicant the need for storage capacity in the pond prior to his application being submitted. Harter asked if the flow of the water is the biggest concern. McCool responded not just flow but storage. Harter asked if there was anything that could be done during the construction of Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012 Page 4 of 12 the pool to ease those concerns, such as grading or digging another area a little deeper. McCool responded possibly, but those details would have to be submitted for review. Peterson asked for clarification on how recent the pool handout is. Koch responded he re- ceived the same handout four years ago and a month ago. Peterson asked if something changed since that was printed or is it just a mistake. Burbank explained that the handout summarizes the zoning code. The pool handout was not updated after the R -2.5 zoning dis- trict was established. This is just an instance where an informational handout was not up- dated, but the zoning ordinance shows the correct setback. McCool added that the handout does state pools are not allowed in easements. Brittain made a motion to deny the pool variance based on the findings of fact listed below. Wehrle seconded the motion. A. The property currently has a reasonable use and constructing a swimming pool in the rear yard can still be accomplished without encroaching on any drainage and utility easement. Fencing around the pool will be allowed in the drainage and utility easements. The City is not responsible for any damage to the fence caused by high stormwater levels. B. Placement of a swimming pool or other structures within this drainage and utility easement designated as an emergency overflow route for stormwater drainage and adjoining a stormwater basin with a 913.2 -foot high water elevation may cause the stormwater storage capacity of this basin to be reduced, thus potentially in- creasing the high water elevation for this basin. C. Granting the variance might be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. D. The Silverwood Addition plat was recorded on March 17, 2006, at the Washington County Recorder's office. The emergency overflow swale along the east side of the property and the stormwater basin south of the subject property were graded with the site grading for the entire subdivision and before any public improvements (e.g. water, sanitary sewer, streets, etc.) were constructed. The building permit for this property was issued on December 22, 2006, and the Certificate of Occupancy was issued on June 20, 2007. The drainage and utility easements, emergency over- flow route, and stormwater basin existed before the applicant purchased the property. E. Denial of this variance application is to preserve the stormwater storage capacity and the future integrity of managing this regional stormwater system. F. The Public Works Department and engineering staff recommended that the pro- posed in- ground swimming pool not encroach into any drainage and utility ease- ment for this property in order to maintain the functionality of this stormwater management system. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012 Page 5 of 12 Motion passed on a vote of 5 aYes, 2 nays (Ventura, Heurung), 1 abstention (Reese), and 1 not voting (Harter). Ventura agrees that the easement on the east side of the property is an issue. The misinfor- mation about the setback requirement between the 10 and 15 feet is something that should be re- examined if the applicant so chooses. Heurung agreed with Ventura that the applicant was basing his plans on misinformation. He also does not understand how this would have much of an effect. He agrees that there is a precedent setting issue here. Harter explained that he did not vote because he was undecided. Koch asked if he could request at the City Council meeting that a variance be granted so the pool could be 10 feet from the rear property line but not be in any easement. McCool stated that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to reduce the 15 -foot setback to 10 feet but that the pool could not encroach into any easement. Brittain stated that without feedback from the City Engineer on the water storage displace- ment, he would be uncomfortable supporting that. McCool explained that there is only a 10- foot easement along the rear property line and the high water elevation is in the 10 -foot easement. Rostad stated that Koch is suggesting moving the pool within his property where there is no easement. Brittain asked if that would not impact water flow or storage. McCool responded correct because water storage will be in the easement area. Burbank stated that since this request is less than the application that was advertised, the Commission could act on it without having to republish the hearing notice. Brittain stated that he would be comfort- able supporting the amended request as long as the pool and decking is not within any easements. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of a variance to allow the pool and decking to be setback 10 feet from the rear property line when 15 feet is the minimum without any encroachments in any drainage and utility easements. Harter seconded. Motion passed on an 8 -to -0 vote with 1 abstention (Reese). 6.2 3M Building Addition — Cases SP2012 -027 and V2012 -028 3M, 10746 Innovation Road South, has applied for a site plan review of the phased construction of a 93,500 square foot addition to an existing building; and variances to City Code Title 11 -11 -4, Development Standards, which limits building height to 60 feet, to allow an 89 -foot building height from the finished floor elevation, and to Title 11 -6 -12, Architecture Requirements, to allow prefinished metal panels that are similar to the existing building's exterior materials. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Reese asked about the purpose for the building. Pat McGrann, 3M Facility Engineering, 733 Haven Hill Road, Eagan, Minnesota, responded for manufacturing, warehouse, and office space as part of the industrial abrasives facility that is already on site. Reese asked if they Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012 Page 6 of 12 are utilizing part of a parking area for the addition. McGrann explained that the area imme- diately to the north of the site is grass and no existing parking areas will be disturbed. Heurung asked if there is a retention pond. McGrann pointed out on the aerial photo where they will be constructing a larger pond to replace the existing retention pond. Heurung asked what the retention pond is used for. McGrann responded stormwater only. He explained that there is an on -site waste treatment plant that is owned and managed by 3M. They also have sanitary and industrial sewer and stormwater cooling ponds. Reese asked about the distance from the addition to the Highway 61 interchange. McCool stated that the addition is about a quarter mile from the addition to the entrance to 3M, and the addition would be about three - quarters of a mile to Highway 61. Reese asked if the reason for the variance to the exterior materials is because the existing building was constructed when the City did not have architectural standards. McCool responded that was correct. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Reese made a motion to approve the site plan review of 3M's proposed addition and the building height and exterior materials variances, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Ventura seconded. Findings of Fact A. The proposed 93,500 square foot building addition is internal to the 3M Cottage Grove site. The closest public road from the proposed building addition is 1,220 feet. B. The building addition cannot be seen from the north shore of the Mississippi River because of the bluff along the south side of the Mississippi River. The addition will probably be seen from the main channel of the Mississippi River, but that distance is about 3,300 feet (0.6 mile). C. All the minimum building setback requirements of the 1 -3 District are complied with. D. The proposed exterior materials and colors are similar and consistent with other buildings on the 3M Cottage Grove site. E. Other existing structures on the 3M site are taller than the proposed addition. F. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned Heavy Industry and the proposed building addition is con- sistent with other manufacturing buildings on the 3M site. The requested variances will not adversely impact the adjoining properties or views from the Mississippi River. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012 Page 7 of 12 G. The variance request is not specifically addressed in the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan, but its industrial characteristics are consistent with the in- dustrial land use designation for this property. H. The proposal continues a reasonable use on the property. 1. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. J. The granting of the variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or inju- rious to other land in the neighborhood. The proposed building addition will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. It will not create congestion in the public streets, become a fire danger, or endanger the public's safety. K. The current use of the existing building is a permitted use within the Heavy Indus- trial, 1 -3 District. The proposed building expansion will allow the permitted manu- facturing use to also expand. City ordinances do not require city approval of the manufacturing facility. Conditions of Approval 1. All applicable permits (i.e.; building, electrical, grading, mechanical) and a com- mercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construc- tion plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 2. The applicant receives building permits from the City of Cottage Grove prior to construction. 3. 3M must obtain all required State permits before manufacturing operations begin in the new addition. 4. 3M must provide a copy of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general storm water permit to the City Engineer. 5. 3M must provide a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a copy of all the erosion control inspections to the City Engineer. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). 6.3 Hope Glen Farm — Case CUP2012 -029 Paula and Michael Bushilla have applied for a modification to Hope Glen Farm's existing Historic Places Conditional Use Permit to allow the property at 10276 East Point Douglas Road South to be used a wedding and event venue. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012 Page 8 of 12 Michael and Paula Bushilla, 10276 East Point Douglas Road South, explained the history behind this proposal, which included income loss and the subsequent need to hold additional weddings on the property in order to increase revenue so they can maintain their historic property. He also noted that the city as a whole would benefit economically if they are per- mitted to become a wedding venue. Paula Bushilla stated that one of the neighbors sent a letter of recommendation, and they have spoken to most of their neighbors who said they did not oppose the proposed use. She noted that they have worked with the City on everything they have done on the property and have gotten building permits for every renovation made to date. Burbank clarified in the staff report that the public hearing notice for the historic places con- ditional use permit was mailed and published on September 12. He noted further that an additional public hearing notice for a variance would be published prior to Council review. Rostad asked for clarification on the actions the Planning Commission will make. Burbank responded the Commission will hold the public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on modifying the existing Historic Places Conditional Use Permit. The City Council will hold the public hearing for the proposed variance allowing an open air pavilion at their meeting on October 17. He stated further that the reason for the Council holding the public hearing on the variance is because that the public hearing notice for that request was overlooked and not published and mailed for the Planning Commission meeting. Rediske asked for further explanation regarding the entrance to the property. Michael Bushilla pointed out on the site plan where the entrance is located and where they are pro- posing to move it to if their wedding venue is successful. They worked with their neighbor, whose letter was included in the staff report, on the proposed location. Paula Bushilla noted that the location will be subject to city approval. The access drive would be paved from the road to the property line as required by the City and would be gravel from that point on. Brittain asked if there should be a condition regarding moving the driveway at a later date based upon the performance. Burbank stated that a timeframe for that could be added. The Bushillas stated that they would be able to put in the new entrance within two years, but they want it in as soon as possible. Brittain asked if that would vacate the existing entrance. Burbank responded that it could be eliminated but the neighbor uses it. Brittain asked if the current access would be closed to normal traffic use. The Bushillas stated that they could put a gate on that access so it is available for emergency vehicles and for their neighbor's use. Rostad asked if staff has overlaid a parking grid on the parking area to ensure it would hold enough vehicles. Burbank stated staff could do that prior to the City Council meeting. Bushilla pointed out another area on the property that could be used for parking. Brittain asked if the upper overflow parking area is accessible from the lower pasture area. Bushilla responded yes. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Peterson asked for a tour of Hope Glen Farm. The Bushillas agreed that they would like to host a tour for public officials. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012 Page 9 of 12 Reese asked if alcohol use has already been permitted for the site. Paula Bushilla re- sponded that it is a new request. Heurung asked if the executive apartments are still in the upper level of the home. Bushilla responded yes. They also use the chicken coop cottage for rental housing. Brittain made a motion to approve the modification to -Hope Glen Farm's existing His- toric Places CUP subject to the conditions listed below with the addition of a condi- tion about the timeline for relocation of the secondary access point and gating of the third access except to allow access to the exception parcel. Rediske seconded. 1. The conditions of approval of Resolution No. 01 -035 shall be complied with. 2. The additional limited commercial venture that is permitted by this permit al- lows for conducting unlimited outdoor weddings and other special events (including corporate events, benefits, conferences, and retreats). 3. The construction of a future 2,000 square foot open air pavilion for the use by wedding and event guests shall be approved as a part of this permit amend- ment subject to approval of a variance to the accessory structure requirements of the R -1 zoning district. 4. The hours of business operation are limited to 8 :00 a.m, to 10 :30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and Sunday, and 8 :00 a.m. to 12 :30 a.m. Friday and Saturday. 5. Amplified music shall be required to cease at 10 :00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and Sunday, and 12 :00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. 6. The applicant shall obtain all required liquor use licenses required by the City Clerk. 7. The applicant shall have all required insurance coverage in place in association with all permitted uses, and shall have the city named as an additional insured entity as required and approved by the City Clerk. 8. Any modifications to the building exteriors on the site must be reviewed by the City's Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation. 9. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, mechanical) must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any licensed activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. 10. The property shall be inspected by the City Fire Marshal and all requirements arising from the inspection shall be completed prior to the commencement of any permitted activities. Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012 Page 10 of 12 11. The property shall be inspected by the Washington County Health Department and all requirements arising from the inspection shall be completed prior to the commencement of any licensed activities. 12. The private septic system compliance shall be reviewed and inspected by the Washington County Health Department. 13. Signage on the property is limited to twenty (20) square feet. 14. All outdoor activities must be supervised by the applicants or designated staff. 15. The final parking design is required to be reviewed by the Planning Staff. Any parking improvements on the site must not negatively impact the drainage of the site or adjacent properties. 16. Any fencing utilized on the site must be reviewed and approved by the City His- toric Preservation Officer. 17. All waste removal from the site must be contracted with a commercial refuse hauler. 18. The standard City and State noise rules will be applicable to the site. If the City receives noise complaints, the property owner must bring the noise on the site into compliance upon notification by the City. 19. The standard City and State nuisance ordinance rules will be applicable to the site. If the City receives complaints, the property owner must bring the site into compliance upon notification by the City. 20. Repeat violations related to parking, noise, the licensed use, or HPCUP permit criteria will require additional review of the historic places conditional use per- mit by the City Council, with possible revocation of the conditional use permit as a remedy. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Parks and Recreation Referendum Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director, summarized the memorandum regarding the two proposed referendum questions that will be on the November 6 ballot. Rostad asked if there are probable locations for the aquatic center. Dockter responded that several sites have been discussed but it has not been narrowed down yet. Those issues would be discussed after the election. Reese asked if staff has gotten usage numbers from the Hastings aquatic center. Dockter responded staff has done quite a bit of analysis on operational costs for other aquatic Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012 Page 11 of 12 facilities in the metro area, including Hastings. Reese asked if part of the Hamlet expansion would include concessions. Dockter responded that a concession stand and storage facility would be located in the middle of the new pinwheel of ball fields. Brittain noted that the flyer does a great job of educating the public regarding the referendum questions. He asked about the Astroturf on the playground. Dockter responded that the outdoor play center would be completely ADA accessible with Astroturf in the playground is and lawn bowling areas. Brittain asked for more information on the softball /baseball conversion. Dockter explained how the four existing baseball fields would be converted by skinning off the mounds for softball and utilizing temporary mounds for baseball. Brittain asked if both sets of fields would have that modification ability. Dockter responded just the existing fields; the newer fields would be baseball specific. Brittain asked how residents on electronic billing would receive this flyer. Roland stated that there will be a link available to e- bill customers. Wehrle noted that the Highlands Park splash pad was very successful. Dockter reported that the splash pad opened July 3 and closed on September 23. There were approximately 18,000 total users; the municipal pool was averaging about 5,000 users for the last five years. Peterson explained that the City Council and staff cannot take a formal stance on these ballot questions. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from August 27, 2012 Reese made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 27, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Pearson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of September City Council Meetings Peterson reported at the September 5 City Council meeting, the Council approved the construction of a culvert and pedestrian tunnel under 80th Street and Famous Dave's conditional use permit, issues related to the Home Depot redevelopment were addressed, the property tax levy for 2013 was adopted, and the Walmart project was approved. At the September 19 meeting, the Council addressed assessments related to hazardous conditions on several private properties. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Rostad asked for an update on the Home Depot redevelopment project. Roland responded that the developer requested an extension to the end of October to secure the financing, but it could be finalized by mid - October as Home Depot has a rule about doing business within Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012 Page 12 of 12 15 days of their year end, which is October 31. Reese asked what happens if the financing is not finalized by October 31. Roland responded that the opportunity to use TIF money goes away because the state jobs bill expires at the end of the year; Specific legislation would be required to provide an exception. If financing is not finalized, the City would look at other opportunities, including applying for that legislative assistance. Adjournment Ventura made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rediske seconded. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.