Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/20/19991. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 20, 1999, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. December 6, 1999 4. Approval of Agenda Public Hearings a. Rosoto Senior Housing (DeSoto Street and Roselawn Avenue) Land Use Plan Change (R-1 to RH) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Parking Reduction Authorization bo Woodlynn Hills Church (1740 VanDyke Street) 1. Land Use Plan Change (BC to Church) 2. Conditional Use Permit 6. New Business 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. December 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach b. December 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler c. January 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller 9. Staff Presentations a. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study Update ,10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 20, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Il. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Present Jack Frost Present Matt Ledvina Present Paul Mueller Absent Gary Pearson Present William Rossbach Present Michael Seeber Absent Milo Thompson Present Dale Trippler Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. December 6, 1999 Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the minutes of December 6, 1999, amended as follows: change item 4 on page 7 to read "...maystore snow on the site but after the normal operating hours must use White Bear Avenue .... "change "advocated" to abdicated (last paragraph on page 2), note that Commissioner Fischer asked to have "inner-ring suburbs" changed to Ramsey County and add that Commissioner Trippler pointed out there are two identical paragraphs on page 58 and 60 (suggested deleting the one on page 60) and identified two incorrect bike trails on page 128. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes--Fischer, Rossbach, Pearson, Frost, Thompson, Ledvina, Trippler Abstain--Seeber The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING Rosoto Senior Housing (DeSoto Street and Roselawn Avenue): Land Use Plan Change (R-1 to RH), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Parking Reduction Authorization Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. He pointed out, at the request of the developer, that the owner cannot convert this development to nonsenior housing without a revision of the PUD and that the city defines senior housing, for this permit, as a residence Planning Commission Minutes of 12-20-99 -2- occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older. Mr. Roberts said the developer is concerned that he may not be able to completely rent the building to persons 55 or older. Therefore, he is requesting that the city change this to require that 80 percent of the units have a person 55 or older. Commissioner Trippler noted that approximately 10 percent of the property is wetland but there was no discussion of the wetland in the staff report. Mr. Roberts said this was an oversight. He said this is a Class V wetland (the lowest quality wetland) that requires a 0-foot buffer. Mr. Trippler asked about the concerns of the police and fire departments in regard to this housing and what impact those concerns might have. Mr. Roberts answered that senior housing typically generates more paramedic runs than a single-family home. It becomes a question of how much more senior housing can the city have before it is necessary to add more staff, etc. Mr. Roberts said the developer would be allowed to put a storm-water pipe in the wetland as long as the buffer area that is disturbed by placement of the pipe is restored. Commissioner Ledvina asked if access to the rear of the building was not an issue here. Mr. Roberts said the fire department requested better access at the end of the site but did not specifically say the rear of the building. The topography and grading of the site would prohibit getting anything completely around the building. Mr. Roberts said the fire department would prefer more access but they seemed okay with the proposal. Commissioner Ledvina also noted that there did not seem to be green space on site for the residents. Mr. Roberts said he had not seen any but suggested that the applicant be asked about this. He did not know where there would be room to provide any green space unless the building was significantly shortened. Mr. Roberts observed that there was an outdoor patio/porch area with a sidewalk connection to Roselawn Avenue. Commissioner Pearson asked if there was a different time requirement for the TDR agreement as opposed to the PUD. Mr. Roberts said that the TDR condition had to be completed before the city issues a grading or building permit for the project. Commissioner Trippler thought it was important to address two concerns expressed by the residents at 1843 DeSoto Street. He asked if the existing storm and sanitary sewers were adequate to handle this building and if it could become Section 8 housing in the future. Ken Haider, city engineer, responded that the utilities in the area are adequate for this facility. Mr. Roberts said if potential occupants were Section 8 seniors and could work out a rent agreement with the owners, they could move into the building. Section 8 recipients who did not meet the age requirement could only move into the building if Condition 4 was changed so that 20 percent of the units could be occupied by other persons than seniors. Chairperson Fischer explained that a senior whose income fell within certain guidelines could, if the rent for these units were within an the acceptable range, receive a Section 8 voucher to help assist with the rent and move into these buildings. Commissioner Thompson said it was his observation that residences originally intended primarily for seniors "noticed substantial degradation as they brought in the younger set." He asked to have it noted that the request for 80/20 housing did not impress him. Paul Sentman, the applicant, responded to the commissioners' questions. He said these senior developments typically take seniors from the area, moving them from single family homes to congregate-type facilities. Mr. Sentman referred to the Cardinal Pointe building being built on Hazelwood Street in Maplewood. He said of the 96 units sold, only 11 are to people who came from outside the immediate area. In relation to fire and police calls, the number would not vary that much but they would be concentrated into one particular area. Mr. Sentman also pointed out that the building would be totally sprinklered. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-20-99 -3- Mr. Sentman said that specific price and age studies will be done before further review by the commission. He agreed that a senior building is best as a building with senior residents but asked for some flexibility until these studies are done. Mr. Sentman said a building developed for seniors has certain amenities, i.e. a higher percentage of common areas, so that often it is in a structured price situation that doesn't fit with a lower age group. Mr. Sentman said off the patio side of the building there would be additional retaining to make some "green area" for barbeques, etc. At this time, they are primarily seeking approval of the basic concept. Mr. Sentman answered a question from Commissioner Rossbach on how the size of the building was determined. He said when developing a senior complex, the amount of common area and type of personnel (someone in a director capacity) that would need to be there are split over a certain number of people. According to Mr. Sentman, it does not numerically work if the project is too small. He said maintenance or housekeeping things that people cannot do themselves will be provided. Commissioner Rossbach asked for more specific details on what services being provided would necessitate having 70 units instead of, for example, 50. Mr. Sentman said the square footage of the units has not been determined but he expected they would run from 720/740 square feet up to about a 1,000 square feet. Mr. Rossbach thought the density was "way too high for this area and the building is too big." However, he did think it was a good area for senior housing. He also stated that "it was a crummy arrangement when you start borrowing somebody else's development capabilities from their land." Basically, Mr. Rossbach said they were taking land from somewhere else and using it to fit their needs. Mr. Sentman said the topography of this site is quite Iow and it will be filled but not quite up to the Roselawn elevation. Therefore, the building as viewed from Roselawn will look like a two- story building. He said this structure will be recessed into the ground so that the first floor level is almost below the street grade from Roselawn Avenue. Mr. Sentman noted that there is a wooded ravine area to the west that is unusable and a ponding setback area with recessed housing to the north. He felt the only housing directly affected would be immediately across the street to the east because there is also wetland and ponding area to the south. Commissioner Rossbach expressed concern about the "overall impression when you drive through a neighborhood"--a large building stuck in among single-family houses. Mr. Sentman pointed out that there are other multiple units located close to this area. This fact made Mr. Rossbach's "argument stronger." He did not advocate putting more large buildings in the area. Commissioner Rossbach said he could not see voting for this project. Ken Roberts said the city's minimum size for a two-bedroom unit is 740 square feet and minimum size for a one-bedroom unit is 550 square feet. Therefore, a one-bedroom in the proposed senior housing will be about the size of the minimum two-bedroom. Commissioner Pearson mentioned a personal instance where a family member lived happily in a senior housing facility until they began taking approximately 15-20 percent young physically & mentally disabled persons. According to Mr. Pearson, the quality of life changed dramatically when these persons moved in. Mr. Pearson was particularly sensitive and not favorable towards a building that will not be 100 percent senior housing. Commissioner Thompson questioned what the applicant envisioned for the land they "were borrowing" to the west. Mr. Sentman said he "envisioned basically no change to that property." He said it is "basically unbuildable land." The church has to address some watershed issues and Mr. Sentman stated that these improvements will be paid for by the development. Basically, the area in question will be left as it is. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-20-99 -4- Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant would have a viable project if he constructed a building with the allowable 51 units. Mr. Sentman said he did not think so because of the cost of necessary additional site work. Ms. Fischer also asked if the project would be viable if only seniors were allowed. Mr. Sentman thought it probably would be. The established standard by HUD is that a senior is generally 55 or older. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing to the audience. Bayford Leighton, 1848 DeSoto Street, thought this was "the biggest bomb that's been laid in Maplewood" in the nine years that he has been a resident. He liked the existing single-family neighborhood and did not want, under any circumstances, this multiple dwelling. Mr. Leighton said a three-story building was too much for the neighborhood. He spoke about the existing traffic problems at DeSoto and Roselawn and felt these would only get worse. Mr. Leighton expressed concern about the water runoff and did not think it could be solved by adding dirt. He did not think 55-year-olds were senior citizens and felt there was a possibility of parties if the building was inhabited by a large number of this age group. Mr. Leighton also mentioned the additional number of cars and paramedic/ambulance runs that would be generated by the addition of 70 units. He summarized by saying this was the wrong place for this building. George Sterzinger, of 487 Roselawn Avenue, asked if the age requirement on this housing could be changed in future years. Ken Roberts said it would be necessary to go through the city process and ask the city council to approve a change. A public hearing involving neighborhood residents would be involved. Mr. Sterzinger was against allowing an 80/20 mix of residents but was agreeable to the 55-year and older age requirement. There was no further comment from the public so the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Fischer and Commissioner Frost discussed the size and number of units in other senior buildings within the city. Commissioner Trippler asked if there had been any other transfers of development rights within the city. Mr. Roberts said there had not been any in the ten years he has been with the city. Commissioner Thompson wondered if the city had ever checked to see if the value of surrounding property decreased after a building similar to this has been built. Mr. Roberts said staff has not done this. Commissioner Seeber commented on the number of large apartment buildings in this area and asked how this building was "dispersed" by being put in this area. Mr. Roberts responded that this building was intended for seniors only and that would be the difference. Mr. Seeber said he was referring to size. Chairperson Fischer mentioned how it came about that Maplewood now has "many fewer acres that were originally planned for other than single-family residential." Commissioner Rossbach pointed out that Mapiewood "has always been a leader in providing diversified housing and affordable housing" and, therefore, there is "no particular pressure upon Maplewood to continue to do things above and beyond what everyone else is doing." His point was that this neighborhood already had larger buildings around the edges and he did not think it was a good idea to construct a building of this size right in the middle of the neighborhood. He referred to other areas where the character of neighborhoods has been changed as commercial or large buildings are introduced. Commissioner Thompson spoke about property in the neighborhood that is "crying for attention, development, improvement." He said some residents feel improvement has destroyed their roads. Commissioner Trippler wanted to go on record as a "54-year-old youngster getting ready to go into senior citizenhood" and he was in favor of senior housing. He had concern with the transfer of development rights on this application. Mr. Trippler said he planned to vote against this proposal because of this particular issue. He spoke about other variances that have been Planning Commission Minutes of 12-20-99 -5- allowed and feels that this may set a precedence for allowing future TDRs. Commissioner Thompson referred to TDRs as being similar to water rights in western states and did not feel they were as fearful as they were being made out to be. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: ao Approval of the resolution which changes the land use plan from R-1 (single family residential) to RH (residential high density) for the site of the Rosoto senior housing development on the corner of Roselawn Avenue and DeSoto Street. The city bases these changes on the following findings: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: ao Having a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background, a diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner- occupied housing. b° Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. c. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. d. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street, parks and open space. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The proposed on-site pond and large setback from the street will separate the senior housing from nearby homes. b. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property values. This approval is subject to the developer acquiring a transfer of development rights (TDR) agreement with Saint Jerome's church for enough property to make the project's density no higher than 16 units per gross acre. Approval of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Rosoto senior housing development. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped November 2, 1999. The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The project design plans, including architectural and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). 3. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-20-99 -6- The owner shall not convert this development to non-senior housing without the revision of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines senior housing as a residence occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day transportation on the site. If the city decides there are excess parking spaces available on the site, then the city may allow the parking of these on the site. 7. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the building is 95 percent occupied, the city may require additional parking. o The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the director of emergency preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population. *9. The developer shall secure a transfer of development rights (TDR) agreement with Saint Jerome's church for enough property to make the housing project's density no higher than 16 units per gross acre. 10. The developer shall install a 5-foot-wide bituminous path or widen the shoulder along the south side of Roselawn Avenue between the proposed sidewalk on the site to the east line of the first driveway on the church property to the west of the site. The developer's engineer shall show this additional bituminous on the grading and construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the details of these plans. 11. The city council shall review this permit in one year. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit. C. Approve 103 parking spaces (70 garage spaces and 33 open spaces), rather than the 140 spaces required by code for the Rosoto senior housing development, because: 1. The parking space requirement is not proper for senior housing, because there are fewer cars per unit in these projects. 2. The city has approved fewer parking spaces for other senior housing, including the Village on Woodlynn, the Carefree Cottages and Gervais Court. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Chairperson Fischer asked if approving the conditional use permit is approving the planned unit development as it presently exists. Ken Roberts said it was their intention to bring the final plans and details back to the planning commission. He said this was a "preliminary approval." Commissioner Trippler asked if he made a motion to delete the paragraph in the resolution referring to transfer of development rights would it negate the entire project. Mr. Roberts recommended that, if the commission wanted to do this, they should amend some of the other language to specify meeting the density requirements or maximum number of units. Commissioner Trippler asked to make a motion to delete the paragraph in the land use plan change resolution that begins with "this approval" through "16 units per gross acre." Mr. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-20-99 -7- Roberts suggested changing the paragraph so that it says the project's density can be no higher than 16 units per gross acre. He said Item 9 in the conditional use permit resolution should also be amended to say "the developer shall make the housing project's density no higher than 16 units per gross acre." It was determined that this is not a friendly amendment to the previous motion. Chairperson Fischer asked if Mr. Trippler wanted to amend the original motion to include this statement. Commissioner Trippler amended the motion to have the paragraph in the land use plan change resolution read "this approval is to make the project's density no higher than 16 units per gross acre" and change Condition 9 in the conditional use permit resolution to read "the developer shall make the housing project's density no higher than 16 units per gross acre." Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Commissioner Rossbach pointed out that this amendment could be met by doing the transfer of the development rights. He thought if you wanted no transfer of development rights it should specifically say so. Mr. Roberts felt the developer would then have to purchase property from the church to make the site larger to increase the gross acreage. He said the TDR was a request of the PUD and, with the change, this would be denied. Chairperson Fischer called for a vote on the amendment which basically limits the size of the project to the acreage which would be owned by the developer to 16 units per acre. This would reduce the number of units from 70 to 51 if the acreage remains the same. Mr. Roberts said he would want to consult the city attorney, if the acreage changed, to determine whether this would be a new PUD. Ayes--Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson, Trippler Nays--Fischer, Frost, Seeber The amendment carried. Chairperson Fischer called for a vote on the amended motion which is to change to an RH from R-l, but reduce the number of units from 70 to 51. Commissioner Pearson asked if the intent of the motion was to have the language remain the same on B.4. which defined the senior housing age requirement. Commissioner Frost said there is no change from what is written. Commissioner Trippler asked if the building could be defined as a residence so that only one person 55 years of age or older would be needed. Mr. Roberts said that residence could be changed to unit. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Pearson, Thompson, Trippler Nays--Rossbach, Seeber The motion passed. Commissioner Frost left the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Woodlynn Hills Church (1740 VanDyke Street): Land Use Plan Change (BC to Church) and Conditional Use Permit Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Rossbach commented that if the council were going to look at making a code amendment regarding Planning Commission Minutes of 12-20-99 -8- liquor license requirements for an existing establishment within 100 feet of the church, wouldn't it be prudent to make an amendment that says if something moves in after something else is existing that it shouldn't tread upon its rights. Scott Roberts, Genesis Architecture, the architect for the project, was present. Commissioner Ledvina asked what the timing would be on the phasing of the plan. Mr. Roberts said the initial Phase 1 would be started and concluded by the year 2000. After that, he said the thinking within the church was about five years for Phase 2. Commissioner Trippler said that Marlene L'Allier stated in her letter that the roof had leaked incessantly during the 10 years she worked at Builders Square. Commissioner Trippler asked the architect if he had looked at the roof for any leakage. Mr. Roberts said that in the north side where the grocery store used to be has a new roof but the portion to the south does need a new roof and its replacement is incorporated in the initial Phase 1. Commissioner Trippler asked the architect what the plan was for the back of the building that runs along Hazel Street where the rundown fence is. Mr. Roberts said the intention was to clean it up, fix up the access as far as the stairs, and, originally, it was intended to put the fence back up but it was felt it really didn't do a lot and, aesthetically, it would be better if it was opened up. Commissioner Trippler said he talked to a resident that lives behind the church and the resident suggested that some coniferous trees be planted back there. Commissioner Trippler asked the architect if they had thought about putting in a line of trees back there. Mr. Roberts said that around the entire perimeter of the property there was going to be an upgrade in landscaping relative to the screening requirements. In regard to Item 5 of the Conditional Use Permit Resolution where it says "the use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets", Commissioner Thompson asked the architect to describe the provisions at the present location of the church as it relates to traffic. Mr. Roberts said the present location was at Arlington High School so it would be a high school use in terms of the access which is more than what the church would utilize on a Sunday morning, etc., so the impact would be fairly minimal. Mr. Roberts said that traffic use at the potential church site would be less than what it was when it was a retail site. Commissioner Thompson asked the architect if he cared to describe the provisions for traffic control that are made at the present location. Mr. Roberts said that the church representative, Mr. Phil Sherwood, would have to do that. Mr. Sherwood was present and said that they currently come into Arlington High School off of Nebraska Street where there is a single stoplight that egress and ingress on the school facility, and they use the school parking lot. He said that at this location there are fewer opportunities for coming into the parking lot and leaving it than they would have at the Builder's Square location. He also said there haven't been any complaints about the parking at Arlington High School. Commissioner Thompson asked the applicant for an honest appraisal of the traffic conditions at their existing location. Mr. Sherwood said his experience was that it was more difficult coming north if you were turning across traffic because a lot of the traffic coming south is not turning into the high school. He said the biggest problem was for people coming north and being able to turn left and get in. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to comment on the ability of the streets in this area to handle the type of traffic with the church operation comparing it to the other ones down the street. Ken Harder, public works director, said that coming to the church site has some inconvenience attached to it but it shouldn't be transferred into the neighborhood. He said Planning Commission Minutes of 12-20-99 -9- there may be some slight congestion on VanDyke Street but there is very little traffic on that street to begin with. Commissioner Thompson said he believed Rice Street to be a fairly heavy duty street and on Sunday morning there is a problem and he wants people to be aware of this. Mr. Sherwood said it is a very short period of time that there is that peak and backup in traffic. Commissioner Pearson said that rarely has the commission seen a project or proposal come before them that has such resounding neighborhood approval, none of which has taken any particular issue with traffic for the area, and there are so many inlet points to get into that parking lot from the north and south that he can't see that any traffic is going to be through the neighborhood. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to comment on the proposal for Woodland Hills Church at 1740 VanDyke Street. Ms. Tring Tranberg, 1018 Dennis Street South, said there were three reasons why she supports this project: 1) the church will take residence in an abandoned building, 2) it will bring customers to the businesses on White Bear Avenue, and 3) it takes a church community to build a better community. Commissioner Pearson moved the Planning Commission recommend: ao Adoption of the resolution approving a comprehensive land use plan amendment from BC (business commercial) to C (church) for a church in the former Builder's Square building at 1740 VanDyke Street and the Plaza Theater building at 1847 Larpenteur Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: 1. It would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. 2. It would protect and strengthen the neighborhood. 3. It would minimize conflict between land uses. 4. It would support the improvement, replacement or redevelopment of substandard or incompatible development. 5. It is in the public interest to remove this property from the tax rolls since it would create a more compatible situation with the adjacent residential community. Bo Adoption of the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a church at 1740 VanDyke Street and the Plaza Theater building at 1847 Larpenteur Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: 1. All construction, renovations and improvements shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. ° The applicant shall do the following immediately with the Phase 1 improvements: overlay and restripe the parking lot on the west side of the building, patch pot holes in the parking lot on the remainder of the site, remove all litter, damaged items and Planning Commission Minutes of 12-20-99 -10- debris, remove the wooden fence and restore the grass. 5. The landscape plan shall be submitted to the community design review board for approval before any landscaping is added. 6. Plans for any changes to the building exterior, other than painting or repairs, shall be submitted to the community design review board for review and approval. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. December 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach reported on this meeting. Commissioner Pearson left the meeting at 8:52 p.m. B. December 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler will report on this meeting. C. January 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina will report on this meeting. Several phone number corrections were noted. Chairperson Fischer asked if a sidbwalk, rather than a widened portion of the road, would not be better walking area for seniors. Ken Haider, city engineer, said a detached walking area is better for seniors, and everyone else, than walking on the street. He added that sidewalks were relatively unpopular in the city and a walking lane on the street has evolved as the standard. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study Update Ken Roberts offered an update handout on the White Bear Avenue study. Mr. Roberts went to his office to get them. Commissioner Rossbach noted that there were only two persons from the planning committee at the city commissioner appreciation reception. He said it was a nice event and more activity should be generated. It was mentioned that another commissioner attended but left early. Mr. Roberts emphasized that the White Bear Avenue committee welcomed the attendance of city commission members. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.