Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2001 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD August 28, 2001 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: August 14, 2001 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business a. 3M Building #255 Building Design Changes-John Olfelt, 3M Company 6. Design Review a. 5-8 Club (Beau's), 2289 Minnehaha Avenue - Food Services, Inc. b. Walgreen's (former Burger King), 1706 White Bear Avenue - Semper ~ Development 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. Reminder: Ananth is scheduled for September 10 city council meeting. b. CDRB representative needed for the September 24 city council meeting. c. Discussion Item: September 11 CDRB meeting cancellation/rescheduling due to the primary election. d. Informational Item: An Introduction to Urban Design article 10. Adjourn p:corn-dvpt~cdrb.agd MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA AUGUST 28, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. I1. III. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Tim Johnson Craig Jorgenson Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Present Absent Absent Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Recording Secretary: Lisa Kroll APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 14, 2001 Chairperson Ledvina noticed a change to Roman Numeral III. Approval of Minutes. It should read Board Member Olson moved approval of the minutes instead of Chairperson Ledvina. And it should read Board Member Johnson seconded, instead of Board Member Olson seconded. Board Member Shankar moved to approve the minutes of August 14, 2001. Board Member Olson seconded. Ayes -- Ledvina, Johnson, Olson Abstention -- Jorgenson IV. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The motion passed. Ayes - All Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3M Building #255 Building Design Changes (600 Carlton Street) Secretary Ekstrand stated there were proposed changes made to the original plans for the building exterior and landscaping. These include a change in the treatment of the proposed roof detailing and dock area. The dock area is proposed to be painted to match the brick and roof detail added similar to on the main building on the west elevation. Mr. Olfelt made some changes to the front facing which is the west side and the south elevation of the dock area. He felt the brick was not the best way to go due to structural reasons. He had revised the plan to carry the roofing element on the dock. The texturing on the brick itself is similar. He had hoped the board would agree it blends nicely. There were going to be some complications with the roofline. There is a scissors lift on the loading dock roof. The roof base would have a lot of alterations they did not count on. Adding the roof element and blending the texture was a good solution to the design. Mr. Olfelt proposed to remove the rubber seal along the entrance to the dock and put a slopped roof on to give them the shelter to match the roofline. The area in front of the garage door gets removed. Metal sheeting would be put over the trusses. The landscaping has changed to six red splendor crab apple trees on the street side, oak trees and a variety of spirea to use on the east side. John Olfelt, representing 3M came forward. Mr. Olfelt brought some samples of the proposed building exterior. He also brought some color schemes to show the Board Members. The color scheme for the roofing has not been decided on yet, but should be within the week. Board members mentioned they liked the samples of color schemes shown but would like to see the final color scheme 3M decides on. Board Member Shankar made a motion that the Community Design Review Board approve the revisions to the previously approved plans for 3M Building #255 at 600 Carlton Street. The approval is based on the new revised elevation submitted by the applicant and the new site plan and landscaping plan date stamped August 20, 2001. With the added clarification that the color of the brick shall be a light tan color as shown by the applicant. One of the color schemes (A) or (B) shown on sheet 9 of the applicants revised plans shall be followed. Board Member Olson seconded the motion. Ayes - All The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 3 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a= 5-8 Club (Beau's Food and Spirits) - Food Services, Inc. 2289 Minnehaha Avenue Ms. Finwall reported that Food Services, Inc., has proposed to purchase, remodel, and expand Beau's Food and Spirits. The planning commission did recommend approval of five land use requests associated with the proposal at the August 20, 2001, meeting. Including a comprehensive land use plan amendment, a rezoning, two conditional use permits, and a parking lot setback variance. Food Services, Inc., is requesting approval of the proposed architectural and landscaping design. The exterior of the building will remain stucco to be painted a taupe color with wood shutters around the windows to be painted with burgundy accents. There are three major alterations proposed to this building, including a new 620- square-foot deck, relocation of the front door and a walk-out cooler. The deck is proposed on the northwest side of the building towards Stillwater Street. It will extend off the north side of the original building, maintaining the existing nonconforming setback of 15 feet from the north residential property. It will also come within 22 feet of the Stillwater Road right-of-way. Surrounding the deck on the west side will be a 5-foot-high privacy fence with 1 foot of lattice on the top and the north side the deck will be screened windows. The windows will look onto a proposed perennial garden to the north of the deck. The entire deck will be covered with a decorative canopy similar to the Minneapolis 5-8 Club's canopy. The front door of this building will be relocated from the west side towards Stillwater to the south side. The existing front canopy will be removed and a new canopy will be installed to match the proposed deck canopy. The walk-in-cooler is proposed on the east side of the building and will bump out approximately 8 feet towards the east. The cooler will be painted to match the building with lattice and vines on the sides to help screen the cooler. To the south of the cooler is the proposed location of the dumpster enclosure which will be constructed of cedar fencing with a cedar gate. The parking lot will be expanded to the east side of the property and will come within 5 feet of the east property line as well as 5 feet to the north property line. The required setback for parking lot adjacent residential parking is 20 feet. Therefore, variances are required for the expanded parking area. To screen the parking area from the adjacent residential properties, the applicants are proposing a 6-foot high cedar fence to be constructed along the entire east and north property lines. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 4 Regarding the landscaping, there are currently two existing large maple trees on the lot. The applicants propose to save those two trees and propose an additional 12 maple trees, 68 shrubs, as well as a perennial garden to the north of the deck. The number of plants and species will vary due to the fact that the Minnesota Department of Transportation must approve the landscape plan prior to the installation, as a majority of the landscaping is in their right-of-way. The lighting proposed for this project is a unique form of lighting designed to help reduce the glare on residential properties. There will be seven wall lights to be installed around the building and four fence post lights to be installed on the east fence and will be located five feet up along the fencing so they will not extend over the fence. Staff feels that this proposal will be an asset to the community and recommends approval. Ms. Jill Skogheim representing Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club came forward. Ms. Skogheim stated that the landscaping proposed vary because MnDot stated they will not approve the planting of this many trees in the row. The trees may not hang over into the right-hand turn lane because this could be a safety hazard. Because of this they are planning on planting some viburnum hedges and chokeberry bushes. Another concern is the salt spray that comes up from the snowplow in the winter. It was a recommendation from the plant center to plant the viburnum hedges and chokeberry bushes, as these are two hardy plantings to survive conditions in the winter. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant if she had any concerns regarding the conditions outlined in the staff report? Ms. Skogheim replied no she did not. Board Member Olson asked if there was only one handicap parking spot in the parking lot? Ms. Skogheim replied, no there were two handicap parking spots in spaces #31 and #32. Ms. Skogheim stated she had a sample of the burgundy color that will be used on the shutters. She also stated she has some additional photos of the Minneapolis location which depict the taupe, burgundy, and forest green colors. Ms. Skogheim added that the enclosure for the cooler and the dumpster will be screened. The cedar enclosure will be finished with a natural sealer with no Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 color; it will be a natural look. They have also proposed to screen the air conditioners located on the east side of the building with bushes. Board Member Shankar asked Ms. Skogheim how the surface water would come down from the fiat roof. Ms. Skogheim deferred that question to the architect. Mr. Bruce Knutson, the architect and president of Bruce Knutson Architects, 1128 Harmon Place in Minneapolis came forward. Mr. Knutson responded there are scuppers and drain leaders on the flat roof. The existing runoff goes into a catch basin on the southwest corner of the existing parking lot. And the new parking lot will have a water retention area and a slow discharge, so the new parking lot will take care of the water runoff there. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the Board Members had the most recent plan changes? Ms. Finwall stated the last date that revisions were proposed was on August 22, 2001. Mr. Knutson clarified that the drawings were not revised at the same date. August 21,2001, was for sheets A1 through A5, and A6 through A8 were revised on August 22, 2001. Board Member Shankar made a motion to approve the plans date stamped August 21, 2001, sheets A1 through A5, and date stamped August 22, 2001, for sheets A6 through A8. Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club shall do the following. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the parking lot expansion, the city engineer must approve a final grading and drainage plan. This plan shall include water retention calculations and the location of all existing trees on the site to be preserved and the means of protecting the trees. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must supply the city with the following: (1) A revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (a) Obtain approval from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Ramsey County to install landscaping Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 within the Stillwater Road and Minnehaha Avenue rights-of- way. Any required landscape revisions in these areas must also be approved by the city. (b) Location of all existing trees on the site to be preserved. (c) Perennial garden details to be located on the north side of the deck. (d) An underground lawn irrigation system. (e) In addition to the above, all common grounds shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). (2) A revised site plan showing a parking bump out on the north side of the parking lot to accommodate backing up vehicles parked in the two most northerly parking stalls. (3) Trash enclosure details to include at least a 6-foot-high cedar fence enclosure with a cedar enclosable gate or at least a 6-foot-high stucco wall enclosure with a cedar enclosable gate. (4) Elevations and footing details of the proposed 6-foot-high cedar fence. (5) Final exterior walk-in cooler elevations to show the cooler painted to match existing building, lattice runs, with vine plantings. d. Prior to certificate of occupancy the applicant must: Complete all required exterior improvements including landscaping and underground irrigation, parking lot, screening fence, exterior lighting. (2) Install stop signs at both driveway exits. e. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: (1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. (2) The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 7 or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. (3) The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board Member Olson seconded the motion. Chairperson Ledvina clarified that there were other plan sheets in this set, plan sheets T1, S1, S2, L1, date stamped August 21, 2001, and those are included in this motion as well. The motion passed. Ayes- All Ms. Finwall confirmed to Chairperson Ledvina this will go to the city council September 24, 2001. Walgreens (former Burger King) - Semper Development 706 White Bear Avenue Ms. Finwall stated that Semper Development is proposing to develop a Walgreens at the old Burger King site. The proposal includes demolishing the existing approximately 4,600 square-foot building and constructing a 15,035 square-foot drugstore with a drive-through pharmacy. The building will include a corner entry with stucco finish and glass box tower. The remaining elevations will be constructed of face brick. This design is Walgreens' standard building design as seen constructed in several other cities within the metropolitan area (most recently at 1965 Donegal Drive in Woodbury and 1401 Maryland Avenue East in St. Paul). The city has adopted the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study and the Hillcrest Village Smart Growth Concept. The proposed Walgreens falls within both of these study areas. Both the study and the concept are based on pedestrian- friendly developments with human-scale elements. As Walgreens would be the first development within these areas, care should be given to the design of this building. Staff feels that a Walgreens on this site would be an asset to the area only if the Smart Growth Initiatives are considered. As it stands, however, staff feels that the Walgreens proposal falls very short of that. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the three requests due to the fact that the proposed building location leads to an auto-oriented development. And that it is setback from the White Bear Avenue right-of-way with parking situated toward the front of Community Design Review Board 8 Minutes 8-28-2001 the store. The building elevations, staff feels, lack human-scale architectural elements such as pillars, arcades, awnings, and shop windows at eye-level. The design does not reflect the pedestrian-oriented town center concept envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. The landscape plan shows scattered landscaping throughout the site, basically as a compliment to the parking area itself. This design does not contribute to the natural environment and the community sense of place as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area with features such as street trees with grates and landscaped plaza with seating and bicycle storage. The signage proposed includes a 25-foot-high freestanding sign. This design detracts from the pedestrian character envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. Staff does not feel there are any unique hardships or circumstances that warrant approving the proposed 3-foot parking lot setback variance. Staff recommends denial of Semper Development's proposal to construct a Walgreens drug store at 1706 White Bear Avenue. Board Member Olson asked Ms. Finwall if the primary recommendation was against the building itself or the parking? Ms. Finwall answered the recommendation was to deny the proposal as submitted due to the fact that it does not meet the goals of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. Chairperson Ledvina asked if anything came out of the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study relating to building design elements? Secretary Ekstrand commented that the study mainly focused on streetscapes and elements such as pedestrian-ways, street lighting, landscaping, street widths, and medians. It didn't get into elements of building placement as much as the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area study did. The Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area encourages buildings close to the street right-of-way with parking in the rear as illustrated on page 25 of the report. Mr. Tim Rood from Calthorpe Associates submitted that design to illustrate the type of layout for Walgreens that would meet the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area objectives. Board Member Olson stated that in her opinion the alternative layout is more appropriate for the southern end of Hillcrest. In this particular location it is very automotive-oriented and is not very pedestrian-friendly in this part of the city. Secretary Ekstrand said that is the challenge right now, this is the first opportunity we have had to look at a sight for redevelopment with these objectives in mind. The city council has accepted this concept and has directed Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 staff to go ahead and implement the studies. The points you made are true; the first building we implement will be the toughest and will set the tone for the next buildings developed. Mr. John Kohler, the architect for Semper Development representing Walgreens came forward. Mr. Kohler stated that based on a number of the comments made, Walgreens had some very specific guidelines and criteria that they work with when they design their stores, and the plans in the packet are not really the prototypical dimensions for a store. This store was actually narrowed and lengthened to fit on the site. One of the primary criteria that Walgreens has for their buildings is that the parking be adjacent to the front door. It does not need to be between the street and the front door; it needs to be adjacent to the front door. That did not come about from someone's preconception in some corporate office of what might or might not work. It actually came about through stores that Walgreens built. A good example of that would be in Edina at 50th and France Avenue where they built the store right on the street and the parking was behind the store. What they found is that store does not work because of those circumstances. When that lease is up, the building will be a vacant store until somebody else moves in. You are selling a service and a convenience and if you make customers' park in the back of the store and walk all the way to the front, they won't go into the store. People go to a store that is convenient and fast to get in and out of. This is the site plan that Walgreens has approved. They would love to have more room to build a larger store. If they had another piece of property to the north, VValgreens could pull the building up and have the parking to the north. This site does not allow for the building to be closer to the street. Board Member Shankar asked Mr. Kohler why it shows on the site plan to have parking in the back of the store if it did not work at the other store in Edina? Mr. Kohler replied, the architects are trying to get in as many parking spaces possible to meet the city requirements. The parking in the back of the store will probably be used as employee parking. The city ordinance requires 75 spaces for a building this size, but Walgreens would only need about 60. Board Member Olson stated that she agrees with Mr. Kohler, as a customer who is going to get a prescription, she wants to park in the front of the store and get her prescription as quick as possible and leave. She felt that parking in the front of the building is very important for this type of establishment. Board Member Shankar asked Mr. Kohler if there were any Walgreens with two store entrances? Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 Mr. Kohler replied, no there are not, and he suspects the reason would be for loss prevention reasons. Chairperson Ledvina asked how the square footage of this building relates to other Walgreens stores? Mr. Kohler stated this store is slightly larger because it had to be elongated to fit on the site, the store is 15,035 square-feet and most stores are about 14,600 square-feet. A general store would be 105' X 138' in dimension and this store is 97' X 155'. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Kohler if the building was set back to meet the 125-foot-deed requirement? Mr. Kohler replied there is a requirement in the title work that sets it back that far. Both the city attorney and the attorney at Semper Development said the expiration is in 2009, and the attorney's feelings are they can most likely get a title insurance company to insure over that because it is so old. That wasn't the driving force for why this building was back that far. It was something that Walgreens thought they had to meet, which they did meet. VValgreens would not have approved the site if the building was way up and the parking was in the back as it was depicted in the previous plan, and it was not received well. Ms. Finwall stated that the convenience of parking in the front of the building would replace a development with a sense of place as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. The convenience could still be achieved by placing the doors toward the rear and front of the building and incorporating architectural features to the White Bear Avenue side that will achieve a more pedestrian- friendly development. This can only happen when developers are willing contributors to the concept. ^ strong precedent will be set if we allow the first development within the smart growth area to be built with parking in the front. Mr. Raleigh Nelson, one of the two owners of the former Burger King restaurant at 1706 White Bear Avenue came forward. Mr. Nelson said he is a bit shocked at the denial of the Walgreens proposal. He said he knows the area very well running the Burger King for many years. If the building were to be put forward like staff is requesting, it would be great if the other buildings were forward. But it is going to stick out and look intrusive and nobody walks in that location. Once and awhile you may see a kid riding a bike around there. If this proposal does not go through, we are still sitting with a building with parking in the front. He does feel that Walgreens would add to the area and it would certainly be a better building than what is there right now. It would line up and work with the existing buildings that are currently there. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 Board Member Shankar asked staff what the time frame for the Hillcrest Village implementation for this concept was? Secretary Ekstrand said it is going to be ongoing for many years. St. Paul, which has the Hillcrest Center, has a team of real estate people looking into time- tables. What types of businesses can be supported in this area, and how many residential areas can be supported in this area. This could be a 20-year project. Board Member Olson asked the staff, who put these plans together and how bound are we to these two alternatives? Secretary Ekstrand said the met council gave a grant to the City of Maplewood and St. Paul to be part of this. The grant is for architectural and design services. The company that drafted this is a multi-group team. The two main facets, other than the met council who is coordinating this, is a group called Calthorpe and Associates out of California and also one in Minneapolis called HGA. Two of the lead people from those two firms were very interested in submitting their recommendations to the staff on Walgreens proposal to give suggestions on implementing the smart growth objectives. The council has given the staff the go ahead to try to strive to accomplish what is being shown in the plan. Board Member Olson asked staff if they have chosen between the two Hillcrest Village alternative plans given? Secretary Ekstrand replied no they had not. A highbred is going to be decided. Probably in September in their meeting at the met council, they will discuss between Maplewood and St. Paul what alternatives and features of each were liked. The consultant would then put together an alternative plan C with the best parts of each scenario. Board Member Olson asked if there were any comments that she could make as a resident of Maplewood regarding the Hillcrest Redevelopment Project? Secretary Ekstrand said he has some forms in his office that can be filled out and staff would welcome input from anybody. Board Member Olson stated she has a real problem with one of the plans of blocking off North St. Paul read and felt that would be a real mistake. The idea of pushing businesses forward towards the read and moving parking to the back of the buildings was done in North St. Paul and did a lot of damage to the companies there because of that. The idea of eliminating the parking in the front and forcing parking to the back, will make this a narrow, unfriendly corridor. She also felt putting the entrance of Walgreens at the corner of the building right on White Bear Avenue and having the parking in the back will make for a dangerous area for pedestrians or bike riders. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 Chairperson Ledvina commented he thinks it is very hard to make the transition from what exists currently to what is envisioned in the future 5-10-15 years down the road. Board Member Olson said she has grown up in this area and feels this is the wrong place to start pushing a new concept plan. She likes the proposed Walgreens site, and she dislikes the Calthorpe alternative. Chairperson Ledvina said his thought on how to make the transition is perhaps a compromise in the parking scenario. It is a matter of fitting a proposal to the area and perhaps this proposal does not fit in the area. Board Member Shankar commented he felt the plans lacked landscaping and he is not saying the building has to be pushed all the way to the front of the street, he is willing to compromise but would like to see a site plan with a few different scenarios with parking and landscaping. Chairperson Ledvina said, what is proposed is somewhat spartan for what he would expect for a redevelopment of this site. He would like to see some interesting architectural features put into this design, such as a pitched roof element and maybe a clock tower near the entrance. If proposals were in consideration of potential development of Walgreens at this site, he would like to see those types of elements incorporated into the proposal. Board Member Olson agreed she would like to see some height added to the building, adding some decorative elements, and perhaps reconfigure the entry and make it more side walk friendly. Maybe there are some things that could be done to make the plans more acceptable to everybody so the whole thing would not have to be thrown out. Chairperson Ledvina is also inclined to agree with the staff recommendation from a philosophical standpoint. Mr. Kohler said "this proposal is going to the city council". Board Member Shankar made a motion that the Community Design Review Board deny the following requests associated with Sempler Development proposal to develop a Walgreens at 1706 White Bear Avenue for the following reasons: The city council has endorsed and accepted the smart growth principles as illustrated in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Concept plans. These plans were developed by Calthorpe Associates from smart growth workshops held by the Metropolitan Council for the Hillcrest Village. The proposed store is in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. Community Design Review Board 13 Minutes 8-28-2001 2. The objectives of the Smart Growth Redevelopment Concept are to create developments that encourage pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-accessible projects, where the building is the prominent feature when viewed from the street, not the parking lot. Semper Development's proposal to develop a Walgreens store at 1706 White Bear Avenue does not meet the above-mentioned smart growth principles for the following reasons: The proposed building location leads to an auto-oriented development in that it is setback from the White Bear Avenue right-of-way with parking situated toward the front of the store. This design does not reflect a pedestrian-friendly environment as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Concept with buildings constructed closer to the street and parking situated toward the rear of the building. bo The building elevations lack human-scale architectural elements such as pillars, arcades, awnings, and shop windows at eye-level. This design does not reflect the pedestrian-oriented town center concept envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. The landscape plan shows scattered landscape areas in an attempt to decorate the parking lot. This design does not contribute to the natural environment and to the community's sense of place as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area with features such as street trees with grates and landscaped plaza with seating and bicycle storage. The signage proposed includes a 25-foot-high freestanding sign. This design detracts from the pedestrian character envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. e. There are no unique hardships or circumstances that warrant approving the proposed 3-foot parking lot setback variance. m fe The architectural features on the proposed design would need to be enhanced to improve the aesthetics of the site. (Added as an amendment by chairperson Ledvina.) The board would be willing to look at a compromised site plan where the building is moved closer to White Bear Avenue and should also incorporate some pedestrian-friendly features. (Added as an amendment by Board Member Shankar.) Chairperson Ledvina seconded the motion. Ayes - All The motion carried. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 ]4 Ms. Finwall said this item would go to the city council meeting on September 10, 2001. VII. Visitor Presentations No visitors present. VIII. Board Presentations No board presentations. IX. Staff Presentations Co Matt Ledvina is scheduled for the September 10, 2001 city council meeting as a representative for CDRB. Ananth Shankar is scheduled for the September 24, 2001 city council meeting as a representative for CDRB. Due to primary election night the September 11, 2001 CDRB meeting is cancelled and therefore will hold only meeting for the month of September. do Tom Ekstrand introduced an informational article called: An Introduction to Urban Design. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.