Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-12-2006 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency rd Commission Chamber, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex April 12, 2003 6:00 P.M. (A DVD recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file along with these minutes as part of the record). AGENDA MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman, Bill Hearn; Vice Chairman, Ramon Trias, Pamela Hammer; Susan Caron; Stephanie Morgan; Catherine Hensley, John Knapp, Craig Mundt, Edward Lounds MEMBERS ABSENT Charles Grande OTHERS PRESENT Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney; Gilbert Backenstoss, Assistant Growth Management Director; Robert Nix, Growth Management Director; David Kelly, Planning Manager; Michael Brillhardt, Strategy and Special Projects Director. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Hearn called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission and local planning agency at 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Chairman Hearn Vice Chairman Trias Ms. Caron Ms. Hammer Ms. Hensley Mr. Knapp Ms. Morgan Mr. Mundt ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Hearn welcomed all to the meeting. He requested to please keep all comments to five minutes or less. DISCLOSURES Mr. Trias disclosed he is working on project located in TVC. He spoke to the county attorney and there was no conflict of interest. 1 Ms. Hammer spoke with TRPC members on a number of items Mr. Trias also spoke to staff Ms. Caron spoke to Treasure Coast representatives and she is a member of the TDR committee Ms. Morgan requested to put a time limit on meetings of 11:00 PM. If a meeting goes past 11:00 PM, to continue. Also, to put a limit on the public speakers of 3 minutes with 5 minutes max. Ms. Hammer states she is ok with the time limit of the speakers and the public. If it gets close to the 11:00 PM time frame, evaluate then. As well, she agrees to put a time limit on the speakers. Chairman Hearn asked the members of the audience to limit comments to 3 minutes 5 minutes is the maximum time. If the meeting is close to being over at the 11:00 PM hour, the committee will proceed and complete the meeting. If the meeting is not close to being over by 11:00 PM, it will be continued at another date and time to be determined. Agenda Item 1: Land Development Code Marcela Camblor, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and Project Manager for the TVC. Very pleased to bring these LDRs, Land Development Regulations, to this board for review tonight. All of the consultants that have been working on the LDRs are: Planning Consultants Bill Spikowski and Dan Curry. Victor Dover, Principal of Dover, Quill and Partners, Tom Daniels, Professor of the Dept of City and Regional Planning of the University of Pennsylvania, Bernie Techtral, President of Innovative Housing Institute and Nancy Stroud, Land Use Attorney. They will be here to address all of the questions and concerns. As a point of clarification the area of discussion is the area that these LDRs will be impacting. What you see within the dotted line is the entire boundary of St. Lucie County. What you see in the pink or red is designated in the TVC element of the comprehensive plan as the special area plan that is roughly 60 sq miles The actual TVC area is about 28 sq miles. The land development regulations that will be shown today have several sections to them. There is a section that talks about building types and building placements and the type of uses there are within the TVC. There is a section that addresses the workforce housing, the 8% mandatoryworkforce housing, and a section that talks about open space and how open space should be planned and designed, as well as the country side section that addresses the flow way and how that needs to be quantified and planned. The section, that is the biggest of all mentioned, talks about the transfer of development rights. It is a separate ordinance in the packages but eventually this will live inside of the LDR documents. These are all tools to help implement the TVC (Towns, Villages, Countryside) proposed element for the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. There have been two commission workshops, one dedicated to land development regulations and one to the transfer of development rights. There has been a steering committee that has been working for approximately three months. Regarding the LDRs, Land Development Regulations, there has been extensive input from county staff, from many developers, their attorneys, their planners and their representatives. Currently there are two proposed new towns being developed within the TVC and the planners and the developers working on those have been requested to use the LDRs to test them through the process to make sure that they work as they try to implement the principles of TVC. Because of the length and the amount of information within these documents, Marcela wanted to split them into two parts. The first part is a presentation by one of the planners that worked on drafting the Land Development Regulations. The second part focuses on the Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance. 2 Mr. Bill Spikowski will provide a presentation on Land Development Regulations. Mr. Spikowski has been a planning consultant since 1992. Mr. Spikowski stated the prior hearings have been mainly about the comprehensive plan amendment. The teal area on the map is the future land use map change that was seen this past year and will be going before the County Commission for final approval. As this map shows, in addition to the future land use map, there is also the zoning map that is in the existing land development code. In order to implement the comprehensive plan amendments, the land development code needs to be changed and that is the first ordinance that is before this commission this evening. How to deal with the mosaic of the existing zoning district that is already on all the property, the existing urban service boundary two need to be worked out. The question particularly dealing with the public is the basic one what does this mean We will start by reviewing how this code implements the comprehensive plan amendments as they have been prepared. Land owners who want to keep doing what they are doing, do not have to prove they have vested rights; they do not have to do anything at all. When land owners want to change what they are doing with their land, the different changes can be broken into two groups. Those that would not require rezoning and those that would require rezoning. Pretty much the way the current code is now. To sell some or all of the transferable development credits does not require rezoning. One of the development options does not require rezoning. It is set up that way as an incentive. If someone chooses to sell 90% of their credits or create the credits whether they sell them immediately or hold onto them or sub divide the remaining 10% of their units, can also be done without rezoning. What would require rezoning? If someone wants to do a new town or village and the existing zoning isagricultural, a town or village cannot be built in agricultural, therefore a zoning change proposal is required. A new zoning district called PTV, Planned Town or Village, has all the details from the comprehensive plan and additional details on how someone can have a lot of design flexibility to create different kinds of neighborhoods. One of the options that the commissioners decided to allow, is if someone outside the urban service boundary wanted to use their previous density, there is a zoning district called a planned countryside sub division that is simplified and looks like a planned unit development. To build commercial space, apartments and condos within the urban service boundary, there is a new zoning district specifically designed for that purpose called Planned Retail Workplace. Those are the three new districts. There is one other rezoning option, if someone wants to build a strictly residential development within the urban service boundary. There is a way to use the old PUD district but with some additional rules. Chairman Hearn has concerns regarding previous density levels outside the urban service boundary. The ordinance before you basically has four parts. One is the TVC overlay zone. The remainder of the code is the three new zoning districts. The biggest one and longest one is the PTV, Planned Town or Village. It is set up to follow the system that St. Lucie County already uses regarding applications and public hearings. Marcela Camblor stated agency forwards the proposed Land Development Regulations for the TVC comprehensive plan amendments to the board of county commissioners with a recommendation of approval. They have been working on the TDR portion of this with the TDR committee. They did have a recommendation regarding LDRs, sort of a condition of approval, recommendation which was given to the P & Zmembers. Looking at the recommendations for Part 1 this comes directly from the TDR Committee. Their recommendation is to, on page 5 section D 3 A of this document, reword a sentence that addresses the 10% rule to read that transferable density remaining on the land may be 3 used to create a residential development in accordance with the standards of this code including all TVC overlay zone standards. What this means in essence is to make sure, and it did not read that way in the land development regulations, that if someone applies the 10% rule when they keep that at 10%, lets say they have a 40 acre piece, they keep 4 units and transfer the rest, that they are not limited to the size of the lots that they can platt to accommodate those four units. Chairman Hearn asked if any of the board members has a question. Mr. Trias has some concerns with the terms open space and countryside and is confused about both terms being used. Marcela stated these terms are the same. Mr. Trias suggested using the term countryside. Also it would be useful to have a diagram of the countryside element, showing the different building types such as parks and plazas and sidewalks. Chairman Hearn disagreed stating that countryside and open space have two different meanings. Mr. Mundt on page 27 concerns with accessory units, pg 40 concerns with neighborhood streets and bicycle travel. Is bike lane part of roadway or a lane unto itself? Pg. 49, max height of parking structures. Ms. Hammer had concerns on pg 2 of the ordinance, last line under section 4, Exhibit B every map, every exhibit, all references to comp plan, everything should be dated. Ms. Hammer further stated when items, articles, maps, documents, etc. are amended; they need to be dated which will reflect when the change was made. Pg. 51 item 02 I3 Deed restrictions on land regarding restrictions on estate lots in the countryside, restrictions need to be specifically noted and recorded nd on the deed Pg 58 #5 2 line would allow small power boats in the flow ways, objects to loud noise a power boat would make. Suggestion to use electric power - Pg. 60 regarding T-signs, uniformity of signs, restriction of signs, sign code, etc. will be considered by the P & Z commission members Pg. 61 fast track programs and work with developers to abide by the rules and regulations. Disapproves of the approval of the final site plan by administrative staff. Suggests a special TVC meeting to finalize site plans. Pg. 79 objects to the requirement of side walks on one side of the street. Wants sidewalks on both sides of the street. Chairman Hearn concurred regarding dating of all materials and suggests that the board of county commissioners to review final site plans. Mr. Lounds Pg. 5C had concerns regarding the agricultural use and the flow way system. Section 3.1.03 agricultural uses and what is permitted to use in the country sides. Bill Spitkowski stated the rule that is in place now, exactly applies in the future because the zoning is not changing. Another concern are flow ways pg 55 #1-3 referencing system includes joining water management facilities, waste water, re-use facilities, etc. Is joining water management facilities in place today? What relationship is there between the flow ways on a piece of property on a development and the water management district that is in place today that has the ability to discharge water through the entire drainage system in Florida. Marcela Camblor stated right now it is Ft. Pierce Farms drainage district. Explanation from Dan Curry is inaudible. Mr. Lounds asked are there any provision for golf courses. Per Bill Spitkowski 18 hole golf courses are allowed in the code as a proposal. Marcela Camblor asked is the recommendation that there is a different criteria if a golf course is proposed, or that a golf course not be proposed? Mr. Lounds 4 commented regarding best management practices go to the citrus industry, nurseries, vegetable growers in this area and make sure that they are not being impeded regarding making a living, etc. Further he stated he is not comfortable that the flow ways will automatically tie-in to Ft. Pierce Farms Drainage System. Ms. Hensley stated that the best management practice for water discharge needs to be consistent and defined. Independent agencies have a real commitment. She further stated that this issue could be slightly more defined once it gets to BOCC. Mr. Mundt had concerns about street network (pg. 4) and who is going to pay for it. On Pg. 9 regarding live/work building. Michael Brillhardt stated they have been working with the development activities that are in the conceptual phase or in the process of development review, DRI application review. That is a major component at the county to see that concurrency is being met and knowing it will take a combination of working with the developers to see what the impact is upon the roadway system and how and what needs to be done to mitigate that impact. They are working to solve those transportation concurrency issues. Mr. Lounds had concerns with urban service boundaries Pg. 1 map shows urban service boundary Pg. 2 C regarding the percentage inside/outside TVC. How will utilities such as potable water, re- use water, sewer lines, etc. get to an area outside of the urban service boundary for a village or a town or to a county line outside of the urban service boundary. Marcela Camblor stated they are using urban services as an incentive to achieve a different pattern of development. Chairman Hearn had a concern and asked has the regional planning council addressed all the concerns of staff, DCA and the public in this document that is being looked at today. Marcela Camblor replied all of the concerns that have been made available to the regional planning council have been addressed. Regarding the DCA objections, recommendations and comments, for this document, TVC, those are being addressed as a separate process and they will all be dealt with by May 15, 2006. Chairman Hearn had a concern about the countryside stating if this plan is approved by the Board of County Commissioners and becomes law in the county and if they (town or village) incorporate,the countryside becomes more and more eroded. Marcela Camblor replied this document currently limits a percentage of that countryside that can be impacted to 10%. Ms. Hensley commented that there will never be true guarantees and that this document eliminates micromanagement to safeguard what is needed and desired for the future regarding open space and countryside. This document has reflected the changes that have been requested and this document is the best chance for the future for this county. Chairman Hearn will open the public hearing. Larry Storms, STSI, Site Development Services Inc., concerned regarding flow ways which is not recognized as a critical component of the TVC. On page 9 where flow way is defined it would be recommended that it be reduced to literally a definition of the structural element.There is a policy statement contained within that definition which states that the regional system be created incrementally as new development is approved gradually to replace the existing canal network in order to restore the natural discharge patterns. Therefore a master plan is needed for the flow way. 5 Noreen Dreyer, Attorney, Ruden and Mc Clusky and Vice Chairman of the Smart Growth Committee. Representing the Smart Growth Committee regarding some major issues. The committee did not believe that the option for the development of parcels of less than 500 acres was adequately addressed in the proposed land development regulations. As well the committee feels that the definitions of open space, countryside, green space need to be clarified much more adequately. The committee feels that the flow way does need to be master planned and built incrementally. Finally, utilities should not be used as growth control issue within the TVC. Johnathan Ferguson, Law Firm Ruden Mc Closky, has concerns regarding a provision on pg 4 that reserves the regional street network and prohibits any development that would conflict with that. Also regarding variances handled during the planning discussion in front of the county commission, if they want to modify the standards that can be done during that review process. Another issue is the use of water and sewer to control growth Steve Cassen, St. Lucie County resident and Supervisor of Maintenance of Ft. Pierce Farms has concerns regarding regional flow way system on pg 55 under 2-I of the TVC ordinance. At a meeting that took place recently, his understanding is that staff had recognized the need for the existing canals system to stay in place. Tom Babcock, 261 Marina Drive, has concerns stating not all of the TVC properties are in the Ft. Pierce Farms water control district. Also sees some difficulty in incrementally installing the flow ways system if there is a lesser discharge rate downstream and a greaterdischarge rate upstream, restrictions of well and septic tank systems, concerned that there may be some inequities regarding some parcels not receiving credits regarding parking areas for elementary schools with respect to the countryside component, his last concern is work force housing. Tom Mitchell, 1202 Ibis Avenue, needs clarification regarding the planned country subdivision. Why couldnt the PUD zoning district cover those planned country subdivisions, if nothing is being taken away from the land owner. Another concern is the compatibility issue being vague. Randy Sexton, land owner owns 375 acres, has concerns that the TVC plan affecting his rights. He feels he has the right to hook to utilities if he is willing to pay for them. He feels he is totally restricted because he does not have 500 acres outside of the urban service boundary. Julie Garafalo, Government Affairs Director for the Realtors Association for St. Lucie County. Has concerns regarding ad valorum impact of build out and affordable housing regarding a flow way system and conservation green space area and how much it will cost to manage that per homeowner. Chairman Hearn closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds had a comment regarding denying potable water, reused water and sewer systems, tax paid utilities which are paid for by the tax payers. Ms. Caron commented regarding the water and sewer issue that this is an incentive based plan and there was no water/sewer to these residents ever promised. When services are received, density is received. Marcela addressed several questions posed by those who spoke during the pubic hearing. Some of which was a consistent theme of the flow way regarding whether or not it should be incrementally 6 developed and that a master plan is needed. Marcela added doing the flow way incrementally is more cost efficient. Refercing the meeting with Mr. Busha there was a discussion regarding maintaining the system of canals and providing for the flow way. Marcela will address the wording in that paragraph for further clarification so it does not sound like the canals will not all disappear in the future. Regarding properties that are less than 500 acres, today a planned countryside sub division has to be done. Bill Spitkowski replied in response to the planned countryside sub division instead of a PUD s intent to use the new PSC district however, it was a less confusing way to do it and the end result is the same. Regarding the compatibility standard being vague, the term compatibility is not defined. The language states that the applicant needs to demonstrate compatibility and in the case of someone applying for a PCS, if the proposed development is slightly different than the TVC, he is basically carrying out the counties policy. Regarding the PCS and that it requires rezoning, the nature of the development wouldrequire rezoning in any case. Marcela stated several of the speakers brought up the issue about utilities being provided or services being provided to those parcels that are not developed by?/as? a town or village and choose not to do the 10% rule. It is policy decision that is part of the comprehensive plan amendment as proposed in TVC. Regarding the question about the street network on pg 4, in the proposed 20-30 street network there is a footnote that states that network needs to exist but the location is not set in stone. All of those get moved at a ¼ mile depending where there is a connection. There is a built in flexibility. Marcela stated regarding affordable housing, this document includes a basic principle of how it will work. The TVC is doing a lot to address affordable housing. Chairman Hearn stated that there needs to be a balance between affordable housing and other reasons people move to St. Lucie County. Mr. workforce housing is going to be kept affordable. He further states that this issue needs to be defined. Marcela stated regarding who pays for current water/sewer system, TVC is fiscally neutral in that no landowner should have to pay for anything that they are not using. Ms. Powers asked how the open space will bemaintained. Bill Spitkowski replied that under the current language it is very general. It says that the applicant for a planned town or village needs to propose how that should be done and that it is place holder language which allows someone to go ahead right now. He hopes that the count committee that is working on that will come up with a better way that would be amended into this, in place of general language. Michael Brillhardt stated at this point in time he is putting together a TVC staffing plan as to what the county needs to do to implement the TVC element. Something will be presented in the next couple of weeks as to what it is going to cost. Current staff cannot actually do the implementation. Dan Carry stated regarding the flow way system that the standard for discharge will be a lot less for this new development than what is presently allowed. Agriculture has certain privileges of discharge to protect crops that would not apply to this urban development. There will be a higher standard. Within the existing canal system there are main canals that are draining huge basins to the west and that drainage has to be maintained. This new development is not going to be allowed to compromise the ability of the drainage district to get water off the land when it needs to. Sothis is really two systems. It is the flow way system and then a backbone system of canals that will have to remain. The main canal system will provide a higher level of water quality protection for Indian River Lagoon than what would occur under the existing condition. Ms. Caron made a motion to accept staff recommendations that the local planning agency will forward the proposed land development code regulations for the TVC comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval along with the comments and concerns that this board has discussed tonight for their review. 7 The motion is seconded by Ms. Hammer who stated if the motion will include those concerns that everything be dated. That the deeds spell out the restrictions, that the amendment is made to the powerboats, look at signs, address the concerns to the county commissioners about a final site plan not being looked at by this board or them and sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Trias asked Ms. Caron if she will add all those stipulations to her motion. Mr. Trias will add a better definition of countryside and open space. Roll Call Vice Chairman Trias Yes Ms. Caron Yes Ms. Hammer Yes Mr. Knapp Yes Mr. Lounds No Ms. Morgan No Mr. Mundt Yes Chairman Hearn No states he is totally opposed to the increasing density in the North county. There are problems in the school system, the jails, the roads, etc. He does not know how these problems will be solved by building plans that will increase density by 300%. The vote is 5 3 to approve this petition. Agenda Item 2: Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) Application of St. Lucie County to amend its Land Development Code to establish procedures, by which Transferable Development Rights (TDR) are granted, conveyed, applied and recorded with the Towns, Villages, and the Countryside (TVC) Comprehensive Plan Amendment boundary. Marcela Camblor presenting Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program ordinance. First isa presentation by Professor Daniels who drafted this ordinance. Staff recommendations will be discussed and the recommendations of the TDR Committee regarding this document. They have extensively worked in reviewing this document and then it can be opened for questions and comments. Mr. Daniels is a professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania where he teaches land use planning, environmental planning and growth management. Mr. Daniels has been involved in 189 conservation easement projects. Professor Daniels stated he appreciated the opportunity to meet with this committee. He stated he would like to explain what TDRs are, Transfer of Development Rights, and then would like to describe the elements of a successful TDR program and then review the ordinance and how it would apply in St. Lucie County. He provided a presentation describing what a TDR credit is, the TDR credit process and the St. Lucie County TDR Program. A visual presentation was included. Mr. Knapp asked about rights being transferable within the TVC and if the City of Ft. Pierce annexes any of the property within the urban service boundary. Mr. Trias stated that Commissioner Coward suggested setting up an urban design to deal with some of these issues. Mr. Mundt wanted clarification that in the TVC, if the land owner owns more than 500 acres and cannot develop the underlying one dwelling unit per acre that he must become part of a town or village. Marcela stated after 20 years of having converted the density into credits, they sunset. Mr. Trias stated should a recommendation for St. Lucie County be made regarding TDRs. Mr. Daniels stated there are a number of TDR programs regarding a TDR bank where the township buys TDRs from the 8 landowner and eventually sells them to developers to build at a higher density. This is a program where you may want to have a TDR bank as a mechanism to get a TDR program started. He further stated to think about selling the development rights as seriously as selling a farm. Mr. Hearn had a concern regarding the land being used for commercial or industrial purposes at a later date after the development rights are sold. Marcela Camblor stated that staff recommendation the TDR is a section that is included within the LDRs was the same as their previous recommendation which was to forward the proposed land development regulations that include the LDRs to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Marcela has been working with the TDR Steering Committee taking a very close look at this ordinance. One of the things that the committee focused on was to check that the the system that was being proposed here. One of the actions that the committee took was to advise the board that a motion was made to accept the methodology to calculate the demand and supply ratios as they are proposed in the TDR ordinance. The second recommendation was that the board forward the proposed TDR ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval with the understanding that the TDR Steering Committee continues to refine some wording in this ordinance and that they wanted to include these conditions of approval. There are seven conditions of approval. They are included on the same sheet of paper where it says Part 2. The first condition is on page 3 Section C 3 a paragraph that talks about limiting the ability to have TDRs on easements. The second condition on page 3 section D 2 the committee talked about the sun setting of development credits. What the committee asked the team to do is to remove that subsection D 2 but to allow the committee to continue exploring other implications to conduct additional research. The third condition is adding to this same section that discusses easements. It is adding to section number 1. It is regarding the transfer of development rights and the future street network. The fourth condition is the same one in the beginning because it lives in the TDR portion th regarding the 10% rule. The 5 condition is regarding conditions of these conservation easements and refers to pg 19 section 8. The committee felt that the intent of this section was valid as applying conservation easements as TDRs are sold but they wanted to make sure that it was appropriately worded to ensure that no unnecessary burden would be placed on land owners particularly those th pursuing agriculture that would hinder the ability to generate loans. The 6 recommendation is regarding design requirements on pg 61 section I. A rather extensive section and the committee recommended that this section be removed entirely since these design requirements have been addressed in the LDRs in a different section of the document. Regarding terminology in general throughout the entire document, the TDR, the LDR and even the TVC, the committee recommends that all the documents be reviewed for consistency of terminology. Chairman Hearn stated it is past 11PM does the committee want to continue. Ms. Hammer and others stated to continue the meeting since it is close to the end of the discussion. Chairman Hearn asked to be excused at 11PM. Vice Chairman Trias opened the public hearing. Johnathan Ferguson, a member of the TDR Committee has concerns regarding the 10% rule. Only discussion was to clarify what was written, there was no hashing of the 10% rule. The TVC element comprehensive plan amendment does not contain the 10% restriction. The LDRs and TDRs were drafted more strictly than the comp plan amendment required and that is because there was a 9 discussion with the county commission and they very clearly directed that the 10% would not apply and that you have the right to develop your property with your remaining development rights. John Martin, Chairman of the TDR Committee, and land owner in St. Lucie County in the TVC area has concerns regarding the supply and demand ratio and the 10% rule. Tom Babcock, member of the TDR Committee stated he agrees with Johnathan Ferguson and John Martin regarding the 10% rule. Further he has concerns regarding the removal of the sunset provision, still disagrees with the distinction of parcels of more than 500 acres and has additional concerns regarding civic buildings and work force housing and the conservation easement relating to the 10% rule quoting from pg. 27. Randy Sexton has concerns regarding selling developmental rights. Further stating land is worthless without developmental rights. Vice Chairman Trias closed the public hearing. Mr. Mundt made a motion to recommend the TDR draft Ordinance 06-018 to the Board of County Commissioners is recommended by staff and adopted by the TDR Steering Committee conditions of approval with the exceptions of items #2 and #4. Seconded by Ms. Hammer. Vice Chairman stated that there was a motion and a second. Any questions from the board. Ms. Morgan asked about the conservation easement issue. Marcela Camblor stated that the committee wanted clarification on the wording and not to remove it. Ms. Morgan states regarding this motion, 2, 4 and clarification on #5? Mr. Mundt stated clarification on # 5 would remain. #2 and #4 would be excluded. Mr. Trias stated that the motion was that the board is in agreement with the clarification issue regarding #5 and to remove #2 and #4. Roll Call Vice Chairman Trias Yes Susan Caron Yes Pamela Hammer Yes John Knapp Yes Edward Lounds Yes Stephanie Morgan No Craig Mundt Yes The petition was approved 6 1. The meeting was adjourned at 11:33PM. 10