Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/18/2018 (2)Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing January 18, 2018 Member Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: Hobbs, Heinz Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Holland, Kleer, Mounce, Shepard, Frickey, Tuttle, Tatman-Burruss, Wilkinson, Virata, Cosmas and Gerber Agenda Review Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas with no exceptions mentioned. Chair Schneider asked for clarification on several controversial items on the agenda, general consensus was that those items should remain on the consent agenda. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board January 18, 2018 Page 2 of 9 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, requested the Board to carefully consider all irregularities in the development review process before approving the projects being presented tonight. He questioned a recent situation whereby the City Council allowed new evidence to be brought forth during an appeal that ultimately influenced their decision. He expressed some concerns with this and other inconsistencies in the hearing process. No staff follow up was presented on citizen participation. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from December 14, 2017, P&Z Hearing 2. Water Treatment Facility Annexation 3. Platte River Power Authority Campus Redevelopment PDP170040 Planning Manager Gloss stated that a correction was made to the zoning on the Water Treatment Facility Annexation, saying there was an incorrect district that was identified. He also noted that there was a Major Amendment change to the Platte River Power Authority Campus Redevelopment. Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Chair Schneider reviewed the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the January 18, 2018, Consent agenda as originally advertised; Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Discussion Agenda: 4. The Hub on Campus Fort Collins, PDP160038 5. Johnson Drive Apartments, PDP170034 6. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility PDP160018 7. Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility Major Amendment Other Business 1. Election of Officers Project: The Hub on Campus Fort Collins PDP160038 Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to construct two buildings at 1415 West Elizabeth Street, parcel numbers 9715442002, 9715431005 and 9715431002. The site includes a total of 1.93 acres and is within the Community Commercial (C-C) Zone District and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) zone district. The site currently contains existing buildings from the CB Potts business, and these existing buildings and parking areas are proposed to be demolished. Two separate buildings are proposed. The main building fronts on Elizabeth Street and includes five-stories in the Community Commercial (C-C) zone district. The main building proposed is mixed-use and includes 12,404 gross square feet of commercial space on the ground level facing West Elizabeth Street. The second building to the south includes three stories of multi-family dwellings located in the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) zone district. The project proposes a total of 142 units of student-oriented housing. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that the Board received a copy of the Mineral State notification given to Coe Bank the item was added 1/17/2018 and updated on 1/18/2018. Traffic analysis letter of operations update. Several citizen emails and letters were also received: Valerie Hunter Goss opposes the project due to height and mass, Renee Planning & Zoning Board January 18, 2018 Page 3 of 9 Walcup opposes the project due to traffic and parking concerns, Doug Ernest expressed positive feedback but posed questions reflecting concerns about the project largely related to traffic, Rick Fletcher opposed the project due to size and traffic concerns, Vicky Hansen does not oppose the project but had concerns about parking and height, Sally Harris expressed concerns about the height of the project and the impact and influx of students on the neighborhood, and Megan Balleski opposes the project and has provided four (4) supporting documents and one video. Staff and Applicant Presentations 30 minutes Planner Holland provided a brief overview of this recommendation. Sam Coutts, with Ripley Design and representative of Core Spaces (Developer), was joined by Wear Maclom the Architect for Kimberly Horn Civil and Traffic Engineer. Mr. Coutts provided some background on Core Spaces, including their experience as a national student housing developer. He provided slides on previously completed projects, described site location and layout of the Hub project, and gave some site history. This is a Round 4 presentation, it will include a proposed site plan with all recommended changes. Planner Holland provided an overview of the project, including a description of the West Central Area Plan analysis. He discussed transit routes, character areas, context diagrams, buffers provided, building heights, zoning and permitted use, and density standards. He stated that this project meets the shadowing requirements for the three (3) story building, and the five-story building does not impact adjacent properties. Staff is recommending a condition of approval for this project related to the trash enclosure. While some of the staff members have not yet reviewed this additional information, they feel that the general layout and configuration is workable. Staff recommends keeping this condition of approval so they can continue to finalize the project plan. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Vishal Sipan Kapoor, 1005 Ridge West, has concerns about the impacts in relation to the scale of the building and the amount of people in the area. They are concerned that the casting shadow will cause further expense to them in terms of snow plowing and the need for new trees, due to the lack of natural light. They do not feel that the developer is doing enough to mitigate those impacts. They are also conducting their own impact study for comparison. Jessica Kasehene, 1054 Montview Rd., continues to have concerns with the project regarding traffic and community mitigation, stating her belief that concerns for students are taking precedent over the community concern. Board Questions and Deliberation Mr. Coutts responded to the citizen’s concern regarding the shadowing issue, showing how the shadows would be cast. He offered to work privately with that property owner to mitigate any future costs related to snow and ice build-up on that parking lot. Mr. Coutts also addressed the landscaping concern, saying that specific shade-tolerant plants have been proposed. He also discussed the proposed community mitigation that would provide student housing without using single-family homes in neighborhoods. Member Rollins inquired about plans for the retail space; Mr. Coutts responded that there are no specific plans yet. Member Whitley asked about the possibility of small mammals living inside the caged rock system and its proposed longevity; Architect Grant Brenderburg, with Malcolm Architects, responded that the gabion wall system is an engineered stone product that has a 50-year warranty. Chair Schneider asked about whether the Land Use Code defines what story a mezzanine would be; Planner Holland responded that a mezzanine shall not be more than one third of the floor area for the floor directly below it. Mr. Coutts added that it is the definition of how to measure building height, rather than a specific provision saying that a story is defined by a certain square footage. Planner Holland stated that it is found in3.8.17 Article V of the Land Use Code, and there is no specific definition of mezzanine. Chair Schneider asked the possibility of code conflicts between the Land Use Code and the International Building Code due to of variances in the definitions; Mr. Coutts agreed that this is possible. Chair Schneider conceded that the plan meets the definition of the Land Use Planning & Zoning Board January 18, 2018 Page 4 of 9 Code for a five-story building. Chair Schneider also asked about the relative location of the trash chute; Mr. Coutts showed a diagram of that location. Mr. Brenderburg confirmed that the trash chute is not accessible from the mezzanine. Member Rollins inquired about the process for acquiring a parking space; Chad Metazy, with Core Spaces, described the process, saying it would be difficult for outsiders to lease a parking space. Member Rollins also asked about the elevator size pertaining to bicycle movement; Mr. Metazy Illustrated that both elevators could accommodate multiple bikes and occupants at the same time. Member Rollins asked about access to bicycle parking; Mr. Metazy responded that parking is located in multiple locations on almost every floor. Member Rollins asked about the location of the four and five-bedroom units Mr. Metazy responded that the five-bedroom units are all located in the larger building to the north, and the four-bedroom units are located in the building to the south, adding that all of the amenities are located in the large building. Member Hansen inquired about the number of bicycle spaces being proposed, which he believes is a total number of 384. Planner Holland clarified that, when the applicant was submitting their final plans before the hearing there was a discrepancy of one bicycle parking space, and this will be resolved by adding bicycle parking spaces in another area of the project. Mr. Metzy added that there are areas that could be used for up to an additional 88 bike storage spaces. Member Rollins asked what programs does the City have to address spill-over parking or excessive traffic in neighborhoods. Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations, responded that all developers contribute to the Transportation Capital Expansion fee program, which is assessed based on regional and community transportation improvements. She added that there is a staff member who is dedicated to working with neighborhoods on traffic mitigation. Neighborhoods that are concerned about spillover parking can also work toward implementing a zone which does not allow that. Chair Schneider asked whether the mitigation plan for the potential shadowing impacts on the parking lot for snow removal should be a condition of approval; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe responded that this could be imposes as a condition, explaining, that the advantage of imposing that as a condition of approval is to make it an official part of the PDP, and the City can potentially become involved with that issue at a future time. There was more discussion of the pros and cons of imposing such a condition. Mr. Metazy stated that his company has attempted to reach such an agreement with the neighborhood without success. Vice Chair Hansen asked about parking structure; Mr. Coutts explained that it will be aesthetically contiguous in appearance. Vice Chair Hansen asked about the amount of space that will be available to a third-party tenant; Mr. Coutts responded that the retail square footage will be purely dedicated to third-party retail, which is 12,000 square feet of the 52,000 total. Vice Chair Hansen also asked about the turn analysis for passenger vehicles; Mr. Coutts responded that multiple turning diagrams were presented. Vice Chair Hansen asked whether the lowest level in the south building is below the grade point; Mr. Coutts confirmed this to be true, saying the first level is 50% recessed in the grade, resulting in full-size windows with plenty of natural light Planner Holland also responded to some of the concerns related to shadow impacts, saying there are two different code standards in the MMN code standard. that ensures that an adjacent proposed building does not cast a shadow onto an adjacent structure. The developer is meeting that specific standard. Regarding the other concern relating to vegetation, Planner Holland stated standards are being met, but he is willing to work individually with concerned neighbors Member Carpenter stated that she believes the Applicant has met the shadowing standards overall, and since it is not a specific requirement in the LUC, they should be allowed to work it out individually. Member Rollins will support the project. Member Hansen asked some follow up questions related to traffic, and Ms. Wilkinson reviewed the conclusions drawn from the Traffic Impact Study. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Hub on CampusPDP160038, based upon the findings of fact subject to the following condition of approval: the applicant shall provide no later than final plan approval a detailed trash and recycling enclosure design, including truck access and circulation, compactor and or dumpster locations in a matter substantially compliant with the Planning and Zoning Board approval and in accordance with adopted engineering standards and trash and recycling standards in section 3.2.5 of the Land Use Code. This approval is also based on the information analysis and findings of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for the hearing, which are adopted by this Board. Member Rollins Planning & Zoning Board January 18, 2018 Page 5 of 9 seconded. Member Carpenter is in favor of this project, stating her appreciation that this project has no proposed modifications. Member Hansen agreed, thanking the Applicant for the time and intensity invested. Chair Schneider also agreed, acknowledging the multiple review iterations that had occurred, saying it will be a benefit to that area of town. Vote: 5:0. Project: Johnson Drive Apartments PDP170034 Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to construct a five-story mixed-use building at the southwest corner of Johnson Drive and Spring Court. The project proposes a total of 192 units of student oriented housing. This includes 44 one-bedroom units, 104 two-bedroom units, 16 three-bedroom units, and 28 four-bedroom units, for a total of 412 bedrooms. A total of 265 off-street parking spaces are proposed within a parking garage located within the first two levels of the building. Amenity and commercial space is provided on the ground level of the building. Outdoor amenity space is also provided within outdoor courtyards located on the third floor above the parking garage. The site includes a total of 2.5 acres and is within the General Commercial (C-G) Zone District and the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber confirmed that a citizen email was received from Thomas Scott stating that he generally supports the project but expressed some concern about parking. Staff and Applicant Presentations 30 minutes Planner Holland provided a brief overview of this recommendation. Craig Russell, Planner for Russell + Mills Studios, gave a detailed presentation of this project, showing slides of the overall layout of the area and surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. He reminded the Board of an alternative compliance request that has been reviewed by staff regarding the lighting in the natural area buffer zone. The compromise is to provide motion sensor lighting along the pedestrian pathway. The Applicant has also requested an increase in occupancy limits. Finally, he offered several new scenarios that have not yet been reviewed by staff. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, has a concern about the connectivity in terms of pedestrian access to the commercial properties to the South, saying the two alternatives given by the applicant are insufficient. He also stated that the park was not meant to be an urban canyon and that this project is impinging on the park. Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough, requested that his time be doubled as he has a signed request from his wife, who could not be present, to use her time. Chair Schneider allowed four (4) minutes in total. Mr. Patterson requested that this project be denied, saying that no studies have been performed to allow a transit pass for students. He stated that parking provided should be based on the number of leased beds, indicating an issue with spillover parking from the State (they charge for parking). He provided slides to show spillover at different times and days. Cathy Pierce, 1348 Stonehenge, stated her concern for her current tenants with regard to where the staging is going to take place for the construction. Planning & Zoning Board January 18, 2018 Page 6 of 9 Board Questions and Deliberation Planner Holland addressed several of the citizen concerns: connectivity, buffering, redevelopment areas, spillover parking, and strategies related to TOD Mitigation that do not require alternative compliance. Planner Holland stated that compliance must be reviewed for connectivity with respect to location (proximity to the MAX), which should have been covered in the Traffic Impact Study performed by Delich Associates. Joe Delich explained that the area is termed Transit Corridor because of the location of the Max to the project, which requires connectively level service C (continuous pedestrian network); however; the sidewalks may need to be altered to meet this standard. There was more discussion related to distance ratios. Planner Holland confirmed that this project meets the minimum level of service standards. Member Carpenter asked if there will be fees for parking; Patrick Quinn responded that fees would be approximately $70 per covered space, which is less than the current market rate by about $30. Vice Chair Hansen asked if there would be any amenities offered apart from those on the south end; Mr. Quinn responded that there will be a fitness and gear room, meetings spaces and so forth Vice Chair Hansen asked if it would be possible for a tenant to put a bicycle in their unit; Mr. Quinn confirmed that is true, adding that there are additional bike parking spaces and more could be provided. Member Carpenter asked if there would 24-hour management; Mr.Quinn responded that there will be an office on-site that will be open during normal business hours and will also have the availability of 24-hour maintenance and management on-call with a number that will be distributed to all residents. There will not be a manager on-site 24-hours. Mr. Quinn also confirmed that there will duplex parking for bikes in the form of double level bike racks. Chair Schneider asked the number of car shares requested; Planner Holland did not have a firm answer, saying it is potentially less than 6, adding that he doesn’t believe that 6 shares is too many for the size and scope of this development. Mr. Russell also discussed the on-street parking configuration, saying it will be is the local connector, not the local residential street; no on-street parking is being considered as part of the total parking provided. In addition, the parking capacity of the streets will be changing somewhat because of the number of residential driveways that were there previously along Spring Court. Member Rollins asked whether the question of construction staging had been resolved; Planner Holland responded that this is typically addressed later in the development process. He added that, generally, no construction staging is allowed within the public right of way, unless the applicant requests an encroachment permit, which is then monitored by Engineering staff. Vice Chair Hansen asked for a conceptual diagram of the proposed trash enclosure; Mr. Russell provided that image. There was some discussion about providing frontage views while maximizing rental space/income. Planner Holland added that there is no minimum size; the Applicant is more concerned with making sure the amount of space is realistic for being 1,000 square feet in a mixed-use project. Vice Chair Hansen commented on the analysis of parking usage in similar projects, which is about 50%. He also questioned whether other parking solutions are available for the neighborhood. He also suggested that a condition be place on the location of the trash enclosure. Member Carpenter agreed and requested that this type of parking situation be part of future work session discussions in order to compare free and fee-based parking. She also requested the 24-hour on-site management for increased occupancy be given more scrutiny. Overall, she will support the project. Member Whitley will also support the project. Member Hansen made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Johnson Drive Apartments PDP170034, based upon the findings of fact and the two following conditions of approval included in the staff report: Conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide no later than final plan approval a detailed trash and recycling enclosure design, including truck access and circulation, and compactor and dumpster locations, in a manner substantially compliant with the Planning and Zoning Board approval and in accordance with adopted engineering standards and trash and recycling standards in section 3.2.5 of the Land Use Code. Planning & Zoning Board January 18, 2018 Page 7 of 9 2. The applicant shall provide not later than final plan approval the materials, samples and colors to ensure compliance with section 3.10.5(c) of the Land Use Code. This approval and the conditions are based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Board discussion on this items with the following findings: the PDP complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials, the information analysis, finding of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing that are adopted by this Board. Member Carpenter seconded, suggesting an additional amendment. After some discussion, Member Carpenter retracted her amendment. Chair Schneider stated that he will reluctantly support this project, based on his concern that this project is only meeting the bare minimums as far as amenities and parking. Vice Chair Hansen agreed, acknowledging that the standards are met only minimally. Vote: 5:0. Executive Session started at 9:35 pm; the Board reconvened at 10:10 pm. Project: Long Pond Wireless Telecommunication Facility PDP160018 Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 2,500-sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. No wireless equipment is proposed at this time. The proposed tower would be 45 feet tall and disguised as a silo. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and, as such, the wireless telecommunication facility use is subject to the review and approval by the City Council. On January 16, 2018, City Council will consider second reading of an ordinance approving the Addition of Permitted Use for this project. Chair Schneider acknowledged that several last-minute communications were received on the date of the hearing. Several of the Board members were unable to review these documents in preparation for the hearing. Chair Schneider asked the Applicant representatives if they would like to continue with the hearing and strike those documents from the record or withdrawal the documents completely. Chair Schneider reviewed the items that were received. Planner Frickey addressed one document in question, saying it is a consolidated staff report to City Council from Council proceedings last December along with supporting documents. Chair Schneider confirmed that the items had been received by Gretchen Schiager, Staff Liaison to the Board. After much discussion and advice from counsel, the Applicant representative agreed to continue the item to the February hearing in order to retain all documents submitted as part of the official record. Member Carpenter moved that the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board continue the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility PDP160018 to a date certain of February 15, 2018; Member Rollins seconded the motion. Chair Schneider asked whether discussion was required’ Assistant City Attorney. Yatabe stated that normally on a continuance you would take public comment but only as to the continuance and not the substance of the application. Public comment should consist of someone commenting or opposing the continuance. Chair Schneider asking if anyone wanted to address the board about the continuance; none noted. Vote: 5.0 Public Input: Debbie Cory lives across the street from the proposed tower location. She feels that the applicant is not prepared, adding that due diligence has not been accomplished. She cited continuous late submittals and feels that the Applicant isn’t following the rules of proposal. Nancy Easton agrees, saying that the last-minute tactics are inappropriate. She supports the Board’s motion to continue this project and asked if there was any time limit; the answer supplied indicated there was none. Chair Schneider stated that the goal was to make sure that we have a fair hearing, that everyone can be heard, and that all the evidence can be presented, especially if an appeal is imminent Planning & Zoning Board January 18, 2018 Page 8 of 9 Project: Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility Major Amendment Project Description: This is a request for consideration of a Major Amendment to the Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility for a phased expansion of vehicle storage and maintenance space, office buildings, and improvements to site landscaping, stormwater infrastructure, and internal walkways and driveways. The first phase of improvements will include a 1,200-square foot expansion of an existing vehicle maintenance building, a new 5,000 square foot vehicle storage garage, a modular office building, and expansion of a fenced yard where work vehicles are stored, fueled, and maintained. Future phases indicate the potential for additional expansion to vehicle storage and maintenance garages, as well as two new office buildings. The Nix Farm facility is located on 27 acres at the eastern terminus of Hoffman Mill Road in the Public Open Lands (POL) zoning district, surrounded by the Kingfisher Point Natural Area. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber confirmed that there were no additional items received since the work session. Staff and Applicant Presentations 30 minutes Planner Mounce provided a brief overview of this recommendation. Mark Sears, Natural Areas Manager for the City of Fort Collins, gave a detailed presentation of this project, showing slides of the area and expansion plans. He discussed the restoration that has been completed and that they have previously sought designation from Historic Preservation. To accommodate the growing office needs, they are requesting the approval of a modular office building: a five-year old house that was purchased as part of a land conservation deal. They are proposing to move it onto the site to temporarily house staff for the next 10 years until justification can be made for a new office building. There was some discussion about consistency with other similar situations, which were not identified. There are five (5) other similar office locations that either have caretaker homes or small maintenance facilities. There was also some discussion pertaining to public restrooms to be made available to trail users, which was confirmed to be correct. There was also discussion of the activities offered onsite, which would involve field operations equipment and maintenance storage, as well as office and meeting use. In addition, the site would host indoor and outdoor ecological education classes and programs. Steve Steinbicker, Architect with Architecture West, presented additional slides to illustrate this. Planner Mounce provided a brief analysis of the proposal, recommending approval with one condition. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Board Questions and Deliberation Planner Mounce showed some slides to clarify the building uses and placement of new office. Member Rollins asked about the house that was acquired as part of land acquisition; Mr. Sears described the proposed modular building and that it would be painted white and green. Member Whitley is in favor of the project. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility Major Amendment MJA160004, based upon the findings of fact on pg. 8 of the staff report with the following condition, including the information analysis, findings of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report and the agenda materials for this hearing to be adopted by this board: the applicant shall receive a final report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for Phase 1 improvements in a manner substantially compliant with the Planning and Zoning Boards decision prior to final plan approval. . Member Whitley seconded. Chair Schneider stated that he appreciated that the team came together and did not have to come back multiple times. Vote: 5:0. Planning & Zoning Board January 18, 2018 Page 9 of9 Improvements In a manner substantially compliant with the Planning and Zoning Boards decision prior to final plan approval. . Member Whitley seconded. Chair Schneider stated that he appreciated that the team came together and did not have to come back multiple times. Vote: 5:0. Other Business Election of Officers Nominations: Member Hansen nominated Jeff Schnelder as Chair for 2018; Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 5:0. Nomination: Member Carpenter nominate Jeff Hansen as Vice Chair for 2018; Member Rollins seconded. Vote: 5:0 Member Carpenter reiterated that her request for work session topics was promptly scheduled. Regarding parking mitigation within the TOD, Planning Manager Gloss stated that this topic will be discussed as part of the Land Use Code amendments over the next few work sessions. Member Whitley also requested that the Board revisit the cut-off time for record documents to be received; Planning Manager Gloss agreed to discuss this at the next work session. Chair Schneider moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing at 11 :01 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Gerber.