Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-17 HRA Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/CITY COUNCIL HELD AT EDINA CITY HALL • APRIL 17, 1989 (Mayor Richards convened a joint HRA/Council meeting during the Council Meeting to consider the following items concurrently.) Present were Commissioners/Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Richards. PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN EDINBOROUGH AND AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE CONTINUED TO 5/1/89 Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk and ordered placed on file. The amendment to the Final Development Plan, Edinborough and the amenmdnent to the Zoning Ordinance affecting the same property, public hearings were conducted concurrently. Planner Craig Larsen presented the request for Final Development Plan for Edinborough and for amendment of the Zoning Ordinance for a vacant 3.5 acre parcel located immediately west of the senior high rise and southwest of Edinborough Park. Amendment to Final Development Plan and Zoning, Ordinance Amendment - The approved plan, as amended in 1987, illustrated an eight story, 159,470 square foot office building. He advised that the office building has not been constructed. Staff has received a request from Hawthorn Suites to amend the Final Development Plan to allow the construction of a seven story, 142 unit hotel. Another action that would be required would be amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. The Mixed Development District MDD-5 does not allow the hotel as a free standing principal use. The proponents are requesting that hotels be added as a permited principal use in .the MDD-5 District. Planner Larsen explained that the proposed hotel contains 136 two-room suites and six efficiency units, one on each floor, designed for handicapped occupancy. The units range in size from 450 to 500 square feet with the efficiencies at 408 square feet. The hotel is designed to attract the extended stay business traveler. The hotel does not have a restaurant or bar but does have a reception area where guests are served complimentary breakfast and hor d'oeurves in the evening. The hotel would be seven stories and 65 feet in height and would contain a gross floor area of 90,286 square feet. This would compare to 90 feet in height for the existing easterly seven story office building and 104 feet in height for the eight story office building previously approved. Planner Larsen presented a graphic illustrating proposed parking and landscaping. Parking required would be 157 spaces; 166 spaces are provided by the site plan. BRW, Inc. drafted the landscape plan which emphasized two things. First, would be be compatibility with the overall Edinborough landscaping concept, and secondly, the screening of the service entrance on the north side of the hotel. The MDD-5 District requires a building setback of 50 feet from the perimeter of the tract. The proposed plan illustrates a setback of slightly over 36 feet from the westerly property line. The original proposal by Hawthorn did maintain a 50 foot setback, but did not have the step design to the building which staff encouraged the developers to incoroporate, similar to the existing office building. The reduced setback is a result of the design modification and the developer's need to maintain the proposed room count. The approved site plan for Phase II office building at the site received a variance to reduce the setback to 27 feet at this same point. • Planner Larsen pointed out that the City retained BRW, Inc. to critique the design of the hotel proposal principally because BRW, Inc. was the master planner for Edinborough. Staff believes that the hotel represents a use which would be compatible with and complementary to Edinborough. The hotel does not have a bar H.R.A. Minutes April 17, 1989 Page 2 or restaurant and will not host significant conferences and conventions. It will have more of a residential character than a typical full service hotel. The hotel • use would also be a much lower peak hour traffic generator than an office use. The design of the building has changed significantly during the planning process for the development. Staff is now satisfied that the design, scale, and materials of the proposed building are compatible with Edinborough. BRW, Inc. has stated that they feel the current proposal is consistent with the goals of the Edinborough project. In conclusion, Planner Larsen stated that the proposal was reviewed by the Community Development and Planning Commission on April 5, 1989. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Final Development Plan, amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and approval of the proposed setback variance, subject to an executed redevelopment contract with the HRA. Amendment to Redevelopment Agreement, Edinborough - HRA Executive Director Gordon Hughes stated that the HRA would have to consider amendments to the existing redevelopment contracts to facilitate development of the site. The present contracts have two major elements. The purchase price for the subject property was negotiated back in 1985 and was pegged to a base price of $5.94/square foot. It included some escalators for reimbursements to the HRA. In that approximately four years has gone by since that was negotiated, the purchase price has now grown to approximately $11.80/square foot. By the terms of the existing contract, all the land sale proceeds from this parcel, with the exception of the reimbursements to the HRA and a contribution to the City, would go to the East Edina Housing Foundation. The Foundation is required to use the proceeds of the land sale to acquire some second mortgages for • the Edinborough condominiums which were actually funded by the developers of the project. The developers now own approximately $795,000 worth of second mortgages that exist in the Foundation's name for units at Edinborough. The Foundation if and when it sells the subject vacant parcel is obliged to use the proceeds from the sale to purchase back the mortgages. Director Hughes explained that the reason for that is that back when the Edinborough project was first envisioned it was felt that the office sales would proceed along with the development of the condominiums. Actually, the condominiums developed much faster and the Foundation did not have the moneys to fund the mortgages; the developers elected to fund the mortgages with the understanding that when this property was sold the Foundation would purchase the mortgages. The proposed amendments to the redevelopment agreements to facilitate the Hawthorn Suite project would contain the following terms: 1. The HRA and the Foundation would consent to the assignment of development rights to Hawthorn Suite. A purchase price of $1,127,902 or $7.25/square foot is suggested. The purchase price would enable the Foundation to purchase the redeveloper second mortages. This purchase price would also include reimbursements to the HRA for park dedication, grading and special assessments, and the $50,000 contribution to the City. 2. Hawthorn Suites propose to grant an non-exclusive easement for parking over approximately one-half of its parking lot, providing an additional 80 spaces for park use. 3. Hawthorn Suites propose to pay an annual park maintenance fee of approximately $25,500 which equates to $15.00 per guest room and would • be on par with what the condominiums pay. H.R.A. Minutes April 17, 1989 Page 3 Member Kelly said she was concerned with amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit hotel use in the MMD-5 District. She asked what guarantee the City would have that it remain a suite hotel and not be converted to a full service hotel or any other use. Planner Larsen said that any proposed change in use would have to go through the zoning process. Also the definition of hotel in the amendment could be structured to limit the type of hotel. Member Smith asked about the involvement of BRW, Inc. with the proposal. Planner Larsen explained that the City hired BRW, Inc. to review the proposal from the architectural standpoint and compatibility with the overall design concept of Edinborough. They have been hired by the developers to do civil engineering on the site and to do the landscaping for the project area. Member Paulus asked about the impact of the hotel's service entrance/service hours and concerns that were noted by the Planning Commission and also in correspondence from residents of Edinborough. Planner Larsen pointed out that the service entrance is offset so that it will not be directly visible from the north. It would be partially shared with the City's proposed tram-way line and would be screened with a small berm and additional landscaping. Mayor Richards then called for a presentation by the proponents. John Lyons stated that he was the Senior Project Director for the proposed project. He explained that Hawthorn Suites is an all suite hotel chain that has been in operation approximately two years. It was recently purchased by the Fritzger family who also owns the Hyatt Hotel organization. A commitment was made last fall by the Fritzger family to proceed with substantial capital investment and development of Hawthorn Suites on a national basis. The subject property was one initially selected and in many respects represents a flagship for effort in that regard. Steve Goldman, representing Hawthorn Suites, explained that his role in the project has included site selection, working with the operating company in doing market research, and determining how the hotel will fit in with the type of product they are looking to do. Hawthorn Suites as it compares with a typical hotel really evolved out of a desire to provide something that gave an accommodation that was more like home, with a residential feeling. Their research indicated that there is a market for this type of hotel and that they could capitalize on the guest who has an extended stay need - extended stay meaning five or more days. Their goal was to provide a top quality hotel with guest rooms that have separate living space and sleeping area within the units. They also wanted to take advantage of the park and the residential setting that was already created and to provide a compliment to the existing facilities. Mr. Goldman presented graphics illustrating the proposed hotel suites with the added living space. This would provide a working area and would be better suited for families. Because it would be a rooms only hotel and would not be supporting other facilities, it would allow more efficient operation. A market study projected that the rack rates would range from $80/120 depending on the room type, length of stay and the occupancy factor. These would be rates before any discounts or long term stay. The study projected that an occupancy rate of 75% would be achieved in the third year. The conclusion was that the project was feasible from a market standpoint. In terms of the component of guests, the study estimated that they would have 45% extended stay (five nights or greater) , 30% of mid-range business travelers (between one and four nights) , 25% family and other pleasure travelers. Mr. Lyons then presented graphics showing hotel support areas, guest rooms, meeting rooms and public spaces. He said they bring their Hyatt experience to the development of this type of property; typically that is a hands-on development role. They have been intimately involved on all the design issues on the proposed H.R.A. Minutes April 17, 1989 Page 4 project. Each project is viewed as a custom design facility shaped to fit the situation. In meetings with staff early on, it became very clear that there were several fundamental concerns that would need to be addressed in the design of the facility. The primary description was that the massing for the hotel needed to be consistent with the rest of the Edinborough complex. Similarily, the exterior materials needed to be compatible or identical. Lastly, that the flow areas in and out of the hotel needed to work with the design that had been developed in the earlier phases of the Edinborough project. He explained that they have had some experience with the atriem concept - it does create an activity area. The architects have been asked to focus the public space facing the park to create a lobby area and a Hawthorn Room that would almost have the feel of a sidewalk cafe overlooking the activity of the park. This would also provide park users with a view of looking into a sidewalk cafe as opposed to a building wall. Some of the other concerns were creating a link for the public space to the park, a front entrance easily accessible 'to Minnesota Drive and to a a reception and front desk location which would be supervised on a 24-hour basis. Mr. Lyons pointed out that some of the other constraints given the architects concerned the internal organization and function of the hotel. He explained the need for the kitchen area to be next to the Hawthorn Room. An internal receiving area and a trash area was needed that would be adjacent to a external service delivery area. The proposed food service is designed as a complimentary service and an amenity for the hotel guests and is not designed to be used by external individuals. As a result the kitchen area is approximately 450 square feet. With food service being minimal (breakast and hor d'oeuvres) the trash generated as well as food delivered is significantly less than as seen in a full service hotel. It is anticipated that trash pickup would be three days a week and that food service deliveries would be three to four days a week during normal business . hours. Mike Jordan, Winsor/Faricy Architects, Inc. , presented the site plan and elaborated on how the hotel would be consistent with the park uses and requirements. He noted that the hotel location was limited to the existing building pad intended for the office building and is an extention of the master plan for Edinborough. The main entrance is off Minnesota Drive. The parking lot would have 166 parking spaces of which only one-half would be required for hotel use. The remainder would be available for park use including several handicapped spaces. A dropoff area would be located adjacent to the west park entry. He pointed out that the building bends at a 45 degree angle which allows an increased setback from the north property line which is 60 feet further that the earlier proposed office building. This would increase the open area between the hotel and the condominiums and also increased the sunlight available to the park. The building also relates back to the geometry of the park, the easterly office building and the layout of the senior tower. Exterior surfaces will be the same as the materials in the Edinborough complex. Peter Jarvis, BRW, Inc. , stated that their charge from staff was: 1) to meet with the Hawthorn team, review the concept and convey to them the overall master plan criteria that was established from the beginning for the Edinborough project, and 2) to advise the City as they reviewed the evolution of the project as to those elements which they felt were consistent with Edinborough and those that were not. He said everyone of those issues have been addressed. With respect to the site plan, Mr. Jarvis reiterated the comments in his letter that they find the project totally consistent with Edinborough from both a site, • landscaping and actual design standpoint. He spoke to two items of operational significance relative to the park function. First, an intermediate or secondary drop-off area has been incorporated for the southwest quadrant. Secondly, already constructed was a combination walkway and, ultimately for the Southeast Edina H.R.A. Minutes April 17, 1989 Page 5 Transit System, a tramway that would operate immediately south of Phase V of • Edinborough. Some concern has been voiced over the last year about the proximity of this facility and such time as there are relatively frequently operating vehicles. As the hotel site plan began to take shape the opportunity was there to combine the relatively infrequent hotel service function with the transit function. This element is a slight modification but a positive one to the present situation in the westerly part of the outdoor Edinborough park. Regarding the landscaping plan, Mr. Jarvis said that it meets the spirit of the existing Edinborough landscaping. In conclusion, Mr. Jordan said that they have worked several evolutions so that the proposed project would be consistent with the Edinborough project. He also advised that they have conducted meetings with representatives of the senior housing, the condominium association and members of the East Edina Housing Foundation. Mayor Richards then called for comment from the public. Susan Britzius, resident of Edinborough, voiced her objections to the hotel proposal and her concerns about hotel guests using the park, additional traffic, safety for walkers and that there would be no benefit for the Edinborough residents. Brian Hamann, resident of Edinborough, said he agreed with the comments just made and also asked why the office building is not being built as originally planned. He said he understood market research showed there was not a need but questioned why 1.2 million square feet of office is proposed for the adjacent Centennial Lakes project. Mayor Richards noted receipt of letters of objection from Laura Davis, 7631 • Edinborough Way #5311 and James and Bernadine Prokop, 7631 Edinborough Way #5111. Member Smith asked if someone could answer the office building market question. Tom LaSalle, partner with the Edinborough group, said financing is one of the difficulties. Of the 1.2 million square feet of office proposed for Centennial Lakes not all is financed. Projects like Homart and Centennial Lakes have made it more difficult to finance the office building that was proposed for the subject site because of its location. The east Edinborough office building has better visual access from the freeway as well as better access from York Avenue. He said they had difficulty coming up with a product they could finance and thought the hotel would be a use that would be compatible, would bring a service to Edina that does not exist, and would be positive to both the condominiums and senior building as it would not be a full service hotel with the usual problems associated therewith. Member Paulus asked what effect the hotel use would have on the park versus an office use; also whether the park could handle the additional use. Park Director Bob Kojetin responded that it has been contemplated all along that whatever was built on the subject site would have park users. There would be a difference as to time of usage - more evening users from the hotel than day users as anticipated if it were office. He noted that the park is heavily used how and the locker rooms may be inadequate at times. Member Rice asked several questions: a) number of feet from Edinborough residents to the service area, b) reference to the "existing building pad", c) physical impact of the hotel, d) if amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit a hotel use would it allow another type hotel to be built on the site if Hawthorn Suites was not built, e) timetable for the project and when the HRA and City would collect the fees, f) hotel versus office use from a public safety standpoint, g) signage, and h) anticipated use of the park's facilities by hotel guests. H.R.A. Minutes April 17, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Jarvis said that, as proposed, there would be a range of 122 to 160 feet from the face of the hotel to the Edinborough condominiums. Regarding the building • pad, he explained that this site had the major soil problems in the Edinborough project. When BRW, Inc. did the original soil exploration it was concluded that in order to design a building for the site it would require deep excavation. When the entire site was mass graded this site was prepared for nothing more than a simple bituminous parking lot with the exception of the building pad area which precluded relocation of the building. The physical impact of the hotel would be less because it would be further away and have less height. Planner Larsen confirmed that if the Zoning Ordinance is amended to permit a hotel use another hotel could be built on the site. Attorney Erickson advised that the recommendation from staff for approval of rezoning was conditioned upon an executed redevelopment agreement. The redevelopment contract would specify that they build a certain building (size, shape, color, etc.) . The City would have rights of reversion until that specific building gets built. He added that the HRA still owns the property at this point and it would be sold on the condition that they build a certain kind of hotel. Mayor Richards suggested that if the proposal is approved that approval be subject to it being rezoned. Mr. Lyons responded to the question as to timetable for the project. He said they hoped to break ground in late June or early July and were anxious to get started before winter sets in. Attorney Erickson said that the proposed amendment has a closing date of September 30 and fees would not be paid to the HRA and City until the closing occurs and the cash is available. With regard to the issue of public safety for a hotel use versus office, Chief Craig Swanson commented that they have not researched that issue but that, generally speaking, a transitory population may be more difficult. He noted, • however, that office is transitory as well as hotel residency. Concerning signage, Planner Larsen said staff anticipates that the sign ordinance would be amended to handle both the Centennial Lakes project and this type of use within Edinborough. Mr. Lyons responded to the question of use of the park's facilities by hotel guests. He said they have a lot of hotel experience with health club services and what they have found is that those facilities are important in the marketing brochures, but how much they get used is another issue. If the hotel achieves 70% occupancy that would be 100 rooms occupied on the average. He said that 20% of that occupancy would be a high usage of the park facilities. Member Smith commented that the hotel guest use of the park would be during the prime time when Edinborough residents would be home and would like to use the park. He asked what would be the expected weekend occupancy for the hotel. Mr. Goldman said that experience with extended stay hotels has shown that people come in on Monday and leave on Friday. Weekend occupancy is expected to be low and will be more local as opposed to business people and transients. Member Paulus asked if weekend occupancy would mean a party atmosphere, e.g. 10 people renting one unit and bringing sleeping bags, and said that could result in misuse of the park. She asked how they would control that. Mr. Goldman cited an the Embassy Suites as an example, noting that because of their higher costs that they seek that type of weekend business. He said they will not actively seek that type of weekend business and that park usage could be controlled through passes for pool and track use. Number of guests will also be monitored through breakfast . usage. Member Rice then asked if there is a problem with parking capacity for Edinborough. Manager Rosland responded that there is only a problem when there is H.R.A. Minutes April 17, 1989 Page 7 an event scheduled in the park during the normal business day - then parking • between the office and park usage becomes crowded. Member Rice asked if there should be an easement to allow construction of a parking deck over the subject property if there was need for additional parking in the future. Mayor Richards asked if there would be cross easements on the parking lot that would run to the City. Attorney Erickson said that none had been drafted and that the discussion concerning public use of parking spaces has been concerning the southern half of the parking lot. Mayor Richards asked why the southern one half and what Hawthorn's response would be if there is no restriction whatsoever on the parking. Mr. Lyons explained that they have asked to reserve 85 spaces closest to the entrance for hotel use exclusively and that if there were no restriction it would be a disadvantage to the hotel guests. Mayor Richards said it did not make sense to him, if there were a park function and the hotel was at low occupancy, to have restricted parking. Mr. Lyons said he understood the concern but that it was their understanding in the original development process that parking spaces would be designated for exclusive hotel use. They felt they were making a concession in the interest of the City by allowing one-half of the parking spaces to be used by park users. Mayor Richards raised the issue of use of liquor in the facility. He asked if the proponents understood the City's ordinance on liquor and that they cannot use or sell liquor in the hotel. He asked what their intent was concerning liquor. Mr. Lyons stated that they have been proceeding with not setting up a liquor sales operation. Mayor Richards asked if they intended to offer a free drink with the hor d'oeurves. Mr. Lyons said that he was not sure of the laws relative to giving away wine or liquor and said they are prepared to abide by the existing laws. If the current laws permit giving away of liquor they would like the option of doing • that, but do not intend to ask for a variance from the existing laws. Mayor Richards commented that he had two concerns: 1) that he did not favor the approach of having parking for the hotel to the exclusion of the public and would prefer having an easement across the entire parking lot to allow anyone to park, and 2) that he wanted the serving of liquor issue resolved. He said he would not be prepared to vote on the proposal without those two concerns being answered by the proponents. He stated further that he felt the proposed hotel project is a compatible use with the existing Edinborough development and that the type of people who would frequent the facility would be consistent with what otherwise is an excellent land use of southeast Edina. Member Smith asked if this site could be zoned for no liquor. Attorney Erickson said it would not be appropriate to put that restriction in the Zoning Ordinance. The existing liquor ordinance does not allow selling by the glass and does not allow giving away of the product as part of a marketing package. He opined that if liquor were to be served as part of the complimentary hor d'oeurves it would be contrary to the ordinance. With regard to the the proposed transfer of land, Member Rice said he had done some investigating on the value of the property and generally concurred with the appraiser as to value. He said he was of the opinion that the proposed hotel was a good land use and would support it. However, he felt the City should think about protecting its position with an option to repurchase the property if for some reason the hotel was not built. He said he would also support cross easements on the parking lot to permit public parking. He asked if there are cross easements over the existing parking in Edinborough. Manager Rosland said that there is public parking throughout the project except the lower level of • parking by the office building which is used exclusively by the office during the daytime. H.R.A. Minutes April 17, 1989 Page 8 In summary, Mayor Richards said there are four issues that need to be dealt with: 1) signage, 2) parking, 3) timetable for the project, when the fees would be paid • and City's position if not built, and 4) liquor use. He recommended that this be continued until May 1 for responses to these concerns. Member Kelly reiterated her concern that the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance be specifically addressed to this proposed hotel project. Motion was made by Member Smith that the public hearing on amendment to Final Development Plan, Edinborough and amendment to Zoning Ordinance be continued to May 1, 1989 so that the proponents could respond to the issues raised by the Council. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOT 6. BLOCK 4. PARKWOOD KNOLLS 11TH ADDITION (5812-14 VIEW LANE Planner Larsen presented the request for a lot division for property at 5812-14 View Lane, Lot 6, Block 4, Parkwood Knolls 11th Addition. The subject property is an existing double bungalow that does not have the required separate water services. The lot division is requested in order to facilitate the separate sale of the two units. The proposal would be exempt from the moratorium on subdivisions as the lot division would not create a new buildable lot and is not a R-1 District zoning. The Community Development and Planning Commission considered the request at its meeting of April 5, 1989 and recommended approval, subject to the installation of individual water service. Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: • Lot 6, Block 4, Parkwood Knolls 11th Addition, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County except that part which lies Easterly of a line drawn from a point on the Southeasterly line of the above described Lot 6 distant 26.0 feet Southwesterly of the Southeast corner of said Lot 6, to a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 6 distant 25.0 feet Northwesterly of the Southeast corner of said Lot 6; and WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels") described as follows: Northwesterly Parcel: That part of Lot 6, Block 4, Parkwood Knolls 11th Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota lying northwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot 6 distant 93.81 feet northwesterly of the southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence Southwesterly to a point on the southwesterly line of said Lot 6 distant 93.86 feet northwesterly of the southerly corner of said Lot 6 and there terminating. Southeasterly Parcel: That part of Lot 6, Block 4, Parkwood Knolls 11th Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota lying southeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot 6 distant 93.81 feet northwesterly of the southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence southwesterly to a point on the southwesterly line of said Lot 6 distant 93.86 feet northwesterly of the southerly corner of said Lot 6 and there terminating. Except that part which lies Easterly of a line drawn from a point on the • southeasterly line of the above described Lot 6 distant 26.0 feet southwesterly of the southeast corner of said Lot 6, to a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 6 distant 25.0 feet Northwesterly H.R.A. Minutes April 17, 1989 Page 9 of the Southeast corner of said Lot 6. • WHEREAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Ordinance No. 801 and it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purpose of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinance Nos. 801 and 825; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of the second above described Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 825 and Ordinance No. 801 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land, but only to the extent permitted under Ordinance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 825 and subject to the limitations set out in Ordinance No. 825, and said Ordinances are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provisions thereof, and further subject, however, to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Paulus. Rollcall: Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. (Member Kelly was temporarily absent on call of vote. ) *WELL ABANDONMENT - CENTENNIAL LAKES APPROVED Motion was made by Commission Paulus and was seconded by Commissioner Smith for award of bid for well abandonment for the Centennial Lakes project to recommended low bidder, • E.H. Renner & Sons, Inc. , at $12,450.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. (Mayor Richards declared the HRA Meeting adjourned.) ExecutilvedDirector City Clerk •