Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/08/1996 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 8, 1996 7:00 p.m. • COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBER: Michael Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp, Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE --ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Item: A. RILEY CREEK RIDGE by Hustad Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 62.77 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 62.77 acres,Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 on 62.77 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 62.77 acres into 138 lots. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, • West of Eden Prairie Road. B. HDMG CORPORATE FACILITY by HDMG. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.58 acres,Zoning District Amendment on 2.58 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.58 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.2 acres into 2 lots. Location: Rowland Road and Shady Oak Road. C. SOUTHWEST CROSSING GOLDEN TRIANGLE BUSINESS CENTER by MEPC American Properties,Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 11.10 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 11.10 acres, Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park on 11.10 acres, Site Plan Review on 11.10 acres. Location: Golden Triangle Drive and Viking Drive. D. SOUTHWEST CROSSING 1996 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT by BTO Development. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 109 acres. Location: Viking Drive. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 1996 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht,Ismail Ismail,Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen,City Planner Elinda Babley,Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.by Chair Clinton. Commissioner Kardell was absent; all other members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Ismail,to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0. S III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-JUNE 24, 1996 Wissner noted under the Riley Creek Ridge project,the Minutes should say ,"Habicht expressed concern about connecting to Hilltop Road and Valley Road. The through roads would not go through on Valley Road or Hilltop Road until the improvements were made to those roads. Al Gray, City Engineer concurred." MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote,to approve the Minutes of the June 24, 1996 Eden Prairie Planning Commission meeting as amended. Motion carried 4-0-2 with abstentions by Clinton and Sandstad. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RILEY CREEK RIDGE by Hustad Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 62.77 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 62.77 acres,Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 on 62.77 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 62.77 acres into 134 lots. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, West of Eden Prairie Road. Beth Simenstad,representing Hustad Land Company,reviewed the revisions made to this project since the last meeting with the Planning Commission. There are now no requests for waivers or variances on the R1-13.5 Zoning District or the R1-9.5 • Zoning District. As part of the revision,there are now 134 single family lots instead • Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 of 138,with 76 lots in the R1-9.5 Zoning District and 58 lots in the R1-13.5 Zoning District. The average lot size is over 15,000 square feet and the density is 2.13 units per acre. She reviewed the three alternative plans shown on the monitor. Foote asked what the expected starting price of the homes will be. Simenstad replied probably $200,000 to$225,000. Franzen noted that Staff recommends approval with the standard conditions on page 3 of the Staff Report. Staff was also comfortable with any of the three alternative plans discussed. They were looking at lot sizes and density similar in the surrounding area. The Parks and Recreation Department are planning for a 10-15 acre neighborhood park between Eden Prairie Road.and Spring Road. This will be obtained through dedication when land area around the airport develops in the near future. There are no local laws prohibiting airport expansion. MAC ordinance #51 is restriction on the aircraft as a 20,000 pound maximum take-off weight from the airport. MAC was asking for a proposed increase to weight limitation from 20,000 to 30,000 pounds. The City Council has gone on record that they are not in favor of increasing the weight restriction at the airport. Foote commented that if MAC purchased Zone B they wouldn't be able to develop on that land. He asked how the layout would look if that happened because he's concerned about the small remnant. Franzen said that in this case this remnant piece could develop on its own, or with property to the west. Ismail expressed concern about the safety issues for the snow removal or fire trucks on the cul-de-sac. Franzen indicated that cul-de-sacs are not a problem if they are short, and that's why the City has a maximum length on cul-de-sacs of 500 feet. Wissner asked how long the original cul-de-sac was. Sandstad replied it was about 700 feet. Clinton commented that ordinance #51 is the maximum take-off weight of 20,000 pounds. There is a proposal that the Airport Commission was looking at to increase the length of the runway. He asked if that was to deal with 20,000 pounds or 30,000 pounds. Franzen indicated it's for the 30,000 pounds. The public hearing was opened. 2 Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 Ken Grover, 16050 Hilltop Road, was concerned about Hilltop and Valley Road if this project proceeds. Simenstad responded that eventually they would be improved. This is a through street at the request of the City. Grover was concerned that he was not notified of any meetings regarding this project until today when some neighbors told him about it. Franzen explained the process of notification of residents, and noted that notices go out to residents within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property. Grover stated that he's not necessarily 500 feet away but this project effects him very much. Grover stated he was against the proposal because it would more than triple his taxes. He has his own septic and does not want sewer and water if the road improvements take place. If he is forced to get sewer and water,he does not feel he should have to pay for it. Foote asked if the residents are required to hook up to City water and sewer when the road improvements take place. Franzen noted not in all cases. The City usually builds utilities with a petition from the neighbors. There are no plans to extend sewer/water on Valley or Hilltop with this project. Byron Schmidt, 16071 Hilltop Road, stated that he was against this project and was not notified of any meetings either. He was concerned that he bought his home on a dead end street and it will now change.He asked if this development could rely upon just access off Pioneer Trail alone rather than having any access point going into any existing neighborhoods. Franzen explained the importance of having different ways of getting in and out of the property noting that there are seven different ways in and out. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation that the connection to Hilltop and Valley Road not happen until residents decide they want to pave the streets and put in sewer and water. Unless there is a petition from the property owners in the area,the City is not going to extend the sewer and water. Cynthia Jeppeson Dzimian, 16000 Hilltop Road, commented she was not notified of any meetings. She expressed concern about Hilltop Road itself as an access to this community because of the additional traffic it will generate. She was also concerned about the dangers because of the grade of the road and the way it merges on to Eden Prairie Road. She asked if there would be additional traffic controls at the intersection. Franzen replied Eden Prairie Road will be improved and showed what would happen on the map. Paul Dzimian, 16000 Hilltop Road, was concerned about what would happen to the new development if the runway protection zone goes into effect concerning Zone B. 3 Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 Lance Stover, 12112 Hilltop Road, commented he and his wife were not notified of any meetings. He asked for the reason why Hilltop and Valley Road were elected to make the connection to the development. Simenstad indicated they initially had cul- de-sacs. It was the Engineering Department that requested through streets. Franzen explained why the City wants to make the connections. Sandstad commented he would like to see connections for more than one way in and out of a neighborhood and there is also a concern for nonexisting fire hydrants. There are also public health issues related to why the City may insist on sewer and water to be put in such as contamination of water. Septics are more prone to fail than piped water and is very expensive when it breaks down. There are advantages to having a street that's paved and connected, but he also understands the concerns of the residents. Stover stated there has to be some compromise. It's been a happy neighborhood and largely because people enjoy living on a dead end street, and because there's less traffic and safer for children. Wissner was concerned about what the "founding fathers" had originally planned for Hilltop and Valley Road. Franzen replied the expectation has always been to connect. Susan Howe, 16301 Hilltop Road,was concerned about if the park would be located in the Zone A area. She was also concerned that they may end up with both the airport expansion and this development. Franzen replied the Parks Department has looked at the area currently outside of the zones which shows up on the last page of the Staff Report. It would be north of Zone A which would be closer to Hilltop and Valley Road. For certain,the first 35 lots of this project outside of the airport zone will definitely be there. The current plan purchase is by MAC and nothing would be built. It is unlikely that it would be both airport expansion and housing. Howe commented she heard MAC is not giving fair prices so the people are not happy about selling out to them Franzen stated there is always a difference between what someone is willing to pay for versus what someone is willing to sell for. They may go before an independent board who would determine what the value of the land should be. Clinton stated that whatever issues MAC has with landowners on trying to purchase land is not an issue for the Planning Commission. Mr. Howe, 16301 Hilltop,was concerned about what type of pond will be near Riley Creek and if there will be a park trail to the north of Riley Creek trail. Simenstad 4 • Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 replied this will be a NURP pond. When they develop the first phase,they are going to do a temporary NURP pond that would be relocated in the second phase. When they finish the first phase and continue the second phase,they will do the permanent NURP pond. Franzen was uncertain about a trail along the creek. Lisa Diemento,'l6100 Hilltop Road, asked who would be paying for the expansion of Hilltop and Valley Road. Franzen replied the residents will pay for the improvements that are out in front of their house. If there were some overwhelming heath reason or if the septic tanks were failing,then the City may go in and order it be done. The City generally waits until the neighborhood is ready to do improvements. Diemento was concerned that a piece of her property would have to be given up for expansion of the road and they are not compensated for that. Franzen responded that the City has a subdivision drawing in the office which shows there is a right of way dimension for Valley Road of 60 feet wide. If they improve the street, it would be within that right of way,not on private property. Diemento asked for a time frame. Simenstad replied it most likely will begin in the Spring if everything goes right. Diemento was concerned about the asking price of the homes. Simenstad said it will be single family homes starting at$225,000. Diemento asked if sewer and water were brought in and you are one of the residents who didn't want it, do you have five years to hook up to it. Franzen commented he was not sure and directed her to call the office and he would find out. Mike Clark, 16290, concurred with other residents about the safety issues if the cul- de-sacs are made into through streets. Bill Schiebler, 16749 Pioneer Trail, was concerned that many residents were not notified because they are further than 500 feet away. Clinton stated that the policy of who gets notified should be in question,not that the City Staff did not do its job. Scott Mace, 16150 Valley Road, commented that he also was not notified but is not within 500 feet. He suggested that this policy be changed because 500 feet is a little short and he is very much effected by this project. The policy should at least be within site distance of a proposed project. Mace was concerned about who would have the control to vote on road improvements with sewer and water. He also would like more assurance regarding the different issues. Clinton responded it would only be the individuals on the road that have control. Franzen noted that the City Council will make the final decision on all road connections. The City Council will take the 5 Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 Planning Commission and Staff recommendations into account, as well as the input from the residents. Mace asked if the residents would be assessed when the main sewer and water line is run down Eden Prairie Road. Franzen replied there should not be any assessments for main sewer and water. John Hale, 16205 Valley Lane,noted this is the future site of his home and he was not notified of this development. He was concerned about when he builds his home in the future should he bother putting in a well and septic system. Franzen stated that the only time frame they have is two to three years before the improvement project could take place as mentioned by Al Gray at the last meeting. Hale was concerned that the density was too high and wanted to know how that decision was made. He was also concerned about the quality of the homes in this development. Clinton explained that the zoning district of the subdivision determined how they arrived at the density. Hustad is the land owner and not the builder. They will sell the land to a developer who will have to build the homes according to code but not the materials. The Planning Commission can not control that. Pam Olsen, 9480 Dell Road, suggested having Hilltop Road set up like the road by Victory Church where it is closed off but is a through street for emergency vehicles. This way the residents could still have their dead end street and be opened if needed. Franzen stated he would ask for the City Engineer to make the recommendation on that. Ken Grover commented that it's an escape cost for the City to do what they want if they order in sewer and water because of health and safety issues. He said the City Council should take the residents'recommendation sincerely because.they are the ones that have to pay for it. He also asked that all the residents more than 500 feet away be notified of any future meetings concerning this project. Ismail expressed concern that lots 1,2, and 3 are too close to the creek. Simenstad stated that they did it according to all the zoning requirements. Sandstad commented he supports the project and that there is some uniqueness to the character of Hilltop and Valley Road as they exist in their rural form of roadway. There may be some reasonable way to do both projects and not make those two roads look the same without sacrificing a lot. The Planning Commission does not deal with the airport issue at all but reassured the homeowners he will do everything he can to prevent the expansion. He believes the 1970's commitment to not expand the airport 6 Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 any further should be enforced. Foote stated he supports the project and wants the roadway connections. He does not want to see this area end up with dead end streets. He believes there should be two entrances and exits to any development. Wissner said she supports the project as it stands with the recommendation about Hilltop and Valley Road being on hold until the neighbors are ready. Habicht commented it's a good project which meets City requirements. It's important to have a concept of flow through the communities. The decision about the upgrading of those roads and the sewer and water is ultimately going to be as a result of neighborhood petitions. He supported the project. Ismail noted that he's not comfortable with the project because there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. He was concerned about the density issue and the residents beyond the 500 feet boundary. He was comfortable regarding Phase I but not Phase 2. Clinton stated that he supports the project as it stands. He suggested recommending a motion to the City Council that they amend their policy for notification of residents within 500 feet. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner,to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2: Sandstad moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Land Company for Planned Unit development Concept review on 62.77 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 62.77 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 on 62.77 acres,Preliminary Plat of 62.77 acres into 134 lots based on plans dated July 5, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 5, 1996, and add item 1B to the Staff Report recommendations that connected roadway improvements up to the easterly boundary where they would adjoin existing Hilltop and Valley Road could be made without the same improvements continued all the way to County Road 4. A discussion continued regarding the motion and no one would second it. Sandstad withdrew his motion. MOTION 3: Habicht moved, seconded by Wissner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Land Company for Planned Unit • 7 Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 Development Concept Review on 62.77 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 62.77 acres,Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 on 62.77 acres, Preliminary Plat of 62.77 acres into 134 lots based on plans dated July 5, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff report dated July 5, 1996, with the addition to the Staff Report that there be no connection with Hilltop or Valley Road until such time as those roads are upgraded with pavement and paths in whatever form and that plans take into account the unique nature of the area. Motion carried 5-1 with the nay vote by Ismail. B. HDMG CORPORATE FACILITY by HDMG. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.58 acres,Zoning District Amendment on 2.58 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.58 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.2 acres into 2 lots. Location: Rowland Road and Shady Oak Road. Franzen commented this is the third time looking at this property. The site was approved for a two-story office building with a pitched roof for screening of mechanical equipment and to create a residential look since the property is near residential areas. The residential look was a desire expressed by the neighborhood originally when the guide plan was changed from Medium Density Residential to Office. This is a flat roof building with mechanical units screened by an atrium. Jamie Heuton, HDMG, gave a brief background about his company. He noted that they have been in Eden Prairie for eight years and would like to stay here. They are also looking at the possibility of building an entire facility. Mark Fineman, architect, reviewed the development proposal with the Planning Commission. He believes they have achieved all the goals that were imposed on them on the original PUD. He reviewed how the site is being utilized and what the building will look like. He showed sketches indicating three images with different colors. There is a need to not fulfill all the parking stalls that might by required. The need for this particular business is to have 30 to 40 parking stalls relative to the 75 that are required. There will be screening of all mechanical equipment which would sit on the flat top roof. It's a large atrium which provides three sides of screening. They believe it's a more handsome look than the pitched roof. They are living up to the standard of percentage of glass and brick and are exceeding those numbers by a margin. Ismail commented he is very comfortable with the project because of the literature i 8 . Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 included in the packet. Wissner asked if all the neighbors were comfortable with this project. Heuton commented he did extensive canvassing in the area to talk with all the neighbors and address their concerns. Wissner commented it looks hike something that's needed in Eden Prairie and is a nice start to that piece of property. She supported the proposal. Franzen noted Staff recommends approval according to the recommendations on page 4 and 5 of the Staff Report. The construction of the sidewalk on the east side of Old Shady Oak Road is part of the developer's agreement for the 18.4 acres. A condition in the agreement talked about the timing of that sidewalk would be concurrent with the construction of the first building. Habicht asked how big the extended wildlife area. Franzen indicated it's about half the site, about 9 acres and that the City owns it. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to close the public hearing. • Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of HDMG for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.58 acres, Zoning District Amendment on 2.58 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.58 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.2 acres based on plans dated July 5, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 5, 1996. Motion carried 6-0. C. SOUTHWEST CROSSING GOLDEN TRIANGLE BUSINESS CENTER by MEPC American Properties, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 11.10 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 11.10 acres, Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park on 11.10 acres, and Site Plan Review on 11.10 acres. Location: Golden Triangle Drive and Viking Drive. Franzen commented this project and the next one on the agenda are related.. This site back in 1984 and 1987 was designated for two office buildings, 137,000 square feet in total. With this project of 90,000 square feet, they are transferring density to another site within the PUD to make a larger corporate facility. Dan Gelson, regional vice president of MEPC, gave a brief background about his company and reviewed the development proposal with the Planning Commission. He 9 Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 noted they are in the process of buying from BTO,the land which is on the plans, and plan to develop a high tech building there. They built a similar building to it in Golden Valley. They could have 50 to 75 percent office with storage in back. They could go higher and take the entire dock area and put more parking back there to meet all parking requirements. Ismail asked what high tech building means. Gelson replied it's an office service type product. There is an office in front and a warehouse in the back. In many cases it's very little warehouse with just some storage. Edward Farr, architect, reviewed the building plans including the elevations. It's a multi-tenant building with 75 percent brick and glass on the entire building to meet requirements. The NURP pond is on the north side of the property which will accommodate the storm drainage runoff treatment which is in the creek area. The colors of the building are pastel and the brick is green tinted. Trash will be inside the dock and screened from the road. Franzen commented Staffs recommends approval according to the recommendations on the last two pages of the Staff Report. Habicht was concerned about the reduction in the parking setback and asked if it was necessary to get all the parking spaces in. Franzen replied based upon current use of the property with the loading area in the back, that setback waiver would be necessary. Foote expressed concern about the 100 percent tree loss. Franzen stated they are averaging the tree loss over the entire 109 acre proposal much in the same way they do with residential projects with multiple phases. Ismail was concerned about the 35 percent tree loss and the 100 percent tree loss. Franzen explained how they arrived at both figures. He noted they didn't have a tree ordinance back in 1984. They looked at what Staff thought was the best to preserve which was the 50 foot high hill with only thousands of caliber inches of significant trees. This PUD has already dedicated a land area along Smetana Lake and Nine Mile Creek. It's either a dedication of the hill to the City or put a conservancy easement over the hill so it's never touched. MOTION 1: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner,to recommend to the City Council • 10 Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 approval of the request of N EPC American Properties, Inc. request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 11.10 acres, Planned Unit development District Review on 11.10 acres, Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park on 11.10 acres, and Site Plan Review on 11.10 acres based on plans dated July 5, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 5, 1996. Motion carried 6-0. D. SOUTHWEST CROSSING 1996 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT by BTO Development. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 109 acres. Location: Viking Drive. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Planning Commission. Southwest Crossing was a Planned Unit Development approved in 1984, amended in 1987, and amended as individual sites developed with specific site plans. The Planned Unit Development was approved for a mixture of office, commercial and industrial uses totaling approximately 1.626 million square feet. The Planned Unit Development concept amendment affects Sites 12, 16, 17, and 18. The developer is requesting approval of a tree loss and tree replacement plan for the entire Planned Unit Development. When Southwest Crossing was first reviewed by the City in 1984 it was prior to a Tree Ordinance. The woodland preserve area (12.10 acres) was approved as a trade-off for the trees that would be removed throughout the PUD. Staff supports this project because a building close to the creek is eliminated and converted into open space, and a 12.10 wooded hill is placed into a conservation area. The overall tree loss is 35 percent. Item E under Staff Recommendations in the Staff Report should be changed to 1,211 caliper inches instead of 1,100. Ismail asked if they measure the trees one by one. Franzen replied yes. Wissner stated she supports the project. Foote said he likes the idea of preserving the 12 acres of woodland. He supports the project. Sandstad commented about a 46 inch white oak tree that will be saved in the 12 acres. He would like to see the City Forester consider a slightly different value for a tree that is that significant in size. Right now they treat them all the same over 12 inches and there should be some distinction. Franzen noted that this Commission will have an • 11 • Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 opportunity to review the comments from the Tree Committee at the next Planning Commission meeting. Foote noted that when he was on the Tree Committee they did have discussion as to preserving a tree just for heritage value. Habicht commented this is a welcomed trade-off and he supports the project. The public hearing was opened. Fred Hedberg stated that his company leases buildings on Viking Drive. He was concerned about how this new development with transferring density to the building directly north of his building would affect the trees. He was also concerned about the amount of trips that would be generated by a building ofthis size. There will be many more cars accessing that site under this plan than the old plan. They are not against this project but would like to make sure the developer,the Planning Commission, and the City Council look closely at how access will be provided to that building. They would like to see primary access points not between their building but at some other point. Franzen reviewed where the primary and secondary access points are proposed. Sandstad was concerned about the billboards on the property. Franzen stated the master developer's agreement talks about the removal of those billboards. MOTION 1: Habicht moved, seconded by Ismail, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2: Habicht moved, seconded by Ismail,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of BTO development for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 109 acres based on plans dated July 5, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the StaffReport dated July 5, 1996 with the revision of item I from 1,100 caliper inches to 1,211 caliper inches. Motion carried 6-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS Metropolitan Council Meeting Ismail commented he attended the Met Council meeting. He found it to be disappointing because there was no in depth future scenario of how the future Twin Cities area will be developed. Discussion continued about what transpired at the Met Council meeting. • 12 Planning Commission Monday, July 8, 1996 Clinton noted he attended the meeting also and agreed with Ismail. He was disappointed about the method of gathering data because he couldn't see in which direction the Met Council really wanted to move in. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen reviewed the agenda for the next meeting noting that it will be light. There will be discussion about the Tree Committee at the next meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. 13