Planning Commission - 10/10/1994 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
October 10, 1994
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote,
Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward
Schlampp, Mary ,lane Wissner
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Donald R. Uram, Planner
Elinda Bahley, Recording Secretary
I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Chair Katherine
Kardell. Absent were Tim Bauer and Douglas Sandstad. All other
members were present.
II APPROVAL OF AGENDA
• MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Wissner, to approve the
Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0.
III. MINUTES
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Schlampp, to approve the
Minutes of September 26, 1994 as amended: under Continuing
Business, it shall read that the Planning Commissioners expressed
disappointment or concern about the decision pursuant to the
placement of the Pulte twinhomes between the two office
facilities and the Hartford project- The Planning Commission was
not sure what the rationale was of the quickness of the decision
it seemed, and the lack of clarity of the rationale. All the
Planning Commissioners were present except for Ken Clinton.
Motion carried 4-0-1 with Clinton abstaining.
IV PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PIONEER RIDGE 2ND ADDITION by R.H. Development. Request for
Rezoning from Rural to R1-13 .5 and Preliminary Plat of 12 .13
acres into 25 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way. Location:
County Road 4 and Pioneer Trail.
Franzen stated there is a letter in the packet that says the
developer requested the Planning Commission to continue for 30
days to the first meeting in November, the November 14, 1994
• meeting.
MOTION 1: Clinton moved, seconded by Schlampp, to continue the
S Public Hearing to November 14, 1994 as requested by the
proponent. Motion carried 5-0-0.
Franzen stated they will be sending out notices to the residents
of the continuance. He said Staff spoke with some of the
residents and they are happy that the project was going single
family.
B. LAKE EDENVIEW TOWNHOMES by Thompson Land Development. Request
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial
to Medium Density Residential on 1. 64 acres and from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on .96 acres, Rezoning
from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2 . 6 acres, Site Plan Review on 2 . 6 acres,
and Preliminary Plat of 2 . 6 acres into 8 lots . Location: Franlo
Road, south of Prairie Center Drive.
Franzen stated that two weeks ago the Planning Commission
directed the Staff and the developer to look at some plan
revisions . These revisions would provide a better drainage
solution along the common property line, and provide some more
room for plantings to create a transition from the single family
homes. The Commissioners also asked the City Engineering
Department to provide some additional information about Franlo
Road and the drainage in the area. That information is an
attachment to the Staff Report.
• Franzen introduced Lee Johnson, who is the owner and developer of
the project. After his presentation, he will go over the Staff
recommendations .
Lee Johnson, owner and developer representing Lake Edenview
Townhomes, reviewed his revisions of the project using visual
aids . He stated that at the last meeting there were 3 major
concerns that he was asked to address . One item was drainage,
and fine tuning of the grading and landscaping.
Regarding drainage, Johnson stated he calculated the hard surface
coverage and it' s 35, 700 square feet which is 32 percent
coverage. In the normal R-13 .5 zoning classifications, the hard
surface coverage generally runs 33 1/3 percent, so this is about
the same coverage that is in the single family subdivision. He
said when Eden Lake was designed, this was considered as
Commercial. When you design that to determine the capacity of
Eden Lake, you use 80 to 90 percent coverage and the engineers
could assume that. The actual coverage is about 1/3 of what it' s
designed for, as far as impact on the lake. This parcel size is
less than 1 percent of the entire drainage basin. The impact of
half the coverage put on this site is going to have no impact on
the hydraulics of Eden Lake.
2
The Engineering Department feels this is a small run-off, too
• small to be economically maintained when Eden Lake was
constructed for the storage and the NURP pond itself. It ' s like
a NURP pond going into a NURP pond. After it is sodded, there
will be very little silt added to this site.
The drainage at the property line was another concern. The two
property owners are roughly distributing the same amount.
Neither property is overburdening the burdened swale on the side.
There were no significant changes made to the drainage pattern as
far as coverage or anything like that.
Regarding fine tuning of the grading, he said they moved the road
and it ' s 30 feet now from the property line. It is also closer
to the guard rail. They extended the landing zone on top for the
engineering requirements . Now it ' s 50 feet at 2 percent, rather
than 30 feet at 3 percent.
They have eliminated all the 2 to 1 slopes on this site. They' re
all 3 to 1 so there are no variances to be requested by anyone.
A berm has been added in a front yard so that the ground between
will be about a 5 foot grade change. Cars in that area are 5
feet below the pavement, 5 feet below the surface, and in this
area it' s a 3 foot grade change.
Drainage that went under the road has been eliminated instead of
having added a curb all the way down and put in a catch basin.
All units have a potential of being 40 feet wide. They
determined that 2 units would be restricted to only a 38 foot
width because they would gain an additional 4 feet for the
(road) .
The site yard setback is 17 feet where before it was 10 feet.
They want to keep the accommodations of keeping a 16 foot setback
on the corner of one building. They were restricted to the A
type unit rather than the B type unit.
The net effect of what they are trying to do is move away from
the property line but not move the road because after reviewing
this, it ' s too far in the hillside and would not work.
They have proposed 81 inches of tree replacement which is 5 three
inch trees or 5 seven foot conifers, more than what is required
by the Code.
Regarding the landscaping plan, they have added a 4 foot high
fence, the same as in Dellwood. It' s a tongue and groove wood
fence. It serves as a 100 percent barrier then to any kind of
headlights coming from this turning movement in and out of the
driveways . The fence would continue until the cars are straight
. 3
and no longer can shine any headlights toward the single family
0 homes .
They have also proposed to screen the driveways with 9 nine foot
spruce trees, 4 of which are on the berm that are already
planted. They put an overscoring of trees along Franlo Road to
continue some of that feeling along Franlo Road. There are 4
plantings down in the area to wake up the building mass . They
have added maples under this building slope to break up the
slope. The general landscaping of trees along the basements will
be additional foundation plantings that will go in as part of the
house plantings .
Kardell asked what the 4 plantings will be that were pointed out,
which would be adjacent to the new smaller twinhome building,
designed to help break up the mass of that building.
Johnson replied they are spruces, 3 inch Summit Ash. He stated
that the Staff Report is recommending more trees along there. He
said they are already planting 15 inches or 5 trees extra
already. He does not know exactly where they should be planted
nor does he understand it. He can understand 3 more, but doesn 't
know where the 6 would go. All the trees here exceed the
requirements now. Perhaps they should go down to 1 1/2 inch and
he would trade off for the 3, 4 or 5 inch trees . He has 81
inches already which exceeds the required 65 inches, so to add
another 24 inches would be doubling the requirements . He does
• not agree with buffering single family homes from single family
homes . He feels it is excessive, totally out of line.
Foote asked what his objection is to the trees, if it ' s just the
cost issue.
Johnson replied it is the cost. He said it isn't a very big site
and 6 more trees is almost another $2, 000 . 00, and that' s
primarily the reason.
Wissner was concerned where the additional 6 trees will be
planted, whether it will be in a grouping or scattered about.
Johnson said he assumes it is where the 4 will be and Franzen
agreed.
Franzen stated that Mr. Johnson explained quite well what the
changes were in the plan from the last time. The only comment he
would have is on the additional landscaping. He stated that the
requirements which are transition requirements by ordinance are
based .upon the degree of differences in the densities . He said
Walgreens on County Road 4 was a commercial building that was 50
feet away from the (Clint) home, and there wasn't any way
possible to provide a berm. Therefore, the solution was 12 foot
high conifers, 35 or 40 trees that were planted for a transition
4
in that area.
• There is another area in town where the distance was 300 feet
apart and nothing was required. Another area, like in Hartford,
where they ended up having a berm and a lot of plantings occurred
because they have a greater difference in density.
The Staff ' s recommendation here is like a judgement call of what
they feel is a reasonable amount trying to balance this between
the extremes which might be a Walgreens on one end, versus having
a single family next to a single family on the other end.
The amount of cost for the landscaping on this project is about
100 inches, roughly about a $10, 000 . 00 budget. So, that ' s a
little more than half percent of the cost of the project.
Staff finds this to be a common concern from the developers where
they have an ordinance that spells out an actual mathematical way
of calculating trees .
Staff ' s recommendation would be to add the additional planting
material. If the Planning Commission wants to take a look at the
same site lines and view points on this project and reach a
different conclusion, Staff would be happy to go along with that
as well.
Kardell expressed concern about the density of the single family
homes down in (Joy) .
Franzen replied the density is 2 units per acre, and this is a
little more than 3 units per acre.
RAY HOVELAND, 11924 JOY CIRCLE, stated that he appreciates the
changes which he feels are improvements . He expressed concern
about what type of fence would be put up.
Kardell stated it will be a tongue and groove fence similar to
the one in the Dellwood project which is a very attractive fence.
Hoveland stated that one of the reasons that this area might need
a little more screening is because it' s a driveway. The area
that is not going to be covered by the fence would be visible.
He said he likes the changes . Some of the explanations about the
drainage he can understand, but it doesn't answer all the
questions they have in the neighborhood about the water problems .
He does appreciate the Planning Commission looking into that
matter.
MRS.ENGLUND, 11912 JOY CIRCLE, stated that at the last meeting it
was requested that someone from Watershed would come out and look
at the property. She was concerned as to whether or not anyone
did come out and look at it since then.
5
Franzen replied no one came out from the Watershed District, just
• himself and the City Engineer.
Englund stated that the developer is calling this single family
to single family. She does not consider what is being built to
be single family and that ' s why she agrees with putting up as
much of a barrier as what the City is requesting. She said they
are going from single family to twinhomes and feels there is a
big difference there.
Johnson stated that there will be a meeting with Watershed on
November 2nd. He said he has met with the representative a
number of times and he has been out to the site. He said the
representative is intimately familiar with this site.
Wissner stated that she likes all the changes that have been made
but she is concerned about the trees and how many the City is
requesting. She is having a hard time visualizing 6 more trees,
believing that it ' s a lot of trees . She is very satisfied with
the attention given to the drainage issue, and the moving of the
driveway. She said the whole plan is so much better now with all
the changes made.
Foote stated that it ' s a much better plan now with all the
revisions made. He said he was up there walking around and
thinks the drainage is going to work fairly well . Regarding the
trees, it seems to him that more is better. If they can put more
• in there, he doesn't see it as a big economic concern when you
consider the size of the project. $2, 000.00 isn't going to make
or break it.
Schlampp referred to the Staff Report where it states that the
revised landscape plan currently has 79 inches of trees credited
according to City Code. This means that 21 additional caliper
inches should be added to the plan. He asked if that ' s by City
Code.
Franzen replied that it is by City Code. He stated there are 3
levels of landscaping required according to the building square
footage on the property, tree replacement and then transition.
There is no mathematical way of calculating how many trees to put
in to create a transition based upon looking at the site lines .
It ' s a Staff judgement.
Schlampp asked if the suggestion of additional conifers is then
coming from the expertise of the Planner, not from the City Code.
Franzen replied that it ' s an interpretation of City Code as to
the amount of landscaping necessary for the transition. He said
that if he felt the tree replacement and the caliper inch
requirement by itself was a good visual barrier, that would be
his recommendation.
6
Schlampp asked if they need more trees in order to block that
• view. Franzen replied that is the reason for the additional
trees .
Clinton stated that he will be abstaining from voting since he
was not present at the last meeting. He' s coming in on the
middle of the issues and does not feel it ' s right for him to
comment on it.
Kardell stated that the plan is quite improved and everybody will
benefit from the driveway and the fact that it' s a very
attractive fence. She said it ' s a very appropriate change and
use from commercial use to residential use. Not withstanding the
fact that it looks like there' s a lot of trees, she suspects it' s
relative to the actual size of the building. It' s not quite as
dense as it appears and it ' s two different land uses . There is a
6 .5 multi-family use adjacent to a single family use. It ' s an
interpretation of transition. It should be screened and to the
extent additional landscaping is required on units . These units
are going to start at about #140, 000. 00, therefore, a few extra
trees are not out of line. She supports the project exactly as
the Staff Report is written.
Regarding drainage, she said that having been out to that site,
she doesn't feel there are a lot of problems that the neighbors
are experiencing are attributable as to this particular site.
She suggested to the residents to try to work with the Watershed
• and the City Engineer to find out what the problem is.
Schlampp stated that he looked at the site regarding the
drainage, and it is a problem. He feels there is always going to
be a problem. This isn't going to correct the problem and it ' s
not going to aggravate the problem. He said that from his
experience, it ' s like living on a swamp. He questions running
temporary sedimentation ponds, but if the Engineering Department
says it' s correct, he won't argue with them because their the
experts.
Kardell stated there is going to be a Watershed District meeting
on November 2nd and urged the residents to make sure the
representatives of Watershed are aware of their concerns, and
that they have to be persistent with them.
MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Clinton abstaining.
MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Thompson Land Development
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial
to Medium Density Residential on 1. 64 acres and from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on . 96 acres based on
Plans dated October 7, 1994, and subject to the recommendations
Is 7
of the Staff Report dated October 7, 1994. Motion carried 4-0-1
with Clinton abstaining.
MOTION 3: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Thompson Land Development
for Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2 . 6 acres based on plans
dated October 7, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated October 7, 1994 . Motion carried 4-0-1 with
Clinton abstaining.
MOTION 4: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Thompson Land Development
for Site Plan Review on 2 . 6 acres based on plans dated October 7,
1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated October 7, 1994. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Clinton
abstaining.
MOTION 5: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Thompson Land Development
for Preliminary Plat on 2 . 6 acres based on plans dated October 7,
1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated October 7, 1994. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Clinton
abstaining.
C. OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAYS AMENDMENT
• Franzen stated that the Outdoor Sales and Display Ordinance is
directed by the City Council. The ordinance came about as a
result of the Board of Appeals decision to grant Menards a
variance to allow a 1200 square foot plastic greenhouse in the
front parking lot. Some businesses complained to Council members
that the Board' s decision to grant additional Outdoor Sales and
Display beyond what Menards has was unfair competition. The City
reversed the decision of the Board of Appeals and denied Menards
a variance request. At the same time, the City Council expressed
concern about the proliferation of plastic green houses and
outdoor displays in parking lots throughout the community. At
that time, Council felt that these uses should not be allowed in
the parking lot and instructed City Staff to inform businesses
such as Cub Foods, Target, Eden Prairie Mall and Wal-Mart that
these would no longer be permitted. These businesses appeared at
a subsequent City Council meeting to express concern that they
had already ordered plant materials for the year and requested
the City Council give some consideration to this point. The
Council decided to allow the continuation of the plastic
greenhouses for 1994, but directed City staff to prepare an
ordinance which would regulate their use.
Several alternatives were presented and the City Council chose
one of the options which made a distinction between permanent and
temporary uses . This ordinance would allow uses such as Wal-
Mart' s landscape area to continue and temporary uses such as
• 8
Christmas tree lots . The percentages in the ordinance for 6
• percent permanent and 2 percent temporary are reflective of
existing store conditions . The ordinance also limits the amount
of outdoor sales and display in the parking lot as a percentage
of the total parking lot area. The percentages would prohibit
the use of the plastic greenhouses . These plastic greenhouses,
as well as other outdoor sales and display area, can be used on
the property provided they are not within the setback areas .
Staff believes that the draft ordinance is reasonable and fair
and based upon market/store conditions . The Staff suggests
approval as submitted.
Kardell stated that the City Council overturned the Board of
Appeals decision regarding Menards because they were concerned
about proliferations of these type of uses. She asked who else
were they afraid was going to do this .
Franzen replied that the Staff has a more liberal interpretation
of the ordinance than what the City Council is looking at. He
said they have allowed it in Target and Wal-Mart last summer, and
Cub, so the Council wanted the whole request revised as far as
what should really be done with Outdoor Sales and Displays .
Kardell stated that by having the outdoor sales in view it
reminds her that Spring is here because of all the beautiful
plants and flowers displayed.
• Foote expressed concern of the effects of these changes to the
stand on County Road 4 and other similar stands. Franzen replied
that it doesn't effect that at all. He said this is strictly for
areas that are currently zoned commercial.
Franzen replied that it' s not in the commercial district. He
said if you have room on the property it' s okay. Wal-mart, for
example, has an area on the north side of the building that ' s
beyond the setback where they can put the vinyl hut, that would
be fine. Council ' s concern is where are you putting it on the
property; out in the parking lot taking up parking spaces or
where it' s visible to the public road.
Foote expressed concern of the Prairie Village Mall' s Fourth of
July tent which is put up every year. Franzen replied that if
their tent is within the allowable 2 percent they can do it.
Franzen stated that it' s a question of whether or not you find it
objectionable if you're looking at large outdoor display areas
out in a parking lot. It ' s a question of where it is on the
property, not a question of having it. If there' s room on the
property you can do it if it ' s done in certain locations .
Kardell expressed concern of the effect it would be on the
• 9
Farmer' s Market. Franzen replied that will be dealt with a
• separate revision to the City Code in the district. It ' s
something that the City Staff and Attorney' s Office is working on
now.
Kardell asked if the little markets that are up on the various
corners in the rural districts would have to come to this
centralized Farmer' s Market arrangement to sell. Franzen replied
that they would. He said what' s going to happen is by the time
the City finishes with the revisions, there' s not going to be any
rural land left. He said if you still want an opportunity for
this to occur then you could go to the Farmer' s Market situation
like they have in St. Paul or Minneapolis .
Schlampp asked where did Cub Foods have theirs. Foote replied
that they put it on the side.
Franzen stated that the Council decided that since the people
from Menards had already ordered their merchandise they were
going to let it happen. Before they got into the ordering season
again, they wanted to let them know.
Kardell expressed concern of whether there was any evidence that
having these structures up caused any parking problems at the
facilities in question.
Franzen replied that the peak parking time for the commercial
areas would be Christmas for the large shopping centers. He said
they don't have the potted plants and shrubs out at that time.
Therefore, it has not created a parking problem.
Franzen stated this is a question of aesthetics . It ' s a question
of how much they leave the options in the Staff Report. The sales
and display areas to be rejected, they can allow for larger areas
which will allow this storage area to continue in the same manner
that they have done so far.
Wissner asked if there have been a lot of complaints. Franzen
replied that they have not received complaints from the
businesses or residents that this is a particular problem.
Foote asked if they can make the percentage more. Franzen
replied that they can.
Foote asked who came up with the 2 percent. Franzen replied that
it was a Staff ' s idea. He said that the 2 percent represents the
statistical amount of the temporary areas that they have so far.
Clinton referred to the ordinance that if you look at number 1
they' re talking about temporary outdoor display area and it must
be screened from the public road. Immediately that creates a
problem for them. The size really limits a lot of merchandising
• 10
put in there. Then when you drop down to 4 it says outdoor
display areas not to be located within the required front, rear,
side, or setback from the lot. He asked where are they going to
put it.
Franzen replied that some sites will have room for it and some
sites will not.
Schlampp expressed concern of whether or not filling stations
will have to get a permit every time they want to do it because
they are known for having outdoor displays with oil and tires .
Jerry Anderson, Operations Manager at Cub Foods, stated they had
the greenhouse for the last couple of years . Last Spring they
worked with Staff and put it on the north side. Cub thought it
was a lousy location and it worked out very well for them. He
said their customers, maybe about 25, 000 a week, they start
looking for this product in the Spring. Cub buys their products
from the same place as Bachman' s and Frank' s buy theirs . The
difference is how they price it. The people that shop with Cub
know they're going to put out the product, but it ' s cheaper, and
Cub is not there to make a ton of money on it. All Cub wants to
know is are they going to be able to have it this year. They
would like to be able to make their plans before their plants
start arriving on the truck.
Foote asked how big an area for Cub would 2 percent be. Anderson
• replied they all buy from Bailey' s Nursery in St. Paul and they
support the greenhouse which are 20 by 60. Last year they put
additional fencing which was approximately another 20 by 60 and
that ' s where they keep all the shrubs . He said that could be
reduced and it would still work for them. They kept it up for 30
days which was a sufficient amount of time.
Foote asked what percentage that is. Anderson replied he did not
know.
Franzen stated that the building is 70, 000 square feet so 2
percent would be 1400 square feet.
Foote said he would like to make the percentage enough so they
can put something up which would be big. He said that 2 percent
to him seems very small.
Schlampp asked what was wrong with what they have now. He said
it seems to be handled well, and Staff seems to be working with
it.
Franzen stated that if the Planning Commission likes it the way
it is, then one option would be to keep the ordinance the way it
is and Staff would interpret it the way it is .
. 11
Kardell said if there ' s a problem, everybody would be happy to
address it, but there are no problems or complaints at this
point. She is suggesting the recommendation to the City Council
that the Planning Commission is not seeing this as a problem.
There does not seem to be any demonstrated parking issues, and no
aesthetic problems that have been expressed publicly by the
residents . She recommends the ordinance to be left the way it
is.
MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Schlampp, to recommend to
the City Council that no changes in the Outdoor Sales and Display
Ordinance be made. Motion carried 5-0-0.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
None.
VI . CONTINUING BUSINESS
None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
Kardell and Clinton gave an update on the program called Stride,
which is to help people get out of public assistance. They said
they are trying to seek places for these people to live using
Section 8 vouchers . They said the biggest problem is that there•
are no vacancies . David Lindahl has found some developers that
will build cluster homes . They are also trying to create a
mentor program.
VIII . PLANNERS' REPORTS
A. MUSA Report
Franzen stated that the requested action is to authorize staff to
proceed with filing an amendment with the Metropolitan Council to
review the planning for expanding the MUSA line. He said this is
the first step for getting an official amendment.
Foote asked if the City expects a lot of opposition from the
public.
Franzen replied no. He said the Metropolitan Council have been
difficult, not the public.
Schlampp recommended they have Watershed approval before hand and
suggested they get in touch with Watershed to come in and speak.
Franzen replied that he would do that for the next meeting.
MOTION 1: Clinton moved, seconded by Foote, to submit an
12
application. Motion carried 5-0-0.
OIX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton, to adjourn the
meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at
9 : 00 P.M.
•
13
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
onday, October 10, 1994
�
00 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Katherine Kardell,
Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PIONEER RIDGE 2ND ADDITION by R. H. Development. Request for Rezoning from Rural
to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 12.13 acres into 25 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way.
Location: County Road 4 and Pioneer Trail.
• B. LAKE EDENVIEW TOWNHOMES by Thompson Land Development. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density
Residential on 1.64 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2.6 acres, Site Plan Review on
2.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.6 acres into 8 lots. Location: Franlo Road, south of Prairie
Center Drive.
C. OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAYS AMENDMENT
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VH. NEW BUSINESS
VHI. PLANNERS' REPORTS
A. Musa Report
IX. ADJOURNMENT
•