Planning Commission - 02/23/2004 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2004 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Fred
Seymour, Kathy Nelson, Dave Steppat, Ray
Stoelting, Bill Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Jane Hovind, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting,
Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Seymour, Steppat, and Sutherland.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Foote, second by Nelson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 8-0
III. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the February 9, 2004 Community Planning Board Meeting
MOTION by Steppat, second by Seymour,to approve the minutes.Motion carried 8-
0.
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2004-02 Briarhill Company, a Limited Partnership c/o Heartland
Realty Investors General Partner. Location: 7025 Woodland Drive. Request for; a rear
yard setback variance from 30 feet to 9.83 feet for building 7029-7035, a rear yard
setback variance from 30 feet to 13.46 feet for building 7023, and a rear yard setback
variance from 30 feet to 25.02 feet for building 7037-7043
Betsy Kiernat from Moss & Barnett presented the variance. She stated in 1973 a deed
conveyed a small strip of land. It was recorded but Hennepin County and the City did
Planning Board Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 2
not give approval for the split at that time and, as a result, there is a cloud on the title.
The strip of land was conveyed to an association that's no longer in existence. The
variance will bring the buildings into compliance. There will be no grading required
or impact to the trees. The variance will allow for a lot split that will section off the
land that can go to the City or be bought back by Briarhill. The City would tax the
strip of land. She showed the location of the parcel.
Franzen stated it is a simple matter that should have been done by the City 30 years
ago to approve a division of the property to convey the land. If the variance is
granted, the City would do an administrative division which would not require a
public hearing.
Faith Hillson lives on Sunshine Drive which backs up to the Briarhill property. She
stated she would like this variance to be denied until Briarhill provides an access path
to the regional trail. She said there has been vandalism and trespassing on the
residential properties abutting the property.
Nelson asked staff if there is any intention to put a connection to the trail. Fox
responded when this development was built it was a concept PUD with the intention
that the homeowners would put in their own trails. He said there was a commitment
to develop trails but they never finished installing them. Three Rivers Park District
controls the center 15 feet of the corridor. He said the City can not construct any type
of trail into a corridor that the City doesn't control.
Foote asked whether the area people are walking was supposed to be a trail originally.
Fox responded he wasn't sure about that. It may have been intended to but wasn't
done. Foote asked if there's anyway the City can do to have these completed. Fox
responded there's nothing the City can do because the association no longer exists.
Ms. Hillson asked if the City could at least prevent Briarhill from accessing the trail
through private property.
Koenig asked if the City had any recourse to help the neighbors. Franzen responded
that in order to provide access to the trail the City would need to get permission from
the Hennepin County Light Rail Authority. Koenig asked if the Board could direct
staff to work with the developer and neighbors on access. Franzen responded that
would be something the Board could do but it would be a separate motion.
MOTION by Nelson, second by Foote, to close the public hearing. Motion carried,
8-0
MOTION by Nelson, second by Koenig, to direct staff to work with the property
owner and adjoining residents to provide access to Briarhill's trail without crossing
private property.
Planning Board Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 3
MOTION by Nelson, second by Steppat, to approve the following variances.
• A rear yard setback variance from 30 feet to 9.83 feet for building 7029-7035
• A rear yard setback variance from 30 feet to 13.46 feet for building 7023
• A rear yard setback variance from 30 feet to 25.02 feet for building 7037-7043
Motion carried, 8-0
B. SCENIC HEIGHTS by Duane and Patricia Pidcock. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on
.62 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on .97 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on .97 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-13.5 on .35 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 on .62 acres, Site Plan
Review on .62 acres, Preliminary Plat of.97 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way.
Location: Red Rock Road and Scenic Heights Road.
Duane Pidcock presented the request. He stated they are requesting a rezoning of
the existing apartment building to multi-family and the creation of a single family lot
on the south end of the property. There would be minimal impact because the single
family lot abuts to a single family neighborhood.
Franzen stated this is a project that had been before the Board at an informational
meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Board agreed that the building should
remain as is and that it was appropriate to allow a lot split for a single family home.
The RM-6.5 zoning will keep the building the way it is today and if the home were
destroyed it would allow no more than six units to be built.
John Liepke of 15208 Scenic Heights Road stated he has lived there for a number of
years. He said he has spoken to the neighbors and there's no problem with the single
family housing or the setbacks. He said there would be a problem if changes were
made in the use and height of the apartment building.
Doug Schmidt of 15201 Scenic Heights Road stated he is not opposed to the single
family lot and the setbacks but doesn't want anything larger put in there. He said the
apartment building should be left as it is currently.
Steppat stated the recommendation fits well with the waivers and he supported it.
Foote agreed that it's a good property and is good to see the property kept up so well.
Nelson asked about paving over the parking area. Mr. Pidcock responded when the
new single family home was built,he would do so at that time.
MOTION by Steppat, second by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 8-0
Planning Board Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 4
MOTION by Steppat, second by Nelson, to approve a Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on .62 acres,
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on .97 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on .97 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-13.5 on .35 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 on .62 acres, Site Plan
Review on .62 acres, Preliminary Plat of.97 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way,
based on plans dated February 20, 2004, subject to the recommendations of the staff
report dated February 20, 2004, to the City Council. Motion carried, 8-0
C. PEMBERTON LANDING by Minnstar Builders, Inc. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on
17.29 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 21.66 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review with waivers on 21.66 acres, Zoning District
Change from R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 17.29 acres, Site Plan Review on 17.29 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 21.66 acres into 32 lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way.
Location: South of Pioneer Trail, north of Hilltop Road, west of Eden Prairie Road.
Timothy Bohlman introduced the project. He stated there have been a couple of
changes made since the informational meeting. He said the most notable changes are
the entrances from the development onto Pioneer Trail. He stated he had further
discussions with Hennepin County regarding location and number of entrances.
They are proposing two entrances to the site. He displayed a site plan that shows an
entrance on the western end of the development off Pioneer Trail and a right in, right
out access on Pioneer Trail across from Gould Road.
He said the issues to discuss include the waivers for the project as proposed. If they
were taken off the table, the project would be similar to other projects in town. The
report indicated they were three units per acre. He said this project would not work
at that density. In order to purchase property and make it work financially, it needs
to be more dense than 3 units per acre. He stated the premise is to take the older
neighborhood that was built 30 years ago without city utilities and to redevelop the
area and install utilities. He is looking at developing this area and bringing in City
utilities.
He stated an independent research firm indicated that this type of housing is needed
in Eden Prairie. He stated taxes on the current property are estimated at around
$4,617 for the City's portion . With redevelopment, there would be $128,048 in
taxes for the City. He indicated this would be an advantage to the City and be
helpful in providing revenue for City services. The park dedication fees would add
another$400,000. He displayed a chart which he referred to as Area 25 which
includes south central Hennepin County including Eden Prairie, Minnetonka,
Deephaven and Woodland. . He stated the firm have done the research and they
don't expect to have any problems selling the units; this is a product type that is in
Planning Board Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 5
demand and there is a lack of this type of product. He stated Ron Clark Construction
has built in Bear Path, they were the only builders in Bear Path to build four product
types including single family, twin and both types of townhome units. They aren't
trying to replicate Hennepin Village. He showed the sign monument and
landscaping at the entrance. He said they are proposing to incorporate a decorative
and screening fence which would consist of stone pillars every 40 or 50 feet. It will
carry through the theme with the early settler homestead type of feel. There are some
changes in the names of the products. The Veranda unit is now called the
Homestead product; the Classic is now the Hearth home.
Franzen stated what planning must do on a continual basis is review projects and
direct changes in the plans so they contribute to accomplishing one of the strategic
initiatives of the City Council, which is the "quality of life" .The quality of life began
back in 1968 when the City decided to create a guide plan with 30% open space,
balanced land uses, with a strong office and industrial base. In 1968, the City
envisioned a town with 55 percent single family and 45 percent multi-family homes.
This would allow people to move to different housing types to meet their changing
needs and still be able to live in the City.
He said 98% of the time the City has voted to remain consistent with the guise plan.
For the 2% of the time that guide plan changes are reviewed the staff takes them very
seriously. Although there is certainly nothing wrong with building out the rest of the
land consistent with the guide plan and repeating more of the great things we already
enjoy, there are those projects that stand out from the others and should be
considered for a change.
However there must be compelling reasons to change the guide plan, or the offer that
cannot be refused, or better than god, motherhood and apple pie. These reasons fall
into categories such as preservation of open space, affordable housing, senior
housing, eliminating a land use incompatibility.
With this project there is no compelling reason to change the guide plan. To create
the appropriate transition the density needs to be lowered to 3 —3 1/2 units per acre or
similar to Sutton Place.
This project is more than just the guide plan and density, it is about neighborhood
character. Residents should be able to rely upon the guide plan when deciding on
where to live and the City has a responsibility to uphold the guide plan in order to
protect the integrity of its neighborhoods. The City cannot deny a project simply
because it impacts neighborhood character; the reasons must be substantiated in fact
not a goal. However the inconsistency with the guide plan, lack of transition and
waivers from the City code become reasons for denial and at the same time those
reasons also support maintaining neighborhood character.
Planning Board Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 6
Franzen said the last point of his presentation has to do with the philosophy of
redevelopment. With the 2008 guide plan update the City must have redevelopment
policies. The Board cannot delay the project because the City does not have a policy.
Eventually the City needs to determine if older neighborhoods should be allowed to
redevelop. The second question would be what type of redevelopment the City
should allow. The last question would be should the City get involved financially.
The City does not have to redevelop older neighborhoods. Older suburbs that may
not have properly planned their communities now have a strong financial incentive
to redevelop land that is underused since tax base is so low. Other communities are
faced with planning problems from years ago which has resulted in zoning that is
incompatible and they need to make changes to clean up neighborhoods.
Franzen noted that tax base alone cannot be a determining factor. Tax base is not a
huge issue considering the total city value is around 8 billion dollars and the City has
an AAA bond rating.
In summary Franzen suggested that the Board needs to first discuss whether the land
use proposed is appropriate for this location and whether there is a compelling reason
to change the comprehensive guide plan. If not, there no further discussion is needed.
John Deminico of 16100 Hilltop Road stated he is representing members of his
neighborhood including Hilltop Road, south of Hilltop Road, Riley Creek, Valley
Road, Fairfield and Eden Prairie Road. He said there was a lack of due process with
this project from the beginning. He displayed a drawing that indicated the location
of his home. He questioned the tactics of Minnstar. He was told that they were the
only one that had not agreed to sell part of their property which was not the case.
One of the reasons they are here is to oppose the rezoning to medium density. They
had not been given a forum to be heard. There were no neighborhood meetings
where their thoughts could be incorporated in the design. He said it is necessary to
obtain easements for a holding pond on the east end of the development. The only
two most likely places the easements could be granted is either his property or
another property. Neither property owner had been contacted. He stated he would
back up 120 feet from the units. The transition that is proposed is a single method
which consists of trees. Many builders use fencing, and berms in addition to trees.
He said Mr. Bohlman stated he would place trees on the single family properties. He
said he is not for that because it would take 10 years for the trees to be effective as a
transition element. He stated there are 11 objectives listed in the City Code for Land
Development. He stated he would like to discuss three of them. He said Objective
#2 states "to foster a harmonious convenient workable relationship among land
uses." He said he can't see putting a high density development next to single family
homes as being harmonious. Objective#3 states "to promote the stability of existing
land uses that conform wit the Guide Plan and to protect them from inharmonious
Planning Board Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 7
influences and harmful intrusions." He stated intrusions are an understatement when
you have a four-plex in your back yard. Objective#5 states "to prevent excessive
population densities and over-crowding of the land with structures." He said this is
what's being proposed too much density. He stated, in summary, for all these reasons
the neighbors are asking the Board to consider option#3, to deny the project as they
don't want a continuance.
Dawn Stover of 16291 Hilltop Road stated there are 26 property owners in the
neighborhood and only 6 neighbors who approve of the project. She said they built
their home and worked closely with City staff. The negative effects will be
immediate and others such as tree loss will be long term affecting the bird
population. The townhomes would be in full view of the single family homes. The
development will affect the life and security of the neighborhood. Hilltop Road can't
bear the additional traffic and when the road is widened, it will not be wide enough
for sidewalks. Neighbors are aware of what's going on in the neighborhood; it's safe
and there's no crime in the area. She said they agree with the staff report which
states "any multiple family in the area can create a ripple effect and there would be
pressure to build multiple family on the south of Hilltop Road or at the very least
cause a transition problem for which there is no solution." She said the reality is
that someday the neighbors will be looking out at a cluster of townhomes and the
neighborhood they have known will no longer exist. She stated the plan can't stand
on its own. She described the positive aspects of the neighborhood and the qualities
and connections between neighbors that have made their neighborhood special. She
said Eden Prairie has positive family focused living and neighborhoods such as hers
are the reason.
Brad Longton of 9180 Eden Prairie Road said his property sits along the road and
there is a drainage ditch planned for their back yard. He said they have a daycare and
there is a concern for safety. He stated concerns regarding smell and safety, and is
against this project for those reasons.
John Howe of 16380 Valley Road stated he was representing the Valley Road
residents and other communities surrounding the area. He referred to a petition
which did not support the rezoning. He said it states support retaining the existing
zoning and oppose rezoning to a higher density and opposition to any future rezoning
to allow that density of zoning. In summary, the petitions include over 275
signatures. Two points he would like to mention. He stated for Valley Road
residents proposed development of this type would affect the community in many
ways. They believe that the overall affect on quality of life would be negative such
as increased traffic. The guide plan indicates low density, single family for this area.
The residents relied on the current guide plan when they built in the area. There are
also no services available to a development of this size such as gas stations,
convenience stores, etc. He stated Eden Prairie is on the higher end for multifamily
to single family. He said they need to determine the impact on surrounding land—
Planning Board Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 8
isn't consistent. He stated there would be an impact on City services with water
usage impacted with such a large development. Most of the topography would need
to be regarded. Establishing sod would be a tax on the water supply. Impervious
surfaces could be upwards of 50% with this proposed density. He is looking to
promote rainwater gardens. He stated this is a mature neighborhood with a lot of
hardwood trees which provide shade and they don't have to water as often. He said
according to MAC and Met Council they would like the area to stay low density. He
continued the west side of Hilltop Road has a drainage problem due to the Riley
Creek development. The neighbors have discussed what they'd like to see. They
developed a plan which includes 42 single family homes which could fit into the
area. In this plan, it would allow the existing homes to stay in place.
John Hamel of 16260 Valley Road displayed a concept plan which included 42
single family homes. He described town home living as not as desirable because of
the expense with monthly fees for maintenance; single family homes would be more
desirable to most people. He said he spoke with a developer who felt the plan was
viable. He said the area hadn't been developed because there is no City sewer or
water. He stated the biggest concern was because they are a smaller neighborhood a
large development like this would split them in two.
Andy Vergeront of 16759 Thatcher Road stated he supports all arguments against the
development. He stated traffic is crowded on Pioneer Trail and the development
could introduce up to 200 more cars per day. He said a lot of people coming down
Eden Prairie Road to avoid the traffic on Pioneer Trail will cut through the
neighborhood near the elementary school which creates an unsafe situation for
children in the area. He stated the area would be so dense and wondered whether the
buses could even get in there. He said it's important not to put profit margins in front
of safety.
Carol Nelson of 9049 McGuffey Road stated that town homes are not appropriate for
the area and should not be built in this project. This is currently a single family
home development and Pemberton Landing will not fit with this neighborhood. The
property surrounding the area is all single family. She said when they built their
home the City staff assured them the guide plan was a credible plan for the future.
She said they need to locate this type of development near shopping areas; if senior
citizens, singles and empty nesters locate in the development, there aren't the services
they need nearby. She stated there is no place for children to play, no playgrounds,
yards, and they will end up playing in the streets. This area can be redeveloped
within the single family home designation. There is only one opportunity to
redevelop this property. The decision made will send a message to Minnstar and all
developers, development and redevelopment within the City of Eden Prairie is to be
done by the book by following the guide plan.
Dick Perkins of 16351 Pioneer Trail stated when they bought their home they knew
Planning Board Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 9
the area would be built up. He said that development is inevitable and it's not right to
think others shouldn't make Eden Prairie their home. He said he believes Pemberton
Landing is a good addition to Eden Prairie.
Floyd Hagen of 15721 Cedar Ridge Road bought their home where they did because
the comprehensive guide plan was so well planned out. He was surprised about the
Pemberton Landing and how it diverges from the comprehensive guide plan. He
stated he would strongly recommend option three recommending denial of the
project because it is inconsistent with the comprehensive guide plan.
Corey Gellner of 9097 Gateway Lane stated he was against the high density and is
concerned about traffic issues.
Marie Bran of 16201 Pioneer Trail said they built their home 18 years ago. When
developers approached them about selling their home they were adamant that they
would not and didn't want to leave. The six residents got together as a group and
looked into Ron Clark's credibility discovering that he is honest, a great home
builder, and developer. He said he and his neighbors looked at his product line and
liked it and they were happy he'd be retaining the trees. The six homes don't fit in
with the more expensive ones in the area. He said when he looked at selling her
home, looked at it as an opportunity and sincerely believed she was doing what the
City of Eden Prairie would like.
Lori Campos of 15710 Corral Lane is in support of the smaller pocket of older
homes. She said she was very concerned about rezoning and making the land more
usable.
John Hansen of 16200 Hilltop Road. He said he likes the development except the
City wants to put a road through to Hilltop Road which would destroy the quality of
life on Hilltop Road. He stated he is in favor of Ron Clark developing this area. The
privacy of the neighborhood is protected by the dead end streets. He stated he is for
the development.
Tom Briant 15560 Boulder Pointe Road is against the plan because the traffic on
Pioneer Road would significantly increase. He said they are concerned about the
impact on property values and that the proposed density does not fit the area. For
those reasons adhere to the comprehensive guide plan and do not approve the project.
Diane Jorgensen of 16101 Pioneer Trail stated she grew up in Eden Prairie. She said
she has seen development occur around her home and she is for the project because
of the traffic situation and she wants to get out of Eden Prairie. She believes their
house doesn't fit into the area anymore because it was built in 1952.
Planning Board Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 10
Stoelting summarized the issues discussed which included—land use, transition, due
process, Hilltop Road, drainage, outlot, zoning changes, conceptual plan, traffic
flow, density and safety concerns, setbacks, sidewalks, safety, buses, and children.
Franzen stated some of the concerns are comprehensive such as do whether the guide
plan should be changed, some are site specific. An appropriate place to start would
be a discussion as to whether the guide plan should be changed. If the answer is no,
nothing else needs to be discussed.
Brooks thanked the residents and developer because it takes both parties to develop
the community. He said he's not opposed to guide plan changes because things have
changed over time. He stated there is no question that Ron Clark is a quality builder.
Along Pioneer Trail there are some multi-family but no where near the density of this
project. He said he thinks there could be a nice transition to the multifamily homes
on Pioneer Trail with berms and landscaping. He stated he is more concerned about
density than a guide plan change.
Nelson stated she's not against a guide plan change especially along Pioneer Trail.
She said she's not sure about the density but double and triple homes can fit in nicely
near single family homes. She said she can see the possibility of multiple family and
the density is really high and if went with multiple would want open land planned
for, access for buses, and reasonable access to roads. The value of whatever goes in
needs to match the value of the neighborhood whether it's multiple or single. There
are environmental issues with this land. This project needs to be continued to
answer some of those questions. She said it's not appropriate to say that multiple
housing on Pioneer Trail wouldn't be feasible.
Foote stated he is not against redevelopment which is something Eden Prairie needs
to look at for the future. He said he appreciates the efforts the developer has gone
through and the hard work of the neighbors. He said from a guide plan perspective
we need to hold to it as closely as possible. He stated he is looking at the 77% tree
loss would make the project undesirable. He said there could be multi family along
Pioneer Trail if they were single level. He concluded he could not support the
density of this development.
Steppat agreed with Foote stating he is not against redevelopment or changing the
guide plan but feels the density is inappropriate. There has to be a compelling reason
for a guide plan change and there isn't one here and he would not support the project.
Koenig agreed and said she looks at guide plan changes carefully. Although she was
very impressed with the developer's product, she said she is hesitant to change the
guide plan. She stated diversity of housing is important and because a neighborhood
is older doesn't mean it needs to be redeveloped. it needs to be on a case by case
basis. There needs to be some perks in exchange for changing the guide plan. She
Planning Board Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 11
said she liked some of the work the developer's done but there are just too many
problems with this development and she is against a guide plan change.
Seymour stated he doesn't support a guide plan change for this project, there's no
compelling reason to change it. He said there are serious problems with
transportation, transition and density. He stated nothing has changed since the last
meeting even though the board recommended changes to the developer. This project
doesn't fit this area and doesn't give any thing to the City.
Sutherland stated it has been an interesting project.. The comprehensive guide plan
is not perfect but it has wisdom and process. He said he sees no compelling reason
to change the guide plan. He stated he is uncomfortable with the plan which seems
to amputate a part of the neighborhood with excessive elbow room and stitch on a
neighborhood with excessive impervious surface. Even with a guide plan change the
square peg in a round whole aspect of this development doesn't work.
Nelson stated that those with large lots do have a right to find a plan to utilize the
land. The rest of the neighborhood doesn't have a right to say they can't look at
options. The City needs to develop ways to address developments that can fit into a
variety of neighborhoods.
Bohlman asked the Board to not continue the project since he has timelines to meet
and would ask the Board to either approve or deny the project.
MOTION by Brooks, second by Nelson, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 8-0
MOTION by Brooks, second by Koenig, to deny a Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 17.29
acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 21.66 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 21.66 acres, Zoning District Change
from R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 17.29 acres, Site Plan Review on 17.29 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 21.66 acres into 32 lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way,based on plans dated
February 18, 2004, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated February
20, 2004, to the City Council,based on the following reasons:
• There are no compelling reasons to change the guide plan,
• The density is inconsistent with the surrounding area,
• The proposed plan does not preserve natural features, help meet housing
goals, provide an appropriate transition, and it does not provide open space.
Motion carried, 8-0
Planning Board Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 12
Franzen informed the Board members that the developer can choose to go forward to
the City Council with the project even with a denial recommendation.. If he decides
to proceed staff will be sending out public hearing notices.
Foote asked if the developer came forward to the City Council with a completely
different plan, would it come back again before the Board.
Franzen responded the City Council could look at it in two ways. The first would be
that all items have been addressed and the plans look fine and they would act on it or
they may send it back to the Board for a recommendation on a new plan..
VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Nelson, second by Koenig, to adjourn. Motion passed, 8-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.