Planning Commission - 04/23/2001 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY,APRIL 23, 2001 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Chair Frantz Corneille, Ken Brooks, Randy Foote,
Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Fred Seymour, Paul
Sodt, Susan Stock, Ray Stoelting
STAFF MEMBERS: Krista Flemming, Planner II
Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural
Resources
Alan Gray, City Engineer
Scott Kipp, Senior Planner
Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator
Donald Uram, Community Development/
Financial Services Director
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Vice-Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners
Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Seymour, Sodt, Stoelting. Absent: Brooks, Corneille, Stock.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Koenig, second by Sodt to approve the Monday, April 23 Community
Planning Board Agenda. Motion carried 6-0.
III. MINUTES
A. April 9, 2001
Koenig requested the following changes to the minutes:
Page 6, sixth paragraph to the bottom should read, Koenig asked Franzen to explain
density transfer to the audience as it relates to the specific site.
Page 7, seventh paragraph from the bottom, should read, Koenig asked about tree
impacts and if there would be less tree loss at a lower density.
Page 9, last sentence, should read, Koenig questioned whether the density on C was
similar to any existing developments, specifically Pine Brook.
Page 11, tenth paragraph from the bottom, should read, Koenig expressed that she
was okay with the guide plan change. She inquired about land farther west on County
Road 1 and zoning across from the airport.
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 2
Page 11, eighth paragraph from the bottom, should read, Koenig asked how this
development would affect development of property farther west.
Page 12, top paragraph, should read, Koenig questioned tree loss of 49%; it is high,
but she is happy to see wetland trees.
Motion by Nelson, second by Koenig to approve the April 9, 2001 minutes as
amended. Motion carried, 4-1-0, abstention Foote.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VALLEY VIEW CORPORATE CENTER by CSM Equities, L.L.C. Request
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to
Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional Commercial to Office on 4.79 acres,
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.18 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 7.18 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to I-2 on 7.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.18 acres, and Preliminary
Plat on 7.18 acres into 1 lot and road right of way. Location: Northwest Quadrant
of Valley View Road and Topview Road.
The public hearing opened at 7:03 p.m.
Dave Carland, Vice President of Development noted there has been a reduction
from a two story to single story building and 100,000 to 75,000 square feet in
response to traffic concerns. Routing traffic across Home Depot is one option.
Engineering recommended Topview Road and access be reflected in the plans.
The neighbors expressed concern about safety and traffic.
Foote asked about the traffic report.
Carland said the traffic consultant indicated traffic is less than the guide plan. He
felt traffic would be less since the report is 100% use of parking spots and this
seldom occurs.
Sodt inquired about the relationship PPT and Home Depot and whether they
would object to access through the lot.
Carland said they were the landowners for the PPT property. He has the right as
the landlord and there is an easement recorded for the cross connection. It is not a
conflict. There is an ingress and egress easement with Home Depot. His
discussion with Home Depot included major drive modifications.
Koenig asked Carland to provide examples of buildings done by CSM in Eden
Prairie.
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 3
Carland state there were three buildings on the hill off Anagram Drive, buildings
on Golden Triangle Drive, the PPT Vision Building, and the building on Prairie
Oaks occupied by BioTech.
Franzen noted the Planning Board approved a two-story 100,000 square foot
building on this site in December. At its January 16, 2001 meeting, Council
suggested staff should look at widening Topview Road, adding a sidewalk and
other safety conditions. On February 20, 2001, CSM requested Council
consideration of a one story, 75,000 square foot building. Council directed the
developer to return to the Community Planning Board for a public hearing on the
new plan.
The project will require a guide plan change from regional commercial and
medium density residential to office. The guide plan change may be a better land
use because of its proximity to residential. A waiver of office use from 50% to
85% is requested.
A full access to Topview Road was initially presented to the Council. Council
directed staff to reconsider access and safety. The City hired a firm for a traffic
study. If there is no driveway access from Topview, it increases traffic on Valley
View and reduces safety. The best solution is a balanced approach that maintains
safety and efficiency of all roads.
Gray noted office use is a preferred use. There is a fair amount of morning and
evening traffic that is the opposite direction of the residential traffic. The current
traffic and expected traffic with full occupancy was compared; there is minor
growth in total traffic volume. The study considered a right-in right-out. There is
virtually no impact during a.m. traffic. Evening exiting traffic on Topview
northbound provides the growth. The character of southbound Topview road in
the evening will be less than it currently is in the morning. Safety is a concern for
neighbors and the City. There is no such thing as a totally safe roadway. This is
not a uniquely steep road. Topview is a fairly short road; it is controlled by a three
way stop at the north end. Speeds on Topview Road averaged 23 miles per hour.
Traffic, especially southbound, runs slower than on most roads of similar
character. Drivers may make a-turns and will use the exiting capacity of the
intersection. He described a typical traffic pattern at Home Depot and a
problematic corner. An exit on Topview would create less of a safety problem
than expecting drivers to go through the parking lot. The net result with moving
ahead without a signalized intersection will create more congestion in westbound
lanes during peak hours. The capacity is there. Valley View Road will grow;
improvements should be made in the future.
Nelson asked if the City had any rights to an easement if a service road along
Valley View is needed. She asked whether that would be a possibility.
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 4
Gray no public easement, agreement to provide a cross — access. There is not
room for a frontage road without removing significant parking. There is not an
impediment to doing a driveway connection access on Topview.
Nelson said she would be concerned about a-turns on Valley View; there are a lot
of young drivers on that, near high school, would be concerned about
complicating it knowing there are several hundred 16 and 17 year old drivers
Gray said drivers trying to go east on Valley View would make a u-turn without
driveway access onto Topview.
Koenig asked for clarification on what is being proposed, whether it was a stop
sign or yield.
Gray said it is a stop condition for the driveway.
Koenig said one of the concerns about the safety is that it is a curving winding
road.
Gray said that at the stop sign you can see Valley View Road.
Koenig said in the winter icy conditions make the road difficult to navigate.
Gray said one reason Topview goes slow it is the top of the hill looking down
creates feeling of insecurity. There is no accident history on Topview road. There
will not be a permanent signal between Topview and Prairie Center Drive. A
signal on Valley View would create havoc with congestion and work against the
neighborhood. The in-bound maneuver is not necessary. The roadway could be
only out. That provides all of the enhancement needed from a safety perspective.
Letting people come out, make the right turn, and use the signalized intersection
for east bound would help.
Stoelting asked for public comment.
Greg Olson, 7373 Ann Court, said he uses the road regularly. It is hazardous and
he drives slowly; the greatest issue is the curve, hill, and slope. The possibility of
someone heading north and trying to go left in front of traffic coming down the
hill would create a danger. The road is inadequately maintained during the winter.
Traffic coming out may not get out fast enough and collisions could result. He is
puzzled by the statement that the increase in usage would not be significant on
Topview but would be significant on Valley View. He believes that people will
attempt a-turns unless it is clearly marked. Traffic will want to go eastbound and
the best access and interchange is Prairie Center Drive and Highway 5. If the
intersection is signed clearly where traffic should flow to reach 5 and 494 it
should help. The consultant's report said the access to Topview is less than
optimal. Direct traffic to where interchanges that can handle the flow are located.
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 5
Jim Duncan, Roberts Drive and Topview, said he has lived there for 25 years and
there should be a sanding truck there from November through April. He said there
have been many accidents as a result of the grade. There is not a problem with the
building but there should be a service road taking traffic to major lights. It would
be a mistake to put it onto Topview. A right-out would make sense, but a right-in
would create more traffic on Roberts Drive.
Katy Grandy of 7203 Topview Road, travels at least twice per day. She is in favor
of the building but not the driveway. Residents would like to have the street
remain residential. The bottom of the hill cannot be seen from the top. A service
road would be one option. A light at PPT vision is another. She travels westbound
and southbound in the morning; lights are metered for flow of traffic. Perhaps
metering would be an option. Transferring developer funds to a signalized light is
another option. If the only option is to put in a driveway access at Topview
residents would prefer a right-out.
Motion by Nelson, second by Koenig to close the public hearing. Motion carried
6-0.
The public hearing closed at 8:06 p.m.
Seymour asked whether Topview Road would be a painted median, an expansion
to the turn lane as opposed to a cement median restricting traffic into the
driveway.
Gray said the volumes are low it would be painted to direct the approach, it is
similar to coming out of Cub going to 212. It allows a right turn on red.
Stoelting summarized issues as directing traffic more to highway 5, visibility
concerns, construction of a service road, installation of a signalized intersection
utilizing developer funds, and right-out only.
Gray said right-out only would allow exiting on Topview. The right-in is not
necessary. It would become a one-way exit from the parking lot. There is no
northbound access into the site. It's not likely that people will go to Prairie Center
Drive, go past Rainbow through a signal at Plaza Drive. 60% of the traffic will go
to eastbound 494 if they want to go to 212, 169 and 494. Prairie Center Drive will
be a congested area. People learn their way around. Directional signs are for
unfamiliar. People will use the preferred way. Signalizing the area is not a reality.
Valley View is a county road and not a city road. Traffic would not warrant a
signal, even if the city would pay for it. The question is whether a serious hazard
is created on Topview by a driveway access. There are 200 cars during peak hours
in the morning. During evening peak hours, there are 65 coming down and 200
going up. It could work better than it currently does. The cars coming down drive
slower than average. Slippery road conditions occur only 1/10 of 1% of the time.
The road faces south and recovers from slippery conditions. Icy conditions will
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 6
create slippery roads in every situation. Another question was a dedicated drive-
aisle and that is not going to happen. Parking would have to be taken away. The
riskiest maneuver is backing up and that is what happens in drive-aisles.
Foote said the right-out is a good idea. It should be configured so no one could
make a right in.
Nelson asked about the possibility of straightening Topview Road.
Gray said it could be done but would not result in much change operationally. The
road is entered from a stop. The Topview/Valley View Road cannot be changed.
Nelson said there was an alternate exit onto Baker Road for the neighborhood.
Gray said if there was a history of less maintenance, it was probably correct.
Intersections and driveways are sanded; there will likely be sanded more with a
driveway access.
Koenig asked Gray for clarification on the traffic study 2015 Valley View, Prairie
Center Drive, entrances to 494, and extra lane on Topview. Do we rely on
Hennepin County and timeline?
Gray explained they operate well right now. Hennepin County would participate
on a cost basis but he could not guarantee a timeline. There will be choices to be
made on which improvements should be made first. Improvements will be
required, but funding and timelines cannot be guaranteed.
Koenig noted in the traffic study it states if improvements are not made on
entrances to 494 by 2015, it is predicted to be very difficult. She questioned
whether the City would have to work with the County.
Gray said yes, on improvements in those areas. He addressed signals Hennepin
County would never install a signal with that type of traffic volume even if the
city would pay for it. Signal timing works to a certain traffic volume and then
breaks down.
Nelson stated the right-out only is a good solution. Her preference would be to
leave it as a larger building and would like to approve it as such. If they could
keep traffic onto Topview and not deal with inbound. She has no problem with
the smaller building but doesn't think smaller is necessary. She agrees with the
office use.
Koenig appreciates the audience comments and concerns. She has driven the road
many times. The best compromise is right-out only. She does not believe people
will respect no U-turn signs. She supports the smaller building plan.
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 7
Seymour said he likes the smaller building and the right-out only makes more
sense.
Sodt concurred that he appreciated concerns of the residents and right-out would
address their safety concerns. There would not be significant additions to traffic.
Motion by Nelson, second by Foote to approve Valley View Corporate Center by
CSM Equities, L.L.C. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from
Medium Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional
Commercial to Office on 4.79 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review
on 7.18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.18
acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.18 acres, Site Plan Review
on 7.18 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 7.18 acres into 1 lot and road right of way
according to the recommendations in staff report and with a one-way right out
only. Motion carried 6-0.
B. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AUDITORIUM by International School.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 38.4 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.4 acres, Zoning District
Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 38.4 acres and Site Plan Review
on 38.4 acres. Location: Beach Road.
The public hearing opened at 8:45 p.m.
Franzen said this project is a PUD amendment to add an auditorium and
classrooms to the International School of Minnesota. The project meets City
requirements. Franzen read a letter received from Gerri Baakonen and his
response to her questions. 17 acres are open space for tree preservation and
lakeshore protection. Hennepin County owns one acre. The International School
is exempt from property taxes. The school parks on a private road and grass areas
during special events. Notices to property owners are sent to those within 500 feet
of the boundaries of the land. Ms. Baakonen's letter and Franzen's response will
be included as part of the minutes.
John Harris, Principal of Harris Architects. The school would like to move
forward with a 350 seat performing arts auditorium and testing. The auditorium is
proposed with a new main entrance.
Foote inquired about parking on the property and whether it would be adequate
for auditorium use.
Harris said 220 spots.
Franzen said it would be used during the day by faculty and students and there
would likely be more than one person per car for special events.
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 8
Sodt said if people parked on Beach Road they would be very far from the
auditorium. He said he would anticipate vehicles parking on the private road into
the school but not on Beach Road.
Foote said he has seen parking on Beach Road occasionally but is not sure what it
is in relation to.
Motion by Nelson, second by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-
0. The public hearing closed at 8:56 p.m.
Motion by Nelson, second by Foote to approve International School Auditorium
by International School Request for Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment on 38.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.4
acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 38.4 acres
and Site Plan Review on 38.4 acres. Motion carried 6-0.
C. EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER SIGN PLAN by General Growth Properties.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 80 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 80 acres, and Zoning
District Amendment within the C-Reg Zoning District on 80 acres. Location:
Prairie Center Drive.
The public hearing opened at 8:58 p.m.
Bill Mosten Vice President of Development for General Growth Properties said
he has two concerns with recommendations in the staff report. The proposal is the
culmination of the project; this is a critical piece of the project. They are anxious
to bring new customers to Eden Prairie Center and bring return customers. The
scope is appropriate for the size of the project and is consistent with General
Growth's projects across the country. The signs are attractive and consistent with
the community. He has discussed with the staff the Barnes and Noble sign; they
are a key anchor and they are in a position of least visibility. As a condition of
their location General Growth agreed to provide signage. The identification sign
on 212 is part of the identity for the center and community center. They would
allow the city and community to post events. Otherwise they agree with the staff
report.
Franzen said the mall renovation should be completed this fall. All but two sign
requests are reasonable. The additional Barnes and Noble signage based on wall
space in the building. They could be allowed a second sign if the two signs split
the allowable size. The existing PUD sign on 212 exceeds City code. The
entrance signs were traded for the sign on 212. They could either not have the
sign or have it 20 feet tall and 80 square feet. Reader boards can display time and
temperature. This would set a precedent if things were advertised on the sign. The
PUD sign should be in accordance with code and allow only public service
announcements.
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 9
There was no public comment.
Motion by Nelson, second by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-
0.
The public hearing closed at 9:10 p.m.
Nelson inquired about where the movie theater sign would be located.
Mosten said it is an 18-screen movie theater, it is ineffective to advertise all of the
shows on a readerboard and they do not plan to have anything but signs at the
entrance.
Nelson asked about the need for all of the directional signs. It is a small mall and
all the buildings have large signs on them. It is obvious where things are on the
outside where major tenants are located. It seems like clutter. The mall has been
there for a long time and it is evident where the stores are. At the very worst
people would have to drive around it once.
Mosten said customer convenience was very important and they did not want
people to have to drive around to look for stores. Customers have told them it is
confusing. These directional signs are now industry standard. They blend into the
landscaping and are effective.
Sodt asked whether there was a study indicating numbers of new customers.
Mosten said no.
Sodt agreed with Nelson that most customers would be existing Eden Prairie
residents.
Stoelting asked for a visual of the Barnes and Noble sign.
Steve Johnson, VP Sales Northwest sign, said the directional signage is a
convenience. Burnsville Center is going through the same thing. This is not
unique to the site.
Franzen asked Mosten about a typical size for a regional mall.
Mosten said he was unsure of the boundaries of the trade area. It goes north to
Ridgedale, east to Mall of America, and southwest quite a way toward Victoria,
and Mankato. He can provide a map of the trade area.
Franzen said he was trying to clarify that the mall will draw residents from
outside the City and directional signs are important for customers who do not use
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 10
the mall on a regular basis. ADC considered each building a separate site. This
could be considered six parcels and a 36 square foot sign for each site could be
provided.
Stoelting asked Franzen to clarify the Barnes and Noble sign issue.
Franzen said if based upon the size of their space they were entitled to 100 square
feet. By waiver, the City could split the allowable size of the sign.
Mosten said Barnes and Noble gave up the end location in trade for a sign.
Stoelting asked Mosten to address the large sign on 212.
Mosten said it was to create one large identification sign that could be seen from
the freeway. They have had many comments from the public that the mall is
difficult to find. The secondary reason is it can convey messages.
Seymour asked if it would be in the same place as the current theater sign.
Mosten said it would be in that location. This would be an additional sign.
Nelson asked about the height of the existing sign.
Franzen said it was 36 feet tall and 336 square feet.
Nelson asked whether they have the right to put another equivalent sign at that
location.
Franzen said changing the shape, size and number of signs will require board and
council approval.
Nelson inquired whether they left the size and shape the same but changed the
wording.
Franzen said if no significant changes were made that would be within the spirit
and intent for which it was approved. However, that waiver was granted in
exchange for no other street signs.
Nelson asked if they could go in with a 20-foot high sign if they wanted.
Franzen said they could put up an 80 square foot sign 20 feet high. They are
asking for waivers for other signs so Council and the Board could make
judgements on that. The board should decide whether they should have a PUD
sign and how large it should be.
Sodt said he could not find a C-2 or N sign on the plan.
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 11
Mosten said C-2 is under the bridge, there is a walkway between the Target
parking deck and the mall. The end sign from the food court mall entrance is N, at
location CA.
Sodt noted there were a lot of variance requests. He asked whether all of them
were necessary. He looked at entrance A6 from Prairie Center Drive. Most of that
traffic would be heading into Tower Square. A3 seems to be an internal access
from the ring road. He asked whether those were essential.
Mosten said those were primary entrance signs. They have tried to provide
consistency throughout the site. The original ordinance probably did not consider
a mall this size. This should be a town center from all points of entry. The sign at
A-6 is the same as the rest. The sign plan was prepared for customers, not
necessarily from the ordinance.
Sodt expressed concern about setting precedence.
Mosten asked Franzen to clarify the PUD guideline defining the center as unique.
Franzen said regional malls typically have several access points because of the
need to evenly distribute traffic. Everything but the PUD sign Community scale
malls have only two driveways so there is not a need for additional signage.
Mosten said it is a matter of consistency as well identifying entrances.
Franzen reviewed reasons for granting waivers. Sign waivers are being requested
because of the scale of development in relationship to the number of entrances
and size of site, number of people visiting the site, internal and external
intersections, and the low visibility of the site in relationship to surrounding
public roads. The mall must be treated differently than community centers
because of its scale.
Foote said considering the project's size he had no problem with any of the signs
except for the large one in the front. Smaller is not necessarily better, with the
exception of the large PUD sign. He dislikes the lighted portion of it.
Sodt questioned the need for the A4 sign and E sign.
Mosten said the E sign identified the overall sign from a distance across the
freeway and A4 was a low sign telling drivers to turn in to the mall. Alternative
size for E is up for discussion.
Sodt suggested the sign would be similar to Mystic Lake Casino sign.
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 12
Mosten noted he was willing to discuss alternatives. The sign package is very
important.
Sodt asked about the timeline.
Mosten said the PUD sign would not be a problem, the others would be a major
problem.
Nelson said she has a problem with the PUD sign with the height and disliked the
directional signs because of the height; 5'9" was too tall. They should be lower to
the ground and less intrusive. B-1, B-2 and B-3 will be covered with snow. A
scrolling message board next to the mall would not be in keeping with the rest of
the City.
Mosten said they have done studies identifying appropriate height of signs for
vehicles coming in. He asked his coworkers to elaborate.
Seymour said he appreciates the uniqueness of the site and understands the need
for signs. The design of the signs are pleasing. He disliked the PUD sign. Two
signs could be at Barnes and Noble if the square footage did not exceed 100
square feet.
Franzen said if the board wanted to split the square footage that would be
reasonable. Barnes and Noble is beneath the theater and could be treated as a
separate box.
Foote suggested the board take action this with the exception of the PUD sign.
Franzen said General Growth could withdraw the request for the PUD sign. They
are entitled to a PUD sign but could withdraw it and come back.
Foote suggested this option.
General Growth withdrew the request for the PUD sign.
Sodt said they could make a motion listing changes prior to council expressing
reservations.
Franzen said the board could recommend approval of the project with conditions.
The discussion in the minutes will convey the board's concerns to the Council.
Koenig said she was very satisfied with the internal sign package. She likes the
logo and does not have a problem with the PUD sign except the possibility of
setting a precedent with the video.
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 13
Motion by Sodt, second by Foote to approve, adding further consideration of
directional signs, meeting the code and split with Barnes and Noble sign.
Foote stated the motion was not clear about directional signs meeting code. There
is no problem with the directional signs. He would leave the part about Barnes
and Noble sign.
Koenig agreed with Foote's comments.
Stoelting said the board could vote on the motion or amend it.
Sodt said he still would like the directional signs reconsidered.
Vice-Chair Stoelting called for a roll-call vote.
Nelson yes, Foote no, Koenig no, Seymour no, Sodt yes, Stoelting no. Motion
failed 2-4.
Motion by Foote, second by Koenig to approve General Growth Properties'
request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 80 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review with waivers on 80 acres, and Zoning District
Amendment within the C-Reg Zoning District on 80 acres, with the Barnes and
Noble sign be configured to the size which it is entitled to by ordinance.
Koenig asked whether PUD sign needed to be mentioned.
Franzen noted the proponent had withdrawn the request for the PUD sign.
Vice-Chair Stoelting called for a roll-call vote.
Nelson no, Foote yes, Koenig yes, Seymour yes, Sodt yes, Stoelting yes. Motion
carried 5-1.
V. PUBLIC MEETING
VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Foote said he was going through an Eden Prairie magazine reading the survey results
suggesting a municipal golf course. He asked about a possible location.
Franzen said 160 acres would be needed. There is a possible location along Spring Road
near the airport; it is part of the Lynn Charlson property.
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
Community Planning Board Minutes
April 23, 2001
Page 14
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
Franzen noted for the May 14'h Planning Board meeting, the Costco site would be
revisited for a housing development, and a mining operation would be considered on
Grace Church property. The City code has no provision for mining as a conditional use.
The board will discuss whether it should amend the code. Representation from legal
counsel will be present to advise the board. The Heritage project will return with a
modification to area C.
Nelson asked about the characteristics of the mining operation.
Franzen said it would include 1 million cubic yards of gravel.
Koenig asked if housing on the Costco site was similar to the one presented to Council.
Franzen said yes.
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Koenig, second by Foote to adjourn. Motion carried 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.