Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-80 PZMR n C L r1 • 4. Goals -.and Policies - I think the following issues with respect to the Goals and Policies for the over• -all Park Plan should have additional discussion: a. Do we want to establish a search area for a neighborhood park south of Lake Elmo Lake somewhere in Sections 28, 32,33, 34, and 35. Presently, there is no provision for acquisition of a neighborhood park south of M.innehaha or west of the Regional Park. b. I think we should reach an understand with Cimarron and the Oakland School that they maintain the play area, recreational facilities and tennis courts which are the neighborhood recreational facilities for that area. c. We should establish direct lines of communication with our school districts and neighboring communities so that we do not duplicate or leave out any opportunities for recreation and open space. I have in mind particularly that we should have some agreements with Stillwater School District on the Lake Elmo Elementary School as well as Oakland Jr. High School; and that. we should talk to North St. Paul/Maplewood about Eagle Point Lake School. We should also be discussing provision of park services with Oakdale and other neighboring communities. d. Several members of the Planning Commission and some individuals have expressed concern about the pace of development in two parks especially: Reid Park and West Sunfish, They are interested in keeping these parks somewhat undeveloped until there is a great demand for additional developed recreation space. The Planning Commission also suggested that, in addition to the survey, the Park Commission hold public hearings on the Master Plans for these two parks. PARK ISSUES: e. We should reconsider our policy of acquiring property around Big Sunfish Lake. We have an opportunity to preserve this lake for recreation and surface water management purposes in perpetuity. f. We might want to consider linking our parks at least on paper; so that we will have the opportunities Minneapolis now hart for broader use of an access to the complete City Park system. There are still op ptrtunitier• to link the complete park system while land ie still available. 9. Finally, r think we should reconsider our cash only policy with park donations; as I think it would be nice if there were just some wild open spaces for kids to build tree houses, play Indians and cowboys and run wild. 1 envision these as something the neighbors would keep track of.stook after; just a piece of wild open space within some of our subdivisions. Even with 1 1/2 acre lots there tends to he a very urhan nature to many of our. developments. 1 think it would be nice to have something more rural available for kids in take Elmo and for adults who like to walk through the park. 5. Hockey Board:: - Dan Collyard called me about some community groups putting hockey boards up in lions Park. T referred Ibis to Dave Morgan; he may want to comment on it. SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 24, 1980 1 Vice Chairman Prince called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:40. ROLL CALL: Crombie, Fraser, Lyall, Gifford, Lundquist MINUTES: November 10, 1980 - Corrections clarifying the corrections of the October 27 minutes. October 27 minutes - Federal Land - insert the following statement: "the Commission wishes to make clear that only the plans which do not include future public sewering were being considered. The Phase 2 plan is not being considered". Also, change the date of the November 24 Planning Commission meeting. Fraser moved, seconded by Lyall, to approve the'minutes of November 10, 1980, and October 27, 1980, as amended. Motion carried 6-0. EVERETTE BEAUBIEN - PUBLIC HEARING FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE: Vice Chairman Prince opened the hearing at 7:45 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Mayor Armstrong called the Special City Council meeting to order at 7:46 p.m. Councillors in attendance: Pott, Mottaz, and Morgan. Also, Administrator Whittaker. Administrator Whittaker reviewed Mr. Beaubien's request. City Engineer Bohrer evaluated the request and determined that two 1 1/2 A lots can be created with 125 ft. frontage. Any approval should require two drainfield sites, perc tests and soil borings for septic systems on each lot. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Neighbors asked what property was beingitonsidered. After reviewing the proposal they stated concerns about the 33 ft. easement shown on the map. They stated there was an easement to the north, providing access to the lake for several lots, originally. After subdivision of the property in 1962 by Mr Percy, the easement was moved to the south side of the property. They want this easement to remain their . public access. This could be accomplished if the roadway were deeded to the City for street purposes. The Administrator said the City should review their agreement or easement to make sure the property is deeded to the water; and the City should verify who owns the easement. Questions before the Planning Commission: 1. Do the lots have access on a public road? 2. Will the City accept this request for a road that does not meet City standards? 3. Will Mr. Beaubien be able to meet the lot width requirement on a public street? The neighbors claim Mr. Beaubien only has an easement to the. south 33 ft. of the roadway past his home. The Council and Commission discussed similar "private roads" and their standards. The City requires improved streets; but has made exceptions when there are extenuating circumstances. Before making a recommendation the Planning Commission would like the City Council to clarify the City's policy. Vice Chairman Prince closed the hearing at 8:15 p.m. Crombie suggested the City adopt a policy that provides for a 20' blacktop mat to service areas not requiring a normal street. Armstrong wants the Engineer's opinion on a 24' road vs a 20' road. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING, NOVEMBER 24, 1980 -2- Armstrong moved, seconded by Morgan, to adopt a City policy prohibiting gravel roads, Until the Engineer makes a recommendation, the minimum public street will be 24' wide with a blacktop mat; and authorize the Engineer to consider reducing the width to 20' under given conditions. Motion carried 4-0. Crombie moved, seconded by Lyall, to table any recommendation on the Beaubien subdivision and variance requiest until he provides the following: 1. A plan outlining two 1 1/2 acre lots, with the required 125' of frontage on a public street; 2. Proof of ownership of the road easement; 3. A road that meets Council standards; 4. Resolution of the public access easement for the affected property owners to the lake. Motion carried 6-0. The Planning Commission is not opposed to the subdivision provided all these conditions can be met. The neighbors will be notified when this request comes before the Commission for recommendation. MAIN STEM PLAN - VBWD: The Commission reviewed the Administrator's Agenda memo and the Planner's comments on the Main Stem Plan. They discussed the proposed plan at length. Fraser moved, seconded by Crombie, to recommend the City Council adopt the positions outlined by the Administrator in his November 21, 1980, Agenda Memo, and convey these recommendations to the Watershed District. Motion carried 3-2-1. Gifford and Lyall opposed. Lundquist abstained. Lyall and Gifford do not feel ponding will adequately handle future run-off, therefore, the main stem plan should be more aggressively pursued Mott moved, seconded by Morgan, to authorize the Administrator to respond to Valley Branch in the following manner: 1. There is a consensus that Area A should be sewered prior to 1990, and should be outletted to the east; and, 2. The City does not have any more recent information than before on the balance of the issues, therefore, no additional recommendations can be made. Motion carried 4-0 FEDERAL LAND COMPANY - COMP PLAN AMENDMENT: The Comprehensive Plan will need to be amended before the City can process Federal Lands' request for development. A Plan change extending the Commercial development area to all intersections 1/4 mile back from 1-94 should also be discussed. The Administrator advised that the Met Council will not favor any Commercial development outside the MUSA line. The Commission and Council reviewed a map of the area and the zoning. The Commission discussed the impact of changing the zoning for this area before the planned development date; road alignments, and the development of County 19; sewer availability; and, the development of the area the proposal will; serve. Crombie feels this proposal is premature without sewer and without a firm commitment that County 19 is going to be built. He would like to see the developers wait three to four years, until 1-94 and County 19 road alignments are determined. e SPECIAL JOINT MEETING, NOVEMBER 24, 1980 -3- 1� FEDERAL LAND: Fraser would like to see this proposal go to public hearing and let the public determine if this proposal is reasonable and desirable. The Commission and Council futher discussed the issue with Mr. Colon and the City Planner. Pott noted the Council had agreed to the concept; and, said he feels this has not changed. He stated if County 19 is the key, then, the City should just wait until 19 is constructed. Mottaz stated his main concern is the demand for the proposed Commercial Business vs the designated Highway Business. Neither body had any recommendations on commercial areas around inter- sections. Fraser feels the City is discouraging Federal Land from pursuing this plan by not considering amending the Comp Plan. She feels this proposal is an opportunity for the City and the developer to plan ahead. She also stressed that opening this request up to public hearing gives businessmen and residents an opportunity to react to proposals that may affect the business climate of Lake Elmo. Armstrong said he does not feel the City should'string'developers along with planning if their proposal is premature and entails amending the Comp Plan to accomodate it. Presently, there are too many 'ifs'. County 19 is the key question. Atter this question is resolved, then, the proposal can be considered. The Administrator said the only conditions under which the City should consider -amending the Comp Plan is when there is a change in conditions from when the plan was approved. Armstrong stated the concept idea of clustering commercial around intersections is good and should be explored; but, the City is not sure there will be an intersection at 19, at this point. Mr. Colon expressed his position on dealing with other governmental agencies and the planning process. The Council and Commission discussed these procedures with him and the necessity and desire for County 19. Fraser moved. that the Plannina Cnmminsinn institute.the nrneeedings for a Public Hearing to consider modifying the Comprehensive Plan along 1-94. Motion died for lack of a second. Crombie moved, seconded by Gifford, to recommend the City Council table further consideration of the Federal Land Company proposal and table any action on amending the Comprehensive Plan until the disposition of County 19 is clear. Motion carried 4-1-1. Fraser opposed. Lundquist abstained. Pott moved, seconded by Morgan, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 4-0. Crombie moved, seconded by Lyall, to recommend the City Council table the POD application from Federal Land Company until a firm construction plan for County 19 is submitted. Motion carried 5-1. Fraser opposed. Lyall stated the Planning Commission agreed that the layout and concept of the plan were good. The Commission agreed. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING, NOVEMBER 24, 1980 -4- YiN COMP PLAN - MET COUNCIL COMMENTS: The Commission reviewed the City's response to the Met Council's comments. There were no comments or objections from the Planning Commission. The Administrator reviewed the map showing available lots. Pott recommended the Administrator change the wording of the response to indicate 'potential' or alledged' problems in the 208 Study at Cimarron, in the Old Village and the Tri-Lakes Area. The Council and Administrator agreed. CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT: Mottaz moved, seconded by Morgan, to adjourn at 10:40 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 p.m. ' City of Lake Elmo AGENDA JOINT MEETING Lake Elmo City Council Planning Commission Monday, November 24, 1980 7:30 P.M. 7:45 P.M. 8:15 P.M. 8:30 P.M. 9:00 P.M. Meeting convenes -Minutes, PZC Meeting,Nov. 10,1980 Public Hearing --Minor Subdivision and Variance, Everett Beaubien Policy --Private Roads - Review Main Stem Plan,VBWD Review Comprehensive Plan Amendment --Federal Land Co.-- 194 & Co. Rd. 19 Review Staff response to Metro Council comments on Comp. Plan - Invitation to December 10th. Park Committee Meeting at 8:00 P.M., at City Hall --RSVP 10:30 P.M. Adjourn P. 0. Box J / Thirty-third and Laverne Avenue / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 / 777-5510 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING, NOVEMBER 24, 1980 -2- Armstrong moved, seconded by Morgan, to adopt a City policy prohibiting gravel roads. Until the Engineer makes a recommendation, the minimum public street will be 24' wide with a blacktop mat; and authorize the Engineer to consider reducing the width to 20' under given conditions. Motion carried 4-0. Crombie moved, seconded by Lyall, to table any recommendation on the Beaubien subdivision and variance requiest until he provides the following: 1. A plan outlining two 1 1/2 acre lots, with the required 125' of frontage on a public street; 2. Proof of ownership of the road easement; 3. A road that meets Council standards; 4. Resolution of the public access easement for the affected property owners to the lake. Motion carried 6-0. The Planning Commission is not opposed to the subdivision provided all these conditions can be met. The neighbors will be notified --- when this request comes before the Commission for recommendation. MAIN STEM PLAN - VBWD: The Commission reviewed the Administrator's Agenda memo and the Planner's comments on the Main Stem Plan. They discussed the proposed plan at length. Fraser moved, seconded by Crombie, to recommend the City Council adopt the positions outlined by the Administrator in his November 21, 1980, Agenda Memo, and convey these recommendations to the Watershed District. Motion carried 3-2-1. Gifford and Lyall opposed. Lundquist abstained. Lyall and Gifford do not feel ponding will adequately handle future run-off, therefore, the main stem plan should be more aggressively pursued. Mott moved, seconded by Morgan, to authorize the Administrator to respond to Valley Branch in the following manner: 1. There is a consensus that Area A should be sewered prior to 1990, and should be outletted to the east; and, 2. The City does not have any more recent information than before on the balance of the issues, therefore, no additional recommendations can be made. Motion carried 4-0 FEDERAL LAND COMPANY - COMP PLAN AMENDMENT: The Comprehensive Plan will need to be amended before the City can process Federal Lands' request for development. A Plan change extending the Commercial development area to all intersections 1/4 mile back from 1-94 should also be discussed. The Administrator advised that the Met Council will not favor any Commercial development outside the MUSA line. The Commission and Council reviewed a map of the area and the zoning. The Commission discussed the impact of changing the zoning for this area before the planned development date; road alignments, and the development of County 19; sewer availability; and, the development of the area the proposal will: serve. Crombie feels this proposal is premature without sewer and without a firm commitment that County 19 is going to be built. He would like to see the developers wait three to four years, until I-94 and County 19 road alignments are dete.umined. (titu of 'Fluke 'Into Thirry.thirrl and Laverne Annus Luke Elmo, Minn/iota 55047 777-5510 DATE: November 21, 1980 C C : City Council, Planning Comm., Admin., Kathy, Rob Chelseth, TO: The City Council and Larry Bohrer, Press The Planning Commission FROM: Larry Whittaker SIIHJECT: Agenda items for Joint Councii/PZC meeting, November 24, 1980 BEAUBIEN: Minor Subdivison and Variance from lot width requirement Everett Beaubien, 3503 Kelvin Ave., wants to re -split his lot just off of Kelvin (it's the 12' wide blacktop drive at the end of the paved part of Kelvin) to deed a i.ot to his daughter. His preferred alternative would leave a 66' strip (lot frontage) for his own lot; and would provide a high, dry, building site for the other lot. The City Engineer believes each lot can meet the requirements for 14- acres, 1 acre of dry land, 2 drainfield sites; but, believes we should require perc tests and soil borings before the final lot division is approved. The lines on the proposed plan would have to be altered slightly to provide full 1e acre lots. The :Lot width requirement is in the Code to prevent long narrow lots and a proliferation of accesses to public roads. The staff believes there will not be any more accesses on the north side of the driveway with Mr. Beaubien's plan than there would be with full 125' wide lots. However, it is possible that 4-6 more lots could be carved out of the property on the south side. These could, however, be staggered to avoid any traffic hazard. The key problem, then, is the City policy on private roads. While Beaubien's drive is better than some City streets, it does not meet the "standard" con- sidered by the City Council fro Klatke and Pechan - a 24' wide blacktop mat. Beaubien can, he says, dedicate a 66' wide right-of-way, to meet the re- quirement of the Ordinance. He would like to maintain the present drive as a private road until such time as the south side develops and a full -width City street is necessary. The City told Klatke that they would consider approving his minor subdivi'f.on if he improved his street to the "standard" 24' wide back€bp and provide a 4 temporary cui-de--sac. Monday night, we have to decide just how closely we will adhere to this policy. Note: The City does not need to maintain private streets even if on public right-of-way. However, as the lots turn -over, the interest in City maintenance increases. The willingness to be assessed to improve the private street to public street standards does not, however, seem to increase with lot turn -over. Agenda Memo, Joint Council, Fa meeting Nov. 21, 1980 page two Staff Recommendation: Permit minor subdivision as proposed subject to Beaubien providing two lots that have 1 acres, 1 acre of dry land, 2 drainfield sites as demonstrated by pore and soil tests, and a survey signed by a Registered Land Surveyor (minumum of three copies). Approve the variance from lot width requirement. Require dedication of full 66' width street right-of-way. Our preference would be for a street improved to public road standards; but, we realize the economic problems associated with this.Depending on the policy decision, we think there ought to be a turn -around for emergency vehicles and the road ought to be maintained so emergency vehicles can use it. Perhaps, a maintenance agreement similar to those for Oace Acres and Banister would work. Basically, though, it is bad policy to permit private roads where more than one owner is possible (now or in the future). PRIVATE ROAD POLICY: See discussion above. The principal problem is keeping it maintained once the serviced property owners are not, all "family". Then, you may have several new owners who do not participate in maintenance. The other problem is adequate access for emergency vehicles. They have to be wide enough, stable enough, and we have to adequate turn-arounds. We do not a policy on this! MAIN STEM CONSIDERATIONS: Rob's point is that we should consider the need for outlets that we PLAN to develop before 1990. }Iowever, it is our policy to require storage for additional run-off created by development; so, we have a dilemma. Do we encourage VBWD to plan on a system of outlets where we are discouragiri outlets? The other principal problem is economic. Can we realistically expect a large capital improvement to outlet the "Old Village" area, for instance. I per- sonally do not think we can. ; ai o do not think we can realistically expect a permanent improvement in the Tri-Lakes area when we are just now paying for a "temporary" (10 year) solution to flooding there. I would recommend: 1. Area "A", around Midland Meadows, be included in the pre-1990 planning area, as it would be logical to include this in any permanent improvement to the Sunfish Lake (Cimarron) watershed. 2. Area "B" is not planned for development; and should not be shown as outietted. In fact, I would indicate that our plans do not indicate a need for an outlet after 1990, either. 3. Area "C" , "big" Sunfish Lake will not have any significant develop- ment or high densities that would make an outlet necessary, ever. I think we should indicate that all surface water./in that watershed can be accornodated in Sunfish Lake without an outlet. 4. Area "D" is sticky; but, basically, I don't think we can afford an outlet under the tracks and a system to carry the water from the tracks to Horseshoe Lake. It would, to my mind, be far cheaper to acquire an easement to pond water on Reid's farm, just north of the tracks, than to outlet this area. A post-1990 design frame will accomodate the pro- posed industrial/commercial development planned for post-1990 on the PLAN. Agenda Memo, Joint Council,PZC Meeting Nov. 21, 1980 page three 5. I don't think we should plan ANY outlet for Goose Lake, before or after 1990, unless such plans must be integrated into the planning for the Regional Park Reserve. We do not PLAN any development in the watershed; but, the high level of Goose Lake and the flooding potential on 10th Street may necessitate addition consideration, 6. I think it is premature to indicate an outlet for the Tri-Lakes area and leutel sub -watershed before 1990. With the 1005 project having a 10 year life expectancy, I doubt it is politically possible to put in a Main Stem size pipe before 1990. There is also a chance that the City and VBWD may seek to acquire Sunfish Lake for surface water storage; and, if they do, that may be alternative to piping the water to the St. Croix. Out present plans call for Foxfire, Green Acres, and Demontreville H ghlands to hold all the excess water generated by development there. if the communities upstream did likewise - and we all acquired as much storage as possible, a Main Stem size pipe may not be necessary. Regardless, I do not think the map should indicate an outlet before 1990. Post-1990 is more likely, whatever happens with storage. I seriously doubt we will see an outlet for the rest of the area north of the "Old Village" in my lifetime. However, it any pipes are put in to serve the "Old Village", Downs Lake, and the Airport, they should probably be sized to handle the reasonable expectations for the ultimate development. This is tough to call at this early date. Perhaps, we should re-evaluate this area in 5 years, and again in 10 years. Present Comp. Plans in the area do not call for high density urban development anywhere in this area. Perhaps, detention areas can be developed in this area to prevent the need for an outlet. FEDERAL LAND COMPANY, "PUD" on Co. Rd. 19 and I-94/COMP PLAN AMENDMENT: As the Planning Commission discussed, the City cannot consider a rezoning or 'PUD" for this type of development until an amendment to the Comp. Plan is taken to public hearing, approved by the City, and ratified by the Metro. Council. We should not take time, now, to review and discuss the details of the proposal, the engineering, and the zoning questions until the Plan is amended, Next, I (the entire staff, for that matter) believe it would be premature to zone or subdivide any part of this property before we have a firm align- ment and commitment to construction on 1-94 and Co. Rd. 19. Although old County plans and our Comp. Plan indicate 19 will get under way in 1983, there is not now any firm commitment to complete 19 as planned. We should get a firm schedule and construction plena for 19 and I-94 before this area is platted and rezoned. Another policy matter is our present policy of "zoning for use". The PUD somewhat assures us that the owners intend to develop the property as shown in the concept plan. A simple rezoning dons not. While we would have "3ite and Building Plan" approval in either case, the PUD does provide a contractual arrangement for development of the area as indicated in the Concept Plan. This contract should not be developed, however, until the questions related above Agenda Memo, Joint Council, PZC meeting Nov. 21, 1980 page four are resolved. A frim staging plan, specific land uses and site dimensions cannot be put down until the Comp. Plan, zoning, highway construction, and other questions of public services are resolved. It would be directly op— posed to our policy to rezone and plat this land before "USE" is imminent. This does not preclude plan and contract approval some time before building permits are issued, however, Once the City and the Developer are committed to a Concept Plan, it is reasonable to expect that both will. need time to develop the services attendant to it. Just as we have permitted Brokkanan's Addition to be zoned and platted for future use, we can expect to do this for other areas. We also permitted this type of progress on several residential developments (i.e. Tartan Meadows and Midland Meadows), even though they are not ready to "USE" the property. .A certain amount of lead time is useful for both the City and the Developer. Four or five.years should not be necessary. A commitment on the Comp. Plan and general concept approval. (as opposed to Concept Approval under the PUD Ordinance) should be adequate for the developer to proceed with negotiations with the County, Mn/DOT, and site planners. NOTE: the County still believes that Co. Rd. 19 may be under construction in 1983, that bids will be taken right after 1-94 is let. Larry Bousquet said they will begin construction drawings and right—of—way acquistion in 1982 if money is still available. They would be ready to take bids IF MONEY is still available, in 1983. He added, however, that this road is not essntial to the County system; the Park can be served by 10th St.; and, Mn/DOT no longer needs 19 built to complete the interstate, as it would have if I-94 had been on the Northern route. In short, the County wants to build it — and will, if money permits. COMP PLAN AMENDMENT: We cannot simply change the map to accomodate the Federal Land Co. Plan. The change from Highway Commercial to General Business is a change in policy, as well.. This type of commercial becomes the anchor of and neighborhood, rather than serving the highways and park users. It be— comes another focus for commercial. activites in the City. The intent of the Plan, as stated on page 94, is to provide this type of ser— vice in the old village area. Other commercial uses should either serve the highway users or "must be agriculturally oriented in thier operation" (p. 90) to serve neighborhoods so planned. Obviously, the Plan anticipates that areas adjacent to arterial highways are likely to serve the highways and not the neighborhood (p. 87 and 90). It is logical to assume to at least two major intersections, 13 and 19, will develop with 1-94; and that both sides of 19 may get businesses that serve the highway and the Park, eventually (after 1984). However, as long as we are reconsidering the land use map, we should consider pulling all of the commercial to "intersection" of arterial streets (not just "along" arterial streets) and, in effect, compress the planned commercial areas into the intersections, leaving some areas of rural use between intersections, as was discussed by the PZC two weeks ago — and was encouraged by the City Planner when the Comp. Plan was in public hearing. Agenda Memo, Joint Council, PZC meeting Nov. 21, 1980 page five This shifts the Comp. Plan away from dependence on noise barriers as a plan- ning tool - and towards more practical economics of marketing and service delivery. It is just more likely that major commercial developments will be at the intersections, that it is efficient to provide intense public ser- vices to a few spots rather than the entire I-94 strip, and that some. less intense commercial or residential development may occur in the strip once the intersections are developed. Of course, if public water and sewer are thrown into this equation, it makes sense to concentrate all development in one area (Section 32) and extend services logically from that point. Right now, however, we are looking at and for enterprises that can be developed without water and sewer; so, I think the other considerations are more to the point. Actually, very small changes need to be made in the Comp. Plan policies. They are; 1. Page 87, last paragraph - change "...designated points along major arterial highways." to "designated intersections of arterial highways" thereby allowing us to designate 13 and 19; and leave out 17 and 15. 2. Page 90, next to last para. - Change "adjacent to major thorough- fares" to"at designated intersections of arterial highways" 3. Page 94, Highway Commercial - permits "other compatible uses"; but, may not permit those things specifically mentioned in Commercial, in the preceeding paragraph. This is the question of creating a new anchor, mentioned on page 4 of this Merno. Perhaps, we should let this stand; and let the market dictate what businesses go in and survive at these two intersections. We could, in the alternative, permit Highway Commercial now; and "stage" other uses as the neighborhood develops. 4. Page 97, The Plan - This should be revised to indicate the new policy - along the lines Rob suggested during development of the Plan. I will bring that map, the soil and wetland maps, and a blank map to draw the revised proposal on. This, then, would be the principal document for the public hearing. I would indicate that Section 32 is "staged" to develop between 1980-1985, the intersections at 13 and 19 would develop from 1985 to 1990, and leave the existing commercial uses planned and zoned as they are presently used. I would not show any commercial between 13 and 19; and would eliminate all non -existing commercial east of 19. Then, all we have to do...is justify the change to the property owners and the Metro. Council. Development of these areas, like all areas of the City, is dependent on the provision of public services. Anyone developing any new area should demonstrate that he can provide adequate fire protection, sewer, water, highways, and will not generate excess or unmanageable demands for police protection or maintenance where we do not now provide service. The developer can, of course, solve many of those problems on site, offer assistance to the City to provide them donate equipment or Land for specific purposes -• i.e. the right-of- way fpr 19), or suggest alternative ways to get service until the City's services area adequate (contracting for patrol or street maintenance.) All of this should be considered in any concept approval for any development.