Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-04 PZMCITY OF LAKE ELMO 3800 LAVERNE A F LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 Phone: (651) 777-5510 Fax: 777-9615 Www.LakeElmo.Orq MEETING NOTICE The Lake Elmo Planning Commission Will hold its regular meeting on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 7:00 n.rn. In Council Chambers, Lake Elmo City Hall 3800 Laverne Ave. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Agenda 3. Welcome New Planning Commissioners 4. Elect Vice Chairman 5. Minutes of September 27, 2004 6. Public Hearing: Minor Subdivision Variance to Lot Area — Tauer 7. Zoning Code — Miscellaneous Amendments to Fence Ordinance S. City Council Update 9. Adjourn APPROVED: OCT. 13, 2004 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2004 Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Deziel, Sedro, Schneider, Ptacek, Sessing. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Dillerud, Administrator Rafferty, and Recording Secretary Schaffel. Allegiance Agenda M/S/P, Sedro/Sessing, To accept the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 6:0 PASSED. Minutes for September 13, 2004 Commissioner Sedro asked to amend page 3, that lights in Prairie Ridge Office Park should be turned off after business hours, Commissioner Schneider suggested eliminating the comments on Page 4 because they were inaccurate. Commissioner Deziel, amended page 5, He said that Chairman Helwig said the deputies can visit the area more often. Chairman Helwig said he disagreed with temporary versus permanent barriers. M/S/P, Sessing/Sedro, To approve the Minutes of September 13, 2004 as amended. VOTE: 6:0 PASSED. PUBLIC HEARING: Amateur Radio Tower — Smith/Holm The Planter introduced an application for a 55 foot tower with mast. He noted that there is one other similar tower in the City that is permitted by the same section of the City Code — at 110 feet height. He noted that permitting of amateur antennae and towers is not a zoning ordinance function, but is regulated by a separate City Code section. He advised that the Code specifies five specific Findings required by the Planning Commission in the review process. 1. Reasonable necessity. 2. Appropriateness of the intended design. 3. Design must be appropriate and safe. 4. Specific maintenance requirements. 5. 75 feet from any property line. The Planner reported that staff finds that the three of the last Findings are met. The design is by a registered engineer; an Agreement can be drafted between the applicant and the city that provides for an annual inspection by the city and that the minimum distance to any property line is 75 feet. Based on those quantitative Findings, he reported that staff has no objections. He suggested that "reasonableness" and "necessity" are Findings to be made by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schneider asked if the Carriage Station Homeowner's Association had contacted the City in this regard. a APPROVED: OCT., 13, 2004 The Planner replied that they had not. Commissioner Deziel said he thought the setbacks in the Code were designed so the entire tower plus its mast can fall in any direction and still be on their property, and therefore, the applicant should be limited to a twenty foot mast. John Holm, Applicant Mr. Holm said that by design, this tower and antenna looks like a flag pole. The base is 6 inches in diameter and the top is 3 inches. It is a crank up design that allows its height to go from 25 feet to 55 feet. The fiberglass mast is green. It only weighs about 20 pounds. Its location will be hidden by the trees. The operating height is actually more efficient at 40 feet than at 55 feet. Their property is known as Lot 1, Block 1, Carriage Station. In the Declaration of Covenants, they are exempt from all the design and architectural restrictions of that development. Commissioner Deziel asked how the tower is supported. Mr. Holm said it is self supporting. It is placed in a concrete block 4 X 4 by 5 feet deep filled with rerod and bolted down. It has a 70 mph basic wind speed rating. The antenna is rated at about 100 mph wind speed. He can crank it down to 25 feet and tilt it over to lie on the ground. THE CHAIR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:15 P.M. Harry Sonnek, 5073 Marquess Trail Circle Mr. Sonnek said he will have a view of the antenna to the east. He does not understand why the applicant's lot is part of Carriage Station. One year ago 30 of his trees were infected with Dutch Elmo disease, and they had to be removed. He expressed concern about his neighbor's elms too, and whether the antenna will be even more visible to him if the applicant's elms die as well. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:17 PM The Planner explained that it is common that a parent property is given a lot in and then excluded from covenants in a new development. The Planner said the City Council, Administrator and Public Works Superintendent have discussed the elm issue. There is a City Ordinance that addresses diseased trees. He said the city is about to enter an agreement with a tree specialist to identify publicly owned trees with apparent problems. Mr. Rafferty explained there was resurgence in the last year of Dutch Elm Disease. Oak wilt is a problem too. The city staff is pursuing finalizing an agreement with an arborist who specializes in these diseases, and will work with the city to alert the public. There is allocation in next year's budget for it as well. The city has not been as active about the trees in the last couple of years because the issues were not as prevalent. M/S/P, Ptacek/Sessing, To recommend approval of a Radio Tower Permit for John Holm and Betty Smith based on Findings in the staff report, and the Findings that the tower is of reasonable necessity and appropriate design, with the condition that the city enter into an agreement with Mr. Holm similar to that with the existing tower permit.. Commissioner Ptacek said the applicant did his homework. The application materials show the antenna to be safe, the height is good, and the technology is state of the art. Commissioner Deziel would like to see better wind resistance because 70 mph winds are APPROVED: OCT. 13, 2004 relatively common but he said he appreciates that this antenna can be cranked up and down. VOTE: 6:0 PASSED. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat — TAPESTRY at Charlotte's Grove The Planner reported that no specific Findings are required in the Commission's recommendation but the city has had five in the past that staff looks at in review: 1. Compliance with approved concept plan. 2. Compliance with conditions attached. 3. Compliance with OP submission requirements and with standards of platting 4. Compliance with applicable outside review agencies as applicable - engineer, attorney, etc. 5. Compliance with CUP standards. The Planner said the City Engineer has some issues with street design that the Planning Commission may not wish to deal with here. Commissioner Sedro asked about the addition of new streets in the design, and if as a result of the new street linkages, the plat is it still compliant with the amount of contiguous open space required. The Planner said streets do not change the contiguous character of open space. That does not happen unless the open space is segregated by home sites. The Planner explained that because of the scale of this project, this stage was supposed to go before the Parks Commission for review. They did not gather a quorum. The Public Works Superintendent reviewed the plan and staff reviewed the Parks and Trails Plan of record. This area is not designated for a neighborhood park. He reported that the Trails System Plan is not yet complete but it seems obvious to staff that there should be public trail corridors one north/south (linking to Sunfish Park's trails) and one east/west. Generally the city asks the developer which trails serve them best as public trails based on general desire lines like those he has explained. Those trails are then developed at developer's cost, dedicated to the city, and then their value is deducted from the public use fee. Commissioner Schneider asked about buffer screening. At the southeast corner of the site, the existing woods get quite thin. Darren Senn, Director of Design for Senn and Youngdahl Mr. Senn it has been fun working on this plan. He has taken input from the Planning Commission, neighbors, and City Council and incorporated them into the plan as now proposed. He displayed a color version of the plan. Commissioner Schneider said the key references evergreens so does the plan call for mixed evergreen and deciduous. Mr. Seim said yes they are mixed evergreen and deciduous because it appears more natural, white pines, red pines, spruce, aspens and amur maples in clumps rather than boulevard type plantings will be strategically placed to create a buffer. APPROVE©: OCT. 13, 2004 Commissioner Schneider asked about sizes of trees. Mr. Senn said they will meet whatever the city minimum size requirements are. Commissioner Ptacek asked about Block 8, Lot 1 and Block 7, Lot 1. He asked if those were the two lots that will not be marketed. The lot that looked like a flag lot concern is now gone. He said he is disappointed that Block 7, Lot 1 still looks like a flag lot. Chairman Helwig asked the radiuses on cul de sacs. Greg Moris said the sizes are the 70 feet minimum standard. Commissioner Schneider asked again about additional screening of the pond that is at the southeasterly end of the plat. Darren Senn said they removed many lots, removed the road, and with proper placement of clumps of trees, the buffer will be maintained. He said he was sympathetic to The Molines' plight, so they removed one more lot. Commissioner Schneider said he was referring to the Landscape Plan. Mr. Senn said he feels there is enough significant vegetation there. The natural buffer begins at the pond and that is where the lots actually begin. The Planner asked if the developer would mind adjusting landscaping to address that concern without actually adding more trees to the overall plan — relocate some shown elsewhere to this short buffer area.. Mr. Senn said they could do that. Chairman Helwig noted that the Berschen's Open Space Preservation Outlot has a considerably different shape than in the Concept Plan. Greg Moris said that is an old image that was on the original layout, and should not have appeared as such on the plat. Mark Youngdahl said he is looking more closely with the Berschens as to where those lines will end up. They are working on a better solution even now to those lines, and he would like to visit The Berschens with that new layout. He spoke to the City Planner about it. The Planner asked Mr. Senn to show the Planning Commission what they meant. That area is going to be a conservation easement farmed with a non -development requirement. It used to be shaped differently. He said he has spoken with developers but is not positive what they have in mind. The city perspective is the acreage, not the orientation or exact shape of open space easement area. He said he would be in favor of letting the developer and Berschens coordinate that layout. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:47 P.M. Jerry Marsolek, Hamlet on Sunfish Lake Mr. Marsolek said he is concerned about the landscaping placement of trees between the two APPROVED: OCT. 13, 2004 developments (Tapestry and Hamlet on Sunfish Lake). If some of the HOA could be involved in the tweaking of how that landscaping is done, that would give them a level of comfort. THE CHAIR CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. The Planner said he would prefer the Commission not endorse any HOA involvement in plans but encourage the developer to do so. The Ordinance specifies tree counts and the OP buffer requirement. The developer has heard what has been said here. It would be difficult for staff to enforce that type of condition. Commissioner Deziel reminded the Commission that the City Engineer's technical issues will be complied with. M/S/P, Ptacek/Sessing, To recommend approval based on Findings and plans staff dated September 22, 2004, subject to outside agencies recommendations and conditions as pertinent and particularly to those of the City Engineer, and upon condition to enhance the buffering landscape on the southeast corner of the plat. VOTE: 6:0 PASSED. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Inwood Associates The Planner explained that the subject site is comprised of approximately 160 acres just north of Eagle Point Business Park and east of the Stonegate neighborhood. The application is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and consequent rezoning, changing the character from rural to urban. This action would change the zoning text and the map. The Planner reported that the applicants propose to essentially divide the parcel into thirds. The west portion would be mixed use commercial, the center would be high to medium density residential, and the east portion would be single family residential. The Planner said that in the Staff Report he did attempt to define the terms of the applicant and those definitions would have to be added to the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the zoning classifications that would have to be created to match those definitions. He advised the Commission that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is usually considered only when there is either a change in conditions since the initial Comprehensive Plan was adopted for the site or there was clearly documented error in the Plan. He advised the Commission that he could not detect an error in the Plan regarding this site nor any changes in condition regarding this site since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted — from the perspective of the City. Therefore, he reported that Staff suggests there are several Findings supporting a Commission recommendation to deny the proposed Plan/Zoning amendments: 1. The site is eligible (with a Conditional Use Permit) for up to 64 dwelling units, of which up to 16 may be of "common wall" design. That level of development intensity has resulted in significant residential development on other similar sites throughout the City over the past few years — and continues to today. There is no question that the 16 units per 40 acres residential density for which this site is eligible is reasonable use of the site. There is nothing unique regarding this site that truly distinguishes it from the many other sites in the City that have been successfully developed at 16 units per 40 acres — other than a "view" of Oakdale -style development. 2. Recent traffic studies related to on -going commercial developments in Oakdale and Woodbury have suggested that the I-94/Inwood interchange and associated service roads APPROVED: Oc-f. 13, 2004 will approach "failure" Service Levels assuming development at the existing Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan scale and intensity. To increase the development intensity of this site in the manner proposed by the applicants will certainly increase the traffic volumes at that interchange location, pushing the intersections into a "fail" Service level. Mn/DOT, County and FI-IWA officials have stated that there will be no funds available until well into the future to address the I-94/Inwood interchange congestion forecasts. 3. Over 50% of the Eagle Point Business Park PUD to the south remains vacant with all Public infrastructures and paid. In addition, several multiple use commercial developments exist or are under construction within a 1 mile radius of this site in Woodbury and Oakdale with hundreds of thousands of square feet available for almost any commercial use. We seriously question the Public's (and or market's) need for more commercial development in this area. 4. While Regional Sewer is installed in the Eagle Point Business Park south of this site, the available conveyance capacity is severely limited — to the extent that the City should not even be considering any "wet" user in Eagle Point — much less extending the Regional Sewer to another site as proposed by the applicant. No other Regional Sewer Interceptor capacity is available to this site, nor will it be for years — if ever. 5. The existing residential development to the east (Stonegate) is developed at a density 0.30 units per acre. At the minimum residential density allowable with Regional Sewer service (3 units per acre) a "single family" style residential development as proposed on this site would be 10 times the density of the existing neighborhood to the east. Such a large disparity of land use intensity (even if the land itself is the same) at such close proximity could adversely impact the character and property values of the existing development. Commissioner Deziel asked if the city has sixty days to act upon this application, The Planner said yes. Commissioner Deziel asked if the city is going to have to deal with this sort of question regarding their site within nine months anyway during new Plan negotiations with the Metropolitan Council. The Planner said that was not necessarily the case. He advised the Commission at a City officials laid out parameters for how the City would like to deal with circumstances of the Metropolitan Council. The city requested a one year grace period for planning purposes. Planning off of loth Street would be a very detailed plan for the area of the City south of 10'h Street with the primary goal of preserving existing neighborhoods, along with not having a fiscal burden to the City. Tabling of this application to await the outcome of that work would not be productive since the time line of the work will be lengthy. Scott Montgomery, Inwood Associates Mr. Montgomery apologized for the minimum documentation in the application. He said he did not want to spend a great deal of money on giant plans. His idea was to take into consideration the development of the surrounding area there. He thought it was sensible to have commercial area buffered with townhomes then residential single family on the other side. They have this land under contract and it made sense to him to do it that way. Commissioner Ptacek said the city usually tries to work with developers. In his opinion, the City usually does so from a friendly perspective and he said he felt the comments in the application regarding the Metropolitan Council appeared to create an adversarial position between the City APPROVED: OCT. 13, 2004 and the applicant. Commissioner Deziel said he appreciated the idea of mixed use development. He appreciated the consideration of buffering and less intense residential use. He said he would like to see parties working together in the future on a plan like this. Commissioner Schneider said the applicant asked the city to furnish municipal sewer and municipal water. He asked if the applicant expects the city to pay for that. Mr. Montgomery said he understood that the sewer was adjacent to this property, and no, they expect to pay for it. THE CHAIR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:17 P.M. Greg Milnar Mr. Milnar said it maybe premature to get into details at this stage. Dan Stadick Mr. Stadick said he is a homeowner east of the subject area. He came to get a better idea and got that explanation from the City Planner. He said they like the view of the corn and hope it stays. Sheryl DeBruzzi Ms. DeBruzzi said she lives across Inwood in Oak Run Shores and access to their development is at the traffic beacon; and that there is a business development going in at 10th and Inwood with 200 parking spots. Residents already have a problem getting out of their neighborhood because of traffic. She asked what the prices would for homes in this neighborhood. She said that what is proposed by the applicant is vague; and, said that the sewer system is already at maximum capacity for Oakdale. Belinda Worth Ms. Worth said she is a homeowner in Stonegate. She said it is early in the process and the plan o f the applicant is kind of vague, but she understands this parcel will be developed at some point. She assumes it will be residential. She would like the City to keep in mind that there should be a good buffer between Stonegate and the visual and noise concerns of two to three years of construction on this site. She suggested that potentially there could be barriers created with berms and trees before the structures are built. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:21 P.M. Chairman Helwig told the audience they would be kept informed. M/S/P, Sedro/Schneider, To recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning based on the five specific Findings found in the Planning Staff Report on this application of September 20, 2004. Commissioner Schneider commended the Planner for the Staff Report. VOTE: 6:0 PASSED. THE CHAIRMAN ORDERED A BREAK OF TEN MINUTES AT 8:25 P.M. APPROVED: OCT. 13, 2004 THE MEETING RESUMED 8:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance Sideyard Setback— Brookman The Planner repotted that this application was for a sideyard setback variance for a residential lot on Lake Elmo Avenue. The applicant proposes razing and reconstructing a garage that has been there at Least 75 years essentially on the south property line. He noted that he had visited the site and concurred that the existing structure is partially deteriorated. The applicant proposes to construct a new garage of the same size on the exact same location — on the south property line; and that a ten foot sideyard setback would be required in R-1 Zone The Planner reported that he believes that sufficient area is available on the site to construct the new garage without the need for a setback variance, and suggested denial of the variance based on the following Findings: 1. The property can be put to reasonable use without the granting of the variance requested. Reasonable use must be defined in the context of the reasonable availability of locations that comply with R-1 setbacks to construct a garage of the dimensions proposed. 2. The variance requested does not result from physical circumstances unique to this property. Lot widths of 90 feet are common on properties developed responsive to the Open Space Preservation Ordinance over the past eight years. In addition, the circumstances leading to this request for variance are partly the result of 1971 actions by the applicant with the construction of an in -ground swimming pool at a location on the site that precludes some (but not all) location options for a garage structure that meets setbacks. 3. Granting of the variance will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. The Planner continued that he recognizes the applicant has to do something with the existing garage. However, he questioned whether there is another option short of rebuilding on the exact same location. He observed that even though this lot is ninety feet wide, this lot width is common with dozens of OP lots throughout the City, and not a unique physical circumstance. He noted that an extensive portion of the property is utilized as a drive/turnaround that could be modified and still function as an alternative to vehicles backing onto Lake Elmo Avenue. He said he believes the applicant could meet setbacks and make a new garage of the same size work on this property. A competent designer could come up with something that would work. The Planner reported that the adjoining neighbor to the south has endorsed approval of the variance in writing. Kelly Brookman, Applicant The applicant provided written statements from all abutting property owners who approve or do not object to this variance. Rather than the survey, he asked the commissioners to refer to the aerial photo. There you can see where the pool is and the garage is upper left of the pool. Move the 22 feet of garage ten feet and deduct ten feet on the other property line, and then deduct the width of the driveway, and then you are down to 38 feet which is too small to turn around. A turnaround is better for safety for ingress and egress on Lake Elmo Avenue. The circle works pretty well. The existing garage has been there 75-80 years, and the neighbor's garage is on the same line. He said he cannot understand why the new garage cannot be put there. It is an ideal spot for it. Moving that garage east or west, turning the garage north -south will create a mess in the backyard for getting around. He said he understands the ten foot setback, but it does not make sense in this situation. It is a unique situation, and he said he would hope the APPROVED: OCT. 13, 2004 commissioners will consider it. Commissioner Schneider noted the neighbor gets in and out by backing out onto County Road 17. Mr. Brookman said that is dangerous and traffic is getting worse. Commissioner Ptacek asked if the speed limit is 30 there. He asked if a Lot Line Adjustment with the neighbor to the south (perhaps resulting in both garage locations becoming conforming to setbacks) would be a better solution. Mr. Brookman said it would be easier to grant the variance. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:49 P.M. Nobody offered testimony. THE CHAIR CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:50 P.M. Commissioner Ptacek said he appreciates the need for garages but that they should be built at the setback. He said it was a black and white issue that the variance is not needed. M/S/P, Ptacek/Sessing, To recommend denial of a sideyard setback variance based on Findings and recommendations in the Staff Report. Commissioner Deziel said we should think of these situations when we make those setback laws. This is a good example of a need to build flexibility into our zoning laws. Commissioner Sedro said building on a lot line puts undo burden on a neighbor. Mr. Brookman pointed out that his neighbor has the same situation. VOTE: 6:0 PASSED. PUBLIC HEARING: CUP - Family Entertainment Center He did not find reference in the application that they still wanted to use the building B for paintball. However, he understands the applicant does intend to use that building for paintball. Cleanup of that site would be a positive for the city. The commission could make that a condition. Five findings for a CUP to be addressed by PZ. Four of the five have been addressed. Hours of operation have been supplied that indicate after school and on weekends primarily. Question is compatibility with abutting businesses. Lumberyard is closed would the use here spill over onto that empty property. Basic sketch of parking. No standards to apply a parking formula because we have no experience with it. Will parking be sufficient, if not? Where will they park? Compatibility of Building A with respect to occupancy for building code requirements and ADA? BO required to review application and use for CO and ADA requirements. Suggest we are not prepared to make a recommendation, we need more detail. Site plan as rendered by a professional that addresses parking, paving, landscaping, and ada and CO standards. Specific detail of building B. Thinks it could function at he proposed use but not without more information. Error in the staff report The application is dated September 7, 2004. This has to be decided by November 3 by the City Council. 4 APPROVED: OCT. 13, 2004 Schneider lighting exterior addressed in the site plan detail? Planner yes. Process like a 520 site plan. That will answer many of the questions. Deziel off-street parking requirements if operational hours of neighbors? jOINT use of parking allowed by the code. That has to be specific. Possible. Planner. Doug Larson, Applicant He agrees with Planner that his information was rather sparse. David Herreid has been hired and will look into codes, fire, and ADA. Full site plans with landscape plans. Will draw it up that way. He will abide by the rules. Parking spoke with Lamberts they can use it and can get it in writing. Will move the fence back for the boat storage. There is plenty of parking available. One of the reasons has not done this before. Not a developer or realtor. It is a good location and the building will work just fine. Did not want to spend a fortune to get it going. Now that they know it is feasible, they are going with the architect. Indoor paintball in Building B. Safe and controlled under constant supervision, uniformed, a waiver notarized before you can even get into the place. Well run and clean facility is the only way it can be operated. Would like to table his application until October 13 and David will have preliminary drawings done. Can do a better presentation done and will get it sooner so you have copies in advance. Sessing boat storage back. Yes boat and ry storage. There have been people coming there forever that want to continue to park there. Planner if it needed a CUP, it is a current use. If reducing the scale, we can do little about it. Unless he agreed, we would have a hard time removing it. Larson will move it back because of appearance. Sedro paintball safety concern. Is there some way to write in safety record provisional timeline? Problem if you don't put a timeline, stuck with it. Planner will speak to Herreid about timeline. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:17 p.m. and closed at 9:18 p.m. M/S/P, Ptacek/Sedro, To table the application VOTE: 6:0 PASSED. Ptacek concerns had been about the paintball. CITY COUNCIL UPDATES Approved sideyard setback for Price. Approved CUP for salon/day spa. Both without changes from your recommendations. One set of interviews of potential planning commissioners continued for a couple of interviewees. Two openings on the PZ. Talented sizable group of applicants. Consider a new moratorium for the Old Village? Yes it will be extended coming up at next meeting. Surface water will be ready by then. Authorized a planning study for fire services for the community. Equipment, staffing, locations of stations, and many others including a look at regional fire service instead of local fire service. Sedro in council minutes about Prairie Ride Office Park about fire safety. Assumed that we APPROVED: OCT. 13, 2004 would have public water service to that site. City of Oakdale for amendment to our water agreement and they wanted to raise our rates substantially. We determined internally we could not support it. They were put on wells. When site plan came before the council the condition was that a dry system be installed into the building. Council did not feel it was reasonable to require it. State Fire Marshall did not like that because the images provided to occupants that they have sprinklers when they do not. Staff recommends to council they just forget it. Schneider moratorium south of tenth street? Maybe have to look at it. Meeting with Met Council reps Friday to consider what will be done south of tenth street. The City Council prior to Governor's Meeting last established parameters where we would move forward for area south of tenth street.. That we would not be married to the numbers in our comp plan or the number REC units they assigned to us. Instead we would provide a very detailed plan of that area for the various uses at build out. To protect existing neighborhoods, development fiscally responsible for the build out of the city, and a host of other things. Detail down to the last fence post, exaggerated. Street sewer and water system similar to a preliminary plan. Financial assistance to accomplish it. Stand down on area north of tenth. Agreement for north of tenth that we be allowed to do what we wish. Take some of the population possibly in the OV Density. Legally binding agreement with Met Council is the goal. Schneider and Cimarron would be protected as well as the other two developments? Planner. Yes. ADJOURN AT 9:31 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Schaffel Recording Secretary