Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 6, 2001 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m., June 6, 2001. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Hegland, Miller, Kaden, Zwirn, and Scotch and Chairperson Stevenson. Members Excused: Johnson (excused). Cerny (unexcused). Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson, Planning Associate Atkinson. ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business a. Introduction of Planning Associate, Jim Atkinson Director of Community Development Jim Ericson introduced the new Planning Associate, Jim Atkinson. ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Planning Case No. ZC01-001 2 Applicant: Ernie Gustafson Location: 2525 County Road I Planning Case No. ZC01-002 5 Applicant: Mounds View Animal Hospital Location: 2625 Highway 10 Planning Case No. DE00-002 6 Applicant: Tony Mezzenga Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Location: 7664 Greenfield Avenue Planning Case No. MA01-001 8 Applicant: Keith Harstad Location: Between Silver Lake Road and Longview Drive _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Approval of Minutes a. May 2, 2001 MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Kaden. To Approve the May 2, 2001, Meeting Minutes as Presented. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________ 5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Case No. ZC01-001 Community Development Director Ericson presented the request to rezone three lots to R-2. He mentioned the subdivision plan that was submitted by Mr. Gustafson was shown at the last meeting. Staff also submitted a plan that reoriented the lots. If the Planning Commission approves the request to rezone, it moves forward to the Council and Staff would suggest that the R-2 designation be limited to the two lots fronting County Road I. Director Ericson explained when the Planning Commission and City Council discuss a rezoning request, the Comprehensive Plan is taken into consideration. He noted the Comprehensive Plan is from 1979 and is being updated. Director Ericson stated the area north of County Road I is single family residential. If this zoning request were approved, and if it was limited to the two lots on County Road I, the impact would be minimal. Director Ericson noted that citizens are concerned with some less than positive experiences they have had with the twin homes in the area. Commissioner Hegland noted that at the last meeting, Mr. Gustafson requested that all the lots be rezoned. Director of Community Development Ericson explained that Mr. Gustafson is requesting that three of the four lots be rezoned. One of the lots would not meet the minimum requirements. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Jeff Westund, 7720 Long Lake Road, stated that he is concerned about maintenance. Mr. Westlund stated if the property owner lives on the property, it seems to be taken care of better. Chair Stevenson acknowledged that maintenance can be a concern and that issue will be taken into consideration. Mr. Westlund inquired whether there is a method in place to control the maintenance issue. Chair Stevenson explained that this is discussed at the Development Stage. The developer and the type of home that is being developed can help control the situation. Chair Stevenson added that there are nice townhomes in Mounds View. Mr. Westlund stated there may be an issue of the “domino effect”. He questioned if apartments may be allowed next. Chair Stevenson responded this Commission would not consider more than an R-2 designation. Mr. Westlund questioned that if this area does become three lots, what would the limit be for what could be built. Director Ericson explained there are minimum and maximum requirements. There will be one lot on Long Lake Road that could support an R-2 designation as well as single-family homes. Ernie Gustafson, 2525 County Road I, stated he made a change in his proposal concerning the house to the north. He would like to extend the lot to the east property line. Lots 2, 3, and 4 would be the same square footage. Mr. Gustafson stated that he signed a document many years ago that allowed the dog kennel across the street to be in the area. The owners at the time said they would be there a year, but the kennel is still there. Mr. Gustafson added that all around him is commercial and he felt his duplex should be allowed. He also mentioned an article in the Star Tribune of May 30 in which the Metropolitan Council said there was an unusual demand for housing and land for developers. The article also mentioned that the Metropolitan Council was strongly encouraging high-density development on transit lines. Dave DeLaria, 7767 Long Lake Road, stated he was against any duplexes on the Long Lake Road side. He would be satisfied with duplexes along County Road I. Robert Moore, 7777 Long Lake Road, stated that the Sham-O-Jet access is on County Road I, not long Lake Road. He also stated the he felt the zoning should remain R-1 on Long Lake Road. Mr. Westlund asked if the address of Sham-O-Jet was significant. Chairman Stevenson stated that it was not significant. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson noted the recommendation is not to allow R-2 zoning along Long Lake Road. He explained the twin home would face County Road I. Mr. Westlund asked what was the timeline for approval. Chair Stevenson said that all decisions would be made in a timely manner. He suggested the Commission discuss the four recommendations on the Staff Report. Chairman Stevenson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller questioned whether lot 4 could be made longer as Mr. Gustafson had proposed, even though it is longer than staff had originally recommended. Director Ericson stated the length could be an option, though how the lots will be split was not on the agenda for discussion at this meeting. Only zoning was to be discussed at this meeting. Commissioner Kaden stated he did not want any of the lots to be designated as R-2. He mentioned he had spoken out on this issue at the last meeting. He clarified he came to the conclusion that the R-2 designation would be acceptable to him on County Road I, but his viewpoint was that he wasn’t convinced the R-2 designation would be appropriate for lots 1 and 2 fronting Long Lake Road. Mr. Gustafson read the lot dimensions and commented that they all meet the minimum requirements. Chair Stevenson asked Director Ericson what the dimensions of lots 1 and 2 should be. Director Ericson said they should be 75 feet each. He added that the exact location of lot lines would be discussed at a later meeting and the purpose of this meeting was to determine which lots could be zoned R-2. Mr. Gustafson stated that if all the lots were not rezoned, then he wanted none rezoned. He exited the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Hegland questioned if all these lots are one property. Director Ericson responded it is all one property, but split into three lots. Commissioner Hegland stated the lot lines are important since the discussion is no longer around the same lot. He stated he felt the proposal should be supported, but the lots should not be allowed to be longer than 135 feet. He added that lot 4 should not be allowed to be deeper for any reason. Commissioner Miller clarified that Mr. Gustafson stated if he didn’t get three lots rezoned to R- 2, he would not accept any. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson noted that until the City receives written notification of a withdrawal request from Mr. Gustafson, the City must pursue this request. He explained the legal implications. MOTION: Zwirn. To table consideration of Resolution 656-01 to rezone the property located at 2525 County Road I from R-1 to R-2. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Chair Stevenson suggested a new resolution be drafted stating that lots 1 and 2 on County Road I should be designated R-2, and lots will not exceed 135 feet. Director Ericson suggested the Commission act on the resolution as drafted. He pointed out that Exhibit F in the Staff Report is essentially the same as Resolution A. Commissioner Zwirn suggested that the resolution state that only properties facing County Road I can be zoned R-2. Planner Ericson suggested adding to the third paragraph from the end on Resolution 656-01, “contingent upon the lots to be rezoned front County Road I.” MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Zwirn. To approve Resolution 656-01 to rezone the property located at 2525 County Road I from R-1 to R-2 with changes as discussed. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Director Ericson commented this item will be discussed at the next City Council meeting on June 25. If the application is withdrawn, no notice for discussion will be sent. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Planning Case No. ZC01-002 Director Ericson noted this request is from Mounds View Animal Hospital to rezone property to B-2. Mounds View Animal Hospital has entered into an agreement with the City to purchase this property and one of the conditions is that it will be rezoned. Director Ericson explained the Mounds View Animal Hospital has been in business for 13 years. In order to accommodate their growing business, they would like to build a larger building. The impact to the surrounding neighborhoods would be minimal. Director Ericson stated the City did receive one phone call from a resident on Eastwood Road on this issue, and it was a positive comment. The applicant, Dr. Barcus, stated they would like to expand their services. The size and shape of this lot does present some difficulties and some access issues. Ramsey County has been receptive to these issues so far. Dr. Barcus stated they want to make it convenient for their customers. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked if the access on Highway 10 will be right in/right out. Dr. Barcus confirmed. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing. Sidney Brown, 7716 Eastwood Road, stated she preferred not to have commercial across the street from her. Though, if the City felt that was the best use, she would be satisfied. She was concerned with the amount of traffic a commercial business would bring and pointed out there are small children in the area. Dr. Barcus pointed out where the access points would be and suggested the traffic would not be increased dramatically. Dr. Barcus commented that his business is not a high-density business. Appointments are between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., and then from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. The hours of operation are 8:00 am to 6:00 p.m. Those coming west on County Road I would probably like to turn into the hospital from County Road I and not go onto Highway 10. He said they do expect to offer traditional services and this wouldn’t severely increase the traffic in the area. Director Ericson pointed out that the access points are not to be discussed at this point. This meeting was to discuss the zoning issue only. Director Ericson also mentioned that the applicant had requested boarding be allowed in a B-2 zone. This issue will come before the Commission at a later date. Chair Stevenson asked how animal noise would be prevented. Dr. Barcus stated the animals are strictly inside. There will be a fenced-in enclosure outside for the animals to use only for bathroom purposes. Commissioner Hegland questioned if someone would be in attendance 24 hours. Dr. Barcus responded there would only be someone present during business hours. The doctors are often there until 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Scotch stated she would like to see the area enhanced. She thought the Mounds View Animal Hospital would enhance Mounds View on this lot, since they have been in business for 13 years and are interested in keeping their business in the city. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing. MOTION/SECOND: Scotch/Kaden. To approve Resolution 657-01 to recommend rezoning the property at 2625 County Highway 10 from R-3 medium density residential, to B-2, limited business. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Planning Case No. DE00-002 Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson noted that Mr. Mezzenga had applied for and received approval to construct a one and a half story office building on the lot at 7664 Greenfield Avenue. The building official reviewed the plans and determined they did not comply with the the State’s Accessibility Requirements. Mr. Mezzenga’s options are to either add an elevator or construct the building differently. The new proposal is to build a two-story building and raise it four and a half feet over what was originally proposed. Director Ericson noted that as long as one floor is accessible, that would meet code. He added that according to the City Code, a building can be three stories high. Staff recommended that if this plan is approved, there should be no upper story windows on the south end. Director Ericson reported the applicant was in agreement with this stipulation. Director Ericson stated that notices had been sent to the residents, even though it was not required. Commissioner Zwirn stated he had a conflict of interest and removed himself from discussion. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing. Herb Zwirn, 7660 Greenfield Avenue, stated he lives south of the proposed site and has an issue with privacy. He explained this office building would look directly into his house. He suggested it would have an extremely negative impact to his privacy. Mr. Zwirn stated that a privacy fence would not be functional with the office building being taller. He noted that even with no windows on the south of the office building, the windows on the east would look into his back yard. Mr. Zwirn said that he felt this office building would be built, and therefore he would be seeking a variance to build a privacy fence two feet above code. He also expressed concern with the upkeep of this property. He remarked that the grass hadn’t been mowed. Some neighbors have called him, since he is a Commissioner, regarding this property. Mr. Zwirn stated he has picked up papers and wrappings on the property. He continued that it has developed into an acrimonious situation. Mr. Zwirn reported he had two realtors to his home and showed them the plans for this office building and explained it would be another four and a half feet higher. Both realtors told him it would have a negative impact on his property. He requested the Planning Commission deny this request for an additional four and a half feet, or allow his fence to be two feet higher. Chair Stevenson asked if we have a precedence for a 10-foot high fence. Director Ericson replied the City Code allows only 8 feet for a fence. The applicant, Tony Mezzenga, stated he has no responsibility for this land; he does not own it. He stated he did reimburse someone to cut the grass. Mr. Mezzenga explained the trajectory of the two-story would go over a 10-foot fence. Mr. Mezzenga noted he had committed to building an 8-foot fence for Mr. Zwirn, though he knew it wouldn’t be much help. He stated it would not be financially advantageous for him to construct this 8-foot fence. He said he would not build a 10-foot fence. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing. Chair Stevenson inquired whether there will be any changes in the building material. Mr. Mezzenga stated there would not be. Director Ericson pointed out there is no resolution attached. This item is for discussion only. Commissioner Kaden expressed his disappointment that this was such a controversial issue and yet it came back. He noted that this proposal would most likely be worse from the residents’ point of view. He said he would have to agree with building the second story, though he was not happy about it. Chair Stevenson stated he reluctantly approved the proposal the first time. He doesn’t see many options. He recommended approval. Mr. Zwirn asked if the cost factors between a one and a half story and a two-story building had been explored. He felt more consideration should be given to the cost factors involved to comply with City Code. Director Ericson suggested they investigate the cost factors more. He stated he would research the figures and submit them with the recommendation to the Council. ______________________________________________________________________________ 9. Planning Case No. MA01-001 Community Development Director Ericson reported Mr. Harstad had submitted a request for a subdivision. The property is zoned R-1 and is appropriate for single family residential. The proposal is for 11 lots for single family residential. The issue is whether the lots are buildable. The wetlands and drainage in the area must be considered. The Staff considered retaining some trees adjacent to Longview Drive. Director Ericson stated the applicant offered to save any trees that could be saved. A neighborhood meeting was held. The applicant was present at the meeting and stated his intent was that 90 feet from Longview Drive would be cleared. Director Ericson stated as Mr. Harstad is the owner/operator of the property, he would have the option to do as he wants. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing. Martin Harstad, son of Keith Harstad, the property owner, was present. Mr. Harstad explained his father has retired and turned this property over to the children. He would be speaking on behalf of the family. Mr. Harstad explained the property is 7.14 acres. Two wetland delineations were performed by state certified delineators. He noted that with those reports in mind, he submitted the proposal for 11 lots. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Harstad had considered putting lots along Silver Lake Road, but the city discouraged that from a safety standpoint. He then elected to propose single-family lots along Longview Drive. He analyzed what could be done to minimize wetland fill. He pointed out on the map which areas would be filled, which would be an area of .51 acres. Mr. Harstad suggested using a specific area as storm water retention, though that area isn’t classified as such. A significant area of trees would be maintained. He pointed out he could not control what the county would propose for right of ways. Commissioner Miller questioned who would own the title to the mitigated area. Mr. Harstad was not sure. Mr. Harstad mentioned there were 29 people in attendance at the neighborhood meeting. Many issues were discussed including saving trees. He said he offered to look at the buffering issue and would strategically work out how they accessed the property to do the work. An unidentified resident stated he bought his home in 1973. He was told then that the swamp area was protected wetland and would not be built on. He stated he walked around the edge of the property and could not see how it could be built on. He would be concerned about the water runoff. He said he realized a tornado could come through and destroy the trees, but it has not happened yet. He did not understand why the trees should be destroyed for a building. Richard Forness, 5175 Red Oak Drive, stated he had a water main break in his front yard last spring. He said a crew came to repair it, and the head crew member explained that the water table was very high. The head crew member was concerned about filling the wetland and that would create dams. Mr. Fornis stated he was aware the building would affect his property value. He felt it would affect all the basements of the immediate neighbors. He suggested the builder give guarantees on the building. Mr. Fornis stated the development is satisfactory in appearance, but five years later it could change. He mentioned the water table could shift in a wet spring. He said everyone gets water in their basement and he would like to see a clause in the proposal that states there would be reimbursement for water in the basement. Steve or Sandra Kuhl?, 5176 Red Oak Drive, reiterated the concerns of wetlands and the high water table. Chair Stevenson mentioned he was on the Park and Recreation Board for 15 years. The Park and Recreation Board didn’t allow a park to be there due to the soil condition. He said he is quite aware of the situation. Dallas Thompson, 5178 Longview Drive, questioned if the filling would be put in designated wetland. Mr. Harstad explained that a company was hired in 1986 to evaluate the soil condition in that entire site. The deepest site then was 15 feet. The bulk of the site was 7 to 9 feet. That is what would be removed and replaced with sand that would be buildable. Mr. Thompson inquired what that filling would do to the water. Mr. Harstad responded that if the water table is at a certain level, the ground is saturated no matter what is in the ground. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 10 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Thompson stated he was concerned with who the citizens would be instructed to call if there were problems with the fill. An unidentified citizen in the audience pointed out the property is to be filled in four feet above the street and would function as a dam. Mr. Harstad stated the water table is 891.5 currently. He explained how the water table reading is taken. Sandra Kuhl, 5176 Longview Drive, stated she had her water main line replaced in 1976. She also mentioned that Mr. Harstad will not be the builder but would be the seller. Mr. Harstad stated he was contacted by two builders. He added that he was not opposed to adding restrictions to the type of housing that would be allowed in the proposal. Mr. Harstad reiterated that he would like to save as many trees as possible. However, if for example, a cottonwood tree could only be saved by adding a $700 retaining wall, he would rather take the tree down, which would be better for the neighborhood. He suggested that each homeowner take responsibility for their own landscaping. Dayton Ward, 5177 Red Oak Drive, stated his basement floor cracked due to the high water table. His property is the highest in the area. He questioned the plans to build four feet above the street. The owners would then add black dirt and sod above that, and he questioned what that would do to the water table. He stated he was opposed to the proposal. Mr. Harstad explained there would be four feet of fill along Longview Drive. Marie Thompson, 5178 Longview Drive, stated she was concerned that no land was being left for the birds and nature. She was also concerned that with all the land being developed there would be no open space in Mounds View for kids to play. She felt that open space enhanced Mounds View as a city. Lil Ward, 5177 Red Oak Drive, repeated the concerns of the water table. She also brought up the concerns of traffic. She felt there would be too much traffic considering it would be adding two cars per household to the existing traffic. There would only be two accesses, which was also a concern. Ms. York stated she has been there since 1968 and has enjoyed watching the deer. She stated she would like to see homes built in there but questioned who would buy a home in a swamp. Dave Tillmann, 5166 Longview Drive, stated he is across from Lot 3. He stated he walked through the proposed property and his shoes were muddy from it. He didn’t think many people would want to buy a home in 9 feet of dirt, then have it filled 5 feet higher. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Joseph Rivers, Woodale Drive, raised a concern about the quality of the roads in future years. He stated that currently in the winter, the road resembles a wave due to the fill under the blacktop. Gregory Loregori, 2801 Woodale Drive, stated he shared the concern for the trees. He stated he understood there was a sink hole on Woodale Drive, and that led him to question what the fill will be under the streets in this development. He stated he would like to be assured it was going to be done right. Director Ericson stated the building engineer will be involved. The Rice Creek Watershed District will also be involved as far as determining the impact to the water table, the neighborhood and the drainage. Their engineers will put forward a plan. If there is a negative impact to drainage, it won’t be approved. This plan must be approved by the Rice Creek Watershed to move forward. The City Council will not approve if the Rice Creek Watershed does not approve it. Director Ericson further explained the Rice Creek Watershed is the only local governmental unit that is responsible for the oversight of this wetland. They are not DNR-protected wetlands. Rice Creek Watershed may, however, call in other agencies at some point. Director Ericson clarified there are neighborhood meetings to keep the public informed. He suggested the City learn when the Rice Creek Watershed meets, and then inform the public. He noted the public is always welcome at their meetings. Richard Forness, 5175 Red Oak Drive, suggested if the development is allowed, a restrictive covenant should be included that contains a performance bond to help water proof basements of the affected owners. The citizen stated the developer is responsible for any changes that happen. The City has a right to put a restrictive covenant on those lots, making the developer and owner of the lot responsible. Director Ericson clarified the property is zoned properly. He added that stipulations could be put on these lots and could be discussed to add to the development agreement. Mr. Harstad stated he does not want to affect properties negatively. His goal is to have a positive effect. He will have engineers working with the builders throughout the project. He will address any questions as they come up. He stated that if this project is not going to work, then he will not press the issue. Director Ericson suggested the residents let their concerns be known to the Rice Creek Watershed District either by writing letters or attending their meetings, which are open to the public. Commissioner Scotch stated she sympathized with the residents and with the developer. There are a lot of positive things that can happen, but there is a need to be cautious. Commissioner Scotch remarked that she is aware of the high water table; it is high on her property. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 12 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Kaden stated he walked through the area and looked for a wetland delineation flag. He saw one surrounded by water and with 5 to 10 feet of water on either side. He also reported he drove into Longview Drive and looked for high water levels. He did notice one yard that was mostly wet and spongy. Commissioner Kaden stated he would be interested in learning Rice Creek Watershed’s opinion of the area. Commissioner Kaden questioned who spot checks the lots once they are developed to make sure no one has added an extra five feet of dirt. Director Ericson responded that is difficult to enforce. The City does try to keep on top of activities such as this. He mentioned the residents are very watchful. Commissioner Kaden inquired if dirt is taken out of the property, and put back in, whether it will make a difference to the water level. Director Ericson explained that is one issue that will be considered. Additionally, there are years of data to study to determine what happens when certain soils are used. Commissioner Hegland stated he understood everyone seemed to be concerned about the water and how it would affect their property. He explained if he was a resident in that area, he would be concerned with which agency to trust in their findings. He questioned what could be done to gather as much information as possible to be a source for the citizens. Commissioner Hegland said that Mr. Harstad, the building engineers, and Rice Creek Watershed may all have different findings. Though if they all came to the same general evaluation, it would help citizens feel more comfortable. He asked if Mr. Harstad would consider an avenue to put this kind of information in the citizens’ hands. Mr. Harstad stated he has put a lot of time into informing the residents thus far. He asked if the Planning Commission and Council could give him a general idea of whether the concept would be accepted so he could move forward. He added that he would like to learn the Rice Creek Watershed District’s findings before he hired the engineers. Commissioner Hegland stated the Planning Commission may need direction from the Rice Creek Watershed and the building engineers to help make a decision. An unidentified citizen suggested one of the deciding points be whether losing a pristine area of Mounds View was worth losing. Director Ericson explained this is a two-step process. There is the preliminary plat and then the final plat. Approval of the preliminary plat does not give any right to develop property; it is only approval of a concept. There are issues to discuss as far as loss of trees and water table issues, and they will be taken into consideration. He stated the Planning Commission does not need to wait for Rice Creek Watershed’s evaluation. Minnesota Statutes dictate the timeframe for projects, and this project must keep moving forward. Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 13 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Harstad stated the application was sent to Rice Creek Watershed District within the last two days. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Director Ericson discussed the following: (1) Sign Code (2) Fire Code (3) Vacation of Redfield Subdivision (4) 3016 County Road H2; and (5) Comprehensive Plan. ______________________________________________________________________________ 11. Next Planning Commission Meeting: June 20, 2001 ______________________________________________________________________________ 12. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 10:44 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed from video by: Christine Moksnes TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.