030408 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 4, 2008
City Hall, 7 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chair Hemken called the meeting to order at
7 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, Kathi Hemken,
Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé,
Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt
Absent: Steve Svendsen
Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Eric Weiss, Community Development Intern, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC08-03 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 4.1, request for conditional
use permit amendment, 5700 International Parkway, Verizon
Item 4.1
Wireless/Matt Kundert, Buell Consulting, Inc. and city of New Hope,
petitioners.
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen stated that the petitioner was requesting a
conditional use permit amendment to change the site plan by installing
an emergency backup generator for the cell tower on city-owned property
in Victory Park. The site is in an industrial zoning district located at the
north end of Victory Park. The initial lease agreement with the city and
CUP have been in place since 1994. The site area that Verizon leases from
the city contains 2,072 square feet (57’ by 37’) and the building area
(concrete pad) would be 28 square feet. The leased area contains 85
percent green space and 15 percent surface coverage. Adjacent land uses
are industrial to the north, west and south and high density residential to
the east across the wetland. The goal of the project/CUP amendment is to
keep the cell tower operational in an emergency situation.
Mr. Jacobsen reported that the generator would be contained within the
current lease area. The generator would be compliant with all Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements. The decibel rating for
the generator at 100 feet is 55.4 decibels. Verizon Wireless indicated that
the site would not require a retaining wall to support the pad in a level
configuration. Verizon’s registered professional engineer provided a
document stating that a floating slab was the best approach for the
installation of the generator. Verizon would not be providing a curbed
slab because of the generator’s redundancies for spill protection. The
generator would have a maximum capacity for 110 gallons of diesel fuel
and the overflow would have the ability to contain 125 percent of the
fluids through secondary containment features. The fill neck within the
cabinet also would have an overflow spill containment basin. All
overflow/secondary containment and spill basins would be alarmed.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and no
comments were received.
Jacobsen explained the purpose of a conditional use permit was to
provide the city with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of
discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon
the general welfare, public health and safety of the community. The
Commission should consider possible adverse effects of the proposed
CUP amendment, that the use complies with the comprehensive plan, is
compatible with adjacent uses, conforms with all applicable performance
standards in the code, no depreciation in value, nuisance characteristics
would not have an adverse effect, and the use would provide an
economic return to the community.
The development review team discussed the application and was
supportive of the CUP amendment. Concerns included erosion control
along the slope toward the wetland, trees to be removed and landscaping
replacement, tank and containment area, monitoring/alarm system, tank
enclosure, noise levels at the ballfield and property line, generator testing
schedule, security lighting, concrete pad and curbing to contain leaks.
The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner and discussed
the aforementioned concerns and requested fuel containment and noise
level information.
Revised plans were submitted indicating the generator would be self-
contained within a sound enclosure placed on a floating slab. The
enclosure would contain all electrical equipment and the diesel fuel tank.
The existing fence would be extended to enclose the generator structure.
One existing clump of Amur maple would be replaced with an eight-foot
Amur maple, along with one additional Amur maple to be placed along
the southern portion of the site. The new generator would contain 110
gallons of diesel. The fuel tank would be double walled and designed to
contain 125 percent of the fuel volume. The generator would be alarmed
to notify the fire and police departments in addition to Verizon. The
generator would be enclosed in a sound enclosure. The decibel level
would be 55.4 at the edge of the road (100 feet), which complies with
MPCA regulations for noise. The existing building is showing signs of
deterioration and a condition of approval would include property
maintenance of the existing structure and landscaping. Jacobsen reported
that very little grading would be necessary on the site, but the applicant
should provide specific information on grading and erosion control
measures on the eastern downhill slope from the generator pad to
prevent any runoff during a heavy rain event into the wetland.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff recommended approval with the following
2
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008
conditions: 1) The addition of one more Amur maple planted between the
existing maple and the new one, which for spacing reasons should be
moved westward a few feet. 2) Litter in the adjacent landscaping should
be removed and mulch replenished. 3) The applicant should provide
additional details on the construction of the fuel tank, design features to
protect against spills, how spills are monitored, detected and
communicated (alarm system). 4) Both the police and fire departments
should be notified by the system alarm in case of a fuel spill. 5) Repair
and maintenance of the existing structure should be completed to the
satisfaction of the city building inspector. 6) The applicant should provide
information on intended schedule for testing the generator - specifically,
how often and for how long. Testing should be conducted weekdays
during normal business hours. 7) Submission of a grading, drainage, and
erosion control plan.
Jacobsen stated that the building official would be certain that all
conditions were met prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site.
Commissioner Anderson questioned current security measures for the
site. Mr. Jacobsen replied that an eight-foot chain link fence surrounded
the tower and building and the building was also secured. The applicant
would be adding to the fencing to enclose the proposed structure and
generator.
Mr. Matt Kundert, representing Verizon Wireless, 2625 Monroe Drive
NW, Rochester, Minnesota, came forward. He confirmed that the site
would have a locked security fence and the generator would be enclosed
in a locked cabinet. The double walled fuel tank would be located in the
20-inch space below the generator; the unit is manufactured as one piece.
The construction material of the fuel tank would be an all-weather,
corrosion resistant material. Mr. Kundert added that the secondary
containment of the tank was 125 percent of all the liquids on the
generator, i.e., oil, coolant, fuel, et cetera.
Chair Hemken raised the issue of curbing around the concrete pad. Mr.
Brixius stated that if the building official was comfortable with the
internal containment, curbing would not be required. Commissioner
Nirgudé interjected that he felt curbing should be provided in case of a
leak. Commissioner Oelkers added that he understood if all liquids from
the generator leaked at one time, the overflow tank would contain all
liquids. Mr. Kundert confirmed that any leak would flow back into the
overflow tank and be contained in the unit with no leaks to the outside. A
company representative visits the sites once a month to be certain that
everything was functional. The generator also has a remote monitoring
system. The unit would be exercised once a week for approximately a half
hour. If the unit was not functioning, the monitoring would indicate a
problem with the generator. The city would not receive any of these test
results. Commissioner Oelkers stated that at the Design and Review
Committee meeting natural gas had been discussed as a potential fuel for
the generator. Mr. Kundert explained that the backup generators operate
3
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008
on a fuel source other than the utilities serving the general public.
Kundert indicated that the fuel in the tank would operate the generator
for several days, which would give Verizon enough time to refuel tanks if
the power would be out for a protracted period of time.
Commissioner Houle wondered if the remote monitoring could notify the
New Hope police and fire departments as well as Verizon. Mr. Kundert
stated that Verizon monitors the units from its operations center. He
explained that if a few gallons of diesel spilled inside the generator, that
would set off an alarm and Verizon would go to the site to determine the
cause. He questioned whether the fire and police departments would
need to be notified of a spill that was not a contamination issue for the
property. A bigger concern would be if the unit were destroyed, in which
case the MPCA would have specific requirements for site contamination.
Commissioner Schmidt stated he thought the city should be aware of any
leak or spill at the site. Commissioner Houle wondered if the monitors
indicated where the leak was located and if the leak was being contained
in the secondary unit. Mr. Kundert responded that there are two alarms
in the generator. The first audible alarm is located on the top where the
tank is filled with fuel. The second monitoring alarm would trigger at the
operations center when fuel would spill over and begin to fill the
overflow tank. Mr. Brixius interjected that rather than notifying the police
and fire departments, a report could be sent to the city’s inspections
division indicating the action taken to correct the problem. Mr. Kundert
thought this could be accomplished, but he maintained there may still be
some level of confusion on the part of the police and fire departments
about what they should do when the alarm sounded. Commissioner
Hunten wondered what the probability would be for a spill, and Mr.
Kundert stated that the generator unit was a manufactured product that
was meant to be utilized for a long time. The design of the unit should
alleviate any concerns of the city, such as the secondary containment and
alarm system. He maintained that Verizon would not use this product if
there were constant problems.
Commissioner Nirgudé suggested that a condition of approval be added
that Verizon would be the responsible party for immediate cleanup and
for any future cleanup due to a spill or leak. Mr. Kundert reminded the
Commission that Verizon had a lease agreement with the city that
addressed those issues. Mr. Sondrall, city attorney, added that MPCA
rules and regulations would make Verizon responsible for any cleanup.
The city would review the lease to be sure the provision for cleanup is
included.
A question was raised whether the decibel levels for the generator were
accurate, and the applicant responded that the manufacturer had
supplied those numbers.
Mr. Kundert requested that a condition of approval include a specific
time period to notify the city in the event of a leak. He also requested
clarification on the scope of a leak/spill that would prompt notification to
4
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008
the city. He maintained that the drawings already show grading drainage
and erosion control measures and wondered whether that still needed to
be a condition of approval. He added that a silt fence would be provided.
No grading work was planned. Mr. Brixius added that the elevation of the
slab was 986 feet and the elevation where the timber edge is located is 985
feet, therefore, additional fill may be needed. He stressed that the city
wanted to be certain that no erosion or sediment would enter the wetland
area.
No one was in the audience to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 08-03. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 08-03, request for conditional use permit
amendment, 5700 International Parkway, Verizon Wireless/Matt
Kundert, Buell Consulting, Inc. and city of New Hope, petitioners,
subject to the following conditions:
1.Add two Amur maple trees, spaced appropriately.
2.Litter in the adjacent landscaping should be removed and mulch
replenished.
3.City building inspection department must be notified in case of a
fuel spill over 10 gallons within three business days.
4.Both the police and fire departments should be notified by the
system alarm in case of a fuel spill.
5.Repair and maintenance of the existing structure should be
completed to the satisfaction of the city building inspector.
6.The applicant should provide information on intended schedule for
testing the generator – how often and for how long. Testing should
be conducted weekdays during normal business hours.
7.City attorney to review lease regarding contamination cleanup.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
Hunten, Landy, Oelkers, Nirgudé, , Schmidt
Voting against: None
Absent: Svendsen
Motion carried.
Chair Hemken stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council at its meeting on March 24, 2008, and asked that the
petitioner attend that meeting.
PC07-09 Chair Hemken introduced Item 4.2, ordinance amending New Hope code
section 1-2 and 3-25(b)(1) regulating fences around private swimming
Item 4.2
pools, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Eric Weiss stated that the Planning Commission should review and
5
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008
make a recommendation regarding an ordinance regulating swimming
pools. In 2007 the city discussed and approved new regulations requiring
lockable covers for whirlpool tubs. The Council requested that the
Commission further review the ordinance regarding inflatable pools for
safety purposes. On January 11, 2008, the Commission discussed this
matter and determined that it would be best to first bring the city’s
standards in line with state regulations. The Codes and Standards
Committee discussed this matter in February. Appendix G of the
International Residential Code, although not adopted by the state, was
used as a standard for the swimming pool definition because of its
standing as a commonly referenced document. A private swimming pool
is defined as “any structure intended for swimming, wading or
recreational bathing or immersion that contains water 24 inches deep.”
The current language defines a pool as 18 inches in depth. All swimming
pools, including inflatable pools, placed in use or constructed on any
property shall be completely surrounded by a fence or wall not less than
four feet in height. Whirlpool tubs not enclosed by a fence shall have a
locking safety cover. The Codes and Standards Committee and staff
recommend approval of the ordinance amendments.
Commissioner Anderson questioned whether or not the fence would have
a locked gate. He maintained that if the fence was for safety reasons, the
gate should be locked rather than just self-latching. He stated he didn’t
feel the city should inflict an unreasonable cost on the homeowner. If the
intent of the fence was for safety, then the gate should be locked. He
mentioned that ponds and lakes are not fenced and the residents must be
responsible for their own actions. Mr. Brixius added that the current code
required fencing for pools over 18 inches, therefore, the proposed change
loosens up that requirement. The new code change basically includes
inflatable pools to the definition and made the code less restrictive on the
fencing requirements. Mr. Sondrall added that the gate must be self
closing and self latching but did not need to be locked. The hot tub
language was taken from the International Residential Code. Per the IRC,
no cover would be needed for a hot tub if it was enclosed by a fence. A
lockable cover on the hot tub would allow the homeowner to be exempt
from fencing requirement.
With safety for the citizens of the community being the goal, Chair
Hemken stated it was a difficult decision to determine what depth to use
for requiring a fence. Mr. Sondrall reported that the state of Minnesota
does not define a pool, nor has any definition been incorporated into the
state building code. Maple Grove uses the 18-inch depth for its pool
standard, however, several other surrounding communities use the 24-
inch definition for pools as found in Appendix G of the IRC. Mr. Sondrall
confirmed that if the above ground pool had sides that were 48 inches
high, and the ladder was removed when not in use, that would qualify as
a fence. Mr. Sondrall reminded the Commission that the fencing
requirement was not new; fencing has always been required. The
requirement currently refers to pools that are 18 inches deep. The code
had always been applied to inflatable pools. The amendment just clarifies
6
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008
that fact an inflatable pool is a swimming pool. The self-latching
requirement around the pools, rather than locking, was requested by the
inspections department because of the difficulty in enforcing the code.
Appendix G requires self latching and self closing, not locked, gates.
Minnesota communities are utilizing the international building code and
international residential code verbiage when writing their ordinances and
city regulations. If the City Council does not want fencing, that language
could be removed from the code.
Commissioner Hunten questioned who would be enforcing these
requirements and the response was that city inspectors enforce the code.
Commissioner Schmidt stated that the Codes and Standards Committee
had a difficult time making a recommendation they were comfortable
with. The main change was to add inflatable pools to the definition and
raise the depth requirement to 24 inches for when a fence was required.
Commissioner Houle stated he did not believe that a fence should be
required around inflatable or semi-rigid pools that were of a temporary
nature. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that some semi-rigid pools are left up
year round.
Commissioner Oelkers suggested voting on the ordinance and let the City
Council make the final decision.
Mr. Jacobsen suggested if the Planning Commission would recommend
approval of the ordinance that it keep the 24 inch depth so that if
Appendix G would be adopted by the state the city’s ordinance would be
in compliance. Mr. Sondrall stated that since the state did not regulate
pools, fencing was left up to the municipalities to regulate, and through
his research, all municipalities were requiring fences in some fashion. He
did not know if other municipalities were requiring self closing/latching
or locking gates. Appendix G states a four-foot fence was required with a
self latching/closing gate with slats four-inches on center. Most
surrounding cities are adopting similar language.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 07-09, ordinance amending New Hope code
sections 1-2 and 3-25 (b)(1) regulating fences around private swimming
pools, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers,
Schmidt
Voting against: Anderson, Houle, Hunten
Absent: Svendsen
Motion carried.
Chair Hemken stated that planning case would be considered by the City
Council on March 24, 2008.
PC07-10 Chair Hemken introduced Item 4.3, begin discussion on sign code
7
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008
Item 4.3 update, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Eric Weiss reported that the city last updated the sign code in 2006 to
improve legibility and be more business friendly. Pursuant to that time,
large billboard Light-Emitting Diode (LED) signs have become an issue
around the metro area and many cities began banning this type of
signage. Minnetonka attempted to ban LED billboard signs and
subsequently was sued by the sign company on the merit of the First
Amendment and the protection of free speech. New Hope imposed an
LED sign moratorium in May 2007, effective until April 30, 2008, to allow
staff ample time to study the topic. About the same time, several cities
were legally challenged regarding the “content neutrality issue” and the
League of Minnesota Cities advised cities to review their ordinances. The
Codes and Standards Committee has discussed the sign code changes
over the last several months. The proposed code was drafted by the
planning consultant utilizing the new content neutral codes from
Hopkins and Lakeville. Mr. Weiss recommended the Planning
Commission begin its review of the sign code update at this meeting.
Mr. Alan Brixius explained that area cities were updating their sign codes
due to the content neutrality issue and lawsuits that some cities have
faced. Also cities are facing issues with the new LED billboards. Clear
Channel received permits for updating billboards in Minnetonka without
the knowledge of the city and they were installing the LED signs.
Minnetonka established a moratorium on those types of signs and turned
off the power to the sites. Billboards were installed, but not utilized. A
compromise was reached outside of court and Minnetonka redrafted its
ordinance. New Hope’s draft ordinance is similar to what was adopted by
Minnetonka, with regard to static message to static message, and the
interval for holding a message on the billboard for traffic safety.
Mr. Brixius stated that the proposed code is very different than the
current code with regard to content and how it is presented. Items such
as sign area, setbacks, location and number stay basically the same.
The code begins with the preamble, findings, and code reference. The
preamble and findings were included based on the League of Minnesota
Cities and the city of Hopkins codes to clearly define why the city is
adopting sign regulations. The regulations are to avoid nuisance
complaints and sound construction of signs and to make sure that
signage does not interfere with motorist’s use of the public rights-of-way.
The purpose and intent regulates the number, size, location, type,
illumination and other physical characteristics of the signs to promote the
public heath, safety and welfare of the community, as well as improving
the aesthetic environment of the city, improve the visual appearance of
the city, and provide for fair and consistent enforcement of sign
regulations. The code allows a wide variety of signage, including certain
small, unobtrusive signs, and prohibits signs that would be detrimental to
the environment and public health, safety and welfare of the community.
The severability requirement stipulates that if any provision is found to be
8
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008
invalid it does not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining
portions of the code.
The previous code had descriptions of signs such as real estate signs,
garage sale signs, and business identification signs. Anything with a
content based description was removed. The signs are now described by
construction, architectural feature or location.
Several new sign definitions were added including changeable copy signs,
which include the new LED technology. Manual changeable copy signs
would be defined as signs whose messages are changed by hand, whereas
electronic and graphic would be those signs changed by computer. The
committee felt that New Hope should embrace the technology rather than
prohibit these signs. The code would regulate the signage to avoid
nuisance concerns. Non-commercial speech signs include all political
signs and any statement that is not commercial based. Temporary signs
include a finite period of time based on an event. These definitions are
taken from the League of Minnesota Cities. Another new sign definition is
projecting signs, which are a product of the design guidelines document.
Discussion ensued on whether or not to include a specific amount of time.
Mr. Brixius stated that the small residential signs not requiring a permit
do not have a specific length of time attached to them. Temporary
commercial signs requiring a special event permit are allowed a specific
length of time. Mr. Sondrall initiated discussion on for rent signs that are
posted at commercial properties that do not have any space for rent.
The next section deals with required permits and stipulates what the
permit application requires and information that must be provided with
the permit. Most of the language was taken from the existing code. New
items to be submitted with the permit include an inventory of existing on-
site signage, stress sheet, consent of the property owner, and electrical
permit. The building inspectors are in agreement with these
requirements.
Brixius explained that fee requirements and the notification and review
process were laid out. Generally, the sign permits would be handled by
staff. In some instances, the sign application may need to be reviewed by
the Design and Review Committee and Planning Commission, therefore,
the 60-day rule for making a decision was included.
Previously, several specific signs were listed as not requiring a permit,
such as real estate and garage sale signs. The proposed code states signs
not requiring a permit would include those where the display surface on
an existing painted or posted display sign is being changed, temporary
signs six square feet or less in size, not to exceed three feet in height only
in residential districts, non-commercial signs (such as political). A
suggestion was made to add noncommercial “speech” signs to section
(f)(3). The official signs would be government signs, flags or emblems.
One on-premise temporary sign would be permitted per street frontage
9
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008
when a building is offered for sale or lease – this provision would include
a real estate sign posted on the property. These signs can be 12 square feet
in size and six feet in height for single, two-family and quadraminiums or
32 square feet and eight feet in height for multifamily or institutional uses.
Prohibited signs include all signs over 300 square feet (billboards), off
premise signs greater than six square feet, signs painted directly onto a
building wall surface. A suggestion was made to add to (g)(11) signs
painted “or projected” directly onto a building (murals). Other signs not
allowed include changeable copy except as allowed by (k) district specific,
obscene signs as defined by MN Statutes section 617.241, flashing or
moving.
Any person who violates or resists the enforcement of any of the
provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be a petty
misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum fine of $300.
Mr. Brixius continued by explaining the general provisions section
including the traffic triangle, 10-foot setback from the curb and the sight
triangle for temporary freestanding signs in a residential district not
requiring a permit, building and electrical codes must also be met,
illuminated signs must be shielded, and glare from illuminated signs shall
not exceed one foot candle at the centerline of an adjoining public street
or property line of an adjoining residential use, which is consistent with
the zoning code for exterior lighting. Temporary signs within a specific
zoning district require a permit and are valid for 10 consecutive days with
not more than five temporary permits in a 12-month period.
Commissioner Hunten pointed out that with the change to content
neutrality she felt homeowners will not be able to determine what is right
for a garage sale or any other kind of sign. Mr. Brixius stated that the city
may have to provide help sheets for residents.
Mr. Brixius pointed out that the design guidelines for commercial areas
would allow projecting signs, which would extend perpendicular from
the outside wall, over a sidewalk, and over an open space. Performance
standards have been established. The projecting signs would be counted
against the total sign area of the individual wall, must have an eight foot
clearance under the sign, may not project more than five fee beyond the
wall to which it is mounted, may not project over any vehicular access or
public street right-of-way, and would be limited to not more than 50
percent of the maximum area allowed for an individual wall sign in the
respective zoning district.
Commissioner Nirgudé mentioned that he felt a distinction should be
made in the code for businesses or residents and that language for
residents should be made easier for them to understand. Brixius indicated
that the ordinance does make a distinction on the amount or size allowed
based on the zoning district. The city should make residents aware of
what signs can be posted without a permit. Once a permit is needed, they
10
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008
need to be in touch with staff, due to the fact that the application will
need more information submitted before it can be approved by staff.
Commissioner Houle agreed that the city would need to utilize the
content neutral format unless it was willing to spend a great deal of
money in regulating signs.
Brixius stated that other mechanisms to make the code more resident
friendly include putting the information in the city’s newsletter and
website, the SunPost and as an insert with the water bills. Mr. Sondrall
pointed out that some of the provisions of the code could be labeled
better to make it easier to find certain items. New Hope was trying to
develop a code that would be defensible in a court of law based on
experiences of other cities. Brixius mentioned that the signs indicating
gasoline sales prices and address numbers are allowed per state statute
and are mandatory for the city to accommodate in the code. When
reading through the text, the reader may have to refer back to the
definition section to determine what is meant. Due to the different format,
staff will also need to become familiar with the code.
Mr. Brixius suggested the Commission continue its review of the sign
code at the next month’s meeting. Two Commission recommendations
tonight include establishing a time period for temporary signs and
including projection signs under the prohibited sign section.
Design and Review Commissioner Oelkers reported that the Design and Review Committee
met in February to review the Verizon plans. Mr. Jacobsen added that one
Committee
application had been submitted for a front yard variance to allow an
Item 5.1
expansion of the Conductive Containers building on Quebec Avenue. The
committee would be meeting to review the plans on March 13.
Codes and Standards Chair Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had met
in February to finish reviewing the sign code and the swimming pool
Committee
ordinance amendment.
Item 5.2
Comprehensive Plan Chair Hemken reminded commissioners that open houses were
scheduled for Thursday, March 6, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at city hall and
Update Subcommittee
Saturday, March 8, from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. at the golf course clubhouse
Item 5.3
and commissioners were invited to attend.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS Commissioners congratulated Mr. Jacobsen on his appointment to
community development director.
Commissioner Brinkman inquired as to whom he should contact
regarding the timing of arterial lights, specifically at Boone and 42nd
Avenue. Staff indicated it would look into the matter.
Chair Hemken questioned what needed to be done with comments
11
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008
received from the Metropolitan Council regarding design guidelines. Mr.
Brixius indicated he would review the comments before determining
whether the city needed to act on the comments.
Motion to Approve Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner
Minutes Brinkman, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 6,
2008, as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:53
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
12
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2008