070610 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 2010
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 Houle called the meeting to order at 7
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten,
Roger Landy, Sunday Onadipe (arrived 7:05), Tom Schmidt,
Steve Svendsen
Absent: Pat Crough, Kimberly Johnson, Ranjan Nirgudé
Also Present: Eric Weiss, Community Development Assistant, Alan
Brixius, Planning Consultant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC09-16 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.1, Request for conditional use permit for
personal wireless service antenna tower, 7716 Winpark Drive, Clearwire
Item 4.1
Communications, LLC, petitioner.
Mr. Eric Weiss stated that the petitioner was requesting a conditional use
permit to allow a 65-foot cell phone tower in an industrial zoning district.
The property is located on the north side of Winpark Drive and east of
Winnetka Avenue. Adjacent land uses include community business to the
north, high density residential to the northeast and industrial to the west,
south and southeast. The site contains approximately 2.96 acres.
Mr. Weiss explained that the tower would be a monopole type tower and
would be placed to the north of the existing building. The tower would be
a high speed phone-internet connection technology. Clearwire
Communications is an affiliate of Sprint. Sprint would be leasing a 10-foot
by 10-foot area in the northwest corner of the property to hold the tower,
equipment cabinets and security fencing. The tower would close an
existing coverage gap in New Hope and Crystal.
The original application was filed in November 2009, however, several
items were missing from the application. The applicant agreed to waive
the 60-day zoning rule.
Mr. Weiss stated that due to safety concerns cell phone towers require
multiple setbacks. The tower must be set back 75 percent of the 65-foot
height, or 48.75 feet, from adjoining property lines; the proposed setback
from adjoining property would be 51 feet. The tower must be set back 50
percent of the height from any buildings on the property, or 32.5 feet; the
proposed setback from the existing building is 112 feet. Towers must also
be separated from other towers by 1,000 feet; no other tower is located
within this 1,000-foot radius.
The applicant would access the tower by a 12-foot wide easement secured
from the property owner. Traffic to the tower would occur approximately
once a month for maintenance. Sprint service trucks would have
adequate space to temporarily park a vehicle in the existing drive area.
The applicant would install pavement from the existing paved drive area
to the tower. The applicant proposed a six-foot wood fence to screen the
base of the tower and mechanical equipment. City code requires an eight-
foot fence to surround the tower and equipment, therefore, a condition of
approval should include an increase in the fence height. City code also
requires an anti-climbing device for cell phone towers. Due to the fact
that the proposed tower is a monopole, staff is not requiring an anti-
climbing device. Staff suggests the city code be amended to reflect the
new technology.
The Federal Aviation Administration only requires lighting on towers
over 200 feet, therefore, no lighting was proposed. No advertising other
than emergency contact information would be allowed at the tower site.
The cell phone tower would be painted grey to help minimize the visual
impact.
Property owners within 350 feet were notified and staff did not receive
any comments.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the
conditions listed in the planning report.
Chair Houle initiated discussion on the proximity of this tower to one at
3401 Nevada Avenue, which was determined to be outside the 1,000-foot
area.
Mr. Steve Stulz, agent for Clearwire Highspeed Wireless Broadband,
11225 90th Avenue North, Maple Grove, Minnesota, came forward to
address the commission. He thanked staff and the Planning Commission
for their efforts in processing the application. He stated that Clearwire
was bringing high-speed wireless broadband to the Twin Cities. The
application was similar to Wi-Fi, only much faster. It is a subscriber-based
service, but would allow anyone who subscribes to have wireless
broadband anywhere they go. Mr. Stulz commented that over 500 sites
would be operated in the Twin Cities area, with six sites in New Hope.
Clearwire researches an area to find existing sites where the towers can
communicate with each other. Of the six New Hope sites, five are existing
sites: three towers, a water tower, and an existing building. Sprint will
utilize one tower just outside the 1,000-foot circle to the west. There is a
tower to the south about 1,400 feet away, however, it is not tall enough for
their coverage purposes. The two tallest towers in New Hope are AM/FM
towers and cell provider service and Wi-Max service conflict with the
frequency on AM towers.
2
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010
Commissioner Svendsen reminded the applicant of the emergency
contact information signage requirement. Mr. Stulz confirmed that all of
their sites have a steel sign with site ID, address, an 800 number to call,
and a website for additional information.
Commissioner Brinkman inquired whether or not the applicant intended
to construct an eight-foot security fence and the response was that an
eight-foot, chain-link fence was planned. The Commission agreed a chain-
link fence would be acceptable.
Commissioner Svendsen inquired as to the use of a backup generator. Mr.
Stulz replied that their equipment was low usage and no generators were
required. Backup batteries could provide service for days, if needed.
There would be a small two-foot by two-foot by five-foot equipment
cabinet on site.
Chair Houle questioned if there would be any interference in the area
with the signal or health risks for nearby residents. Mr. Stulz answered
no. This tower would be a wireless broadband and operated at 35-40
percent of the output for typical cell providers.
Commissioner Anderson inquired of the lease agreement. Mr. Stulz stated
that they have a 25-year lease, which was renewable in five-year terms.
Discussion ensued regarding removal of the tower if it was no longer in
use.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman,
to close the public hearing on Planning Case 09-16. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Svendsen initiated discussion whether the lease may be
transferrable if the current property owner sold the property. Mr. Steve
Sondrall, city attorney, indicated that would be subject to the terms of the
lease between the property owner and the tower operator.
Chair Houle questioned whether the city was concerned with the 12-foot
easement on the property for Clearwire to gain access to the tower. Mr.
Sondrall stated that the easement should be recorded with Hennepin
County, and Mr. Stulz indicated that Clearwire would have the easement
recorded. Typically, the lease does not get recorded, only a memorandum
of the lease agreement and any easements.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy,
Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 09-16, request for a conditional use permit for
personal wireless service antenna tower, 7716 Winpark Drive, Clearwire
Communications, LLC, petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
3
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010
1.Enter into site improvement agreement and provide financial
guarantee.
2.Construct an eight-foot security fence (building permit required).
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Onadipe,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Crough, Johnson, Nirgudé
Motion approved.
Chair Houle stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council at its meeting on July 26 and encouraged the petitioner to be
in attendance.
Therapeutic massage Chair Houle introduced Item 4.2, Discussion of an ordinance amending
Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code by establishing license regulations
Item 4.2
for therapeutic massage, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Weiss stated that the City Council requested that the Codes and
Standards Committee of the Planning Commission research a potential
therapeutic massage license ordinance. Currently, no license is required
to operate a massage business in the city, nor are there any state or county
laws requiring licensure. Regulation is usually handled at the county or
local level. A majority of neighboring communities require massage
therapists to be licensed. The Codes and Standards Committee reviewed
ordinances from Crystal, Edina, Plymouth, Brooklyn Park, Robbinsdale
and Maple Grove and recommended New Hope model its ordinance
after Crystal’s ordinance.
The purpose of this license would be to regulate the massage therapy
businesses to ensure proper training, provide for a healthy and hygienic
business, safeguard against illegitimate business practices, and minimize
the risk of the spread of communicable diseases. The proposed license
would require an individual or business to register annually with the city.
The license would require the applicant to provide background and
contact information to the city. A one-time background check fee would
be required, as well as an annual renewal.
Mr. Weiss explained that the ordinance outlined who would be eligible or
ineligible to receive a license. For example, anyone with a criminal
background related to massage therapy would be ineligible for a license.
The ordinance would outline restrictions regarding health and sanitation
practices. The license would require 500 hours of training for licensed
therapists, which is the standard minimum training throughout the
industry.
As suggested by the city clerk, proposed fees would include a one-time
background check fee of $100 as well as an annual fee of $100 for
individuals and $200 for businesses. Mr. Weiss stated that the Codes and
Standards Committee and staff felt this would be a fair amount to cover
4
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010
administration costs, while still being reasonable for businesses. Other
neighboring cities charge much higher fees.
The Codes and Standards Committee reviewed this issue at length and
the committee and staff recommend approval of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated that during a previous
study on pawn shops, the city determined tattoo parlors, massage
therapists, etc. are personal service land uses, and would be allowed in
specific zoning districts. This ordinance proposes the business licensing
requirements.
Commissioner Landy stated he was comfortable with the ordinance,
however felt the one-time fee of $100 would not cover the city’s expenses
and would like to see that fee increased, such as $300 to $500. The annual
fee of $100 was fine. Mr. Weiss indicated he had discussed the fee
amounts with the city clerk, who had indicated the proposed amounts
would cover staff time. The proposed amounts were in line with what the
city of Crystal charges, although some cities charge a much higher
amount. Chair Houle stressed the fact that the cost could go much higher
if an applicant had a lengthy background check. Other commissioners felt
the $100 charge would be adequate. Discussion ensued on the amount of
staff time required to review all pieces of information required by the
ordinance.
Chair Houle questioned the difference between barbers and a beauty
culturists and why they were exempt from licensing. Mr. Sondrall
explained the definitions were taken from state licensing standards. Both
entities could do head massages during the shampoo. Both have state
licenses, which would make them exempt from the city’s licensing
process.
Chair Houle mentioned he would like to have the word “intentionally”
removed from (k) general license restrictions – (5) prohibited massage –
where it states “a therapist may not intentionally massage...”
A question was raised why a temporary license would be issued. Mr.
Sondrall responded that, for example a therapist could perform massages
in a booth at the Farmers’ Market or for runners at a marathon. The
temporary license would be effective for four consecutive days.
Discussion ensued regarding raising the fee for background checks to
$300. Mr. Sondrall stated that the New Hope Police Department would
conduct the background check, including criminal or felony records. All
existing massage businesses and therapists would need to apply for a
license upon publication of the ordinance. Discussion ensued on the
appropriateness for existing businesses to go through the background
check procedures or would this apply to new businesses only. The
consensus was to have all businesses submit to the background check.
5
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010
Chair Houle wondered whether or not a person could be licensed for
massage therapy if they had been convicted of a crime not related to the
business. He also wondered who would decide if a person was not of
good moral character or repute. Mr. Sondrall stated that the City Council
or staff would have to make those decisions once the background check
report was received. The city would need a legally sufficient reason,
factually supported in the record, to deny a license.
Commissioner Schmidt clarified that licenses would be required for the
business and each therapist working at that establishment.
Commissioner Hunten stated that it seemed that there was a negative
connotation associated with massage businesses, and she stated she did
not feel the city should assume these were criminal-type people moving
into the city to take advantage of the residents.
Commissioner Anderson wondered why, if the city has had no problem
with massage establishments in the past that it was putting such strict
regulations together and such high fees. With the higher fees as suggested
by the Planning Commission, the licensing may be cost prohibitive for
existing businesses.
Commissioner Onadipe suggested that the city determine how much time
it would take for each person to gather and review the information and
assign a dollar amount to the time. The fees should be high enough to
cover the city’s costs. Mr. Sondrall reminded the Commission that the
city cannot make a profit on what it charges.
Chair Houle stressed building a case for denial of a license would cost the
city a lot more than the application fee. An example was given that the
greater share of the applications would not require the entire fee collected
and that portion could be applied to the few that may cost more. Mr.
Sondrall interjected that generally massage businesses are smaller shops
with the owner and a couple additional therapists or the therapists may
be independent contractors in a shop. A question was raised whether the
owner of the shop had to apply for an individual therapist license if that
person also gave massages, and Mr. Sondrall stated the owner would just
be required to apply for the business license.
Mr. Sondrall suggested the Planning Commission make a
recommendation on the ordinance; the City Council would ultimately
make a decision on the fees. He added the time involved would be
minimal as an applicant would submit a school certificate for the number
of hours of training and insurance information. The site would possibly
be checked through the building permit process.
Commissioner Svendsen stated he thought the verbiage in the ordinance
was fine with the couple recommendations as discussed. He stated he felt
suggesting fees was not in the commission’s purview. Staff should do
additional research on the background check procedures and the time it
6
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010
requires and then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Brixius reiterated that the ordinance required an inspection of the
facility from a zoning and building code requirement, compliance of
specific performance standards for each massage room, personnel
background checks, training and insurance requirements, and licensure
of all owners of the business.
A suggestion to staff was to find out more information about the
background check, how extensive it is, and what the police department
does. Mr. Weiss stated he would discuss the fee structure again with the
city clerk and police department prior to the City Council meeting.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Item 4.2 Schmidt, to approve an ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope
City Code by establishing license regulations for therapeutic massage,
city of New Hope, petitioner, subject to the following change:
1.Section (k)(5) – remove the word “intentionally.”
2.Add verbiage that if the owner was a masseuse only a business
license was required, not both the business and individual
licenses.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Onadipe,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Crough, Johnson, Nirgudé
Motion approved.
Chair Houle stated that this ordinance would be considered by the City
Council at its meeting on July 26.
Livable Communities Chair Houle introduced Item 4.3, Review of Livable Communities study.
Item 4.3
Chair Houle stated the City Council suggested the Planning Commission
review previous studies done in the city. The Livable Communities study
was completed approximately nine years ago and involved several sites at
the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue intersection.
Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated that the city secured a
Livable Communities grant in 2001-2002 to examine redevelopment
opportunities in the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue area. The Livable
Communities effort was to focus on the redevelopment of underutilized
or marginal properties within the city. Some of the specific goals were to
promote public participation in the planning process, provide market
rate housing objectives, address life-cycle housing needs, integrate
housing near job centers, create a livable community by creating efficient,
environmentally sensitive and creative environments, compact higher
density neighborhoods, encourage a diversity of housing choices and
costs, promote mixed use development, promote transit oriented
7
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010
development, utilize in-place infrastructure, preserve open space,
promote high quality exterior finishes, and promote underground
parking. Within the study area, four areas were specifically identified: the
Hosterman site, southwest corner of Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue
(Winnetka Green development), northwest corner of the intersection
including Wincrest Apartments and the former Franks Nursery site, and
the Bass Lake Road Apartments site west of the city’s golf course.
The task force included approximately 60 members from the community
including citizens, business owners, city commission members, and
school district representatives. The task force identified issues
surrounding the neighborhoods, identified the underutilized sites, issues
pertaining to traffic and land use characteristics, substandard homes,
transportation, and existing infrastructure.
The Winnetka Avenue East area produced two concepts. 1) represented
21 single family homes and 50 townhomes and 2) included 25 single
family homes and 42 townhomes with underground parking. Each time
the task force went through the effort, the financial consultant evaluated
existing infrastructure, the cost of the properties, and the value homes on
the parcels. In facilitating a reasonable land use development and
redevelopment effort, higher density was suggested. Subsequently, the
city sought Requests for Proposals from various developers and the City
Council selected Ryland. In 2004, Ryland constructed the Winnetka Green
development, which included 117 urban townhomes and 58
condominium units. The net result was a 9.66 units per acre density.
The Northeast Bass Lake Road/Winnetka area included the Wincrest
Apartments and the former Frank’s Nursery site. One option only looked
at the Frank’s Nursery site with the anticipation that the site could be
redeveloped as a commercial site. Another option examined both sites
and proposed a 96-unit, four-story apartment building. Both options were
analyzed by the city’s financial consultant. The second option, based on
the number of apartment units at Wincrest, along with acquisition,
possible relocation and demolition, made this option cost prohibitive.
Therefore, the Frank’s Nursery site was the only parcel studied. An RFP
was sent to several redevelopers and the Council chose Armory
Development/Masters Development Group. In 2004, the Winnetka
Townhomes project was approved with 44 townhomes at 12.6 units per
acre.
The Bass Lake Road Apartment site was studied and produced four
options: 1) included 19 to 38 three-story townhome units; 2) expanded the
site to include four additional properties to the north and proposed 32 to
64 three-story townhomes; 3) called for a 64-unit, three-story
condominium development; and 4) also expanded the development to
the north and called for a four-story apartment building. Through the
RFP process, a developer was selected, however, the project did not move
forward. The city has since purchased and demolished the five buildings
on the site.
8
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010
The task force study area also included the Hosterman/Winnetka
Learning Center, current CVS site, and vacant furniture store. One option
envisioned Hosterman remaining along with the playfields.
Redevelopment would only be on the eastern portion of the site, which
would include apartments and townhomes, and keep the school facilities
intact. The second option would redevelop the entire site with
townhomes, apartments, and duplexes, along with a park in the center of
the site, and retain the playfields and drainage in the center of the parcel.
The third option provided for an all townhome design. The fourth option
included single family residential on the western portion of the site and
concentrated the density on the eastern portion of the property. To date,
CVS is the only part of this area that has been redeveloped.
A concept has been received from District 287, who intends to purchase
the western 10 acres of the site, demolish the Hosterman building, and
construct a new school designed for its specific education needs. Storm
water drainage would be coordinated throughout the site with District
281. This may extend the ponding area closer to the east and south of the
CVS site. Preliminarily, there are several entities that would have
influence on the redevelopment of this site, including Districts 287, 281,
and the soccer club. Decisions need to be made concerning the type of
development that would be appropriate for the balance of the site. City
staff encouraged District 287 to provide some additional open space and
recreation components as part of its site plan. If District 281 divests of the
balance of the property, some type of redevelopment would probably
occur in the future.
Mr. Brixius stated a major sanitary sewer pipeline runs through the center
of the property. There is also a fairly steep slope to the east of the
Hosterman building. The pond to the south of the CVS site addresses
CVS’s drainage needs as well as a portion of the school’s drainage needs.
If a project would be proposed for this property, ponding would need to
be significantly enlarged. Another major issue would be traffic circulation
that would work with both existing land uses and future transportation
needs. Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue are both county roads and
access permits would be required. There has been some reinvestment in
the homes surrounding the Begin Park area and the city should be
sensitive to that.
Mr. Brixius summarized that two projects from the Livable Communities
study are complete, the Bass Lake Road Apartments site has been
acquired, the buildings demolished, and the site is ready to market. There
currently is interest in the Hosterman site.
Chair Houle indicated that the recommendation at the last divestiture
committee meeting was to divest of the Winnetka Learning Center and
the soccer fields. Another meeting is scheduled for July to confirm the
recommendation and in August present it to the school board.
9
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010
Chair Houle initiated discussion on the ponding requirements for District
287. Mr. Brixius stated that the proposed location of the pond in the
northeast corner of the new lot would function better at another lower
elevation, possibly utilizing an area along the northern property line and
further to the east, possibly near or including the CVS pond. At this time,
there are no definitive answers on access points, land uses or densities. It
was confirmed that District 281 currently owns all of the parcels including
Hosterman, the soccer fields, and Winnetka Learning Center. Mr. Brixius
added that there was a purchase agreement on the western 10 acres.
Chair Houle mentioned that the Livable Communities study indicated it
was important to retain the Winnetka Learning Center due to the value it
brought to the community. Mr. Brixius responded that the concepts
represented what could be done without having to acquire 100 percent of
the property. The thought may have been that the WLC was to be
retained for an adult education facility. If the school district approves
divesting the entire site, it is likely that most of it would be redeveloped.
The city should determine whether it wishes to retain any public green
space, the type of development desired, circulation patterns, and how the
city could provide an efficient and effective land use component. If the
school district divests of this property, the vacant Marketplace Furniture
site may also become an opportunity for redevelopment.
Chair Houle pointed out that for the two projects that were realized, the
initial densities were about half of what was actually constructed. In
reviewing the concept plans for the Hosterman site, these proposed
densities are low as well. Commissioner Svendsen commented that
during discussions in the Livable Communities study, the financial
consultant reported on costs associated with redevelopment for low
density versus higher density projects. The high density project was the
only one that was feasible. Mr. Brixius interjected that this project was a
single ownership as opposed to the Winnetka East project that had
multiple property owners.
Chair Houle stated that the district’s divestiture committee met with two
different real estate agencies, who indicated that there would be an
interest in commercial and possibly a high density project.
Mr. Brixius stated that before the school district markets the property,
they should meet with staff and the City Council to determine the city’s
long-range goals and vision, the type of project would fit in the city’s
infrastructure, how traffic could be handled, and market the property
accordingly. He also pointed out that the land would sell at a different
value depending on how the land was zoned. Currently, the area is a
public land use with R-1, single family residential, zoning.
Brixius stressed that the city should look at this site as well as the city
center area and try to integrate development patterns and not handle
each area independently.
10
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010
Chair Houle stated that, per Ryan Company’s discussion with the City
Council, the interim agreement between Ryan and the city would expire
in August.
Mr. Sondrall stated it was his policy opinion that since the city does not
own the property, he would suggest waiting to see what happened.
Commissioner Svendsen suggested the Planning Commission develop
several new options that eliminate the 10-acre Hosterman site.
Mr. Weiss stated that the city’s Livable Communities agreement with the
Metropolitan Council expires at the end of 2010 and should be renewed
for another 10-year period. By renewing that agreement, the city would be
eligible to apply for grant money from the Metropolitan Council for
planning purposes.
Commissioner Hunten reminded the commission that this was private
property. The city should only get involved when a potential buyer
contacts the city with a purchase agreement in hand and inquires what
type of redevelopment could be accomplished.
Mr. Brixius summarized that the city should establish a vision for the site
and then when a development application was submitted, the city would
have something to evaluate it against to determine if that plan achieved
those goals. The Planning Commission and City Council, as decision
makers, should define the land use, establish the zoning, and make a
determination based on what the site is capable of accommodating and
amend the comprehensive plan accordingly.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen stated that the Design and Review Committee
did not meet in June. Mr. Weiss added a planning application was
Committee
received from a resident requesting a variance to expand his driveway
Item 6.1
and the curb. A committee meeting would be conducted on July 15.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Schmidt reported that the Codes and Standards
Committee did not meet in June.
Committee
Item 6.2
Project Advisory Mr. Weiss stated that the Planning Commission and City Council
conducted a joint meeting in June and discussed the block exercise
Committee (TOD
associated with the Transit Oriented Development study. He added that
Study)
the PAC meetings would be on hold for a while. There would be another
Item 6.3
joint Planning Commission/City Council work session in August to
provide an update on the TOD meetings. Design and financial issues will
be presented and information as to how nearby communities
accomplished redevelopment activities.
Commissioner Landy stated that he needed to step down from the Project
11
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010
Advisory Committee due to other commitments.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
Item 7.1
NEW BUSINESS There was no new business.
ANNOUNCEMENTS A joint meeting with the Citizen Advisory Commission is tentatively
scheduled for September.
Chair Houle read a note he received from Mayor Hemken thanking the
Commission for a great discussion with the Council at the work session.
Commissioner Svendsen commended staff on the Shop New Hope
coupon book and stated that in the first four days residents had the book
approximately 70 coupons had been redeemed at Frattallone’s Ace
Hardware. He stated he felt it was a wonderful program and thought
there had been great community participation. Mr. Weiss added that the
coupon books were mailed to residents’ homes this year.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
12
Planning Commission Meeting July 6, 2010