050410 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 4, 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.
OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Curtis Jacobsen administered the oath of office to Mr. Sunday
Onadipe and he was welcomed to the Commission.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, Jeff Houle,
Sandra Hunten, Kimberly Johnson, Roger Landy, Ranjan
Nirgudé, Sunday Onadipe, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen
Absent: None
Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development,
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Jason Quisberg, City Engineer,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC10-02 Chair Houle introduced Item 5.1, Request for variance to the setback
requirement to allow a six-foot privacy fence in the front yard, 5801 Boone
Item 5.1
Avenue North, Robert Zeglin and Amy Obraske, petitioners.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that the petitioners were requesting a variance to
allow a six-foot privacy fence in the legal front yard along Bass Lake
Road. The property is located in an R-1, single family residential zoning
district, at the northwest corner of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue.
The site contains 10,611 square feet. The property is located in Planning
District No. 1, and the Comprehensive Plan states the goal is to update
the single family housing stock. Adjacent land uses are single family to
the north, east and west, and high density across Bass Lake Road to the
southeast, as well as industrial properties to the south and southwest.
Mr. Jacobsen explained the applicants recently purchased this home and,
in order to utilize the southern portion of the lot at this busy intersection,
are requesting a variance to allow placement of a privacy fence on the
south lot line. The southern portion of the lot along Bass Lake Road is the
legal front of the property. Due to the placement of the house on the lot,
the most usable portion of the lot is on the south side of the house. A
fence would add a safety feature for the family. A variance was granted
years ago for a similar fence to the east across Boone Avenue.
The Design and Review Committee reviewed the plans for the six-foot
privacy fence and recommended that the fence be moved five feet to the
north to allow for snow accumulation along the sidewalk and to provide
better sight lines at the intersection, and the petitioner agreed. City code
does not allow fences over 42 inches to encroach into the front or side
yards on corner lots where the building is oriented to the side yard. Some
trees would be removed and others would be trimmed to provide for
more usable space and a cleaner look. The applicant desires to save the
trees near the southern property line. If moving the fence five feet further
north infringes on the root system for the trees, they may have to be
removed.
Mr. Jacobsen explained that the purpose of a variance was to permit relief
from the strict application of the zoning code to prevent undue hardships
or mitigate undue noneconomic hardships in the reasonable use of a
specific parcel. Hardship may be due to the physical condition that is
unique to the property such as lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope
or topography. Economic conditions alone do not constitute undue
hardship. Mr. Jacobsen reported that staff believes the applicant met all
the criteria for approval of a variance due to the lot’s location and
configuration, slope of the property, and orientation of the house on the
lot. The property is located on a busy intersection with the house facing
the side yard. Several properties in the city in a similar situation have
received variances for privacy fences. The hardship was not created by
the owner. The fence would not alter the character of the area, impair
access to daylight or air flow, and does not involve a use which is not
allowed in the zoning district. It would be the minimum action required
to eliminate the hardship.
The Design and Review Committee was supportive of the request but
expressed some concern with visibility on the corner and suggested
moving the fence to the north.
Property owners within 350 feet were notified and staff did not receive
any comments. The petitioner submitted a petition from adjoining
neighbors in favor of the project.
Mr. Jacobsen summarized that the petitioners were requesting a variance
to add a fence along the southern portion of their property to enhance
their privacy while utilizing the yard. The fence would be set back five
feet from the property line and be six feet tall on the west and south sides
and transition to 42 inches along Boone Avenue. Adjacent neighbors
support the project. Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff and the Design and
Review Committee recommend approval subject to the conditions listed
in the planning report.
Commissioner Brinkman questioned whether or not the fence would be
set back along Boone Avenue. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the fence could be
placed on the property and the height of the fence would be tapered
down from the corner to 42 inches along Boone, which would comply
with city code.
Mr. Robert Zeglin, 5801 Boone Avenue, came forward. He stated he was
2
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2010
not opposed to placing the fence inside the property line by four to five
feet to allow for snow storage along the sidewalk, which would allow for
some landscaping along the property line. Mr. Zeglin stated that he had
found the corner stakes and knew the exact location of the property lines.
Commissioner Svendsen reminded the applicant about the five percent
open requirement for fences or about a 1/2 inch gap between boards.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
to close the public hearing on Planning Case 10-02. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
Item 5.1 to approve Planning Case 10-02, Request for variance to the setback
requirement to allow a six-foot privacy fence in the front yard, 5801
Boone Avenue North, Robert Zeglin and Amy Obraske, petitioners,
subject to the following conditions:
1.The fence must be set back five feet from the south lot line.
2.The fence shall maintain traffic visibility setbacks at both Bass
Lake Road/Boone Avenue intersection and along the west lot line,
protecting the driveway on the lot abutting said lot on the west.
3.The fence shall be tapered down from six feet to 42 inches
beginning at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Boone
Avenue. The fence along Boone Avenue shall not exceed 42 inches.
4.All posts or similar supporting instruments used in the
construction of fences shall be faced inward toward the property
being fenced, unless symmetrical.
5.The fence shall be at least five percent open for passage of air and
light.
The Commission also recommended that the fence be set back from the
east property line to allow for snow storage along the sidewalk.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Houle, Hunten, Johnson,
Landy, Nirgudé, Onadipe, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion approved.
Chair Houle stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council at its meeting on May 24 and encouraged the petitioner to be
in attendance.
PC10-01 Chair Houle introduced Item 5.2, Request for conditional use permit
amendment and site plan review to allow construction of a third parking
Item 5.2
lot, 8525 62nd Avenue North, Inspec, Inc./School District No.
281/Meadow Lake Elementary School, petitioners.
3
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2010
Mr. Jacobsen stated that the petitioner was requesting an amendment to
the existing conditional use permit and a site plan review to allow for the
construction of a new parking lot. Other minor changes would also be
made to the site. Schools are allowed in the R-1 residential zoning district
by conditional use, therefore, any changes to the site would require an
amendment to the original CUP. City code requires a site plan review for
large projects.
The site is located in an R-1 single family residential zoning district at the
southeast quadrant of 62nd and Boone avenues. The site is surrounded by
single family homes, including the city of Brooklyn Park to the north
across 62nd Avenue. The site contains approximately 11.69 acres and the
school is 80,433 square feet in size. Lot area ratios include: building 15.8%,
paved area 21.4%, and green area 62.8%. The site complies with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The school is proposing to reconstruct its two existing parking lots within
the same footprint. A new 27-stall parking lot would be constructed to the
south of the building. The new lot would accommodate staff who have
been parking on nearby residential streets. The project would also include
new lighting, landscaping, and a storm water biorentention pond to
handle runoff created by the additional impervious area. The city
proposed a larger pond to accommodate additional storm water.
Mr. Jacobsen explained that parking lots in the R-1 zoning district must
be placed five feet behind the property line. The existing north lot meets
this requirement. The existing west lot abuts the property line and the lot
would be reconstructed as a nonconforming use. The south lot complies
with all setback requirements. All lots are sized appropriately for buses or
automobiles. The north lot would be utilized for deliveries and parking of
automobiles. The west lot would accommodate buses and automobiles.
The south lot would be used for parking personal vehicles only. The curb
cut for the south lot should be reduced from the proposed 28 feet to 26
feet per city code. All lots would be paved and have continuous perimeter
concrete curbing per code. Existing pedestrian access is adequate. The
new south lot includes a cement pedestrian sidewalk to the back of the
school building and from the parking lot to Boone Avenue.
City code requires one parking stall for every seven students and one
parking stall for every three classrooms. There are currently 631 students
at Meadow Lake and 27 of the 37 classrooms are currently being utilized,
which would require 102 parking stalls. A total of 106 spaces would be
provided.
New landscaping would be planted on the west side of the new parking
lot, including techny arborvitae and Black Hills spruce. Both would
provide year-round screening. Staff suggested some of the plantings be
moved further west to avoid being planted on top of the existing storm
water sewer. A suggestion was made for plantings along the north lot.
4
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2010
New LED lights would be installed in all three lots, which would decrease
the amount of energy used to light the site. Existing perimeter poles
would be removed and replaced with poles located toward the interior of
the property thereby reducing glare to adjacent properties. The zoning
code allows pole height to be 25 feet.
Mr. Jacobsen explained that the applicant proposed constructing a
bioretention pond immediately east of the south lot to collect and treat
storm water from the new parking lot. The pond would be a dry pond
capable of handling large storm events. The city engineer indicated the
pond was adequately sized. Storm water calculations support the design
of the pond. The applicant should submit design volumes before final
approval. To reduce nutrient runoff to Meadow Lake, the city would like
to explore the option of partnering with the school district to expand the
proposed pond for the treatment of additional impervious areas. The
school and Shingle Creek Watershed District are supportive of this
concept. The city engineer suggested the pond could be doubled in size
without affecting the ballfields to the east.
Mr. Jacobsen stated the project would not negatively affect the character
of the neighborhood. The LED lights would decrease the amount of
energy used to light the site, and the bioretention pond would help to
alleviate storm water quantity and quality issues.
Jacobsen stated that staff believes the applicant met the requirements of
the CUP for the R-1 zoning district and followed the conditions of the
original CUP. The expansion of the parking areas would benefit this
property and adjacent properties. The Design and Review Committee was
generally supportive of the project.
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified of the
proposal. Two residents visited city hall to review the plans and may be
in the audience.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff and the Design and Review Committee
recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the planning
report.
Chair Houle questioned if the whole site was owned by the school district
and this was confirmed. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the city had many joint
partnerships with the school district for use of ballfields, tennis courts,
playgrounds, and the Cooper gyms.
Commissioner Crough questioned if there was any consideration of a
retaining wall by the basketball courts, would there be a sidewalk from
the south parking lot to Boone Avenue, and the next steps for enlarging
the pond.
Mr. Jim Gerber, facilities engineer for Independent School District 281,
came forward to address the Commission. He stated that Mr. Brent
5
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2010
Boelter with Inspec Inc. was also in the audience.
Mr. Gerber addressed a question from Chair Houle regarding the number
of students at the school, and how that number related to the number of
parking stalls required. He explained that the district completed a
district-wide facilities demographic study in January 2009. Based on that
study, there was some realignment done. The 631 students at Meadow
Lake School are about the maximum number for that school. At any given
time, there could be a 20 to 30 student variable at any school. A question
was raised about the number of classrooms utilized and the fact that 10
are not used. Mr. Gerber replied that 27 are dedicated classrooms. Based
on today’s demographics and need for special instruction, such as
English as a second language, smaller spaces are needed. Small groups of
children come out of the regular classroom for a shorter period of time
each day for this special instruction.
Commissioner Nirgudé questioned whether 106 parking spaces would be
adequate for the winter months when snow may be stored in designated
parking spaces in the parking lots. Mr. Gerber responded that the
district’s plowing policy was to remove snow as soon as possible to retain
all of the parking stalls. This past winter, during November to February,
Mr. Gerber stated he monitored the off-street parking and there were 12
to 16 vehicles parked on the street daily.
Commissioner Nirgudé suggested that the city engineer work with the
school district with regard to increasing the size of the pond and for the
two entities to work together on the project. Mr. Jacobsen interjected that
the pond was sized adequately for the district’s needs, but the city would
like to see the pond size increased for the city’s needs and to provide an
environmental benefit to Meadow Lake by picking up some of the storm
water runoff from the west parking lot. The runoff from this lot currently
runs from the surface out to Boone Avenue and then south along the
curb. With the addition of a slotted manhole cover, runoff from the
parking lot could be directed into the bioretention pond. This is a
suggestion from the city, not a requirement of the watershed district.
In answer to a question, Mr. Jason Quisberg, city engineer, explained that
the bioretention pond would be dry all the time except for a large rain
event. The maximum depth would be nine inches with an overflow at
that point. Minimal rain storage may last for up to 24 hours. Mr. Gerber
indicated the school district would be willing to partner with the city to
better address storm water treatment in this area. Mr. Quisberg added
that the city had a preliminary meeting with Inspec to see if additional
treatment may be feasible. At this time, the district wanted to gain
planning and council approval and recommendations before developing
any further plans for an enlarged pond.
Commissioner Hunten inquired how much water would be created with
the new impervious surface and how that would affect drainage. Mr.
Quisberg stated that the infiltration rate in this area of New Hope was low
6
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2010
as the soil is, for the most part, heavy clay. The parking lot and larger
pond should not affect the ballfields. The amount of runoff flowing to the
pond could be controlled. Water could flow from the south parking lot
through a curb cut on the east side over land toward the pond. A
question was raised if the pond was made larger would it also be deeper
and the answer was that the intent was to have no open water.
Commissioner Nirgudé indicated concern with safety due to the age of
the children at this school – kindergarten through 5th grade. Mr. Jacobsen
interjected that the area being referred to would more accurately be
described as a biorentention basin and no water would be stored there.
Ninety-nine percent of the time the area would be dry. Water may be
there only during a large rain event and then never over nine inches deep.
Chair Houle inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the
Commission.
Mr. Richard Buller, 5837 West Meadow Lake Road, co-president of the
Meadow Lake Watershed Association, stated he was concerned that the
Shingle Creek Watershed Commission had not been consulted. He stated
that the Meadow Lake Watershed also had valuable resources available.
He questioned whether or not the new parking lot could be located on the
north side of the school in front of the pods. Mr. Gerber stated that the
school district proposed the new lot along Boone Avenue and not along
62nd Avenue as it was concerned with separation of traffic and exhaust
from the air intake system located between the two classroom pods. There
would not be enough space to place the proposed parking on the north
side of the school and allow for safe traffic flow. Commissioner Onadipe
added that he felt the green space on the north side of the school was
more aesthetically pleasing than a parking lot. Mr. Buller strongly
encouraged the city and school district to work together to implement a
larger pond. He added that there was a very large area of dandelions on
the south side of the tennis courts that need attention.
Mr. Shawn Hamilton, 8525 60 1/2 Avenue North, stated he would like to
see trees planted on the east side of the proposed parking lot to provide a
buffer to the play area. He added that years ago there was a drain in that
area associated with the hockey rink. Mr. Quisberg responded that the
north lot drains to Brooklyn Park. The balance of the parcel drains to a
line in Boone Avenue and then to Meadow Lake. The drain from the
hockey rink was still there but would be removed during this project.
Mr. Wayne Strang, 6072 Yukon Avenue North, wondered why the
additional parking lot was needed now as cars have been parking on the
street for years. The money spent on the parking lot and pond should be
used for educating the students. Chair Houle questioned staff if there had
been any complaints regarding the street parking and Mr. Jacobsen
indicated occasionally there are complaints. City code requires all
properties to provide on-site parking. Zealand Avenue has been utilized
for off-street parking. Commissioner Schmidt wondered if the city was
7
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2010
requiring the change now or whether the school district had proposed the
idea. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the school district brought the plan forward
when inquiring about resurfacing the existing lots.
Commissioner Nirgudé stated he was concerned with the lighting
proposed for the parking lots. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the current high
pressure sodium lights on 25-foot poles would be replaced with full cut-
off design LED light fixtures and the poles would be moved to the interior
of the lots rather than at the perimeter. The new plan would provide .2
foot candles at the property line and meet city code requirements.
Ms. Kari Heimer, 6040 Boone Avenue North, was concerned with the
lighting in the south lot as she lives directly south of the tennis courts.
These would be new lights in an area where there were no lights
previously. She wondered whether or not the lights could be turned off at
night. She agreed with Mr. Hamilton that screening should be provided
on the east side of the parking lot as that was green space when the
residents on 60 1/2 Avenue purchased their homes. Mr. Gerber indicated
that the new lights would be tied to the building’s energy management
system and the lots would be dark when the building was not in use. The
goal was to save energy.
Mr. Gerber spoke to an earlier question on the need for the parking lot.
He stated that today the percentage of people driving children to school
was much higher than years ago. One of the driving points was to
address sight lines. Staff will be utilizing the south parking lot to
eliminate the need for double parking when children are being brought to
or picked up from school. Many time staff that parks on the street has to
carry a lot of supplies into the building, which can be difficult, especially
in winter. The proposed project has been discussed by the district since
2000 and funds have been budgeted for the project.
Ms. Diane Stauner, 8424 East Meadow Lake Road, spoke regarding snow
storage, in particular, near the front entrance in the west lot and offered
suggestions for using another location for the snow storage. She
questioned whether the snow for the new parking lot could be placed so
it would melt toward the pond. Ms. Stauner suggested that techny
arborvitae be planted to the south of the lot as they are faster growing
than the Black Hills spruce. She agreed that the bioretention pond should
be made as large as possible. Currently, during a large rain event, water
pours off the ballfields toward 60 1/2 Avenue. She wondered whether the
light poles could be reduced in size to 15 feet rather than 25 feet high. She
suggested tree swales to further bioretention efforts. She mentioned that
there are schools that utilize rain gardens for snow melt.
Mr. Larry Green, 5936 West Meadow Lake Road, suggested a rain garden
with plantings for the site and incorporating that into the learning
process for the students. He added he did not think standing water would
be a safety issue as other schools are constructed near lakes and rivers.
8
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2010
Mr. Bryan Tyson, 8811 61st Avenue North, stated that with the closing of
schools and the economy he wondered how long this school would be
open.
Mr. Gerber stated that based on the demographic study and the long
range future projections, elementary school enrollment in the next couple
years is approaching a static level, but should not reach the level it did 25
years ago. Based on current information, Meadow Lake is a long term
commitment by the district.
Mr. Gerber explained that the district plans to begin construction as soon
as school is out in June and have the project completed by mid-August.
Depending on weather conditions, turf restoration may take a little
longer. The district would go out for bids right after Council approval at
the end of May. They will take into consideration comments from
residents regarding vegetation on the south side of the parking lot.
Initially, the district felt the spruce trees would provide some variety.
Plantings on the east side would depend on the footprint of the
bioretention pond. Landscaping should not encroach on the ballfield, but
may be able to provide some separation between the pond and ballfield.
The district may be open to over-story trees between the bioretention
pond but before the foul line of the southwest field.
Commissioner Hunten inquired why the parking lot was oriented north/
south along Boone Avenue rather than east/west and the pond could be
placed between the parking lot and the tennis courts to keep lights
further away from residential properties.
Commissioner Brinkman mentioned that there was a lot of student traffic
that exited the building on the south. He requested an explanation of the
current lighting versus the proposed LED lighting.
Mr. Gerber stated that the current lighting plan did not address the light
pollution at the property line. The district’s electrical consulting engineer
recommended moving the poles to the interior of the lots. If the poles
would be reduced in height, lights similar to the existing lights would
need to be utilized which would not help the light pollution at the
property line. The newer lights placed in the interior would bring the
property into compliance with the city code. The uniform light level for
the area has to be accomplished through the pole height and spacing.
Mr. Larry Green inquired whether the mature spruce trees at the
Cavanaugh School site could be moved to the Meadow Lake site. Mr.
Gerber responded that the settlement with the Hennepin County
included the trees. Prior to the sale of the school building, school staff
investigated whether or not it would be feasible to move the trees to
another site and determined that due to the size of the trees and root
structure it would not be cost effective.
Mr. Strang asked for the estimated cost of the project and the answer was
that the cost for the reconstruction of the two existing lots, the new lot
9
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2010
and bioretention would be $330,000, including filing fees, plus another 15
percent for additional costs.
There was no one else in the audience to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
to close the public hearing on Planning Case 10-01. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Svendsen commented that the location of the south
parking lot would be beneficial to people utilizing the tennis courts. He
added that changing the lighting system would be an excellent proponent
to the energy management plan. He noted that Sonnesyn Elementary
School is a “dark” school at night and he was not aware of any problems.
Chair Houle commented that the Planning Commission has no say in
how the school district spends its money and suggested residents contact
the school board members with their concerns.
Chair Houle explained that discussion at the Design and Review
Committee meeting with representatives of the school included
expanding the bioretention pond and the district representatives
indicated it would be willing to consider a larger area and staff was
encouraged to work with the district. He stated he understood the district
was under time constraints and hoped the two entities could work
together within the allotted timeframe. He pointed out that the Meadow
Lake Watershed District may be available to assist or offer advice for the
project.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy,
Item 5.2 to approve Planning Case 10-01, Request for conditional use permit
amendment and site plan review to allow construction of a third
parking lot (plans dated March 25, 2010), 8525 62nd Avenue North,
Inspec, Inc./School District No. 281/Meadow Lake Elementary School,
petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1.Applicant to enter into a CUP/site improvement agreement with the
city (to be prepared by the city attorney).
2.Applicant to provide financial guarantee/performance bond for site
improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and
building official).
3.Reduce the south parking lot curb cut to 26-foot width.
4.Shift landscaping along the west side of the south parking lot to
avoid placement over the storm water pipes and add appropriate
landscaping on the east side between foul line and upgraded
bioretention area.
5.Provide additional landscaping along 62nd Avenue North, north of
the north parking lot.
6.Provide storm water calculations for the impervious areas.
10
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2010
Staff also highly recommended the school district explore the options to
direct drainage from a larger portion of the site’s impervious area to a
larger bioretention facility to improve water quality.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Houle, Hunten, Johnson,
Landy, Nirgudé, Onadipe, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion approved.
Chair Houle stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council at its meeting on May 24 and encouraged the petitioner to be
in attendance.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen stated that the Design and Review Committee
met in April with the petitioners for the fence variance and school
Committee
district. Mr. Jacobsen added no new planning applications were
Item 6.1
anticipated. Clearwire did submit revised plans for a tower on Winpark
Drive, which will be reviewed by the Commission on June 1.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Schmidt reported that the Codes and Standards
Committee did not meet in March or April.
Committee
Item 6.2
Chair Houle explained the two subcommittees for Commissioner
Onadipe and assigned him to the Design and Review Committee. To
comply with the open meeting law requirements, Houle stated that he
and Commissioner Landy could be alternates.
Project Advisory Chair Houle explained that in late 2009 Hennepin County gave the city
$50,000 to study development patterns, pedestrian connections and
Committee (TOD
transportation options in the City Center area. A Project Advisory
Study)
Committee was formed and Commissioner Landy volunteered to serve
Item 6.3
on this committee. He added if anyone else was interested in serving on
this committee to contact Mr. Jacobsen.
Chair Houle initiated discussion on the block exercise to be conducted on
May 20 and encouraged all commissioners to attend. The process should
be very educational and beneficial for all participants. Invitees included
the City Council, Planning Commission, school board, and local business
owners. Mr. Jacobsen gave a brief explanation of the purpose of the block
exercise saying that everyone in attendance would learn of the
components involved in redeveloping property, including purchasing,
demolition, construction, valuations, taxes, and financing. Two
hypothetical locations will be studied.
Commissioner Brinkman stated he was disappointed the dialogue
between the Council and Planning Commission had been postponed as
11
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2010
he felt it would have been beneficial prior to the block exercise. He added
he felt New Hope should be more aggressive regarding redevelopment.
Chair Houle agreed that a dialogue with the Council and Commission
prior to May 20 would have been very beneficial.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
Item 7.1
NEW BUSINESS
Motion to Approve Motion by Commissioner Brinkman, seconded by Commissioner
Minutes Schmidt, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 3,
Item 8.1 2010. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Chair Houle mentioned the Ice Arena Engineering Study and added a
committee was reviewing existing conditions and would make
recommendations for the future.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Houle reminded commissioners of the training opportunities available
and to contact staff if anyone was interested.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:18
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
12
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2010