Loading...
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