020514 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 5, 2014
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chair Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Jim Brinkman, Mikel Dumonceaux, Greg Gehring, Roger Landy,
Christopher McKenzie, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen
Absent: Wade English, Jeff Houle, Ranjan Nirgudé
Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Jeff
Sargent, Community Development Specialist, Stacy Woods,
Assistant City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Mike
Waldo, Ron Clark Construction and Design, Link Wilson, Kaas-
Wilson Architects, Debra Somers, Recording Secretary
ELECTION OF Chair Svendsen opened the floor for nominations for 2014 officers.
OFFICERS
Commissioner Landy nominated Chair Svendsen for chair, Commissioner
Schmidt for second officer, and Commissioner McKenzie for third officer.
Seconded by Commissioner Brinkman. All present voted in favor. Motion
carried.
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.1, Planning Case 14-03, request for a
Planning Case 14-03
preliminary and final plat approval, as well as a Final Development Stage
Item 4.1
Planned Unit Development (Site Plan Review) for the construction of a 68-unit
apartment building known as Compass Pointe, 6113 West Broadway, Ron Clark
Construction and Design, petitioner.
Mr. Jeff Sargent, community development specialist, explained that the
petitioner was requesting preliminary and final plat approval to combine the
properties at 6113 West Broadway and 7601-7661 62 Avenue. He stated that a
nd
site plan review was required when modifications of or additions or
enlargements to a building occur, and reviewed the zoning code references for
the site plan review.
Mr. Sargent informed the commissioners and audience that the property was
currently zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), and was located in the
southeast corner of 62 Avenue and West Broadway. He reported that adjacent
nd
land uses included Commercial to the east and Residential to the south and
west. He added that the residential property to the north was located within the
city of Brooklyn Park. He stated that Planning District 16 of the Comprehensive
Plan guided this site for high density residential housing, and identified its
location on a map.
Mr. Sargent briefly reviewed that in May, 2012 the City Council approved the
rezoning of the property from Medium Density Residential to High Density
Residential. He explained that the PUD zoning allowed for flexibility in the
Zoning Code pertaining to setbacks, density, height and lot area to ensure good
overall site design. He added that in May, 2012 the City Council had also
approved the demolition of the former Swift Service Station located at 6113 West
Broadway.
Mr. Sargent reported that Ron Clark Construction and Design had requested a
Site Plan Review, which was required to approve a proposed 68-unit apartment
building at 6113 West Broadway. He explained that amenities to the Compass
Pointe project included a four-story development, heated underground parking,
workout facility, community room, outdoor grilling area, basketball court and
tot lot. He displayed an artistic rendering of the building and grounds, along
with a detailed overhead site plan. He also displayed interior and exterior
pictures of a recently completed Ron Clark Construction project located in
Savage, Minnesota.
Mr. Sargent reported that Compass Pointe was workforce housing that would
utilize tax credits to help finance the construction and operations of the building.
He explained that residents must have a verified income to meet Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) requirements, and must pay their own rent.
He noted that this development would rely solely on the tax credits for its
financing. He informed the commissioners and audience that the MHFA
compliance period would last 30 years, and would include substantial operating
and replacement reserves to ensure the project is maintained at a high standard.
He stated that the complex would include full-time management on site, and
noted that potential residents would need to pass a credit, criminal and housing
history background check.
Mr. Sargent informed the commissioners that the City had held informational
neighborhood meetings in late 2012 and early 2014. He noted that neighboring
property owners had shared their concerns, which included:
The size of the building in relation to lot size.
The lack of proposed green space.
The height of the building.
Too much traffic would be generated by the development.
Single-family homes would be a better fit.
Mr. Sargent stated that Ron Clark Construction used the feedback from those
meetings to make revisions to their plan. He explained that they redesigned the
south elevation of the building to eliminate eight of the fourth floor units and
give the appearance of a three-story building.
Mr. Sargent displayed a site plan of the property and pointed out the two
entrances to the building, one off of 62 Avenue and the other off of West
nd
Broadway. He added that a two-way driveway was proposed throughout the
development, and noted that the site would also include adequate parking space
size and drive aisle widths. He mentioned that there were traffic concerns from
Planning Commission Meeting 2 February 5, 2014
the neighborhood, and reported that a traffic study had been conducted by
Wenck Associates, Inc. Conclusions to the study consisted of:
1.Development would add 33 net trips per day during the weekday a.m.
peak hour, 39 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour, and 425 daily
trips.
2.Development would generate less than half the number of trips than
were generated by the previous users.
3.All study intersections would have adequate capacity with existing
geometrics and control to accommodate the proposed development.
Mr. Sargent reported that pedestrian access would include a sidewalk connected
to the entrances along the south side of the building with the sidewalk along
West Broadway.
On-site parking was then briefly reviewed. Mr. Sargent stated that the Zoning
Code required 2.25 parking stalls per unit, one enclosed and 1 ¼ open stalls. He
informed the commissioners that the developer had negotiated with the City for
2.05 parking stalls, and noted that this figure was based on similar buildings
with a similar number of units and land size. He added that the PUD zoning
would allow for this reduced number of stalls. Mr. Sargent also noted that this
development was located on a bus line, which could help alleviate the need for
parking.
Mr. Sargent reported that the developer was proposing 68 underground stalls
and 50 open parking stalls. He stated that the developer would initially utilize
22 proof-of-parking stalls, which would remain green space, until a need was
determined for the additional parking. It was also noted that bicycle parking
would be available near an entrance along the south side of the building.
Mr. Sargent reported that landscaping and screening for the site would include
58 trees of varying species, 48 shrubs, and an 8-foot privacy fence along the west
and south property lines. He added that a landscape maintenance plan would
also be required.
Mr. Sargent discussed the lighting plan. He explained that the Zoning Code
allowed for a light intensity of no more than 0.4 foot candles along shared
property lines, and noted that the applicant’s photometric plan was in
compliance. He then explained that the Zoning Code allowed for a light
intensity of no more than 1.0 foot candles at the right-of-way line, and noted that
the applicant’s photometric plan exceeded those limits. He stated that options
for the Planning Commission and City Council regarding this matter included
requiring the applicant to resubmit a lighting plan that meets code
requirements, or consider the location and need for lighting along those streets
and allow an exception to the 1.0 foot candle requirement as a PUD flexibility.
He mentioned that the Police Chief was supportive of extra lighting for safety
reasons.
Regarding signage, Mr. Sargent reported that the applicant would incorporate
Planning Commission Meeting 3 February 5, 2014
one monument sign near the 62 Avenue entrance, which would meet City
nd
standards for height and size. He also stated that the applicant had proposed
two projecting wall signs on the northeast and southeast corners of the building.
He noted that the PUD exception would allow for these signs for both type and
size.
Mr. Sargent next discussed grading and drainage, and noted that drainage
would flow toward the southeast portion of the lot and would be collected into
an underground storage facility. He added that a maintenance agreement for the
upkeep of the storage facility would be required.
Regarding design guidelines, Mr. Sargent reported that building materials met
the intention of the design guidelines, with use of brick, stone, glass, vinyl
siding, lap siding, and CMU panels. He stated that the overall design of the
building would utilize residential architecture to help blend into the
neighborhood. He displayed artist drawings, which identified building color
and materials.
Mr. Sargent reviewed that the applicant was seeking approval of a preliminary
and final plat for the property. He stated that the applicant had submitted all
necessary paperwork to the City, and had also submitted plans to Hennepin
County.
Mr. Sargent stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the proposed Preliminary and Final Plat with the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the final
plat outlining all public site improvements and developer
responsibilities. Public improvements would include, but not be limited
to:
a.Burial of overhead utilities
b.Curb cut installation and removal of unused curb cuts
c.Installation of sidewalks along West Broadway
d.Replacement of sidewalk along 62 Avenue
nd
e.Utility connections
2.Payment of park dedication fee in the amount of $8,400.00
Mr. Sargent reported that staff also recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the site plan review with the following
conditions:
1.The City Council would need to approve the adjusted building
setbacks.
2.The terms for installation of the proof-of-parking must be outlined in
the PUD agreement.
3.Applicant shall provide a snow removal plan to be included in the PUD
agreement.
4.Bicycle parking shall meet the following conditions:
a.Provide a detail of bike racks for an evaluation of capacity.
b.Remove bike rack from green space/snow storage area and
Planning Commission Meeting 4 February 5, 2014
provide hard surface for bike parking.
c.Provide additional bike parking on west end of building.
5.The applicant shall provide a pedestrian sidewalk through the activity
area to the western fence opening.
6.The applicant shall provide a management/maintenance plan for an
underground storm water storage system to be incorporated into the
PUD agreement.
7.Drainage and utility plans will be subject to City Engineer comments.
8.Landscape components shall include:
a.Any landscaping that dies or shows stress shall be replaced by
the property owner in accordance with the approved landscape
plan.
b.Any planting or site improvements located in public easements
may be removed by the City in conjunction with City projects.
Replacement of the improvement and/or landscaping shall be
the property owner’s responsibility.
9.The applicant must provide a detail of the eight-foot boundary line
fence for City approval.
10.The City Council needs to approve the building signs as part of the
PUD flexibility.
11.The City Council needs to address the light intensity at right-of-way
lines by:
a.Reduce light intensity to City standards; or
b.Approve the light intensity as part of the PUD.
12.In conjunction with the final plat and final PUD stage, the applicant
shall enter into a development agreement and PUD agreement that
outlines the conditions of approval, improvement responsibilities, and
provides security for all improvements. The PUD agreement shall be
recorded with the property title and be assigned to all future owners.
Mike Waldo, Ron Clark Construction and Design, took questions from the
commissioners.
Chair Svendsen noted that there appeared to be one tree in a parking space in
the northwest corner of the proof-of-parking area.
Mr. Waldo replied that he would look into it.
Commissioner Brinkman wondered how far apart the proposed lighting would
be on the north side of the building along 62 Avenue.
nd
Mr. Waldo consulted briefly with Link Wilson, Kaas-Wilson Architects, before
responding that that the bulk of them would be 85 feet apart, and one would be
at 100 feet.
Commissioner Brinkman wondered what the total length of the building would
be.
Planning Commission Meeting 5 February 5, 2014
Mr. Waldo replied that it would be 338 feet.
Commissioner Brinkman referred to the side of the building facing 62 Avenue,
nd
and wondered how far from the ground the balconies would be located. He
expressed concern over security.
Mr. Waldo stated that the lowest balconies would be five feet from the ground
and the highest ones would be seven feet from the ground. He stated that he
had discussed security with Steven Scott Management, who felt the balconies
would be secure.
Commissioner Brinkman wondered whether there would be cameras along that
side of the building.
Mr. Waldo replied yes, and noted that cameras would be located both inside
and outside the building.
Commissioner McKenzie inquired about snow storage and snow removal in
scenarios that included green space in the proof-of-parking and parking in the
proof-of-parking area.
Mr. Waldo stated that an average seasonal snowfall of 20-30 inches would be
stored on site with the proof-of-parking area. He added that once that level is
reached, the additional snow would need to be removed from the site.
Commissioner McKenzie referred to the proof-of-parking, and wondered what
would happen to the sidewalk if the space were converted to parking stalls.
Mr. Waldo replied that the sidewalk could be removed and re-routed as
necessary.
Commissioner McKenzie expressed concern that the west parking stall in proof-
of-parking area two appeared to encroach into the sidewalk.
Link Wilson, Kaas-Wilson Architects, responded that there was adequate space
according to his measurements. He added that another option would be to
move one stall from area three to area two to allow for more sidewalk space.
Commissioner McKenzie commented that the proof-of-parking in area 17
looked fairly steep.
Mr. Wilson replied that there was a three-foot differential, and there would be a
need for a retaining wall along the western slope.
Chair Svendsen mentioned the proposed fence along the east driveway, and
wondered about the sight line looking south onto West Broadway.
Mr. Wilson stated that the fence would stop 25 feet from the property line, and
Planning Commission Meeting 6 February 5, 2014
should not interfere with sight lines.
Commissioner Gehring mentioned the basketball court’s proximity to the
garage entrance and expressed concern over the height of the ornamental fence
that divided them.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Gehring, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to open
the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Jane Norman, 6041 Sumter Place, expressed concern about children crossing
West Broadway, and also children playing in the street at 62 and Sumter.
nd
Maurice Mickelson, 6072 Rhode Island Avenue, stated that he had collected
comments from his neighbors regarding this project, and asked that copies be
distributed to the City Council and Planning Commission. His comments
included:
The project is too large for this site.
Backyard ambiance and views would be destroyed for those living on
the north side of 61 Avenue.
st
The proposed eight foot privacy fence and landscaping would provide
an unflattering backdrop.
The proposed vehicle entrances and exits seem very marginal,
especially during times of heavy snow cover.
Real estate agents have informed some residents that their home value
might be negatively affected by this project.
Mr. Mickelson also wondered whether any variances had been given for the site.
Mike Bailey, 7660 61 Avenue North, expressed concern over the utility lines
st
along the south border, and wondered who would be paying to have those lines
buried.
Maureen Carlson, 6101 West Broadway Avenue, wondered who would pay for
the sidewalk along West Broadway, and also wondered how large the play area
was.
Motion Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Brinkman, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Mr. Waldo responded to Ms. Norman’s concerns regarding children crossing
West Broadway. He noted the stoplight at 62 Avenue and West Broadway
nd
would continue to provide a safe crossing for children. Regarding children
playing in the street at 62 Avenue and Sumter, Mr. Waldo felt that the tot lot
nd
and basketball court provided play areas for children within the complex. He
added that Steven Scott Management could also address that if needed.
Chair Svendsen noted that Mr. Mickelson had given several comments and had
Planning Commission Meeting 7 February 5, 2014
also inquired about variances.
Mr. Sargent explained that a variance was a specific process which allowed for a
petitioner to deviate from strict adherence to the code. He stated that because
the site had been zoned for a Planned Unit Development, the nature of that
zoning district allowed for flexibility through site plan approval, and no
variances would be required for this property.
Mr. Sargent also noted that he would forward Mr. Mickelson’s comments to the
City Council and Planning Commission.
Chair Svendsen then noted that Mr. Bailey had asked for clarification on the
costs associated with burying the utilities along the south border of the
property.
Mr. Waldo stated that Ron Clark Construction would be responsible for burying
all overhead utility lines along 62 Avenue. He added that it was also their goal
nd
to bury all utility lines along the south property line at their expense. He related
that they would need to meet with the property owners along the south line to
discuss potentially burying the lines from each residential property, and
determine what cost, if any, those property owners might face.
Chair Svendsen reviewed that Maureen Carlson had wondered who would be
paying for the sidewalk along West Broadway, as well as the size of the tot lot.
Mr. Waldo replied that the developer would be replacing any portion of the
sidewalk that might be damaged during construction or would be considered
substandard. Regarding the size of the tot lot, he noted that it was just under
3000 square feet. He added that the developer was considering fencing that area
for additional safety.
Chair Svendsen wondered whether the City would need to enter into a
developmental agreement.
Stacy Woods, assistant city attorney, replied that a developmental agreement
would be required.
Alan Brixius, planning consultant, noted that it was already listed as a
recommendation, and reviewed that staff was recommending two agreements:
the development contract, which would expire when the project is completed,
and a PUD agreement, which would outline all zoning approvals recorded
against the property.
Ms. Woods also pointed out that the City Attorney would need to review the
final plat prior to approval.
Chair Svendsen suggested that the final plat also be reviewed by the state Fire
Marshal prior to approval.
Planning Commission Meeting 8 February 5, 2014
Commissioner Schmidt referred to the four-foot fence along the back of the
basketball court, and wondered if any thought had been given to installing a net
above it to keep balls from entering the driveway.
Mr. Waldo did not feel a net was necessary, but noted that the height of the
fence could easily be changed to five or six feet.
Mr. Brixius referred to Commissioner McKenzie’s comments regarding the
proof-of-parking along the west property line, and suggested that a condition be
included that code requirements regarding slope and design must be met if
installing parking.
Condition 11b, light intensity, was briefly discussed. Most commissioners
favored increasing the light intensity for that area.
Mr. Sargent stated that the Planning Commission could include that as part of
its recommendation, if desired.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to
approve Planning Case 14-03, request for preliminary and final plat approval,
as well as a Final Development Stage Planned Unit Development (site plan
review) for the construction of a 68-unit apartment building known as
Compass Pointe, 6113 West Broadway, subject to the conditions as listed in
the packet as well as the following conditions:
1.Approve the light intensity as part of the PUD.
2.City Attorney reviews final plat prior to approval.
3.Fire Marshal reviews final plat prior to approval.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Dumonceaux, Landy, McKenzie, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: Gehring
Absent: English, Houle, Nirgudé
Motion approved.
Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning case
at its meeting on February 24.
Planning Case 14-01 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.2, Planning Case 14-01, request for a text
Item 4.2
amendment for density increases in the R-O, Residential Office and R-B,
Residential Business zoning districts, City of New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Jeff Sargent, community development specialist, stated that the City of New
Hope was proposing an ordinance amendment to the Zoning Code in relation to
increasing density allowances in the R-O, Residential Office and R-B, Residential
Business zoning districts.
Mr. Sargent explained that the City was asked to review the current standards
by an applicant rezoning the property at 9390-9398 27 Avenue. He stated that
th
Planning Commission Meeting 9 February 5, 2014
the zoning code currently allowed for one unit per each 2,200 square feet of land
area in the R-O and R-B zoning districts. He noted that the proposed
amendment would allow for densities to increase to one unit per 2,000 square
feet of land, or approximately 22 units per acre. He added that the amendment
would still allow for density bonuses based on performance standards.
Mr. Sargent explained that the Metropolitan Council had recently released the
2040 projections for New Hope in relation to population, households and
employment. He noted that growth projections in those areas ranged from
approximately 31% to 38%. He informed the commissioners that staff surveyed
surrounding cities to determine their maximum allowances:
Golden Valley: A minimum of 15 units per acre in the Mixed Use
District.
Brooklyn Park: 18 units per acre for one-bedroom units, otherwise the
highest allowed is 13 units per acre.
Plymouth: Regulates density with minimum lot area and building
height requirements.
Crystal: Up to 22 units per acre.
Mr. Sargent reported that the Codes and Standards committee had met on
December 10, 2013 to discuss increasing density in the R-O zoning district, and
noted that the committee was receptive to the idea. He also mentioned that the
R-B zoning district shared the same purpose statement, and lot and setback
requirements as the R-O. He stated that a current outline of the areas zoned R-O
and R-B had been included in the commissioners’ packets.
Mr. Sargent stated that staff recommended approval and asked that the
Planning Commission review and offer comment on the proposed changes to be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
There was no one in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing.
Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Brinkman, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to
approve Planning Case 14-01, request for a text amendment for density
increases in the R-O, Residential Office, and R-B, Residential Business zoning
districts, City of New Hope, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Dumonceaux, Gehring, Landy, McKenzie, Schmidt,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: English, Houle, Nirgudé
Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning case
at its meeting on February 24.
Planning Commission Meeting 10 February 5, 2014
Planning Case 14-02 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.3, Planning Case 14-02, an ordinance
Item 4.3
amending the City Code in relation to the use of mobile food units in the city of
New Hope, City of New Hope, petitioner.
Jeff Sargent, community development specialist, explained that the City did not
currently regulate mobile food units (food trucks) within the city. He added that
regulation of these vehicles would help ensure food safety, and stated that the
proposed ordinance would take food safety, the location of food trucks, and
hour of operation into consideration.
Mr. Sargent explained that the proposed ordinance would require Minnesota
Chapter 157, Food, Beverage and Lodging Establishments.
state licensure under He
stated that the amended ordinance would allow for the location of trucks in
Commercially and Industrially zoned properties only. He noted that exceptions
would include:
Ice Cream trucks would be allowed in residential areas.
Exception for schools and churches for special events.
May locate in Mixed Use Districts (commercial only)
Must be located at least 200 feet from the front door of a “bricks-and-
mortar” restaurant.
Mr. Sargent then briefly reviewed a map identifying the food service buffer
analysis at 100 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet.
Mr. Sargent informed the commissioners that hours of operation would be
between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.
Mr. Sargent reported that the Codes and Standards committee had met on
December 10, 2013 to discuss the amendment and was generally in favor of the
regulations. He added that staff recommends approval, and recommends that
the Planning Commission review and offer comment on the proposed changes
to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
Chair Svendsen noted that the Duk Duk Daze festival was open until midnight.
Alan Brixius, planning consultant, reported that city clerk, Valerie Leone, had
provided additional input on the licensing, and commented that community-
sponsored holidays or festivals could be granted an exemption. He also
mentioned that other communities he works with were not interested in
requiring food truck licensing for short-term fundraising events run by churches
or schools. He suggested an exemption from licensure in those instances,
provided it would be a condensed period of time, 21 days or less.
Mr. Brixius also mentioned that the city clerk had expressed concern over
whether food delivery trucks or catering trucks would need to be included in
the licensure. Mr. Brixius suggested that mobile food units be defined as those
that store, cook and prepare meals for direct sale to customers.
Planning Commission Meeting 11 February 5, 2014
Chair Svendsen mentioned the farmer’s market, and expressed interest in
acquiring an exemption if a restaurant were located nearby.
Mr. Brixius replied that community-sponsored events, such as the farmer’s
market, could be given an exemption. He added that there would be no
minimum distance requirement between food trucks at the farmer’s market,
which would allow for several trucks at the same time.
Commissioner McKenzie wondered if food trucks could be located on
roadways.
Mr. Brixius felt that New Hope’s major roadways could not accommodate food
truck parking due to traffic volumes, but noted that several commercial parking
lots throughout the city could be utilized. He added that this ordinance could be
revised to allow food trucks to operate in public right-of-ways with City
approval.
Curtis Jacobsen, director of community development, added that this would be
a trial period, and noted that not many food trucks currently operated in the
city. He reminded the commissioners that the ordinance could always be
amended, and stated that the City originally took interest in this matter because
a food truck had been operating at the Shell Station on 49 Avenue.
th
The commissioners discussed the proximity of food trucks to “brick-and-
mortar” restaurants. Following a show of hands, four commissioners favored a
distance of 100 feet and two commissioners favored a distance of 200 feet.
Motion Motion by Commissioner McKenzie, seconded by Commissioner Gehring, to
Item 4.3 table Planning Case 14-02, an ordinance amending text regarding mobile food
units, citing the need for potential revisions. All present voted in favor. Motion
approved.
Following a brief discussion, it was suggested that the planning consultant make
the suggested revisions to the ordinance amendment and include this planning
case on the next Planning Commission agenda.
COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Jacobsen reported that there were no new applications at this time.
Design and Review
Item 5.1
NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Brinkman noted that several commissioners had attended the
recent developers’ presentations regarding the city center site, and asked for
their feedback.
Commissioner Landy stated that he was opposed to the idea of relocating city
hall to the corner of 42 and Xylon avenues, and felt that it should be utilized as
nd
a commercial or retail space.
Planning Commission Meeting 12 February 5, 2014
Commissioner Brinkman commented that he supported a partnership between
the City and the school district, but not at that location. He felt that development
should appeal to younger people, and stated that he would be supportive of a
community center and a brewery-type restaurant.
OLD BUSINESS Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie, to
approve the amended Planning Commission minutes of December 3, 2013. All
Approval of Minutes
Item 7.1
present voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS As a common courtesy, Chair Svendsen suggested that the commissioners let
City staff know if they will be able or unable to attend a subcommittee meeting.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Penny Spitzer
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 13 February 5, 2014