030414 Planningwo
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
7:00 p.m.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 PC 14-04, Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 7940 - 55 Avenue
North, Centra Homes Redevelopment, City of New Hope, petitioner
4.2 PC 14 -02, Request for a text amendment to regulate mobile food units (food
trucks) throughout the city, Citv of New Hope, petitioner
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Design and Review Committee - next meeting March 13, 2014, 7:30 a.m. (if
needed)
5.2 Codes and Standards Committee - next meeting ?
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Commissioner Meeting Attendance - Ordinance 14 -04
7. OLD BUSINESS
7.1 Approve February 5, 2014, Pl annin g Commission Minutes
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
Petitioner must be in attendance at the meeting
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: March 4, 2014
Report Date: February 24, 2014
Planning Case: PC 14 -04
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Address: 7940 - 55th Avenue N., 8000 - 55th Avenue N.
Project Name: Centra Homes Redevelopment
Project Description: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Planning Request: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
I. Type of Planning Request
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
II. Zoning Code References
Section(s)
III. Property Specifications
Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Planning District:
IV. Background
4 -32 Administration - Amendments
R -1, Single Family Residential
Northwest corner of Winnetka Avenue and 55th Avenue
High Density Residential to the north, east and west, Single - Family
Residential to the south
16.94 acres
NA
Planning District 4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as one with a
variety of mixed uses, and promotes redevelopment in the area.
The EDA purchased the former Winnetka Learning Center property, located at 7940 - 55 Avenue,
from Independent School District 281 with the intent of redeveloping the property into a single- family
housing project. On November 25, 2013, the City Council selected Centra Homes, Inc. as the preferred
developer for the property, which would construct 34 single - family homes and 27 detached
townhomes as part of the overall project.
The property is currently guided for Public and Semipublic uses and Commercial uses, and needs to be
re- guided to accommodate a housing development on the site. For this reason, staff is proposing an
Planning Case Report 14 -04 Page 1 3/4/14
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to re -guide the property from Public and Semipublic and
Commercial to Low Density/Medium Density Residential. The underlying zoning of the property is R-
1, Single- Family Residential, which is consistent with the type of development that Centra Homes is
proposing. The properties in question are:
Site Address
Property Identification Number
UNASSIGNED
06- 118 -21 -44 -0054
7940 — 55 Avenue
06- 118 -21 -44 -0055
8000 — 55th Avenue
06- 118 -21 -44 -0056
V. Zoning Analysis
A. Zoning Code Criteria
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Staff proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan to re -guide this area from Public and
Semipublic to Low Density/Medium Density Residential. The amendment is needed to
ensure that the proposed rezoning of the properties is consistent with the future
comprehensive plan. Amending the properties to guide the area for Low Density/Medium
Density Residential would be consistent with two of the housing goals as listed in the
Comprehensive Plan:
Goal 1: Provide a variety of housing types, styles and choices to meet the needs of
New Hope's changing demographics.
Analysis: Centra Homes will be building move -up single- fa��t housing to
offer residents a housing option in the $350,000 price range. The
development will also incorporate detached townhomes in the $275,000 price
range, and will be a housing product that has not yet been introduced to the
City of New Hope. Also, the addition of move -up housing is specifically
mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan as something to strive for.
Goal 2: Maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single family
residential neighborhoods.
Analysis: The redevelopment proposal would create a new single - family
neighborhood, building upon the strong character of single family
neighborhoods in the area.
B. Approval
1. Type of Approvals
a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Planning Case Report 14 -04 Page 2 3/4/14
VI. Notification
A legal notice was published in the SunPost newspaper.
VIII. Summary
The City of New Hope is proposing an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would re -guide the
properties in conjunction with the Centra Homes redevelopment project from Public and Semipublic
and Commercial to Low Density/Medium Density Residential in order to ensure that the land use
guidance for the area is consistent with the Single - Family Residential Zoning Classification for the area.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Attachments:
• Location map
• Land Use Change maps
Planning Case Report 14 -04 Page 3 3/4/14
Location Map
Current and Proposed Land Use Designations
7940 -8000 — 55" Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Current:
1
1
& 411,
Proposed:
L
i
i
L l
1
�r r�
[12'
i
E
Wi g
r
Low Density Residential
Low Density 1 Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Commercial Mixed Use
Industrial
Public & Semipublic
Parks & Recreation
Water
Outside City Limits
a
Low Density Residential
Low Density ' Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Commercial Mixed Use
Industrial
Public & Semipublic
Parks & Recreation
Water
Outside City Limits
RAO
�i � 1 nsr1� .� /ULy iR•.; .
�r
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: March 4, 2014
Report Date: February 24, 2014
Planning Case: 14 -02
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Request: Text Amendment for Food Trucks
1. Request
City staff has recently seen some food trucks throughout the city and has looked into how these types
of food vending vehicles are regulated. The city's current ordinance doesn't specifically address food
trucks, and staff feels that it should in order to ensure food safety regulations. The National League of
Cities-has recently published an article titled, Food on Wheels: Mobile Vending Goes Mainstream, which
outlines how larger cities are handling the up -an- coming popularity of food truck operations. Some
key elements of this article suggest areas that each city should focus on when regulating food trucks.
They are:
Food Safety As indicated in the attached memo from the city's planning consultant, food trucks are
regulated by Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 157, Food, Beverage, & Lodging Establishments. This
chapter directly addresses food trucks which the statute refers to as "mobile food units" or MFUs.
Also, all food establishments in the state are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4626,
the Minnesota Food Code. These rules address mechanical systems, water supply and disposal,
washing and sanitation facilities, waste disposal, food preparation and cooking areas, and food
preservation /refrigeration.
The proposed ordinance would require that food trucks obtain proof of licensure that demonstrates
compliance with state rules and regulations. Although the licenses that the food trucks would obtain
would permit operation at any given location for only 21 days per calendar year, New Hope may
permit longer operation times through specific ordinance regulations.
Locations Cities should take into consideration where food trucks are allowed to operate. Limiting
operations to non - residential zoning districts focuses operations to places where vehicle and pedestrian
traffic is expected. Staff recommends allowing food truck operations in all commercially and
industrially -zoned properties. In addition, food trucks should be allowed to operate on commercial
properties within a mixed -use district, but not on residential properties.
Exceptions to these regulations include the allowance of ice cream trucks to operate in residential areas,
as well as allowing schools and churches to utilize food trucks for special events. Staff recommends
allowing food trucks to operate on the public right -of -way in residential districts with administrative
approval for such occasions as neighborhood block parties.
In general, food truck operations should be restricted to private property, with no operation on the
public right -of -way, with written permission of the property owner required as a condition of
licensure. Operation on city park land may be granted at the city's discretion.
Consideration should be made regarding how close the city should allow food trucks to locate from
bricks -and- mortar (permanent) restaurants. The proposed ordinance calls for a 100 -foot separation
between the food vehicle and the front door of a permanent restaurant, but this distance could be
altered after deliberation by the Planning Commission and City Council. Attached is a radii map that
shows 50, 100 and 200 -foot distances from current restaurants in the city.
Hours of Operation It is important to regulate the hours of operation for food trucks as a measure of
public safety. It is recommended to restrict hours of operation between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and
10:00 P.M., unless otherwise approved by the city.
The Planning Commission first heard this ordinance amendment request at the February 5, 2014
Planning Commission meeting. The Commission voted to table the request for the March 4 meeting in
order to address the following items:
1. The ordinance should distinguish between food trucks where products are prepared in the vehicle
and food delivery vehicles such as catering vans and restaurant delivery vehicles.
2. An exemption from transient merchant permitting should be provided for food trucks participating
in city - sponsored events such as Duk Duk Daze as well as non - profit fundraising /community
events such as school celebrations, church fundraisers, and block parties.
3. Reduce the distance between where food trucks may operate in proximity to permanent "bricks
and mortar" restaurants from 200 feet to 100 feet.
4. Allow ice creams trucks to utilize noise amplifiers to identify themselves in residential areas.
The attached ordinance has been revised to address these issues.
II. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance establishing guidelines for food trucks in the City of New
Hope, with consideration made regarding the distance that such food trucks should be located from
permanent restaurants.
III. Attachments
• Alan Brixius memo to Curtis Jacobsen
• Radii map
• Draft ordinance
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curtis Jacobsen
FROM: Emily Shively /Alan Brixius
DATE: February 24, 2014
RE: New Hope — Food Truck Regulations
FILE: 131.00 — 13.08
BACKGROUND
The planning commission reviewed a draft ordinance regulating food trucks at their
meeting on February 5, 2014. This memo addresses the issues that were raised during
the discussion and a revised draft ordinance is attached for review.
ISSUES
The commission tabled the proposed food truck regulations in order for staff to provide
revised language to address the following issues:
The ordinance should distinguish between food trucks where products are
prepared in the vehicle and food delivery vehicles such as catering vans and
restaurant delivery vehicles.
An exemption from transient merchant permitting should be provided for food
trucks participating in city- sponsored events such as Duk Duk Daze as well as
non - profit fundraising /community events such as school celebrations, church
fundraisers, and block parties.
The attached draft ordinance has been revised to more specifically define mobile food
units as vehicles where food is stored, cooked and prepared for sale to the consumer
and an exemption from permitting has been added for food trucks at city or non - profit
sponsored events. Food trucks at such events will still be subject to the standards
outlined in Section 8 -6.
Two issues have yet to be resolved:
Should ice cream trucks receive an exemption from noise standards to announce
their presence in residential districts?
Should food trucks be required to obtain a license to operate in association with
the farmers market?
The current city code contains a provision that prohibits the use of music or
noisemaking devices by anyone obtaining a permit under Section 8 -6. Ice cream trucks
are currently subject to that restriction. The proposed ordinance amendment Section 5
amends Section 8 -6(f) allowing ice cream trucks to have noise making devices to
announce their presence as they travel through residential neighborhoods.
The planning commission discussed giving food trucks an exemption when operating at
the farmers market. The current city code Section 8 -6(e) establishes specific
exemptions from transient merchant licensing. The exemptions currently include; a
general exemption, Non - profit organizations, Farm Produce / Horticultural and
Fireworks Sales. While exempt for the transient merchant license "outdoor sale of
seasonal farm produce at a temporary sales site "; are required to obtain a permit under a
separate section of the ordinance (Section 8 -31). The planning commission wishes to
consider allowing MFUs at the city's Farmers Market and at fund raising events at
schools or churches without requiring MFUs to obtain a city license. The attached
ordinance amends Section 8 -6(e) exemption to add provisions 5 and 6. Provision 5
exempts MFUs from city licensing when attending a short term fund raising events
sponsored by the city or a local non - profit. Provision 6, exempts MFU from city
licensing when they are part of a city sponsored Farmers Market.
CONCLUSION
The planning commission should review the revised draft ordinance amendment and
make a recommendation regarding the outstanding issues.
2
4 � -,.. , -
4
A
Food Truck
Regulations
Food Service
Buffer Analysis
Distance From Entry
100 feet
200 feet
.. 300 feet
- -- City Boundary
y �
.
0 7
.7 �.
ZONING
R -1
R -2
R -3
R-4
R -5
R-B
mod, ♦ , R-0
PUD
CB
1
LB
05P
W
f """3 " `� p 11e�111wn1 •M011111�0 1 11 , 11!4#11461! INC
i' 11
Y} v .
a A 1 q mom.
,1 ! t ,
e 1
_ ��� � � �'"*' ° • Map Date: December 31, 2013
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 14-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 (BUSINESS AND AMUSEMENT
REGULATION; LICENSE PROCEDURE) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATED
TO CHANGES TO SECTION 8 -6, REGISTRATION OF SOLICITORS, PEDDLERS,
HAWKERS, AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS TO REGULATE MOBILE FOOD UNITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 8 -6(c), Definitions, of the New Hope City Code is hereby
amended to add the following definitions:
Mobile Food Unit: A food and beverage service establishment that is a vehicle
mounted unit in which food is stored, cooked and prepared for direct sale to the
consumer, either:
(1) motorized or trailered operating no more than 21 days annually at any
one place or operating more than 21 days annually at any one place with
the approval of the regulatory authority as defined in Minnesota Rules,
part 4626.0020, subpart 70, or
(2) operated in conjunction with a permanent business licensed under
Chapter 157 or Chapter 128A of the Minnesota State Statutes at the site
of the permanent business by the same individual or company, and readily
movable without disassembling for transport to another location.
The following are also considered mobile food units for the purpose of this
Ordinance:
Food Cart: A food and beverage service establishment that is a non -
motorized vehicle self - propelled by the operator.
Ice Cream Truck: A motor vehicle utilized as the point of retail sales of pre
- wrapped or prepackaged ice cream frozen yogurt, frozen custard,
flavored frozen water or similar frozen dessert products.
Transient merchant means a person, whether as owner, agent, consignee, or
employee who engages in a temporary business out of a vehicle, trailer, box car,
tent, other portable shelter, store front, or from a parking lot for the purpose of
displaying for sale, selling or attempting to sell, and delivering goods, wares,
products, merchandise or other personal property and who does not remain or
intend to remain in any one location including mobile food units
Section 2. Section 8 -6(d), Form of Registration, of the New Hope City Code is
hereby amended to add the following underlined text:
Mobile food units are required to meet the following additional
standards:
1. MFUs must be licensed by the Minnesota Health Department and
must adhere to State regulations for food trucks as provided in Food
Code Chapter 4626.1860 Mobile Food Establishments; Seasonal
Temporary Food Stands: Seasonal Permanent Food Stands.
Evidence of the State license must be provided to the City as part of
the local license application.
2. MFU operations are permitted in the CB, LB, and I districts and on
commercial or mixed use sites in R -B and R -0 districts. MFUs may
operate in residential districts, public parks, school sites, church sites
or in conjunction with a block party or special event where a temporary
use permit has been obtained per Section 4 -3(h) and subject to the
conditions of this section. Ice cream truck vendors may operate in all
zoning districts, but must adhere to the described hours of operation.
3. MFUs must be located on private property, and the applicant must
provide written consent from the Property owner. Ice cream trucks are
allowed to operate within the public right -of -way in residential districts.
MFUs may be located in a public park or within the public right -of -wax
in residential districts with approval from the City.
4. MFUs shall not be located within 100 feet for the main entrance of any
other permanent food establishment on a separate lot. The setback
shall be measured from the vehicle to the main entrance of the
buildin .
5. MFU operations are not permitted between the hours of ten o'clock
(10:00) P.M. and eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. except by approval from the
City.
6. MFU sites shall be kept in a neat and orderly manner, and shall adhere
to the following site requirements:
a. Trash and /or recycling collection and cleanup must be provided.
b. MFUs must provide independent power supply which is
screened from view. Generators are permitted.
c. MFUs shall be located on an asphalt or concrete surface.
d. MFUs must close during adverse weather conditions when
shelter is not provided.
e. MFUs may not occupy parking spaces where the remaining
parking will not meet minimum standards required by Section 4-
3(e) of the New Hope City Code.
7. Ice cream truck vendors are required to undergo a criminal background
check prior to operating in the community at the cost of the applicant.
8. If MFU sites are found to be in non - compliance with any conditions as
provided in Section 8 -6 of the Ordinance, the City reserves the right to
revoke the MFU transient merchant license.
Section 3. Section 8 -6(e), Exemptions, is hereby amended to add the
following underlined text:
JQ Mobile food units associated with city sponsored events or non - profit
events not to exceed seven days where a temporary use permit has been
obtained per Section 4 -3(h) are not required to obtain a transient merchant
permit for the duration of the event. MFUs participating in these events
must comply with all other standards in this Section.
Mobile food units associated with city sponsored Farmers Market may be
exempt from transient merchant licensure at the city's discretion. All
MFUs operating at these sites must comply with all other standards in this
Section.
Section 4. Section 8 -6(f), Registration Requirements, is hereby amended to
add the following underlined text:
(1) Duration. Each registration shall be valid only for the period specified
therein, and no registration may extend beyond the 31 st day of December
of the year in which it is granted. Mobile food units may operate for more
than 21 days in one location for a duration approved by the City.
Section 5. Section 8 -6(f), Prohibited Activities, of the New Hope City Code is
hereby amended to add the following underlined text:
(1) Loud noises and speaking devices. A person registered under this section
may not shout, cry out, blow a horn, ring a bell, or use any sound
amplifying device upon any of the streets, alleys, parks, or other public
places of the city or upon private premises where sound of sufficient
volume is emitted or produced there from to be capable of being plainly
heard upon the streets, alleys, parks, or other public places, for the
purpose of attracting attention to any goods, wares, or merchandise which
such person proposes to sell. Ice cream trucks travelling through a
residential district may have outdoor music or noise - making devices to
announce their presence.
(3) Private property. Registration under this section does not permit a person
to conduct the activity on private property without the ongoing permission
of the property owner or the property owner's authorized agent. Mobile
food units shall not be located within 100 feet from the main entrance of
any other permanent food establishment on a separate lot.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and
publication.
APPROVED this day of
2014.
3
Kathi Hemken, Mayor
ATTEST;
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Memorandum
To: New Hope Commissioner and Commission Staff Liaisons
From: Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Date: February 24, 2014
Subject: Commissioner Meeting Attendance
The City Council has requested that the City Code be reviewed in its entirety beginning this year to
update or eliminate outdated language.
One of the first chapters under review is Chapter 2 that deals with city commissions to make the
chapter sections consistent specifically as it relates to meeting attendance criteria. Council is
appreciative of commissioners who are willing to volunteer their time to the betterment of the city.
Council also recognizes the need to have full participation by all commission members on a regular
basis.
At its meeting of February 10, 2014, the New Hope City Council adopted an ordinance amendment
updating chapter 2 of the city code. An absence /failure to serve provision has been added to expressly
indicate three unexcused meeting absences within a calendar year will result in an automatic removal
from office. The rule would not be enforced for extenuating circumstances.
If you cannot attend a commission meeting, please notify the staff liaison or the commission chair of
your intended absence and the reason.
Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks!
City of New Hope
ORDINANCE NO. 14 -04
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE CHAPTER 2
REGULATING COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS, COMMITTEE
VACANCIES, REMOVAL OF MEMBERS AND COMPENSATION
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1 . Section 2 -7 "Committees." of the New Hope City Code is hereby renamed
"Commissions" and amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2 -7. Committees /Commissions
(a) Creation of committees /commissions The council may create such committees/
commissions standing or special, as it deems necessary. Such committees /commissions
shall consist of as many members, and perform such duties, as council may require or as
set forth in Chapter 2 of this code
(b) Committee /Conunission members cnzd chairpersons. The chairman of each
committee commission shall be designated in accordance with the bylaws of each
committee /commission or as set out in Chapter 2 of this cod . Each
oon oc member shall serve as appointed by the anless tuiless excused by a
majority of the members of the council.
(c) Vacancies and removal of member. This section shall be apulicable only to o the
following commissions: section 2 -13 "Planning commission ", section 2 -25 "Human
rights commission ", section 2 -28 "Traffic control and safety commission ", section 2-
35 "New Hope Citizen Advisory Commission" and section 2 -40 "New Hope
Chemical Health Awareness Commission?
(1) Vacancies. Any vacancy on any committee /commission identified in New
Hope Code U-7(c) shall be filled by the city council for the unexpired tern. A
membership on the committee /comunission shall become vacant upon:
a. Death. The death of a member,
b. Disability. Physical or mental disabilily rendering the member
incapable of service:
—1—
C. Appointed, In the case of a commission representative or staff
member the resignation from employment or when no longer a member
of the commnission from which the appointment originated-,
d. Resignation. Resignation. in writing directed to the
committee /commission chairperson;
e. Absence /failure to serve. A member's unexcused absence without
good cause from three meetings, regular ar or special, during any year shall
be deemed a failure to serve and resignation by the member and shall
automatically constitute a vacancy and the member's removal from the
committee /commission without any fm -thee action by the
committee /commission or the city council. An excused absence for good
cause inay be granted by the chairperson of the committee /commission,
mayor or city manager,
(2) Removal from office.
a. By committee /commission. Any committee /commission, by a two -
thirds vote of its members, mgy petition to the council to remove any
member when, in its discretion, the best interests of the city would be
served thereby, after first ig ving the person so named an opporgLmty to
be heard before the /committee /commission and the council. A
member shall be removed by a majority vote of the council,
b. By the Council. The council, by a majority vote of all its members,
shall have the authgik to remove ggy member of a
committee /commission when, in its discretion and on its own initiative
the council concludes the removal of the member shall be in the City's
best interests.
C. Unexcused Absences. Three unexcused meeting absences, as
described in 42- 7(c)(1)e. of this code shall result in the automatic
removal of a member without further action by the members, a hearing
or vote by the council.
(d) Compensation Members shall serve without compensation, but m.ay be
reimbursed for expenses authorized by the council when representin the city, subject
—2—
to the approval of the city manager.
(Ee) Committee /Commission reports. Any matter brought before the council for
consideration may be referred by the presiding officer to any such
committee /commission for a written report and recommendation before it is considered
by the council as a whole. Each eemmi#ee -report shall be signed by a majority of the
members and shall be filed with the clerk prior to the council meeting at which it is to be
submitted. Minority reports may be submitted. Each committee /commission shall act
promptly an d faithfully on any matter referred to it.
Section 2 . The following sub - sections of Chapter 2 "ADMINISTRATION" are hereby
repealed and deleted in their entirety: §2 -13(g) "Compensation" under Planning Commission;
§ §2 -25(g) and (h) "Vacancies and removal from office" and "Compensation" under Human
Rights Commission; § §2 -28(d) and (e) "Vacancies and removal of members" and
"Compensation" under Traffic Control and Safety Commission; § §2 -35(e) "Vacancies and
removal of members" under the New Hope Citizens Advisory Commission; § §2 -40(e) and (t)
"Vacancies and removal from office" and "Compensation" under New Hope Chemical Health
Awareness Commission.
Section 3 . Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the day of , 2014.
Kathi Hemken, Mayor
Attest:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope - Golden Valley Sun -Post the day of
C;WSERSISAMDOCUMENTSICLIENTSWBW HOPE CMLIi4.04 AMEND CHAP 2 DIDOC
2014.)
Dim
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 Nirgud6
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 62nd Avenue. He stated that a
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 62nd Avenue and West Broadway. He reported that adjacent
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 62nd Avenue and the other off of West
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 1 /4 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 62nd Avenue entrance, which would meet City
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 62nd Avenue
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 62nd Avenue.
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 62nd Avenue,
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 62nd and Sumter.
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 61St Avenue.
• 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 61St Avenue North, expressed concern over the utility lines
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 62nd Avenue and West Broadway
would continue to provide a safe crossing for children. Regarding children
playing in the street at 62nd Avenue and Sumter, Mr. Waldo felt that the tot lot
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
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, Nirgude
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 27th Avenue. He stated that
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, Nirgude
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
state licensure under Chapter 157, Food, Beverage and Lodging Establishments. 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 rum 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.
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
Design and Review
Item 5.1
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Jacobsen reported that there were no new applications at this time.
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 comer of 42nd and Xylon avenues, and felt that it should be utilized as
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
Approval of Minutes
Item 7.1
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie, to
approve the amended Planning Commission minutes of December 3, 2013. All
present voted in favor. Motion carried.
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.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
pum
Penny Spitzer
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 13 February 5, 2014