Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 05-25 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION CITY HALL MAY 25, 1989 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ellamae Sander and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Nelson noted that Commissioner Bernards was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MAY 11 , 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the May 11 , 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89012 (Fina Oil and Chemical Company) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gas station/convenience store and car wash at the southeast corner of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89012 attached) . The Secretary also presented to the Commission a letter that he had received that afternoon from Mr. L. T. Merrigan, an attorney representing Howard Atkins, the property owner. He noted that Mr. Merrigan took exception with the letter from the Planning Commission Secretary to Mr. Sam McGee regarding the appropriateness of the site and building plan submittal. He noted that the letter asked for action on the application at this evening's meeting. The Secretary added that he would still recommend tabling of the application to allow the City Council to consider instituting a moratorium on the property in question as well as other land in the same general area, noting that the City Council has established June 12, 1989 as the date for the public hearing on that matter. The Planner then reviewed with the Commission some changes to the plans which had been received after the report was written. He noted that the accent band around the top of the building still was not carried along the south and east sides and, if considered a building treatment, should probably be continued along those sides. He noted that the new drainage plan does propose catch basins in the three driveway entrances, but that the Director of Public Works needs drainage calculations submitted on the adequacy of the existing storm sewer in Willow Lane. He noted that hydrants still had not been shown on the plan and that the addition of coniferous and decorative trees had not been conveyed to Mr. McGee of Fina Oil last week. He pointed out that the plans do not indicate any fencing along the east property line as requested and that no information on the light fixtures had yet been submitted either. 5-25--89 -1- Commissioner Johnson asked regarding access onto West River Road. He asked whether there was not an island between the two accesses at present. The Secretary pointed out that there would be no access onto Highway 252 itself, only onto the frontage road where the current building has its access. Commissioner Sander asked whether it was appropriate to ask for modification of the plans if the Commission is awaiting action on a moratorium which might ultimately prohibit the project. The Secretary stated that he recommended tabling of the application. He pointed out that if the City Council does not impose a moratorium, that the proposed plans could go forward. He recommended changes in those plans if, indeed, they were to go forward to the City Council. He stated that if the Planning Commission approves the plans, it should be subject to certain conditions. He pointed out that the Planning Commission has 60 days to make a recommendation on the plans and that it may well take the full 60 days to make its recomendation. Commissioner Sander stated that 66th Avenue North is a major access to Highway 252 for the neighborhood to the north and east, and that the proposed service station would have a definite impact on the functioning of 66th Avenue North. She stated she would make a motion to table the application. The Secretary raised a point of order, noting that a public hearing has been called on the application and recommended that the Commission hold that public hearing before taking action on the application. Commissioner Sander withdrew her motion for tabling for the time being. Chairman Nelson then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Sam McGee, of Fina Oil and Chemical, stated that he would like to see the case reviewed on its own merits, independent of the action on the moratorium. He stated that he felt Fina could comply with the conditions recommended in the staff report. He stated that he would work with staff on the question of the building exterior; that he would provide drainage calculations for the site for the Director of Public Works; that they could apply for a rezoning of the land to the east from R5 to C1 in order to have a conforming joint access at 66th Avenue North; that he had no problem revising the landscape plan as recommended; that platting of the property would be accomplished; that lighting measurements would also be indicated on a subsequent plan; and finally, that he would have no problem with providing a 6' high opaque screen fence. Mr. McGee stated that he felt the moratorium issue should be separate from the proposal for the service station. He added that he felt there was adequate information submitted for the Commission to make a recommendation on the plans. He also recommended that the City Council be able to discuss both the proposed plans and the moratorium at the same meeting. The Secretary stated that he did not doubt that the plan revisions called for would be made by the applicant. He pointed out, however, that the application was not only a site and building plan application, but also a special use permit application. He questioned whether the Standards for a Special Use Permit could be met in this case. He noted that the moratorium that the Council is considering and the study that would be done would help to answer that question. He reminded the Commission that there was another moratorium established by the City in 1985 in the area of Shingle Creek Parkway and that a study was done of the area which showed that the proposal then before the Council, but held in abeyance due to the moratorium, would actually be beneficial. He pointed out that a study in this case might also show that this proposal is appropriate. The Secretary stated that an office building constructed in this area would not have as great an impact as a gas station or a convenience food restaurant, therefore, such development could continue. Mr. McGee asked whether a motion could be made to approve the application contingent upon denial of the moratorium. The Secretary pointed out that the Planning 5-25-89 -2- Commission has 60 days to act on the application and he added that the submission of the application was not in accordance with the City's policy for reviewing site and building plans. Commissioner Sander asked Mr. McGee whether he had tried to buy the land at the northwest corner of the intersection at 66th and Highway 252. The Secretary interjected that that land abutted R3 zoned land and would not be allowed for a gas station. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89012) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. L. T. Merrigan, an attorney representing the property owner Howard Atkins, explained his letter to Mr. Warren to the Planning Commission. He stated that the Planning Commission was well aware that a service station was proposed for the property that was the subject of the rezoning. He stated that he took umbrage that the Secretary stated that the plan was suddenly dropped on them. He pointed out that Mr. Atkins had met with City staff in September of 1988 and had told them of the proposal at that time. He went on to explain that the rezoning of land was proposed at the staff's suggestion. The rezoning ultimately went through numerous hearings and public meetings, he explained, and was eventually withdrawn. A site and building plan and special use permit were subsequently submitted. He concluded that the Planning Commission has been aware of the proposed use of the property for some time and should not have difficulty acting on the application. Chairman Nelson stated that he also took umbrage at some of the assumptions in Mr. Merrigan Is comments. He stated that there was a great deal of difference between a concept plan and a detailed site and building plan submittal which can be reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission. He stated that he did not think the basic issue in question was the proposed building, but rather the land use allowed by the existing zoning. He stated that the moratorium which is being considered by the City Council would take the question of the land use of the property into consideration in a study. Commissioner Malecki pointed out to Mr. Merrigan that the Planning Commission was taking its time to review plan revisions recommended by staff because the plans were not adequate as submitted. She stated that the Commission does not normally spend its time doing this task. She stated that the proper procedure was for plans to be ironed out between staff and a developer before a formal submittal was even made so that the Commission can review plans which generally meet ordinance requirements. Mr. Merrigan stated that he had responded to Mr. Warren's letter to Mr. McGee. The Secretary stated that he also took some exception with Mr. Merrigan Is comments. He stated that the rezoning was considered by the Planning Commission. He agreed that the staff and the Planning Commission were certainly aware that a gas station was proposed. He pointed out that the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group recommended rezoning of the entire block to C1. He also pointed out that staff never had a full set of plans to review while the rezoning was in process, only a concept plan. He concluded by pointing out the applicant is back to looking at a rezoning question with the shared access with the property to the east which is zoned R5. He pointed out that such access is not permitted under City ordinance and that some rezoning would have to take place to allow for the access onto 66th in the location proposed. Mr. Merrigan stated that the emphasis of the rezoning review changed to a concern regarding the gas station use. The Secretary responded that the staff was 5-25-89 -3- concerned with general land use questions not simply the proposed gas station use. He invited Mr. Merrigan to review the record to see some of the comments made by staff in the reports and at the public meetings regarding the land use question involved in the rezoning. The Planner asked Mr. Merrigan why a site and building plan was not submitted with the rezoning. He pointed out that he had told Mr. McGee and Mr. Atkins in March that it would be appropriate to submit development plans with the rezoning so that the Planning Commission and the neighborhood could see what would result from the proposed rezoning. Mr. Howard Atkins, the owner of the property, stated that City staff had told him to submit the rezoning application first. The Secretary agreed that rezoning of property was the first priority item in providing access to 66th for the commercial property and still continues to be an issue since the rezoning was withdrawn. Mr. McGee explained that the rezoning was withdrawn because of the proposed moratorium. He asked whether the moratorium would be applied if Fina were not proposed at all. The Secretary stated that the land use issue presented by the rezoning would still have been studied. He pointed out that a previous development proposal for an office use in this area had received approval by the City and could still be allowed under the moratorium. Mr. Jim Neuberger of 6546 Willow Lane then briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that he represented the neighbors in the area and that nobody wanted to see a big gas station. He stated that it would increase the traffic count on local streets tremendously. He urged the Commission not to give Fina more land for a bigger gas station. He stated that if there is a moratorium to study land use in the area, it should address the traffic problems presently experienced on local streets. He concluded by stating that the station would add traffic onto 66th Avenue North and even onto Willow Lane. Chairman Nelson asked the Commission for its comments. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was not convinced that the proposal was in conformance with the Standards for Special Use Permits. He stated that he favored tabling of the application until the City Council could act one way or another on the moratorium. Commissioner Malecki stated that she agreed with Commissioner Ainas and also stated that she did not feel the plans were presently in order. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89012 (Fina Oil and Chemical Company, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application No. 89012 and continue the public hearing until the June 15, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, with direction to the applicant to revise the plans as recommended in the staff report. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 89013 AND 89014 (Steve Fiterman/Superamerica) The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business, a request for site and building plans and special use permit approval to construct a gas station/convenience store and a strip shopping center on the south side of 66th Avenue North between Camden Avenue North and Highway 252, and a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the same land. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports regarding these two applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 89013 and 89014 attached). The Secretary added that he did not believe that the impact of the proposed service station would be greater than the impact of the existing station. 5-25-89 -4- Chairman Nelson asked whether the parking of delivery trucks behind the shopping center would be acceptable. The Secretary explained that the Fire Department is not concerned with parking of trucks in a fire lane as long as the driver is available. He stated that the parking of trucks overnight would not be acceptable and is not expected. Commissioner Sander inquired as to the location of the existing Superamerica station. The Secretary pointed out on the transparency that the existing station is located somewhat north and east of the proposed building location. Commissioner Sander pointed out that people from the Superamerica could exit onto Camden Avenue North. The Secretary acknowledged that this was possible, but that it would probably not be used very often. There followed a brief discussion regarding exiting from the Superamerica site. Chairman Nelson asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Ron Krank, the architect for the shopping center, briefly reviewed the history of the project with the Planning Commission. He stated that he had been hired in 1986 by the owner, Mr. Fiterman, to design the project. He stated that he had met with staff designing preliminary layouts of the site and that during the process found it would be advantageous to work with Superamerica on a combined site and building plan. He noted that there had been numerous meetings with people from Superamerica and with City staff. He stated that the lighting recommended along the wall behind the building would be provided with shields to direct the light downward. Chairman Nelson asked whether there was any problem with the recommendation on the landscaping. Mr. Krank responded in the negative. He stated that, if the trees are far enough apart to not hide the building, there should be no problem with providing shade trees along 66th. Commissioner Malecki asked when the old Superamerica would be demolished and the new Superamerica built. Mr. Krank responded that he was not sure what the timing would be on the demolition of the existing Superamerica building. The Secretary stated that the site may have to be shut down for some time during the staging of the project. Mr. Bud Kaupp, of Superamerica, stated that it would be necessary to shut the station down temporarily during construction. The Secretary pointed out that there was some question as to a possible convenience food restaurant to be located in the shopping center. He pointed out that such a restaurant could not abut R3 zoned property across a street. He explained that the restaurants were primarily carry out restaurants and that the applicants may look at an appeal and/or an ordinance amendment to allow the restaurants within the building. The Secretary then requested representatives of Superamerica to address the concerns of noise and litter which had been expressed at previous public hearings. Mr. Bud Kaupp, of Superamerica, acknowledged that the problems had been brought to their attention. He pointed out that everything on the existing site would be demolished, including the canopy and the speakers. He stated that Superamerica now uses smaller speakers than were installed in the existing station. The new speakers are down at eye level and are much smaller, he explained. He stated that the speakers were mandated by law at all self-service stations and are used to warn those who are smoking not to smoke while filling up their gas tank. He added that it also establishes a contact between the consumer and Superamerica employees and helps to prevent people from driving away without paying. Regarding litter, Mr. Kaupp said that the problem would be addressed by the management of the new station and that, if necessary, employees would be sent to pick up litter that blows across the highway. The Secretary asked if there was someone that the neighbors could contact regarding problems with the Superamerica operation. Mr. Kaupp answered 5-25-89 -5- that complaints would go directly to top management and then be assigned to an area manager. He stated that the area manager for this station was Dave Brost. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 89013 and 89014) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 89013 (a special use permit for Superamerica) and concurrently Application No. 89014 (the preliminary plat for both sites) . He asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the applications. Mr. Jim Neuberger of 6546 Willow Lane asked whether the rag papers would be eliminated when the new station is in operation. Mr. Kaupp stated that there was no intention of doing away with those paper window wipers, but that the management of the station will address the problem if paper is blowing across the highway. Mr. Dave Brost, the area manager covering the store, stated that someone would be sent over to pick up any trash that blows away from the Superamerica station. Mr. Neuberger responded that he was satisfied with assurances of the Superamerica management. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Flom by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Johnson asked whether there was a fence along the highway side of the property. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was concerned with the appearance of the main drags within the City. He pointed out that paper often blows against fences lining these roadways. The Secretary stated that maintenance of grounds on the private side of these fences belongs to the property owner. He added, however, that maintenance of the right- of-way area, such as cutting the weeds, is a responsibility of MN/DOT. Commissioner Sander inquired as to the ordinance on storage of merchandise on the sidewalks in front of the building. The Secretary responded that there are two provisions governing such storage in the C2 zoning district. He stated that the ordinance prohibits outside storage or display except behind opaque fences or walls at least 6' high, but that storage in front of a building on a private pedestrian walkway can be allowed during business hours. He added that, for gas stations, there was a special provision to allow display within 4' of the building and at pump islands. He added that he felt the storage of merchandise was getting out of hand. Commissioner Sander stated that she felt it was an aesthetic annoyance to have such merchandise stacked outside of the building and often it was impossible to walk on the sidewalk in front of these buildings. The Secretary also pointed out that service station are allowed three 30 day administrative land use permits for promotional sales and sales by itinerant vendors. Commissioner Johnson stated that sidewalks in front of convenience stores are used used for storage, not for walking. The Secretary responded that such outdoor storage and display is allowed under City ordinance. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the only recourse might be to note that such storage would be limited or prohibited on the site plan. Chairman Nelson stated that the only recourse was really an ordinance amendment. The Secretary stated that he did not feel the City could prohibit as a condition of approval something that is otherwise allowed by City ordinance. Commissioner Johnson also commented that he did not want to see the problems with the video store that are experienced downtown. The Secretary stated that Superamerica 5-25-89 -6- would have to abide by the pornography regulations regarding display of materials contained in City ordinance. In response to another question from Commissioner Johnson regarding the zoning of such uses, the Secretary pointed out that the City has video stores in other locations in the community. He noted that the City has regulations governing massage parlors and similar uses, but that video stores have not been considered a problem use at this point. Commissioner Malecki asked the representatives of Superamerica what their policy would be regarding the video store and pornographic movies. Mr. Bud Kaupp of Superamerica stated that Superamerica was the first company to remove Playboy and other similar magazines from its racks. He stated that no pornographic videos would be rented at Superamerica. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89013 (Steve Fiterman/Superamerica Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 89013 subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued to Superamerica for the construction and operation of a convenience store/gas station. No other uses are comprehended. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 5. A site performance agreement and supporting financial gurantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manger for each of the two sites) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. No dumpsters shall be permitted behind the shopping center building. 7. The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5-25-89 -7- 11. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 12. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems prior to the issuance of permits. 13. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits for construction. 14. The cross access and cross parking agreement covering the two lots shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, shall be executed by the property owners, and shall be filed with the titles to the properties at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 15• Partial vacation of the 60' wide utility easement along the common property line shall be approved by ordinance prior to the issuance of permits for the shopping center. 16. Property monuments for the plat shall be installed and inspected prior to release of the performance guarantee. 17. The plans shall be revised prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate: a) At least two additional shade trees in the greenstrip adjacent to 66th Avenue North and at least two shade trees in the greenstrip behind the shopping center. b) The grading plan shall indicate a break in the grade at the property line along Camden in the driveway behind the shopping center to contain all runoff off-site. c) The bulding elevation shall indicate wall lighting for security purposes along the back side of the shopping center. Such wall lights shall be shielded to focus the light downward. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89014 (Steve Fiterman/Superamerica Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 89014, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 5-25-89 -8- 3. The cross access and cross parking agreement covering the two lots shall be executed by the property owners and filed with the titles to the properties at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Partial vacation of the utility easement straddling the common property line shall be subject to normal ordinance procedure and shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of building permits for the shopping center. 5. Property monuments for the plat shall be installed and inspected prior to release of the site performance guarantee. 6. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City stipulating the payment of special assessments for public improvements and the responsibility for subdivision improvements. Said subdivision agreement shall be executed prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89015 (Toys R Us) The Secr-e-E—ary Ren ntroduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the land on which the present C.O.M.B. and old Marc's Big Boy restaurant are located. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89015 attached) . Following the Secretary's report, Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Wasyl Hnatiw, representing Toys R Us, stated he had nothing to add to the report. Commissioner Sander asked whether the present buildings would be torn down. Mr. Hnatiw responded in the affirmative that both buildings would be demolished. Chairman Nelson asked when the demolition would take place. Mr. Hnatiw responded that it would be as soon as a contractor could be selected. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89015) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 89015. He noted that there was no one else present to speak on the application and called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 89015 (Toys R Us) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of Application No. 89015, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 35 of the City ordinances. 5-25-89 -9- 3. Monuments to be installed pursuant to the plat shall be inspected prior to release of the performance guarantee for the Toys R Us development. 4. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City stipulating the payment of special assessments for public improvements and the responsibility for subdivision improvements. Said subdivision agreement shall be executed prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary informed the Commission that there would be no review of the tax increment district boundary at this evening's meeting, but that it would be considered at the June 15, 1989 meeting. a) PUD ORDINANCE The Secretary asked the Commission whether they had any comments on the proposed PUD Ordinance. Commissioner Ainas suggested that a dollar value threshold be established for buildings constructed in PUD districts. The Secretary acknowledged that this suggestion had been made before and apologized for having no draft language. Commissioner Ainas suggested that such a threshold would deny a use such as public storage from being considered as a Planned Unit Development. The Planner stated that he had discussed the dollar value threshold with Brad Hoffman, the City's Economic Development Authority Coordinator, and that Mr. Hoffman had expressed concern that it might reduce flexibility in dealing with potential developers. Commissioner Ainas pointed out that Bloomington set a 1980 dollar value threshold in its PUD Ordinance. The Planner asked whether a building-to-land ratio of value would be more flexible, requiring the value of construction to go up as the value of the land went up. Commissioner Ainas expressed concern about the Lynbrook Bowl site. He stated that someone could propose a two-storey office building there which he considered a waste of a good location. The Secretary stated that a PUD Ordinance would allow a form of contract zoning.., He stated that a PUD district would allow uses not normally allowed in the underlying zoning district. He gave an example of residential and commercial mixed uses such as a nightclub and an apartment building in a single development. He stated that each development would be negotiated and that a development agreement would be hammered out on a case-by-case basis. In response to a question from Commissioner Ainas, the Secretary stated that the City is trying to get quality development, but that sometimes it is limited by its own regulations. A PUD Ordinance, he went on, would allow greater flexibility. Commissioner Ainas also suggested the possibility of mandating a minimum square footage for PUD parcels. He stated that such a mechanism might force high-rise development and avoid underutilization. The Secretary stated that the City is seeking flexibility with the ordinance, especially for redevelopment. Commissioner Ainas again stated that a low-rise development on the Lynbrook site would be a waste. The Secretary stated that he would bring back some revisions in the PUD Ordinance in the future. He also stated that the group home study would be coming back. 5-25-89 -10- There was a brief discussion of the trucks parked at the service station at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary explained the conditions applying to those trucks. Chairman Nelson noted that this was his last meeting with the Planning Commission. He expressed to the Commission and the staff that it has been a pleasure working with them and wished them luck in the future. The Secretary expressed his thanks to Chairman Nelson for serving on the Commission and for being Chairman. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Chairman 5-25-89 -11- i 1 1