Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 11-19 PCP L. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 19, 1981 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: November 5, 1981 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission' s functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. David Brandvold 81067 Request for preliminary plat approval to create four new lots on a cul-de-sac on Colfax Avenue North, north of 57th Avenue North. Certain revisions in the plat must still be made prior to Planning Commission review. Since notice of a public hearing has been published, it is recommended that the Commission table the matter and continue • the hearing until the December 10th meeting. 6. Summit Mortgage Corporation 81070 Request for site and building plan approval to add an enclosed porch to the main house on the Earle Brown Farm at 6150 Summit Drive. 7. Volp Construction Company/Dale Tile Company 81071 Request for site and building plan approval to remodel space inside the warehouse and office buildings at 4815 France Avenue North. The changes will alter the mix of uses in the complex, resulting in a different parki� requirement. fiL � tc.r 's 1 6 c ii 8. Russell Viska 81072 Request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow the erection of a 34' high, 152 sq. ft. freestanding sign at the Smoke Pit Restaurant at 5001 Drew Avenue North. 9. Other Business 10. Discussion Items • 11. Adjournment Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81070 Applicant: Summit Mortgage Corporation Location: 6150 Summit Drive Request: Site & Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to add to i the main house on the historic Earle Brown Farm by attaching the house and garage from the northern portion of the Farm site and by building a fully enclosed porch on the west side of the house. Also, an existing open porch attached to the main house will be relocated and attached to the west side of the relocated house, r which in turn is being attached to__tew-mein house. The use of the enlarged building will remain residential for the time being. The land on which the structure is located is zoned I-1 and is surrounded by other I-1 zoned land. This parcel and the parcel on which the horse barn and hippodrome are located have been set aside for special zoning consideration under- approval of Appli- cation No. 81041. The relocation of the house and the garage were comprehended under that approval as being consistent with the goals of historic pre- servation. Condition No. 5 of the approval states: 05. That the City Council acknowledges through this site plan approval a special zoning status for the land within the Minnesota Historic Site (see Condition No. 4) whereby development and use of • the existing Earle Brown Farm buildings shall be based on City Council approval only. The grounds required for variances from City ordinance re- quirements shall be City Council acceptance of a development plan and the preservation of the Earle Brown Farm structures." As a residential use in the I-1 zone, the main house and attached accessory structures are nonconforming uses under the Zoning ordi- nance and under Section 35-110 should not be allowed to expand. However, the special status granted to the Farm site by approval of Application No. 81041 allows for the waiver of Section 35-110 if the proposed use and development plan meet the City Council's objective of historic preservation. The proposed porch addition should be evaluated by the Planning Commission as to that objective. Staff have requested comments on the proposal from Dennis Gimmestad of the Minnesota Historical Society. In evaluating the proposed addition, various considerations are taken into account. A purist approach to preservation would disallow any addition. A more pragmatic approach looks at what benefits in terms of preservation are gained in exchange for some loss of authenticity. Also, the reversibility of the improvements is a factor. If the addition can be removed later to allow for restoration of the original structure, it is less obnoxious from the standpoint of historic preservation. Aesthetic compatibility is also certainly a factor. The comments of the MHS will be conveyed to the Commission at Thursday night's meeting. However, oral comments have been made to staff favoring approval of the project. The MHS is likely to recommend that the smaller porch being relocated from the main 11-19-81 -1- t r Application No. 81070 continued house to the relocated house should be attached so that it blends with its new background in the same manner it blended with the. main house. The new, larger porch should blend as unobtrusively as - f possible. During its construction, care should he taken not to disturb the adjoining main house and the relocated house. Based on these expected comments , approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions : 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The plat pertaining to the property (Application No. 81035) shall be given final approval by the City Council and filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Plans and execution of the proposed construction shall be in accordance with recommendations of the Minnesota Historical Society. 4. The provisions of Section 35-110 are waived in the action of this approval on the grounds that the proposal fulfills the objective of historic preserv- ation (see Condition No. 5 of Application No. 81041) . ho 11-19-81 -2- J • • 1 / ,A _ � �� '� �w ``�_ •• '•A, r y '�,t J. - :,�_. may i�.... �n i• q Jp 00 r.� I t Z 1 i '�•p' li 1`• Vie• � -� r � IA —�' � � t, F=,7 Lloo Av 7>7. lb 1 t ��I i • - � . CID j� PROPOSED R ` W � 9 4 E PROPOS 0 6 �O _ ` 1ff111 U CIA .S ff�ri i T 1 '1 LLJ Al APPL I CArI pN --1 alp; h��• 2; r_ _ O gEt EARL BROW E � mac, GP�� GRANpVIE W SCHOOL i PARK ' j • �f S8T►1 � = L = \lIc I �. III Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81071 Applicant: V01P Construction for Dale Tile CO. Location: 4815 France Ave . N. Request: Site and Building plan/Special, Use Permit incf plan and special use a permit The applicant seeks site and buil officer and showroom sP ce within approval to remodel the warehouser add a wall treatment on the building at 4815 France Ave. N. and to )plication is that the certain walls . The primary reason for the al s (warehouse, office, ng will alter the mix Of use remodeli thereby revising- the parking re- internal on the site, also for a and retail showroom) 11 use. The application is quirements for the overa the use involves the retail sale of special use permit because anugactured, processed or wholesaled at the use site. goods M . t. of J building plan calls for 1,477 sq. f The proposed site and (retail) and 26 ,397 sq. ft- office space, 2r288 sq. ft. of showroom )om space for minne- �e _involves moving shO'--"r( building where of warehouse. The chanq Ouse building to the, office sota Tile from the wareh Iquarters . Dale Tile will be moving (The two Dale Tile presently has its hea( the Twin Cities area. another location in dor) . The total parking its offices to onnected an enclosed corri d plan buildings are c by rking stalls. The propose these uses is 62 pa irking lot and requirement for is , 32 on the west portion Of the P� sting provides 62 stal row southwest of the smaller exi - - 26 extending in a double ehouse building) , office building (situated south of the larger war and 4 stalls east of the office building- nspire Linden, ll summit scape plan calls for 3 Gree 3 Flowering Crab, A proposed land 23,,11 dialreter') , 8 Russian olives , unding the site. Ash trees (2" Iso proposed' Spruce within the green areas surro and 7 Colorado , and Honeysuckle are a around A ,number of junipers; DOJwO0ds led in the area Additional landscape plantings are schedu ilding and the larger ce building and between that bu ing the small Off' the north. The plan also calls for sodd warehouse building to and landscape work. NO all areas disturbed during construction h of the' building adjacent landscaPillg is proposed in the area nort iond the row Of k off the Soo Line railroad. Be� to a spur 14-rac west edge of the parking lot is a landscaping proposed along the na-,ined with another vacant, unimproved area. This area was to be co ite under a st to form an additional building s vacant lot to the we in 1979 (Application No. 79008) - proposed subdivision approved c the building eleva- nfiguration Of the complex, Because of the odd ca ated with numbers 1 to 10 . The elevations tions have been design are listed below: uth elevation (west portion) 1 - Warehouse so deled section) 2 - Partial floor plan of warehouse (reino 1 - Key plan of building complex house (west Of Office) 3 levation of ware portion) 4 - Partial east e ion of warehouse (central 5 - South elevat f office building 6 - Northwest elevatiorl. 0 - Sou-thwest elevation of office building 7 of office building 8 - Southeast elevation 9 - Facia bridge elevation (north of office) 10 - East elevation of warehouse -1- 11-19-81 ( � 1 Section 35-220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 1 �1 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are mets (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the • special use will promote and enhance the general ' welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values j Within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not i impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses j permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. N, shall,l- •Th (e e specia use sa in all other respects, ) Y r 1 conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is 'Locat.ed. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may Impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- ' j inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem. necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. ` 4. Resubmission . No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City i Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to 4.• gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. S. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- ' visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Pianiliity COIfultissiorl or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special t •" Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of ` the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. / In any instance where an existing and established special use �.� is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- went. I i • i I — - . :. -- B�ater¢e yr+so_ro•a�•fbr :r i , / `►}Ytua�m u[a li WMNrrA5F1 riaf4bartT — - 1v mum JUire e M)bAm G1 N6 &!-t IP NO .• _ r' MOSS:+Y no RGtxmt11H OAc ti.✓i ' / ��� ,� * .: 1drAl.fMxwn•`:axe -- !•raw-*T-;-�-�t:.. -------�- — , --�.�. �.� _,t...n.,+.. .... ...... ... .... ..a..bx• ..._. s_y..._wn_.., -. .af.': N' *.JYAif tip:'» I ■ ii •w SEEN APPLICATION NO. IBM DAVIES t ■ � � WATER .. 1 _ i 1 i �� i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81072 Applicant: Russell Viska Location: 5001 Drew Ave. N. (Smoke Pit) Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow a freestanding sign 34 ' in height and 134 sq. ft. in total area which exceeds the maximum of 24 ' in height and 90 sq. ft. in area t permitted under the ordinance. The proposed sign would be an ex- pansion of a sign presently located at the southeast corner of the property at 5001 Drew Ave. N. The lot in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by a single family residence to the north, an R4 zoned E lot to the west, industrial uses across 50th Ave. N. to the south, and Brookdale Ten Apartments across Drew Ave. N. to the east. The property is located just west of the 50th Ave. N. access to Highway 100. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached)with his application in which he explains why he feels a taller and larger sign is necessary for his business. The Highway 100 right-of-way is lined intermittently will tall evergreen trees which block out the view of the existing sign from southbound motorists. The sign could be seen more readily if it were moved to the roof of the building or to a different location on the lot. However, the applicant has been advised by a police officer that the sign would then be too far t from the roadway and drivers would turn their heads to see the sign, causing a traffic hazard. Mr. Viska, therefore, measured the sight E . lines that exceed the height of the trees . The highest tree blocks f out sight up to 282' above ground. Mr. Viska accordingly wishes to erect a 5 ' square sign above the existing sign (see copy of drawing attached) so that the upper sign is situated between 29 ' and 34 ' above ground. The Sign Ordinance calculates -sign area for such a sign as the area of the polygon surrounding all sign area with no interior angle ex- ceeding 1800. Based on this methodIcalculation, the proposed sign i would have a total area of 152 sq. ft. (the areas reported in the letter and the method reflected in the drawing are incorrect) . This includes 73 sq. ft. of actual sign face (or 88 sq. ft. if a third sign is added between the existing sign and the proposed 5 ' x 5' sign at the top) . The maximum area permitted under the Sign Ordi- nance for a building the size of the restaurant is 90 sq. ft. The applicant could reduce the total sign area by raising the existing sign. However, he intends to use it as a reader board and, there- fore refers t i o leave it at a height from which it can be read b . P g Y those entering the premises. Mr. Viska points out that the sign will still be blocked out by the railroad bridge for northbound traffic on Highway 100. He also suggests that a more visible sign may benefit the industrial uses south of 50th Avenue North by providing easier identification of ` the 50th Avenue North turnoff. Under the Sign Ordinance, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal `. 3 11-19-81 -1- I I II Application No. 81072 continued provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict en- forcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the specific property or use under con- sideration. The provisions of this ordinance, considered in con- junction with the unique and distinctive circumstances related to the property or uses thereof must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 1. A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out; 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally to other property or uses within the same zoning classification; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission should be aware that sign variances to allow visibility to freeways have been granted in the past (Iten Chevrolet, Bob Ryan Olds, and Holiday Inn, for instances) . A variance was granted under Application No. 65018 on May 24, 1965 to allow a 50 ft. freestanding identification sign at Iten Chevrolet. A variance was granted to the Holiday Inn under Application No. 71050, though City Council Resolution No. 72-11 (copy attached) on January 31, 1972 for a freestanding sign not to exceed 60. ft. in height. A variance was also granted to Bob Ryan Olds. under Appli- cation No. 75004 on May 5, 1975 for a roof sign that exceeded the height restrictions of the Sign Ordinance. These applications all involved, to some extent, freeway visibility. The Iten Chevrolet variance involved old ordinance requirements and preceded the current Sign Ordinance, but the question of visibility because of the freeway overpass at Brooklyn Boulevard was an issue. The 1975 variance for Ryan Olds allowed that business to continue the use of the roof sign on the new car building that had advertised Velie Olds. The Holiday Inn variance was granted following extensive documental engineering studies and a finding that all qualifications for grant- ing a variance were met. The resolution notes that patrons of the motel are mainly itinerant out-of-town motorists, unfamiliar with the area; that patronage of the motel will be primarily in the evening; identification of and access to the motel merits special consideration given the volume of traffic and the danger of rapid lane changes on the freeway; and the location of the motel and the topography of the area presents certain problems relative to the use of the freestanding sign to identify the motel. , 11-19-81 -2- Application No. 81072 continued It is felt that the Iten Chevrolet and Ryan Olds variances are not precedents that relate to this application and it is difficult to relate all of the points of the Holiday Inn variance to the application in question. Mr. Viska's business is not primarily out-of-town motorists who are unfamiliar with the area. The access to his business is not the same as the interchange that 3 existed at Humboldt Avenue and the freeway, when the Holiday Inn t variance was granted. There is limited access, only for southbound Highway 100 at 50th Avenue North. The question which must be answered in this and other cases is whether it is possible, within the restrictions of the Sign Ordi- nance, to achieve "necessary visual communication." There is a substantial gap between the rows of evergreen trees which allows for full visibility of the restaurant to southbound drivers on Highway 100 . The freestanding sign in place is not visible through the gap, however. Hence, the request to raise the freestanding sign above the trees . Possibly an illuminated wall sign or roof sign (which would be in lieu of the existing freestanding sign) would provide comparable visibility and also stay within the limits i established by the Sign Ordinance. It is staff' s judgment that much of the difficulty in making a restaurant go at the location of 50th and Drew is related to the surrounding uses (none of which are commercial) , the type of high- way access (limited) in addition to barriers to visibility presented by the railroad bridge and the evergreen trees . The proposed sign would overcome the barrier of the evergreen trees (until they grow taller) , but would do nothing to overcome other disadvantages. It must be admitted that the property may be improperly zoned, given its size and location. The hardship which this business faces is real and considerable, but it will not likely be eliminated by the erection of a sign more than three storeys high. As to whether a wall or roof sign would cause a traffic hazard by requiring people to look further away from the road, the police department reports that it has no objective criteria by which to judge the impact of various signs on traffic safety. The opinion which Mr. Viska ascribes to a local police officer is, therefore, only an opinion, not a judgment based on a traffic safety code. A contrary opinion relating to traffic safety might well be that any visible distraction is an impairment to traffic safety, and should be lessened or eliminated. In conclusion, staff feel the standards for a sign variance are not clearly met. The hardship the business is experiencing is not en- tirely related to signery and signs may be erected to improve visi- bility which do not violate the ordinance. The conditions upon which the variance request is based are somewhat unique, but apply to other properties in that general neighborhood as well. While these conditions were not created by the applicant or a previous owner, adherence to the ordinance would still allow for necessary visual communication. Finally, the impact on the general public and on surrounding properties of a 34 ' high, 152 sq. ft. sign is con- sidered by staff to be more negative than positive. Accordingly, we recommend that the requested variance be denied. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 3 11-19-81 - - November 5th, 1981 c To Whom it may Concern : On June 16 , 1981 I opened the Smoke Pit Restaurant (then called Smoke Haus) at 50th and Drew Ave . No. The Smoke Haus had previously been opened and closed twice since originally opening in January of 1980. Prior to becoming a restaurant , this location was a gas sta- tion which was also opened and closed a number of times . This history of business failures , I believe , can be attributed, to a great extent , to a failure of the public to identify the loca- tion as a retail business . Partially at fault is a row of evergreen trees alongside Highway 100 which blocks the view of the sign completely until you are almost upon the intersection and also blocks much of the view of the build- ing itself. I have spent considerable amounts on advertising , including two newspapers , numerous coupons , flyers , direct mail , and four radio stations . Although we are experiencing a small return on this large expenditure , we are finding that people cannot locate us . In many instances , they have called and told us they have driven right past and never saw us . Others complain that they almost got hit attempt- ing to make the turn when they finally saw my sign. This creates a safety hazard, not only for my customers , but for innocent motorists • as well. I believe the solution to these problems and safety hazards is more satisfactory identification of my business further up the road- way , allowing my customers to react without confusion and safely use the turn lane provided. In order to accomplish this , I researched the alternatives at hand. My -first reaction was to relocate the sign where it could be more readily seen from the highway. Perhaps further back on the lot , or even over the building itself. The problem with this solution , as pointed out by a local police officer , is that it moves the sign too far away from the roadway. This causes drivers to turn their heads to look at it , taking their attention from the road ahead, again creating a safety hazard. This left , as an alternative , raising the sign to a level that can be seen over the trees while keeping it positioned so that it is near enough to the roadway to be seen without turning your head. To research this alternative I painted a pole with identifying rings at one foot intervals and attached it to my sign . I then drove the stretch of highway from Brooklyn Blvd. to 50th Ave. No. .to determine at what levels a sign could be seen. I was able to identify gaps 11 the treetops at 25 ' and could see over all but one large tree at 28 2. . Since that large tree only blocks the view when you are already near the corner, I don ' t consider it to be a problem, if you can see over the other trees further back. r .. In order to locate my 5 ' square sign over the treetops , I would need a variance to raise the top of my sign to 34' rather than the 24 ' now permitted. • Raising the sign to this level creates another problem in that although the actual sign area is within the 90 square feet allowable , we have to take into consideration the impact area between the signs which would increase thetotal square footage to approximately 145 square feet or 150% of the allowable total . By placing a small sign about halfway between , we could reduce this total area to about 134 square feet . Although I could reduce the total square footage by raising the existing sign , that would not be practical because I am proposing to use that sign as a reader panel with changeable letters . It would be very difficult to change the message on the sign at any height much greater than the present 18 feet . I believe that the variance I am requesting would not cause any hardship on any of the area' s residents , as in its present location it is not in a direct line of sight from the surrounding homes . I believe that the variance I am requesting would not cause any hardship on any of the area' s industry, in fact it may well provide a landmark for easier identification of the 50th Ave. turn-off for their locations as well. I believe that the variance I am requesting would not cause any undue visual pollution from Highway 100 , because of the somewhat isolated section from which it will be seen. The line of sight is blocked on the south by the railroad bridge , on the north by the Brooklyn Blvd. interchange , and is additionally affected by the gradual curve of the roadway in this area. • I am looking forward to a long and satisfactory business rela- tion in your community and am relying on your just and timely action on my request to make it possible. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully, Russell G. Viska , President R. G.V. Incorporated dba Smoke Pit Restaurant i 2 . "" I , �( P I , i , •� r t f Z IT 4q t it I _ , { , 1 I { { , II , :1. , f L 1 N/A RDWOOD R h .�_8 V r ��• , w t I I . V I i I I wn Y4 Af . f + , I + �' f 1 --t I a + 1 + .1_; : T. , 1_ N•vim • i a } f trt 1 , _ + p Ail ,V . it I r t r • r • L ; , 1 I I ^ t T I + I i T 1 Y I , 1 + 11_+ t ­44 I I 1r — 1_ -- _ I rT r 1 f— —i t Cpr.Gv6 54 r! I r t { , t ; f 1 , I . . r , . . , 1 i , , , , 1• ; I I } i I 1 T t I 1 1 - A , , , f t » I ". i • Member Vernon Ausen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 72-11 RESOLUTION GRANTING HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR FREESTANDING SIGN PROPOSED BY TOPEKA INN MANAGEMENT, INC. WHEREAS, Table 34.A, Chapter 34-140 of the City Ordinances provides that establishments having above 24,000 square feet of gross floor area may have a freestanding sign with a maximum area of 250 square feet, and a maximum height of 32 feet above the first floor area; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 71050 submitted by Topeka Inn Management, Inc. , requests, in part, a variance from said ordinance to permit the erection of a freestanding sign with an area not to exceed 250 square feet, at a height greater than 32 feet above the first floor area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has stipulated and demonstrated by evidence, namely extensive documented engineering studies, that all of the qualifications for granting a variance as provided in Section 34-180 of the City Ordinances, have been met, in that: 1. The potential patrons of the motel are comprised mainly of itinerant out-of-town motorists who are unfamiliar with the { area; 6 2. Primary patronage of the motel will be realized during the evening and night-time hours; 3. The identification of and the access to the motel merits special consideration, given the volume of traffic and the danger of vehicles weaving during rapid lane changes in freeway traffic; 4. The location of the motel and topography of the area presents certain problems relative to the use of the freestanding sign to identify the motel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: Topeka Inn Management, Inc. , is hereby granted a variance from the requirements of Section 34-140 of the City Ordinances, to permit the erection of a freestanding sign of not more than 250 square feet in maximum area and of not more than 60 feet in maximum height above the first floor, on the site of the Holiday Inn Motel located at 1501 - 65th Avenue North January 31, 1972 D a e � Mayor ATTEST: Deput erk �� t ` Ja I i } Resolution No. 72-11 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded t_ by member Maurice Britts, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, john Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Maurice Britts; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted. I i .. �+. .. • I'�