Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 03-17 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIiI; CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 17 , 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7 : 33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas , Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 3, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the March 3, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. While the motion was on the floor, Commissioner Malecki asked whether the figure of 110% of median income on the bottom of page 3 of the minutes was correct. The Planning Assistant explained that that figure was correct. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Versteeg who was not at that meeting. Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary noted that the applicant for Application Nos. 83007 and 83008 was not yet present and recommended that the Commission consider the next item of business. APPLICATION NO. 83009 (Martin Drinkwine) The Secretary then introduced an application by Martin Drinkwine for an amendment to his special use permit to operate a Tidy Car business from the residence at 5632 James Avenue North. He reviewed the con- tents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83009 attached) . The Secretary explained that the original conditions of the special use permit would continue along with those that would be amended by the application in question. Chairman Lucht asked whether the applicant had anything to add. Mr. Drinkwine stated he had nothing to add to the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commi.ssi.oner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Manson asked what other products would be used in the business besides the Tidy Car sealant. Mr. Drinkwine explained that he would be putting a sealer on the tires and would also apply a vinyl roof coating and an application to the inside upholstery. 3-17-83 -1- Chairman Lucht asked how many cars Mr. Drinkwine would likely be working on per month before he would seek out a commercial location. Mr. Drinkwine responded that it would probably have to reach 25 cars per month. Mr. Jose Dingler, the Sales Manager for the Tidy Car business, then asked permission to pass out brochures on the Tidy Car process. Chairman Lucht allowed Mr. Dingler to do so. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the garage door would be shut during the wintertime. Mr. Drinkwine responded in the affirmative, explaining that he had- a heated garage. Commissioner Malecki asked whether any calls had been received from neighbors . The Secretary responded in the negative. He recalled for the Planning Commission that one neighbor had objected to the original special use permit on the grounds of certain odors, which were later attributed to a different neighbor. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83009 (Martin Drinkwine) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83009 , revising the conditions of approval to provide as follows: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all codes, ordinances and- regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Service shall be on an appointment only basis between 4:00 p.m. and 9 :00 p.m. weekdays and 9 :00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. However, at no time will there be work allowed on more than one car at a time in the garage. 4. All parking shall be off-street on improved space provided by the applicant. 5. Service to automobiles or other powered vehicles is limited to washing and applicati.on' of_ appearance maintenance products of Tidy Car, Inc. Other repairs are expressly prohibited. 6. The permit is subject to completion of any work required by the Building Official. 7 . Noise, odor, and vibration shall not be perceptible beyond the premises to the degree that a nuisance is created. 8 . Application of the Tidy Car sealant or any other chemicals or materials, shall be performed only inside the garage of the residence at 5632 James Avenue North. 9 . All combustible chemicals and materials used in the application process shall be appropriately stoned as approved by the Fire Chief. 3-17-83 -2- 10 . Special Use Permit approval acknowledges the em- ployment on the premises on one nonresident during the hours specified in Condition No. 3. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons , Manson, Ainas , Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS . 83007 AND 83008 (DeVries Builders, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business , a request for site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for the Fourth Addition of the Earle Brown Farm Estates , located on Xerxes Place North, south of Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application Nos . 83007 and 83008 , attached) . The Assistant City Engineer added briefly that the staff had worked with the de veloper to obtain a sidewalk easement through the Fourth Addition. He explained that the easement cannot be shown on the final plat, but recommended that a fourth condition be added to the preliminary plat approval requiring the granting of the sidewalk easement in conjunction with the platting of the property. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the sidewalk was for people from the residential neighborhood to the west using the bus. The Assistant City Engineer responded in the affirmative. He explained that the sidewalk would not be located directly adjacent to 67th Avenue North in order to avoid any cut-through traffic coming down 67th. Commissioner Manson asked what the effect of the NSP easement would be on the affected parcels. The Secretary responded that no structures could be erected within the NSP easement and that trees would have to be kept fairly low in nature to keep them from growing into the power lines Chairman Lucht asked whether any construction or use of the private back yard area behind individual townhouse units was controlled by the association. The Secretary answered that it would depend on the association documents. In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons regarding overhead wires, the Assistant City Engineer stated that the power lines were not over the entire easement. He stated that the easement is wide enough to allow maintenance vehicles to service the power poles and lines when needed. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. John DeVries stated that he nad nothing further to add to the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83008) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 83008 and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 3-17-83 -3 ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83007 (DeVries Builders, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded y ommissa,oner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83007, subject to 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. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure com- pletion of the approved site improvements for the 4th Addition prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. All common parking and driving areas shall be surrounded by B612 curb and gutter as shown on the approved drainage and grading plans. 6 . Plan approval acknowledges a master plan for all phases of the Earle Brown Farm Estates town- house project. However, each additional phase is subject to preliminary plat approval and site and building plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 7. The developers shall take adequate measures to control dust and debris during construction. A viable turf shall be established and maintained in those areas subject to future development. 8 The Fourth Addition of the Earle Brown Farm Estates shall be included in the single Home- owners ' Association for the entire development. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83008 (DeVries Builders , Inc. ) Motion y Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 83008 , 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. 3-17-83 -4- 3. The Fourth Addition shall be governed by the same Homeowners Association and bylaws as in effect for the previous phases of the Earle Brown Farm Estates. 4 . All easements necessary for construction and maintenance of a public walkway within the sub- division shall be _granted by the owner/developer in conjunction with the platting of the property. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACKNOWLEDGE WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83006 (Car-X Muffler Shop) The Secretary then noted that the applicant for Application No. 83010 would be delayed until 8: 15 p.m. or so. He stated that another item of business was the withdrawal of Application No. 83006 , submitted by Car X Muffler Shop. He recommended that the Planning Commission take an action acknowledging this withdrawal. He also stated that the draft resolution of denial and the Planning Commission minutes regarding the application would constitute a formal file in the Planning Commission's records. ACTION ACKNOWLEDGING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83006 (Car-X Muffler Shop) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to acknowledge withdrawal of Application No. 83006 , submitted by Car-X Muffler Shop for a car wash at 6810 Brooklyn Boulevard on the basis of a letter submitted by Mr. Brian Cook requesting that the appli- cation be withdrawn. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary then briefly told the Commission that staff had re- ceived two applications for review at the March 31, 1983 study meeting. He asked that the Commission accept the items for that meeting. By consensus it was agreed that the two items would be accepted. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Simmons would be unable to attend that meeting because her son is getting married March 31st. RECESS T e P anning Commission recessed at 8 :12 p.m. and resumed at 8:30 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 83010 (Rod Bernu) Following the recess, the next item of business was Application No. 83010, submitted by Rod Bernu for site and building plan approval to construct 26 units on the remaining land at the Earle Brown Farm Patio Homes at 69th Avenue North' and York Place. Commissioner Ainas stated that he wished to be excused-because of a possible conflict of interest concerning the application. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of .the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet- for Application No. 83010 attached) . The Secretary also reviewed with the Commission, a plan of the perspective roadway realignment which would go through the northeast corner of the Earle Brown Farm Patio Homes complex. 3-17-83 -5- He reviewed briefly with the Commission, the proceedings for this re- alignment. He explained that the City Council had approved the realignment and that negotiations are underway with the owner of the common area at the Earle- Brown Farm Estates to acquire the necessary land for right-of-way. The Secretary also explained that the density credit sought by the applicant to allow 26 town- house units was optional and that the Planning_Commission need not approve the full 26 units if it does not feel the total plan is acceptable. The -Secretary also explained that the applicant has not yet submitted an acceptable preliminary plat and that the appli- cation should be tabled until a proper preliminary plat is submitted. Commissioner Simmons stated that a guest visiting one of the resi- dents in the 8 unit building would have to walk around the entire building to get to the front door. She stated that this seemed unacceptable. The Secretary pointed out that visitors could_park in the guest parking spaces which were closer to the front of the 8 unit building. Commissioner Simmons stated that there was a need for a sidewalk system to allow people to walk up to the front doors of the units. ' ,, The Secretary completed his review of the staff report and explained that he and the Director of Public Works had met with some concerned residents e#rlier `in the week and noted that many of them are present at the evening's meeting. He stated that there was no public hearing required with. the site and building plan application, but recommended that the Planning Commission hear the concerns of the residents in' the existing complex. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Rod Bernu briefly addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he had met with the Homeowners Association and discussed matters pertaining to the remainder of the development and the roadway realignment. He stated that the two parts of the development could be divided into separate associations if that was the preference of the existing residents. Commissioner Simmons stated that she did not like the site plan. She complained that it was crowded and that the long buildings would create problems. She compared the proposal to a complex in Minne- apolis at 42nd and Bryant. Mr. Bernu stated that one of the buildings which had been planned as an 8 unit building was split because of access problems to the back of the building. He explained that the 8 unit building that remained has the opportunity for parking on both sides if guest parking is taken into account. The Secretary then explained that if a second Homeowners Association were set up, the density calculation for the new portion of the de- velopment would have to be looked at separately. Chairman Lucht then stated that he acknowledged density was a factor regarding the economic viability of the project. He told Mr. Bernu that he did not fault him for seeking the maximum density, but added that the project does appear rather dense. He suggested dropping at least one unit from the 8 unit building. Mr. Bernu stated that he could look at that suggestion, Chairman Lucht asked what the price of the units would be. Mr. Bernu explained that the base price would be about $60,000.00 and that various options would increase the price from that point. Commissioner 3-17-83 -6_ Versteeg asked whether all of the existing units were occupied. Mr. Bernu responded in the affirmative. Chairman Lucht explained that, although the staff report refers to the marketability of the existing townhouses, it was not his understanding that the existing townhouses were not saleable, but that new units of the same design would be difficult to market at this location. Commissioner Simmons expressed a concern regarding the amount of traffic that would have to go past the unit closest to the access to the townhouse project. She also asked whether a $60 ,000.00 price for these units would be competitive considering their size. Mr. Bernu stated that he felt the price was competitive. The Secre- tary stated that the townhouses at the Earle Brown Farm Estates adjacent to this development are single car garages and this allows for a front entrance on the same side as the garage. He stated that the double garages proposed in this case eliminate the possibility. of a front entrance and, conversely, a front entrance would eliminate the possibility of a double garage. MEETING OPENED TO PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for comments from those present. Mrs. Sanderson, of 6833 York Place, stated that she had moved into the project one year ago. She stated that the units are not un- marketable. She also stated that she felt the proposed development would devalue her townhouse. She explained that the existing town- houses are built on one level and that this was a good arrangement for. elderly people. Commissioner Sandstrom asked how large the existing units were. Another woman who lived in the existing town- house project explained that the main floor is about 1,000 sq. ft. with a full basement which most of the residents have finished off. She stated that this allows for a total of about 2,000 sq. ft. The Secretary explained that the term "unmarketable" , as used in the staff report, was referring to the developer's standpoint. He explained that the existing townhouses might sell today for $85,000.00,. but that the builder, trying to build the same units, might not be able to for $85,000 .00 . Therefore, he could never recover his in- vestment in the land. He apologized if the term was misunderstood. Mrs. Irene Meyer, of 6839 York Place and Mrs. Ed Dilley of 6845 York Place, both stated that the townhouses were marketable and compared very favorably with other townhouses in the metro area. They stated that they did not want a high-density development which would devalue their townhouses. Mr. Larry Ellis, of 6831 York Place, also stated that he felt the townhouses were marketable and stated that he opposed the proposed density. He added that he did not want to see guest parking installed adjacent to his living room. He asked the Planning Commission whether they could address the action involving the roadway alignment through the project. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission does not get into right-of-way acquisition. He stated that the concern of the Planning Commission is land use and he noted that the roadway alignment has been looked at for at least three or four years. The Secretary stated that the roadway alignment at least dates back to when Shingle Creek Parkway was expanded to four lanes. At that time, he pointed out, part of Shingle Creek Parkway was bounded by a 3-17-83 -7- bituminous curbing, rather than a -concrete curbing in anticipation of a change in the roadway alignment. He stated that the acquisition ,of the right-of-way was being looked at now because of Mr. Bernu's proposal and the City's need to reserve this area for right-of-way for future construction. He stated that the City Council has directed the staff to negotiate the purchase of the land and the City Attorney has in turn contacted Mr. Cy Sheehy who owns the other 20 lots within the Earle Brown Farm Patio Homes project. Mr. Ellis asked what would happen if the City did not do the project. The Secretary stated that the City could sell the land back to the association or to a willing buyer for the development. He explained that in the past the City had often acquired right-of-way by easement and that when such easements are vacated, the land goes back to the original owners who possess the underlying development nights The Assistant City Engineer stated that the City would probably purchase the land outright in this case so as to have control over all develop- ment rights Mr. Ellis expressed three concerns regarding the proposed realignment: 1. That access onto Shingle Creek Parkway would be difficult with the new alignment; 2. That access to the park across 69th Avenue North would be more difficult; 3. That the street would come too close to Mr. Sven Schold's residence. Mrs. Betty Anderson, of 6837 York Place, noted that she was one of the original owners in the project. She explained that the original four-plex contained all of the four options offered by the builder at the beginning of the project. She stated that the original proposal was for 28 units and 7 buildings. She asserted the townhouses are of high quality and added that she did not care whether there was a swimming pool or tennis courts, which she would not use extensively, but would have to pay to maintain. She stated that people who had bought into the project bought space as well as their units. She explained that under the original design she would have had two units across from her own unit and that under the proposed develop- ment, there would be 8 units. She stated that the Planning Commission should not allow the project to be ruined and for people's investment to be destroyed. Mr. Ed Dilley, of 6845 York Place, stated that he could not say too much about the quality of the area. He stated that the proposed plan would not have much green area for the number of units involved. He also asked how far some of the easterly units would be from the power lines. The Secretary stated that the townhomes could be built up to the easement line. The Secretary also pointed out that the ori- ginal plat of the project had the same problems with units built right up to the easement Mr. Dilley continued to discuss the NSP_ easement. He stated that it was his understanding that there was supposed to be a berm within the easement area as part of the Earle Brown Farm Estates project. The Assistant City Engineer stated that there are berms within the easement for that townhouse project. . The Assistant City Engineer also explained that NSP possesses an over-sized easement to allow 3-17-83 -�3- for maintenance of the power lines. He stated that the power lines them�;elves do not extend over the entire easement. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the builder had reviewed the plans of the existing buildings to see whether they could be built. Mr. Bernu responded in the affirmative and explained simply that he does not build that type of townhouse. He explained that he usually builds more moderate priced housing. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that there seems to be a lot of quality in the existing units and asked whether these units would not be able to sell in this location. Mr,. Bernu answered that the land in question has not been sold for ten years because of the townhouse plan that went with the land. He stated that the units were nice, but. could not be built in sufficient numbers on the property to allow a realistic return. There followed a discussion regarding what type of units should be built on the property.. Mr. Bernu explained that people were equating quality with square footage of the units. He stated that he would be using quality materials even though his units were smaller. He stated that if Mr. Sheehy, the owner of the other townhouse lots in the development, were the builder, perhaps he could make money from the units. He pointed out, however, that his own land cost was higher. and that it would take a greater number of units to pay for the land. Chairman Lucht acknowledged this and explained that a builder cannot build a $100,000 townhouse and turn around and sell it for only $85;000 and expect to make money. He stated that the Planning commis- sion could not do a market study for the developer to determine what unit would sell and what unit wouldn't. Commissioner Simmons stated that she was not assuming that size was the same as quality. She stated that she simply did not like the layout. She stated that it was dull and that it may have a difficult time selling as well. Mrs. Betty Anderson, of 6837 York Place, stated that the existing residents were concerned about density as well as quality. She stated that there were quad-type townhomes that were very attractive selling for a base price of $60 ,000 in Brooklyn Park. She stated that she- considered this roughly the same sales area and suggested that a similar type of unit be constructed here as well. Mr. Ed Dilley stated that he had contacted other contractors about completing the project. These other contractors stated that Mr. Sheehy would not talk to them, he said. Chairman Lucht then asked whether there were any questions or comments from the Planning Commission. The Secretary suggested that if the Planning Commission has an idea of an acceptable density, it should let the developer know so that he can revise plans accordingly. Com- missioner Sandstrom stated that he was not trying to tell the developer how to do his project, but also noted that the people who live in the townhouse project wanted quality when they moved in and there should be other people who want the same kind of quality. He stated that he did not wan•c to see the project deteriorate with cheaper units. i Commissioner Manson stated that she considered 8 units in a row too many and stated that she would like to see fewer units. Commissioner Simmons agreed and added that she felt there should be more imagi- nation in developing the plans. She stated that because of the exPectations of previous buyers , the developer should go beyond the g minimum to finish the development. She stated that fewer and better units, sold at a higher price, would perhaps do more for the developer's reputation than the proposed plan. 3-17-83 -9- R Commissioner Ma.lecki asked how many units would be allowed without the density credit. The Planning Assistant answered that 21 units would be allowed. Commissioner Malecki asked what was the basis of granting the density credit in. the past. The Secretary noted that in the case of the Humboldt Square Estates, the land was zoned for -a higher density. He stated that, in the case of the Northbrook Estates, Mr. Kaufmann had' soughtan extra unit because he did not want any middle units in the townhouse plan, which consisted of four two-unit buildings The Secretary also stated that, to utilize the quad concept in this case, would, limit the total number of new units to perhaps 12 to 14. Commissioner Versteeg stated that he felt for the people who would be in the 8 unit building. He recommended that that be changed to a 6 unit building. Chairman Lucht stated that the development would be more congested than it is now if it were built to the original specification. He stated that the developer has to look at the dollars involved. He agreed with the comment of Commissioner Versteeg and recommended a total density of 24 units rather than 26 units . He stated that he did not think the Planning Commission could force the developer to adopt a quad concept in finishing out the project. Mrs. Dilley stated that she did not think it was fair that the new developer was proposing more units for the remaining land than the original development had called for on the entire area including the area to be taken by the City for right-of-way. The Planning Assistant explained that the original density of the project was not up to the maximum allowed by the ordinance. He stated that the original parcel of land, under the ordinance in effect at the time that the project was built, would have allowed for 35 units. He explained that denser developments were proposed at that time, but that the 28 unit concept was eventually decided on. He explained further that the prospective taking for right�of-way would eliminate about three quarters of an acre, or six units, from the potential of the existing land. He stated that this would reduce the total number of units allowable to 29 and, since 8 -existed, only 21 more could be built without a density credit. He added that the density credit which could allow up to 26 units on the remaining land was also in effect when the original project was approved. Mrs. Dilley asked how many units could be built on the remaining land if a separate association were set up. Mr. Larry Ellis stated that he would like to maintain the character of the area which allows for a little elbow room. The Planning Assistant explained that a separate association would require a separate parcel of land and that the number of units which could be built on this separate parcel would depend on how large it was The Planning Assistant also ex- plained that the vacant area adjacent to these townhouses , which has not been developed for 10 years , is not a park; that it does belong to someone who has a right to develop it. Mr. Ed Dilley complained about the fact that the City was holding a bond for the landscaping of the project which it could have been foreclosed on some years ago, but hadn't, The Secretary acknowledged the existence of the bond, but stated that the City may not be able to foreclose on it at this time. He also stated that much of the value of the bond might be used up in foreclosure proceedings. 3-17-83 -10- i Chairman Lucht then polled the Commission as to its feelings on the proper density for the project:. Commissioners Simmons, Sandstrom and Malecki preferred no density credit and to allow only 21 more units. Commissioner Malecki stated that the credit has only been used on very small pieces of .land in order to make projects more viable. She stated that this is a larger piece of land involving more units and that it would not be impossible to design a project for 21 townhouse units. Commissioners Manson and Versteeg and Chairman Lucht stated that they would allow up to 24 units on the project. Everyone stated that they prefe red not to have an 8 unit building. Mr. Larry Ellis asked whether the Planning Commission could make any kind of recommendation regarding the roadway. The Assistant City Engineer stated that the roadway alignment had been reviewed a year ago. He stated that staff looked at the Industrial Park area and different alignments. He stated that none would have worked out nearly as well as alignment which does go through the Earle Brown Farm Patio Homes . Chairman Lucht observed that the Commissi n was divided over the question of density. Commissioner Maleck pointed out that there was a unanimous agreement that people do of want an 8 unit building and that the plans should be more creativ and imaginative. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 83010 (Rod Bernu) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded b Commissioner Manson to table Application No. 83010 until a proper preliminary plat is sub- mitted and the development is designed with fewer units. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Malecki, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. Not voting: Com- missioner Ainas. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded b Commissioner Sandstrom to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commi sion. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simnons, Manson, Sandstrom, and Versteeg. The motion passed. The me ting adjourned at 0 :48 p.m. r , airman 3-17-83 -11-