Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 08-04 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 AUGUST 4, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER ThPlanning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL . Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Mary Simmons, and Nancy Manson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commmissioner Versteeg had called to say he would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 14, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the July 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, and Manson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83037 (Cramer Company) Chairman Lucht then explained that Application No. 83037 would be considered first rather than last on the agenda. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet No. 83037 attached). The Secretary also pointed out that the Minnesota Department of Transportation has not reacted favorably to requests for more noise walls and that this would be un- favorable to residential development of the property. The Secretary explained that approval of the application was subject to approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He then reviewed a resolution recommending an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and also an amendment to allow one or two storey office buildings in the R3 Zoning District by special use permit. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Larry Cramer stated he had nothing to add to the presentation of the previous meeting and would respond to questions. PUBLIC HEARING (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow mid-density residential and office development on an interchangeable basis along Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary clarified that offices in the areas recommended for midi-density residential could not be more than two stories. He added that the amendment would allow mid-density residential in office areas. Mr. Donald Finnvik of 6101 Beard Avenue North asked if this amendment would apply to all of Brooklyn .Boulevard. Chairman Lucht responded in the affirmative. Mr. Gary Zimmermann. owner of the property at 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard,stated that he would prefer that the area at Brooklyn Boulevard and I-94 remain single-family residential . Chairman Lucht explained that that land is zoned for multiple-family residential use, not single-family use. The Secretary pointed out that the property in that area has been zoned R5 since 1966 or 1967. He explained that the R5 zoning designation allows three storey apartments up to 16 units per acre. He pointed out that the single-family homes on. 65th Avenue North on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard are nonconforming uses and that, if they were more than 50% destroyed, they could not be rebuilt. 8-4-83 -1- Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else had any comments on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.' ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 83-3 Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 83-3. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend adoption of an ordinance to allow two storey office buildings in the R3 zoning district by special use permit and to decrease the minimum size for a planned- residential development from 15 acres to 5 acres. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83037) Chairman Lucht then reopened the pu is earing for Application No. 83037 and asked whether anyone present had anything new to add regarding that application. Mr. Gary Zimmermann, owner of the property at 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard, (residing at 22950 Woodbine Street, St. Paul ), stated that he was just -notified of the proposed development last week and asked why he had received notice previously. Chairman Lucht checked the file to see that a notice had been sent. He asked Mr. Zimmermann what detriment the proposed development would bring about. Mr. Zimmermann answered that with office buildings to his rear and the exit to the north of his property and more traffic generated onto Brooklyn Boulevard, he did not know who would want to live in the house that he owned at 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard. He also stated that extending the median in Brooklyn Boulevard would make it tougher for tenants to get into the driveway. ' He stated that he had talked to people with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and that they are not happy with the proposed access. The Secretary asked Mr. Zimmermann whether he preferred an apartment development .or whether he considereed any development to be bad for his property. Mr. Zimmermann answered that any development with the same access that is proposed in this case would be bad for him. The Secretary asked Mr. Zimmermann if he preferred that the City approved no development on the property. Mr. Zimmermann asnswered that, if he had to choose, he would probably prefer apartments. Commissioner Ainas asked Mr. Zimmermann if he didn't think apartment traffic would continue through the night whereas- the office development would not. Mr. Zimmermann answered that both types of developments would be a detriment. He argued that the City should not allow any development with the access that is proposed. Chairman Lucht pointed out that the proposed development has a right to access the same as Mr. Zimmermann's property and that the proposed access is probably as good as can be obtained. Mr. Donald Finnvik of 6101 Beard Avenue North asked that the 100' extension of the median be shown on the overhead transparency. The Assistant City Engineer pointed out on the transparency that the median would extend in front of most of the property immediately south of the proposed office development. Mr. Finnvik asked whether the median would curtail traffic movements onto France Avenue North The Assistant City Engineer responded in the negative. The Assistant City Eng- ineer acknowledged*.that the access to this site is a problem, but pointed out that if an apartment development were proposed, the same median extension would be recommended by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Mr. Finnvik asked about the possibility of an acceleration lane going southbound on Brooklyn Boule- vard. The Assistant City Engineer responded that the Minnesota Department of Transporation did not feel such an acceleration lane was necessary. He also 8-4-83 -2- pointed out that such a lane would not be feasible without running into the property immediately to the south. Mr. Finnvik asked what would happen to the sidewalk on Brooklyn Boulevard as a result of the deceleration lane. The Assist- ant City Engineer answered that it would be relocated westward onto the office park property with an easement for sidewalk purposes. Mr. Zimmermann complained that the extension of the median would cut off the possibility of backing onto Brooklyn Boulevard and going north from 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that there was no means of backing up and turning around on the property in order to pull out head first. Chairman Lucht stated that the residents would simply have to go south on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that he thought this would be easier than trying to back across two lanes of traffic. The Secretary pointed out that the situation would be comparable to the single-family homes on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard across from the K Mart at 63rd Avenue North. The Secretary pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan simply does not consider single-family residential to be a good land use along Brooklyn Boulevard. He again pointed out that the houses north of 65th, on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard are nonconforming uses. Mr. Finnvik asked whether the homes in that area could still be sold as single-family residences. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, but pointed out that if such uses were abandoned for a period of two years, any future use of the property would have to conform with the R5 zoning designation. Mr. Gary Zimmermann again complained about the problem of getting onto Brooklyn Boulevard presented by the proposed median and expressed concern that the office traffic would have similar problems. Commissioner Ainas pointed out that the office traffic would be heading onto Brooklyn Boulevard going forward. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else had anything to say regarding the appli- cation. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion . by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the site would be entirely fenced and whether the pond area would be lit at night. Mr. Cramer answered that fencing would be provided where it does not now exist and that there would be low-level security lighting around the site. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATIN NO. 83037 (Cramer Company) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend ap- proval of Application No. 83037, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regu.lations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Opaque fencing shall be installed along property lines abutting neighboring residences where none presently exists. Where fences do exist, a dense row of shrubbery shall be planted and maintained for screening purposes. 8-4-83 -3- 3. The median in Brooklyn Boulevard shall be extended 100' . to prevent left hand turns into and out of the proposed complex. Said median extension shall be the responsibility of the applicant under permit from MN/DOT. The median- extension shall be approved by MN/ DOT prior to the issuance of building permits and construction of the median shall be in conjunction with the construction of the office complex. 4. Medical occupancy of the office complex shall be limited by the parking available on the site or shown on a proof-of-parking plan to be submitted by the applicant. 5. The applicant acknowledges that no access to this site from Indiana/66th Avenue North (to -the west of the site) shall be granted now or in the future. 6. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 7. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 8. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements including median construction on Brooklyn Boulevard. 9. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 10. 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. 11. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 12. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 13. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 14. A deceleration lane shall be installed in accordance with MN/DOT recom- mendations and the sidewalk along the west side of Brooklyn Boule- vard shall be relocated onto the applicant's property with the granting of an easement for sidewalk purposes. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none.. The motion passed. 8-4-83 -4- APPLICATION NO. 83041 (Zantigo Mexican Restaurants Chairman Lucht then -informed the Planning Commission that Application No. 83041 was being withdrawn. The Secretary recommended that the Planning Commission take a formal action acknowledging the withdrawal of the application. ACTION ACKNOWLEDGING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83041 (Zantigo Mexican Restaurants) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Simmons to acknowledge with- drawal of Application No. 83041 , a request for a variance from Section 34-140, Sub- section 3.A(3) of the Sign Ordinance, in light of revised plans by the applicant. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO.83039 (Zantigo Mexican Restaurants) The Secretary then introduced the next item *of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to use the property at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard for a convenience food restaurant and to install a drive-up window. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83039 attached). The Secretary stated that he was not sure if the site presently had underground irrigation. He stated that if the site did not have underground irrigation, an additional condition should be added. Chairman Lucht stated that he had seen the irrigation working at the property on the day of the meeting. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. K. C. George, representing Zantigo Mexican Restaurants, stated that he had nothing further to add to the staff report. Chairman Lucht asked whether he had a problem with extending the median. Mr. George answered that he had no problem with extending the median. He explained that the opening in the median was designed to allow cars that would have a break- down to be pushed out of the line in order to keep traffic moving. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83039) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called fora motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Lucht then asked the Planning Commission whether they had any comments on the application. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the residents across Brooklyn Boulevard had been notified of this application. Chairman Lucht checked the list of addresses receiving notices and confirmed that they did receive notices. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION N0. 83039 (Zanti o Mexican Restaurants) otion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 83039, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. -5- 8-4-83 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be dertermined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal faciliti.es and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. 8612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. The plan shall be modified to indicate a closed drive-up lane bounded by a 3' side median and curb and gutter on the south and east prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht,Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83040 (Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, an appeal from Section 35-322, Subsection 3 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance requesting that .. an athletic club be allowed adjacent to R2 zoned property at the southeast corner of Lakebreeze Avenue and Azelia Avenue. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No.83040. attached). The Secretary explained that the staff did recommend denial of the appeal , but noted that the appeal application is a vehicle by which the Planning Commission can undertake a review of its ordinance relating to athletic clubs. Commissioner Simmons was curious as to why a racquet club is lumped with a bowling alley in the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that a racquet club certainly seems more park-like. . The Secretary explained- that the ordinance uses the term "athletic club" which may comprehend more than racquet and swim clubs. He noted that the proposed use is more similar to a park. He noted that there are outdoor tennis courts adjacent to a residential property at Grandview Park and at other parks around the City. He suggested that the ordinance provision was a throwback to an era when gymnasiums had a bad connotation where bookies hung out along with other unsavory characters. The Secretary pointed out that a food 'store would probably have a much greater impact on the adjacent residential property than the proposed racquet and swim club. Commissioner Simmons clarified that that impact would. be negative. The Secretary agreed, noting that the property could be developed for a shopping center use as a permitted use in the zoning district. In response to another question from Commissioner Simmons, the Secretary stated that not a lot of communities have the kind of abutment restrictions that the City's Zoning Ordinance contains regarding certain uses. The Secretary added that the Zoning' Ordinance prohibits saunas, massage parlours, school bus garages from abutting any residential property. Commissioner Malecki noted that a club can be a more restricted use and would likely have less impact on abutting property. The Secretary answered that it was difficult to distinguish in the ordinance between a use that is open to the public and one that is limited to a membership. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission should look at the use generally rather than considering only the type of establishment proposed in this case. 8-4-83 -6- Commissioner Ainas asked whether there was any ordinance requirement relating to temporary inflatable structures. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of any, but stated that such a structure would be subject to Building Code require- ments and normal setback requirements. The Secretary then pointed out to the Planning Commission that a small portion of the seven acre site actually lay.within the R2 zoning district and would have to be rezoned for the site plan to be effect- uated. He also stated that there would be a concern regarding a connection between Lakeside Ave. and Lakebreeze. Aver i.f the club were built as proposed. He explained that Grimes Avenue would have to be vacated and that traffic from the Beach Apart- ments might be forced up to Lakebreeze Avenue if the Indiana Avenue access onto Highway 100 were closed. He also noted that Azelia Avenue would perhaps have to have a cul-de-sac or turnaround dedicated at the southern end, or that it might extend through to Lakeside Avenue. He suggested, however, that the Planning Commission not labor over the specifics of this particular site plan, but concen- trate on the general planning question as to how the Zoning Ordinance should treat athletic clubs. The Planning Assistant then reviewed a brief survey of ten municipalities that he had contacted on the day of the meeting. He explained that most of the communities allow athletic clubs as a special use or a permitted use in a retail/commerce zoning district. He noted that a few communities allow athletic clubs in more limited commercial zones, similar to the City's Cl zoning district. Finally, he noted that in one or two cases such athletic clubs are allowed in residential zoning districts by a conditional use permit. He stated that none of the com- munities surveyed have a restriction on whether athletic clubs can abut residential uses. He noted, however', that a number of communities do impose an extraordinary setback when such uses abut residential property. The Planning Assistant then briefly reviewed data received from Short-Elliott Henderson, a traffic consultant often used by the City. He explained that racquet and swim clubs might generate around twelve trips per thousand square feet of building area, whereas a retail center, which would be a permitted use in the C2 zoning district, could generate as much as 80 trips per thousand square feet of net leaseable area. Commissioner Simmons asked what might be meant by "athletic club" in the ordinances in other communities. The Planning Assistant answered that, during his survey of other cities, he specifically told other planning personnel that he was referring to a racquet and swim club type use. Commissioner Simmons asked what type of uses should be grouped together with athletic clubs if the ordinance were to be changed to do away with the abutment restrictions. The Planning Assistant stated that would be up to the Planning Commission, but noted that within the group of uses with which athletic clubs are associated, there are two categories which break down to those involving more or less active exercise and those involving more passive recreation or entertainment. He stated that those involving active exercise might be allowed next to residential , while keeping the other establishments separate. Commissioner Ainas pointed out that if the abutment restriction were removed, the special use standards would still apply and could be used to prevent certain uses from abutting residential property on a case-by-case basis. The Secretary agreed, recommending that the Planning Commission still keep such uses as special uses within the C2 zoning district in order to have greater control over their location. He pointed out that presently the ordinance assumes that a use such as an athletic club which abuts Rl , R2 or R3 property will have a _detrimental effect on the sur- rounding property. He explained that the ordinance, therefore, assumes that the Standards for a Special Use Permit cannot be met by such uses when abutting resi- dential property. 8-4-83 -7- Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt there were other uses, which under the Zoning Ordinance can abut residential property, which have a greater impact on surrounding property than an athletic club. The SecreLary agreed and pointed to auto dealerships as an example. Chairman Lucht stated that the Commission should probably deny the appeal , but look at a change in the Zoning Ordinance. There followed a discussion regarding various options open to the Planning Commission for classifying the proposed use. The Secretary pointed out that the Planning Commission could consider the use similar in nature to_ other permitted uses and bypass the entire special use permit process. He also noted that the Commission could deny the appeal and change the ordinance to do away with the abutment restriction altogether. He added that the Commission could split off some of the uses which are presently prohibited from abutting Rl , R2, and R3 property and allow those uses, including athletic clubs, to abut resi- dential property. Commissioner Simmons expressed some concern about the potential activity in the parking lots of athletic clubs. She stated that alot would depend on the clientele as to whether problems arose. Chairman Lucht asked what controls could be used if the parking for the use was not adequate. The Secretary answered that he was not sure what formula in the Zoning Ordinance would be applied to the proposed use. He stated that it might fall under the category of: spaces as required by the City Council for the particular use. Chairman Lucht noted that parking could still be controlled under special use permit review. The Secretary stated that the first question- the Commission should address is whether the abutment restrictions should concinue. Commissioner Ainas stated that he had no objection to such a use abutting residential property. He stated that the Planning Commission should look at such uses on a case-by-case basis and that the ordinance should be left as is without the abutment. restriction. The Secretary pointed out in response that eliminating the abutment restriction from all the uses would shift the burden to the City to show that there is an adverse impact on- residential property presented by certain uses. Chairman Lucht asked whether it was necessary to list athletic clubs at all or whether they could just be considered similar in nature. The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance is an ex- clusive ordinance and that, unless a specific use is listed, it is prohibited. Commissioner Simmons asked what a "gymnasium" would include. The Secretary pointed to the special use permit granted to Viking Gym in the Industrial Park as an example of what is meant in the ordinance by gymnasium. He also stated that many of the activities in the Community Center might be part of an athletic club use. Chairman Lucht suggested the possibility of having a separate category for racquet and swim clubs. The Secretary stated that that was an option for the Commission. or that the Commission could group such uses with athletic clubs, gymnasiums, health spas, etc. Chairman Lucht asked what is meant in the ordinance by a "recreation center." The Secretary pointed to the Community Center as perhaps the best example of a recreation center. Commissioner Simmons asked whether that included establish- ments with electronic games. The Secretary explained the ordinance has a separate classification for "amusement centers" which are not permitted to abut any residential property. ' Chaairman Lucht suggested that the ordinance eliminate the term "recrea- tion center" because it is too vague. The Secretary noted that the applicant was present. Chairman Lucht called on the applicant and asked whether he had anything to add. Mr. Alan Kimpell , of H. W. Fridlund, Architects, showed the Planning Commission an aerial photograph of the racquet and swim club at 98th Street in Bloomington. He noted that the use is bounded by single-family residences on two sides and noted the dense landscape screening. Chairman Lucht asked what activities were carried on within the athletic club. Mr. Kimpell answered that there were tennis and racquet ball courts, swimming 8-4-83 -8- pool , a running track, sauna and steam rooms, a pro shop, and a vending and snack area. He also noted that there is a party room which can be reserved. He noted that the club was for private members and was not open to the public generally. In answer to Commissioner Simmons, Mr. Kimpell explained that there was no liquor available on the premises and that any member of the public could join the club. Chairman Lucht asked what would be done to control the parking problem. Mr. Kimpell noted that people who belong to the club pay membership fees and rent out certain courts at specific times. He stated that there was more control in this type of use than in an athletic club or gymnasium that is open to the public. He explained the experience that Normandale Tennis Clubs has had in other communities and stated that their operations have no parking problems. He also noted that the establishments are family-oriented. Commissioner Simmons asked what was meant by family-oriented. Mr. Marvin Wolfenson of Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. explained to the Planning Com- mission that there are 18,000 memberships in the nine clubs in the Metro area. He explained that 10,000 of these memberships are family memberships. He stated that the racquet and swim club would be a positive asset to the community and noted that it would cost between six and seven million dollars. Chairman Lucht then polled the Planning Commission as to how they felt regarding the application. Commission Ainas stated that he preferred to allow athletic clubs to abut Rl , R2 and R3 zoned property. Commissioner Manson agreed as did Commissioner Simmons. Commissioner Malecki stated that she would do away with the abutment re- striction for this particular use, but not for bowling alleys and other similar uses. She noted that a private club allows for more control . Commissioner Manson dis- tinguished the proposed use from a public rink which would be open certain hours with large numbers of people going and coming at certain times. She stated that the proposed use would have a few people coming and going all the time. Chairman Lucht asked whether there would be a problem with dropping the term re- creation center from the list of uses in Subsection 3(d) of Section 35-322 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary stated that he would have no problem with such a change. He suggested that the Planning Commission might want to change the ordi- nance by taking the uses listed after "skating rinks" and put them in a separate categroy which would be allowed to abut Rl , R2 and R3 zoned property. He recom- mended that the Commission keep such uses as special uses in the Zoning Ordinance. He suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the appeal , but a change in the Zoning Ordinance to allow such uses to abut resi- dential property. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83040 (Normandale Tennis Clubs,Inc. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend denial of Application No. 83040. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Commission then discussed how it would recommend a change in the Zoning Ordi- nance to the City Council . Commissioner Malecki stated that she had a problem with allowing gymnasiums to abut residential property. The Secretary stated that a gym- nasium could include a boxing club, racquet ball courts, etc. Mr. Allen Kimpell asked the Planning Commission to consider setting up racquet and swim clubs as a specific use by themselves. He stated that he did not want to be denied the possibility of a special use permit because the use they proposed was not adequately defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Manson stated that she would not want an athletic club with a liquor license next to R1 , R2 or R3 zoned property. Chairman Lucht stated that .he thought liquor establishments could not abut Rl , R2 or R3 property anyway. The Secretary clarified that such establishments may abut R1 , R2 and R3 zoned property . Chairman Lucht concluded by saying that the Planning Commission would need'a little more time to develop better language to recommend to the City Council . 8-4-83 -9- ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE CHANGE Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend that the City Council direct staff to develop ordinance language listing tennis and swim .clubs as a permitted special use in the C2 zoning district without an abutment restriction and also, to look at other uses listed in Subsection 3(d) of Section 35-322 for possible change of status. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson and •Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT While the Secretary briefly reviewed upcoming business items for the August 11 . Planning Commission meeting, there was a motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:16 Chairman 8-4-83 -10-