Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 02-14 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 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson, and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioners Manson and Ainas were excused from the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 31 , 1985 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to approve the minutes of the January 31 , 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not Voting: Commissioners Malecki and Sandstrom. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 85001 , 85002, AND 85003 (RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) Fol owing the Chairman's explanation, there was a motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to remove Application Nos. 85001 and 85002 from the table. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson, and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then introduced Application Nos. 85001 , 85002, and 85003 for consideration. He reviewed the staff report for Application No. 85001 , a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 105,000 square foot Target store on 34,160 square foot attached retail center on the land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85001 attached) . The Secretary also reviewed many details of the site plan that had been negotiated with Target and Ryan Construction Company. He also reviewed the definitions for various levels of service and discussed the traffic analysis prepared by Barton Ashman. Chairman Lucht noted that no handicap parking stalls had been indicated on the plan, except near the restaurant site. The Secretary acknowledged this and stated that the plan would have to be revised to show those stalls. Commissioner Sandstrom referred to a recommended 17th condition regarding negotiations between Target and LaBelle's or the purpose of providing a common loading facility area. He asked whether this condition was mandatory or simply an encouragement. The Secretary responded that it was more in the way of an encouragement. In response to a question from Commissioners Bernards regarding the location of the sidewalk, the Secretary pointed out the location of the existing sidewalk along Summit Drive and the area of sidewalk on Shingle Creek Parkway to be relocated. He also noted that the applicant would provide a sidewalk entrance to the Target store off Summit Drive. Commissioner Bernards expressed concern that landscaping be set back enough so that it does not present a visibility problem for pedestrians or motorists coming to and from the site. The Secretary agreed with this concern and stated that he did not think there would be any visibility problems with the proposed landscape plan. 2-14-005 -1- Commissioner Nelson inquired as to the location of Earle Brown Drive relative to the Target site. The Secretary pointed out that the Earle Brown Drive intersection with Summit Drive would be immediately across from the Target access. Commissioner Nelson stated that he thought such an access arrangement was being discouraged. The Secretary explained that the problems with the original access arrangement across from Earle Brown Drive were more with the design on the site than with the location of the access across from Earle Brown Drive. Commissioner Nelson asked whether the traffic analysis indicated that there was a need for traffic signal at that location. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that a subdivision agreement should plan for the possibility of signals at that location. The Secretary then introduced Application No. 85003 and reviewed the staff report for the preliminary plat (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85003 attached) . Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Thomas Bonneville of Target asked whether the City preferred right-of-way dedication to an easement for sidewalk along Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary stated that the easement would be acceptable to the City. Mr. Bonneville asked about the need to upgrade existing signals as a result of the Target development. The Secretary stated that the main concern was that regarding the possible installation of signals at Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive. Mr. Bonneville expressed some concern regarding the sharing of costs for signals when Target does not cause all of the traffic demand that results in the signalization of an intersection, even though they may have added the increment that justifies the signal. The Secretary stated that he understood the concern of Target and that the portion of the cost of any signal assessed to Target would be proportional to the benefit received by Target from those signals and would be provided for in the Subdivision Agreement. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85003) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the preliminary plat application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. There was a brief discussion regarding Application No. 85002, the request for a special use permit for an auto center in the Target store. Mr. Bonneville explained that a smaller version of the auto center was being considered, and that a final decision as to whether to make a new proposal for the auto would be made in the near future. He asked the Commission to table the application indefinitely until Target would either propose a smaller auto center or withdraw the application entirely. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION N0. 85002 INDEFINITELY AND CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to table Application No. 85002 and continue the public hearing indefinitely at the request of the applicant. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85001 (Ryan Construction Company) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 85001 , subject to the following conditions: 2-14-85 -2- 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 , utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer , prior to the issuance of permits . 3 . 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 . 4 . Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5 . The building is 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 . 6 . An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance . 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances . 8 . B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas , including parking lot islands. g . The replat of the property shall receive final approval by the City Council and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits . 10 . The applicant shall amend the name of the development and the plat so as not to be confused in any way with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval . 11 . Plan approval excludes the restaurant portion of the project which is subject to future review and approval . 12. All outside storage in the garden center area shall be effectively screened from view by an opaque masonry wall . Excepted from this condition are the tops of tree seedlings. However , no packaged merchandise shall be visible from outside the garden center . There shall be no outside storage of semi trailers on the site with the exception of trailers parked at the loading docks. 2-14-85 -3- 13 . Plan approval acknowledges a proof-of-parking which meets the minimum requirement of the City Ordinances for 880 spaces. The applicant (Target and Ryan Construction) shall acknowledge in writing that , if the City deems it necessary, they shall install parking as required by City Ordinances (up to 880 spaces) . 14. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to install all on-site traffic control signs as approved by the Director of Public Works. 15 . The landscape plan shall be modified prior to City Council consideration , to include or acknowledge the following : a. The relocation of shrubs for the island areas to other appropriate locations on the site . b . Additional shade trees at the southeast portion of the site in the greenstrip between the LaBelle ' s property and the proposed shopping center . 16. That exterior modifications to the Target building , such as rounded corners , be indicated on the site plan prior to City Council consideration . 17. The applicant is encouraged to continue negotiation with LaBelle ' s for the purpose of providing a common loading area. Voting in favor : Chairman Lucht , Commissioners Malecki , Sandstrom , Nelson and Bernards . Voting against : none. The motion passed . ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85003 (Ryan Construction) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 85003 , 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 . The plat shall be modified to include sidewalk easements in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public Works . 4 . The name of the preliminary plat shall be revised so as to avoid any confusion with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval . 2-14-85 -4- 5. The applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the ity stipulating responsibility for and assessment of costs for certain improvements to public facilities within the public fight-of-way, including, but not limited to: a. potential installation of traffic signals at John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway and at Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive (west) . b. installation of deceleration lanes serving accesses on Shingle Creek Parkway and on Summit Drive. c. relocation of public sidewalks as necessary. 6. The applicant shall execute cross easements for access and ,parking between Lots 1 and 2 prior to final approval by the City :Council. Voting in favor : Chairman Lucht , Commissioners Malecki , Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards . Voting against : none . The motion passed . The Secretary then explained that because a moratorium on retail development would go into effect on February 23 , 1985 , the applica ions would not be considered by the City Council until the May 20 , 198 meeting when the moratorium would expire . APPLICATION NO. 85004 (Cathy Rausch) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business , a request for special use permit approval to conduct a home beauty shop with one non- residen employee in the existing family of the residence at 3000 63rd Avenue North . The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85004 attached) . The Secretary noted that a previous home beauty shop with a part-time nonresident employee was approved in the past , but this was before on-street parking was allowed for home occupations . The Secretary also discussed other situations in which on-street parking has been allowed , primarily for group lessons. Commissioner Sandstrom noted that it was possible for three cars to be parked on 63rd Avenue North and noted that the conditions of approval would limit parking to two cars on 63rd Avenue North . The Secretary stated that on-street parking should be minimized , but that two additio al spaces would probably be needed in addition to the three stalls hat were possible on the lot . Further discussion ensued regardi g the need for parking and the location of parking with respect to the ome occupation. Chairmai Lucht then asked the applicant whether she had anything to add . Tie applicant ' s husband , Mr . Duane Rausch, submitted a scaled drawing to the Planning Commission that provided for five cars to be parked on the site in addition to the garage . Chairman Lucht asked Mr . Rausch whether they were interested in on-street parking at all . Mr . Rausch answered in the negative , stating that he felt all parking could be hand ed on-site . 2-1.4-85 -5- Commissioner Malecki asked Mrs. Rausch whether she had a beauty shop at present . Mr . Rausch answered in the affirmative . There followed a brief discussion regarding the traffic to the site. Mrs. Rausch stated that the addition of an employee created only about one extra car per hour . The Secretary asked how many cars were generated when she worked by herself. Mr . Rausch answered that there would generally be two cars present at a time. The Secretary stated, upon looking at the submitted scaled site plan , that he did not think five stalls could be accommodated on the site because of greenstrip requirements on private property. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85004) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mrs . Loretto Wykrent of 3006 63rd Avenue North expressed a number of concerns. She stated that she was concerned about parking on 63rd because no one parks close to the intersection , fearing that they will be hit by cars coming around the corner . She stated that she was afraid they would park in front of her house. She also expressed concerns regarding odors from permanent treatments , conversion of the area to commercial , and interference on her TV from the hair dryers . Mrs . Rausch stated that the State Board of Cosmotology requires doors and windows to be shut when haircutting and permanents are being done. She stated that the State would not allow customers to be exposed to chemicals that would be of any harm to neighbors. She also stated that the ventilation of the beauty shop would be adequate . She noted that the home has central air . Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application . No one addressed the Commission. Chairman Lucht, therefore , called for a motion to close the public hearing . Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant if she could manage the operation without any on-street parking. Mrs. Rausch answered that she could perhaps handle it through scheduling certain types of appointments together so that there would never be more than three cars coming to the property at one time . There followed a discussion regarding how the parking arrangement might work. Mrs. Rausch concluded that she would need at least one on-street parking stall if she had a part-time employee. The Planner discussed with the Planning Commission briefly the considerations in the ordinance for allowing on-street parking . He stated that they basically relate to such parking not infringing on the rights of other residents in the area to have visitors park on-street and generally with respect to the residential character of the neighborhood . He noted that , in this case , the parking could be accommodated in front of the applicant ' s property and that it was a fairly busy area to begin with. The Secretary suggested that the Commission , first of all , decide whether to allow any on-street parking at all and then to look at the nature of the proposed home occupation . 2-14-85 -6- i Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the applicant has the same right to have a client park on the street as a neighbor has the right for a visitor to park on-street . Commissioner Malecki suggested that perhaps ,the condition should be changed to allow only one on-street parking ' stall since that was all that seemed to be absolutely necessary. Commissioner Nelson stated that he had no problem with on- street parking . Commissioner Bernards , on the other hand , stated that he objected to customer parking on 63rd Avenue North and related his own experience with a home occupation that had significant on- street parking. There followed a brief discussion of limiting the on- street parking to one stall . The majority of the Commission generally agreed that this would be an acceptable solution . There then followed a discussion whether the home occupation was incidental to the residential use of the property. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the size of the room being used was incidental to the larger home . Commissioner Malecki expressed uncertainty regarding the matter . Commissioner Nelson agreed that it was incidental . Commissioner Bernards stated that he had no objection to a second employee. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not want to see a commercial endeavor created on the corner that would change the character of the neighborhood . Regarding concerns over motors and noise , the Secretary stated that the special use permit would be issued subject to compliance with codes , ordinances and regulations including these areas . He stated that any complaints regarding odor could be reviewed as nuisance complaints. Chairman Lucht then polled the Commission regarding their feeling about the hours of operation , as to whether they constituted an incidental use of the property. No Commissioner voiced any objection to the proposed hours. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85004 ( Cathy Rausch) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No . 85004 , subject to the following conditions : 1 . The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes , ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation . 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 3 . A current copy of the applicant 's state operator ' s license shall be kept on file with the City. 4 . The hours of operation shall be : 9 :00 a .m. to 5 :00 p.m. , Wednesday and Thursday; 9 :00 a.m. to 8 :00 p.m. , Tuesday and Friday; and 9 :00 a .m. to 2 :00 p.m. , Saturday. The home occupation shall be conducted on an appointment only basis . 2-14-85 -7- 5 . Special Use Permit approval acknowledges one , part- time , non-resident employee working in the beauty shop. 6. Special Use Permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances . 7. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges on-street parking of not more than one customer vehicle on 63rd Avenue North only. 8. The existing driveway off Xerxes Avenue North shall be widened to 26' with a throat on Xerxes Avenue North of approximately 221 . No removal of curb or improvement within the Xerxes Avenue North boulevard shall be commenced prior to approval by the City Engineer . 9 . Special Use Permit approval acknowledges the use for the home beauty shop of an existing 11 ' x 28 ' family room. No greater area within the home for the home occupation is comprehended by this approval . 10. The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and any structural alterations recommended by him shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. 11 . A 10 lb . fire extinguisher shall be placed within the home beauty shop area . Voting in favor : Chairman Lucht , Commissioners Malecki , Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against : Commissioner Bernards . The motion passed . Commissioner Bernards stated that he voted against the application because of his objection to on-street parking . RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9 : 48 p.m. and resumed at 10 :03 P.M. APPLICATION NO. 84008 (Outreach Group Homes , Inc . ) The Secretary then introduced the last item of business , an appeal from a determination by staff that group care of more than six wards or clients is neither a permitted or a special use in the R1 zoning district. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report ( see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No . 84008 attached) . Chairman Lucht asked whether the ordinance does not limit the occupancy of special use situations on a case-by-case basis regarding the liberty to go beyond six wards or clients . Commissioner Sandstrom stated that a special use could be limited to a specific number , thereby setting some upper limit on what could be approved in the R1 district . The Secretary responded that no such number presently exists in the ordinance and that that was part of the problem with the application. Commissioner Nelson asked whether the limit could not be determined on 2-14-85 _8_ a case-by-case basis . The Secretary answered that if the City does not have a limit , there will be no limit on the occupancy of such uses except that which is set by the State. He stated that City presently does not have a basis for determining the maximum occupancy for a residential facility in the R1 district . Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the building in question could hold eight residents since there are four bedrooms . The Secretary commented that , under the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance , an even higher occupancy might be allowed . In response to another question from Commissioner Sandstrom, the Secretary explained that , under State law, seven or more clients in a residential facility is classified as a multiple family use. He stated that multiple- family uses are not permitted in the R1 zoning district. He added that eight clients were allowed in a similar residential facility located in the R2 zone which could have accommodated up to 12 residents as a two- family use . There followed a discussion as to what is mandated by the State in terms of residential facilities in residential districts . Chairman Lucht stated that the issue hinges to some extent on what is required for the public welfare . The Secretary agreed , stating that if more clients are acceptable , language in the zoning ordinance should be developed . Commissioner Sandstrom stated that occupancy could be limited on a case-by-case basis in consideration of what seems tolerable in the neighborhood . The Secretary pointed out that the public hearing process for a special use permit opens such residential facilities up to neighborhood antagonism and predicted , if the issue were left to the neighbors , that no more than the required mandated number of clients could be allowed in a residential facility. He went on to point out that suburbs have been criticized for having public hearings to approve residential facilities . Commissioner Sandstrom stated that , in the present case , the neighbors can testify that there has been no problem with the home in question. There was continued discussion on the question of limiting occupancy for such residential facilities in the R1 district . Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr . Wes Kooistra handed out to the Planning Commission a list of facilities with more than six residents . He also gave the Commission copies of letters from the County and the State supporting the request for expanded occupancy at the Outreach Group Home at 507 69th Avenue North. Mr . Kooistra also clarified that his organization was seeking a potential of eight residents rather than seven , although seven would occupy the residence immediately. Ms . Eileen Harris with Outreach Group Homes , Inc . briefly discussed with the Commission the types of facilities that her organization operates . Mr . Kooistra added that the parents and families of retarded persons see residential facilities as required for the public welfare . He added that other cities generally use a special use permit procedure to allow more than six wards or clients in a residential facility. Mr . Kooistra also reviewed the section of the minutes from Application No . 78005 (a group home application by 2-14-85 -9- Residential Alternatives) that the request in that case would have been considered a special use permit in the R1 zoning district because it was a use required for the public welfare , not because the property in question was located in the R2 district. He stated that Outreach Group Homes , Inc . was asking for the right to apply for a special use permit rather than it being determined arbitrarily by the staff that an occupancy of more than six residents was not required for the public welfare. Mr . Bruce Rashke , an attorney for Outreach Group Homes , Inc . , said that he appreciated the difficulty that the City was having regarding residential facilities. He stated that the statutes do not define residential care facilities with 7 to 16 clients as multiple-family uses per se ' . He quoted the statute as saying that nothing in the statute is to be construed as limiting such facilities in a single- family residential district to six clients or less . Mr . Rashke stated that Outreach Group Homes was not trying to cram State regulations down the City' s throat . He stated that Brooklyn Center ' s Zoning Ordinance is capable of accommodating eight clients as a special use as presently written. Regarding whether eight clients versus six clients was required for the public welfare , Chairman Lucht noted that a greater number of clients would certainly be a financial benefit to the care providers . Mr . Rashke stated that Outreach Group Homes was a nonprofit organization that was simply seeking the right to apply. He stated that , under the present situation , staff has in effect , determined that a residential facility with more than six wards or clients does not enhance the public welfare. Chairman Lucht stated that his interpretation of the staff position was that they have determined that more than six wards or clients is not a single-family use . Mr . Rashke accepted this , but added that State law does not limit single- family uses to six wards or clients . Commissioner Bernards asked Mr . Rashke how he would define "the public welfare" . Mr . Rashke stated that the general concept of "mainstreaming" has been considered in the public interest by the State Legislature which is trying to reduce the clientele in large State institutions. He explained that the best way to do this was to located clients in smaller facilities in residential neighborhoods . In response to another question from Commissioner Bernards , Mr . Rashke pointed out that residents of Brooklyn Center are served by the facility. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not disagree that these homes were enhancing the public welfare , but there was a concern as to what the upper limit of occupancy is for such facilities in the R1 district . Mr . Rashke answered that the City could restrict such occupancv through the special use permit procedure . The Secretary pointed out, however , that the City argued for just that right in the Northwest Residence case and lost. He stated that the City has to look at what standards will be applied by the courts in determining the validity of City decisions regarding such special use permits . He stated that suburbs have been criticized for not allowing more residential facilities , but , he asserted , the City has a right to set standards for such facilities before they are approved . 2-14-85 -10- Ms . Eileen Harris asked that the Commission separate the issues of serving more people and the issue of setting standards for occupancy. The Secretary stated that he did not know how these issues could be separated . Ms . Harris stated that she sensed the City' s Ordinances were not clear on residential facilities . She stated that the lack of clarity should not prevent the right of the group home to apply for a special use permit. The Secretary again discussed the criticisms that had been made of suburbs in a County report in zoning practices regarding residential facilities . There followed a discussion on how to resolve the issue . The Secretary stated that he felt the Commission should look at the larger picture and seek advice from the City Attorney on how to regulate all types of residential facilities in all zones . Ms . Harris stated that she did not want to be an adversarial relationship with the City and hoped that some agreement could be arrived at by working together . The Secretary stated that he had concerns regarding setting a precedent by approving a special use permit application without written standards . He also stated that he had concerns with the state preempting the City' s right to set such standards . Mr . Kooistra stated that he would be willing to work on changing the City' s ordinance , but that Outreach Group Homes has had a client waiting for over a year for a decision on this matter . The Commission discussed how they should dispose of the application. Commissioner Bernards stated that he would like the City Attorney to look at the question of zoning for residential facilities and advised the City on how to handle them in the Zoning Ordinance . Commissioner Sandstrom also recommended research on the question in a timely manner . Commissioner Nelson stated that he had no problem with researching the issue of ordinance standards , but that the question before the Commission is whether the applicant has a right to apply for a special use permit. He noted language in the Zoning Ordinance which describes special uses as uses which do not ordinarily fit within the district. He stated that , on this basis , he felt the applicant did have a right to apply. Commissioner Malecki stated that she would like the City Attorney to research the issue . Chairman Lucht stated that he agreed somewhat with Commissioner Nelson , but then wondered what standards would apply to such facilities in the Rl zoning district. He wondered whether the State would preempt such standards if the City did not clearly spell them out in their ordinance . Commissioner Nelson pointed to the standards and wondered whether occupancy could be limited on a case-by-case basis using those standards . There then followed a lengthy discussion regarding the question of setting standards in the ordinance and how that process would fit into disposing of the application. It was finally agreed that the application should be denied with direction to develop standards to set forth in the Zoning Ordinance what types of facilities would be allowed in the R1 zoning district . ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84008 WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO DRAFT ORDINANCE STANDARDS Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson 'to 2-14-85 -11- recommend denial of Application No. 84008 and direct staff to draft ordinance standards relating to residential facilities in residential districts. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then briefly discussed a tax increment financing plan for the commercial area south of the freeway and north of County Road 10 that would encompass rehabiliation of the Earle Brown Farm. He stated that more information would be upcoming at the February 28, 1985 meeting. He also briefly discussed with the Planning Commission the action by the City Council to establish a moratorium on retail development in the City. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously, unless Commissioner Bernards was serious in voting against adjournment. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:39 p.m. t airman 2-14-85 -12-