Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 06-15 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 June 15, 1978 { Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl . Roll Call : Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Jacobson, Book and Theis. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. Approve Minutes: The first item of business was approval of the minutes 5-25-78 and Consideration of the May 25, 1978 and consideration of corrections of Correction to 5-11-78 to the May 11 , 1978 meeting. Regarding the latter, the Secretary explained that the second paragraph of the discussion under Application No. 77064 on page 7 of those minutes, it had been erroneously reported that the item had been considered at meetings other than the actual hearings. He said it had been scheduled on certain agendas, but was not subsequently discussed. He explained there were several meetings where the subject of the application, that of possible ordinance amendments regarding canopies and carports, was re- viewed, but the application itself was only discussed at two meetings preceding the May 11 meeting. He stated that the second paragraph under the discussion of Application No. 77064 submitted by Mr. Gene Hamilton Y should read as follows: The Secretary continued that the application had originally been considered at the November 10, 1977 meeting and was subsequently consider- ed on December 8, 1977. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commis- sioner Book to approve the correction to the minutes of the May 11 , 1978 meeting as noted. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Jacobson, Book and Malecki . Not voting; Commissioner Theis who was not present at that meeting. The motion passed. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Book to approve the minutes of the May 25, 1978 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Book and Theis. Not voting: { Commissioner Jacobson who was not present at that meeting. The motion passed. Commissioner Hawes Arrives: Commissioner Hawes arrived at 8:10 p.m. Application No. 78034 Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item (Northwest YMCA) of business was consideration of Application No. 78034 f submitted by the Northwest YMCA. The item was intro- duced by the Secretary who stated the applicant sought a special use permit for a day care facility in the Orchard Lane Elementary School at 6201 Noble Avenue North. He stated such activities are special uses in the R-1 Zoning District and are subject to licensing by the State of Minnesota. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Tom Carrothers, who represented the applicant, and who briefly explained the nature of the proposed use as conveyed in a letter submitted to the file. -1- 6-15-78 Commissioner Pierce arrived at 8:13 p.m. Commissioner Pierce Arrives Responding to several questions, Mr. Carrothers stated that the facility would serve up to a maximum of 30 . children, but that the average was 20 to 25 children per day. He stated that children bring sack lunches and that meals are not prepared on the premises, although beverages are provided. Commissioner Engdahl inquired as to how many supervisory adults were present and Mr. Carrothers responded that at least three were present at all times. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to field trips, and Mr. Carrothers explained that trips or hikes are taken such as to the nearby Kylawn Park. He stated cool-dination had been arranged through the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Department for the use of the park for these field trips. Commissioner Theis inquired as to whether the City accepted any extraordinary liability with respect to the use of the park for such field trips, and the Secretary responded that the City was .insured for liability as to the use of public parks and that the use of them by groups such as schools was not considered extraordinary. Mr. Carrothers commented that the applicant is full insured as to liability for the PP Y Y protection of the participants. Following further discussion Chairman Engdahl noted that Public Hearing a public hearing had been scheduled and he recognized Mr. Beadle, 6206 Noble Avenue North, who inquired whether the operation was in progress and, if so, what was the signifi- cance of the public hearing. Mr. Carrothers informed the Commission that the applicant was operating the facility. under a conditional approval by the State, subject to approval by the City. Commissioners inquired of Mr. Beadle and several other residents present whether there were any problems or any objections to the proposed use, and it was responded that there were none. The Secretary stated that the staff had not been aware that the applicant was operating the facility, and he explained to the citizens present, as well as to the Commissioners, that the item before the Commission and City Council was a zoning matter and it should be determined whether there U!as any reason under zoning criteria why the use should not be permitted. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Close Pubic Hearing Pierce to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commis- Recommend Approval of sioner Book seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to recommend Application No. 78034 . approval of Application No. 78034 submitted by Northwest (Northwest YMCA) YMCA subject to the following conditions: 1 . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable ordinances, codes and regulations including any special licensing requirements, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. A copy of the current State operating license shall be kept on file with the City. The motion passed unanimously. 6-15-78 -2- Application No. 78030 The next item of business was consideration of Appli- (Ansari Abrasives) cation No. 78030 submitted by Ansari Abrasives, 3400 48th Avenue North. The Secretary explained that the City Council on October 3, 1977 approved Application No. 77054 consisting of site and building plans fora new structure on the site. He stated that one of the con- ditions of that approval is that, prior to occupancy of the new building, the two parcels comprising the property will be combined through plat or registered land survey. The Secretary briefly explained the history of the subdivision in the area and stated the applicant had submitted a preliminary registered land survey to meet with the stated requirement. Public Hearing Commissioner Engdahl stated that notice of public hear- ing had been published and that no one was present to speak on the application. Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Recommend Approval of Following further discussion there was a motion by .Com- Application No. 78030 missioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to (Ansari Abrasives) recommend approval of Application No. 78030 submitted by Ansari Abrasives subject to the following conditions: 1 . Final registered land survey is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. Final registered land survey is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 78031 The next item of business was consideration of Appli- (Robert Gustafson) cation No. 78031 submitted by Robert Gustafson, 5242 France Avenue North. The Sc--retary explained that the applicant proposes a registered land survey which would combine two existing parcels and would create a new single family residential parcel facing Ewing Avenue North. He stated the applicant owns a lot which extends from France Avenue through to Ewing Avenue on the east, as well as a lot on France Avenue to the south of and adjacent to the parcel . He reviewed a transparency and slides of the area and commented further as to the history and configuration of the property. Further discussion ensued regarding the topography of the area, the soil conditions and the water table elevations. There was also a brief discussion regarding a narrow Outlot between the Ewing Avenue street right- of-way and the property line of the subject property. The Secretary explained that this would be incorporated in the new plat and combined into the main parcel . Chaf eman Engdahl recognized the applicant and further discussion ensued regarding the future development ofthe proposed lot dnd specifically as to whether existing trees would have to be removed or altered. The appli- cant responded that he did not feel the large box elder tree on the lot would have to be removed since it was behind the established building setback line of ad- jacent residences. Public Hearing Chairman Engdahl stated that notice of public hearing had been published and that no one was present to speak on the application. Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Recommend Approval of Following further discussion there was a motion by Com- Application No. 78031 missioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Pierce to (Robert Gustafson) recommend approval of Application No. 78031 submitted by Robert Gustafson subject to the following conditions: -3- 6-15-78 1 . The final registered land survey is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. The final registered land survey is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Application Application No. 78032 No. 78032 submitted by R. L. Johnson. The item was intro- (R. L. Johnson) duced by the Secretary who explained the applicant is re- questing rezoning from R-3 (Townhouse Garden. Apartments) to C-2 (General Commercial ) of a tract of land consisting of two parcels which contain approximately 5 acres bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, the municipal Brooklyn Center-Brooklyn Park boundary on the north, the east boundary of "The Ponds" Planned Residential Development on the west, and the north boundary of the Creek Villa townhouse neighborhood on the south. He explained that the south property line is on the south side of Shingle Creek which runs through the property and that the Creek is not the boundary between the Creek Villas townhouse neighborhood and this property,as it might appear on the City map. He stated the applicant owns the bulk of the property with the exception of the smaller interior parcel abutting Brooklyn Boulevard which contains a rented single family home. He stated the owner of the single family home has submitted a letter stating no objection to the rezoning request. The Secretary also commented on conceptual development plans the applicant had submitted, and he emphasized that, while the conceptual plans indicated the use of some adjacent land owned by the applicant in Brooklyn Park, the zoning matter before the Commission was not concerned ' , .. '.-..'. with that prospective use and no presumption should be made as to the specific type of development which might or might not occur on the property. The Secretary presented transparencies showing the location of the property as well as slides indicating the features of the property. Extensive discussion ensued regarding information submitted by the applicant explaining the request. The Secretary stated that the applicant has, for some time, proposed conceptual plans for a commercial development which has included a restaurant. He stated the applicant has been informed over the past several years that restaurants require C-2 zoning which is not consistent with the Come prehensive Plan for properties along Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated no development proposal has ever been submitted for an R-3 type development. The Secretary also commented that the application had been accepted as a request to rezone the property to C-2, which comprehends both retail and C-1 Service/Office uses because of the applicant's insistence that a portion of the site be zoned to accommodate a restaurant. He noted, however, that the applicant had submitted conceptual layouts indicating a "split" zoning, wherein .the southerly part of the property would be zoned C-1 for development with office-type uses, and the northerly portion would be zoned C-2 to accommodate a' restaurant use. He stated the applicant's contention is that the C-1 would provide "buffering" for the residential development to the south on the other side of the Creek from the proposed retail or restaurant use on the north. 6-15-78 -4- The Secretary stated that the application was accepted 7n its present form because, to presume a "split" zoning would be to prematurely determine that C-2 was an appropriate zoning, contrary to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the Com- mission and Council , following the hearings and further consideration of the matter, could modify the proposal if the "split" xoning concept was deemed to be appropri- ate so that the result would be a C-1 and C-2 zoning of the same property. The Secretary stated that the Commission had several courses of action which could ultimately be recommended: approve the rezoning as submitted; deny the proposal as submitted; approve a "split" C-1/C-2 zoning; or approve a C-1 zoning of the entire property. He ex- plained that the Comprehensive Plan states that appro- priate land uses along Brooklyn Boulevard include multiple-residential as well as Service/Office. The Secretary stated that the R-3 property could support approximately 36 to 40 townhouse-type units. He also explained that the applicant has indicated approximately 2.8 acres of the approximate 5 acres was deemed "build- able", but that it should be understood that the exist- ing 100 ft. easement over Shingle Creek cannot be built upo;,, and that this area is part of the land the appli- cant is stating is "unbuildable" in addition to the land which soil testing apparently has indicated is not highly desirable for construction. The Secretary concluded, stating that following the public hearing the Commission should review the appli- cation thoroughly in the context of the City Rezoning Policy and Guidelines in Section 35-208 of the City Ordinances. A brief discussion ensued with the Director of Public Works relative to possible traffic generation by a ;:ownhouse development, an office complex, and a restaurant. 'C Kai.rm a'n E n g d ah l recognized the applicant and an extensive discussion ensued beginning with the appli- cant's explanation of a model layout of the proposed development. The applicant stated that in consider- ation of the commercial development to the north in Brooklyn Park, he felt that townhouses would be difficult to market. He stated that he was a food service operator and his main interest in the develop- ment of the office comples was to establish his corporate offices and to sell a portion of the property to an interested restaurant developer such as Sambo's. Mr. Johnson also stated that a prime concern in the re- zoning request was the economic considerations wherein a portion of the property would have to be a higher zoned commercial that could be sold in order to support the office development. He stated that otherwise he would probably have difficulty in developing the property. The Secretary clarified earlier remarks regarding con- sideration of the use of Brooklyn Park land in relation to a proposed use on the Brooklyn Center side of the municipal boundary. He stated that, while the zoning of the Brooklyn Park land may have significance in determining the highest and best land use of the Brooklyn Center property, the earlier point was that no presumptions should be made about the density or development capacity of Brooklyn Center property which would depend upon the use of the Brooklyn Park property for parking. -5- Commissioner Pierce inquired whether the applicant's development plans, particularly for the proposed Sambo's Restaurant, had been reviewed with respect to parking and the Secretary responded in the negative. The Secretary continued that, while conceptual plans were significant to show that a give„ piece of land could be developed as per the proposed zoning, zoning decisions should be based upon the appropriateness of the proposed land use. He stated the City must be aware 'that, .once rezoned, the property could be put to any of the permitted or special uses in the proposed zone, notwithstanding the intent or conceptual plans conveyed by the applicant. Commissioner Theis inquired about the effect of rezoning residential land for nonresidential uses thereby reducing the potential number of housing units that the City could build, particularly in light of the Metropolitan Council 's guidelines and allocation formulas for housing units. The Secretary reviewed the Metropolitan Council Housing policies for low to moderate income housing, as well as for the housing need in general . He stated the Metropolitan Housing forecasts were being revised, but that Brooklyn Center was a high priority community in providing housing since it was considered a fully developed community with respect to utilities and services. Commissioner Theis stated his concern about the Metro Council 's view of Brooklyn Center removing a number of housing units from the potential housing inventory and referred to another application considered last year where a nonresidential special use request involving a large residential tract was denied because of the concern for retaining residentially zoned land for housing development. The Secretary explained that the Metro Council could 'con- sidere the City's "housing performance" during its review of any grant applications submitted by the City. He stated there were two basic issues in this regard for the Commission to consider: 1 . The significance, if any, of the reduction of the potential housing inventory by approximately 36 to 40 units. 2. Whether rezoning the property to a non- residential status would represent a precedent which could be construed adversely as "negative housing performance" by the City and particularly by the Metropolitan Council . Chairman Engdahl stated that a public hearing had been Public Hearing scheduled and that neighboring property owners had been notified. He recognized Mr. Larry Bradfurd of 7220 Perry Court E. who stated that when he purchased a townhouse in the Creek Villa townhouse neighborhood, he was very con- scious of the R-3 zoning of the property to the north and he was sensitive to the environmental impact upon the Creek and Creek easement. He stated his particular concerns were with potential traffic generation, noise generation and the proposed restaurant use. He suggested that the homeowners abutting the property also had economic concerns as well as the applicant, and he stated that as part of the City' s Comprehensive Planning the R-3 Zoning has been established for a number of years within which the appli- cant could have planned development accordingly. Commissioner Pierce asked Mr. Bradford for his opinion of an office-type use, and the response was that, while it was not viewed favorably, it was considered a lesser problem than the retail-commercial and restaurant zoning. Chairman Engdahl noted that no one else was present to speak Close Public Hearing to the application. There was a motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Book to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 6-15-78 -6- i Chairman Engdahl stated that economic consideration,. per se, was not among the criteria for evaluating re- zoni.ng petitions. He briefly reviewed the criteria and stated that, in his opinion, subject to further input from the Neighborhood Group and the Commission, he felt there were indication of "spot zoning" which he could not support. Commissioner Theis stated at this time that he could not look favorably upon a rezoning to C-2; and that he still had some serious questions about the impact upon housing policies, whether there was a need for the rezoning, and whether the proposed rezoning was compatible with the area. He stated that the "split" zoning concept had more merit than a total rezoning of the entire property. Commissioner Hawes stated that there was perhaps another version of a "split" zoning, Namely, leaving the southerly portion of the property R-3 and rezoning the northerly portion to C-1 . He stated that generally he could not support a rezoning to C-2 of any portion of the property, but would be willing to consider other alternatives. Commissioner Book inquired as to the Comprehensive Plan provisions for this area including the Creek Villas townhouse site prior to its development. The Secretary explained that the 1966 Comprehensive Plan stated that appropriate uses along Brooklyn Boulevard were either multiple-residential including R-3 type development and Service/Office Commercial . He stated that, based on that guideline, the City had established this area as R-3 in 1968. He commented that it would not be in- appropriate for the City to reconsider that determination of highest and best use and redesignate a portion of the area C-1 . Commissioner Book stated that he did not see merit at this time in "split" zoning concept, but he could see possibilities for rezoning to C=,l uses. He noted that, from the developer's perspective, a substantial portion of the property through the Shingle Creek easement was already committed to a buff9ring between this site and the development to the sou-t.,,. Commissioner Pierce stated that C-1 use had some merit because of the nature of office-type uses with their hours and relatively low intensity traffic generation. He also stated that the C-1 type use on the south could provide a buffer to a C-2 development on the north which would be further removed from the R-3 townhouse develop- ment of Creek Villas. He stated he did not strongly support the concept of C-2 on this property and that he at this time felt that perhaps Commissioner Hawes ' concept had merit. He suggested that further input should be requested from the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. Commissioner Jacobson stated that her initial reaction was that 'C-2 zoning was not consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan and therefore not appropriate for this area. She agreed that the matter should be referred to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group and she also com- mented that she could not support a "split" zoning at this time. Commissioner Malecki concurred, and stated she was con- cerned that the C-2 zoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She also felt that input should be solicited from the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. -7- 6-15-78 Following further discussion there was a motion by Table Application No. 78032 Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Hawes to (R, .L, Johnson) table Application No. 78032 submitted by R L. Johnson and to refer the matter to the Northwest Neighborhood' Advisory Group for review and comment. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary briefly explained to the resident of 7220 Perry Court East and to the applicant that the matter would be referred to the Neighborhood Advisory Group whose meeting would be determined shortly and would be a public .meeting. He stated that following review and comment by the Group, the matter would be reheard by the Planning Commission, and that notices would be sent of that meeting. He stated that when the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City Council notices would also be sent of the City Council meeting. He suggested that interested parties could contact the Planning and Inspection Department to determine the time and place of the Neighbor- hood Group meeting. The next item of business was consideration of Application Application No. 78033 No-. 78033 submitted by Mr. Wayne Anderson, 2024 Ericon (Wayne Anderson) Drive. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks special use permission for a home occupation consisting of a photographic and printing-related business. He briefly reviewed the proposed use and presented slides showing the applicant's premises. He also reviewed a letter submitted by the applicant to the file describing the proposed use. The Secretary stated that the Building Official has inspected the premises and reports that the use can be accommodated within code requirements. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant and inquried whether the use would be located in the basement and the , applicant responded in the affirmative. He also stated that materials used were classified as corrosive, but they were not flammable, although it was anticipated that, in the future metal printing plates which might be used would require storage in a metal cabinet. Building Official Will Dahn was recognized and stated that the quantity and type of storage proposed by the applicant was permitted, but that bulk storage of large quantities of such materials would be cause for concern. The applicant indicated that such storage and large quantities of materials would not be on the premises. Discussion ensued with respect to annual review of the proposed use and possible requirement that should the nature of the use change, or be expanded, it would require an amendment of the special use permit. The Secretary stated that review of this application indicated major concerns involved compliance with the ordinance provisions for special home occupations, particularly with respect to the employment of not more than one nonresident on the premises, and the provisions for adequate parking. The Secretary stated there was no indication that there would be an adverse impact on neighboring properties. Building Official Will Dahn com- mented that a similar use had been permitted for a Mr. Green- wood in the southwest portion of the City a couple of years ago, and that there had been no problems with that use. The applicant continued in his explanation of the use, stating that he would be picking up the work and delivering it to the customer and that he did not anticipate any public traffic to and from the house. He stated there would be periodi delivery of supplies although he anticipated he would also do much of that. 5-15-78 -8- Commissioner Hawes inquired whether there would be any electrical interference such as with television recept- ion because of the nature of the equipment, and the applicant stated that there should be none. Further discussion ensued regarding the design of the area in the applicant's basement, and the Building Official indicated that it appeared all applicable code "requirements could be met. The Building Official stated that it would be appropriate for the Fire Marshall to review the area. Public Hearing Chairman En Bahl stated that a public hearing had been scheduled and that none of the notified property owners was Dresent. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner book to close the public hearing. Tie motion passed unanimously. Recommend Approval of Following f rther discussion, there was a motion by Application No. 78033 Commissione Hawes seconded by Commissioner Theis to (Wayne Anderson) recommend a proval of Application No. 78033 submitted by Wayne An Jerson subject to the following conditions: 1 . The ermit is issued to the applicant as oper t:r of the proposed use and is non- tran ferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Hours of operation shall not extend beyond 10:30 p.m. 4. Appropriate fire protection measures such as installation of proper fire extinguishers shall be made as approved by the City Building and Fire Departments. The motion passed unanimously. Introduction of Superintendent The Directoy of Public Works introduced Mr. James of Engineering Noska as Superintendent of Engineering Recess The meeting recessed at 10:15 p.m. and resumed at 1.0:30 p.m. Other Business: The Secretary commented on a recent court decision Definition of Outlots resulting from a suit against the City filed by L. W. Joel Company which had been denied an appeal filed under Application No. 77022 last year. The Secretary stated that the petitioner had sued the City for a Writ of Mandamus asking the court to order the issuance of a building Fermit to allow construction of a dwelling on a substa dard Outlot. The secretary stated that the court had ruled in the City's favor, and he noted an observation by the City Attorney that the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances should be amended to provide for a clefinitior of Outlot as well as other appropriate clarifications deemed appropriate. An extensive discussion ensued regarding several draft definitions of the term "Outlot" as well as the Sub- division Ordinance regarding remnant parcels. The Secretary and the Director of Public Works offered comments with respect to the existing ordinance language and the advisability of providing clarifications and definitions. The Secretary stated that the term "Outlot" can refer both to large tracts of land subject to future subdivision as well as to small substandard parcels. He stated that, in either case, the effect of the Outlot d signation was to represent that land was generally un uildable subject to further platting action. -9- 6-15-78 He stated one basic use of the Outlot technique was to provide for the platting of unplatted areas in order to simplify legal descriptions and boundaries, but not require the subdivision of the property into smaller developable tracts until it was warranted. Following extensive discussion of the draft definitions it was the consensus of the Commission to defer the matter until a subsequent meeting, and the Secretary stated that further clarifying language could be drafted for the Commission's consideration. The Secretary commented on another matter regarding the Reconsider Recommended proposed amendments to Chapter 35 relative to carports and Ordinance Amendments canopies. He stated that this matter was related to Appli- Regarding Canopies and cation No. 77064 submitted by Mr. Gene Hamilton and that, Carports while the Commission on May 25 had forwarded a recommended amendment to the City Council at its June 5, 1978 meeting, Mr. Hamilton had indicated to the staff that he felt he should have been notified of the Commission meeting so that he could have participated in the discussion. The Secretary stated that Mr. Hamilton was not so notified because his application was not considered at that meeting. He commented, however, if the Commission felt there would be merit in reconsidering the draft ordinance amendment and receiving further input from Mr. Hamilton on the matter, it could be rescheduled at the next meeting and Mr. Hamilton would be so notified. Chairman Engdahl stated that the Commission had acted appropriately and that there was no need to reconsider the matter. He stated that if the Commission wished to receive further input from the applicant, certain ground rules should be established such as a limitation of the time for total discussion and specifically as to receiving input that had not already been placed on the record by Mr. Hamilton. Following a brief discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to place the matter of proposed amendment to Chapter 35 regarding canopies and carports on the next agenda as a discussion item, and to direct the Secretary to notify Mr. Hamilton of that meeting and of the limit- ation of time that would be devoted to such a discussion. The Secretary was also directed to inform Mr. Hamilton that the Commission would welcome from him information which had not been presented previously, noting that extensive time and discussion had occurred regarding the matter during hearing on Application No. 77064. In other business the Secretary presented revised con- Possible Development ceptual drawings for a wholesale distribution type use of Property at 68th for the commercial property at 68th and Lee Avenues North. and Lee Avenues North He stated that Mr. Jerry Harrington had presented several concepts to the Commission for their consideration in anticipation, of a request to allow such a use on this property since the land was not well suited for sub- standard commercial retail type uses due to its geography, accessibility, and the nature of neighboring land uses. The Secretary stated Mr. Harrington's concerns may have merit and that if the Commission felt wholesale distri- bution type-use was appropriate for this area, which was zoned C-2, there were three approaches which could be taken: 1 ) rezone the land to I-1 , (which the Commission had earlier determined was the least desirable since it was characteristic of "spot" zoning; 2) amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for certain special uses in the C-2 district such as wholesale distribution subject to certain conditions; and, 3) accept an application for a proposed development and a request that a finding be made.that the proposed use was similar in nature to' otherluses in the C-2 District. 6-15-78 10- It was consensus of the Commission that the latter approach seemed to be the most viable, and that it would be appropriate for Mr. Harrington to submit an application consisting of site and building plans as well as documentation supporting the request for such a finding. Other Business: In other business the Secretary stated the next meeting was scheduled for June 22, 1978 and that there were a number of site and building plan applications scheduled for that meeting. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11 :40 p.m. C rman I -11- 6-15-78 1 1