Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 04-24 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 SPECIAL MEETING CITY HALL April 24 , 1975 all to Order: The Planning Commission met in special session and was called to order at 7 :40 p.m. by Chairman Gross . Roll Call: Chairman Gross , Commissioners Foreman, Scott, Horan, Pierce. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila and Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere . Approve Minutes : (4-10-75) Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Horan to approve the minutes of the April 10 , 1975 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously . Commissioner Engdahl Arrives : Commissioner Engdahl arrived at 7 : 45 p.m. Application No ,. 75004 (Ryan Oldsmobile) Following the Chairman ' s explanation, the first item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No . 75004 submitted by R. C. Ryan Oldsmobile, Inc. The item was introduced by the Secretary, who explained the Commission had directed the preparation of a resolution at the April 10 , 1975 meeting regarding the disposition of the applicant' s request for a variance from the sign ordinance roof signery height provisions . The Secretary reviewed the minutes of the April 10th meeting, and a brief discussion ensued as to the provisions of the resolution. Resolution No . 75-3 Member Robert Foreman introduced the following (Ryan, Oldsmobile) resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 75-3 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AFFIRMATIVE DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 75004 SUBMITTED BY R. C. RYAN OLDSMOBILE, INC , , 6700 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD WHEREAS , Application No. 75004 , submitted by R. C . Ryan Oldsmobile, Inc.. , was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly scheduled public hearing on April 10 , 1975 ; and WHEREAS , said application requests a height variance of approximately 27 feet from the provisions for permitted roof signery in Section 34-140 ( 3) f the City Ordanaces; and WHEREAS , said roof signery would be in lieu of any freestanding entification signery; and WHEREAS, said signery would replace previous roof signery attached to the fascia panels of the approved architecturally integral tower of the office and display building; and WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the terrain, site distance obstruction of the F.A.I . 94 overpass, and the rationale for two prior approvals for freestanding sign height variances in similar circumstances at other sites abutting F.A. I . 94 ; and -1- 4/24/75 WHEREAS, the Commission has determined the request meets the criteria for granting variances as set forth by Section 34-180 of the City Ordinances; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center: The Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the roof signery height variance as described in Application No. 75004 submitted by R. C. Ryan Oldsmobile, Inc. , subject to the following conditions : 1 . The proposed signery shall be subject to review by the Building Official prior to issuance of permits . 2 . The proposed signery shall not exceed the height of existing roof signery. 3 . The roof signery shall be in lieu of all freestanding identification signery. 4 . All existing freestanding identification signery shall be eliminated. Dated: Secretary Chairman The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Cecilia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Members Gross , Foreman, Scott, Pierce, Engdahl, and Horan. The following voted against the same: None .. Wber_eupon said resolution was duly declared passed and adopted. The next item of business was continued consideration Application No. 75001 of Planning Commission Application No . 75001 and (Ryan Oldsmobile the special use permit for R. C. Ryan Oldsmobile, Inc. , Special Use Permit 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. The item was introduced by the Review) Secretary, who reviewed the Planning Commission consideration of the April 10th meeting regarding a proposed amendment to the approved site plan. The Secretary explained that prior to the April 10th meeting, Inspectors had observed unauthgrized site work being performed and the City had become aware of a substantial amount of congestion on the site due to inappropriate parking and storage of new and used motor vehicles in a manner not consistent with the approved plans . The Secretary explained that the Commission had directed the applicant to submit a revised site plan for review at this meeting, in lieu of replacing the plantings and the concrete planters which had been removed from the site. He also explained that apparently due to the departure of the applicant' s representative and some difficulty in communication between the applicant and the contracted site planner, a formal revised plan was not available.' He stated that several discussions had been held with the site planner, who was familiar with the City' s concerns, and that the applicant had submitted a letter to the file confirming that the planner had been contracted to prepare the necessary site data. 4/24/75 -2- Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Robert Ryan, owner of the dealership, who offered apologies to the Commission for the delay in submitting the necessary planning documents . He explained that he had not been aware that formal approval was needed for major site improvements , and commented that the steps which had been under- taken to date, were the result of the determin- ation that site accessibility and internal traffic could be enhanced by removal of the delineators . He also commented that a number of the trees which were removed, although sub- stantial in size, were not in good health. Mr. Ryan stated that efforts had been made since the last Planning Commission meeting to arrange the parking of new and used cars in a manner more consistent with the approved plans . The Secretary commented however, that it was evident, becuase of the volume of the number of vehicles on the site, the unpaved area easterly of the service building , should be approved so to provide a unified storage area for new or used vehicles . Mr. Ryan stated that he recognized the various problems, although he had not been totally aware of them prior to contact by the City. He stated that the site designer hired by his firm, would work closely with the City staff, and develop plans so to be available for the May Planning Commission meeting,, He stated further, that despite the rearrangement of vehicles on the front portion of the site, it was his intent to eventually develop the area to the rear of the service building, hopefully by winter. Chairman Gross stated that the congestion represented a significant problem, and should be resolved immediately. He noted, for example, that he had observed very poor access for an emergency vehicle. In further discussion, Chairman Gross indicated the main concerns of the Planning Commission included the alleviation of the congestion problem by the proper upgrading of the area to the rear of the service building; the embellish- ment of the landscaping of the site to include substantial sized trees ; and a clear delineation on a site plan of designated parking and vehicle storage areas . Mr. Ryan commented that he felt there were several areas on the site where trees and other plantings could be located without presenting any major obstruction to the flow of traffic throughout the site. He stated that he had been in the automobile business for approximately 20 years , and it was his prime concern that the dealership reflect the quality of the community in which it was located. He stated that he took pride in the community and intended to proceed with the necessary improvements to upgrade the site. With respect to tree plantings , Commissioner Horan stated that it was particularly important that attention be given to the hardiness of the proposed species of trees . -3- 4/24/75 In further discussion, Chairman Gross explained to the applicant, the relationship of site plan approval to the status of the dealership' s special use permit and operating license. Following further discussion, there was a motion Action to Defer by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Consideration of Foreman to defer further consideration of Review of Application Planning Commission Application No. 75001 until No. 75001 (Ryan the May 22 , 1975 meeting . Motion passed Oldsmobile) unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Application No. 750 Planning Commission Application No. 75011 (D. Brandvold for submitted by David Brandvold for E. G. Nelson. E. G. Nelson) The item was introduced by the Secretary, who explained the applicant seeks approval to plat the property located at 5549 Girard Avenue North, into two lots; one of which is the site of the owner' s dwelling and garage. He stated that parcel would be 75 feet wide and the new parcel would be 57. 9 feet wide. He commented that the zoning of the property was R-1 . Ile further explained that the (then) Village Council in 1961, approved a metes and bounds division for the property, comprehending a lot 77 feet wide and another 55 feet wide (Application No. 61261) . He stated the proposed dimensions represent the maximum obtainable while preserving standard building setbacks. He stated the applicant proposed a single family dwelling on the new lot to conform with existing setback requirements . A brief discussion ensued. There was a motion Action Recommendi by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Approval of Application Horan to recommend approval of Planning No. 75011 (D. Brandvold Commission Application No. 75011 submitted by for E. G. Nelson) David Brandvold for E. G. Nelson subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 2 . Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 3. With respect to the dimensions of the newly created lot, no other variances are granted or implied. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration to Application No. 74004 the special use permit comprehended by Planning (Reconsider Special Commission Application No. 74004 submitted by Use Permit - B .C.I .P . , Brooklyn Center Industrial Park. The item Beverly May) was introduced by the Secretary, who stated the request comprehends a new operator for the athletic club facility on the eighth floor of the Earle Brown Farm Office Tower. He stated that a permit had been granted to the Continental Health Clubs , Inc. , by the City Council on January 20, 1975 . He stated that that operation had terminated business, and he reviewed the conditions of approval for that operation. 4/24/75 -4- Chairman Gross recognized the perspective operator, Ms . Beverly May, and a discussion ensued as to the hours of operation. The operator explained that the hours would be from 7 : 00 a.m, to 8 : 30 p.m. , Monday thru Saturday, with no playing court reservations being taken after 7 : 30 p.m. The Secretary explained the applicant had proposes the retail sale of a minimum amount of merchandisE consisting of athletic equipment used by members; whereas , the approval for the previous operator had prohibited retail sales activities except for those normally found in office buildings, such as vending machines and the like . A brief discussion ensued as to the nature of the proposed sales which the applicant explained would be wholly incidental to the operation. Commissioner Foreman stated his concern as to the financial solvency of such operations, some of which, according to recent media reports , had a history of terminating business after securing substantial fees from members . He stated his concern was one of consumer protection, part- icularly for Brooklyn Center citizens , who might be inclined to join the facilities. He inquired as to whether perhaps some type of bonding or even licensing should be required for such facil- ities . He stated he had no objections to the use in itself, but was concerned as to the integrity of the type of business . The Secretary stated that while recognizing Commissioner Foreman' s concern, there was some question as to whether a special land use permit was a proper vehicle for requiring a licensing or bonding of such establishments . Fie stated that at the present time, the ordinance did not specifically provide for such a guarantee. Commissiuner. Foreman inquired as to whether the applicant was aware of the stipulated occupancy limitation of not more than 200 persons at one time un the subject premises . The Secretary explained that the foundation for the requirement was primarily based on the occupancy standards in the Building Code and were related to concern of egress and personal safety in case of emergency. The applicant responded in the affirmative. Chairman Gross noted that a public hearing had been scheduled and that none, of the notified property owners was present. Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public hearing. Motion passe unanimously. Action Recommending Following further discussion, there was a motion Approval of Application by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner No. 74004 Special Use Scott to recommend approval of Planning Commission Permitt(Beverly May) Application No. 74004 submitted by B.C.I .P. and Beverly May, subject to the following conditions : 1. The special use is subject to applicable ordinance requirements and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation of the permit. 2 . The occupancy on the eighth floor at any given time shall not exceed 200 persons. -5- 4/24/75 3. Retail sales shall be limited to items clearly incidental to the operation of the facility, and other sundries normally found in office buildings, such as tobacco, beverages and candy. 4 . The permit is authorized for Beverly L. May, d.bTa. , Penthouse Courts, as operator of the facility, and is not transferable. 5. The hours of operation shall be: 7 : 00 a.m. - 8 : 30 p.m. , Monday thru Saturday The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Application Nos. 72010 amendments to Planning Commission Application No. 72069 (Amendments) 72010 and 72069 submitted by the Dietrich Company. (Dietrich Company) The Secretary explained that original plans for the Creek Villas townhouse project at Brooklyn Boulevard and Wingard Lane, were approved on February 28, 1972, for 95 units and subsequently for 103 total units. He stated the density was less than that permitted in the R-3 district. He noted also, that the final plat for Creek Villas had been approved on November 20, 1972. He explained that since that. time, the applicant had constructed about one-half of the project (49 units in 10 blocks) , and that the proposal involves the balance (54 units in 12 blocks) , for which permits have not been issued. The Secretary then reviewed the discussion held by the Commission on the matter on February 13, 1975, where testimony had been taken from several residents of the complex He stated the matter had been deferred until the applicant had submitted more detailed information and plans , and secondly, until the applicant had an opportunity to present -the plans to the neighboring property owners. The Secretary commented that the two stipulations had been met, and that, an informational meeting had been held on April 17 , 1975 , with the plans available for review at the project tract office. He stated that notices had been sent to neighboring property owners informing them of these opport- unities for information. The Secretary reviewed the proposed amended plat which would be necessitated by approval of the building design changes since the internal lot widths would be narrower; he also reviewed the original building plans for the project and finally presented the proposed amended building plans. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. John Liptak, who offered a lengthy explanation as to the reasons for the proposed changes, and the nature of the altered floor plans and lot layouts. He stated the basis for the proposed changes were rising costs and apparent poor marketability of the existing units . He stated the developer had analyzed what factors were needed to appeal to a broader range of buyers in terms of offering those features which were most desired, such as privacy, quality and flexibility in interior 4/24/75 -6- design, which were most attractive to current buyers . He stated the developer had also taken into account, the needs of couples , and the elderly who desired a smaller unit and a minimum of stairs . Mr. Liptak, then presented information regarding the features of the proposed units , noting a host of "optional" features, which a perspective buyer could choose from. He stated these options ranged from the typical appliance packages to actual enlargement of the townhouse units and design of the floor plan. He noted, for example, that a full basement and a double garage were optional, but that the prime feature, was the extensive flexibility in size and layout of the units . In response to a question by the Secretary, Mr . Liptak explained the units proposed for the interior lots would have a detached garage, and that the developer was offering a single unit 12 foot wide structure as standard. Mr . Liptak also explained that the exterior materials and colors would be compatible with existing units . He noted that the end lots would be wider, and consequently the end units would be wider than the interior units, according to the proposed replat. Following Mr . Liptak' s presentation, an extensive discussion ensued relative to the proposed single level end unit; the reduced sized garages; and the proposed enclosed patios at the rear or the structures . Commissioner Engdahl stated that the reduced sized garages perhaps had merit from a marketing standpoint, but in his opinion, should be offered in conjunction with the smaller units only. Chairman Gross questioned the advisability of reducing the size of the garages in consideration of storage needs . Mr. Liptak responded that buyers could opt for a full basement design, thus enhancing their storage needs , if they also elected to have a single unit garage. Chairman Gross stated that another concern was with respect to only one garage parking space which could induce on-street parking . He stated this could present a problem, since the streets in the project were of the marginal access 24 foot design. With respect to off-street parking , Mr. Liptak stated that a double width driveway apron would be provided for all units , including those electing the single car garage, so that there would be a minimum of three parking spaces per unit, two of which would be parallel rather than tandem. In response to a question by Chairman Gross, Mr. Liptak stated the reason for operating a reduced sized garage as standard was part of the marketing technique, wherein, a basic low profit item is offered to attract buyers with the expectation that larger, more expensive features will be purchased. He stated that the cost differential between a single unit and a double unit garage was approximately $500 . 00 . -7- 4/24/75 Chairman Gross stated that he felt the proposed single unit garage would tend to detract from the general aesthetics of the balance of the project, as well as provide less storage space and effective off-street parking . The Secretary commented that whereas , accessory structures such as the garages, were definitely a part of the site and building plan approval, garages per se should not be equated with ordinance required minimum parking. He stated that the minimum requirement was for two off- street parking spaces per dwelling unit, although experience indicated with multi-residential complexes, additional parking was desirable to ac.comodate guests and any other additional vehicles. He also noted that whereas a number of objections had been raised regarding the off-street parking, based on the contention that the streets were "substandard" , the streets in the project were installed as approved and represented marginal access streets as provided by the ordinance. He stated that while substantial parking on the internal roadways definitely could cause congestion problems, it was as much a matter of proper policing and regulation to prohibit such parking, as it was to provide for additional accessory building space on each lot. He noted, for example, that at the present time, residents living in units with large double garages are parking on the 24 foot wide streets and rec- reational vehicles and boats are stored outside the units. He stated. that perhaps this was due to the use of the garages for storage purposes , but that evidently the existence of a double garage did not assure that there would be no on-street parking. In further discussion, Mr. Liptak stated his primary concern was achieving a maximum flexibility in the marketing of the units by being able to offer a variety of optional features and he emphasized that time -is of the essence, since his present financial commitment expired this year. Commissioner Foreman stated that one of his main concerns was with the relatively large number of single level units, of which there was a potential for 24 , or 440 of the total remaining units . He also questioned whether a single level unit would be appropriate in those areas directly abutting existing higher units . He suggested, perhaps, that the location of the single level units be limited to the blocks on the northerly perimeter. Mr. Liptak responded that the developer would be amendable to establishing a maximum number, but he stated the need for flexibility in their location. Chairman Gross stated that consideration should be given to designating types of units on the various blocks. Mr. Liptak stated it would be difficult to specify particular types of units other than the single level dwellings per lot, however, he did note the developer had determined that the former approved type of dwellings would 4/24/75 -8- be constructed on Blocks 8 and 9, due to various engineering considerations . The Secretary explained that for purposes for clarification, the matter before the Commission then was amended site and building plans for Blocks 6 , 12 , 13, 14 , 15 , 16, 17 , 19 , 20 and 22 , as indicated on the Creek Villas plat. Recess : The meeting recessed at 10 : 00 p .m. and resumed at 10 : 20 p.m. Chairman Gross noted that a number of neighboring property owners were present and explained the role of the Commission in developing a recommend- ation and advice for the City Council . He stated the Commission would welcome concise statements relevant to the issue before the Commission, and he also noted that a number of neighboring prop- erty owners had testified at the February 13, 1975 meeting . He explained that six letters had been received from the Homeowner' s Association and had been placed in the file. Chairman Gross also explained that the Planning Commission was not an arbiter of alleged legal disputes between the Homeowner' s Association and the developer. He then recognized a number of neighboring property owners, including Mr. Leon Knight, President of the Homeowner' s Association. Mr. Knight stated that basically there were two concerns that the Association felt could have possible future impact on the proper operation and maintenance of the develop- ment : 1 . The number and location of proposed single story units at the end of the blocks . 2 . The number and location of 12 foot wide single garages. He commented that the basic concern of the Association was one of assuring proper parking and storage facilities as well as a very deep seated concern as to the proper aesthetics and balance of the type of units throughout the project. Chairman Gross recognized additional homeowners who stated their concerns . With respect to completion of the approved site improvements , the Secretary stated that the developer is required to supply a performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee assuring the completion of the site improvements . He commented that the subject site had been reviewed last fall and that during the develop- ment of a report to the developer as to the status of those improvements , the subject amended plans were submitted. He emphasized that prior to issuance to any additional building permits, the developer would be required to submit an updated performance agreement and acceptable supporting financial guarantee for the completion of those improvements . An inquiry was made whether additional gas post lights could be installed for the balance of the -9- 4/24/75 project given recent regulations banning the sale and installation of such lights . It was 'noted that there are a number of such lights on the already developed portion of the project, and the concern was that there might not be such lighting on the balance. The Secretary stated that the Inspection Department was checking whether gas light fixtures could be installed notwithstanding { the current regulations, where there were existing lines. He noted, however, that the approved land- scape plan specified a certain amount of street lighting and that as with the land- scaping, the required minimum lighting would be the condition of the performance agreement. Note: It was determined by the Inspection Administrative Note: Department following the meeting, that Mpls . Gas Co. is prohibited from installing any additional gas lights. Consequently, if post lights are to be provided, they would have to be electric. Chairman Gross noted the letters which had been submitted to the file and the fact that they were from members of the Homeowner 's Association. Commissioner Foreman stated his concerns as follows: a maximum number and location by block of the proposed single level dwelling units should be established; the number of single stall garages should be in direct relationship to the number of single level units which are actually developed; the width of single garages should be at least 16 feet; the smaller dwelling units and the smaller garages should be limited to those blocks in the northerly perimeter area; and the site lighting for the balance of the project should be compatible with the fixtures in the completed portion of the project© Commissioner Scott stated her concerns as follows : with respect to the smaller units and smaller garages, she agreed with Commissioner Foreman, but that a maximum 10 small units should be established and that said units should not be adjacent to existing buildings; concern that the site lighting be completed as per the approved plans, utilizing fixtures comparable to those installed in the completed part of the project; and that the landscaping in the completed areas be finished this season. Commissioner Engdahl stated that he saw a need to limit the amount of the smaller units and the single garages, and it would be appropriate to relate them to each other. He commented, however, that it was reasonable to provide the developer flexibility for marketing purposes in the various types of options available to perspective buyers, as long as the proposed units were generally compatible with the aesthetics established throughout the site. 4/24/75 -10- Commissioner Pierce stated he generally agreed with the previous comments, but proposed that there be no more than 10 of the smaller living units in consideration of providing housing for the handicapped and the elderly. He stated that the width of the smaller garages should be at least 16 feet and that for any unit of over two bedrooms , there should be a double garage . He also stated that he did not feel that an enclosed patio was compatible in those areas where the rear of the new building would face the rear of established buildings . Commissioner Horan stated that his concern was that the proposed units be compatible with the project as a whole and that he agreed as to the minimum width of the smaller garages. He propos- ed that small dwelling units be limited to Blocks 12 , 14 , 15 and 1.6 , and that the smaller garages be related to the smaller units , except perhaps for Block 20 . Commissioner Horan also stated that it was paramount that the landscaping be completed as per the approved plans , including the site lighting. He agreed with Commissioner Pierce as to the incompatibility of the proposed enclosed patios of those units facing existing buildinqs. Commissioner Gross stated that the minimum garage size should be as per existing units, namely 20 feet wide. He stated that the number and location of the smaller dwelling units should be limited as suggested by Commissioner Horan. The Secretary stated that it appeared there were three primary issues : 1) the number and location of the smaller single dwelling units; 2) the number and location of the smaller garages; and 3) the location of the proposed enclosed patio areas . He stated it appeared the consensus was the smaller units and smaller garages should be limited to the blocks on the northerly perimeter of the site and should be located on those blocks which abut existing buildings . Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Liptak, who stated he was concerned about the proposed minimum width of the garages at 16 feet, in that the 12 foot single garage is offered as a standard, but that for purposes of sales a double unit was encouraged. He stated that with a 16 foot minimum garage, It may be more difficult to encourage the purchase of a full double garage. Chairman Gross responded that in his opinion, the minimum garage width should be 20 feet throughout, as with the existing units. Motion Recommending Following further discussion, there was a motion Approval of Amendments by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner o Application No. Pierce to recommend approval of amendments to 2010 , 72069 Planning Commission Application No. 72010 and Dietrich Company) 72069 subject to the following conditions : 1 . Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes , prior to the issuance of permits . -11- 4/24/75 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review by the City Engineer prior, to issuance of permits; and necessary utility line revisions shall be approved by the Engineer with respect to applicable codes . 3. A performance agreement and a financial guarantee (in a form and amount approved by the City Manager) , shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements for the project, prior to the issuance of permits. 4 . The site will be replatted according to the approved plans, and said plat will be subject to the following : a. Review by the City Engineer. b. The requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances . C. A copy of any proposed amendments to the Homeowner' s Association document shall be submitted to the City. The final plat shall be filed Prior to the certification of occupancy for permitted structures. 5. A minimum of two parallel off-street parking stalls shall be provided on the site of each unit. 6. There shall be a maximum of seven single level dwelling units limited to Blocks 14 , 15 and 16 and Block 20 , Lot 4 , and Block 19, Lot 1. 7. A minimum garage width shall be 16 feet and garages of that dimension shall be limited to Blocks 13, 14 , 15 and 20. 8. The proposed enclosed patio option shall be limited to Blocks 13, 14, 15 and 16 . 9. Landscaping and site improvements shall be evaluated in accordance with the approved landscaping plan and improve- ments in the developed areas shall be completed no later than July 1, 1975 . 10 . Site lighting for the balance of the project will be compatible in design to that provided in the completed portion of the project. Commissioner Engdahl stated that he could not Further Discussion: note for the motion because of the garage size limitation and he felt that the same end could be achieved in terms of aesthetics without restricting the developer' s flexibility. In that regard, Mr. Liptak stated that he felt the conditions limited his flexibility, although he was not sure as to what extent. He commented however, that the conditions might materially affect the developer' s ability to complete the project by making it economically unfeasible. 4/24/75 -12- Vote on Motion: Further discussion ensued, and Chairman Gross (Tied and Failed) called for a vote. Voting in favor:Commissionere Pierce, Horan and Scott. Voting against: Commissioners Engdahl, Foreman and Commissioner Gross, who stated that he was compelled to vote in the negative because he did not feel the single story units should be located on Blocks 19 or 20 , and that minimum garage size should be compatible with the minimum existing size, namely 20 feet. He stated his concerns generally were with the screening and aesthetic effect; that a covered stall was essential for storage purposes; and that open-slab parking would not be compatible with the balance of the project. Further Discussion; Commissioner Engdahl stated that the developer New Motion to needed flexibility for marketing purposes , and Recommend Approval , he made the previous motion, except that a Failed: No Second maximum of 4-12 foot single garages would be permitted. The motion died for lack of a second, The Secretary explained that a tie vote on a motion to recommend approval in effect was a recommendation for denial. Chairman Gross stated he felt the record would speak for itself and that the developer would have the opportunity to further explain and clarify his position to the City Council . He then asked that the Commission proceed with the agenda. Other Business : Tn other business , the Secretary explained that property owners in the vicinity of the vacant land in the north and west of the Dayton Hudson parcel at Northway Drive and Xerxes Avenue, had recently received informal notices from a per- spective developer and the Dayton Hudson Corp. for an informational meeting to be held at 7 : 00 pm. on April 30 , 1975 , in the Brookdale Community Room. He stated the developer was contemplating rezoning to C-2 from C-lA, and intended to describe the project to the neigh- boring property owners , prior to submitting an application. Adjournment: Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Scott to Adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12 : 30 a .m.. 41` chair-man -13- 4/24/75