Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 10-09 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 CITY HALL OCTOBER 9, 1975 Call to Order The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:00 p,m, by Chairman Carl Grosse Roll Call Chairman Gross , Commissioners Foreman, Scott, Engdahl , Pierce and Horan. Also present was Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Foreman , seconded by 9-25-75 Commissioner Horan to approve the minutes of the September 25, 1975 meeting as submitted.. Voting in favor were: Commissioners Foreman, Scott, Pierce, and Horan. Not voting: Chairman Gross and Commissioner Engdahl who explained they were not present for that meeting. The motion passed. Chairman' s Explanation Following the Chairman's explanation, Chairman Gross announced that the Commission would be sitting as the Advisory Board of Adjustments and Appeals for several A 4CIIIJ Application No. 75035 The first item of business was consideration of (Jack Welsh) Planning Commission Application No. 75035 submitted by Mr, :lack Welsh, 6930 France Avenue North. . The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant seeks a five foot side yard setback variance from Section 35-400, to permit conversion of an attached garage to dwelling use, with the exterior wall of the structure approximately five feet from the sde lot line. The Secretary stated that the request was based upon the distance of approximately 30 feet to the neighbors house; no objection by neighboring property owner; and past action by the City Council wherein a side ,yard setback variance of 2-1/2 feet was granted in 1971 to another neighbor. The Secretary stated that the variance action could not be recommended since the evidence failed to show that the standards for variance were met and that such action represented an undesirable precedent. He stated there were alternatives available to the applicant for en- larging the living area of the house within ordinance standards. Chairman Gross then recognized the applicant who cited his reasons in support of the variance request: the approximate 30 foot distance to the neighbor' s homes ; a letter from the neighbor which he submitted to the file stating no objection to the request; the unlikely expansion of the neighboring dwelling due to the location of a detached garage and driveway; the pro- posal did not represent any additional structure, but rather the conversion of an existing structure; a petition from neighbors, which he submitted to the file, stating no objection to the variance; the belief -1- 10-9-75 that the proposed conversion to a family room would represent an improvement to the neighborhood and the property, since automobiles and other equipment formerly stored in the single-stall garage were now kept in a new detached garage at the rear of the property; the family's need for additional living area; and past action by the City Council approv- tng a side yard setback variance for a neighbor at 6937 Ewing Avenue North in 1971 (Application No. 71013) 0 An extensive discussion ensued regarding the legal aspects of the request and the ordinance require- ments for setbacks and for variances. In response to a question by Commissioner Foreman, the applicant stated that he felt the location of the neighbor's dwelling was an important consideration. The Secretary stated that setbacks are legally de- termined from the established property line and not from the structures on an adjacent parcel ® With respect to setback standards, the Secretary stated that the statutory and planning basis for setbacks was a matter of providing light, air, and view, and a minimal distance in consideration of fire safety and emergency vehicle access. The Secretary also reviewed the City Council concern, most recently expressed last year, with respect to adhering to established setback standards and avoid- ing a dilution of those standards for existing structures through variance action. He stated that the Council had recognized that a sequence of such variance requests had been made over the years, citing as their primary basis the approval of earlier requests. He recalled that the Planning Commission and City Council had undertaken an in-depth review of the ordinance standards and while confirming that the standards should be uniformly applied, recognized that provision could be made for certain additions to existing dwellings with a minimal encroachment into the established side yard setbacks. An ordinance amendment had been adopted which pro- v,�ded for the addition of a certain amount of dwell- ing space behind an existing attached garage with the exterior wall of the addition not exceeding that of the garage setback, and provided that there would be no ingress or egress onto the side yard, He stated the permissive language did not comprehend conversion of accessory buildings, In further discussion, Commissioner Horan recalled the 1974 application which generated the review of the ordnance standards. He stated there was simi- larity with the present application in that the ex- terior perimeter dimensions of the dwelling would not be increased, He noted that the applicant's request was similar to the 1974 and earlier applica- tions which were granted. He also commented that the new ordinance language did in fact allow for dwelling area to be less than 10 feet from the side lot line, Chairman Gross then proceeded to review each of the standards for a variance and asked the applicant to respond accordingly. Chairman Gross stated that it did not appear the standards for a variance were met, particularly with respect to uniqueness of the situation or a physical hardship other than in- convenience, -2- 10-9-75 The applicant responded that he felt past approvals by the City Council to allow for setbacks less than those established by the City ordinance applied in this case, and he questioned the permissiveness- of the language which would allow him to build a structural addition to the house at less than the 10 foot set- back requirements for dwellings, rather than convert- ing an existing structure without any additional en- croachment. Commissioner Engdahl stated that to recommend this variance was to recommend an ordinance change, which he stated he could not support in that he felt the es- tablished setback standards should be retained. Chairman Gross stated that while he recognized all ordinance standards could not apply in all circum- stances, it was important to distinguish those circum- stances on the basis of the variance criteria. Commissioner Foreman stated that it appeared the pri- mary basis for this request was one of convenience and economics. He stated that it appeared there were other alternatives available for the applicant. Mr. Welsh responded that as far as his family was concerned, the house was cromplete and that the prime remaining space for expansion was the attached garage. = wring Chairman Gross announced that a public hearing had been scheduled and proceeded with the reading of the names of notified property owners. He recognized the owner of 7000 France Avenue North, who stated that he was in favor of the request. Chair- man Gross also recognized Mr. Graham of 6936 Ewing, who was the applicant in the already cited 1971 variance request and approval . Mr. Graham stated he felt Mr. Welsh's proposal would enhance the property values and recalled the circumstances of his request. The Secretary noted that each application must be re- viewed on its merits and stated that the request by Mr. Graham resulted from a determination that an on- going conversion had taken place without permit, and that it involved a 2-1/2 foot side yard setback variance. Commissioner Foreman agreed and recalled that a prime consideration of the Commission in that rase was whether the conversion work completed without a permit should be demolished or permitted to exist due to the specific circumstances. He commented that the circumstances of that application differed from the present application. Hearing Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Foreman to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Gross, following further discussion, polled each of the Commissioners. Commissioner Engdahl stated that he felt approval would only logically lead to an ordinance change and that he did not feel approv- al by variance was warranted, particularly where the grounds for a variance involving uniqueness and hard- ship were questionable. Commissioner Foreman agreed, stating that the Com- mission and Council had determined last year the in- tent to adhere to ordinance standards, although the Council had the option to initiate consideration of an ordinance amendment. -3- 10-9-75 Commissioner Horan stated that he was in favor of the request and that while he would oppose any con- struction which would enlarge the existing structure, he could support the variance request in terms of the following: precedent established by previous variance requests; no increase in the side yard en- croachment and thus no increased safety hazard with respect to emergency vehicle access and fire spread , considerations; no detrimental alterations in the structural aesthetics of the existing building; and no reduction of the light, air, or view which were statutory criteria for yard setbacks. He stated the ordinance standards could be, maintained on a community-wide basis and that there was not a nega- tive impact caused by this application. Commissioner Scott stated that the request did not satisfy the variance standards and that in previous cases she recalled there was a determination of uniqueness or hardship. Commissioner Pierce stated that he agreed with Com- missioner Engdahl that support of this request could only lead to an ordinance amendment. He state he could not support approval by variance in this cir- cumstance. Following further discussion there was a mQ ti"O' n by Action Recommen, Commissioner Engdahl , seconded by Commissioner Foreman Denial of Appl ,'� to recommend denial of Planning Commission Application No. 75035 No. 75035, submitted by Mr. Jack Welsh, noting that the (Jack Welsh) standards for a variance are not clearly met, particularly with respect to uniqueness; and that variance action, versus ordinance amendment, is not the proper remedy in this situation. Voting in favor were: Chairman Gross, Commissioners Foreman, Engdahl , Scott and Pierce. Voting against: Commissioner Horan. The motion carried. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application Nc , Application No, 75036, submitted by David Brandvold, (David Brandvc,s: regarding property at 5341 Colfax Avenue North. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks a variance from Chapter 15 to permit a replatting and division of a vacant 126 x 120.6 foot parcel into two lots of less than ordinance width and area standards. He stated the property is zoned R-2 (one and two family dwellings). The Secretary reviewed the layouts of the subject property as well as neighboring parcels in the adjacent subdivision. The Secretary stated the request could not be recom- mended at this time in light of several considerations. He noted the proposed action is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which proposes the development of such parcels in the R-2 zone with two family dwellings (although 'large lot single-family dwellings are permitted) . He stated the Plan visualizes the eventual combination of existing substandard parcels in the area into lots such as this for R-2 development. He noted that while the Comprehensive Plan was under review, the criteria for planned development of the R-2 area had not been thoroughly analyzed. He recommended that amendments to the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances should be made only upon adopted changes to the Com- prehensive Plan. He also noted that creation of substandard lots in the R-2 zone had been consistently avoided, since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. 10-9-75 -4- The Secretary also reviewed the variance standards cited in Chapter 15 and commented that the circumstances of this request did not clearly meet those standards. He noted that the property was suitable for construction of a duplex or a large lot single family home and that it was the intent of the petitioner to construct and sell homes on the property once it was purchased from the owner. Chairman Gross recognized the applicant and an extensive discussion ensued. Mr. Brandvold stated that he felt that two single family homes on the property would be more desirable from an economic and structural standpoint. Commissioner Scott requested the Secretary to review the ordinance standards and stated that it appeared the pri- mary basis was an economic one. The applicant responded that his intent was to stimulate action by the Commission and City Council in conjunction with the on-going review of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Gross stated that while it was conceivable possible future revisions of the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent ordinance amendments could allow the re- quested division, he felt the request was premature in . that substAnflAI nlanning and engineering research would be required. He noted the applicant's previous efforts to provide reasonable cost housing and recognized the possible merits with respect to this property. Com- missioner Foreman stated that his primary concern, at this point was the creation of substandard lots, particularly in the R-2 zone. Public Hearing Chairman Gross then noted that a public hearing had been scheduled and he waived the reading of the names in that none of the notified property owners were present. Motion by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Com- missioner Scott to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Action Recommending Following further discussion there was a motion by Denial of Application Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner. No. 75036 (David Horan to recommend denial of Planning Commission Brandvold) Application No. 75036, submitted by David Brandvold, noting that the request is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; the variance standards of Chapter 15 are not clearly met; and an undesirable pre- cedent would be established at this time in the creation of substandard lots in the R-2 district. The motion passed unanimously. i Recess The meeting recessed at 9:55 p.m. and resumed at 10:10 P.M. Application The next item of business was consideration of Planning No. 75038 Commission Application No. 75038, submitted by Mr. (James McCann) James E. McCann, 3319 - 49th Avenue North. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant had submitted a variance request to permit a 14 x 20 foot addition to an existing 14 x 20 foot garage -5- 10-9-75 located at the rear of his property. He stated the premises is approximately 300 feet deep and contains a 1 ,076 square foot dwelling, a 14 x 18 foot tuck-under garage, and a 10 x 12 foot porch/patio attached to the dwelling. He stated the number of accessory buildings (two garages and an attached enclosed patio) had been construed to be in excess of the ordinance maximum of two. He noted, however, that in 1971 , the then Building Official apparently construed the attached enclosed porch to be part of the dwelling and not an accessory structure, since the two garages existed at that time. The Secretary further commented that in terms of area, the applicant's request was within the ordinance standards. The Secretary stated that the more cogent issue was the circumstances upon which the applicant based his request. He explained that since 1958, the applicant had con- ducted a landscaping business from the premises and has utilized the rear area of the lot for storage of vehicles and other equipment, including a gasoline storage and pumping facility. He explained that the applicant had access to the rear of his property via cross-easements from Howe Fertilizer Company and the Soo Line Railroar? nvAr A dirt road running parallel to the railroad right-of-way. He also explained the zoning of the unusually deep residential lot was once Industrial, and that it abutted the Soo Line Railroad right-of-way. He stated apparently the "home occupation" type of business was established under the Industrial Zoning, which was changed to R-1 by the present ordinance in 1968. The Secretary concluded that the issue was one of enhancement of a nonconforming business use, unless it were determined that the activity could be reaffirmed today as a bona fide special home occupation involving extraordinary equipment and the gasoline storage. Chairman Gross then recognized the applicant and an extensive discussion ensued, during which the applicant explained that he had three tractors, one truck, and two pick-ups, the gasoline storage facility and miscellaneous equipment. He stated the intent of the proposed building was to provide additional workspace for storing and repairing his equipment. During further discussion, Chairman Gross stated that of the issues presented, he felt the primary one was whether the circumstances represented a nonconforming business use, and whether the applicant's proposal con- sequently represented an expansion of a nonconforming use. He stated that the Building Official's issuance of a permit for the porch in 1971 suggested that the design of the area did not constitute an accessory building; thus, the number and area of accessory buildings was within rrr :.nance standards. 10-9-75 -6- Further discussion ensued as to possible merits of the variance request regarding the business use and possible variance action to permit related construction. It was noted that the size of the parcel, the location of the land and the garage on the lot, and the remoteness of the use from neighboring dwellings, would tend to substantiate a variance request. With respect to whether the use would actually constitute a special home occupation, Commissioner Foreman sug- gested that additional time be allowed to consider that question in light of the circumstances. He stated that whether it was a nonconforming use or special home occupation, there was some merit in providing additional storage area to diminish the outside activity. Action to Table Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Com- Application missioner Horan to table Planning Commission Application No. 75038 No. 75038, submitted by Mr. James E. McCann until the (James McCann) October 23, 1975 meeting, to permit the additional time to review the issue of special home occupation versus the status of the activity as a nonconforming business use. The motion passed unanimously. Application The next item of busines was consideration of Planning No. 75037 Commission Application No. 75037, submitted by Twin (Twin City Federal City Federal Savings and Loan. The Secretary intro- Savings and Loan) duced the item, stating the applicant proposes to remodel and alter the site and building of the former Metropolitan Life Insurance building, 2950 County Road 10, to estab- lish a branch office. The Secretary reviewed the application, noting that several discussions had ensued regarding thv ingrets and egress on the site, as well as the traffic rl<w characteristics generated by a proposed drive-up teller window and possible future remote teller station. He explained that the recommended site layout consisted of a single new curbcut on Xerxes Avenue, northerly of the existing curbcut. He stated the merit in relocating the curbcut was to increase the distance from the inter- section of County Road 10, since the proposed use differed from the original, which was strictly an office building for employees and not generally used by the public. He stated also that the location of the curbcut and delineators on the site comprehended a traffic flow situation to accommodate a proposed drive-up teller window, which mandated a circular flow pattern. It was noted that while a potential conflict existed on the site with respect to exiting vehicles, the design minimized the potential stacking and more severe traffic conflicts on the public thoroughfare. The Secretary also reviewed the proposed modifications to the site, including landscaping and provision for an underground irrigation system. He stated the parking lot would be expanded from its present dimensions to the north, and that provision had been made for handicapped parking. -7- 10-9-75 He also reviewed the proposed modifications of the building which consisted of a colonial decor consistent with the applicant's established building motif through- out the Twin Cities . Chairman Gross then recognized representatives of the applicant, including Mr. Brian Morgan, the architect, who reviewed in detail the nature of the operation and the ramifications of the site plan. Mr. Morgan pre- sented an alternative site plan (designated Sheet 1A) , to that recommended by the City staff. He stated that the plan represented the site design features desired by the applicant, who sought to maximize the convenience and accessibility of the facilities to its customers. He noted that the plan consisted of an additional curbcut northerly of the existing one which would be designated for outbound traffic only. He stated that a dual curbcut design accommodated the circular traffic flow through the site and past the drive-up teller window and future remote teller station, in a more efficient manner. Mr. Morgan presented graphic data contrasting the two submitted site plans and he discussed the desirability of the alternative. He also explained that the location of the foundation for the drive-up teller window canopy was crucial in its relationship to the internal office layout of the building. He noted the location of a super- visor's station in the building which permitted observation of the general work area. He stated that shifting the remote teller window to accommodate the location of the outside delineator, as proposed on the plan recommended by the City, would create a hardship within the building with respect to the desired management function. Mr. Morgan commented that the alternative proposed site plan provided several improvements, such as minimizing the egress conflict and circulation problems for the customers, and increased the number of trees in the berm area to the north of the building. An extensive discussion ensued. Commissioner Scott stated that based on the presentation she objected to the recommended plan design due to the potential conflict for outbound traffic on-site. She asked the City Engineer to discuss the rationale for recommending that plan over the alternate submitted by the applicant. The Director of Public Works stated that the staff had several concerns with respect to the site layout and specifically as to the design of the proposed alternate. He stated the use of the existing curbcut for the proposed use represented an intensified hazard, given the high traffic levels on Xerxes Avenue. He noted that field research showed the existing driveway was located at the peak of the acceleration zone for vehicles coming from the south. He stated that given the expected increase and intensity of traffic using that curbcut compared to the original use, the hazard was increased for both inbound and outbound traffic. He stated the recommendation for a new single curbcut to the north was based on that consideration. 10-9-75 -8- Mr. Merila stated that the alternative plan's additional curbcut was not consistent with the policy of minimizing curbcuts onto major thoroughfares. He explained that each curbcut repres-ents a potential hazard and that the recommended plan accomplished the same basic traffic flow on the site without increasing the number of curbcuts. He noted there was concern as to the periodic intense traffic on Xerxes Avenue and the periodic stacking of cars awaiting their turn to enter the Super Valu parking lot across the street. He continued that the recommended plan concentrated the potential congestion and stacking generated by the savings and loan use on the site, rather than on the major thorough- fare. Mr. Merila also commented -as to the proposed outbound only curbcut on the alternate plan, and stated experience substantiated that despite signery and striping, and even permanent delineation, it could be reasonably expected that cars would enter the proposed outbound only curbcut. He noted that while cars could also enter the outbound lane indicated on the recommended plan, the stacking and conflict would be on the site rather than on Xerxes Avenue. Further discussion ensued among Commissioners Scott, Foreman, Horan, and City Engineer, relative to the location and number of curbcuts. Mr. Merila stated that the basic potential traffic problems on the site were created by the proposed drive-up teller window anc' .f�,Aur=: remote teller station. In response to a question by the Secretary, Mr. Morgan stated that there were other Twin City Federal branch offices without drive-up teller windows. Relative to the substantial remodeling of the hair rg, Commissioner Foreman noted there was correspor- a%,:ce in the file regarding the possible installation of an automatic fire extinguishing system, as required fc-r new construction by the City-Ordinances. The Secretary stated that consideration had been given to requiring such a system, but the architect indicated that the construction of this particular building was not ccn- ducive to the installation of a wet sprinkler system. He explained that this had been confirmed by the Building Inspector. He also noted that whether automatic fire extinguishing system of another design would be required in this instance, was a matter which the City Council could be expected to deliberate. Mr. Morgan stated that another letter would be submitted to the City describing the type of electronic hazard detection system and remote alarm as proposed by the applicant. Further discussion ensued regarding the plans. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was not convinced that either one of the submitted plans was the most desirable, in that both represented accommodations to a new feature on the site, namely a drive-up teller window and future remote teller station. Commissioner Scott stated that she preferred the plan recommended by the City staff with modifications which would reverse the traffic flow. -9- 10-9-75 Commissioners Foreman and Horan stated that they supported the alternative plan submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Engdahl stated that he did not feel either plan was highly desirable, but he recognized that both would work if the remote teller window were necessary. Chairman Gross stated that he supported the recom- mended plan shown on Sheet 1 , since it only involved one curbcut and potential traffic conflicts would be oriented to the site rather than the street. Following further discussion there was a motion by Action Recom- Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner mending Approval Engdahl to recommend approval of Planning Commission of Application Application No. 75037, submitted by Twin City No. 75037 Federal Savings and Loan, subject to the following (Twin City Federal) conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes , prior to issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, berming and utility plans are subject to review by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of,-permits. 3 . A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to guarantee completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view: 5. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated with underground irrigation system. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of signery. 7. The approval comprehends the site and land- scaping plan consistent with Sheet 1A, sub- mitted by the applicant as an alternative. Voting in favor were: Commissioners Foreman, Engdahl, and Horan. Voting against: Chairman Gross, who stated he was not in favor of an additional curbcut and the potential traffic conflict ramifications on Xerxes Avenue; abstaining were: Commissioners Pierce and Scott, who stated they were not in favor of either plan and felt perhaps a more desirable modification was possible. The motion passed. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Application Commission Application No. 75039 , submitted by Mr. No. 75039 Lowell Zitzlof. The item was introduced by the Secretary (Lowell Zitzlof) who stated the applicant seeks approval and reaffirmation of a special use permit to continue the operation of the Lyn-Brook Body Shop, 430 - 65th Avenue North, which he proposes to acquire. He noted that motor vehicle repair is a special use in the C-2 district. 10-9-75 -10- He explained the present owner has been in operation as a permitted special use for a Apmber of years, and that in 1963 the Council had app oved a building addition and parking varianoe;(Application No. 63082) despite the excessive building 4#e in proportion to the site. He commented that ,A,iq r,4pe 1ayoVt s substan- tially nonconforming with respect to setbacks, parking and yard area. Chairman Gross recognized the applicant and an extensive discussion ensued., Mr. Zitzlof stated that he intended to continue the same operation without any expansion or retail sales. Hp noted that the shop was a relatively small one, conssting.of six stalls and a paint booth, requiring about three employees. He stated it was his intent to clean up the back area, including site modifications which would provide for parking in the rear of the building, Public Hearing Following further comments by the applicant, Chairman Gross noted that a public hearing had been scheduled and noted that none of the nQtified property owners was present. Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Foreman to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Further discussion ensued and the Secretary commented that with regard to any site modifications or building alterations , appropriate plans would be required for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. He commented that at this time the operation was of low intensity and had little impact on surrounding properties, which wepe,.i,.for the most part vacant. He noted the pJftnning Qoncern that the area eventually ,would be subject to.;commercial develop- ment according,to present standards, and that the capacity of this site to support the use within its boundaries or in conjunct-ipn with neighboring properties, would be subject to review. Action Recommending Motion by Commissioner Foropian, seconded by Approval of Application Commissioner Scott -to recommend approval of Planning No. 75039 Commission Hppiication No. 7&Q$9_, submitted by Mr. (Lowell Zitzlof) Lowell Zitzlof, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The permit is issued to, applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable 2 . The use shall consist off auto body repair and painting, all service activities shall be within the building, and no retail sales are permitted, 3 . The permit is subject to applicable codes and ordinances and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 4. All storage, including trash disposal facilities, shall be within the building or screened from view with opaque materials approved by the City. S . Parking and driving areas shall be provided and maintained according to the approved plan. -11- 10-9-75 6. Prior to any modifications of the site or the building, appropriate plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planni.ny Commission and City Council. 7. All nonconforming sign structures shali.be removed from the building within 60 days from date of issuance of the Pennit. The motion passed unanimously. In other business the Secretary stated that Mr. William Other Business Dale had submitted a preliminary rezoning proposal for two parcels of land in the southwest quadrant of the City, southerly of the Dale Tile Company. He stated the proposal was to rezone from I-2 to C-2 , to accom- modate a commercial operation such as a restaurant® He stated that the request was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but that in light of the Commission's on-going review of the plan and land use policies in the southwest neighborhood, Mr. Dale was interested in some direction from the Commission as to the feasi- bility of the request. A brief discussion ensued and Chairman Gross determined that the Commission would not be intPrpsteri in enter- taining the proposal which constituted spot zoning, but would take under advisement the possibility of commercial land uses in the southwest neighborhood, including the general area south of Lakebreeze and west of Highway 100, In other business, the Secretary reminded the Commission of a proposed joint bus, tour of the City with the Housing Advisory Commission to be held on Saturday, October 11 , at 8:30 a.m. Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Adjournment Engdahl to adjourn the meeting, The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m. Chairman 10-9-75 -12-