Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 04-19 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 SESSION APRIL 19, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Panning Commission met in special session and was called to order by Chairman Hal Pierce at 8:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn, and Planning Aide Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 22, 1979 Commissioner Hawes noted that a discussion regarding doors on the west end of the proposed building at Howe Fertilizer, Inc. as well as a blacktopped driving area serving the site had been omitted from the minutes of the March 22, 1979 meeting and reference to that discussion should be on page 4. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Lucht to approve the minutes of the March 22, 1979 meeting of the Planning Commission as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson, Lucht, Theis, and-Malecki . Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NOS. 79016 and 79017 (Howe, Inc.) Following the C airman's explanation, the Secretary introduced Application Nos. 79016 and 79017 submitted by Howe, Inc. for consideration by the Planning Commis- sion. The Secretary explained that the applications had been tabled by the Plan- ning Commission on March 15, 1979 and were continued to a special meeting held on March 22, 1979 at which time the City Attorney gave an oral report to the Commis- sion regarding various legal aspects associated with the applications . He stated that the Commission again tabled the matter for the opportunity to review various reports relating to Howe, Inc. which had not been completed at that time. He noted that the Planning Commission had received the reports . The Secretary briefly reviewed the application submitted by Howe, Inc. to build a 74 ' x217' concrete block building for warehouse and storage purposes. He pointed out the location of the previous building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979, and the location of the proposed building noting that the proposed building would require variances from the City's Zoning Ordinance as to setbacks. The variance would be required, he stated, both from the ordinance requirement of a 100' buffer setback where industrially zoned property abuts residential and from the required 50' setback off a major thoroughfare. He repeated the staff's previous recommendation to deny the variances sought because it was possible to design another structure which would meet existing setback requirements. Commissioner Theis inquired whether the. building destroyed by fire had been closer than 100' from the R1 property to the west. The Secretary responded that it had been roughly 80' from that residential property, and that shifting the proposed building further north to allow greater separation from the middle building forced it further to the west, thus aggrevating the setback violation. 4-19-79 -1- Commissioner Hawes asked whether an L-shaped building, as would be conforming to present setback requirements, would interfere with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Attorney responded that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow a structure which is part of a nonconforming use to be moved on the site on which it is located. Changing the shape of the building, he said, would not interfere with the intent of the ordinance. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis, the Secretary noted that the proposed building would be constructed of concrete block. This, he said, would be double or triple the life expectancy of the metal building previously located on the site. Commissioner Theis asked whether this could be considered the case since it was an auxiliary structure. The Secretary responded that it could be considered an extension of the life of the operation. In answer to Commissioner Erickson, the Secretary stated that the previous building had been built in 1955, that an addition had been made in 1956 and possibly another. addition in 1961 . Chairman Pierce asked whether any of these additions took place after the structure became a nonconforming use. The Secretary replied that the research undertaken indicates that Howe, Inc. became a nonconforming use in 1957. Commissioner Lucht inquired whether the driveway to serve the north building would have to meet the setback requirement. The Secretary responded that the provision for the 100' buffer area states the area may not be used for driving or parking purposes. The City Manager then summarized his report to the Planning Commission on the zoning history on Howe, Inc. and the status of the north building as a noncon- forming use. He stated that in 1957, when the production of chemical fertilizer became a nonconforming use, the north building consisted of a one story steel building 62' x 218 ' in size (13,561 sq. ft.). to be used for warehouse purposes in connection with the operation existing on the site in 1955, presumably the production of commercial fertilizer. He noted that the City Attorney recommends that the building be treated as part of the total complex. He stated that Howe Fertilizer is therefore entitled to rebuild a comparable building at the same location for the same purposes allowed by previous building approvals. The City Manager listed a number of conditions pertaining to the rebuilding of the north warehouse. He stated that it should not be greater in total volume than the one story 62' x 218' building previously on the site. It also should not be constructed of materials which would lengthen the life of the use on the site except that some modifications could be made for the sake of safety. He also made clear that if the City Council adopts an ordinance regulating the storage of toxic materials as proposed in the Hickok study, the applicant will be required to conform with that ordinance in the proposed building and in other buildings on the site as well . The City Manager went on to say that although Howe, Inc. is both a nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use, as long as its nonconforming status is considered valid, it is eligible for consideration for variances from setback standards and other requirements. The City Manager concluded his report by observing that the Howe operation, as 1t has expanded over the past 20 to 30 years, has resulted in severe overcrowding on the site and that further expansion would have to take place elsewhere. If the plant were to be constructed today, he said, the applicant would, no doubt, choose a larger area and the zoning regulations would clearly dictate the need for a much larger site for the operations which are contained in the fertilizer plant and its accessory buildings. It is staff's recommendation, he concluded, to deny the application for variance and site and building plan approval on the grounds that the Standards for Variance have not been met and that the proposed building would extend the life of a nonconforming use. 4-19-79 -2- Commissioner Erickson asked-whether the staff considered the new building, 75% larger in volume, to be a significant increase over the previous building. The City Attorney responded that it was considered significant since it would add to the capacity of the building. The City Attorney briefly reviewed the research process ,through which the staff attempted to piece together the sequence of'construction on the Howe Fertilizer site. The initial construction of the north building, he said, probably took place in 1955. In 1956, an addition 62' x 80' was added to the east end of the north building. Both of these building permits correspond to specific approval by the Council for certain uses on the site. Another addition in 1961 of 12' x 2181, apparently to the north side of the north building, is not recognized in the Council minutes around that time. Why there was no specific Council approval of a 1961 addition, he could not say. Commissioner Lucht questioned the City Manager relative to the .construction of the new building. He asked whether the recommendation to allow a building similar to the previous building would amount to approving a substandard structure. The City Manager responded that any building that might be built would have to meet all building, fire and safety codes. He added that it is felt that a concrete building would increase the life of the structure beyond that of the former metal building. Commissioner Lucht questioned whether it was possible to keep the firm from upgrading other buildings on the site. The City Manager stated that the policy established by the Comprehensive Plan was simply to discourage any invest- ment on the site. Chairman Pierce asked whether a newer building of higher quality might have use to another operation which would' be allowed under the Zoning Ordinance at some time in the future. The City Manager responded that this might be so, but that it is only speculation at this time. * Chairman Pierce asked why exactly Howe Fertilizer is considered a nonconforming use under the City Zoning Ordinance. The City Manager answered that the manufact- ure of chemical fertilizer is not a permitted use under the Zoning Ordinance. 14o explainpd that althminh tha mani,facture of fertilizer is carried on in the middle building, other buildings on the site are accessory uses to the principal use which is nonconforming. Because of this, the entire site is considered a nonconforming .use. Commissioner Theis asked whether the City Ordinances aiiow for a temporary building. The City Manager answered that temporary buildings are allowed if they meet the State Building Code. Chairman Pierce asked whether a temporary building would have to conform to all site requirements. The City Manager replied that to be consistent with other City approvals, it would. Commissioner Hawes asked what would happen to the function of storing equipment under the restrictions outlined in the City Manager's report. The City Manager replied that records indicate that the storage of equipment was never an author- ized use in the north building. Commissioner Hawes stated that this would certainly raise a problem since the storage of equipment would have to be handled somewhere else. The City Attorney answered that in a strictly legal sense there was no solution to that problem since Howe Fertilizer became nonconforming in 1957, at which time storage of vehicles was not an approved use in any of the structures on the site. In answer to a question from Chairman Pierce as to how the staff came to its recommendation, the City Manager stated that the staff had considered the Com- prehensive Plan, the City Zoning Ordinance, and the nature of other I-2 uses within the City. The staff had concluded, he said, that Howe Fertilizer, from a legal standpoint, is nonconforming in almost every sense of the term. Commis- sioner Hawes questioned whether the dust problem resulted from the manufacturing operation or from traffic on the site. The City Manager stated that the dust was generated primarily from traffic on the site. He pointed out that there were additional problems with amonia fumes which, in spite of efforts to correct 4-19-79 -3- the problem, still seem to remain a nuisance for the neighborhood. He noted that-the size of the site and _its proximity to a residential neighborhood com pounded the difficulties of dealing with the nusiance factors associated with the use. Commissioner Hawes. inquired as to how an approval to rebuild would affect the time table for phasing out Howe, Inc. as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.` The Secretary responded that a date for terminating the Howe operation on the site could not be set while the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance recognized Howe as a nonconforming use. He added that there is no legal power' - to force them to close the operation down. All that can be done is to prevent any expansion and allow normal economic decisions to lead Howe to locate else- where. In connection with this, the Secretary stated that it is recommended that any approved building should not extend the life of the use on the site and should approximate what existed at the time the site became a nonconforming use. Commissioner Theis observed the importance of deciding what type of building should be approved. He noted that if a building of higher quality were allowed to be reconstructed and another building on the site burned, this second building would also be improved. He pointed out that, in this way, the life of the use on the site would be extended dramatically. On the other hand, he added, would another pole barn type building better protect the residents in the neighbor hood? The City Manager answered that a metal pole barn building possibly could provide adequate protection because it . would be required to meet all current building, fire and energy codes. He added that.other precautions should be taken to prevent such things as seepage of chemicals into the groundwater. Commissioner Theis stated that the prevention of seepage should be one condition of approving any new building. The City Manager noted that the references to seepage in the consultants' reports were primarily concerning seepage outside of tha hi i 1 di ng.- Commissioner Theis cone I uded that some measure OT'--safety snould be built in without extending the life of the use. Chairman Pierce pointed outs-that while the existing buildings are designed for manufacturing, the new building would be for warehousing. This new building wouldn't necessarily be a total loss to Howe Fertilizer at such time when they decided to move from the site since it could be converted to another use. The City Manager responded that the termination of a nonconforming use is basically an economic decision. A higher value building, he said, could change the timing of the decision to relocate. Chairman Pierce asked whether a new use would have as many buildings. The Secretary answered that the Zoning Ordinance does not contain density requirements such as permitting a certain percentage of buildings to land area. The only requirements to be met under the present ordinance relate to setback, Duffers, and parking requirements. If a builder were starting from scratch, he said, the buldings on the site as presently situated would, in all likelihood, not be allowed. Commissioner Malecki noted that without the north building there were setback encroachments even now. Chairman Pierce asked whether the previous building violated any setback requirements in effect when it was constructed. The City Manager pointed out that a violation did occur when the original building was built in 1955 since it encroached into R1 zoned property. Commissioner Lucht noted that if a 50' setback from State Highway right-of-way were required and later such right-of-way were vacated, the City's requirement would then be out of date and the City might have denied Howe the use of valuable property. The City Manager replied that while' Howe, Inc. is a nonconforming use, that does not eliminate them from consideration for a variance. The City Attorney added that the land taken by the State for highway right-of-way never belonged to Howe Fertilizer. -In response to Commissioner Theis, the City Manager demonstrated what effect the vacation of State-owned property along Brooklyn Boulevard would have on the location of the proposed building. 4-19-79 -4- Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for comments from neighborhood residents on information that had come to light sinde the March 22, 1979 meeting of the Planning Commission. He recognized Ben Long, 4911 Brooklyn Boulevard, who re- called that the Howe site was not originally part of the Brooklyn Manor Addition platted in 1939, and that Roy Howe's brother Frank owned a number of lots in the Brooklyn Manor Addition at the time Howe Fertilizer expanded into a commercial Fertilizer business. He mentioned that he did_ not think Roy Howe ever got a permit for the first two buildings on the site. Mr. Paul Newt, 4707 Washburn Avenue North, Minneapolis, criticized the Commission for dealing with peripheral issues and encouraged them to get to the heart of the matter. He warned that if a catastrophe occurred, both Howe, Inc. and the City would be jointly liable for the damages. Citing numerous articles dealing with chemical disasters, he asked why Howe, Inc. had not been fined, and accused City Officials and those who insure the Howe Company of laxity. The City Manager re- sponded that while no specific approvalhad been made of the use at the Howe site permits to build ccnstituted tacit approval of those uses. At that point, the City Attorney advised the Commission that they should determine whether Howe, Inc. is, in fact, a valid nonconforming use. To do so, he explained, it must determine that the process which later became nonconforming, was legal at the time it first came into existence. A lengthy discussion then ensued concerning the types of chemicals stored on the site and their potential danger to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Newt pressed the Howes for amounts of certain chemicals including sulphuric acid. He main- tained that mixing chemicals leads to unknown situations. Commissioners. Hawes and Erickson asked the Howes what evaluation their site had received from OSHA Inspectors. Tom Howe answered that the company had not been fined and that only minor violations were cited in OSHA reports. Fred rurnler, 4900 Lem ul Hvellue Nort'l, asked the Planning tL,in7-1flissiG-11 ui1d %,i Ly staff how they could break the law by allowing Howe to rebuild. 'Ine City Manager replied that the Comprehensive Plan refers to Howe as a nonconforming use, but that there is no place in the law scheduling the phasing out of Howe, Inc. Mr. Fornier maintained that the building should not be replaced under the ordi..a nce. The City Manager replied that the ordinance does not permit rebuilding of a non- conforming use following 60% destruction. He added that it is felt that the entire site must be used for determining the extent of destruction. Although the entire north building was destroyed, 60% of the total was not destroyed. Mary Dodds, 4730 Xerxes Avenue North, Minneapolis, warned that the danger..involved with the Howe site is far greater than had previously been thought. She pointed out that Minneapolis is pumping ground water at one million gallons per day from the Howe site; dumping it into the sewer; the water system is thereby being contaminated. She referred to numerous articles describing the dangers of certain chemicals known to be stored on the Howe site. Mrs. Dorothy Novak, 5006 North Lilac Drive, observed that the real issue at hand is not what is built, but what is put in the buildings. She encouraged the Planning Commission not to be bound by past decisions. She indicated that the operation should be phased out, and that no building should be approved. Mr.. Newt expressed pessimism about the reliability of inspections. He noted that the explosion at the Technical Ordinance Company in January occurred one month after inspection by State officials. 4-19-79 -5- Chairman Pierce next recognized James Russell , the attorney for Howe, Inc. who spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Russell introduced Art Walcott, a chemical consultant, for the purpose of offering additional comments on the safety of chemicals stored at Howe Fertilizer. Mr. Walcott pointed out that all of the chemicals stored at Howe Fertilizer are used by farmers and added that the EPA considers 30,000 chemical compounds to be toxic. Technical advice, he said, is needed to develop wise regulations for chemical storage. Mr. Fornier indicated that he transported many of the chemicals stored at Howe, Inc. and added that such chemicals are corrosive and explosive and cannot be handled lightly. Mr. Newt noted the problems inherent with sophisticated control mechanisms and the possibility for human error, citing the Three Mile Island nuclear plant breakdown as an example. Commissioner Theis left the table at 10:35 and returned at 10:39 p.m. Chairman Pierce asked the people present to restrict their discussion to questions of land use, rather than other aspects of the Howe Fertilizer case. Mr. Russell challenged the impression given by the City Manager's report that the City Council in 1946, was not aware of what kind of operation it was approving when it allowed permits to build. The Council at that time was mostly farmers, he said, and they knew precisely what was going on. He produced a letter of application, dated in 1946, to the Civilian Production Administration requesting authority to construct a nonhousing unit and offered it for review by the Planning Commission. The City Manager responded that his report only says that the City's . records do not show what type of operation was actually approved. Mr. Russell maintained that old inventory showed Howe Fertilizer was in the chemical business from the beginning. Mr. Russell then briefly reviewed the history of construct-. ion on the Howe site, basically corroborating the evidence presented by the City ctaff Mr. Russell asked how the storage of equipment could now be denied as .a 'permitted use .of the proposed building. He stated that the previous building had been built in stages in order to house necessary functions which were all accessory °- uses to the principal use on the complex. He-went on to say that when the original building was built, it met existing setback requirements. He argued that the right to rebuild and the requirement to come into compliance with existing setbacks were in conflict and that in his opinion, the right to rebuild took precedent. He stated that Nowe, Inc. is willing to construct a building of the same r_ype as the old building and asked the Planning Commission for at leas a conceptual approval of such building plans. Regarding the intensity of use on the site, Mr. Russell said that seasonal demands vary with the fertilizer business and that it is not fair to require parking spaces that meet maximum demands when the maximum is only a seasonal occurrence. He also pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance permits truck terminals in the I-2 zone. The neighbor- hood, he said, should expect truck traffic as long as the zoning in that area is I-2. Speaking to the Hickok report, Mr. Russell said that the report painted the worst possible picture about the chemicals stored on the site. He maintained that it is unreasonable to require investments contemplating another fire; rather it would be more prudent to invest in the prevention of such a fire. He pointed out that the two south buildings are made of asbestos materials and dis- counted the possibility of fire spreading to those buildings. He concluded his arguments by stating the setback from the highway should be from the roadway . and not from the highway property line. 4-19-79 Commissioner Hawes asked what effect the staff recommendation that the building be allowed only for storage would have on -the operation. Mr. Russell replied that the maintenance function is important and that it was part of the 1955 approval of the warehouse. Warehousing was only approved in 1956 and storage in 1961 . Chairman Pierce asked the applicant what were Howe Fertilizer's future plans. He noted that the site in Brooklyn Center is definitely limited and would prevent any further growth of the company. Mr. Russell answered that the site is considered an efficient unit for the production of chemical fertilizer. He maintained that Howe, Inc. has been a good neighbor and added: that industrial zoning is entirely proper for that location. Plans for expanding the company at a Maple Grove site, he said, do not contemplate the entire operation. Commissioner Hawes observed that the equipment used at the present site would eventually wear out and that replacement of such equipment could take place at a new -location as functions were gradually moved out of the present site. It did not seem, he said, that this would present a great hardship for Howe Fertilizer and at the same time would definitely help the neighborhood. Mr. Russell said that this type of plan would be considered, but at present, he did not feel it would be a very efficient way to operate. Chairman Pierce expressed regret over the way events took place at the Howe site over the past 30 years and stated that there must be a way to relocate the business at some point in time. Commissioner Manson asked whether Howe, Inc. has considered the staff configurat- ion for a possible building. The City Manager noted that the staff does not develop building plans. The area shown for possible development only indicates the location which would meet present setback requirements, he said. Commis- sioner Manson asked whether Howe, Inc. could live with the existing setback re- quirements. Mr. Russell answered that they could not, that traffic patterns which are part of the operation on the site cannot fit into such a configuration. The City Manager pointed out that the efficient operation of Howe, Inc, is not an all-important consideration. He mentioned other I-2 uses which are placed in smaller spaces. The Secretary added that the proposed plan does not meet the JI,"IIUUI u I J VI U Yul 1u nc o. - Mr. Newt observed that businesses either expand and grow or they die out. He wondered how the present operation could expand within the confines of the site. Mary Dodds called Mr. Russell 's statement that chemicals on the Howe site are safe, ridiculous. She stated that Bill Howe is not as cooperative as Mr. Russell maintains. She asked why the neighborhood should be asked to put up with the Howe operation any longer. The City Attorney suggested the Planning Commission make certain findings in- eluding 1) Howe, Inc. was a lawful use in 1946; 2) Howe, Inc. became a non- conforming use in 1957 when the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was passed; 3) what the size .of the building was at the time it became nonconforming; 4) that the north building was part of an overall complex; 5) that the loss did not represent 60% destruction of the nonconforming use; and 6) that warehousing and storage of chemicals were uses permitted in the north building. Commissioner Lucht agreed with all of the statements made by the City Attorney, but felt that the 1961 size of the building should be used because a building permit had been issued. He did not favor allowing variances for the recon- struction, but did prefer a concrete rather than metal building. Commissioner Erickson stated that in his opinion the proposed structure repre- sented an expansion in terms of size and value. He agreed that some structure should be allowed, but not the proposed one. He did-not favor granting variances to allow construction as the plan submitted indicated. He added that he did not see how the Planning Commission could make all of the findings sought by the City Attorney without more evidence. 4-19-79 -7- Commissioner Theis stated that he felt the City Council in 1946 knew what they were approving and that Howe, Inc. was a valid use at that time. He accepted the statement that the operation became nonconforming in 1957, that the north building is part of the total complex, and that less than 60% of the site was destroyed by the recent fire. He said he would not allow the 1961 addition to be rebuilt. He said he preferred a pole barn type building, rather than a higher quality building to avoid extending the life of the use on the site. As far as the uses within the building including warehousing and storage, etc., he had no firm position. He added that if variances should be allowed, he would prefer to approve one for reduced setback along Brooklyn Boulevard, rather than toward the residences. Commissioner Hawes accepted Howe, Inc. as a valid nonconforming use as of 1957. He said they should be able to rebuild, but should not be allowed variances from existing setback requirements. He preferred a prestressed concrete building to a pole barn type building and strongly encouraged the applicant to set up a schedule for the phasing out of the entire operation on the present site. He added that there is no lack of property available along the railroad. Commissioner Manson agreed that the use was valid in 1946 and became nonconforming in 1957. She accepted that less than 60% of the entire use was destooyed and that Howe, Inc. was, therefore, entitled to rebuild. The 1961 addition to the north. side of the building should be allowed, she felt, but the existing use should not be encouraged to stay by allowing a more durable building. The building, should be safe, however, she said. She did not favor variances at this time. Comml:.sioner Malecki agreed that Howe was a valid nonconforming use as of 1957. She sated she could not make a determination on the size of building to be allowed since approval of the 1961 addition was �as yet unclear. She stated that sha favored a temporary rather an improved structure for the site, and added- that SIC CCU I,, .,n+' wornmmcn� annrnVal of the variances as submitted 'because aiw e' vi 2 " iii.. �.vu� . -rr Standards for Variances have not been met. Chairman Pierce stated that he was not yet convinced that the use was in fact, legal in 1946. The use may have been accepted, in fact, but not in law, he stated. He stated that if the City.officially recognized the use through approval of build- ing permits, then it should be accepted as a valid nonconforming use. He agreed that less than 60% of the complex was destroyed. He opposed any type of variance that would allow encroachment into setbacks. He suggested that the entire site be brought up to date and up to code as far as safety is concerned. As to the question of the type of construction to be allowed, he remained uncommitted until an ordinance regulating chemical storage would shed light on what would be de- manded of such a structure on the site. MOTION TO RECOGNIZE HOWE FERTILIZER AS A VALID NONCONFORMING USE Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis that it is the Plan- ,Commission's finding that Howe, Inc. was a valid use in 1946 and became a nonconforming use under the City's Zoning Ordinance in 1957. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS CERTAIN FACTS TO BE THE CASE CONCERNING HOWE, INC. Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Erickson that the Planning Commission finds that the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 was part of the entire complex, that .less than 60% of said complex was destroyed by the fire and that, therefore, the applicant is entitled to rebuild a similar warehouse on the site. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 4-19-79 -8- MOTION TO DENY APPLICATION NO. 79017 (Howe, Inc. ) Mot niby Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend denial of Application No. 79017 submitted by Howe, Inc. for variances from the City's setback requirements from a major thoroughfare and buffer between I-2 and R-1 uses on the basis that the Standards for Variances are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION TO DENY APPLICATION NO. 79016 (Howe, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend denial of Application No. 79016 on the grounds that the plan as submitted does not meet ordinance standards. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioner Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary briefly discussed the obligation of the Planning Commission at the upcoming Kaleidscope Community Fair. A schedule of who would man the booth was worked out. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commis- sioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:19 a.m. —thair-&—n - 4-19-79 -9- 1 1