Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 11-02 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 NOVEMBER 2, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl . ROLL CALL Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki , Pierce, Hawes and Theis. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald A. Warren, and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. APPROVE MINUTES - October 19, 1978 and September 28, 1978 Approval of the minutes was delayed until later in the meeting. APPLICATION NO. 78066 (Cynthia Pierce) Following the Chairman's explanation the first item. of consideration was Application No. 78066 submitted by Cynthia Pierce. The Secretary stated the applicant sought an amendment to her special use permit for a beauty shop in her home, which would recognize one nonresident employee in relation to the special home occupation. Commissioner Pierce stated that he would abstain from consideration of the appli- cation in view of his relationship to the applicant. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and noted the location of the apps-icant's property. He stated that the original special use permit was granted under Application No. 75019 for a home occupation consisting of a beauty shop and comprehended a one chair single operator business in the basement of the applicant's home. He continued that the hours of operation are currently Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. ; and Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. He stated the applicant had submitted a letter re- questing permission to add one nonresident operator on the premises. The Secretary explained that the ordinance allows as a part of the special home occupation "the employment on the premises at any-one given time of not more than one person who is a nonresident of the premises." He stated that the applicant proposed to employ two persons to work in the shop on a part time basis, and is aware that the two :.. nonresident operators would not be permitted to work during the same time. The Secretary reviewed the definition of a special home occupation contained in Section 35-900 and the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in Section 35-220. The Secretary continued that a public hearing had been scheduled and notices had been sent to neighboring property owners. He stated that four notified property owners had called and indicated they would be unable to attend the public hearing, but wished to go on record. Marsha Janasz, 3312 Lawrence Road, stated she had no objections to the special use provided the operation does not cause additional parking and traffic-related problems. She also commented that the applicant's home occupation had not been a problem to her as a neighbor. Catherine Munson, 3318 Lawrence Road wished to go on record as having no objection to the amendment to the special use permit. Mary Becker, 3301 Lawrence Road, also wished to go on record as having no opposition to the proposed amendment. 11-2-78 -1- Jackie Alexander, 3311 Lawrence Road, stated she had no complaints about the parking related to the special use permit and had no objection to the proposed amendment comprehending an additional operator, but commented that since Mrs. Pierce was establishing herself in a real estate business, perhaps the home occupation had served its purpose and that perhaps the time has come for her to seek a commercial building for her beauty shop operation. The Secretary stated that the Building Inspector had inspected the applicant's premises on two occasions and has reported that with respect to code related concerns, there is no problem with the application. He indicated that during his inspection on September 8, 1978, there were two chairs in use and three cars parked in the driveway as well as three cars parked on the street. His September 26, 1978 in- spection noted only one chair in use. The Secretary continued that the major concern was with parking and traffic generation in this R1 (Single Family Resi- dental ) area. He stated it was recommended that a condition of approval for the application be that all parking related to the special use be off-street park I f►g on appropriate space provided by the applicant. He added that it was felt that the applicant's driveway could accommodate parking for four automobiles in addition to the double garage for the applicant's use. He commented that such a condition would make it necessary for the applicant to schedule appointments strictly and/or encourage clients to carpool . The Secretary concluded by stating that the key consideration in any special home occupation is the determination that the proposed use is clearly secondary and incidental to the primary use, which is residential . He reviewed the recommended conditions of approval A discussion ensued relative to the application. Commissioner Theis asked the Secretary to indicate on the transparency the properties of the neighbors who did not object to the special use amendment. The Secretary indicated those properties. Commissioner Hawes noted that the applicant requested two additional operators and inquired whether this could be permitted under the ordinance. The Secretary ex- plained that only one nonresident operator would be permitted on the premises at one time. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, Mrs. 'Cynthia Pierce. She stated that she understood she would be required to provide off-street parking for her customers and her customers had been made aware of this requirement. She acknowledged that she was aware that only one nonresident employee would be permitted at any one given time. She pointed out that she is a resident of Lawrence Road, and that it might be possible that a visiting friend would park on the street. She inquired whether there would be any problem if a complaint arose from this situation. Chair- man Engdahl responded that only the parking related to the special use was required to be located off the street. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl announced a public hearing had been scheduled and recognized Mr. and Mrs. Reetz of 3309 Lawrence Road. Mr. Reetz commented that he had heard that the applicant would going into the real estate business and that whe might not be on the premises when the nonresident employee is working in the shop. He stated that he felt that no hired help should be allowed on the premises unless the owner is present. Mrs. Reetz added that she was opposed to having a beauty shop on a residential street. - She stated that while she couldn't see the parking related to the use from her house, there was generally a traffic problem in the area and she was opposed to any type of use which would increase traffic on the residential street. The Secretary explained that a special home occupation is a permitted use in the RI (Single Family Residental) district and is subject to certain conditions of approval . He stated that in this case, the conditions of approval would lessen . the impact of the traffic on the residential area. 11-2-78 -2- COMMISSIONER BOOK ARRIVES Commissioner Book arrive at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Reetz stated that there were too many cars in the neighborhood already and that even though there were rules the applicant would have to follow with the granting of a variance, especially in regard to parking, he was concerned with who would be responsible for monitoring the parking situation. The Secretary responded that the applicant sought a special use permit rather than a variance and reitereated that a special use such as a home occupation is a permitted use in the zoning district i subject to certain special requirements. He continued that in this case one of the requirements would be that all parking related to the use must be off-street on space provided by the applicant. He explained it was the applicant's responsibility to provide the parking space, and the City's duty to enforce the off-street parking requirement. He noted that in the past, there had been no formal complaint to the City regarding the applicant's beauty shop. He further explained that if there were any problems related to the parking which the applicant did not rectify, the special use permit could be revoked. i Mrs. Reetz explained that there had been a problem with parking related to the ! beauty shop in the past and that several of the neighbors had discussed this problem with her. She described a past experience which she had had. where there was .a traffic problem relating to parked .cars along that section of Lawrence Road. The applicant responded that no neighbor had complained to her regarding the parking. She also commented that the particular problem to which Mrs. Reetz referred was not necessarily related to her special use. i t Chairman Engdah? recognized Mr. Sledz, of 6137 Beard Avenue North. Mr. Sledz stated that he had heard that the owner of the clinic located across the street on Beard Avenue North had offered to let the beauty shop customers parkin the clinic parking lot. The Secretary explained that a formal joint parking arrangement between the applicant and the owner of the clinic would not be possible because such an agree- went is only permitted by the Zoning Ordinance where the two uses sharing the _,parking are zoned accordingly. He pointed out that the clinic was zoned Cl (Service/ Office Commercial ) and the applicant's property was zoned R1 (Single Family Residental ) . 4 Mr. Reetz commented that while all of the Lawrence. Road residents did occasionally have friends parking in the street, the applicant had intensified the parking problem because of the beauty shop. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether the Reetz' were opposed to the application because of the parking problem and traffic gener- ation. Mr. Reetz responded that they were opposed to. the application because they were against permitting nonresident employees in a residential area. Chairman Engdahl explained that the ordinance did permit one nonresident employee in relation to a permitted special home occupation. Mr. Reetz inquired whether the nonresident employee could be permitted while the owner was not on the premises . Chairman Engdahl responded that that was a different matter which would have to be resolved before the application could be approved. Commissioner Theis commented that with a two chair operation each operator could handle two clients at one time, which would mean a total of four customers cars, and one employee car, he didn't see how the applicant could accommodate the parking unless the driveway were widened at some point to provide for three abreast parking, or the clients carpool . Commissioner Book pointed out that such an argument assumed that the business would operate at a full rate. He noted that the ordinance parking formulas for other zoning districts did not assume a maximum rate of business. For example, the ordinance parking formula for restaurants is one space for every two seats. He continued that he felt as long as the operation did not constitute a nuisance; and he did not feel that it did, the amendment to the special use permit should be a proved 11-2-78 -3- The applicant explained that since she was going into the reai estate business, her beauty operation business would be less intense than it had been because the employees would not handle as many customers as she had when she was working alone. She stated that she could not guarantee that she would be on the premises when the employees were present, but that generally there should be an improvement in the parking situation. Commissioner Malecki commented that she did not feel there was a problem with the application as long as the applicant understood that only one nonresident employee was permitted on the premises at any one time. Chairman Engdahl recognized Building Official Will Dahn who commented that the Commission should look at the intent of the ordinance regarding the nonresident employee and whether, or not, the employee could be present on the premises without the presence of the owner. He referred to a former barber shop which had begun as a home occupation at 57th and Logan Avenues North and had expanded to the point that when a .rezoning application for commercial use arose, the courts ruled that a com- mercial character had been established for the area and ordered that the rezoning be approved. Commissioner Theis inquired of the applicant why she was requesting permission for an additional operator if the business had been decreasing. The applicant responded that because of health reasons, she needed to have help with the business and since the business was still viable she couldn't see closing it down. She also pointed out that she had spoken with other Brooklyn Center beauty shop operators who have special use permits. She stated that the other operators had indicated that they understood that one nonresident employee is permitted whether or not it was specific- ally included in the special use permit application. Chairman Engdahl stated that he saw two problems with the application: one, can the definition of a home occupation be interpreted to include a nonresident employee without the presence of the owner on the premises; and two, whether the applicant can provide adequate off-street parking. He stated that he felt the parking problem could be taken care of and that if there were any neighborhood complaints, the City should be notified. He added that he had no problem with permitting the additional operator, but that he was concerned with..whether. or,. not a resident employee could be permitted when the owner was not present. Mr. Reetz stated that his concern was with establishing a precedent for a commercial use in the neighborhood. He explained that there had been a problem in the past with a neighbor doing automobile repairs on his property without a permit which had existed for five years before being stopped by the City. He added that he was therefore suspicious of people operating commercial uses in their homes and inquired how long it would take to put a stop' to the operation if there was a - problem relating to it. The Secretary commented that in varying degrees, there are two different philosophies regarding home occupations in a single family residential zone. He stated that some people feel that they should be allowed to do anything they wished on their own property, and other people felt that a single family residential area should be preserved only as a residential area. He explained that in order to ease the tension between these two philosophies the ordinance establishes what types of home occupations are permitted and clearly defines those occupations. He also stated that while he couldn't comment on the particular incident to which Mr. Reetz re- ferred, in the case of a special use permit, it is the applicant's responsibility to meet the conditions of approval and to resolve any difficulties. He reiterated that it was the City's responsibility to enforce the required conditions of approval and other relevant City requirements. 11-2-78 -4- CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ` Notion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. TABLE APPLICATION N0. 78066 (Cynthia Pierce) Following-further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by ; Commissioner Theis to table Application No. 78066 submitted by Cynthia Pierce until f the definition of a ho a occupation had been clarified by the City Attorney as to whether or not a nonresident employee can be permitted on the premises when the owner is not present. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki, 4 Jacobson, Book, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Pierce. The motion carried. APPLICATION NO. 78064 (Gene Hamilton)r The next item of consideration was Application No. 78064 submitted by Gene Hamilton. The Secretary stated that the applicant sought a variance from Section 35-400 of the City Ordinances to allow the carport accessory ,structure which had been erected without building permit, to encroach approximately 20 ft. into the 35 ft. front setback at 6230 Lee Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and pointed out the location of the applicant's property. He explained that the applicant's carport had been the subject of Application No. 77064, an appeal from an administrative ruling that the structure encroached 20 ft. into the front setback and could not be allowed. He stated that the Council had ultimately denied the appeal and the present appli- cation was a request for a variance to permit the structure to encroach into the front yard. He stated that the applicant had submitted a written statement explaining his request and outlining his justification for the variance, in which he claims the placement of the house on the lot, the number and placement of existing trees and the lack of an alley make it virtually impossible to construct a detached garage in the rear yard and have access to it. The applicant also contends the carport provides a margin of safety on many days when an unprotected car would be subjected to sleet and snow and fogged windows. He notes that the location of the carport on his property is unique in that the grade of the driveway and existing trees and shrubbery make it appear to blend into the surroundings. The applicant also claims that the winte weather conditions and the location of the one car garage create a hardship and points out that 14 neighbors signed a petition supporting his variance request. The Secretary reviewec the Standards -for Variances in Section 35-240 (2) of the City:Ordinances, whic allow for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance and instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hard- ship because of circu stances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration after demonstration that all four of the qualifications are met. The Secretary continued that it was not felt that this variance request met the qualifications of a hardship contained in the ordinance as opposed to a mere in- convenience, nor that the conditions of the variance were necessarily unique to the parcel . He pointed out that single family homes with tuckunder single car garages similar to th t of the applicant are relatively common in Brooklyn Center. He added that conside ation should also be given to the precedent that would be set if this variance were granted and what, if any, distinctions could be made with respect to this zpplication and a similar request from another individual requesting the same t pe of encroachment into the front yard setback. 11-2-78 -5- The Secretary stated it was also felt that the alleged hardship claimed by the applicant was not necessarily related to the requirements of the ordinance. He explained that setback standards are minimum standards, and the ordinance does not mandate that houses be built at the 35 ft. setback, only that they do not encroach on this mmimum setback. . He also explained that the ordinance does not require garages or any other type of protection for cars, and also does not specify the placement and number of trees and shrubbery on single family residential property. He pointed out that these are decisions made by builders, developers and property owners, all persons having an interest in the parcel of land. Point c in the Standards for Variances requires that the alleged hardship must be related to the requirements of this ordinance and not have been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. The Secretary concluded that it was felt that the variance request did not clearly meet the Standards for--Variances,-particularly in terms of uniqueness and hardship, and recommended denial of the application. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing had been scheduled and inquired whether anyone in the audience wished to be heard. No one spoke relating to the ` application. He recognized the applicant, Mr. Gene Hamilton. The applicant stated that he had received a number of telephone calls and visits from his neighbors who had been notified of the public hearing and asked him whether he would like them to be present at the hearing. He stated that he had informed his neighbors that he felt that the petition which they signed in support of his structure in the fall of 1977 was sufficient evidence of their support, and he noted that prone of his neighbors was present at the public hearing. F The applicant stated that the Commission had reviewed the situation under his previous appeal application and was familiar with the circumstances. He stated that he had problems dealing with the fact that a piece of metal covering a car which would be parked in the driveway anyway can be so important that it can't be allowed. He explained that after having used the carport over last winter, he was convinced it was effective in protecting the car from sleet and snow that there had been no problem with visibility, and that there had been. no necessity for scraping the windows,. which was an improvement in safety. He explained that he was requesting a variance which would only be granted to himself, and that anyone else requesting a similar variance would have to prove that they have the same conditions as his. He stated that the Commission could approve the application on the merits of the individual case, and no precedent would be set. He concluded by stating that he could not understand why a neat t and useful structure such as the one he had erected could not be approved in the City of.Brooklyn Center. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING It was 'noted that no one else spoke relating to the application. Motion by Comis- sioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Engdahl polled the Commissioners.. Commissioner Hawes stated that while he could understand the applicant's point of view, it was the purpose of the ordi- nance to draw a firm line regarding the location of structures on a property. He stated that the applicant's structure was located strictly against the ordinance standards and that the applicant did not meet the standards for a variance. He concluded that he was opposed to granting the variance. 11-2-78 -6- Commissioner Malecki stated that the ordinance required that an undue hardship exist in order for a variance to be granted. She pointed out that scraping a car windshield did not constitutean undue hardship, but rather an inconvenience, and she felt that, not having met that standard, consideration of the application did not have to go any further. Commissioner Jacobson stated that the possibility of granting a variance had been discussed during the appeal process and that it had been determined that the situation did not meet the standards for a variance. She stated the application still did not meet standards for a variance,and she was opposed to the granting of such a variance. Commissioner Pierce stated he was still undecided on the issue of whether a carport should be allowed to encroach into the front setback. He stated that he still felt felt other alternatives should be researched by the Commission and explained that, while the 35 ft. setback requirement may have been viable when it was originally established, there may be need to revise that standard at present. He stated that the applicant's situation was not unique and that if the variance were granted, the Commission would have to grant anyone else permission to erect structures in their front yards. In response to a qu stion from Commissioner Book, the Secretary explained that Mr. Hamilton's original Application (No. 77064) had been an appeal from an ad- ministrative ruling by the Building Official that a carport was an accessory structure that coult not encroach into the front yard setback, and that the Council had upheld the admir,istrative ruling. Commissioner Book stated that ordinance standards can be su ject to change and that the Commission has a sensitivity towards granting variances. He continued that in situations such as the applicant's it is preferable to change the ordinance standards rather than grant a variance. He explained that although the applicant pointed out the structure was 30 feet from the street, it was only 15 ft. from the street right-of-way line. He stated that he felt that i the event that the street be widened or a sidewalk be in- stalled, that a 15 ft. setback was not sufficient, and that there could be some safety problem. Commissioner Theis stated that the situation was not unique to the property and constituted an inconvenience rather than a hardship. He pointed out that the structure was not d trimental to the neighborhood and that although he didn't feel the variance could be approved, he did feel that the ordinance should be amended to permit such a structure in the front setback. He stated that there were apparently legal problems with establishing aesthetic review criteria for a carport in the front yard as he had suggested when the situation was reviewed under the appeal apf Iication. Chairman Engdahl sta,ted that he felt that denial of the application was in order because it does not meet the standards for a variance. He pointed out that having to scrape the windows of the car is not at all a unique situation in Minnesota, and that anyone who parks their car in a parking lot during the day also has to scrape Windows in the evening. RECOMMEND DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78064 (Gene Hamilton) i�llotion by Commissioner Malecki seconaed y ommissioner awes to recommend denial of Application No. 78064 submitted by Gene Hamilton because the application does not meet the standards for a variance with respect to uniqueness and hardship. 11-2-78 �7- Commissioner Book pointed out that the situation could be detrimental to the public welfare with respect to the precedent it could set for allowing structures to be within 15 ft. of the street right-of-way. In further discussion it was the con- _. sensus of the Commission that the structure was not detrimental to the public welfare and Commissioner Book withdrew the point. Commissioner Hawes asked for clarification of the motion as it stood. The motion was to recommend denial of the application on the basis that it does not meet the standards for variances with respect to uniqueness and hardship. Voting in favor. Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Jacobson, Maiecki and Hawes. Voting against: Com- missioner Pierce and Theis. Not voting: Commissioner Book. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant who inquired whether all members of the Commission had received a copy of his formal request for variance. Chairman Engdahl responded that a copy of the request had been included with the agenda materials which had been received by each Commissioner. OTHER BUSINESS: City Salt Storage Building The next item of consideration was an informational item regarding the construction of a salt storage building on the municipal garage property at 2501 69th Avenue North. The City Engineer explained that with City's 1979 budget comprehended approval for construction of a salt storage building to be located on the municipal garage Property. He explained that currently salt was stored in the building on the City property located at Dupont and 69th .Avenues North, and that there was evidence the salt was leaching into the ground at that.location. He explained that the current regulations regarding salt storage were more stringent than those in effect at the time the present building had been constructed. He reviewed a transparency of the site showing the existing building, the proposed salt storage building, and a master plan for outside storage bins to be contained on the property. He noted that the proposed building was 34 ft. by 112 ft. in area. The City Engineer continued that the master plan provided for all outside storage to be located on this property, and that the materials would be stored in bins. He explained that the proposed building would be used as screening of the outside storage from the west side and that a berm and 6 ft. high fence would screen the storage from Shingle Creek Parkway, and that towards the east property line along Shingle Creek Parkway only a berm would be provided. He continued that the ex- terior of the building would be a compatible material to that of the existing building and would consist of a break-off concrete block. He stated that bids were now being taken on the building. A discussion ensued relative to the plans. Chairman Engdahl inquired as to the Screening on the east side of the.property. The City Engineer responded that there is a large green strip presently existing between the City property and the adjacent Graco property. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the City Engineer stated that the entrance to the building would be from 69th Avenue North and that when Shingle Creek Parkway was in place, there would be an additional entrance from Shingle Creek Parkway. He pointed out that only the building would be constructed this year, and that the rest of the storage would probably be con- structed in the next year. In response to a question from Commissioner Book, he stated that the salt mixing area would be located inside the building in the beginning and that when the building was full , mixing would take place outside. He stated that all mixed materials would be stored inside the building. Also, in response to a question from Commissioner Book, the City Engineer stated that the building would have a bituminous floor which was an acceptable type of flooring. 11-2-78 -8- Commissioner,Pierce inquired as to the height of the building. The City Engineer responded that the building would be 20 ft. high. He explained that raw salt would be stored in one portion of the building and mixed salt in another. In re- sponse to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the City Engineer stated that the type of salt which would be stored would be calcium chloride. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether the storage bins would be locked. The City Engineer explained that a security fence would be installed around the entire storage area. He stated that the State Highway Department had constructed a similar building last year. Following further discussion Chairman Engdahl thanked the City Engineer for his presentation of the informational item. WESTBROOK MALL The next item of consideration was a proposed revision of the Westbrook Mall site plan. The Secretary explained that as a result of notification of the developer of outstanding site improvements noted during an inspection for performance bond release, the developer had submitted a revised landscape plan. He briefly re- viewed the plan and noted it was color-coded to show that some of the required items were proposed to be omitted, some of the required items would be planted this fall, and also showed some plantings which were already in place that had not been required on the original site plan. He pointed out that there was a concern with the large island which contained two flag poles and for which no s landscaping other than six sand cherries was proposed while the original plan comprehended trees and other shrubs. f The Commission discussed the revised landsape plan. Commissioner Theis inquired whether there was an underground irrigiation system in place in the flag pole island. The City Engineer responded that there was. Commissioner Theis suggested that if the developer was concerned that the pedestrian traffic across the flag pole island would be detrimental to the planting, a sidewalk could be installed on the island. Following further discussion of the revised landscaping plan, it was the consensus of the Commission that plantings should be provided for the flag pole area as approved by the City staff and that there should be 10 red leaf barberry installed by the south entrance rather than the rive proposed by the developer. It was the consensus of the Commission that with the recommended changes, the revised landscape plan was in order. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CRITICAL AREA PLAN REVIEW The Secretary explained that at the last study meeting on October 19, 1978, the Neighborhood : Groups had. been requested to meet and,' with input- from their neighborhood, compile' a list of neighborhood concerns. He stated that the Southwest Neighbor- hood Croup had set a meeting date, and asked the Commissioners to work with the other Neighborhood Groups in order to get the meeting date established. Chairman Engdahl commented that the Commissioners should prod the chairmen of the groups to which they were the liaisons in order to set the meeting date. E APPROVE MINUTES - October 19, 1978 and September 28, 1978 [Motion 5y- Commissioner Theis seconded I by Chairman Engda-FT to approve the minutes of the October 19, 1978 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Theis, Jacobson, Book and Hawes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Pierce and Commissioner Maiecki, who stated they were not present at that meeting. The motion carried. II-2-78 -9- Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the September:28, 1978 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chair- man Engdahl , Commissioners Pierce, Malecki , Theis, Hawes and Book. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Jacobson who stated she was not present at that meeting. The motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Motion' by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:30 p.m. r, Ch rman 11-2-78 -10-