Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 11-10 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 10, 1977 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cecilia Scott. Roll Call : Chairman Scott, Commissioners Engdahl , Pierce and Book. Also present were City Manager Splinter, Director of Public Works James Merila, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. Chairman Scott stated that approval of minutes would be deferred until later in the meeting. Application No. 77059 Following the Chairman's explanation -he first item of (Dayton's, Inc.) business was consideration of Application No. 77059 submitted by Dayton's, Inc. Commissioner- Jacobson Commissioner Jacobson arrived at 7:35 p.m. Arrives The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks approval of an accessory screening structure to be located adjacent to an existing masonry accessory building at the Dayton Gasoline Service Station in the east Brookdale perimeter area. He stated the Zoning Ordinance requi-res. plan .approval .for all structural improvements including accessory build- ings for service stations. He also explained the proposed use of the structure would be to contain a storage shed for water softener salt pellets which would be sold at the service station. Commissioner Horan Arrives Commissioner Horan arrived at 7:40 p.m. A brief review of the plans ensued and the Secretary stated the structure would be similar to one erected last year at the Brookdale Super Valu Store. Following a brief discussion it was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed storage shed within the screening should be located on a concrete slab. Chairman Scott recognized representatives of the appli- cant who concurred. Recommend Approval of Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Application No. 77059 Jacobson to recommend approval of Application No. 77059 (Dayton's, Inc.) submitted by Dayton's, Iac., subject to the condition that the proposed screening enclosure include a con- crete slab. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. ' 77060 The next item of business was consideration of Appli- (Dayton Hudson Properties, nation No. 77060 submitted by Dayton Hudson Properties, Inc.) Inc. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant is proposing a Registered Land Survey constituting a replat of most of the Brookdale Shopping Center. The Secretary explained that the Sears Department Store, Automotive Buildi-ng, and parking lot are con- tained with►n. an existing tract, as Js the case with the Donaldson's Department Store and Automotive Building and surrounding parking lot. -1- 1'1-10-77 An extensive discussion.ensued relative to a question by Commissioner Horan as to whether existing parking , encumbrances and easements would be continued with the new subdivision and .whether they would be in full force should any one of the newly established tracts be sold in the future. Commissioner Pierce inquired whether the proposed tracts which consisted of only buildings and no related parking would establish any precedents with respect to any other C-2 developments in the City. The Secretary responded in the negative stating that ali of the common areas and parking were subject to joint agreements and easements. He stated that any development proposals by any one of the individual owners would be subject to site and building ` . plan review and would involve consideration by the shopping center as a whole. He stated before any addition.could be approved, a determination would have to be made that there was sufficient parking on the whole to support that addition._ The Director of Public Works recommended that as a condition of final plat approval all utility maintenance and easement.agreements between the City and the coliect- ive and individual ownerships of Brookdale Shopping Center be updated to reflect the new legal descriptions based on the R. L. S. Commissioner Horan suggested that the City should review the various parking agreements in light of the proposed registered land survey in the same context as the review of the utility and maintenance agreements review suggested by the Director of Public Works. Following further discussion there was a motion by Com- Recommend Approval of missioner Horan seconded by Commissioner Pierce to recom- Application No. 77060 mend approval of Application No. 77050 submitted by (Dayton-Hudson Properties, Dayton Hudson Corporation subject to the following Inc.) conditions: 1 . The final registered land survey is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final registered land survey is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. All utility maintenance and easement agreements between the City and the collective and individual ownerships of Brookdale Shopping Center shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and updated accordingly to reflect the new legal descriptions; and further, existing agreements and encumbrances relative to parking and access shall also be reviewed by the City. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Application Application No. 77064 No 77064 submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Gene Hamilton, 6230 (Mr. and Mrs. Gene Lee Avenue North, The item was introduced by the Hamilton) Secretary who stated the applicant has filed an appeal per Section 35-251 of the Zoning Ordinance based upon a determination by the Building Official that an accessory structure erected by the applicant without a building permit cannot be permitted since it encroaches 20 feet into the front yard setback. He stated the open-sided structure which is attached to the front of the applicant's house in front of a tuck-under garage is a carport by its common use definition, Building Code definition and by the applicant's description. He stated that carports are permitted accessory buildings within the established setbacks of the Zoning, Ordinance and the construction requirements of the Building Code. 11-10-77 -2- He stated the applicant contends that the structure can also be defined as. a "canopy" and, therefore, is specifically excepted by the Zoning Ordinance as an encroachment into the front yard. :- The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance at Section 35-400'states that off-street open parking spaces, terraces, awnings, and canopies, among other things, are not considered as encroachments on any yard setback requirements. He stated the Building Official's position is that the carport is an accessory structure and cannot be con- strued as a canopy within the intent of the -Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary showed slides of the property and a brief discussion ensued. Chairman Scott then recognized Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton, and Mr. Hamilton described the structure and explained that it was bolted to his house and projected approxi- mately 20 feet into the front yard. He stated the structure was a shelter for his car and fell within the Zoning Ordinance classification of canopy and therefore, was not an encroachment into the front yard setback. He cited dictionary definitions of "canopy" and "awnings." Mr. Hamilton also commented that cars today are much more a necessity than they were in._the past, and .that two cars operated daily are very common whereas at the time his house was built this was not so true. He stated that due to the placement of the house on the lot, sideyard setbacks, numerous trees, and lack of alleys, it would be virtually impossible to construct a detached garage in the rear and have access to it by a car. He also stated that the structure was erected for purposes of safety, and that it provides protection .for the vehicle from the elements and related dangerous conditions. He also noted that a petition had been signed by neighboring property owners indicated acknowledgement and approval of the location of the carport. Mr. Hamilton also stated he felt the structure did not detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood and provided some relief to the uniformity of the lots and homes along the street. He also referred to the site plan and photographs which had been submitted with his petition for the appeal . An extensive discussion ensued and Chairman Scott in- quired why the applicant had not applied for a building permit before proceeding with the construction. Mr. Hamilton responded that at the time he acquired the materials for the relatively simple "bolt on structure, he did not feel that it constituted a building or building addition which would require a permit. Commissioner Engdahl inquired what the applicant's re- action would be if a neighbor erected a similar structure in a similar location, but perhaps included siding. The applicant said that he personally would probably have no ojection, 'but he realized there would be those in the City that might. Mr. Hamilton suggested that perhaps if the Zoning Ordinance provided some definition and guidelines as to the type of canopy or carport structure that situation would not arise. -3- 11-10-77 The Secretary stated that research had been conducted into the Zoning Ordinances of other suburban communities' as well as dictionary research into the definition of "carport:' He stated that some ordinances specifically defined "carports" and "canopies" and some ordinances distinguish between the two. He stated that it was common to find a definition based on type of use, whereby "carports" were defined as open-sided structures which provided protection to automobiles. The Secretary acknowledged that the Brooklyn Center Ordinance does not provide.specific definition of carports or canopies, but the structure 'dcfined by its use as an accessory structure was comprehended by the Zoning Ordinance and was subject to the setback require- ments for accessory structures. The Secretary stated that an essential question presented by the the appeal was whether this structure could be construed as a"canopy" within the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, thereby not considered an encroachment into minimum yard setbacks. He stated a more substantive issue was whether carports should be permitted to extend into yard setbacks in the same manner as awnings or canopies. He stated that, should the Commission find that such carport accessory structures could be allowed, then specific definition should be provided in the Zoning Ordinance not only as to the type of structure, but also as to the limits on`'the location of such a structure. The Secretary; responded to several questions stating that carports were now permitted in the City within established minimum yard setback requirements, normally on the sideyards and in the rear yards. He explained that it was important for the Commission to recognize that permitting such structures to extend into the frortyard would be a change in community land use standards.. Further discussion ensued and Commissioner fngdahl stated the applicant's proposal had merit, but the Commission should be cautious in amending the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the location of accessory structures and recognizing carports are distinguished from traditional enclosed garages. He also stated that since it could be expected carports would be desired by other homeowners with similar circumstances, uniform standards were essential . Chairman Scott stated that the structure differed from ` traditional garages and accessory buildings since it had no sides, that life styles had changed, and that the Zoning Ordinance should be flexible in recognizing those changes She agreed that any change to the Ordinance should be very specific as to definitions and as to uniform standards, since without them, increased variance requests could be expected. Commissioner Pierce stated that he saw the merit of the carport structure as solution to an off-street parking problem where there was no practical way of adding covered parking space such as with a traditional enclosed garage. He stated that a definition of a "carport" would be quite explicit that it is a covered parking space. Commissioner Book stated that he felt the proposal had merit, but that he was concerned that the definition or standards for such a structure should be explicit as to minimum distance from the lot line. 11-10-77 -4- Chairman Scott stated that while the application in itself is not a variance request, it should be recog- nized that the applicant's situation is not unique, and that there are many homes with similar circum- stances throughout the City. Commissioner Pierce agreed, stating that he could see little grounds for granting a variance, but that he did see merit in exploring possible ordinance amend -ments providing a definition and standards for this type of structure. The Secretary explained that the applicant had been informed that the matter of securing a building permit would be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the appeal , and he suggested that draft language could be prepared and brought back to the Commission at its study meeting for further review. Chairman Scott recognized Mr. Hamilton who offered additional remarks relative to the Zoning Ordinance definitions of accessory buildings and accessory uses. Table Application No. 77064 Following further discussion there was a motion by (Mr. and Mrs. Gene Hamilton) Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Horan to table Application No. 77064 until the study meeting and to direct the staff to prepare draft ordinance amendments comprehending definitions of such accessory structures and language which would provide for specific setback limitations. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 76029 The next item of business was review of building. plans (Olympic Investments, Inc.) approved for Olympic .Investments, Inc. under Planning Commission Application No. 76029. The item was intro- duced by the Secretary who stated last year the City Council had approved site and building plans for an 18-unit apartment building at the northwest corner of 67th and Emerson Avenues North. He stated that since that approval , the applicant had secured State funding of the project and during the interim, had amended the building plans with respect to the original roof treatment, certain exterior finish features and the provision for privacy panels on the individual patios - and balconies. The Secretary reviewed the plans and Chairman Scott recognized Mr. Jerry Harrington who represented the applicant. Chairman Scott stated that the removal of the original mansard roof treatment and a stone finish in certain areas around the entrance ways seem to diminish the aesthetic value of the project. She asked Mr. Harrington why the amendments had been made and Mr. Harrington responded that he had problems with a similar mansard type treatment on other buildings which he owns in that it resulted in roof leak problems which were difficult to repair. During further discussion it was stated that the amend- ments did substantially alter the aesthetic impact of the building and that while the proposed exterior finish was comparable to older buildings in the City, the original treatment of this building had been much more aesthetic and complimentary to the area. Commissioner Pierce suggested that a wood treatment could'be provided around the entrance ways to provide a comparable contract in materials similar to that on the original plans where rock treatment had been used. Mr. Harrington stated that he would provide such a wood treatment and agreed that it would add to the aesthetics of the building. • -5- 11-10-77 The Secretary stated that another matter related to this project had come to the City's attention, namely, that the proposed main entrance onto Emerson Avenue North was directly across from one of the homes built by Mr. Harrington on the east side of Emerson Avenue North. He stated .that the resident of 6724 Emerson Avenue had-expressed concern that headlights would be directed at the lower level windows of the sulit.level home: Mr. Harrington stated he had discussed the matter with the homeowner earlier that day and had agreed to install trees and shrubbery in the vicinity of the windows to provide screening from the driveway across the street. Following discussion there was motion by Commissioner Recommend Approval of Engdahl seconded by Cormiissioner Jacobson to recommend Application No. 76029 approval of the building exterior modifications under (Olympic Investments, I _," Application No. 76029 submitted by Olympic Investments, Inc. subject to the condition that a wood exterior treatment be -provided around the entrance ways to provide an aesthetic relief comparable to the original stone treatment. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9:10 p.m-. and resumed at 9:25 Recess p.m. The next item of business was review of Applications No. Applications No. 77037 77037 and No. 77038 submitted by Howe, Inc. The Secretary and No. 77038 explained that both applications were initially considered (Howe, Inc.) at the August 25, 1977 meeting and following the public hearing were tabled to permit the development of addi- tional information and to refer the rezoning request to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Secretary reviewed the August 25, 1977 minutes and F-1 o I-2 of applicant seeks rezone from t _Mated the > PP 9 the two lots immediately west of the Howe Fertilizer plant site. He explained that both properties are currently owned by Howe, Inc. and each contains a signle family dwelling. He stated the proposed rezoning is essential to the site and building plans 'submitted by the applicant so that ordinance required buffer zones and building setbacks can be -met. He stated the rezoning request should be evaluated accord- ing to the ``recently approved Rezoning Evaluation Criteria to determine whether the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which recommends a recognition of the existing fertilizer 'plant, but recommends that the City °prohibit any further'expansion of their operation ! He stated that the Plan also recommends that if at all feasible, the eventual relocation of the use to a more compatible site should be undertaken thereby permitting a rounding out of the existing residential area. The Secretary stated that a key determination was whether the applicant's proposal represented an "expansion of the operation" or whether it represented an "upgrading" of the existing operation as contended by the applicant. The Secretary stated that the Southwest Neighborhood Group had submitted a written recommendation to the file. He also stated that the applicant had submitted a written response to a variety of concerns voiced by the Planning Commission at the August 25 meeting. He stated that research had been conducted regarding compliance of the Howe operatio-n`` with pollution control regulations and that the Minnecta Pollution Control Agency had confirmed that Howe, Inc. was presently exceeding the capacity of the approved pollution control equipment, but was in the process of arranging for new equipment which presumably would bring the present operation into compliance with the regulations. The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted a letter to the file indicating the proposed equipment could be installed by July, 1978. 11-10-77 -6 The Secretary stated however, that the Pollution Control Agency had not responded to a letter asking- for a verification of applicable pollution control regulations, and whether the proposed equipment would satisfy those regulations. The Secretary presented slides of the site and briefly reviewed the proposed site and building plans. Chairman Scott recognized Mr. James Russell , an attorney representing Howe, Inc. who reviewed the _ applicant's proposal stating that the rezoning plan represents a 'squaring off" of the Howe, Inc. site and that the proposed site improvements would be of benefit not only to the applicant, but to the immediate area. He stated that the proposed construction and site improvements were due to changes in the nature of the operation in terms of the type of materials handled and were also due to the impact of. the Trunk Highway 152 bridge over the Soo Line Railroad tracks which was imposed by the State Highway Department. He stated that bridge construction created a radically different access to the site, thereby creating certain problems and conflicts with respect to traffic and access to the plant. -Mr. Russell stated that the proposed zoning would allow the creation of the ordinance required green- strips and buffer zones which represented a substantial improvement where the heaviest industrial zoning abuts a single family residential neighborhood. He stated the basic purpose of the proposed buildings was for storage and that taken as a whole, the proposed up- grading would represent a substantial benefit to Howe, Inc. and to the community. He then concluded his presentation by showing a conceptual rendering of the building proposed on the north end of the site parallel to 49th Avenue North. Chairman Scott announced that the official public hearing had been held at the August 25 meeting, and she inquired whether anyone was present who desired to speak who had not had an opportunity to speak before. There being no response, she asked if anyone had any thing further to add that had not been entered into the record. She recognzied Mr. Leo Hansen, 4903 Brooklyn Boulevard, who stated that with respect to traffic, substantial generation was due to the weigh-scale operations at the plant, some of which were related to the fertilizer operation. He stated that in his opinion, there were p otential access points to the plant other than from 49th Avenue North, one of which might be across Soo Line Railroad property to the south. He stated his second concern was with the continuing air pollution of the entire neighborhood. He stated the pollution had increased and had a detrimental effect on the quality of life throughout the neighborhood. He sug- gested that the resolution of the pollution problem should be a primary objective before any consideration is given to construction or site improvements. Chairman Scott also recognized Mr. Virgil Linn, 3112 49th Avenue North, who offered some slides and photo- graphs of the Howe operation at different phases of their development. He stated that the pictures and slides presented did not fully represent the degree of the pollution problem which was not only visible, but was also detectable through smell and physical effects of the particulate fall-out. , Mr. Linn suggested that if the applicant was concerned in terms of upgrading the operation, the pollution should be resolved before any proposals to physically alter the plant site. -7- .:11-10-77 Mr. Linn stated that many.of the proposed upgrading activities such as paving, screening, landscaping and correction of the pollution problem could have been and could be accomplished by the appliant without the pro- posed rezoning and construction. He stated that in his opinion the applicant's performance in terms of assuring compatibility with the residential neighborhood over the years had been poor. Chairman ;Scott also recognized the resident of 4900 Abbott Avenue North who stated he was concerned with the Secretary's comments that the Commission should make a finding whether the Howe application represented an up- grading of the existing facility or an expansion of the operation as cited in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the City should be concerned with the effect the Howe operation was having upon the neighborhood and make a clear determination whether the proposal would resolve that problem or whether it would intensify it. He also commented that the performance of the applicant in the past relative to upgrading the site and assuring com- patibility with the residential neighborhood had been less than satisfactory. He recommended that the South- west Neighborhood Advisory Group. recommendation should be strong direction to the Commission and to the City Council that no expansion should be considered until the applicant had actually performed a variety of possible upgrading activities on the site. He stated that one of his concerns was whether Howe, Inc. would actually perform the improve- ments proposed in the plans, should they be approved. Chairman Scott responded that the item before the Commis- sion was a rezoning application and must be evaluated on its merits. She stated that while the operational aspects of the plant were significant, especially as to the question of whether the proposed represented an expansion- of the operation, the issue was whether the rezoning of additional .land was warranted. She also explained that when the City approved site and building plans the appli- cant is required to post a site improvement performance agreement and a supporting financial guarantee to assure the completion of the approved site improvements. She stated this requirement was not provided in the ordinance when Howe, Inc. had received previous approvals for development. An extensive discussion ensued and the Secretary again reviewed the Comprehensive Plan language and read the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Grouo recommendation as well as a petition submitted to the Southwest Neighborhood Group by neighboring property owners. The Secretary also stated regarding the pollution concerns that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations apply to Howe Fertilizer whether the subject zoning appli- cations were approved or not. He stated that it is his understanding if the applicant did not, in fact, comply with those regulations after reasonable time determined by the State Agency, then legal recourse was available to the Pollution Control Agency to enforce those regulations. Chairman Scott then recognized Mr. Bill Howe who briefly responded to several remarks made by members of the audience regarding the type of chemicals used at the plant. Chairman Scott summarized the discussion stating that a finding must be made whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, using the Rezoning Evaluation Criteria, and whether the proposal represents an expansion of the existing operation. 11-10-77 -8- In response to a request by Commissioner Horan, the Secretary read the rezoning evaluation policy and review criteria adopted by the City Council in Resolution No. 77-167. The Secretary further commented that the rezoning application should be reviewed on its merits as measured against the policy that the zoning should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it should not constitute "spot zoning defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. Commissioner Horan Leaves Commissioner Horan left the table at 10:30 p.m. Horan Returns Commissioner Horan returned at 10:35 p.m. Commissioner Pierce stated that it was important to consider the spirit and intent of.the.Comprehensive Plan which was concerned with assuring compati- bility of the established residential use with the industrial use.. He stated that the industrial use has an impact on the residential neighborhood and the pollution represented the major negative facet of that impact. He explained that if the pollution problem was reduced or eliminated, then the impact of the industrial use upon the neighborhood would be less He continued, however, that the proposed improvements in the site and building plans would not necessarily be a major improvement upon the compatibility since there was not assurance the pollution would be resolved. Commissioner Pierce stated that it was difficult. to distinguish between an "expansion of the operation" and an"upgrading of the operation. He stated that since the proposed upgrading and construction would lead to a more efficient operation, it could be reasonably expected that a more efficient operation would result in an expanded operation, thereby result- ing in potentially higher levels of pollution. He stated that in his mind the proposal represented an expansion without a necessary reduction of the negative impact upon the neighborhood. Commissioner Horan stated he shared Commission Pierce's concerns about the expansion and that it was not simply a matter of distinguishing between an "expansion" and an "upgrading." He stated that an expansion of the physical plant would result n an expansion of the operation and an intensification of the impact upon the neighborhood, which the Comprehensive Plan sought to diminish and/or phase out. Commissioner Book stated that while he appreciated the aesthetic benefits of the applicant's plans, the construction of a building addition and of a new building which would enlarge the existing facilities represented an expansion. He stated that the neighbor- hood should not be asked to take the risk that the proposed site improvements and building additions would resolve the negative impact of the operation upon the neighborhood. He stated that the applicant had the opportunity in the past and at the present time to upgrade the present operation and to enhance the compatibility, but little had been done until ` expansion of -the operation- was proposed. Commissioner Jacobson stated that the applicant could have taken a variety of steps to upgrade the operation and eliminate many of the environmental problems in the area. She stated that the applicant has the opportunity and that until the existing operation was upgraded she could not support the proposed rezoning. She said that the proposal represented an expansion of the operation that was not essential to efforts by the owner to enhance the compatibility of the use with the neighborhood. -9- 11-10-77 Commissioner Engdahl stated that until the applicant could demonstrate that the 'existing problems could be resolved, through actual site improvements and correct- ion of the pollution problem, it was difficult to find merit in the zoning proposal within the Comprehensive Plan Guidelines He stated that he realized those improvements would represent an expense to the applicant, but that, until the nei ghborhood and the City saw that the physical improvements resulted in a compatibility between the industrial use and residential use,- it was not reasonable to ask the neighborhood to assume further the risk that desired expansion would result in resolution of ongoing problems. Following further discussion, there was motion by Com- Recommend Denial of missioner Book seconded by Commissioner Engdah'. to Application No. .77037 recommend denial of Application No. 77037 submitted by (Howe, Inc.) Howe,Inc.. on the grounds that the proposal is not con- sistent and compatible with the surrounding use classi- fications; that the zoning proposal is not consistent with the the Comprehensive Plan; and that the expansion of the zoning` district ,is not warranted by the Compre- hensive Plan or by the best interests of the community. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Recoir.nend Denial of Jacobson to recommend denial of Application No. Application No. 77038 77038 in that the proposed site and building plans are (Howe, Inc.) contingent upon the proposed rezoning. The motion passed unanimously. In other business the Secretary presented revised building Other Business exterior plans for the industrial building originally (Application No. 77053. approved under Application No. 77053 for JKH Construction. Revised Building Plans) He stated the design of the building remained the same, but there had been an alteration in the type of materials. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the revised exterior finish for the proposed industrial building originally approved under Application No. 77053. In other business the Secretary reviewed several pending items stating they had been scheduled for the November 17 study meeting. In other business the Secretary responded to a question by Application No. 77034 Commissioner Jacobson as to the status of _Application No. (Richard Rockstad) 77034 submitted by Richard Rockstad. He explained that the City Council had tabled action on the request for a variance relative to the parking lot setback from Brooklyn Boulevard and had directed that the Planning Commission review the matter of setbacks along major thoroughfares as well as any possible previous variance action in recognition of the highway taking on Brooklyn Boulevard. A brief discussion ensued and the Secretary stated that the matter could be considered further at the study session. In other businessit was the determination of the Commission that the December'meeting dates should by December 8 and December 15 Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Approve Minutes Engdahl to approve the minutes of the October 20, 1977 10-20-77 - meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Horan Ajournment to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. 11-10-77 -10- Chairman