Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 06-07 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL JUNE 7, 1973 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:00 P.M. iby Chairman Robert Jensen. Poll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Grosshans, and Gross. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila and Director of planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. Approve Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Gross seconded by 5-24-73 Commissioner Bogucki to approve the minutes of the May 24, 1973 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki and Gross. Not voting; Commissioner. Grosshans who explained he was not present at the May 24th meeting. The motion passed. Commissioners Engdahl and Scott arrived at 8:08 P.M. Application No. 73014 Following the Chairman's explanation, the (Mork and Associates) first item of business was Planning Com- mission Application No. 73014 submitted by Mork and Associates. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking site and building plan approval for a 48-unit family oriented apartment project for a site at 67th and Emerson Avenues North. He explained that the site was divided by Emerson Avenue North and that a 26-unit building was proposed for a 1.67 acre parcel (Building No. 1) and that a 22-unit building was proposed for a 1.37 acre parcel (Building No. 2) . The Secretary explained that Building No. 1 was designed to contain 12-three bedroom apartments and 14-two bedroom apartments; and Building No. 2 was designed to"contain 3-three bedroom apartments and 19-two bed- room apartments. He stated that density calculations indicate a deficiency of 332 square feet for Building No. 1, and a de- ficiency of 359 square feet for Building No. 2. • The Secretary stated that examination of the original plans determined that, contrary to statements in the application for federal assistance, the project was not in con- formance with R-5 ordinance requirements: He stated also, that several deficiencies had been found regarding State Building Code requirements. He said that the appli- cant had been submitting some revised plans and specifications. -1- 6-7-73 s Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. G. Thomas Mork, who described the design of the proposed project, which had received approval by federal authorities relative to quaranteed financing under the provisions of the FHA 236 Program. He stated the units were intended for low to moderate income families. He said attempts had been made to fully comply with the minimum City ordinance requirements as well as the Building Code. Chairman Jensen then commented that the number of three bedroom units proposed was extremely high for the relatively small sites. Mr. Mork responded that the units were intended for families and not for couples or the elderly, as in the case of the high rise 236 project south of the City Hall. Mr. Mork further commented that provisions had been made for a tot lot per each build- ing, green area around each building, and recreation or party rooms in each building. He further stated that a six foot fence had been provided along the property lines shared with neighboring single family homes. Chairman Jensen stated further that because the units were designed for family living, the various mentioned amenities did not appear to be in balanced proportion to the number of units. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Mauk, the project architect, who commented as to the landscape plan. He noted that, as per ordinance requirement, 8 six--inch diameter trees had been provided, and that in addi- tion, several clusters of shrubbery were planned. Chairman Jensen then asked Mr. Mauk his opinion based on planning and de- sign principles as to the location of 48 two and three bedroom apartment units intended for family living upon a 3 acre site. Mr. Mauk responded that an effort had been made to provide the best possible use of a re- latively small site, which was divided by a public street. He stated that is was de- signed for family living because the City has a project under way for elderly and couples in the low to moderate income category. Commissioner Gross stated that the degree of • amenities for the entire 48-units was simi- lar to that found in many single family homes and he stated the tight situation was particularly accentuated by the potential number of children which could live in the complex. He noted 'for example, the lack of garages and the provision for minimal storage space per unit, resulting in very little convenient space in which families with children could store their belongings. Commissioner Gross also commented that it -2- 6-7-73 appeared little concern had been made for the impact such a concentrated family complex would have on the surrounding neigh- borhood. Mr. Mauk responded that a six foot high fence had been provided in addition to two 15 x 25 foot tot lots. Mr. Mauk also commented that 10 per cent of the units had been designed for handicapped persons. He noted the possibility that many of the bed- rooms would be used by single handicapped occupants, and thus all of the units would not necessarily be filled with families with children. Commissioner Bogucki noted his concern the site was divided by a public street, and the plans actually represented two distinct projects on distinct sites which were re- latively small. He stated that 26-family units on 1.6 acres and 22 family units on 1.3 acres, which included large open park- ing lots, left very little effective open recreational space and green area. He noted the typical high demand for such open recreational areas by families and children, and stated the demands would be even greater on the subject site since not even balconies were .provided for the apart- ment units. Mr. Mauk stated the buildings were deni.gned with the split nature of the site in mind, and each building contained its own amenities including community space, laundry facilities, and mechanical rooms. Chairman Jensen stated that his concern was providing for quality housing which in- cluded not only the structure, but also sufficient amenities and effective recrea- tional open area to support the demands of up to 48 families with children. Mr. Mauk responded that an effort had been made to provide "better housing" for low to moderate income families given the amount of site area available and funds budgeted for the project. Commissioner Gross reiterated his concern at the apparent lact of effective storage areas. Mr. Mork responded that storage was provided in each unit and noted the federal requirements in this regard. Mr. Mauk pointed out the various storage areas in the apartments, and commented that the latest revised plans submitted to the City (that afternoon) indicated the elimination of two "third" bedrooms to allow for additional storage space. The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted some revised plans that day, but -3- 6-7-73 the staff had not had an opportunity to fully review them. Chairman Jensen asked the Building Inspector whether the plans before the Commission were in total compliance with the Building Code. Mr. Dahn responded in the negative, in that he had not had an opportunity to review the latest revisions. Mr. Mauk reviewed a letter submitted to the City staff outlining the applicant's intent to comply with the various code and ordinance deficiencies. The Director of public Works explained that the parking provision for Building No. 1 was deficient, particularly if recommended fire lanes were included. He stated that some additional parking had been provided on the site of Building No. 2. He further noted the location of the parking lot with Building No. 1 and noted that it separated the building from a significant portion of the green area. Mr. Mauk responded the staff had been in- formed that if fire lanes were to be pro- vided, it would be virtually impossible to provide the additional parking spaces on the site of Building No. 1. The Secretary re- sponded that parking for Building No. 1 had been deficient in the first place, and that the applicant had been informed of the City's poli.ey to require fire lanes. An extensive discussi-on ensued and Com- missioner Bogucki asked the Secretary w]A<-:rz=<,r based upon Mr. Mauk's correspondence, the building was now in conformance with the codes and the ordinance. The Secretary stated that the density and parking de- ficiencies remained. Mr. Mauk stated that there had been some mis- understanding on the part of the applicant and the City as to compliance with existing codes and ordinance requirements, but that an effort was being made to resolve those misunderstandings. The Secretary noted the statement in the federal application submitted over two years ago, that the plans were in conformance with the R-5 zoning requirements of the City of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Mork stated that it was the applicant's intent to meet every code and ordinance re- quirement of the City. Chairman Jensen noted that a number of owners and residents of neighboring property were present, and he recognized the residents of 6713, 6719, 6724, 6731 Dupont Avenue North, and the resident. of 6732 Emerson Avenue North. Concerns included: the im- pact of the large number of children on the -4- 6-7-73 area; the impact upon the privacy of the neighboring property owners; the impact of the project upon the aesthetics of the neigh- borhood; the impact upon schools. Other comments were directed to the proposed land- scaping of the site and the provision for adequate parking. Mr. Mauk stated that federal studies in- dicated most of the units would ultimately be occupied by present Brooklyn Center residents, and that there would be little increase in the number of children in the City and the schools. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Dempsey Mork and an extensive discussion ensued re- garding the impact of a large number of children upon local schools. Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Brekke of the Brooklyn Center School Board who stated local school officials should have an opportunity to re- view the plans in terms of the possible im- pact such a development would have on local schools. Mr. Dempsey Mork stated that it was the applicant's intent to rent the units to current Brooklyn Center residents, though he noted no formal restrictions could be made in that regard. He also noted the federal requirement that a maintenance account be budgeted to assure adequate upkeep of the buildings and the units. In response to a question by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Dempsey Mork stated that they had just received final federal approval and that the applicant had owned the property for approximately two years. Chairman Jensen inquired whether the appli- cant had considered other sites of greater size in the City, once it had been deter- mined that the project was intended for family use. Mr. Mork responded in the negative. Chairman Jensen noted that the concern of the Comprehensive plan for providing low to moderate income housing which was well de- signed and featured adequate facilities. He stated the primary issue was the small area versus the intended family use and the large number of large units. Mr. Mork reviewed Sthe various criteria which had been used to persuade federal officials as to the feasi- bility of the project. There was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki seconded by Commissioner Scott to close the discussion from the floor. The motion passed unanimously. -5- 6-7-73 Commissioner Gross stated that he could not endorse a recommendation of approval for a variety of reasons. He questioned the efforts of the developer to provide a good family environment on the subject site, as indicated by the proposed landscaping, open space, and storage area. Chairman Jensen stated that he could not support the subject application noting the concerns of the neighborhood; the high density of the units intended for family • use and the potential for a cluttered site, resulting from the lack of effective storage. He noted the small size of the proposed play areas and the lack of effective re- creational space resulting in a concern for the safety of the children who might be forced to play in the streets; the impact of the subject development upon the privacy of the neighboring single family homes; the provision for minimal landscaping; and the questionable provision for a quality living environment for up to 48 families. In further discussion, Commissioner Bogucki stated additional data should be available regarding the possible impact upon the local school district, and the parking re- quirements for low to moderate income families. Rc­­mu<%n,ding There was a motion by Commissioner Gross Denial of ApplicatioL1 seconded by Commissioner Engdahl to No. 73014 recommend denial of Application No. 73014 (Mork and Associates) submitted by Mork and Associates, noting that the proposed plan for 48 family units on a relatively small site is not coma st<?nt: f with the City's planning principles and policies which demand that multi-family dwelling complexes provide a reasonable quality family life environment; and that this is evidenced by the provision for minimal open space and green areas; minimal effective living areas within the buildings; minimal common facilities and accessory storage space; minimal landscaping; and minimal construction; and, further, that y based upon the substantial experience of the City in this regard, insistence upon provision for a quality living environment for families is vital for the welfare of the tenants as well as for the best interest of the community. Voting in favor were Chair- man Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Scott, Engdahl and Gross. Voting against: Commissioner Bogucki who explained he felt further data should be developed regarding the impact of the proposed project upon the area and the schools. The motion passed. Recess The Planning Commission meeting recessed from 10:10 P.M. to 10:35 P.M. -6- 6-7-73 Applica-ion No. 73012 The next item of business was consideration (D. Brandvold) of Planning Commission Application No. 73012 submitted by David Brandvold. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking a variance from Section 35-400 to permit construction of a single family dwelling upon a sub- standard lot. The Secretary commented that the item had been tabled at the May 10, 1973 meeting, pending the disposition of Applica- tion No. 73011 (subdivision request for the subject property) . He stated the parcel was 71 feet wide and that there was substantial precedent in this area of the City for the requested variance. Action Recommending Following a brief discussion, there was a Approval of Application motion by Commissioner Grosshans seconded by No. 73012 Commissioner Scott to recommend approval of (D. Brandvold) Planning Commission Application No. 73012 submitted by David Brandvold, noting that the action is for permission to build, and that no other variances are implied or en- dorsed. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 73015 The next item of business was Planning (Regarding Dwelling Commission Application No. 73015. The item under construction by was introduced by the Secretary who stated Yesnes construction) the application was initiated by the City to acknowledge an approximate 10 foot street side yard setback deficiency, which resulted in part from an administrative error. He stated the site was a corner parcel at 6700 Camden Avenue North, which would normally require a 25 foot side yard setback_ The Secretary explained that the plot plan submitted by the contractor did not indicate this setback, and that the distance was scaled by the Building Department at approx- imately 15 feet, and a building permit was issued. He explained that the error was dis- covered by the Inspector during the normal required footing inspection. He noted the Inspector proceeded to issue a stop-order, and to revoke the permit, per Ordinance and Building Code provisions. He further explained that the City Adminis- tration learned that the builder had sold the home, to be built per approved plans, shortly after the permit was issued. He stated the City was also informed that legal action would be taken against the City by the builder, to cover any resultant damages should the permit be rescinded. After review of the various options avail- able, it was the judgement of the City administration that the consequences of a setback deficiency of this magnitude at this location, were substantially less than the expense to the City which might be realized from a damage suit. -7- 6-7-73 He stated that the application represents an acknowledgement for the record, the situation, its cause, and the disposition considered to be the most appropriate. He explained neighboring property owners had been notified, per normal variance pro- cedures. Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Szyplinski, 500 67th Avenue North, and the residents of 6712, and 6706 Camden Avenues North. Mr. Szyplinski presented a petition signed by a number of neighboring property owners stating their objection to the variance at the subject property. A heated discussion ensued, and Mr. Szyplin- ski stated that he was not only opposed to the variance but objected strongly to the fact that the City had permitted construc- tion to continue on the site. In response to a question by Chairman Jensen, the Secretary explained that the notices sent to neighboring property owners did indicate that a variance was requested: whereas, in fact, the application repre- sented an acknowledgement of an existing variation from the ordinance sideyard set- back requirements. Mr. Szyplinski indicated that he had talked to the contractor, had attempted'_to arrango discussions with the City Manager and Building inspector, and had contacted a lawyer_ He further c<>nmmented that there was reason to believe efforts were being made to conceal the facts, in that the error should have been rectified before construction even began. He stated the competence and effectiveness of the City officials in that regard should also be questioned. The Secretary noted the City Manager had discussed the situation with Mr. Szyplinski': attorney, and he reiterated the circum stances, including the discovery of the error by the Building Inspector during the course of a scheduled inspection. An extensive discussion ensued and Chairman Jensen stated that it appeared the appro- priate action would be to acknowledge the situation and perhaps offer an advisory opinion. • Commissioner Engdahl stated that work on the subject property should be stopped until the Council had heard the matter in- cluding a legal opinion by the City Attorney. The Secretary explained the buyer of the home refused to accept an alternate design and site plan, and that the deal had been -8- 6-7-73 closed with the builder based uponthe issuance of a building permit. An extensive discussion ensued as to whether the variance would be approved if work had not commenced, and the application represented a normal variance petition. Commissioners Bogucki and Jensen responded that they would not recommend approval There was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki to acknowledge the situation and approve the staff action under the circumstances, noting however, that the subject variance would not be approved in normal circum- stances before the fact. The motion died for lack of a second. There was a motion by Commissioner Gross to recommend denial of the variance noting to the Council that work on the subject site should be halted until the decision based upon an opinion from the City Attorney can be secured as to possible ramifications of the staff action. The motion died for lack of a second. Extensive discussion ensued and Chairman Jensen stated that it was not clear whether it was the function of the Planning Com- mission to rule upon administrative de- cisions. The SECretax;y stated that the Commission was being asked to evaluato the situation including the staff action, in terms of planning principles to provide a clear record of the matter. Resolution Regarding Member Grosshans introduced the following Application No. 73015 resolution and moved its adoption. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 73-3 RESOLUTION REGARDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 73015 WHEREAS, it is recognized that an administrative error resulted in the issuance of a building permit for a single family dwelling on a corner lot at 6700 Camden Avenue North, and, WHEREAS, it was subsequently determined that a variation from the ordinance requirements existed as to the street side yard setback; and, WHEREAS, this setback is approximately 9.5 feet less than the required 25 foot setback from 67th Avenue North; and, WHEREAS, a variance permitting such a setback would not necessarily be in keeping with good planning principles as set forth in the ordinance; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, that in the matter of planning Commission Application No. 73015, the administrative error and resultant action is acknowledged; and be it further resolved that it is the recommendation the City Council order the work -9- 6-7-73 stopped on the subject parcel until such time that final dis- position is made based upon evaluation of the circumstances, the ordinance requirements and possible legal ramifications. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing was duly seconded by Member Engdahl. Voting in favor were Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Grosshans, Gross, Scott and Engdahl. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Secretary Chairman Date Application No. 73016 The next item of business was Planning (Super America, Inc.) Commission Application No. 73016 submitted by Super America, Inc. The item was intro- duced by the Secretary who explained the applicant was seeking approval of amend- ments to the site plan and special use permit for the service station located at 57th and Logan Avenues North. He said the applicant proposed a prefab- ricated pump island office on the center island of the service station. The Secretary noted that the ordinance re- quired a 50 foot setback from major thoroughfares and highways, and that the proposed prefabricated structure would be only 48 feet from 57th Avenue. He noted also that such a structure would diminish what "open space" there was at the subject station, given the large amount of merchan- dise which is stored, displayed, and sold outside the main building on the 132 foot by 110 foot site. Chairman Jensen then recognized a represen- tative of the applicant who stated that the subject building was intended for the pro- tection of attendents and to speed up the operation and cash transactions. An exten- sive discussion ensued. Commissioner Gross inquired whether the pro- posed building would replace the merchandise display case currently located on the island. The representative of the applicant respond- ed in the affirmative. Commissioner Bogucki commented that several variances had originally been granted to the applicant, and noted that there was sub- stantial retailing of merchandise other than gasoline at the site. He recalled that the general retail merchandising was considered by the applicant to be incidental to gaso- line sales. He commented that the present proposal indicated that gasoline sales were becoming incidental to the general merchan- dising. In further discussion, Chairman Jensen -10- 6-7-73 stated the proposed structure was not critical to the approved operation. He stated his concern with establishing a precedent for granting a setback variance. Action Recommending Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Denial of Application Commissioner Bogucki to recommend denial No. 73016 of Planning Commission Application No. (super America, Inc) 73016, noting the setback deficiency and the intensity of the activity on the relatively small site. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 73017 The next item of business was Planning (Word Aflame Church) Commission Application No. 73017 submitted by Word Aflame Apostolic Church. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking special use permission and site and building plan ap- proval to construct a church at the south- west corner of the intersection of 69th and Lyndale Avenues North. He commented that churches are special uses in the R-1 district and that the applicant's site and building plans were for a 216 person capacity church. Chairman Jensen noted that none of the notified property owners was present and he waived the reading of the names. The Secretary commented that the applicant had yet to submit complete site and build- ing plans, noting that the drawings which had been submitted had not been certified. Chairman Jensen then recognized Reverend Farris, who represented the Word Aflame Apostolic Church, and who stated that cer- tain revisions were being made as to the interior design of the church. He noted that the subject site had been selected for the church because of its abutment on a major thoroughfare and a high- way, and that the church perceived a need for such exposure. He stated that concern had been taken in designing the parking for the church to preserve as much as possible, existing large trees on the site. With regard to the location of the church at the intersection of a County Highway and a State Highway, the Director of Public Works stated the provisions for access to the site should be fully evaluated. He explained the matter would have to be discussed with the State and County High- way Departments before such an evaluation could be completed, and that any action on the subject application should be deferred until then. An extensive discussion ensued and Reverend Farris commented it was the opinion of his church that this was an -excellent location -11- 6-7-73 for an evangelistic-oriented church. Commissioner Bogucki stated that he did not fully agree, considering the possible ramifications of the future upgrading of Trunk Highway 169. Consensus Developed Following further discussion, Chairman Approving Special Use Jensen determined that it was the majority permission Request consensus of the Planning Commission that affirmative recommendation as to the special use permit request was in order. Action to Table Following further discussion there was a Application No. 73017 motion by Commissioner Gross seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to table Planning Commission Application No. 73017 until such time that the applicant has submitted complete site and building plans as re- quired by City Ordinance. The motion passed unamimously. Application No. 73018 The next item of business was consideration (B.C.I.P.) of Planning Commission Application No. 73018 submitted by Brooklyn Center Indus- trial Park. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated that site and building plan approval was requested for a 127,176 square foot speculative indus- trial building. He stated that this would be the fifth such structure in the In- dustrial Park, and that the proposed 9 acre site was easterly of the recently com- pleted Spec Building No. 4. The Secretary also commented that plans in- dicate about 10 per cent of the area is to be used for offices. He stated 64 parking spaces are required for that use, and 144 are required for the remaining industrial area. Since 347 spaces are provided, there is an excess of 139 spaces, and this would indicate that potentially 27,800 square feet more, or a total of 40,500 square feet, could be used for office purposes. The Secretary noted that, unlike Spec Building No. 4, there was a north-south driveway from Shingle Creek Parkway to the interior lot of the building. He stated assurance should be made as to the pro- visions for effective landscaping and screening along 69th Avenue, particularly at the end of said driveway. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. John • Redmond, an architect for the applicant who noted that a six foot screening wall had been provided at that location. Further discussion ensued regarding the proposed berming of the site along 69th Avenue. It was noted that the applicant had stated an objection to the approved height of the berms for previous buildings due to maintenance difficulties. The -12- 6-7-73 Director of Public Works presented pictures of the berming for Spec Building No. 4 and noted that the berming shown was not as high as that approved. He stated that should the Commission and Council determine the applicant's arguments had merit, then assurance should be made that more sub- stantial shrubbery or evergreens should be provided on shorter approved berms. Action Recommending Following further discussion there was a Approval of Applica- motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by tion No. 73018 Commissioner Engdahl to recommend approval (B.C.I.P .) of Planning Commission Application No. 73018 submitted by B.C.I.P. subject to the following conditions: 1. The exterior finish and color of the building shall be harmonious so to blend in with the overall neigh- borhbod, 2. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery and no�signery shall be in- stalled;unti approved by the City Council; 3. All exterior lighting shall be of such design so to be directed away from the residential areas northerly of the site; 4. There shall be no access point onto 69th Avenue North; 5. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 6. Drainage and utility plans includ- ing berming specifications are sub- ject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 7. A performance bond and a performance agreement (in an amount to be de- termined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guaran- tee the installation of the site improvements as designated on the approved plans; 8. The proposed trees near the screen- ing wall at the northeast corner of the site shall be coordinated with said wall to provide for maximum screening of the driveway. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 73019 The next item of business was consideration (Nolan Bros. , Inc.) of Planning Commission Application No. 73019 submitted by Nolan Bros. , Inc. The -13- 6-7-73 item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant was proposing the construction of a "mini storage" and office facility contained in four buildings, run- ning the length of the C-2 parcel which lies north of I-94 at the intersection of 68th and Lee Avenues North. He stated the applicant had informally presented his concept to the Commission on March 1, 1973, and that several dis- cussions had ensued with the applicant and the City staff. The Secretary commented that the applicant had indicated the proposed use did not need the amount of required installed parking, and that a deferment of the in- stallation of said parking was implicit in the application. The Secretary further stated, however, that the applicant had been informed that the site should provide for usable space which would comprehend the installation of the maximum number of parking spaces required by the ordinance for a commercial facility of this size. Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Charles Nolan, and an extensive discussion ensued. The Director of Public Works commented that given the present design of the build- ings, it would not be possible to provide for the required parking. He said that he could not recommend approval of the application at this time. Tbc, ciccretary amplified those remarks, noting the parking consideration was crucial, since the proposed use was vir- tually a single purpose use. He noted past experience with other applications, which had originally contended a need for less parking than required, and the con- sequences realized when the uses ceased. Action to Table Following further discussion, there was a Application No. 73019 motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by (Nolan Bros. , Inc.) Commissioner Bogucki to table Planning Commission Application No. 73019 submi.ti-Pd by Nolan Bros. , Inc. , until such time the applicant has presented plans which are in total conformance with ordinance require- ments. The motion passed unanimously. Adjo•arn-nent Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by LCommissioner Bogucki to adjourn the meet- ing. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 1:25 A.14. Chairman -14- 6-7-73