Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 08161983 .1 .f 1 Meeting Sheet r �j 101994 .. J i 1 • 1 Box: •21 Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1983 Document: PL MINUTES 08161983 /ale • CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 16 , 1983 The meeting was called to order by Chair Makowske 'at 7: 35 P .M. Present for roll call: Zawislak, Bowerman, Makowske, Bjorklund, Wagner, and Jones . Absent: Franzese. Also present: David Childs , City Manager; and Jerry Gilligan, Acting City Attorney. An omission in the July 19th minutes was corrected as follows : Page 1, para. 2 : Add Commissioner Jones ' name to those in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve as amended the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held July 19 , 1983. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Gilligan, who was sitting in for William Soth, was introduced to the Commissioners . The Commission will be represented by Chair Makowske at the next Council meeting, August 23rd. At 7: 36 P.M. , the public hearing on the Elmwood Lutheran Church con- ditional use permit request was continued with approximately 20 interested persons in attendance. Dick Jones, 5157 - 6th Street N.E. , who said he was representing the church as a trustee, read his prepared statement reporting on the meeting August 4th between church officials and six neighbors to the south of the church property. at which five alternatives to the proposal submitted July 19th were explored. In his statement, Mr. Jones cited the various reasons the building committee had for not constructing the addition in any other way than they had originally proposed, including the architect' s advice that several suggestions might be structurally unsound and the fact that with all other alternate plans the additional restrooms and kitchen expansion would not provide the seating in the sanctuary would be reduced from the number proposed with the addition of a fellowship hall. Mr. Jones further contended that when the building permit for the. existing building was issued in 1964, tacit approval was given for the proposal as presented July 19th as well as for the future construction of a new sanctuary when the congregation can afford it. Mr. Jones reported the architect could not be present that evening because he was on vacation and would probably not be back before the • August 23rd Council meeting. He added that the minutes of the meeting July 20, 1964 at which the Council had approved the building permit for the existing building had been found in the City files , but the -2- Planning Commission's recommendation for such action seemed to be missing. He presented a print of the original site plans which had . been drawn up June 7, 1963, which he indicated was fifteen months before the home at 3501 - 36th Street N.E. and 18 months prior to the construction of- the Esau home at 3505 - 36th Avenue N.E. to the south of the church property. Commissioner Jones- indicated. he had visited the site and disagreed that the structure would only be the height of a two story house, saying Mr. Esau would actually be facing a building which is 34 feet higher than his property because of thehigherelevation of the church site. The church trustee agreed there was a variation. in the height of the bank at the south end of the lot .and later indicated that though the total elevation of the church addition would be. 24. 8 feet, with the existing grade, the building would actually be an additional six feet higher for the Antczak property and between seven or eight feet higher than the Esau home. Commissioner Bowerman questioned the implication that the 1964 Council had given complete approval to all the plans presented to them at that time, believing they would not have approved any future plans without having detailed site plans for those improvements . He also asked whether the architect had taken core testings on which he had based his advice that the existing footings might not be adequate to support a second floor to which Mr . Jones responded that no such testings had been taken to date but that alternate would still not be • acceptable to the building committee because with it the larger kitchen, narthex and restrooms the congregation needs would not be provided. Reverend Joseph 01 Valtinson, Jr. , 5215 Pierce Street N.E. , .pastor of the Elmwood church, indicated he .perceives his church provides a service to the community having a food shelf which provides for those who need help in the area and a licensed psychologist who ministers to City residents as well as parishioners of the church. Because no agreement was reached at the August 4th meeting, Pastor Valtinson said he was appealing to the Planning Commission to settle the dif- ferences fairly. He mentioned that in his own case, his view of the whole City of Minneapolis was obstructed when his neighbor built his home and another neighbor had sued -that neighbor for the same reason. He also cited what he perceives would be. a similar incident in Edina, where a fast growing church enlarged its parking lot over the objections of the neighbors and provided enough plantings to provide a buffer which made the expansion less objectionable. The minister indicated he didn' t believe the size of the addition would be much wider than a normal home with an attached garage. Commissioner Bjorklund indicated his experience with estimating church property had caused him to expect the cost of the proposed addition would be closer to $300, 000 than the $150 ,000 reported by Mr. Jones in his statement since at $150 ,000 the church would only be paying • $20 . 23 per square foot, a completely unrealistic figure with today ' s construction costs. Reverend Valtinson indicated the cost estimate had come from a contractor who was willing to let church members do the finishing work. The minister assured the Commissioner that the -3- building constructed with donated labor would meet all state and • city codes and '.standards . Commissioner Bjorklund then questioned whether the same method of calculation had been applied to reach the $750.,000 cost estimated for the future sanctuary addition on the north which he said he would expect would cost $101 per foot for the same size addition as on the south. Mr. Jones told -him he was also .surprised when the architect had quoted those figures to :him, but believed the difference could be accounted for because the two additions would not be alike at all since the addition on the south would resemble a single family con- struction and on the other hand, the sanctuary would require laminated beams , stained glass windows and a lot more brick and stone work. The $750 , 000 represented a finished, much larger addition, where the contractor' s estimate for the current proposal, which the architect had said could run between $200., 000 and .$225 ,000., but not $300,000 , represented the builder's . costs for roughing -the structure in and permitting the church members to do all the painting and tile instal- lation. He added that the church could not afford the more expensive addition at this time. An Elmwood deacon, Martin Gavin, 141 Hartman Circle, cited the fact that the church had traded the property where the Esau home is now for the property . to the north with the .Billman Construction Company and perceived this proposal as a continuation of the "give and take" process . He said he is a plumbing inspector -for the City of Minneapolis and would supply much of the plumbing labor and materials and another • church member who is a builder has indicated he would. provide the materials at cost. Mr. Gavin therefore -indicated he believed a cost of between $150,000 and $200, 000 would not be unrealistic for the southern expansion. In response to the claim that the properties to the south of the church would be harmed by the addition, Mr. Gavin said those homes already have a .buffer of a large cottonwood tree and two evergreens to shield their view, as illustrated. in the pictures taken by another parishioner, Dennis Olson, 3117 Rankin Road, which were passed around for the Commission and staff to see . The plumbing inspector also stated all water and sewer service was in the south end of the building and it would be very expensive to build the kitchen or restrooms on the north side. When Commissioner Bjorklund inquired why the church didn' t just add more church services as other Lutheran churches do, if they are needed, Mr. - Gavin told him the_ "Elmwood church philosophy is family oriented and the Sunday school classes are held so the children and parents can attend the church services as a family. He said there would be another service added this month to follow the Sunday school which would give the families a choice of services to attend, but, adding another service would not solve the .lack of class space. The deacon admitted that up to three years ago, there had been only 20 - 30 Elmwoodparishioners attending regularly , but said that number .had grown to over 350 , plus children, a figure the pastor corrected to "closer to 200" . • Mr. Olson indicated he was one of the first members of the congregation and said, "The Lord '.answered our prayers for more .members abundantly by providing more than we would handle" in the existing facility. 4- The minister told the .Chair he was certain the building committee would be amenable to providing opaque windows for the Sunday school rooms because that would prevent the children from being distracted during class . Commissioner .Bowerman indicated he was having trouble .making a decision on the proposal without seeing what actual elevations, exterior finish and roof line would be provided. - Mr. Jones said he was sorry he had not brought the elevation drawings which he had presented at . the July 19th meeting, back to this hearing , but assured the Commis- sioner that the building would be designed to match the fascia and roof line of the existing building as closely as possible. The elevation of the building above grade, he said, would be 24 feet 8 inches . Gundrun. Hodenfield, 1401 Mooney. Drive; Mary Jane Johnson, 3132 Silver Lake Road; and Paul Stewart, 3085 Old Highway 8, indicated they would be in favor of granting the permit but chose not to speak further to the issue at that time . Donald Esau., 3505 —36th Avenue N.E. , read his prepared statement in which he reiterated his own and his neighbors ' objections to the construction of the addition on the south side of the existing build- ing and requested the City not compound what he perceives to be the original error in permitting the church to construct the existing building perpendicular to the adjoining homes on the south and only 15 feet from the lot line on that side at the same time the elevations • of the church property were elevated approximately eight feet above the residential lots adjacent to it. `He contended the proponents could not accurately indicate on the application form that the proposed addition would not be "detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare" of at least two of the neighbors since he believes both he and the Antczaks would suffer decreased property values as a result of the addition and a personal loss to his family of the benefits of the new familyroom and deck he had added to the back of- his home not fore- seeing an addition would be made to the existing church building . Mr. Esau then indicated he saw no relevance in the tradeoff of property 20 years ago to the current proposal and told the Commission members he has always considered th'e cottonwood tree on the church property to be a real nuisance- and had intended asking that it be cut down. Commissioner Bowerman told Mr. Esau having homes in the City built perpendicular to each other and-.with less than- 15 foot side yards is not unusual at all and the church could have built within five feet of the lot line under the City ordinance. He said his home on Croft Drive in which he lived for 15 years was only 72 feet from the lot line and his neighbors back yard was also perpendicular to his . Mr. Esau still insisted the back yard setback requirement should have been applied in a case like this . Erling Weiberg,' 3409 - 36th Avenue N.E. , read the written statement from Larry and Sandy Antczak, who live directly south of the church • at 3501 - 36th Avenue N.E. , who were away on vacation, in which they reiterated the objection they had made during the July 19th hearing to the expansion which, in their view, was "too large and too close to single family dwellings; could only intensify the water runoff problems -5- they experience now, and would lower the market value of their home. " • They also iraised the question of whether the addition might cut off the access to their property for emergency vehicles and power company service for the transformer in their back yard. Mr. Weiberg then told the Commission members he had served as spokes- person for the .six affected property owners along 36th Avenue at the meeting with the church officials and had been requested to present a petition, signed by 23 of his neighbors , representing 13 households on 36th Avenue and Wendhurst, against the addition which they perceive would be "injurious to property values. of the existing homes" and requesting an -environmental study, including the potential for water runoff damage and possible hazard of cutting off utility and Fire Department access to their homes , before final approval of any build- ing plan is given. In response to the latter, Commissioner Zawislak said he imagined NSP would follow their usual procedure of moving a transformer when access becomes difficult. Raul F. Cifuentes, who indicated he had moved to his home at 3413 36th Avenue N.E. in June of this year, asked why he had not been notified about the two hearings on this proposal. He was told the tax rolls which list the previous owner had been- used for the mailing of notices and that person- had apparently not returned the letter to him. Mr. Cifuentes indicated he believed the proposed addition would be a problem for all the residents on 36th with the increase of cars and noise on the property and said he would -never have purchased the • home if the realtor had told him .about .the proposed expansion. He added that. right now he has trouble listening to his own music on Sunday mornings because of the organ music coming from the church. His final point was his personal . opinion. that churches like Elmwood and St. Charles should not be spending _money on expansions when there are so many people dying of starvation all over the world. Commissioner Jones noted the proposed expansion would add 75 feet to the existing 60 foot church wall, resulting in a 135 foot long building for the neighbors to look at. He explored several other ways of preventing this , but Mr. Gavin told him the. proposed plan was the only one the architect considered would be considered economically feasible for the additional room the .church needs with the existing sewer and water service. Whenasked whether the architect would be available to answer the questions more specifically at the Council meeting, Mr. Jones said that person would not be able to attend that meeting either. The meeting was closed at 9 :05 P .M. , for Commission discussion and action. Mr. Gilligan indicated he would not betoo concerned with any tentative expansion plans developed for the church in 1963 since he perceives the Council in 1964 only approved the building plans for the existing structure and not these plans . He told the Chair the City would not be • bound by any implied approval of the expansion in view of the passage of 20 years and changes in the neighborhood -makeup since that time. He confirmed that a conditional use permit is only good for one year, if the approved use is not constructed. -6- Chair Makowske then stated that she perceives the question before the Commission should be whether or not the proposal meets all three con- ditions which Minnesota and City ordinances require must be satisfied before a conditional ..use .permit can- be authorized. : There was a general consensus that the first and third questions -could be answered af- firmatively by the applicants but there was a strong indication that the neighbors perceived some injury with the development of the proposal as requested. Commissioner Zawislak indicated .he did not believe the proposed height of the addition would be out of line with those of other dwellings in the City residential districts . Commissioner Bjorklund suggested that if a poll were taken of those who were present in the room at that moment or to the zoning map on the wall, it would be apparent that almost 90 percent of the homes have much more than 40 feet of backyard for recreational, etc. purposes. He, therefore, said he believed the norm in this regard had been violated with this application and told Commissioner Zawislak a 38 foot high building is the same as a three story building. Commissioner Bowerman indicated that, although he understood the congregation' s hesitancy to expend money on a more specific plan at this stage, he was still concerned that the Commission was forced to make a decision on what he perceives to be a very nebulous plan without positive site plans and no firm commitment about the landscaping, • drainage, actual height of the addition, etc. for the proposal. Chair Makowske agreed, saying she would also like to see the window treatment which would provide privacy for the neighbors since there is a. great deal of difference between having a family living next door and havinga whole congregation viewing your backyard. Commissioner Bjorklund said he agreed with the neighbors that there had not been a true cost analysis made for siting the addition else- where on the property and made the following motion: Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Chair. Makowske to recommend Council denial of the conditional use permit which would allow the Elmwood Lutheran Church to add on to the existing church structure at 3615 Chelmsford Road, finding that the second require- ment in the application that "The proposed conditional use. will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property values or improvements in the vicinity" could not be answered, affirmatively for the following reasons : -(1) Property values for at least two .of the adjacent properties to - the south could be adversely affected. (2) .Plenty of available land now exists on the church- site to accom- modate an addition which would provide all the current needs of • the church without adversely affecting the neighbors . -7- (3) The 20 year old site plans which were considered by another Planning. Commission are now invalidated because of the change in • the development of the adjacent neighborhood and the fact that they addressed the existing building and not this proposal . (A) Estimated building costs given by the property owner did .not fairly provide the Planning Commission with the ability of com- paring costs of alternate development construction. (5) Plumbing service advantages to proposed construction might also benefit an addition on the existing north side of the building. (6) Incomplete site plans addressing landscaping, exterior, and window finishing, drainage or building elevations were not available. (7) Noise encroachment would very probably result for the adjoining neighbors . (8) Major neighborhood and resident opposition was presented during the two hearings on the proposal, including a petition with 23 signatures, representing 13 homes in the same area. (9) The proposal appears to violate the community norm set for rear- yard enjoyment in a single family neighborhood by reduction in size, view, and general amenities . The motion recommending Council denial of the Elmwood request passed • unanimously. Mr. Childs was requested to let the Council members know that the Commission perceives this proposal because of the unique topography of the land, etc. , would require a personal inspection of the subject site by them. The meeting was recessed at 9 : 45 P.M. . and reconvened at 9 :50 P.M. , for the public hearing on the petition for a sign variance which would allow for a sign to be placed on both. sides of the existing pylon sign located at 2620 Highway 88, to identify the LaPepiniere Montessori School and Day Care Center. The Chair read the notice of the hearing which had been mailed to all adjacent property owners within .350 feet of the subject site and published August 4th in the Bulletin. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content. Marsh Everson, 65.15 Barrie Road, Edina, president of the Montessori center,' was present to answer questions about why he believed his business , more than the existing merchants in the same shopping center ,. would require a lighted pylon sign to .-identify his facility, especially since such signage is permitted under the existing Sign Ordinance for only gas service stations and large shopping centers . He was told that the existing "Bank" sign was grandfathered into the new ordinance for the bank which had left the premises in March and that the only • reason the sign- was still up was that the ordinance does not require it be removed until one year after the departure of the business it identified. He was also informed that the new ordinance also permits monument type signs only in industrial districtsand none would be permitted in a commercial district. -8- When- .asked what hardship he believes he would experience if the ordin- ance were adhered to, Mr. Everson . responded that he had noticed trees had obstructed the view of his building. as he approached the center from the industrial park to the east and several of the tradesmen who had remodeled the building for the school had. reported they had a hard time finding the school in its new location. He told Com- missioner Jones the center cares for children from as far away as Columbia Heights .and Roseville and some sort of. identification is necessary to aid those who bring them to school to find the school. He also indicated the signage is necessary to identify the school to potential students . However, he admitted that most- of the children are not really drop ins , but are required to attend the school for at least from six to eight hours a week. The center president said his wife had signed the petition for the variance and would have copies of the signage. which they might request if they were not permitted to utilize the existing sign. He then showed the Commission members pictures of a similar. sign a competitor in the Southdale Shopping Center. When Commissioner Bjorklund indicated .he perceived other merchants in the same center operate successfully without this type of signage, Mr. Everson questioned the' term "successfully" . Chair Makowske noted that this would be a lighted ' sign. and told Mr. Everson other schools in the area have indicated- no need for this type of signage to attract potential students who should .have no trouble • finding the school in that large shopping center. Commissioners Zawislak and Jones both perceived that the playground outside the building along side Highway 88 should serve as an immediate identification of the activity carried on within the building. Commissioners Bowerman and _Wagner indicated they didn't deny the. center needed some identification, but doubted the .school ' s situation was so much more unique than .the other businesses in the same center that it required as much signage as was requested. Commissioner Jones agreed, saying he could see no reason why a shcool should require more identification than a commercial store since "you don't pick .a school in impulse as you do a pair of shoes" . At 10 : 10 P.M. , the hearing was closed at which time ,Commissioner Bjorklund . revealed that he has on occasion worked for Mr. Everson and Commissioner Zawislak indicated his daughter was employed by the center, which they perceived could appear to present a possible con- flict of interest for them both. Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend Council denial of the petition for a variance to the Sign Ordinance which- would permit the LaPepinier Montessori School and Day Care Center to be identified by substituting the two sided sign they • propose for the existing "Bank" sign on the fifteen foot pylon sign in front of the building they rent at 2620 Highway 88 , finding that: -9- (1) It has, not been demonstrated that there is _ a particular hardship • which would result for the applicant if the strict .letter of the City regulations regarding signage were adhered to. (2) The applicant has ample liberty under the existing sign ordinance to advertise his business on the exterior of his establishment the same as other businesses in the same center. (3) The existing non-conforming "Bank" .sign was grandfathered in with the new sign -ordinance and was particular and relative only to that business which has. since vacated the premises and there would appear to be no justification for continuing the use of the pylon sign- for various and sundry other purposes . (4) Under the -existing. sign ordinance the applicant has ample liberty to advertise the business on the exterior of the establishment without using a pylon sign for that purpose. (5) The City sign ordinance only permits lighted pylon signs of this type for identifying large shopping centers .and gas service stations and 'it appears a poor precedent might be set for similar requests if this sign were permitted as proposed. Voting on the motion: Aye: Bowerman, Wagner, Makowske, and Jones . • Abstention: Bjorklund and Zawislak. Motion to recommend denial passed. Mr. Everson then announced that he would like to withdraw the request before it went to the Council and .would prefer .to return to the Com- mission with a different proposal for signage on the building itself. Commissioner Bjorklund then reported he had found the doors to the Parkview Center,:had been locked-, for sometime during the last portion of the evening and since this was the. third .time this had happened to his knowledge , requested staff to contact those responsible. At 10 : 20 P.M. , the Chair opened the hearing to consider the petition for a sign variance which would allow for an additional building sign to identify the Zantigo Mexican Restaurant at 3704 Silver Lake Road from the west side of the Apache , complex. Chair Makowske read the notice which .had been mailed to all adjacent property owners within 3.50 feet of the subject site and published in the August 4, 1.983 Bulletin. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content. Mr. Childs confirmed that the required notice distance would not extend to the residents on 37th Avenue N.E. or to the Standard Station owner just south of the restaurant. • The Manager confirmed that before the new Sign Ordinance had been. adopted there would have been no need -for Zantigo to get approval of a second sign on the building. -10- Appearing for the restaurant was K. C. George who had addressed all • three conditions and given in his August 3rd letter all the reasons he perceives the request would meet all three conditions set for, granting such a variance, -which the Chair indicated she had found most helpful. She also reported noticing that the lights on the existing signs were turned off each evening as agreed to and reported discussing the additional signage with Art Thompson who lives on 37th Avenue N.E. and would be viewing the sign from' his picture window and who had indicated he would have no problem -with the proposal . Commissioner Zawislak said he was gratified to find a businessman who has the foresight not to use all his permitted signage up before he knows for certain just what additional identification he needs . It was agreed that this- property could be considered unique because it can be reached from two main thoroughfares and because it repre- sents an impulse buying type of business , additional signage was necessary to identify the restaurant to potential customers coming into the complex from the west to. Country Store: The hearing, was closed at 10 : 30 P.M. Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Zawislak to recommend the Council grant the variance .to. the City Sign Ordinance for the additional signage as presented on Exhibit "Z" in the agenda parcel for the Zantigo Restaurant at 3704 Silver Lake Road, finding • that: (1) Granting the variance would not be detrimental or injurious to other property in the same area because the restaurant is located in a commercial shopping complex and there are great distances between it and the closest residential property which could- be adversely affected. (2) . It would be a hardship for the restaurant if the petition for the variance were denied because of the shape of the building and its location on a small site within the confines of a large shopping center with two street frontages and accesses , and most importantly, three access directions from. the west, south and east. (3) The conditions upon which the application is based are unique to this parcel of land because of the large exposure of the property to the west where the primary traffic is generated from the east and south, making signage uniquely difficult on this particular building and property. (4) The total signage for the existing signs on the building as well as the requested sign would be less than the permitted square footage for this. building and in other respects this property had been developed in accordance with all City and state codes and standards . • (5) No one spoke in opposition ..to the request during the hearing. -11- Motion carried unanimously. • Mr. George indicated he would be unable to attend the Council meeting August 23rd, but would see to it that someone was present to represent the restaurant. At 10 : 45 P.M. , the public hearing was opened to- consider the petition for a variance to the sign ordinance which would .permit the existing free standing, non-conforming: sign which identifies Twin City Federal Savings and -Loan office at 3899 Silver Lake Road to be raised 2 feet 2 inches to accommodate additional wording which would inform TCF customers of the location and existence of a 24 hour teller machine within the building. R The notice of the hearing, which had- been mailed to all adjacent property owners within 350 feet of the bank, had been published in the August 4th issue of the Bulletin, was read by the Chair. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content. Because two of the questions on the petition form which are required to be answered affirmatively had been answered in the negative and the application had not been signed, Commissioner Jones questioned whether the applicants should not be given the opportunity of indicat- ing whether or not they fully understood the questions . The Chair and Commissioner Bowerman indicated, since this sign was already non- conforming because such free standing signs are not permitted in • commercial districts , they would not want to make the sign larger than it already was and would like to take the action necessary to prevent that this same evening. However, they agreed to accept the testimony of the only person present to speak to the issue . Kenneth Lee, 3904 Penrod Lane, indicated he had always liked the sign and if . it were raised, he would be able to see the time and temperature from his window more easily. The hearing was closed at 10 :50 P.M. Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he was concerned that because he does work for TCF on occasion, it might appear he could have a conflict of interest in voting- on the matter. However, because he opposed tabling the matter, he indicated he would vote on that motion, if it were made. Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to table the decision on the additional signage for Twin City Federal. Voting on the motion: Aye: Bowerman,. Wagner, and Zawislak. Nay: - Jones, Bjorklund, and Makowske. • Motion to table not carried. -12- Motion by Chair Makowske and seconded by Commissioner .Jones to recommend Council denial of the request for more signage for the Twin City • Federal Savings and Loan office at 3899 Silver Lake Road for the .following reasons : (1) Questions 1-and 3 in the petition-,for the variance dated August 4 , 1983, were not answered affirmatively as required by Minnesota statutes and .City ordinances . (2) The Commission .does not want,. to add -more spare footage to a sign which is already non-conforming to the City Sign Ordinance. (3) Although the existing sign could be perceived to be a public service, the addition could be considered to be a nuisance. (4) There was no signature on the petition and no one appeared to speak for the petition during the public hearing. Voting on the motion: Aye: Makowske, Jones, Bowerman, Wagner, and Zawislak. Abstention: Bjorklund. Motion to recommend denial carried. Chair Makowske reported receiving inquiries about the Good Luck Cafe • proposal and was told the proponents had requested the matter be laid over at the last Council meeting. She then told .the� Commission members that Commissioner Franzese was unable to attend the meeting that evening because she was attending a planning seminar which she would be reporting at the next meeting. Motion by Commissioner Zawislak and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to adjourn at 11:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. •