Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 09-10 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 SEPTEMBER 10, 1981 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman William Hawes, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Richard Theis, Nancy Manson, George Lucht, Mary Simmons and Lowell Ainas. Also present were Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren arrived during the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 27, 1981 Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by .Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the August 27, 1981 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 81058 (Byron Brekke) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Planning Assistant in- Following the first item of business, a request for a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to subdivide property by metes and bounds description rather than formal plat. The case involved 20' of land being conveyed .from the property at 5555 Humboldt Avenue North to 5536 Irving Avenue North. The Planning Assistant reviewed the con- tents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81058 attached) . The Planning Assistant noted that there was considerable precedent for a variance to divide property by metes and bounds description rather than formal plat. He said there were probably over 100 cases of such variances in the past. Commissioner Theis noted that the variance amounted to a transfer of 20 feet of land from one property to another using a metes and bounds legal description rather than requiring a formal platting process when no new lots are created. The Planning Assistant acknowledged this and cited the fact that other cities have specific ordinance provisions acknowledging the right to divide property by metes and bounds. Chairman Hawes asked what other use would be made of the transferred land. The Planning Assistant answered that the applicant had stated his intent to expand his garden and not to build any structures. Mr. Byron Brekke, the applicant, explained to Chairman Hawes that there were power poles along the old property line and that he had to build his garage 5 feet from the existing rear property line. The Planning Assistant was unsure, but assumed that the presence of power poles would indicate the existence of an easement 5 feet either side of the existing property line. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes opened the meeting for a public hearing and called on anyone present to speak. There being no comments from other property owners, the Chairman called for. a motion to close the 9-10-81 -1- public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION'NO. 81058 (Byron Brekke) Motion by Commissioner Luc ht seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of Application No. 81058, a request for a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to subdivide by metes and bounds description, on the following grounds : 1. The cost of platting would place an unreasonable burden on the property owners to transfer a. small amount of land. 2 No substandard conditions will be created by the subdivision. 3. No new lots'are created by the subdivision. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, APPLICATION NO. 81063 (Blumentals Architecture/Summit State Bank The Planning Assistant introduced the next item of business, a re- quest for site and building plan approval to construct a six-lane, remote drive-up bank facility for Summit State Bank at the office building located at 6040 Earle Brown Drive. He reviewed the con- tents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81063 attached) . The Director of Planning and Inspections arrived at 7:51 P.M. Commissioner Simmons and Chairman Hawes asked what difficulties would arise from two buildings having the same name in Brooklyn Center. The Planning Assistant answered that there could be some confusion with postage and other general difficulties. distinguishing between the two. Mr. Janis Blumentals, the architect for the project, addressed 'the Commission. He explained that the bank facility at 6040 Earle Brown Drive would simply be a drive-up teller facility, not a full service bank. He stated that the Summit State Bank would still have its main offices at 6100 Summit Drive North. Chairman Hawes pointed out that a trash container behind the bank is not screened and is an eyesore. He stated that it is probably a condition of a previous approval that the trash be screened and encouraged the applicant to see that this is done. Mr. Blumentals answered that the screening. would be provided, but would probably not be with a brick wall to be consistent with the main building. The Secretary explained regarding the proposed sign on the east wall of the 6040 office building that multi-story office buildings may only have building identification signs, not tenant identifi- cation signs placed on their walls. He stated there would be no problem with a -sign of up to 10% of the wall area reading "Summit Bank Building" if that were the name of the building. He added, 9-10-81 -2- however, that a time and temperature flashing sign is technically not permitted under the ordinance, although they have been allowed. He stated that such a sign would not be permitted on a multi-story office building in any case. He suggested that the Sign Ordinance be amended to exempt time and temperature signs from the prohibition against flashing signs in general. Commissioner Theis asked whether the addition of the drive-up facility would eliminate the possibility of a restaurant by doing away with 46 parking stalls. The Secretary answered that the elim- ination of this number of parking stalls would have, a bearing on the possibility for a future restaurant, but that some excess parking would still exist on the site. Mr. Blumentals- pointed out that a smaller restaurant could still locate in the office building so long as the parking stalls were adequate to meet the requirement. Commissioner Manson asked whether the remote facility would have walk-in service. Mr. Blumentals answered in the affirmative and pointed out on the floor plans where the service entrance would be. Commissioner Manson commented that people who wish to know how to get to the Social Security Office could be confused if they were directed to the Summit Bank Building, that they would not know which building was intended. Mr. Blumentals stated that would have to be clarified somehow. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81063 (Blumentals Architecture/Summit State Bank) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki, to recommend approval of Application No. 81063, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (fin an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. T. The plans shall be modified to indicate B-612 curb and gutter around all teller islands; and a` landscape schedule shall be added prior to consideration by the City Council. ' 9-10-81 -3 Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary asked for direction on the change of the Sign Ordi- nance to exempt time and temperature signs from the prohibition against flashing signs. ACTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to direct staff to prepare language amending the Sign Ordinance to exempt time and temperature signs from the prohibition against flashing signs. While the motion was on the floor, Commissioner Simmons clarified that no other information would .be exempted from the prohibition against flashing signs. The Secretary and the rest of the Com- mission concurred with this understanding. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. In response to a question from Commissioner Malecki, the Secretary explained that multi-story office buildings cannot have tenant identification wall signery, but can have a building identification sign on the wall. APPLICATION NOS. 81041 and 81051 (Summit Mortgage Blumentals Architecture) The Secretary introduced the next two items of usiness#, a request for site and building plan- approval to relocate buildings on the Earle Brown Farm and a request to develop the horse barn -and hippo- - drome as a speculative industrial building. He reviewed the staff report for these two applications (See Planning. Commission Informa- tion Sheet for Application Nos. 81041 and 81051 attached) . The Secretary stated that he had no objection to dividing the Farm site into two parcels, so long as the Farm buildings were on their own property and not on a larger parcel subject to future development. Mr. Janis Blumentals, the architect for both projects, pointed out to the Planning Commission that a recently revised plan for the area had met the conditions laid out by the Planning Commission at its July 30, 1981 meeting. He also explained that the garage to the main house has been moved to a location north of the main house (this is a change from the original plan which placed the garage perpendicular to the main house and to the north) . He also stated that the owner of the property did not wish to irrigate the mall area at the present time since much of it would remain with the parcel to the west which would remain undeveloped. Mr. Blumentals asked the Secretary if it would be possible to in- stall footings the. day after the Council approval, so as to beat the winter frost. The Secretary stated that he saw no problem i with that action. There was a brief discussion of the aesthetic aspects of the re- vised plan. Mr. Blumentals stated that Mr. Gimmestad of the Historical Society probably would support the change in location -4- 9-10-81 of the garage since it would not draw attention away from the main house. He also stated that the barn at the north end of the mall would serve to define the mall and to block out the freeway from view of the Farm site. Mr. Roger Newstrum, of Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, stated that ' he would reserve comment on Condition No. 5 regarding .potential uses in the historic site and the possibility for variances from ordinance requirements. He explained that the reason the horse barn and hippodrome was split off from the other Farm buildings was for financial reasons, to gain a loan to do the improvements to the horse barn and hippodrome. Commissioners Lucht and Theis discussed with the applicant the need for irrigation in the mall area. Mr. Blumentals stated that the mall area was really more closely related to the other Farm buildings on Tract I of the proposed R.L.S. and that underground irrigation should be accomplished at that time. Commissioner Simmons left the meeting at 8:56 p.m. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81041 (Summit Mortgage Corporation) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 81041, a request for site and building plan approval to relocate certain buildings on the Earle Brown Farm, subject to the following conditions : 1. All relocation and/or alteration of existing buildings I is subject to review and approval by the Building Official. Voluntary comment from the Minnesota Historical Society shall also be considered. 2. Any grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 3. All buildings over 2,000 sq._ ft. in floor area shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance with NFPA Standards and shall 1 be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances at the time of occupancy unless specifically waived by the City Council. 4. The preliminary plat approved under Application No. 81035 is revised so that all the Farm buildings to be relocated or preserved are within the Minnesota Historic Site (as defined by the register of Minnesota Historic Places) for the Earle Brown Farm and are to be on two parcels with no excess land available for future development with new ' . structures. 5. That the City Council acknowledges through this site plan approval a special zoning status for the land within the Minnesota -Historic Site (see Condition No. 4) whereby development and use of the existing Earle Brown Farm buildings shall be based on City Council approval only. The grounds 9-10-81 -5- required for variances from City ordinance re- quirements shall be City 'Council acceptance of a development plan and the preservation of the ° Earle Brown Farm structures. 6. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements shall apply to all development within the his- toric district unless specifically waived by variance approval, 7.. Approval of this application does not constitute approval of any special use permit for potential uses in the historic Earle Brown Farm buildings. Voting in favor: Chairman•Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81051 (Blumentals Architecture) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 81051, a• request for site and building plan approval to refurbish the horse barn and hippodrome as a speculative industrial building with appropriate parking areas, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring system in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance, however, the mall area to the west of the horse barn and hippodrome may be deferred from irrigation treat- ment until development of the Farm buildings to the west. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinancnes. . 8. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas except in the mall area. 9-10-81 -6- 9. The revised preliminary plat comprehended by Application No. 81035 shall receive final approval by the City Council and be filed with the County prior to the issuance of building permits for the conversion of the barn and hippodrome. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The 7Panning Commission recessed at 9 :00 p.m. and resumed at 9:29 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 81053 (ShowBiz Pizza Place) Following the recess, the Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 230 seat 10,343 sq. ft. restaurant with a game room on the south side of John Martin Drive, west of Burger Brothers. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report of the application which had been tabled on July 30, 1981 (See Planning Commission Informa- tion Sheet for Application No. 81053 attached) . The Secretary added to the comments in the report that the striping on the wall immedi- ately around the front entrance is a sign and, therefore, cannot be painted directly on the wall. Commissioner Theis asked whether the proposed restrictive covenant had come about during negotiations with the City Council. The Secretary answered that the staff had recommended an ordinance change to -require parking spaces based on an alternate formula of one space for every 65 square feet of gross floor area. The City Council asked for research of the City's Ordinance requirements relative to other municipal parking requirements for restaurants, he said. The research performed by staff showed that the City's Ordinance requirements were not out of line with those required by other municipalities . Based on this review, the staff recom- mended that 140 spaces be required for the ShowBiz Restaurant with the retail formula being applied to the game room area. A restrictive covenant would also be entered into between the owners of the property and the City, restricting the use of the building to no more than a 270 seat restaurant. Commissioner Theis asked how such a limit would be enforced. The Secretary answered that it would have to be through inspection of the restaurant and that since the covenant would be filed with the property, any perspective buyer would become aware of the limit during a title search. Chairman Hawes asked whether the covenant could be removed at some point in the future. The Secretary answered that both parties must agree to the lifting of the covenant or the need would be eliminated if parking require- ments were changed or accessory off-site parking was approved. Commissioner Theis noted that with 140 parking spaces available or possible, and 270 seats, only 10 employees could be allowed. He stated that this did not seem realistic. The Secretary answered that any increase in employees would have to result in a decrease in the amount of seating available. He added that the number of 270 is a proposed number which would have to be worked out further in finalizing the covenant. Chairman Hawes then called upon the applicant to speak. Mr. Dick Nowlin, representing ShowBiz Pizza stated that the applicant accepts the conditions set forth in the staff report and would finalize the covenant during the period of time preceding the City Council review of the application_. 9-10-81 -7- PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then reopened the public hearing which was continued at the July 30, .1981 meeting. He asked for comments from 'anyone else present. There being no one else to comment on the application, the Chairman called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81053 (ShowBiz Pizza Place) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 81053, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 230 seat restaurant and game room on the property west of Burger Brothers on John Martin . Drive, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to- the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage,- utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial . guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances . 8. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 10. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. • 11. A copy of the House Rules for the game room shall be filed with the City prior to the issuance of the special use permit. The house rules shall be displayed at the 9-10-81 _g_ entrance to the restaurant and within the game room area. 12. Signery for the building shall be limited to identification signs. Wall treatments used ' as eye-catching devices (eg. colored striping) shall be prohibited on all wall areas except the area beneath the canopy on the front wall around the main front door and shall conform-to the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. 13. The restrictive covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the title to the property prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Assistant City Engineer left the meeting at 9 :52 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS (Parking for Restaurants in Shopping Centers) The Secretary reviewed next a memo prepared by the Planning Assistant (attached) regarding parking requirements for restaurants in shopping centers. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires parking in development complexes to equal the sum of the parking requirements for each individual use within the complex. He acknowledged, how- ever, that- enforcement of this provision of the ordinance has not been entirely consistent. Restaurants have not been allowed, he explained, without requiring the full parking associated with restaurant uses. He stated that this may reflect an assumption that restaurants are, to a certain extent, part of the general re- tail mix to be found in shopping center complexes. He then referred to the case of Brookdale Square Shopping Center, which is requesting a building permit for a 175 seat oriental restaurant in a tenant space within the shopping center. He noted that over 200 parking spaces have been deferred within the entire shopping center/theater/restaurant complex at Brookdale Square. The Secretary suggested that the Planning Commission consider a 10% rule to allow up to 10% of the floor area of shopping centers to be devoted to restaurant space before requiring any additional parking, on the theory that this amount of restaurant space is consistent with the overall traffic demand of a shopping cen- ter and would not place additional parking burdens on the site. The Secretary also distinguished between mall shopping centers and strip shopping centers. He stated that a restaurant in a mall is much more likely to be accessory to the other retail uses in the mall and was not and is not a destination of its own for shoppers. On the other hand, he stated, a restaurant in a strip shopping center is much more likely to have a separate clientele from the other tenants in the center. He explained, however, that there have been no parking problems at retail shopping centers which have been built in accordance with the retail parking formula. Mr. James Brehl, an attorney for Commercial Partners, the developer for Brookdale Square, next addressed the Commission. He acknowledged that the approach to the parking requirements in shopping centers varies from City to City. He pointed out that other tenants in the shopping center would generate less traffic than a typical retail use . . and, therefore, would counterbalance the increased parking demand of 9-10-81 -9- the restaurant. Chairman Hawes asked if the proposed oriental restaurant would be less than 10% of the floor area of the main building, noting that there is no additional parking to. be gained for a restaurant. Mr. Brehl stated that the restaurant would con- sist of 9% of the entire shopping center area, although the public area of the restaurant would be only 5% of the shopping center floor area. He added that the restaurant will be seeking a liquor license, although there will be no live entertainment. In response . to another question from Chairman Hawes, Mr. Brehl stated that the hours of the restaurant would probably be until about 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 P.M. or 12:00 on Friday and Saturday evenings. Commissioner Lucht inquired what percentage of floor space in Humboldt Square is devoted to restaurants. The Planning Assistant answered that it would be roughly 13%, 5,300 sq. ft. in a 40,000 sq ft. shopping center. Commissioner Ainas• raised the possibility of calculating parking for a retail shopping center simply on the basis of the retail parking formula with no special allowance for restaurant space at all. The Secretary acknowledged that that was a possibility and would take on the assumption that the retail formula contemplates the overall mix of uses in a shopping center and need not be subject to additions on account of particular uses. He stated that he felt more comfortable starting out with a 10% rule as a step in that direction. He expressed apprehension, how- ever, about the possibility that an entire shopping center or a substantial portion of a shopping center could be occupied by restaurant users if there were no 10% rule. Commissioner Ainas agreed and suggested that the 10% rule is worth trying out. Commissioner Theis asked whether a shopping center would get a break in their parking requirement if there were a restaurant planned for a particular amount of space from the very beginning. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, explaining that up to 10% of the space in any shopping center - new or existing - would automatically be eligible for restaurant space. Commissioner Theis also asked whether the freestanding G. Willakers Restaurant at Brook- dale Square would have been calculated differently on the basis of its square footage as part of the entire shopping center/theater/ restaurant complex. The Secretary answered that -each freestanding area in the Brookdale Square complex had its own parking requirement to meet and that the restaurant would not be calculated with any credit. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the possibility for applying a 10% rule only to shopping centers of a certain size. The Secretary stated that he would bring back to the Planning Com- mission a review of smaller shopping centers with restaurants to see how they- would relate to the 10% rule. The Planning Assistant raised the issue of deferred parking at Brookdale Square and whether this deferred parking should be re- vised on the basis of the additional parking demand brought in by the restaurant. Mr. James Brehl, representing Brookdale Square, stated that the shopping center was designed with the assumption of some restaurant space in the center. ACTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to direct staff to prepare ordinance language with a 10% rule to be 9-10-81 10 - CORRECTION applied to restaurant space in s opping centers and for preparation of an analysis of existing shopping centers and restaurant space. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM - (Grou Lesson Home Occupations) The Secretary then reviewea with the Planning Commission three versions of an ordinance change to allow up to 10 students in a group lesson with varying provisions for parking. Version #1 allowed for up to two parking on street. Version #2 allowed for a maximum of four cars with no more than two to be parked on street. Finally, Version #3 allowed for any number of cars, but none to be parked on street. Commissioner Theis stated that Version #3 was acceptable to him. The Secretary explained that it was difficult to write a rule that covers all cases. He stated that although all three versions allow for up to 10 students in a group lesson home occupation, this does not mean that the Planning Commission and City Council are obliged to approve 10 students or that people have a prior right to 10 students. He stated that all home occupations are subject to review and that in some cases on-street parking should be allowed, while in others it should not. Commissioner Lucht agreed with the Secretary's comments and stated that Version #1 is compatible with the idea of a conditioned approval of up to 10 students. There followed a lengthy discussion of the parking provisions for group lesson home occupations . The Secretary repeatedly explained to the Planning Commission that it had the authority to apply dif- ferent conditions in different situations and could prohibit on- street parking in some cases or allow less than 10 students in some cases, depending on what is appropriate in each given situation. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE LANGUAGE Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded y Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of ordinance language allowing for up to 10 group lesson home occupation students and up to two on-street parking stalls for such home occupations . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commisssioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht and Ainas. Voting against: Commissioner Theis. Commissioner Theis explained that he opposed the adoption of Version #1 because it allowed for the possibility of too many vehicles in a residential area. He stated that on-street parking is not a good addition to a residential area when- it is associated with a home occupation. Chairman Hawes stated that he favors Version #1 because he was convinced that it would be possible for the Planning Commission to control parking on a case-by-case basis. ACTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT TO APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81034 (LaVonne Malikowski) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of an amendment to Application No. 81034, sub- mitted by LaVonne Malikowski for group ceramic lessons in her home. Commissioner Lucht moved that the permit be amended to acknowledge up to 10 students and no on-street parking in the above home occupa- tion. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 9-10-81 -11- ADJOURNMENT motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:24 p.m. w Chairman 9-10-81 -12-