Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-1985 Planning Minutes» .rx - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1985 7:30 P.M. 1275 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Tom Frahm ATTENDANCE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.7:30 2.9:00 ACTION IT 3a.#941 3b.1946 3c.1951 4.#945 5.#947 6.#949 7.#950 8.#952 9.#953 10.#954 11.#956 Preliminary Subdivision Tabled at July Meeting Variance - Public Hearing Variance - Public Hearing Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Variance - Public Hearing Variance - Public Hearing George Rovegno, 2010 Shoreline Drive - Appeal - Interpretation of Fence Ordinance - Public Hearing Frank Kokesh, 4100 Watertown Road - Appeal of Stock Farm and Home Occupation Sections Interpretation Public Hearing #953 Chaska Marina, North Shore Di’*’ - ' ariances - Public Hearing Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Variance ADDITIONAL ITEMS 12. Planning Commission approval of July 15, 1985 minutes. 13. Planning Commission to select representative to attend the September 9, 1985 Council Meeting. adjournment J 1 MINDTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE ^ ATTENDANCE 7:30 PM The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Callahan, Goetten, McDonald, Sime, Rovegno, and Taylor. Kelley was absent. The following represented the City Staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron, c<nd Recorder Peterson. Council Representative Frahm was also present. #948 DAVID C. BELL INVESTMENT COMPANY 565 LEAP STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 - 7:47 Representing the applicant. Larry L. Hanson of Schoell & Madson, Inc. was present. Also present was Jim Orr of Schoell and Madson, Inc. Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Gaffron explained the request for a two-lot subdivision of a 5.9 acre "through" lot in a two acre zoned district. Lot 1 is proposed at approximately 2.5 acres dry buildable. Lot 2 proposed at approximately 3.2 acres dry buildable. Gaffron pointed out on the survey the existing driveway and house to the interested persons. Loren Klitzke, 555 Oxford Rd., expressed concern regarding the access of the driveway on Oxford Road. Larry Hanson stated that in his opinion the future home should be built near the end of the culdesac, but that would be up to the future home builder. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that Planning Commission member Kel ley, who was unable to attend, has asked what is the future plan for the existing swimming pool, i, Mabusth stated that Kel leyis concerned that it was possibly a nuisance attracting young kidswithno one really watching it and a potential hazard. Mr . Hanson stated that the plans for the swimming pool have not been discussed, but based on staff's report he would recommend the pool be taken out and/or filled. Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaf ron pointed out the existing drainage easement in answer to Mr. Klitzke's question regarding runoff control. Richard J. Williams, representing the Church of Religious Science, stated that the Church had no objections to the subdivision but expressed concern that the future property owners have no objections to the existing use and activities of the church. J ■i. •flNUTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 191 1985. PAGE 2 1948 -565 LEAP ST. continued Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that Reverend Chaffin was concerned about the encroachment of the patio* which is used for church services, into the proposed subdivided property. As a potential solution to the encroachment problem, Mr. Hanson suggested a possible conveyance of that certain property to the church. Mr. W.J. Koronkiewicz, 465 Leaf St., was in attendance for this matter. Goetten asked about the plans for the existing house. Mr. Hanson stated that when the property was acquired, they thought they had a full 6 acres and was unaware of the high dry buildable ordinance, and felt they were dealing with a minimal variance. Due to these problems, their plans are to sell one lo« for a new home to be built, and sell the other lot with the existing home. Mr. Hanson also stated that the applicant understands that he will be responsible for partial road maintenance of Oxford Road. It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by Sime, to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision subject to staff's 4 recommendations as listed in addition to 5) conditioned upon obtaining approval from necccssary parties for use of Oxford Road for entrance to Lot 1, 6) applicant being notified of the attractive nuisance of the swimming pool and need to be addressed. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING 12:14 Due to the late hour, it was moved by McDonald, seconded by Goetten, to continue this public hearing until the next Planning Commission meeting. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). #941 PAUL NUTT, #946 DAVID C. COOK, #951 JOHN THIMMISH 2739 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 7:58 - 8:29 Paul R. Nutt, David C. Cook, and John & Patti Thimmish were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained the ownership of the lots located west of the Narrows Bridge: John Thimmish owns tracts S (riparian) & T (land), Paul R. Nutt owns tracts 0 & R (riparian) and P & Q (land) which he is in the process of selling tracts Q & R, David C. Cook owns riparian tract E. The adjacent land tract (D) to Mr. Cook's riparian tract is owned by Mr. R. Ogle. Tracts M & N and K & L are owned by two ad jacent land owners, Mr. Casey and Mr. Flcischhacker. J MINUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE 3 #941-1946-1951 2739 SHAOYWOOD RD. continued Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the question is how to deal with the non-conforming use of these properties. Mabusth noted that the City has been aware of the non- conforming use of these lots since the late 50's. Mabusth gave a short background as to when these lots were purchased by the applicants'. Mabusth indicated that because the applicants' are non-adjacent property owners creates the illegal non-conforming use, which has been a non-conforming use for the past 30 years. Mabusth also noted that some of the tracts have been combined and some have not. All three applicants indicated that their request is to be allowed to use the lots for boat dockage. In order to do this, the City must recognize them as a legal non-conforming use. Rovegno questioned, since back in 1955 this use was apparently a legal thing to do, at what point did it become an illegal use? Zoning Administrator Mabusth indicated the change occurred in 1967, when the formal zoning came in. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to address two things: 1) recognize these lots as a legal non-conforming use 2 ) grant conditional use permits because these lots have accessory structures with no principal structure. Mr. Ogle stated that issues to be considered are that the applicants' want tc change the conformity of the lots, the lots were intended for residents, parking and access problems for guests, and the problem with regulating the use and number of boats being docked. A person from the public stated that the LMCD allows one boat per 100 feet of lakeshore and the lots in question are 20 foot lots. Tom Frahm, Chairman of the Marina Committee, stated that the Marina Committee found a problem with the number of boats and ownership of boats. Frahm stated that the real problem is that the Marina Committee felt they could not deal with the dockage problem without a legal definition of what these pieces of property are, which is why it is before the Planning Commission. Rovegno wanted to make clear the Planning Commission's issues in this matter which is a conditional use permit to allow an accessory use absent a principal use and variances because the lots are sub-standard under the terms of today's zoning review. Rovegno felt that is what probably a reasonable use because it has been done for over 30 years. Rovegno questioned whether these docks have permits from the LMCD. J\ HINUTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19» 1985. PAGE 4 #941-#946-i951 2739 SHADYNOOD RD. continued Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the LMCD considers this a grandfathered situation and that the docks are legal because they existed prior to the creation of the LMCD. Mabusth also stated that the LMCD recommends 50 feet of lakeshore per boat but would consider variances for a minimum of 10 feet for one boat. Mr. Ogle stated that a "grandfathered" clause should pertain to the original owner only and not be sold off. There were no other comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Callahan felt that Mr. Ogle's statements regarding parking problems should be considered. It was moved by Callahan» seconded by Goetten, to recommend granting the Conditional Use Permit's to use as a non- conforming use subject to no parking be allowed on property they don't own and allowing one boat per non-adjacent landowners. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (2). Sime and McDonald voted nay for reasons of limiting one boat per owner creates a hardship. f945 R.J. BAUMAN 1040 TONKAWA ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:53 - 9:03 Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Mr. Robert J. Bauman was present for this matter. Mr. Bauman stated that he wants to clean up his shoreline area using a backhoe to remove tree stumps and poison ivy which requires a conditional use permit. Mr. Bauman stated that he will comply to all of staff's recommendations as listed in their report. Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron indicated an issue regarding the drainage pipes. Mr. Bauman stated that there is a surface drainage problem that ran down to the Noeltings property and that the pipe is just laying there now. The Noeltings, 1060 Tonkawa Road, stated that now that the fence is there, there is no drainage problem. Jurgen Stielow, 1020 Tonkawa Road, stated that he didn't like seeing mature trees taken down. It was moved by Sime, seconded by Goetten, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to applicant complying with the five conditions recommended by staff and that staff will review and work with applicant regarding the drainage on the north lot line. Motion, Ayes (6 ), Nays (0). MINUTES OP THE PLANNIIK: COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE 5 §947 NORMAN ft CHRISTIE DBMITT 1180 LYMAN AVENUE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:05 - 9:08 Norman Dewitt was present for this matter. Mr. Dewitt is requesting a lot area variance to build a home on a 1-1/2 acre lot in a 2 acre minimum zone. Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Chairman Callahan reviewed with Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron staff's finding for recommendation of approval of the variance. Gaffron noted that the variance on this property had been granted twice previously and this is merely a renewal variance. Brian Palmer, 1190 Lyman Avenue, was present and stated he had no objections to the variance. It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Goettcn, to recommend approval of the variance. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). #949 GERALD ANDERSON 4495 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:11 - 9:14 Gerald and Barbara Anderson were present for this matter. Kenneth Hage, contractor-applicant, was also present. The Anderson's are requesting a variance of the average IcKeshore setback to build an addition. Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron noced the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Mrs. Anderson stated that the neighbors have been notified of the plans and have shown no objections. Mr. Anderson stated that he plans to keep the existing garage. It was moved by Sime, seconded by Rovegno, to approve the average lakeshore setback variance. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). 1950 GEORGE ROVEGNO 2010 SHORELINE DRIVE APPEAL-INTERPRETATION OP PENCE ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:16-10:17 Mr. & Mrs. George Rovegno were present for this matter. At this time, George Rovegno stepped down as a Planning Commission member for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Mabusth explained Mr. Rovegno's appeal which dealt with the interpretation of an amended ordinance (amended 1/28/85) Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 Non-Encroachments (C) regarding fences. I HINUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE 6 1950 ROVBGNO continued Mabusth felt that the intent of amending the ordinance was to clarify it, cleanup language dealing with "front yards", and setting limits on the reasonable functions of fences. Mabusth stated that the issue before the Planning Commission as whether the amended ordinance dealt specifically with lots that abut lakeshore and reared major thoroughfares or streets or did it deal with any kind of lakeshore yard that is intercepted by a major thoroughfare. Per Commission member Taylor's request. Zoning Administrator Mabusth gave examples of Orono properties that fit closely to her interpretation of the ordinance: lots along Sbadywood, the corner lot on Oxford Rd. McDonald mentioned the Pillsbury property is a good example. Zoning Administrator Mabusth contends that the problems is not dealing with the non-encroachment of yard requirements, but lakeshore setback requirements. Chairman Callahan noted that the Planning Commission has before them (this evening) another proposed amendment to the fence ordinance for them to consider. Callahan inquired whether this hearing would be a waste of time if they were to approve the amendment. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the proposed amendment dealt only with fences 3-1/2 feet above the ground. Mr. Rovegno stated that he has expressed to staff that he would be willing adminir,tratively to relocate the fence, but as it stands the ordinance clearly permits the fence.mm ; ■ ■ Art Tourangeau, 2060 Spates Ave., stated that he felt the fejnce would create a hazard during the winter with snow build-up against the fence and the narrowness of the road when one wants to turn on Spates Ave. Lyle and Norma Godfrey, 2060 North Shore Drive, were present for this matter. Norma Godfrey felt that the fence depreciates the value of their property, two sections of the fence have already been removed because of graffiti, the fence is dangerous, it is distracting to motorist,and blocks the view of the lake. Ms. Godfrey stated that she also believes this fence nas been planned for some time and cited dates of filings and notices proving so. Ms. Godfrey also noted that taxpayers' monies have been spent on the court proceedings involved with Mr. Rovegno's threatened litigation with the County over the used right-of-way of County Rd. 15 and the out of court settlement granting Rovegno the right to erect a fence within the easement for road mainte.'iiance, and would like to see the fence removed. Chairman Callahan stated that the comments from the public are well taken, but the Planning Commission ' s purpose at this point, is to decide whether Mr. Rovegno had the right to erect the fence without a permit as the ordinance stands today. MINOTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19. 1985. PAGE «950 ROVEGNO continued Mr. Rovegno explained his purpose of the proceedinas with Hennepin County which were brought up by Norma Godfrey He then went on to explain his many reasons forerec^In^tSe t VO ^^®spassing, litter & dumping, physical oarkina^ assault, vandalism, road noise, speeders & illegal parking, and screens him from zoning code violations Mr there\o protect thafVo Lo ® major thoroughfare. Mr. Rovegno statedthat he has tried to grow bushes but the salt kills them Mr Aci;::!^?str?t'^^^^ the approv'arof \JeTon?JgCounty, Dept, of Transportation, Hennepin County Board, and the decree of the prudence in this matter. He also noted erected this fence, he has not had any of the problems he previously stated. ^ the issue before the Planning Commission is to determine whether Code Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 (C) applies only tr^ear yardrwhich abu^ a major thoroughfare and not lakeshore front yards that abut a major thoroughfare; and that his lot is subject to standards lo??.^ lakeshore lot owners si^cethe lot IS divided by a public road. Mr. Rovegno cited Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) and then two diagrams showing typical front & rear yards^of lakeshore properties. Mr. Rovegno stated that he felt the intent of this section of the code was to provide Pr^ ?iloJough1arl entrlngad by a majo^ Regarding the viewing rights by neighboring lots. Mr Rovegno stated that his lot is a conti|ucus riparTan iTt'. Hf; "°«9no quesgoned why the City has taken action against his fence when there are numbers of other fences, which he submitted 11 photos of such fences. which he For record, Phil Kaley, 1395 Brown Rd. S., was present for is natter. There were no other comments from the public. Mabusth advised the Planning Commission of commission member Ke 1 I ev ' s opinion on t-hic aSolT*^ denying the appeals application because lots like^the applicant s are unusual and special requiring individual review. This specific section of the o^Sinanle Ca^iever designed to cover lakeshore lots divided by a Sr iui p?oMe: of the obW^Ss Commission member Sime stated that he felt staff has acted correctly noting his agreement with the fence being a Public Nuisance per Section 9.22 and he would deny the appeal HIHUTBS OF TUB PLANNIHG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ADGOST 19, 1985. PAGE 8 1950 ROVBGNO continued Conunission member Goetten stated that she feels that the fence does not meet the intent and standards of Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 (C) and agrees will Sime. Commission member Taylor stated that he agrees with the applicant’s contention that the fence conforms with Section 10,03 Subdivision 15 (C), Commission member McDonald stated that she agreed with Sime and Goetten. Chairman Callahan stated he agreed with Sime, Goetten, and McDonald. Callahan stated that he felt Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 (C) was not referring to Rovegno's type of property and didn’t consider his kind of problem. Coi^ission member Sime stated that in addition to Section 9.22 permitting a public nuisance, he felt that this fence is endangering the safety of those using the public access under Section 9.21 a public nuisance. Mr. Rovegno stated that the public access at the end of Spates Ave. was a public nuisance, whether his fence is there or not. The ruling of the Planning Commission was 4-1 to deny the appeal and find that staff’s interpretation of the ordinance is correct. Sime, Goetten, McDonald, and Callahan in favor of denial. Taylor against denial. #952 PRANK KOKESH 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD APPEAL-INTERPRETATION OP STOCK FARM AND HOME OCCUPATION SECTIONS PUBLIC HEARING Neither Mr. Kokesh or his attorney were present for this matter. Because of his absence, it was moved by Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to table this matter until the Sepi ember 16th meeting. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). Earl and Betty Dorn, 4045 Watertown Road, were present for this matter. Chairman Callahan agreed to hear them but informed them that no action would be taken at this meeting. Mr. Dorn stated that Mr. Kokesh’s operation has been in violation for years and the city has failed to do anythinq about It until now. He feels that residents should receive equal treatment. Chairman Callahan assured Mr. Dorn that if the applicant fails to appear at the next meeting action wi 11 be taken in his absence. MINUTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE 9 #954 ORONO GOLF COURSE 265 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 7:53 - 7:56 Chairman Callahan explained the application for a conditional use permit for expansion of the 4th tee and regrading of tee apron area at the Municipal Golf Course. Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Gaffron submitted plans drawn up by the City Engineer for fill and grading near the 4th tee on the Orono Golf Course. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by McDonald, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use permit as submitted. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). 1956 MRS. PHILIP W. PILLSBURY 1200 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD VARIANCE Mr. William W. Scott, architect for Mrs. Pillsbury, was present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that when the building permit was filed it was found that the old foundation was not going to be used with the new construction, therefore a lot area and lot width variance is required. Mabusth stated that it is an improved lakeshore setback because the new structure will be located out of the 75 foot setback area. Mabusth also stated that this application was too late for the Public Hearing deadline, so the Planning Commission is being asked to nake their recommendation and the Public Hearing will be held before the Council at the August 26th meeting. It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by McDonald, to approve the procedural variance application as recommended by staff in their findings as listed. Motion, Ayes (6 ), Nays (0). #953 CHASKA MARINA NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 10:58 - 12:04 Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Gaffron explained the applicant's request for variances to permit commercial open storage and parking of commercial and employee vehicles. Gaffron explained that there are two separated properties, owned by Chaska Marina, that are not adjacent to the property itself but separated by residential used lots within the B-2 zoned district. NlNUnS OF THB PLANNIMG COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE 10 1953 CHASKA MARINA continued Jim Dunn, President of Chaska Marina, and his attorney, Bruce C. Douglas were present for this matter. Mr. Douglas stated that this is a commercial marina permitted zone, with pre­ existing uses which have certain grandfather rights within the City. Douglas explained that his client is seeking a variance to the area and use functions of two parcels, 3340 & 3350 North Shore Dr. Douglas stated the area variance is needed because neither parcel meets the minimum 1/2 acre requireme.^t. The use variance is required because there is a pre-existing adjacent residential use involved. Douglas noted that the proposed site plan takes into consideration the 75' lake setback and 10' sideyard setbacks, and the plans meet the hardcover ordinance. Douglas stated that they intend to put in a 3' high staked fence to physically protect the 10' sideyard setback areas from use by the Marina. Douglas also stated that they intend to abide by any setback requirements from the roadway even though the site plan doesn' t show it. Douglas also informed them that the house at 3340 North Shore Dr. is prohibited by contract from being destroyed prior to August 1, 1986. He r '.ed that he has written to the contract vendor seeking permission to destroy the house prior to that date and has not yet received a response. If they do not receive permission, Mr. Douglas said that the house will be removed no later than a month after August 1, 1986. Douglas stated that the house on the other property is not a problem house in terms of structural stability. In order to respect the rights of the adjacent residential property owners, Mr. Douglas stated that they have attempted to delineate and identify the issues that must be dealt with such as providing the neighbors with copies of signed statements from all the employees of Chaska Marina acknowledging that they are aware of the trespassing rules. Mr. Douglas stated that it is che residential property owners interests which are non-conforming in this area and that the burden of obligations must be met by all persons involved. Douglas stated that they are merely asking for a variance to conform to the use that is permitt-'d in this commercial zone. Douglas said that they intend to use the lots for vehicle parking with appropriate screening, parking of boat trai lers, and some marina equipment such as cradles that hold boats. Sandy Ramberg and Marcia Schoeneman, 3332 North Shore Dr., and Phyllis Sprague, 3342 North Shore Drive, were present for this matter. Mr. Douglas stated that they have met and worked with Ms. Ramberg, Shoeneman, and Sprague to try and resolve some problems. Commission member McDonald had concerns regarding the number of boats in the water and on land. 1 MINUTES OF TUB PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE #953 CHASKA MARINA continued Mr. Douglas stated that there is wet slip storage, dry slip storage, and winter storage which the Marina Conunittee and City Council deals with when issuing the Marina license each year, and this issue has nothing to do with the land use application before the conunission. Mr. Douglas indicated that they wish to continue the mixed commercial and residential use of the 3350 North Shore Dr. parcel to serve as the on-site residence for a permanent 24 hour security person for the Marina. The issue of hardcover was raised and Mr. Douglas indicated disagreement from staff's contention that gravel is hardcover. However, Mr. Douglas stated that if gravel is considered hardcover, they will conform by leaving the area dirt. Mrs. Sprague stated that at the present time they are not parking within the setbacks. Mrs. Ramberg stated that as time passes there are more problems with the enfringment of their rights, and they are against the granting of any variance. Mr. Douglas stated that in order to comply with the setbacks they agreed to put up the physical barrier of the staked fence and that although he feels the Marina has the primary responsibility, the residents have a secondary responsi­ bility to try and work these problems out. McDonald voiced her opinion that the area could not handle the added use. Chairman Callahan felt that there is no problem granting the area variance to 3340 North Shore Dr., but felt uncomfortable granting the mixed use variance to the other property. Callahan stated that he feels both houses should be removed before the parcels be used commercially. It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Callahan, to recommend an area variance for the two subject lots; recommend a use variance for 3340 North Shore Dr. until it is torn down in one year (or until a specific date such as September 1, 1986); recommend a temporary variance for the mixed uses for 3350 North Shore Dr. for residential use for one year thereafter being used only for a paid security person; and that no setback or landscaping variances be granted; and that such lots be limited to use for parking and storage by Chaska Marina. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (1). McDonald voted nay because of the uses involved and felt that issues such as dockage and hardcover should have been considered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JULY 15, 1985 It was moved by Sime, seconded by Goetten, to approve the Minutes of the July 15, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE 12 REPRESENTATIVE FOR COUNCIL MEETING Planning Commission member Sime was selected as the representative to attend the September 9, 1985 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT 12:30 PM