Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-1989 Planning MinuteslaVOTBS OP THE PIAimiW COMHSSIOH ITIEG JULY 17, 1989 ATYBBAKB 7t00 P.H. The Orono Planning Commlscion met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commissioners Johnson, Cohen, Brown and Moos. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Building t Fire Inspector Jacobs and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Barbara Peterson was also present. *1412 HMnr L. 384 MOCOIUT MMU> PRKLUIIHMIT SOBDIVlSIOa CLASS III CCMmaUATIOH OP PUBLIC BBABIHG 7t00 P.M. TO 7tl0 P.N. Mary Petersen was present for this matter, as was Mark Gronberg, her surveyor. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth clarified that there Is an additional property owner joining in the plat who will continue to achieve access off of Turnham Road. The four new lots will achieve access from an extended cul-de-sac road that abuts Lot 3. The City has asked for an outlet to connect to Chippewa Lane and to Turnham Road. Also proposed is the definition of an additional outlet for the purpose of accessing the Luce Line. The DNR is asking the City to refrain from intensifying vehicular crossing of the Luce Line. Chairman Kelley suggested that an easement be taken that would allow for pedestrian traffic to access the Luce Line. Such an easement would allow the northern property owners to access the Luce Line without the need to use McCulley Road. Ms. Petersen said that she did not understand why such an easement would be necessary when McCulley Road was so close. Kelley explained that the walking path would allow children a way to the Luce Line without contending with major traffic. Ms. Desyl Peterson, 4385 Chippewa Lane, said that she was pleased to see that Outlot C had been removed. Ms. Peterson noted that another neighbor has been circulating a petition in opposition to the through road. This neighbor was unable to attend this meeting, but Ms. Peterson said that the petition would be submitted prior to review by the City Council. Ms. Peterson asked why Outlot B was being dedicated at this time when Outlot h adequately provides access to the other lots. She suggested that should the other lots subdivide in che future, that outlot could be designated at that time when it would be needed. Mr. Jerome O'Brien, 380 Turnham Road, expressed concern regarding the future through street that Outlot A would provide. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. mimnas or m plamhig comussiob !TIK JULY 17» 1989 lOBIK niM il412-IIMIT L. rwTWMsm oobthiukd It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Coasnissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of this application subject to conditions 1 through 5, with the exception of condition 2 which he recommended include outlot C at a width determined by City staff to be used as a walking access to the Luce Line. Johnson asked about designating construction time of the pathway. Mabusth suggested that such information be provided by Public Works Director Gerhardson and the Park Commission. It was further suggested that the Park Commission be asked to render a decision as to whether or not the City of Orono would be interested in taking the Outlot. Mary Petersen indicated that she had no interest in developing the walkway as a part of the subdivision. M.tion, Ayes«4, Nay»0, Cohen abstained. Ms. Desyl Peterson noted that there is a roadway that crosses partially on her property that is currently being used as an informal access to the Luce Line. She further noted that the area being proposed for the walkway had a steep slope that would make access difficult. §1418 JBPPRBT BCCLBS 3025 SIXTH AVBHUB HORTH VARIAHCB COHTIHOATIOH OP PUBLIC HIMtniG 7:17 P.N. TO 7:20 P.N. Mr. Eccles was present for this continuation of a public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant had revised his proposal and was now asking for a 26* x 26* garage with a 15.2' side setback where 30* is required. The location of the septic system, well and driveway limits alternative sites for the garage. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of application #1416, based on the findings that there is very little Impact on the neighborhood, no additional runoff, no expressed objections by the neighbors. Approval would be conditioned upon the proposed garage being located in the same location as the existing garage. Motion, Ayes"5, Mays>0, Motion passed. #1417 HORTHBni STATES POWER CO. 3960 SIXTH AVBHUB HORTH COHDITIOHAL USB PBRNIT COBTIHUATIOH OP PUBLIC HBARIH6 7:21 P.N. TO 8:00 P.N. Mr. David Fisher, Mr. Marlow Peterson, Mr. Roger Hargreaves and Mr. Gary Roskos. Mr. Fisher explained that Northern States Power Co. was MIHUTIS or TO PLMDilNG COMMISSICM NBBTIK JOLT 17« lllf SOHIK PILE tl417>M8P COmiVUED requesting a conditional use pernit to construct, operate and maintain an electrical substation. The facility is referred to a& a 69-13.8 KV substation which means that its source will be a 69 KV line with a resulting distribution voltage of 13.8 KV. The source line is the existing line which runs through the parcel from Highway 12 and the Huntington Farm Development. The 69 KV source line will enter the substation and be transformed into two 13.8 KV feeder lines. One feeder line will exit the substation on the existing line and run in the direction of Highway 12, the other feeder line will connect to the existing pole line which runs along County Road 6. The substation will not require any additional pole lines in the general area of the substation. The location of the substation has been revi sed...(see Mr. Fisher's memo 62989#l.djf}. Chairman Kelley inquired as to the else of the trees NSP intended to plant. Mr. Fisher said they would be approximately 2* in diameter. Hr. Phil Roe, Hunt Farm Roud, asked about alternate sites that were considered and what factors those sites had that made them undeslreable? Mr. Fisher said that sites along the Luce Line had been considered but were undeslreable because of the close proximity the substation would have to the Luce Line. He said that the proposed location is in the "heart" of the area in which they need to provide power. Mr. Kim Mitchell, said that he was building a home near the site for the proposed substation and questioned whether the substation would interfere with his 2nd story view. Chairman Kelley inquired as to the type of trees that NSP intended to plant as screening for the substation. Mr. Roskos replied that they intended to plant White Pines, Ash Trees and a variety of deciduous trees. Mr. James McKinnon, a member of the audience, asked for a omparison regarding the expected decibles at specific footages. Mr. Fisher said that at 10:00 a.m. the substation would not be audible above the sound of noise generated from Highway 12 and County Road 6. Mr. Roskos added that the sound from the substation was a low, constant drone, similar to the sound of an air conditioner condenser. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth reported that she had an opportunity to visit a substation and the sound most noticeable was that of the cooling fan. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Mitchell if he had visited a similar, existing substation in order to better understand the noise level. Mr. Mitchell replied that he had visited the station located at Highway 101 ^nd the Luce Line. Kelley asked NSP in that substation was comparable to the proposed substation? MllDflS OP TiB pyUniZIQ CONHZSSIOH NIBTIVG jolt 17» 1989 sonac piu •I4i7-asp coTiag go Mr. Roskos replied that the Highway 101 substation was ituch larger and located more closely to the residential area. Kelley suggested that Mr. Mitchell have NSP accompany him to an existing substation location to help him better understand what is being proposed. Mr. Bill Praser« 630 Hunt Farm Road, recalled that at the June 19, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting, NSP was asked to provide data regarding the effect the substation would have on property valu4^s. Mr. Fraser said that he had spoken with residents living near the Highway 101 substation and they had indicated they would choose not to live in the vicinity of such a facility. Mr. Fraser also said that the location for the proposed substation was an area rich with wildlife. He said that there are Trumpeter Swans that nest in the area every couple of years. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Fisher whether he had information pertaining to property values once a substation is constructed. Mr. Fisher pointed out the fact that there are homes of comparable value along the 494 freeway built almost directly beneath a 345,000 volt line. A subdivision in Bloomington, River Bluffs Estates, has a 115,000 volt line running through it as well as a substation located in the area. Mr. Roe indicated that he would like to have HSP provide a third-party opinion as to the effect of the substation on his property value. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Roe whether he would be willing to pay to have this done? Mr. Roe asked whether MSP and the City would accept the findings of such a study if he agreed to fund it. Mr. Dick Haesel, 870 Hunt Farm Road, pointed out the fact that at the time he subdivided this parcel of landi^he City took Biany measures to insure that the enviroment woul(^be protected. Hr. Hassel said that it was disappointing that a representative from NSP had not approached the neighbors in the area to inform them of the proposal. Chairman Kelley concurred with Mr. Hassel and asked MSP how Involved they became with a particular community prior to construction of a facility? Nr. Hargraeves offered to provide the Planning Commission and public with information pertaining to the process in which this particular location was derived. Chairman Kelley said that there was no need to provide that information at this point. The issue at hand pertained to NSP meeting directly with the affected neighbors so that they would feel comfortable with this proposal. Mr. Hargraeves asked if it was not the purpose of this public hearing to do just that? Kelley said that there should have been a meeting several months llKiTBS OP fBB PlAimillG COMMSSIOa 1R6 JOLT 17, 1989 lOnK PILB f 1417>M8P COHTIODBD ago with the neighbors to allow thea to express their concerns and better understand NSP's proposal. Mr. Hargraeves indicated that it was not a policy of NSP to aeet with each individual neighborhood prior to constructing a facility in their area. Planning CoBMissioner Cohen concurred with Chairwan Kelley. Be informed Mr. Hargraeves that in this case, it may not be a natter of what MSP's policies are, but rather what policies that the City of Orono has that NSP may need to follow. He said that all of these issues should have been discussed with the neighborhood prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, ratner than carrying on in great length with these issues during the meeting. Mr. Hassel volunteered the use of his home for the joint meeting. Mr. Fisher said that he had contacted an individual resident of this neighborhood and talked at length abouc this project. He reiterated Mr. Hargraeves statement regarding NSP's policies. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Fisher if MSP would be willing to meet with the neighbors? Mr. Fisher replied that such an arrangement would be fine, however there were questions that would most likely be asked that would be impossible to prove. Mr. Fisher also noted that the revisions to the proposal tnat were made subsequent to the June 19, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting were a direct result of input from the neighbors attending that meeting. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Fisher when they hoped to begin construction on this substation? Mr. Hargraeves answered that NSP hoped to have the substation operating by J le, 1990, because the need for the service was that strong. Kell ’ asked how long it would take to construct the substation. Mr. -toskos replied that it would take approximately 3 months. Kelley asked if waiting one month, in order to allow for a neighborhood meeting, would interfere with the construction schedule? Planning Commissioner Johnson opined that he would like to see this matter moved on to the City Council and require NSP to meet with the neighbors in the mean time. Mr. James MacKinnon indicated that the impetus for NSP to respond would be better if the Planning Commission delayed their recommendation until the neighborhood meeting occurred. He said that the substation would have a lasting impact on the neighbor.'.ood and that such a delay would not interfere with MSP's construction schedule.» Mr. Tom Koepsel concurred with Mr. MacKinnon. Mr. Fisher asked whether it would be necessary to have a representative from the City and/or the Planning Commission in ■ 4. m'-d r NI8UTI8 OF Tn PIAHBnC O SSIOH VHRS JOLT 17, lift ZOHH6 FILE »1417>HSP COMTIEUBD attendance at the neighborhood meeting? Chairman Kelley and Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth agreed that a City representative and Planning Commission representative should attend the joint meeting. Planning Commissioner Brown volunteered to represent the Planning Commission. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown asked about distribution of the staff memo to the concerned neighbors. Mabusth replied that the memo was available to anyone that rquested to have a copy. Brown asked NSP whether they could provide a model of the proposed substation? Mr. Roskos said that only a drawing world be available. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Cosunissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of this application, subject to MSP meeting with the neighbors prior to the proceeding to the City Council meeting. Motion, Ayes«4, Brown, Nay due to his belief that Planning Commission approval should be given subsequent to the NSP/neighbor meeting taking place. Building and Zoning Administrator asked that a member of the Hunt Farm community visit an existing substation to listen to the sound. •1424 JIM RIVXilB (WIMOHARD MARIMB) 1444 SBORBLin DRIVB VRRIAMCB a COMMERCIAL SITE FLAM REVIEH PUBLIC HEAEIH6 StlO P.M. TO 8t30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Building and Fire Inspector Jacobs explained that the applicant intended to relocate the 4500 s.f. structure to the south side of the lot. Jacobs reminded the Planning Commission that the applicant had made a previous application (#1263) similar to the one presently being proposed, that was approved in 1988. Jacobs said that the applicant would require a 5* variance to relocate the structure. However, the proposed relocation would eliminate the need for the 5* variance granted in application 11263. Planning Commissioner Brown questioned the reason that Mr. Rivers wished to relocate the structure? Jacobs said that the State Building Code requires that fire resistive walls be provided without any openings should the building remain close to the lot line. Kelley questioned why Mr. Rivers would not be required to meet such standards if the structure were only 5' from the south lot line? Jacobs indicated that Mr. Rivers would HiaUTBS OP THE PLUOIIHG COMMISSIOH MBBTISG JULY 17« 1989 lOaiK PUB •1424-WIBDMARD NARIHB CCMTIHIIBD have to provide protected openings on the south side of the structure. Kr. Rivers said that he had no objections to that and added that the reason for sioving the structure was to elininate the cluttered appearance created by having the structure located near the adjacent residence. Jacobs noted that applicant was reducing the amount of hardcover from what he proposed in application #1263. Nr. Rivers intends to remove a boat ramp in order to reduce hardcover. Kelley inquired as to how Mr. Rivers would remove boats from the water. Mr. Rivers replied that he would use a crane. Jacobs further noted that there is pending litigation involving Mr. Rivers and Hennepin County regarding the number of feet required for County right-of-way. Should the Court find in favor of Mr. Riversr he has agreed to restore the area in question to green area. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. The commercial site plan review will basically remain the same as was proposed with application 11263. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and confirmed that the drainage and runoff would remain the same with this proposal. Chairman Kelley asked about lighting. Mr. Rivers replied that he will use the same lighting being used on the Tanager Lake side of Windward Marine. These lights will provide adequate illumination, but will not have any negative impact on the area residences. Chairman Kelley asked whether the average lakeshore setback would remain the same? Jacobs said that the only change in the average lakeshore setback would be the exchange of parking area fcr structure. Chairman Kelley observed that the applicant intended to change the access and questioned whether County approval would be necessary. Jacobs said that County approval would be necessary and would have to be obtained prior to the Council Meeting. Beth Whittaker, a representative for Minnetonka Boat Works, asked how many parking stalls would be lost if the City did not allow the 5' variance? Jacobs said that Mr. Rivers would lose an entire row of parking if the building had to be located 5' back. Ms. Whittaker indicated that Minnetonka Boat Works was not in favor of granting the 5* variance. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of application #1424, subject to staff recommendation items #1 through #7. Kelley asked about signage? Jacobs replied that signage would luVofis of ¥Bt PLMnmK comassioa meeting jolt 17, 1989 80MIN6 PILE •1424-NINMEBO MERIHB CONTINUED remain the same as proposed In application #1243. Motion» Ayes«5, Nays»0» Motion passed. #1425 NASD PERSELL 3405 NATBRTOMN EQAO VARIANCE PUBLIC EBARING 8s30 P.M. TO 8s35 P.N. Mr. James MacKinnon, the Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Ferrell, were present of their behalf. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history of this application. As a condition of their approval, the City Council agreed to allow a waiver of the 6 month time period normally required to re-apply for a variance. The applicants are now requesting a lot combination that would create a 1.89 acre new building site and leaves the existing building site with 1.01 acres. The 1.89 acre parcel has four septic dralnfield sites and development of this lot, in staff's opinion should not be a problem. There is concern about the 1.01 acre lot which has only one alternate dralnfield site. The City's policy in the past for commonly owned parcels in an unsewered xone has been that Council approval is required to subdivide the parcel. Mr. MacKinnon a? provided a history of the property. He said that the Ferrells were assessed and paid taxes from 1958 to 1986 based on the assumption that both lots were buildable sites. He said that this issue had become very emotional for the Ferrells. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes»2, Cohen, Moos, Brown, Nay, Motion failed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend denial of this application due to the possibility of setting a precedent by approving the creation of a substandard lot. Motion, Aye9*3, Kelley, Johnson, Nay, Motion passed. #1428 RALPH D. BURGESS, JR. 2610 NEST LAFAYETTE ROAD VARIANCB/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8t37 P.M. TO 9tl5 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Burgess were present for this matter, as well as Mr. Larry Berg, their attorney. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were 8 MINUTES OF THE PLAMMIHG COMMISSION JOIT 17, 1989 SOHIBG PILE #1428>BQ»«BSS CC»TIima> duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants intend to remove the existing residence and replace it with a new home. The key issue involved with the application is that grading in the lakeshore area will be necessary to create a walk-out. Mr. Burgess had several sketches depicting the existing and proposed house, as well as a model of the proposed house. Mr. Burgess said that 35* of shoreline washed away in the 1987 "super-storm". He said that the City Engineer and Mr. Gaffron had visited the site to determine the various ways in which the bank could be restored. The City Engineer had recommended to Mr. Burgess that retaining walls not be used if at all possible. An alternative would be to put a geotechnical fabric every two feet and rebuild the bank up to a determined slope. Mr. Burgess said that he planned to rip rap the shoreline approximately 3' above the high water mark. Mr. Burgess noted that the existing house encroaches the 75' setback line by 35*. The proposed house would be located behind the 75' setback. The new house would also be designed to conform in height with the neighboring residences. Mr. Berg said that the applicants proposal was an ecological improvement due to the elimination of hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone. There would be no interference with the natural direction of runoff and the rate of runoff will lessened. Chairman Kelley asked about the particular hardships involved with this application? Mr. Berg replied that carving out the area for the walkout was part of preserving the lakeshore area from further erosion. He said that the Burgesses were addressing water quality concerns. Mr. Berg also noted that this proposal had no adverse effect on the neighboring property, but rather the opposite. Mr. John Rodgers, a neighbor on the north side of Mr. and Mrs. Burgess, said that the portion of the Burgess's shoreline that caved in altered the water quality of his lakeshore. In his opinion, .? steep slope would be detrimental as it would allow such erosion to occur again. Mr. Rogers was also in favor of the reduced elevation of the applicants* new home. He said that the new home would be an asset to the community. Mr. Burgess said that the neighbor to the south, Mr. Thomas Lowe, had Indicated that he had no opinion, for or against this proposal. Chairman Kelley said that the excavation of the lakeshore area was the primary issue. Planning Coramlasioner Cohen concurred. Mr. Burgess asked why the excavation was such a difficult issue? MIHUTBS or ns riAimiHG COMMISSIOII MBBTine JOLY 17, 1989 [II HI80MIM6 PILB «1428>B01IGBSS COVTII Cohen said that such an issue was difficult because of the City's policy to discourage excavation for walkouts. Approval of this application would be precedent setting. Planning Commissioner Brown said he did not see an adequate hardship to justify approval of the variance. He felt that the bank could be restored without the need to excavate for the walkout feature of the proposed home. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that he appreciated the restoration of the bank and the house being set back behind the 75' setback line. However, he disapproved of excavation within the 0-75' zone. He also felt that given the size of the lot, hardcover within the 75-250' setback area could be maintained at 25%. Planning Commissioner Moos also felt that the proposed excavation was excessive and could find no hardship for doing so. Mr. Burgess said that City staff had indicated that conformance was important. He said that he did not understand how the Planning Commission could deny excavation within the lakeshore area without providing an adequate explanation as to why. In his opinion his proposal addressed th-j ecological concerns of the City. He believed his proposal was a substantial improvement from what currently existed. Mr. Berg said that there was no legal basis for rejecting a hardship on the grounds that there was an alternative to a particular proposal. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend denial of this aoplication due to the proposal inte»'fering in the 0-75' setback zone and no adequate hardship demonstrated to do so. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays*0, Motion passed. (At this time, 9:15 p.m.. Planning Commissioner Cohen departed.) SKETCH PLAM RBVlElf #1427 AlAH CARLSON, 3140 WATERTOWN ROAD SUBDIVISION Mr. Alan Carlson was present for this sketch plan review, as was Mr. Gary Peterson, his Developer. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that there was 41.6 acres of land that Mr. Carlson wished to subdivide. Mr. Carlson said t....t he purchased Dr. Panuska’s property r MIHUTBS OF THE PIAHMllG COMMlSSlCW HSeTlVG JOLT 17, 1989 with the intention to tastefully subdivide it. He said he only planned on the development of 14 lots, which would average 3 acres of h..gh ground pe~ lot. He noted that there were everal mature trees growing in the area designated as wetland. He said that Dr. Panuska had dug several ditches to drain the area. Mr. Carlson asked for direction from the Planning Commission as to the best way to develop the northern lots. Chairman Kelley offered a suggestion to convert that area into a commons area to serve the residents of the subdivision. He said that a PUD could be done. Mabusth replied that staff would prefer that the applicant not use a PUD/PRD. She said that it was difficult to do a PRD with residence pads less than 2 acres in area. She said that such a pad size will not provide adequate area for all of the improvements (swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.) associated with the residence normally built on such lots. It is necessary to maintain legal setbacks from alternate drainfield sites and well locations. Kelley asked whether it would be possible to restrict pools and tennis courts in the covenants? Mabusth replied that such restrictions would be beneficial to the City, but questioned how it would affect the saleability of the lots and that applicant should comment. Chairman Kelley expressed concern about having a house located behind the wetlands. He believed that providing access to that lot would disturb any existing drain tile which would alter the wetlands. Mr. Carlson said that he could probably use various resources to locate the drain tile. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth presented several options for accessing the northern lots. She informed Mr. Carlson that it would be necessary for the O.S. Army Corp. of Engineers to review any proposed encroachment into wetlands. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Carlson what he intended to dc with the existing structures? Mr. Carlson said that it would be a shame to tear down the existing house. He said he would like to sell it to someone who would fix it up. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that he would like to see only 2 lots developed in the northern area of the property. Mr. Carlson said that there would be a need for an access nc matter how many lots were developed. The Planning Commissio.. indicated that they had no objections to access b^.»rig achieved through the wetlands. Chairman Keliey noted that the applicant would only need a variance for encroachment into the wetland area in order to develop this property. Mabusth added that a conditional use permit would also be required. Mabusth reminded the Planning Commission that with this subdivision, Orono would be gaining an east/west access road that would serve as a future through road. mmiTBS OP THE PLMnilTC COffMlSSION MBBTIHG JULY 17, 1989 #1427 8KSTCB PIAH REVIBN-CASLS08 COHTIHUBD Ms. Cici Grahan, 95 Leaf Street, expressed her concern for the environment and wildlife and hoped that Mr. Carlson vouldl take care in development of this property. ADDmoma. items REGULAR JOINT COUNCIL fr PLANNING SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1989 CANCELLED ssioa ITIHG APPROVAL OP PLANNING C0IQU88I0N MINUTES OP JUNE 19, 1989 It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to approve the Minute of the June 19, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The July 17, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.