HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 12151992 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
101327
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1992
Document: PL MINUTES 12151992
1 CITY OF ST.ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• 3 December 15, 1992
4
5
61. CALL TO ORDER
7
8 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pan. with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair Faust.
9
10 H. ROLL CAL.
11
. 12 Commissioners present: Thompson, Gondorchin,Murphy, Faust, Werenicz and Madden.
13 Commissioners absent: Franzese.
14
15 Staff present: Management Assistant Dave Urbia:
16 City Attorney Wm. Soth (at 8:30 p.m.).
17
18 HI. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
19
20 Motion by Murphy, seconded by Werenicz to approve the minutes for the November 17, 1992
21 Planning Conunission meeting with the following corrections:
22
23 Page 7,line 28: Substitute "Chairperson" for "Chair".
24 Page 7, line 29: Substitute "Chair" for "Chairperson".
25 Page 7,line 30: Substitute "preferable" for "correct".
26 Page 8,line 7: Insert "not" between "and" and "favoring".
27 Page 9,line 51: Insert "Commissioner Madden announced his intention to abstain from.
•28 any vote taken on compensation".
29
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
32 IV. DESIGNATION OF COM OUSSION REPRESENTATIVE TO JANUARY 12, 1993
33 COUNCIL MEETING
34
35 Commissioner Murphy will represent the Planning Commission at the January 12, 1993
36 Council meeting which will start at 7:00 p.m. rather than 7:30 p.m. in accordance with the
37 City Ordinance change anticipated to be adopted during the December 22 Council meeting.
38
39 V. PUBLC HEARINGS-NONE
40
41 VI. MISCELLANEOUS
42
43 A. Comprehensive Sign Plan-James Sama and William Vogt for Stop-N-Shop.3813
44 Stinson Boulevard.
45
46 The Management Assistant confirmed that the Stop-N-Shop station and adjoviing businesses
47 met the criteria for a "strip mall" which had been included in the City's new Sign Ordinance.
48 The existing signage at that location could now be reconsidered under the new category. The
49 applicants had submitted a comprehensive sign plan which included the existing tenant wall
50 signs, replacement of the gas station pylon Conoco sign custom made for that site, and the
•
I Planning Commission Meeting
2 December 15, 1992
3 Page Two
4
5
6
7 construction of an illuminated ground sign to identify the mall. It was determined that the
8 larger Conoco sign in the agenda packet actually only had 206.5 square feet of sign surface
9 which was less than the 208.7 square foot sign for which the applicants had been granted a
10 variance in October, 1991.
11
12 The ground sign was proposed to be 128 square feet of sign surface where the new sign
13 ordinance allows 150 square feet. When questioned about what was planned for the base of
14 the sign, Mr. Vogt indicated there were 22 feet of lawn, trees, decorative rock and shrubbery
15 all around the front and both sides of the site. He said the footings for the ground sign are
16 within the planted area but the trees,-shrubs and rock are in other_areas. Commissioner
17 Madden pointed out that under the new ordinance the ground sign can only be five feet high
18 unless it qualifies for a height bonus which for a 128 foot sign would seem to require 192
19 square feet of qualifying landscaping around the pedestal of the sign.
20
21 The applicants indicated a willingness to work with staff to bring the signage into
22 conformance with the requirements of the ordinance.
23
24 Commissioner Madden told Mr. Vogt and Mr. Sarna how gratified he was to see their
25 operation up and thriving. However, he said he was concerned about the profusion of
26 non-conforniing signage he perceived on their property including the lottery banner on their
27 store; the signs above the four gas pumps, and the oversized sign in the door window of what
• 28 was formerly Mr. Roberts Beauty Shop which advertised that business' relocation to
29 Columbia Heights. The fact that the signs had been up for such a long gime caused hum to
30 doubt the sincerity of the City staff's efforts to enforce the sign ordinance,the Commissioner
31 indicated. He said he was especially concerned since this was the City's first efforts under the
32 new Sign Ordinance and he perceived precedents were being set which could diminish the
33 intent of the ordinance right at its start. When Mr. Urbia said he would have to refer these
34 complaints to the City Manager, Commissioner Madden indicated that to demonstrate his
35 displeasure with a lack of commitment to enforcement he intended to abstain from voting on
36 the motion of approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan.
37
38 The applicants indicated a willingness to work with staff to bring the proposed signage into
39 confomnance with the requirements of the ordinance to avoid having to go through a public
40 hearing on any variance from the ordinance.
41
42 Motion by Murphy, seconded by Thompson to recommend Council approval of the
43 Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Stop-N-Shop mall on the condition that the Conoco pylon
44 sign not exceed the 208.7 square feet of sign surface for which the applicants had been granted
45 a 55 foot variance in the fall of 199.1 and that landscaping around the pedestal of the ground
46 sign be provided in accordance with the requirements set forth oil Page 12, Subdivision 4,
47 Subsection 1 of the Sign Ordinance dealing with strip malls.
48
49 Voting on the motion: Thompson,Gondorchin,Murphy,Faust, Werenicz-Aye.
50 Madden -Abstention.
51
52 Motion carried.
•
I Planning Commission Meeting
2 December 15, 1992
• 3 Page Tinee
4
5
6
7 B. Concept Review for Lot Split to Build Single Family Home at 2612-14 37th Avenue
8 N.E.
9
10 Mr. Urbia explained that this proposal was being presented for a concept review under the
11 new policy of giving variance requests concept reviews rather than having proposals which
12 have the potential of not being approved presented as formal applications for which
13 application fees would have to be paid.
l.4
_ - 15 The Management Assistant pointed out that the proposal from Douglas and Nancy Tanner,
16 2206 St. Anthony Boulevard, would require three variances as well as a zoning change. He
17 said the existing lot is zoned R-2 and a change to R-1 would be necessary for the proposed
18 single family dwelling. The City Zoning Ordinance requires an interior lot to have at least
19 9,000 square feet with a width of 75 feet where the single family lot the Tanners propose
20 would have only 6,500 square feet and would be only 65 feet wide. This would leave only an
21 area of 8,500 square feet around the duplex where the Ordinance requires 14,000 square.feet
22 for a duplex on a corner lot. The width requirement of 100 feet however would be met.
23
24 Mr. Urbia suggested the Commissioners determine whether the hardship required by state
25 statute could be established for the variances necessary for this lot split and also whether the
26 precedent which would be set would be appropriate.
27
• 28 Commissioner Murphy inquired whether staff had been able to do the requested research on
29 the nunnber of St. Anthony lots where there is a potential for creating 65 foot lots. Mr. Urbia
30 indicated he had not been able to complete that analysis but said lie perceived the proposed lot
31 split was not the same since the lots lie was to report on for the most part involved-separate
32 parcels which would be combined for tax purposes or small lots which might be combined to
33 allow for larger homes. The Commissioner lie was mostly interested in existing city lots
34 which are 65 feet wide to compare with the Tamer proposal. He indicated he would also be
35 concerned with creating an 8,500 square foot corner lot for a duplex. The Chair agreed,
36 pointing out that the existing lot was only 1,000 square feet larger than the 14,000 square feet
37 required for this comer lot.
38
39 Mr. Tanner discussed the drawing he had submitted for his proposal. He indicated he
40 believed the single family home he was requesting he be allowed to build next to the duplex
41 would cosmetically fit in well with the rest of that particular neighborhood. The applicant
42 said he had understood from Larry Hamer that although the total area in his proposal might be
43 less than required by City code, the offsets would be in line with the ordinance requirements.
44 Mr. Tanner told the Commissioners he believed there would be at least 20 feet between the
45 proposed single family structure and the house next door. There would also be at least 30 feet
46 between his daughter's home and the duplex and the required 30 foot front yard setbacks
47 would be maintained for both buildings along Harding Street.
48
•
I Planning Commission Meeting
• 2 December 15, 1992
3 Page Four
4
5
6
7 Mr. Tanner said Mr. Hamer had informed him about the hardships lie would have to
8 demonstrate to get his proposal approved. He admitted the only hardship he could cite was
9 the opportunity to increase the economic value of his property and to decrease the costs of
10 maintaining such a large lot. However, he wondered whether the fact that St. Anthony would
11 derive more taxes from the single family home might make a difference.
12 _
13 Commissioner Gondorchin agreed with Commissioner Murphy that it would be helpful to
14 know the potential for redevelopment of 65 foot lots in St. Anthony before snaking any
15 decision on the proposed 65 foot lot resulting from the proposed lot split. He said lie had to
16 agree with Mr. Tanner's assessment-of the kind of hardship involved in this proposal because
17 he perceived there had been no demonstration that this land couldn't be put to reasonable use
18 without splitting. Coirunnissioner Madden told the Tanners lie envied their having such a
19 large, beautiful lot. He also agreed that the requirement to demonstrate hardship could
20 probably not be satisfied with their proposal.
21
22 Commissioner Madden told the Tanners he envied their having such a large beautiful lot. He
23 also agreed that the requirement to demonstrate hardship would probably not be satisfied with
24 their proposal.
25
26 Connmissioner Werenicz said he perceived that by splitting their property the Tanners would
27 only be creating two substandard lots. He said he wasn't bothered by a single family
• 28 residence on an interior lot as much as the fact that the resultant corner lot with a duplex on it
29 would be so undersized as compared to the corner lots in St. Anthony which are built to code.
30 The Commissioner concluded by saying if the proposal came before the Commission in the
31 form of a formal application, he would have no choice but to oppose it.
32
33 Commissioner Thompson said the Tanners appeared to him to be good property owners for
34 the City and said he didn't see too much wrong with he proposal himself unless it could be a
35 case of setting a bad precedent. He said he would only sympathize with Mr. Tanner trying to
36 maintain a corner lot because he had one like it himself.
37
38 Chair Faust indicated there were good reasons vnvolving health, welfare and safety for
39 requiring 14,000 square feet for a comer lot with a duplex which he perceived had been
40 validated many times over the years. He also said he would not be in favor of the split should
41 it ever come before the Commission as an application because he couldn't see how the three
42 statutory requirements for variances could be satisfied by the proposal before the
43 Commissioners that evening. The Chair complimented the Tanners on the manner in which
44 they had maintained their property assuming that they were aware it was only good business
45 to do so. Chair Faust concluded by saying he perceived this was another example of where
46 having concept reviews precede formal applications had proved to be the best policy.
47
I Planning Commission Meeting
2 December 15, 1992
3 Page Five
4
5
6
7 Mr. Tanner thanked the Commissioners for hearing him out. He said lie had a full
8 understanding of what constituted a hardship before the meeting but just wanted to test
9 whether the fact the new properties would be so compatible with the neighborhood would
10 make any difference in their consideration.
12 The agenda was changed to delay the discussion with the City Attorney until 8:30 p.m.
13
.14 D. Adoption of Revised Planning Commission Bylaws
15
16 Chair Faust indicated he perceived all the changes in the bylaw which had been made during
17 the Commission's November 18-meeting had been incorporated into the document in the
18 agenda packet.
19
20 Motion by Madden, seconded by Murphy to adopt the City of St. Anthony Planning
21 Commission Bylaws as presented and to refer them to the City Council for adoption at their
22 January 12, 1993 meeting.
23
24 Motion carred unanimously.
25
26 VII. STAFF UPDATE
27
28 A_ Staff Report ie:Reimbursement for Expenses and Other Issues
29
30 Mr. Urbia's November 19th memorandum answering questions asked at the November 17th
31 Conunissiotn meeting was considered and ordered filed for future reference.
32
33 The Management Assistant had recommended the Planning Commission change its start time
34 to conform with the 7:00 start time the Council will be adopting by ordinance during their
35 December 22, 1992 meeting.
36
37 Motion by Madden, seconded by Gondorchin to change the start time for future Planning
38 Commission meetings to 7:00 p.m.
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41
42 A discussion of how the permanent binders which had been distributed that evening could be
43 utilized preceded the Management Assistant's progress report on issues on which the
44 Commissioners had requested further information during previous meetings.
45
46 Mr. Urbia indicated an acceptable price had been negotiated for the substandard property at
47 3112 Silver Lake Road for H.R.A. purchase as discussed in November. He said staff is
48 looking for a developer or a real estate firm to construct a home on the property as soon as
49 possible. The Management Assistant also reported the owner of the Clark Station on 33rd and
50 Stinson is having an environmental study done on the property anticipating possession by the
51 H.R.A. by next spring. The paycheck on these properties might not be so great but Mr. Urbia
52 said at least the City would be getting rid of blight in both areas.
•
1 Planning Commission Meeting
• 2 December 15, 1992
3 Page Six
4
5
6
7 VI. C. Discussion with City Attomey
8
9 1. Legal Definition of Hardship
i0
11 Mr. Soth arrived at 8:30 p.m. and indicated he had come to shed some light on issues which
12 Conumnissioners had indicated a need for further guidance. Copies of information from the
13 Attorney as provided the Commission in October and November had been included in the
14 agenda packets that evening. - -
15
16 The City Attorney indicated what the City was trying to do with the new code was to clean up -
17 the ordinance on variances to make it clearly track the state statutes governing the issuance of
18 variances. After reading aloud those provisions which established requirements for allowing
19 variances,Mr. Soth commented that it would certainly be more advantageous for city councils
20 not to have to follow those requirements so closely. He said it would give cities more
21 flexibility and opportunity for using their own discretion if those requirements weren't so
22 restrictive. However, he said there have been bills introduced in the Legislature which could
23 loosen up the procedures and make them more flexible. Unfortunately, as the law now stands
24 the City Attorney indicated St. Anthony doesn't have much discretion when it comes to
25 variances. Instead, variances can only be granted if die City makes the required findings for
26 granting them.
27
1028 2. Accessory Structure Permit Options
29
30 Chair Faust told the City Attorney he anticipated the garage issue to become a very difficult
31 one for St. Anthony which has so many single garages where new housing standards call for
32 double structures. Mr. Soth reviewed the three options he had discussed in the information
33 the Commission had been provided in November, reiterating that the third, the issuance of
34 setback permits for garages was one he had come up with for another community with the
35 same problem. He pointed out that the City could retain all the control it wanted with this
36 option since the applicant would have to meet certain criteria for a particular setback for a
37 garage without a variance. Those criteria were set forth in the materials provided in the he
38 agenda packet. The City Attorney reiterated that this was the procedure which could be
39 followed if the City wanted to review the permits before granting them.
40
41 The advantages of granting setback permits versus just establishing setbacks in the ordinance
42 were explored as well as the problems with allowing front yard garages. There was also
43 discussion of whether the permit option would work instead of a specific parking ordinance.
44 Mr. Soth indicated he perceived it would be necessary to set up the same sort of criteria which
45 the applicant would have to meet before such a permit was issued.
46
47 Mr. Urbia commented that the ordinance to allow setback permits for garages would probably
48 remain stationary until people began wanting to add three car garages but lie perceived the
49 parking permit ordinance might generate too much business for staff to htuulle as people sold
50 and bought different types of recreational vehicles. It was agreed that Commissioners would
51 have to plan to devote a meeting without much business to determine just what criteria would
52 have to be established to address changing trends in garages aid recreational vehicles.
•
1 Planning Commission Meeting
• 2 December 15, 1992
3 Page Seven
4
5
6
7 3. Sign Ordinance—Options for Nonconforming Signs
8
9 Chair Faust told Mr. Soth he had not clearly understood some of his letters related to
10 amortization and removal of signage. Mr. Soth agreed that this was not an easy topic. He
11 indicated he intended to talk to the Minnetonka City Attorney about Minnetonka's recent
12 ordinance dealing with phasing out buildings which are no longer in conformance with the
13 City's ordinances because he would be interested to learn whether the rezoning and
14 elimination of buildings which had been grandfathered in was really enforceable.
_ 15
16 There was a discussion of the Naegele sign case with the City Attorney reiterating that he had
17 later come across a statute which dealt primarily with signage along state highways but which
18 might also be applicable to cities' abilities to phase out nonconforming signs. There was
19 agreement that fixture manufacturers would have to be contacted to determine the useful life
20 of signs before any effort would be made to amortize signage in St. Anthony. When Mr. Soth
21 told the Commissioner any changes proposed that evening could still be made in the
22 recodification to be acted on by the Council at their meeting December 22, Commissioner
23 Madden raised the question about signage for establishments with two frontages. The City
24 Attorney indicated he intended to see to it that the matter was cleared up in the new ordinance.
25
26 4. Separation of Undersized Lots Held in Single Ownership
27
• 28 Chair Faust told the City Attorney that the last issue on which the Commissioners wished to
29 pick his brain was how undersized lots held in single ownership would be handled. Mr. Soth
30 told him the question had first been raised by the City Manager about a situation where there
31 were two lots that were one tax parcel. He said there is much confusion about tax parcels and
32 just because there might be two tax parcels didn't necessarily mean the lots can be separately
33 owned. He indicated the county might issue separate tax statements at the owners request but
34 they often contacted the City to get its approval of the issuance of multiple tax statements.
35 The City Attorney reminded the Commissioners that what really governs isn't how many tax
36 statements are issued but rather the City's subdivision ordinance. Mr. Soth said he didn't
37 think from talking to the City Manager that St. Anthony had a lot of undersized lots as
38 compared to others who have quite a few tiny lots that have cottages on them where you could
39 never build a.home under St. Anthony's ordinances. The situation where people had to
40 combine two or three small lots to get a homnesite would be very difficult for St. Anthony if
41 the owners came in for a building pen-nit and were told the area was too small and they then
42 requested a variance based on the hardship that the area wasn't big enough to build on. Mr.
43 Soth indicated the City wouldn't ever want to let undersized lots get into separate ownership.
44
45 The City Manager was requested to see if there were any situations in the City where the
46 grandfathering of an undersized lot might present a problem and if he found some to refer
47 them to him to deal with specifically. The Attorney told the Commissioners he perceived the
48 issue here was whether there is something the City needs to write into the ordinance to protect
49 against undersized lots being split up or would such a provision create more trouble than it
50 cured.
i
I Planning Commission Meeting
2 December 15, 1992
3 Page Eight
4
5
6
7 Chair Faust indicated he perceived the City had a lot of 66 foot lots and he thought the
8 Commission needed to find out how many potential problems the City might have. There was
0 a discussion of the ten foot lot behind the Clark station which the neighbors on Roosevelt had
10 bought. Mr. Soth indicated that if that lot carne into single ownership the City could have an
11 ordinance saying it can't ever be separated again. However, before going through that
12 procedure the City Attorney indicated he would want to know whether the City really had a
13 problem because such an ordinance might only create problems for your 66 foot lot owners
14 unless you made an exception for 66 foot lots. He said he didn't think the City would want to
15 create a situation where all the owners of 66 foot lots would forever have to hold two such lots
16 together and could never-separate-them. The Chair indicated he perceived the Commission
17 should wait to find out whether the City had a problem and then go on from there. -
18
19 Mr. Soth told the Commissioners they should have a new code to deal with before the
20 beginning of the New Year which would be in operation as soon as it is published. He said it
21 would be much easier to update than the old code. Mr. Urbia indicated the old books would
22 be replaced and every time an ordinance is passed it will all be on the computer and staff will
23 just redo that page for the Commissions to slip into their copies of the City Ordinances.
24
25 Chair Faust told Mr. Soth the Commissioners appreciated his taking the time to speak to them
26 that evening. He asked the City Attorney to feel free to let the Corrunission know if there is
27 anything he perceives they need guidance on. Mr. Soth agreed saying he perceived the
• 28 hardest thing for a Planning Commission or a City Council to deal with he found was getting
29 the reasons for their actions into the minutes so everybody knows why they granted or denied
30 something. He said 99 times out of 100 it is no problem because no one bothers to check.
31 However, if somebody challenges your actions and those reasons are not in the minutes,
32 "we're dead in court". The Chair asked that if he ever saw where the Commissioners could
33 improve on what they are doing, the City Attorney let them know because that way the
34 Commissioners would get in the habit of stating clearly the reasons for reconnmending
35 Council action.
36
37 VIIL COW&WIONERS'COhEMEIdTTS
38
39 Commissioner Madden asked Mr. Urbia to bring the Commission up-to-date on Cub Food
40 going into Apache. The Management Assistant indicated it was all up to Cub at this point.
41 However, he said he hoped the project could be finalized before the Legislature moves on tax
42 increment projects. Chair Faust indicated he would appreciate being alerted if it appears
43 legislation is going against tax increment financing so he and anyone else on the Commission
44 who wishes to do can lobby against any change. Mr. Urbia commented that the argument that
45 tax increment financing somehow takes away from the schools would certainly not be valid in
46 relation to Apache which is in danger of closing.
47
48 Commissioner Werenicz was concerned about the fence around the property at 37th and Silver
49 Lake Road which had gone up since the Commission had indicated its opposition to it during
50 a concept review. Mr. Urbia said the owner's wife had promised they would only go four feet
51 high in front and six feet to the rear and side which is legal and which they did. The fence
52 was the concern of several other commissioners as well.
I Planning Commission Meeting
• 2 December 15, 1992
3 Page Nine
4
5
6
7 The Management Assistant toll Commissioner Thompson the Realtor at 39th and Silver Lake
8 Road is moving to a location behind the Stop-N-Shop.*The location they vacated and the
9 property where the house has been moved off are being considered for a dentist office
10 building which would utilize both properties. They City is looking at a proposal for another
11 tax increment redevelopment project proposal and the numbers so far are looking good.
12 Preliminary plans indicate parking would be no problem and the proposed building appears to
13 be very satisfactory. Mr. Urbia commented that a dentist office should be more acceptable to
14 the adjoining residential neighborhood because dentist offices usually close at night.
15
'16 Chair Faust reported he had noticed on page 11 of the November 10th Council minutes that it
17 had been reported the Planning Commission had held a public hearing on the
18 recommendations from the Road Task Force: Commissioner Madden agreed that the report
19 from the Task Force Chair had only been listed under Miscellaneous in the November 17
20 Planning Commission agenda. The Management Assistant concurred saying it was the first
21 chance for the pubic to hear the report but it certainly hadn't been a formal public hearing per
22 se.
23
24 Chau Faust indicated he wanted to bring up an issue which came up during both Council and
25 Planning Commission meetings as recorded in those minutes. He said he was referring to
26 remarks which were reported as "off the record", admitting he had been as guilty as anyone of
27 using that ploy. The Chair observed that if the meeting were telecast there would be no way
• 28 of turning the camera off and he believed the secretary should not be asked to turn off the tape
29 recorder either. Chair Faust suggested it might be more appropriate to either recess or adjourn
30 the meeting for remarks which are not intended to be made public. Commissioner Madden
31 pointed out that he recalled the last time he had requested a recess the Chair had not granted
32 his request. He said the conversation had involved a discussion with a Sports Booster who
33 wanted to talk about improvements in the sports area of Central Park for which he had
34 requested a five minute recess. Chair Faust said he couldn't recall the incident but wanted to
35 apologize if he had turned down that request. The Chair went on to say it was his personal
36 opinion that anything said during a Conunnission meeting should be made public. Chair Faust
37 said this had become an integrity issue for him for which he wished to chastise himself and to
38 recommend the practice be avoided.
39
40 The Commissioners were reminded that the election of officers would be held at the fust
41 Commission meeting in January. The Chair then extended his wishes for a Happy New Year
42 to all present.
43
44 Before the meeting was closed, Mr. Urbia thanked the Commissioners for bringing the lack of
45 landscaping around the Stop-N-Shop mall sign to his attention. He indicated he might be
46 bringing the issue of what materials could be used in this area to the Council since the newest
47 trend in recycling calls for using woodchips instead of rock which just kills anything
48 underneath. He also said he thought chips were more attractive looking than rock and pointed
49 out that using them would create a market for the City's woodchips. Commissioner Madden
50 agreed that woodchips look.beautiful when you first put theta out but said they look terrible
51 after three or four months. He also mentioned that woodchip cover seems to encourage the
52 breeding of little bugs. The Management Assistant said he perceived the trick was to cover
53 the chips when it rained so they would decompose naturally and could be replaced.
54 Connnissioner Madden pointed out that the City Ordinance did not allow the use of
55 woodchips for landscaping around signs. The Management Assistant indicated he wanted to
56 get the Council perspective on the issue nevertheless.
1 .Planning Commission Meeting
2 December 15, 1992
3 Page Ten
4
5
6
7 M ADJOURNMENT
8
9 Motion by Thompson, seconded by Murphy to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
10
11 Motion caaied unanimously.
12
13 Respectfully submitted,
14
15
16
17 Helen Crowe, Secretary Pro Tem
•