Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 15, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Pianning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page 55 of 67 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 04-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for a re-subdivision of Lot 2, Tramore Subdivision consisting of 16 multi-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders - east of North Linder Road on south side of East Pine Avenue: Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 04-018 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a reduction to 10 feet for the rear setback, minimum 5-foot side setback, minimum 20-foot front setback and no minimum frontage requirement for lots within the proposed development for Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders - east of North Linder Road on south side of East Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. Thank you. The next items are for the Roundtree Subdivision. Public Hearing PP 04-018, the request for preliminary plat approval for a re-subdivision of Lot 2, Tramore Subdivision, consisting of 16 multi-family residential building lots and three common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for the proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders. And, then, Public Hearing CUP 04-018, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduction of ten feet to the rear setbacks, minimum five foot setbacks and 20-foot setbacks. I'd like to open these two public hearings and, legal counsel; did you have a comment you wanted to make first? Gabbert: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. I just wanted to disclose for the record that the law firm of White Peterson has represented Big View Builders on some of the corporate work. We have not been directly involved in this project as we -- lead counsel Phil Peterson had abstained from any work on this project directly, so we do not perceive that there would be any conflict of interest, and we would continue to advise the Commission on this application. I just wanted to disclose that for the record and let everyone know that that potential interest exists. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. So, then, we'd like to start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This site is also probably pretty familiar to the Commission. It was before this board about four months ago, I believe. Was another one that the City Council denied. I'll talk about that in just a minute. It is located on the south side of Pine Avenue, it is approximately 5.7 acres in size and it's about 1,000 feet east of Linder Road. It's designated as high density residential on the Comp Plan future land use map and it's currently zoned L-O. To the north of this, which isn't reflected very well on this aerial, are the recently constructed Tramore senior apartments and on the other side of Pine Avenue north, as you can see, is a residential development, a couple of them, actually, and they are zoned R-4. To the south of this site is the Union Pacific Railroad. We have a large corridor there and that's currently vacant on the other side of that -- of the railroad tracks. To the east is a 7.5-acre parcel, which also should Meridian Piannlng & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 56 of 67 be somewhat familiar. Rock Creek multi-family housing development, which was recently recommended to the City Council for approval by the board a few months ago. And, then -- and approved by Council. Thank you. And the west is Sunbridge Living Center, currently zoned L-O, which you can see on the area map. The submitted preliminary plat -- and I will apologize for the quality of this. The site plan is a little bit better, but here is the preliminary plat. They are proposing to subdivide the existing 4.7 acres into 16 multi-family residential lots and three common lots. As I mentioned earlier, this site was part of the Tramore Subdivision, which was a two lot preliminary final, which was approved by the city in 2001. The other lot in Tramore is the senior apartments and this is the remainder lot. As part of that Tramore development, a 50 foot wide cross-access easement was approved in to intersect Pine Avenue near the west property line. This is the flag portion of the subject lot, which is currently how the senior -- senior apartments get access to the public street system to cross this flag lot on the subject property. And this access is 25 feet wide and has curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the east side of the drive aisle. It currently terminates on the north side of the Nine Mile Drain, which the applicant is proposing to culvert and extend in through this development. The submitted CUP for a planned development, they propose 16 -- there is 16 lots on the plat, so 16 multi-family buildings, each containing one four-plex, for a total of 64 units. The CUP includes a request for reduced side and rear setbacks for the buildings and reduced lot frontage in the L-O zone. The applicant is proposing no street frontage per se for these units and all access is from that common drive, so these will all have access to the common drive easement out to Pine Avenue, rather than having any street frontage. As amenities for the PD, the applicant is proposing to construct a picnic area with a sand court. That's located in this area here. And a shelter. That's Lot 14, Block 1. In addition, to the amenities on. that lot, there is some open space areas here and here, as well as a 33 foot area from the back of this building to the property line and included in that is about 1.19 acres of this 5.7 acre site set aside for open space. Now, some of that does include the subject property that goes on the north side of the Nine Mile Drain, some of that is included in that calculation, but about 20 percent of the site is set-aside in open space. There are the current elevations submitted with this application. Quite an improvement from the last submittal, four- plexes, again, much like the last application, staff is pleased with this compared to your typical box type four-flex. We think there is some good design features here and also talk about the amenities; the private usable open space was a big topic at the last hearing for this one and other residential PDs, so I'll talk about that in just a moment. The previous application was denied by the City Council, as I mentioned, for the following reasons: The proposed roadway configuration, along with the proposed access to the east, specifically traffic would cut through the drive aisles causing safety issues for the senior citizens residents of the Tramore apartment complex, as well as Sunbridge. Foot traffic was a safety issue for Tramore and Sun bridge, as well as any future residences within this complex. The multi-family residential use design proposed was incompatible with the surrounding Tramore Senior Center and the Sunbridge complex due to the intense density and the project did not provide an adequate amount of private space or open space for each living unit. I did just want to touch on all of those reasons and let you know how the applicant has addressed them. They may want to further expound on that, but just -- the roadway configuration, we are pretty Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15.2004 Page 57 of 67 stuck with whatever happens here, using this flag lot as access to Pine. There have been concerns from neighbors in the area about traffic in this area. It is a concern. Anything that goes in here is going to generate more trips. The applicant has, as mentioned, for reason of denial, removed two of the buildings from the previous application, eight dwelling units has been reduced, and they have added that in open space. It has a significant jog in it. This section is straight, but there is not much else you can do with that and as soon as it's culverted and runs across there is a jog. Maybe some options that could work for further slowing down vehicles is maybe some speed humps here or, you know, somewhere in there, or some chokers, something like that, where it really narrows down the drive lane, people tend to slow down like that. This is a private driveway and it's not going to be up to the highway district in this case. It is on the subject parcel, so it's something like that, if that's, you know, something you feel. In the last application Tramore was concerned about people speeding next to the senior apartments and that's a concern that staff has as well, but there are some constraints and they all need to use this access point. So, the cut-through traffic concern that was raised, consistent with the previous application, they are stubbing, if you will, this drive aisle to the east and it will be used for emergency access only. Staff was pushing for true interconnectivity between the developments. The City Council made that a reason for denial,is that they didn't want to see more traffic potentially using this access point. So, staff has put up the fight and is willing to concede that that be emergency access only, a slider gate for the fire department's requirements, as included in the staff report. So, that cut through traffic concern should no longer be an issue. Foot traffic. The applicant is proposing -- there is currently a sidewalk on the north side. The site plan and landscape shows a sidewalk on the south side. Staff did make one change to the landscape plan. In order for this pathway to connect on through and up through the multi-use pathway, there is a little sliver here from the edge of pavement to the property line that needs to be constructed by the applicant, just so they are not wearing a path in the landscaping across, but there is actually an impervious surface there. As I mentioned before, the applicant has reduced the density by eight dwelling units, which was one of the concerns, and they have increased the usable private open space, so that's where I'll talk a little bit about that and, then, let the applicant further clarify. They are proposing patios with some privacy fencing and a - not a gazebo. That's what I'm trying to think of. Shown on the landscape plan. I hope you all had a chance to look at that and, meanwhile, there are some other pictures that the applicant has brought tonight. I guess to just summarize, the outstanding issues, the -- they have pretty much been addressed from the 48-foot private usable as proposed to the hundred -- 400 square feet of usable. The elevations significantly improved, in staff's opinion. There still are the concerns with the neighbors. I mean it doesn't look like we have a lot of them in the audience tonight, but, you know, those concerns are still there regarding traffic in the area and compatibility with the senior apartments and I did just -- I just want to point out that compatibility issues recently that, you know, the city did approve the multi-family here, you have multi-family to the north and a railroad corridor, future transit corridor to the south. Staff believes that's pretty compatible and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit application list the changes and conditions noted in the staff report. I'll stand for any questions. Thanks. Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page 56 of 67 Borup: Questions? Moe: Yes. I got a little bit curious as far as the storm drainage and whatnot. I did note that they are going with retention. Is there -- do we have a plan showing where retention ponds are going to be located in all this open space area? Hood: It should wait -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe -- Moe: They can answer that? Hood: The applicant here may be able to answer that, if you will hold just -- hold on for a minute. Moe: I will wait. Borup: I thought they were waiting for another comment. Sorry. Is the applicant ready for their presentation? Zaremba: I would make one comment while the applicant is working away up here. Craig, I would make a comment on page nine of the staff comments. Paragraph seven says place a note on the face of the final plat no fencing shall be built closer to any building than five feet per story. By including that you have saved everybody from a long dissertation from me on the exact subject. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to personally thank Craig. Zaremba: And I appreciate that and I'm sure everybody else does, too. Newton-Huckabay: I thought about you when I read that last night. Borup: Okay, sir. Rennison: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council, John Rennison representing the -- my clients tonight Big View Builders and Walden Hughes, 128 South Eagle Road in Eagle. So, where to start. I will start with the first question that came up, which was in regard to the storm drainage. We will put it underground and -- with seepage beds. That's the plan. I talked to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District also about perhaps a possibility of discharging pre-development stuff to their drain, but nowadays that's not a real likely solution to the storm drain design, but it is certainly doable by just putting in underground seepage beds. Moe: Okay. Rennison: And the comment on the storm water? Borup: Yeah. Any other question on that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page 59 of 67 Moe: No. That will take care of it. Borup: I was just going to comment we have received your letter saying that you were accepting all staff conditions and is that still the case? Rennison: That's still the case, including the -- there was basically one additional request that Craig had requested and that was to tie the walkway to the west and we don't have any problems with that. Borup: Okay. Have there been any discussion of any type of traffic calming device -- anything on that -- on that long stretch of road? Rennison: There has. Quite a bit. We have talked about it with staff and I guess we haven't selected a device yet, but we are confident that we can come up with one that's amenable to everybody, including Tramore. Borup: And that's what I was wondering, if there had been any discussion with them, because I assume they are still using these access points here. Is that what this is indicating? Rennison: That's correct. Borup: That goes to the Tramore? Rennison: That is correct. That is their access. The long flag of the -- the pole portion of this flag lot is owned by my clients. They own that property and there is an access easement on it, so that both lots share that -- share that roadway. So, there is basically one point of connection to Pine Street. That was the idea behind that, is the entirety of the -- of Tramore Subdivision, Lot 1 and 2, take access off of the one approach to Pine Street. That was the whole purpose behind that and the way that was designed, in order to accommodate frontage requirements, is to have the back lot, our lot, Lot 2, have, you know, typical flag lot design. The pole portion reaches up and grabs the frontage. So, that's what satisfied the requirements with the original application in Tramore Subdivision. So, that's where that lies. Borup: So, I assume you can do -- you own that flag part, then, whatever choker or whatever else you do would be up to your client. Rennison: Up to us, but -- but as Craig has brought up, you know, we did kick out the idea of no speed bumps and, again, Craig reinstated the -- the problem with speed bumps is that it does -- they can be noisy, potentially, from people slowing down and speeding. So, that's not necessarily a solution. It could be a solution, but we want to work with Tramore folks to -- so we, you know, minimize the effects to them and achieve a goal and that is to, you know, potentially slow people down. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 60 of 67 Borup: And it looks like that design is showing the divider; is that correct? Or am I reading that wrong? Rennison: On the drive aisle? Borup: Yes. Rennison: That is a valley gutter. Borup: Oh. Okay. Rennison: Kind of a divider. Not a lot of people like to drive on valley gutters, but -- Borup: That's a gutter down the center you're saying? Rennison: That's correct. Borup: Okay. That's what I wasn't sure. Rennison: I am correct on that, aren't I? Yeah. Good. Zaremba: In that area I would make a suggestion -- and I have no idea of the engineering viability of this, but often you use a meander to do traffic calming, which clearly can't be done here, but how about an undulation? What if -- what if this kind of went up and down like a little bit of a hill? I think that would slow people down a little bit. I guess my concern is the seniors trying to pull out of this driveway. Well, tell me first, how much of this is already built? I mean there is already pavement there to some extent, isn't there? Or can you make changes? Rennison: It's paved to the -- almost to the canal presently. It's paved now. At one point, on a couple of things, there actually is a -- there is a significant grade change between the edge of the pavement today and where we will begin parking the first set of parking stalls. Get my beeper out here. Right there. From there, that point, down to that point, there is a reasonably significant grade change there. So, that, in addition to the fact that the radiuses for those -- for that drive aisle are at about a minimum. In fact, I don't think we would want to even consider the idea of shortening those radiuses on those turns, just so they are navigatable. That, in itself, will slow traffic immensely, that's for sure. Zaremba: Then, one additional idea might even be at the point where they intersect, giving the straight through traffic a yield sign. I don't know whether you would want to go that far or not, but -- Rennison: We would certainly consider the signage. Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page 61 of 67 Zaremba: Yield to exiting traffic or something like that, that -- I mean that would be a lot cheaper than doing a whole lot of other things and it might be a reminder to all of these people, give up the right of way or something like that. Rennison: There is some good ideas that we can -- that we can explore and that might be one of them. A lot of times with the signage it works for a little while and people figure it out. Zaremba: Then, they ignore it. Rennison: But I think we have got the ability to come up with a good -- kind of a happy medium to address some concerns here. We don't necessarily see it a problem, but there has been some -- some I guess concern that has arisen and we want to address that to the best we can with what we are given. And I think we will be able to accomplish that. And I think a big part it is the turn that we have made to get into the body of the development. That turn that's right there will substantially slow people. Zaremba: Let me ask a couple other questions that may be -- either you or staff may answer this. The subdivision to the east of you, as I recall, we requested that they get together with you and make cross-access agreements. If this is now going to be gated, so that it is only an emergency access, both for them and for you, do you still need a cross-access agreement if the public is not going to use that cross -- Hawkins-Clark: That's a good question, Commissioner. It would certainly not serve the purpose that it was intended to originally, which was to legally grant people, you know, the ability to cross over there without any potential for one property owner to block it off. It's going to be blocked off for both of them anyway. So, yeah, that plat -- the Rock Creek Plat is not submitted for a final plat application. That could be something that could be dealt with at that point -- Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: -- on that property. So, I guess it does leave this one open. Zaremba: Or would we still want that on there and to make a cross-access agreement in case some day somebody decided, hey, let's not have this be emergency, let's open it. Rennison: Right. That's it. Zaremba: So, go ahead and make the cross-access agreement and gate it for now and maybe five years from now somebody may say this isn't really necessary. Borup: It would make it much simpler, then. Rennison: Yeah. Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 62 of 67 Zaremba: Yeah. If it's already in place. Rennison: I think everybody is on the right track in that. For all intents and purposes, this project will be built as approved and those accesses will remain in effect and useful. The bottom line is what we are truly trying to protect each project needs to meet the fire code and the fire code says, hey, we need to provide a secondary access and so we want to protect against way down the road when somebody wants to maybe do a redesign on a tear down and a rebuild, well, then, we still need to provide that -- the means for that to meet the fire code. Zaremba: So, you're okay with the cross-access agreement -- Rennison: You bet. Zaremba: -- with the neighbor? Rennison: Absolutely. Zaremba: Good. Rennison: And I think they equally as agreeable to it -- Zaremba: Okay. Rennison: -- in keeping it there. Borup: Good. Rennison: They need us and we need them and -- Zaremba: That works. Rennison: Yeah. Zaremba: One other question I had. In looking at the elevations for the buildings -- and this was a discussion we also had with the neighbor to the site -- on the ends of some of the buildings that would be facing the amenities, we suggested that they have some windows on the second floor to give extra visibility that might be happening in those areas and I guess my question is -- is that something we'd like to think about here on just -- on the few buildings that have a public area next to them? And the second question is if we wanted to do, is that something that's easy for you to think about doing? Rennison: Who goes first? I'll take a stab. I got the nod from behind me here. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 63 of 67 Rennison: SO, we would work with staff -- Zaremba: A few second floor windows on public areas? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I know the police department, too, would be supportive out there. They like to see eyes on those common areas as well, so I think that's a great idea. Zaremba: Some of them, actually, have an other building that fronts it, so there would be some windows there, but the ones where there is a side, it would be nice to have an extra second story window or something. That's an easy one. Those are my only -- Borup: Anything from any other Commissioners? Thank you. Rennison: Thanks. I will sit down and shut up. Borup: Okay. Yeah. You may have a chance for any other questions. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Come up. Johnson: Good evening, my name is Maxine Johnson. I represent the Summit Real Estate Services. We are the management company for the owner of Tramore Senior Community. And I just want to tell the people with this project that I'm really happy and pleased to see the change, because compared to what they presented the first time, this is about 140,000 percent better. The only thing that I was thinking as I was looking at the road, if we wanted to put speed bumps maybe just as you turn off of Pine before the -- because there are two entrances for the seniors. They go in in front of the -- Borup: One here and one here. Johnson: The first one goes up to the apartments, actual. The second one goes to the garage area and additional parking. And if we had speed bumps and you go out this way, so just before the -- where they turn to the garages, there is -- people coming out would have to slow down, so that if my older people don't look before they turn out, and maybe one coming from the other side to some kind of slow down would be more than adequate to keep people from getting run over. Borup: So, your recommendation would be a speed bump between the two access points? Johnson: Well, where ever it would be, so they would have to slow down before they got to the -- Borup: To the main one. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 64 of 67 Johnson: Yeah. Because they are going to come out of that -- that one more often than they are going to come out of the other one. Borup: Right. Johnson: So, if they have something that would make -- you know, one, even, speed bump, just something to make them slow down coming and going and so that if the seniors were -- you know, if they came out without looking -- and they drive quite slow -- that, you know, less chance for an accident. Newton-Huckabay: I would think if you put your speed bump there and your speed bump there -- Johnson: Right. Newton-Huckabay: -- and to you, basically protecting them either way. Is that what you're -- Johnson: That's what I'm trying to say, yes. That's all. I'm just -- thank you. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: I believe the staff has already suggested that. The objection to it was the noise. I wonder if a speed dip might do just the same without the noise. Instead of having it hump over, to make a little bit of a dip, you still have to slow down for it. Hawkins-Clark: I believe the one point that we often hear on these traffic calming devices is from the emergency services, of course, and these -- the large fire engines in particular, as well as the paramedics, do really prefer not to go over them if at all possible. Obviously, there are some cases where it's not an option, but if you were to go that route, one thing that staff was just talking about was -- rather than forcing -- since most of the time any emergency access would probably use the northerly driveway to go -- when they are going to Tramore, you know, they would probably go for the first driveway access, so that they didn't have to go over a speed table or a speed bump for that one. So, if it was -- if it was constructed south of that driveway, so that the trucks didn't have to use it. Does that make sense? Borup: And I don't think you're going to get much speed built up in this distance coming in. You're tuming a comer and, hopefully, not going too fast. Well, if this road is already built, yeah, a speed bump would be easier and maybe Mr. Rennison can comment on this. If you have got any other final comments, this would be your opportunity not to -- unless we have any other testimony. I don't think we do. Rohm: I think the developers could work with staff to come up with something that's acceptable and full well knowing that it's the desire to have a calming effect on that flag Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 65 of 67 lot and you just make sure that that's addressed as part of the development. Work with staff. Borup: And I think that makes sense, as mentioned not have it at the main entrance for emergency and also I think for the seniors, it's more convenient for them not to have to go over it either. Okay. Did you have any other comments, Mr. Rennison? Rennison: Yeah. John Rennison again here. I would like to personally thank Maxine for coming out tonight and sitting here for three and a half hours or so and given us kudos on the redesign. Thanks, Maxine. And I agree, too. Give us the flexibility to work with staff and Maxine and her staff to develop the best means to achieve the goal in slowing people down. Borup: Okay. Rennison: Thanks. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings PP 04-018 and CUP 04-018. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I don't think that there were any changes to the staff comments that I made note of. Zaremba: I don't believe so. The few things that we have mentioned, they have already agreed to work out. I mean things like windows on a few of the ends of the buildings, I don't think we need to officially condition, they have agreed to work with staff on all of that. I think we just -- no changes. Rohm: Good. Good. Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: I would say before you do that, I also agree, this is several thousand percent happier proposal than the previous one. Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to -- Hood: I was just going to -- sorry to interrupt. Just to add that there is not currently the condition for a speed hump, so that one will have to be added, even though the applicant verbally said they -- so if you want to do that, you should probably make it a site specific condition of the CUP, I would imagine, that they work with staff and Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 66 of 67 whoever else to work on traffic calming devices for the main entrance. I just wanted to point that out, that there isn't currently anything addressing that. I mentioned it, but there is not a site specific currently. Same with the windows on the ends of the buildings. If you want to make that a condition and we have to hold them to that, I'd recommend that you -- even though they have testified to that, I would recommend that that become a site specific condition as well. Zaremba: Those would both be CUP issues; is that correct? Borup: Okay. I take it that was Commissioner Rohm getting ready for a motion. Rohm: Okay. All right. Good. All right. Let's see. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward PP 04-018 onto City Council recommending approval of request for preliminary plat approval for a re-subdivision of Lot 2, Tramore Subdivision, consisting of 16 multi- family residential building lots and three common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders, east of North Linder Road on the south side of East Pine Avenue, and including all staff comments of July 15th and received by staff on July 9th, including all staff comments. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Moving forward, I also recommend that we move to City Council with approval CUP 04-018, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduction to ten foot for a rear setback, minimum five foot side setback, minimum 20 foot front setback, and minimum frontage requirements for lots within the proposed development of Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders, east of North Linder Road on the south side of East Pine Avenue, including all staff comments, with additional comments on page 18, which would be Item 14, which would include work with staff on traffic calming devices on the flag lot entering the said property and, number 15, install additional windows on the second floor of those buildings that are adjacent to the common lot. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: All right. Thank you, everyone. One final -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 67 of 67 Borup: Yes. Zaremba: I move we adjourn. Borup: Well, just one comment I need to mention I forgot to do last time. We are scheduled for a meeting on July 29th, which is the third. I made a commitment back in January or February for that date, figuring there was no problem, because that was not one of our normal -- not one of our normal meeting times and I forgot to check that last time, so I will be out of town that evening. Zaremba: Shall we take a poll to make sure we would have a quorum? I expect to be here. Moe: I should be here. Rohm: Right now I have no reason to be gone. Borup: So, we should be able to continue. Okay. That's-- Zaremba: With that knowledge. Borup: That being said, unless anybody has anything else -- Zaremba: I made a motion that was not seconded. Rohm: Second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second to close the meeting. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:38. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:38 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN _I_I- DATE APPROVED ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK