Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 11-02Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 2, 2017. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 2, 2017, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Members Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Bill Cassanelli, Commissioner Gregory Wilson and Commissioner Jessica Perreault. Members Absent: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Treg Bernt and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Others Present: Charlene Way, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance ______ Treg Bernt ___X___ Steven Yearsley __X___ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli ______ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the hearing date of November 7th -- or 2nd, 2017, and let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We need to add one item to the agenda. If you look on the current agenda, Item B of the Consent Agenda, which is the Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Veranda Senior Living Center by Brighton Homes. We just need to add that to the Consent Agenda. With that I would make a motion -- I would entertain a motion to -- Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the agenda. Yearsley: As presented? Wilson: As presented. Perreault: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt agenda as presented. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 2 or 13 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes October 19, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that we have to approve the meeting minutes of October 19th, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Finding of Facts and Conclusion of Law for Veranda Senior Living Center. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to approve the agenda as presented. Cassanelli: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Yearsley: Before we go any further I would like to explain the process of how we are going to do this. We will open each item one at a time and we will start with the staff report. The staff will present their findings and how the application adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code. After the -- or the staff has had a chance to make their presentation we will -- the applicant will have a chance to get up and present their project and -- and make any requests or changes based on what the staff report was. After the applicant has had a chance to testify we will open it up to the public for testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back if anyone wants to testify. If they would like to come up testify they will be given up to three minutes to do so . If they are speaking for a larger group they will be given up to ten minutes. After the audience has had a chance to -- to testify on the application, we will -- the applicant has a chance to come back and respond to comments from the -- or from the audience. After the applicant has had a chance to make his -- their comments, we will close the public hearings and, hopefully, deliberate and, hopefully, make a decision. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from October 5, 2017 for Rapid Creek Subdivision (H-2017-0117) by WHPacific located near the Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Black Cat Rd Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 3 or 13 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 23.02 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 93 building lots and 11 common lots on 21.02 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing for file number H-2017- 0117, for Rapid Creek Subdivision and let's begin with -- and, actually, so we are opening this application -- it was continued from the October 5th meeting. We are opening this application for the sole purpose to talk about the wetland issue only. So, let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, as you stated, this item was continued from October 5th, the primary -- for the primary purpose of getting the Commission some more information as to what the Army Corps of Engineers was going to require for that -- the wetland issue that came -- that was discussed at the previous hearing. Staff had a chance to meet with the applicant. The applicant did provide the Commission additional information from a third party consultant as to the determination of that wetland. Now, keep in mind nothing in tonight's discussion has come from the Army Corps of Engineers, but with our meeting with the applicants staff feels comfortable that the Commission can move forward with that draft study that was presented to you as part of your packet this evening and we are recommending that you move this forward to City Council tonight without any further conditions. But I do want to make one change or one notification as I read through the record. The applicant did bring forth some changes to some conditions in the staff report and , in particular, there was a requirement of staff requiring a pathway extension headed north through the landscape buffer that ties into the intersection and if I can get to that map very quickly. So, currently as the plan was drawn and discussed at that hearing there is a ten foot multi-use pathway that's stubbed in this location. So, that southeast corner of the site and staff had a condition that it run up to the north as a ten foot pathway and, then, terminate at the intersection and so that's something that you need to take into consideration as you deliberate on this application tonight. We did run this by our Public Works Department. They had a chance to review that report as well and, again, they feel comfortable that the information that's provided in that document addresses staff's concerns. Again, we are recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Suggs: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jane Suggs with WH Pacific and I'm here representing Rapid Creek Subdivision. Thank you very much for allowing us to provide the additional information from our wetlands consultant . We have provided a pretty substantial report and a cover letter and just wanted to assure you that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 4 or 13 developer, as in the cover letter, which you probably have seen, is committed to doing whatever the Corps of Engineers requests and also can guarantee that any type of mitigation if necessary will be done off site in a mitigation bank, which is almost preferable to the Corps of Engineers we understand. So, we do appreciate the staff working with us, too, on this and I testified previously about the pathway. We are a little concerned about putting a multi-use pathway in the right of way and talking to some folks about bike paths it's often best to put those in the low stress areas, but we will not hold up this approval to fight that out tonight. So, you know, other than that we think that there is plenty of opportunity for people to go onto the streets and cross the street, but we will not hold up this testimony -- or this project because of that. Yearsley: Thank you. Suggs: And I can answer any questions. But I do respectfully request that you forward this on to City Council. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you very much. Do we have a sign-up sheet? We are waiting for the sign-up sheet. So, just a reminder. We only opened this up for discussion on the wetland mitigation. Since we did talk about the pathway, I will open it up, so if anyone would like to make comments on the pathway, but we would only like to hear comments -- we are only taking comments on those two items. All of the comments have already been heard . So -- so, with that the only people I have to testify would be John -- I'm not going to try to say the last name is -- I would they like to testify? Tessin: Is it Tessin is the last name? Yearsley: Tessin? Yeah. Please state your name and address for the record. Tessin: My name is John Tessin and my address 4342 North Elisha Avenue. The question that I have is the wetlands is an issue and I'm concerned that you're going further ahead with this before the Army of Corps of Engineers has signed off on it and so I have a couple of questions. Number one, is -- is -- is that appropriate to do that. The second question I have is in the wetlands -- discussion of the wetlands report that's there, has it brought -- been brought to the attention of people that the lake was artificially lowered about two and a half to three feet by increasing a -- a drain draining into the irrigation canal and was there a permit needed in order to do that . Those are the questions that I'd like to see addressed. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. And we will ask the applicant. The next person I have is Suzanne Ivie. Would you, please, come forward. And, again, name and address for the record, please. Ivie: My name is Suzanne Ivie and I live in the Oak Creek Subdivision at 4916 West Torana Court and what I had to present is not regarding the pathway, it was something Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 5 or 13 that I probably should have -- should have presented last week. So, I'm not sure if I'm still allowed to present -- Yearsley: No. And, unfortunately, that was -- we when we continued this meeting we only continued it for the wetland issue. So, that should not be addressed at this -- at this time. Ivie: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody -- I don't have anybody else signed up to testify on this. Is there anybody wishing to testify regarding the pathway or the wetland issue? So, with that would the applicant like to come forward again? Suggs: Again Jane Suggs representing the applicant. Thank you again for allowing us to respond. We, as you know, have submitted some information to the Corps. We believe that the jurisdiction of the wetlands is with the Corps. Your jurisdiction revolves around it -- which I understand completely you want to make sure that the plan we submitted is the one that will continue to go through the process and we can guarantee that, that the plan that we have submitted will not change because of any type of wetlands. So, in fact, I'm very confident of that and the developer has made that a confidence too. About the drain, I understand from the folks who have been working in the field that there was a drain that drains into the water body that's on the west side . It was not laid to drain appropriately. We didn't have to get a permit to do that. It’s the same drain, it was just smoothed so that the water would drain away. So, it was supposed to drain that way and it just had been laid inappropriately. So, it was bucking grade, so to speak, if you have -- in that vernacular. So -- so, water did come down and we have cut off the irrigation, water has dropped in the lake -- I mean in the pond and the areas where there was an overflow now drained appropriately, as they should have. Yearsley: So, the applicant has the right to drain his or her pond? Suggs: Property. Yearsley: Property. Okay. Suggs: Yeah. It's just -- for some reason that drain either had dropped or had been laid inappropriately. But we think it just probably dropped over time . Sometimes they don't necessarily -- they drop because of the soil conditions. Yearsley: Okay. Suggs: So, it drains appropriately. Thank you. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Well, I guess -- was there any other questions? No? Thank you. I'm sorry, I can't allow anymore testimony. So, at this time I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2017-0117. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 6 or 13 Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on H-2017-0117. Cassanelli: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Yearsley: Okay. So, comments or thoughts? Wilson: Well, Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I will kick it off. I guess -- I mean we -- we deliberated I think pretty extensively on this and I think we have come to the conclusion that, firstly, I mean this owner, obviously, is in a situation where they can't run their dogs on that property and that they should be able to develop it as they see fit. We talked through a lot of those other separate issues and determined that the one thing holding it up was some kind of wetland report. We, obviously, got that and I think we were comfortable with that component of moving forward. I think -- I actually think in terms of kind of an environmental impact, I mean this is kind of a better way to go. If the surrounding area is being developed, you know, that wetland -- I mean I don't know if it's going to be sustained or eventually be developed anyway. So, those mitigation efforts actually I think is a better -- better balance and a better outcome all around and I think this is a good project. I think that was the consensus of the Commission and I will be supporting it moving forward. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Perreault: I don't have anything additional to add. Yearsley: All right. Cassanelli: I wasn't here for the deliberation, but I have nothing else to -- Yearsley: Okay. So, as a profession I deal a lot with this type of stuff. The wetland report was submitted. It is under the jurisdiction of the Corps. Wetland banking is actually a standard practice to do to, to move wetlands from one location to the next, especially given the fact that this pond, if it develops, you know -- you know, does not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 7 or 13 become a desirable place for a wetland, because you're putting a whole bunch of potential animals in the middle of residences, so it does not become a great location. With that, my guess is the adjacent property around it , when it was farmland, I'm sure it had a lot of animals as well and a lot of life that ended -- wildlife that got relocated or relocated just because of the development. This whole area around here is -- is poised to be developed and I don't see them doing really anything different than what was done around them as well. So, I -- I don't see an issue with moving this forward, especially as staff has had a chance to look at the report and is comfortable with it. I will comment on the pathway. I understand the applicant's thought about doing that and, unfortunately, you know, we are trying to anticipate what the future is going to look like for that pathway, you know, and what we are looking for is a way for -- for pedestrians to cross Black Cat Road safely. Will it be at -- where the pathway is or will it be at the intersection? It's hard to say. I think personally that we need to leave the condition there and have the pathway be extended up to their intersection for potentially maybe having -- you know, because they may end up having that crossing be at that intersection. So, I would be in support of making that -- keeping that condition. So, any other comments? I guess with that I would entertain a motion. Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number -- is that correct? I move to recommend file number H-2017-0117 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 2nd, 2017. Perreault: Second. Cassanelli: Second. Perreault: Second the motion. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2017-0117. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Johnny Bronx (H-2017-0134) by Matt Brown Located at 4970 N. Linder Road. 1. Request: Conditonal Use Permit for a Drive-Through Establishment on 0.56 of an Acre of Land in the C-G Zoning District within 300 Feet of Another Drive-Through Establishment and Residential Uses Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 8 or 13 Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is public hearing for H-2017-0134, Johnny Bronx, and let's begin with the staff report. Parson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, next item on the agenda is the Johnny Bronx CUP application. The site consists of 0.56 acres of land zoned C-G and is located at 4970 North Linder Road. Surrounding the proposed development is primarily commercial zoned property, zoned C-G. However, to the east there is an existing multi-family development called Linder Village and typically when we have commercial uses up against residential uses we do try to buffer those. But I will get into that a little bit more as I get into my presentation. And, then, across the other side of Linder Road to the west we have the Fulfer Subdivision, zoned R-8. The applicant is here tonight to discuss a drive -- a restaurant with an accessory drive-thru use. As you all know, a restaurant is a principally permitted use in the C-G zoning district and the only reason why that we are here this evening is because the proposed drive -thru is within 300 feet of another drive-thru, which is the Sonic to the south and, then, also within a residential use, which is on the other side of the drive aisle. So, here is the site and landscape plan for you this evening. Again, the applicant is proposing to constructive a 400 square foot structure with no indoor dining, it's all outdoor dining, as proposed on the site plan. I would mention to you that there are limited hours of operations when a C-G or a commercial property abuts a residential use. In this particular case the hour -- the applicant is proposing hours from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. So, those are consistent with the allowed hours in the UDC. So, there is no requirement for a conditional use for extended hours . Access to this development was provided with the construction of the subdivision. It's hard to see on this aerial here, but there is a north-south partial drive aisle that provides access to all of the lots and there is also a reciprocal cross-access agreement so everyone can cross each other's lots to get access to other local streets and, then, also access to McMillan and Linder Road. The applicant is required to provide parking in accordance with the UDC standards. The site plan before you this evening consists of 11 parking stalls, which is actually in excess of what would be required for the size of the structure. The UDC would only require one based on the 400 square foot footprint of the structure. So, again, this is geared primarily towards vehicular traffic more than pedestrian activity. The 25 foot wide landscape buffer was constructed with the subdivision improvements that will need to remain protected during construction on the site and, then, the landscape plan that you see for the -- along the perimeter and it is required to comply with the parking lot standards in accordance with UDC standards. The site plan that's presented this evening does comply with those standards as well . I would also mention to you that the drive-thru use is also subject to specific use standards in the UDC and staff has found that those do comply with the stacking lanes, the circulation. It's separated fairly well between the -- the access for parking and entrance and exit of the drive -thru. The one thing that I did want to bring to your attention as I started earlier in my -- stated earlier in my presentation was all these uses typically interact with residential uses to the east . In this particular case staff has made a finding that because the property lines touch in the middle of the drive aisle, that this site doesn't technically abut a residential use. It's -- the proper lines share in the drive aisle. So, in this particular case staff feels that a 25 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 9 or 13 foot wide landscape buffer is not required between this use and the a djacent residential use. So, I did want to share that with you. Typically when a commercial use -- commercial zoning abuts a residential use we require a 25 foot wide landscape buffer. But, again, because this doesn't abut that doesn't apply and I also wanted to mention to you that the applicant did provide some elevations for you to take under consideration. Now, keep in mind they still have to go through the certificate of zoning compliance process and design review, but we still want to get some of those elevations in front of you. Building materials consist of concrete masonry, vertical prefabricated metal siding and horizontal tongue and groove wood siding, with metal accents. Again, staff is confident this is fairly consistent with our architectural standards manual. Staff did not receive any written testimony on this application . We find that it does comply with UDC standards and we are recommending approval this evening to you and I will stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Well, I have one. If you go back -- so, they actually have their dumpster container actually position ed that they actually have to access the container with the alley. Is that appropriate? Do we want to try to consider - - I don't know quite how to modify it to get it to not work , but it does seem like, you know, it does interfere with traffic operation while they try to empty the garbage. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, one thing is the plan is labeled wrong. It's not an alley, it's just a drive aisle -- Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: -- for the development. So, that's -- it's -- that's basically the shared access. But the UDC doesn't prohibit that from being located there. So, you can see they have done it in kind of the same way with the Sonic to the south. Yearsley: Oh. Okay. Parsons: But it's going to depend on when the applicant coordinates with the trash company and when they go in through that development during the -- whether it's early in the morning or late in the evening, so it's not impacting their current hours. But I'm not sure how the -- at what times those traffic -- the trash company goes through there, but that's something -- the Republic Services had a chance to comment on it and they didn't have any concerns with it. So, staff stayed with the way it was in the staff report. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: But we did recommend that they add recycling if possible. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. With that would ask the applicant like to come forward. Brown: Good evening. Matt Brown. Applicant. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 10 or 13 Yearsley: Can you -- address -- state your address as well, please. Brown: Yeah. Address is 627 West Producer Drive in Meridian. Yearsley: Any comments? Any additional information you want to add? Brown: I think that was a great summary. I don't have anything additional to add. Yearsley: Okay. Brown: So, I'm open to any questions if you have any. Yearsley: I guess the one I have is are you in agreement with the staff report? Brown: I am. Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Brown: Thank you. Yearsley: I don't have anybody in here wishing to testify on this application . Is there anybody that would like to testify? With that I don't see needing to have the applicant come back up. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Cassanelli: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I move to close the public hearing for H-2017-0134, Johnny Bronx. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Yearsley: Any comments or thoughts? Cassanelli: My only thought on this is -- what we are really here looking at is the exception for this 300 foot near -- close by another drive-thru. In that area -- I'm somewhat familiar with it -- there is Taco John's, Sonic. Right to the north is the orthodontic and, then, you have two more -- you got the Gyro Shack and the Dutch Bros. right there. Gyro Shack is going in right now. It's been -- that was previously approved and it's under construction. All of that feeds that little lane that -- that goes through there, which is a -- what, a 25 foot wide lane? So, you have got all that traffic Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 11 or 13 jamming up in there and I know there is -- people are trying to park on that without -- the Gyro Shack is not in yet. This isn't in. It's already -- gets to be kind of jammed up in the afternoons, early evenings. That's my only -- only thought on that. I don't know how other people will feel about that. Yearsley: Okay. Anybody else? Perreault: Mr. Chair, I have a question for staff. Yearsley: Absolutely. Perreault: The drive here that's on the west side of the property, that connects down to the property to the south and is it going to connect to the property to the north ? Is that a through way? You know what I mean? Are you -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Perreault, the more southwestern driveway does connect through -- through -- and in connection to the Walgreens that's there -- Perreault: Uh-huh. Parsons: -- but as Commissioner Cassanelli pointed out, that's Kelson Orthodontics, I believe, directly to the north. So, that would dump into the parking lot. That does not head farther north. So, really, I think -- Perreault: It will stop at this property? Parsons: Yes. It will stop here. Perreault: Okay. Yearsley: Any other comments? I guess regarding your concerns, I understand traffic gets backed up and it gets busy and it may have been not designed well enough to allow better traffic circulation, but at what point -- who do you punish, you know? And, you know, I don't know how to fix it either, you know. What would you come up with a solution -- I understand the traffic might get bad, but do you deny this application just because -- I mean his drive-thru just because of -- you know, he is the last one on the list to be -- to build, you know. Wilson: Keep it empty I mean -- Yearsley: Yeah. Or, you know, there is going to be -- you know, it was designated for some use or for some traffic generation . Who is to say -- I'm not sure exactly what type of a restaurant this is or if it's just a coffee house or what , you know, so it might complement or adjust or people may go to there instead of someplace else . It's kind of hard to know how it will -- traffic will affect -- or this facility will affect traffic. I don't know Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 12 or 13 if it's -- for me personally if it's enough of a cause to -- to deny and I'd be interested in your comments or your thoughts on that as well. Cassanelli: Are you pointing back to me? Yearsley: No. It was a discussion. I would be curious to -- I understand -- Cassanelli: No. I look at it and this -- this is an interesting little area, because it is -- it's now going to be almost a -- one little -- one drive-thru establishment after another after another after another, broken up by the -- by the dentist office there. So, it is -- it's unique. Yearsley: Oh, yeah. Cassanelli: I hate to -- it looks like a cool place. I will probably want to eat in there. I -- I hate to deny it just based on that, the same thing, that he's last -- you know. And, then, what are you going to do? Is it -- if no -- nothing gets approved and that's about as wide as it is there and there is not a whole lot else that -- that is going to be able to go in, it's -- it's going to wind up being traffic -- for some I just -- you know, again, the whole thing is 20/20 hindsight was this the best layout of this -- you know, of this area. There is three other vacant corners on this intersection that are be ing developed right now. I hope they don't wind up doing the same thing on -- on those others when they get down to it. I -- I hesitate -- like I say, I hesitate to deny it based on that and -- and punish them and, then, what are you going to do, just leave dirt there for however long until -- until we finally decide, okay, we will give that -- we will give that to you. But I just -- I'm not wild about that whole layout and the way that works, one drive-thru after another after another, but I don't -- I don't think I can punish them for that. Yearsley: And I agree. You know, it's hard to say -- you know, I can understand why they want to be there, because they have got a lot of residential behind them and they have got the school to the north. Cassanelli: The high school -- yeah. Wilson: We approved one kind of in this area and it was presumed -- we kind of deduced it's because of the proximity to the school. Yearsley: Yeah. It's a great area for -- for kids to run quickly to grab something for lunch in the afternoon. So -- so, yeah. No. I understand your concern and, unfortunately, probably, the -- the residential -- or the -- apartments to the -- to the west probably wasn't -- or east. Sorry. Probably didn't have enough parking that people want to park there and stuff and so it -- it does become troublesome. So -- yeah. So, I guess if there is no other testimony, I would entertain a motion. Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 Page 13 or 13 Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2017-0134 as presented in the staff report for the hearing data of November 2nd, 2017. Perreault: Second that motion. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2017-0134. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Yearsley: Thank you. I guess there is one last motion to make. Cassanelli: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I move we adjourn. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Yearsley: We stand adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:33 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) ,,To DATE APPROVED 1�ho�da N4�Car�l'�I - C� Ir ATTEST: w , �, .,�01 , m