Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 18, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 33 of 64 Eagy: Richard Eagy with RHL Design Group, 1550 14Oth Avenue Northeast, Suite 100, Bellevue, Washington. 98005. We are in agreement with the staff report as written. Thank you. Unless you have -- Borup: Any questions? Moe: No questions here. Borup: That makes it easy. We thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else here that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-046, with all staff comments for the hearing date November 18th, 2004, received by the city clerk November 15th, 2004. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. We would like a break. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 04-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.83 acres from RUT to R-4 & L-O zones for Strada Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - NWC of Victory Road and State Highway 69: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 90 single-family residential building lots, 14 commercial office lots and 12 common lots of 42.46 acres in a proposed R-4 & L-O zones for Strada Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - NWC of Victory Road and State Highway 69: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 04-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a single family residential and office Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 34 of 64 uses with a request for reduction to the minimum requirements for street frontage from 80-feet to 79-feet for the residential portion for Strada Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - NWC of Victory Road and State Highway 69: Borup: Okay. We'd like to continue our meeting this evening. Next project and -- with three public hearings. Like to open Public Hearing AZ 04-028, it's a request for annexation and zoning of 43.83 acres from RUT to R-4 and L-O zones for Strada Bellissima Subdivision and PP 04-038, request for preliminary plat for 90 residential lots, 14 commercial lots, and CUP 04-047, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the same project. Again, we'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the application for Strada Bellissima Subdivision. Many of you remember that this was before you a couple of months ago in the configuration that you see on the screen. The main change between what you saw before and the project that is before you tonight is the addition of this area, which was formally an out parcel in the last version, has now been added to the project and certainly helps to square up the project and the roads within it. The other change is down in the southwest corner. They always had the office along Meridian Road. They have added a couple of additional office lots along Victory. This is the aerial photo of the area. Bear Creek Subdivision is to the west. A parcel that's owned by the Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church is to the north and you can see how they layout. The Bear Creek zoning is R-4. The zoning on the church property is R-8. This is the Comprehensive Plan. It is shown as low density residential, which is less than three dwelling units per acre. This is the site plan and plat for the project. As mentioned, it's on about 43 acres. There are 90 residential lots, 14 office lots that front along Meridian and Victory, and 12 common lots in the subdivision. We have asked in the staff report on page two that the applicant verify the revised density numbers for gross and net density, so we can get the correct numbers on the record, just to have the record clear that the density does match the required Comprehensive Plan density. The minimum lot size in this proposed subdivision is about 8,900 square feet. The minimum lot size in the zone is 8,000 square feet. So, in this planned development they are not asking for any reductions to the lot size. The only reduction they are asking for is to the lot frontage and I'll get to a change in that in a moment. They had requested 79 feet, but I think we are going to switch that to 76 feet tonight. The other part of the planned development is the use exception. They are asking for a use exception for those office lot areas and those areas are proposed to be zoned L-O. Staff and the applicant has had a number of discussions this week since the staff report was printed and we have worked out a lot of the issues, so I would like to go through them quickly and let you know where they stand and go over the proposed changes. The first item for the Commission's consideration is on page four of the staff report, item E, when it is talking about the appropriateness of the office use exception. That is open for determination by the Commission and Council. I believe based on last -- the last time we were before you with this project it didn't sound like there was major objections to the layout of the office buffering the residential along the highway, but since this area had quite a bit of Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Pege 36 of 64 discussion during the Comp Plan process and -- I felt the need to raise the issue for both the Commission and Council to discuss. Item J on page five talks about ITD process that is also going on. The conditions of ITD are included in the report. They do talk about the various right of way widths that would be required along Meridian Road, which is State Highway 69. And the 70 foot right of way from center line would only be allowed if an internal frontage road is provided and I wanted the applicant to discuss their understanding of -- if that drive aisle that they have proposed through the project will meet ITD's requirement. They do have a variance process -- a variance in process with ITD regarding access, which they are proposing at their north -- northeast corner. It would be shared access with the church property to the north. It is staff's understanding that ITD staff is looking favorably upon that, but I wanted the applicant to address the Commission on the status of that variance request. orí page six the only special consideration on the annexation is the use exception, as already described. On page seven, the special considerations on the preliminary plat. Along the -- Victory -- along Victory Road to the south the plat does not currently show the right of way to be dedicated. ACHD already has a prescriptive right of way. We would just like to see that cleaned up and, actually, have it dedicated to ACHD and the applicant is willing to comply with that. Number two. Open space. Since there was no open space calculation provided, we wanted the applicant to go on record tonight with the -- with an open space calculation. Five percent is required as a minimum, plus amenities, which I will get to in a moment. And I believe they stated in their response that they have eight percent. There aren't many large common lots. There is a proposed common area at this corner with a tot lot. There are small ones in the corner. The street buffer. The majority of their open space is going to be found in their detached sidewalk areas, which they are landscaping with street trees and they will be counting those towards their open space calculation. So, you can see the open spaces showing up here and there is a couple of common lots in the office area. On the plat this is Apia Street. The south end of this -- this terminus ACHD wasn't happy with and they asked the applicant to modify that. They have recently just submitted this showing the knuckle that ACHD would require. I just need to verify that since we don't have the exact dimensions of these lots, that the applicant doesn't need any additional modifications to street frontage in those areas and that they all meet the 40-foot cord requirement around that knuckle. Item number four deals with some missing easements, landscape easements, for the street buffer at the south end here and, then, around this out parcel and in the buffer between land uses, between the offices and the residences. As you can see, landscaping is shown on their plan, but the easements were missing from the plat and the applicant has agreed to add those easements. We also stated that we would like to increase the number of trees in that buffer between land uses, which you see right here, so that it does become a more effective screen. I believe the applicant is in agreement with that as well. Number five deals with a couple versions of the plat. It appears that I was the one with the old plat in this case. The applicant can verify this, but it's my understanding that the only difference between my plat and the plat that ACHD's report is based on is street names. So, this court up here, which was Napoli, is now called Apia, which is the same name as this street. This street here on my plan was called Devinci and is called Alfone in the ACHD report, which is the same name as the entrance. And, then, Staggerman, which ran east-west is now Fireweed. Item number- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 36 of 64 - item number six, which is a brief sentence fragment, just needs to be deleted. The sentence that I was writing there was added into number four and I just forgot to delete that, so I apologize. Okay. In the site-specific conditions for the preliminary plat here this would be the only changes. In number five I have referenced the wrong lot number. It says Lot 25, Block 2. That should be Lot 4, Block 2. And, then, item number seven talks about working with ACHD to fix their report. I, actually, just need a motion to modify my report and insert the correct street names. Just modifying those three street names should clean it up. Those are the only two changes I have noted in the conditions for the preliminary plat. Moving on to the special considerations on the CUP. The first item is the pathway. We went through in some detail at the last hearing the need for a pathway along the north side of Victory Road. The applicant has agreed to comply. The current plans depicted as an attached facility and we have asked them to detach it and stub it in alignment with the sidewalk in Bear Creek and the applicant has agreed to comply with that. Number two on page 13 is the amenities. We simply point out that the proposed amenities for this project are as follows: There is a micro-path connection between the residential area and the office area, with location dedicated for a future bus stop should Valley-Ride ever decide they need one in this area, we have one here. And, then, they have a couple of small open spaces on the north and south of this grouping of offices. Let's see. They have a tot lot proposed on this corner open space and I have a picture -- sorry to run through those. I'll come back to them. But this is the tot lot that they have proposed and entered into the record as their intent to provide on that property. They also will be doing the detached sidewalks and street trees throughout subdivision. As you can see, the landscape plan is broken into four, jU¡;¡t looking at this you can see the proposed street trees and the parkway area between the curb and the sidewalk. We just ask the Commission to make the finding that these amenities as proposed are appropriate to the size and use of the development and staff does concur with that. Item number three on page 13 is the minimum frontage. It is -- it was requested that it be 79 feet and I pointed out that at 79 feet the -- these lots along the north side of Staggerman, now Fireweed, would have to take access off of Fireweed, unless we approved a minimum frontage down 76 feet, which would allow those houses to be oriented east-west. This lot right here at the intersection of Fireweed and Apia is less than that 76 and would likely need to orient to the south still under that scenario. Oh. Unless they can adjust internally and get 76 feet. Okay. Item number four is the street buffers. This is just a clarification that we want those street buffers installed with the initial subdivision improvements and that they should not wait for the office area to develop. We want those street buffers planted and approved and sidewalk constructed with the initial improvements and the applicant is in agreement with that. Number five is the actual office layout. We don't see any deal killers in this, but we do have some needed modifications to some of the planters. SSC wanted to meet and talk about additional trash enclosures. There are some areas in the south where we wanted some -- let me just find where -- some additional back-out spaces in the parking areas and the fire truck turnaround, we wanted to cut that a little shorter. But we would propose that we can work out these items in this item prior to City Council. They are minor tweaks to the site plan and would not significantly alter what you're looking at tonight. Number six is cross-access. The small out parcel, it's down in this area. We would like to have cross-access through the parking lot of the office area Meridian Pianning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 37 of 64 to the north and the applicant has agreed to do that. Number seven asks the applicant to provide a parking count tonight, so that we can verify that there is ample parking for the use as proposed as part of the record tonight. Number eight deals with the use exception. Since the application talked about office commercial lots throughout it, we wanted to clarify that these are being proposed under the L-O zone and that it would be subject to the schedule of use control of the L-O zone as such and the applicant is in agreement with that. Number nine deals with the fire department comments. And just to run through these quickly, the first bullet talks about the fire department wanting some additional space around the two cul-de-sacs that have central islands in them. They are currently -- I don't know the exact dimension, but we need them to be widened to 33 feet and I'll get to a slight modification to that in just a moment in the condition. ACHD had required them to be widened to 29 feet all the way around. The fire department said they needed 33 feet at least on the north side of each of them and, then, ACHD came back saying, well, if 33 is needed on the north side, they should be 33 all the way around. That's the long version of that. They wanted some change to the layout of the western most office lot, so -- to eliminate the long dead end and we can work with staff as we are finalizing the site plan with that one. The third bullet talks about some needed turnaround easements, one at the east end of Galvanni, which we are going to strike that condition and the fire department -. the fire marshal is in agreement with that. Then, we also need some type of easement on the large Lot 10 up at the north, so that the fire trucks have a way in and out there. There is a requirement for water supply, a master address plan, and this is one of the few sites in Meridian that actually has some grade, so the fire department will make sure that the roads were never more than ten percent. So, going through the conditions, there is only, actually, a couple of actual changes. The first one would be site specific condition number four at the bottom of page 14, where the minimum lot frontage we have at 79 feet now, would be changed to 76 feet. On page 15 under the fire department conditions, number three, the cul-de-sacs at the end of Napoli and Giovanni -- of course I'm going to change those street names to correct -- but they shall be widened to be at least 33 feet on all sides of the island. So, if we could just modify that sentence to be 33 feet, instead of 29. And, then, number four should just be deleted. And that is regarding the turn around at the east end of Galvanni. That is all the comments, changes I have and I will stand for any questions. Oh, let me finish running through the slides just for your benefit. This is the elevation that they have submitted for the character of the office park, going with the Italian theme, and the type of architecture that they would intend to have. These are sample elevations of the homes that they intend to build in the subdivision. The type of home. And, then, you saw the play structure. And I believe that's everything I have and I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Just one on the -- one of the fire department conditions on water flow. Siddoway: Uh-huh. Borup: I don't think we have seen that in the past. Is there something different about this subdivision that -- Meridien Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 38 of 64 Siddoway: Just the only -- that is a standard condition that they have on very large homes, particularly in rural areas, but even in urban areas they want to make sure that the larger fire flow is available for those larger homes. I think it's 3,600 square feet, including the garage. Borup: Including the garage. But that's not that large of a home. That's why I wondered. Siddoway: Yeah. Borup: So, is there adequate water flow there, Mr. Freckleton? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is several improvements that are going to take place with this development. There is going to be a new 12-inch line that's going to be brought up Meridian Road. The City of Meridian in this budget year had planned to build a 12-inch water line in Victory Road. So, we are going to be connecting up the pressure zone where Bear Creek is across the state highway and connecting into the existing lines where Observation Point is. And so we are going to be completing a lot of our grid out there and we don't have any problem. Borup: So, if there was a problem, this subdivision solves it it sounds like. Freckleton: It helps it, yeah. Definitely. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to add anything? McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. I guess I can just add a ditto to Steve, what he said. Everything was accurate. Steve and I did work that out. Everything that he asked you to change we are in agreement with. We are in agreement with the staff report as requested for modification. Steve did a really good job with this and I really appreciate his help on the 76-foot change requirement. Sometimes you lose the trees when you are in the forest. You got -- all these lots, actually, met the requirements; they all had 80 feet of frontage minimum. The problem was is we didn't have them fronting the right street, we had them all fronting onto Staggerman and the whole intent was to have those fronting on the north-south streets, so we appreciate Steve's comment on that. Just a few things I'd like to address that Steve asked me to address and I think I covered them a little bit in my letter, but I'll go ahead and address those again. As far as density is concerned for this site, Steve's calculation 2.5 units per acre is accurate and we are happy to adopt that, instead of 2.7. Both of those fall underneath the minimum -- or the maximum of three dwelling units per acre. We are more than happy to use staff's number for that. As far as the uses on the site, we are requesting an L-O zone, obviously, for the office uses and we are more than happy to abide by the schedule of control that would control what types of uses can go in there and expect those all to be office uses. Steve asked me to address the issues concerning lTD. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 39 of 64 Originally you received a letter from Chris Canfield from ITD saying district three supports this request. ITD takes their time on approving applications. They have what's called a super committee where all the big people at headquarters get together with the staff members from certain districts and they meet together. According to Matt Ward from the Idaho Transportation Department, they were to have met with the super committee this last week concerning the variance request and, again, district three is in support of this request. There is no place to the north that they'd rather have it and there is no place to the south they'd rather have the access and so they felt this was an appropriate place for that. Just a couple more things. You know, what we really attempted to do here is to try to dove tail with Bear Creek. Bear Creek has been a very successful subdivision, very nice homes. We have tried to match that in the latter phases to try to, you know, to have a lot of large lots. One of the surprises we had from Bear Creek, though, is the inclusion of the name Fireweed. It wasn't our choice to have the name Fireweed, it doesn't quite match with Galvanni, Alfone, and Apia and, then, all of a sudden we got -- we got word from Ada County that Bear Creek had decided not to use the name Staggerman and choose the name Fireweed and so we are stuck with the name Fireweed throughout the subdivision, even though it doesn't match with our Italian theme. But, hopefully, you all received copies of the application with the right names on that. In talking with Steve and other members of staff, the fire department had the one with the right names and ACHD had the right one and Public Works had the right one, so, hopefully, you all have the right one as well and, hopefully, Steve was the aberration -- the -- I guess the one person that didn't have it. Steve did a great job explaining what it is. I don't want to make it anymore difficult than what it is. It's a residential project and if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them, but I think Steve answered almost everything you need. So, if you have any questions for me, I would be happy to answer them at this time. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: I have one, but maybe a couple comments first. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: I think it has greatly improved the project. I didn't have much problem with it before, but I think it's greatly improved the project to include what was previously a large out parcel. It gave you more flexibility and more things. My question on that would be, though, since you actually have increased the acreage that is within the whole project, I'm very much in favor of the L-O zone along Meridian. I visualize that within not too many years that southern section of Meridian Road isn't going to look too much different than Eagle Road, as Kuna grows and Meridian grows south. That's going to be a busy street and I think it's not only okay, but very appropriate not to have residences right up to Meridian Road. So, my question is if your whole project now is bigger, the 20 percent use exception could actually get bigger. I don't know if you have recalculated, but I'd even been in favor of -- if it worked in the calculation, to work that into commercial or L- 0 property. Is that anything you have thought about or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 40 of 64 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we actually did increase the number of office lots from 12 to 14 with the addition of the additional acreage and it's these two lots down here. Originally those were residential units and we decided to add those there, because it actually works as when you come in to make that right turn to get to the office, to go ahead and have those on the right-hand side to be able to make a right-hand turn into those. So, we did add a couple of office projects to it. But to add any additional to it, we felt that we were really looking at the frontages for that. We didn't want to go two deep with it, because that would take away from the large lot, which we, actually, think that the City of Meridian has a great market for right now. Zaremba: Okay. Thanks. The other comment, now that it's called Fireweed, I guess. There must be an Italian word. Forenza Weed or something like that that -- McKinnon: I would have to work that out with Bear Creek, unfortunately. Zaremba: And it's Bear Creek that actually concerns me. Large development over here. If you make this connection through here to Meridian Road as easy as it appears to be made, I can see a large portion of the Bear Creek traffic wanting to travel that and I'm not sure there is a way to stop them from doing that, but my comment is I think it would be useful to have maybe a couple islands somewhere along here or -- you know, if you could do a slight meander, something that would be traffic calming. I kind of see that as becoming a raceway for not just your project, but the Bear Creek people that are -- see that as the shortest way to Meridian Road. Just a comment. McKinnon: Okay. So noted. Zaremba: I don't know if you can do that or not, but -- McKinnon: We can look into it. Borup: Are they looking at a traffic light at Victory in the out far distant future or has ITD even mentioned that? McKinnon: Oh, we have had a lot of discussion about that with ITD and this was actually second priority on State Highway 69. The first priority was at Deer Flat. And the reason for that is the high school with Kuna, because the high school is right there and they wanted to have some sort of traffic control at that point. But it's been funny, in talking with the different members of ITD, there is a lot of ITD and I have cornered a couple at the same time and the women said it's going to be Deer Flat and the other one said don't count on it, it will probably be here first, because of the growth. So, you know, the expected date for the Deer Flat was 2004. This was 2006. It could go either way. It could flip-flop or both could be accelerated. Borup: And the reason I ask is I think what Commissioner Zaremba said, depending on the time of day and the traffic, it's probably not going to be all that easy to turn left at the entrance that you were talking about. It would be easier to go down to Victory. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 41 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: It could really be easy to turn right at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Zaremba: Yeah. The people ingressing are probably going to use it more than the people egressing, but - Borup: Right. Yeah. Zaremba: I'm just concerned that it's more traffic than your subdivision. McKinnon: The City of Meridian wants to see interconnectivity and I guess this is the -- that's one of the results that you have from that, but you would have decreased traffic on Victory, which is, actually, a problem street. That may actually be a benefit for the city, because there is that -- I guess it could be expressed there is nothing like that horrendous jog that it makes that drops off and it's not an easy thing to do and that may actually be of benefit to the city to have that ability to bring some traffic off of that. Zaremba: But I'm just thinking a way to slow them down, because they are likely to get moving through there. McKinnon: We will have to look at some mitigation for that. I appreciate the comment. Zaremba: Just a suggestion. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Newton-Huckabay: I'm just curious. Do we have any idea what is going to happen here? I mean I foresee this to be a little left over ugly piece of land that we are going to develop all around. McKinnon: You sure nailed part of that. It's pretty ugly right now. When we first started dealing with this project it was owned by Mr. Fehrman, who owned the property across the street as well, and he since has sold that to Tim Mussell and we have worked with Tim and, Tim, we'd like you to work with us on this project and you can come into it and he said I have got some other ideas, he's still playing with them, he have -- you know, he's been talking with ACHD about actually trying to straighten Victory and do some other things and so at this time he really doesn't have major plans, other than in the near future getting rid of the single wide mobile home that's there. It doesn't serve him a great purpose, other than some rental income. So, he may keep it there for a term for rental income, but with Steve's comment from staff that we provide a cross-access for that, eventually that piece is going to be an office and it will be part of this project. ACHD wants to see the access go away and if there is access through this project, they will be able to take access through our project off of Victory and back into that. So, it will actually be a continuation of the landscape buffer in the future and probably a small office. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 42 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Well, that could facilitate the -- McKinnon: Yeah. Steve, can you go back to the -- there we go. Steve's asked for just a cross-access right here. Newton-Huckabay: Right. McKinnon: And we are more than happy to give that. That way he can come in and access the small office back here. This landscaping strip across Victory, plus the pathway can be continued and he will have a small office back there and that's what we envision happening in the future. I don't see a great future for this. On the Comprehensive Plan it's shown as low density residential. I don't see a great future for that. I think it's going to be surrounded by office, so it will probably go office. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Borup: Okay. Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Members of the Commission, just one thing that I did want to put onto the record as we were talking about the water supply in the area. If the City of Meridian's project is ahead of this development's project and we actually fund and build that water line, we will be creating a latecomer's agreement for reimbursement of our line and I just wanted to put on the record that this project would be subject to repayment of their proportionate share our water extension and, typically, those will be calculated and be applied and charged prior to signature on the final plat for the entire number of dwelling units. Borup: Okay. Thank you. I think I already asked and there was no one else to testify and we had no one sign up. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on Items AZ 04-028, PP 04-038, and CUP 04-047. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18. 2004 Page 43 of 64 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-028, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 18th, received by the city clerk November 15th, 2004. Thank you. And the only comment to the staff comments is on page six, item one, the use exception, it's the recommendation of this Commission that the use exception be allowed. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-038, again, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date November 18th, received by the City Council November 15th, 2004, with a couple of changes: On page seven, paragraph five, the confusion about various versions has been cleared up and staff will make their report comply with the names that other agencies have received. On page eight, the partial paragraph six can be deleted. Also on page eight, under site specific conditions, paragraph five, in the first sentence the lot number should be changed to four, instead of 25. It's Lot 4, Block 2. Paragraph seven, again, the correcting of the street names to comply with the report that ACHD and the fire department got will solve that problem. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Moe: I have one comment. Under the special considerations, were we not going to require the dedicated right of way in item number one on page seven? Zaremba: I may have missed that. Siddoway: It's already a condition. It's condition number two. Moe: Okay. Siddoway: So, there is no change needed for that. Moe: All right. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We had a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?