Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 14, 1995 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 25 Alidjani: (Inaudible) Elliott: I have run an in home day care out of home with 10 kids (inaudible) and I have been teaching for 6 years. Crookston: One more, how many employees are you going to have? Elliott: Seven Johnson: This is a public hearing, anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission on this? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. This application would require findings of fact if that is your pleasure. Alidjani: I would like to ask a question from Gary or Shari. (Inaudible) State Law (inaudible) Stiles: The Uniform Building Code requires 35 square feet per child for that kind of an occupancy. Alidjani: (Inaudible) Johnson: We can address that in the findings though. Shearer: They will address that when they do the building permit also. Johnson: Any other discussion or comments? Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR TEN MIL E SQUARE BY ALBERTSON'S, INC.: Johnson: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the applicant or his • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 26 representative to address the Commission. Gordon Anderson, 960 Broadway Avenue, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Anderson: Albertson's is requesting to get a preliminary and final approval fora 2 lot subdivision. The existing parcel is an almost 7 acre parcel bounded on the north by Cheny Lane and on the east by Ten Mile. What they are going to request along with this subdivision is that they get a zero lot line designation between proposed shops A and proposed Albertson's store. There was a hearing last week by the City Council on that zero lot line. The City prepared their comments and Albertson's indicated to be in agreement with all of the comments which are pretty much standard for preliminary final. approval with the exception of Note No. 2 which is on page 3. Albertson's position is that they want to grant an easement for public utilities, drainage and irrigation but they would like to be define more specific than just a 10 foot easement that abuts the right of way on Ten Mile and Cherry Avenue. The way they intend on accomplishing that is to find out where the designed utilities are going to be and then have specific easements in just those areas alone. If the utility companies are in agreement with that that is what we would like to do in lieu of item #2. Johnson: Before we move on do you have any comments on that, have you been approached any discussion on that Gary or Shari? Are you saying then that is too broad and not definitive enough of a statement is that what you are saying? Anderson: It is especially with 2 accesses they don't want the utility company in there tearing up a driveway and not allowing access and they would like to have a little bit of control where the utilities are going to be in order to best facilitate ingress and egress to the center. Johnson: Could you give us a comment on what the usual practice is Gary? I think what I am understanding here is Albertson's wants influence of say on where the easement goes and is that possible I guess is my question? Smith: Yes I think so. This is a typical note that we use for residential subdivisions for utilities that extend along the front of the lots outside of the (inaudible). Johnson: You don't anticipate a problem with the request or concern here? Smith: As long as we have, we do this for the purpose of the other utilities not necessarily sewer and water, but power, gas, telephone. I don't know where those folks are located, if they are within the public right of way then they don't need the easement, if they are not then they need the easement I would assume. We do that for their purposes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 27 Anderson: If I could comment, typically what will end up in the 10 foot adjacent to the property line inside the property would be their risers or pedestals, transformer pads and we can accommodate that with an easement that just surrounds that utility. That is what we are after. Smith: I guess I would relent to the utilities, if that is, in a subdivision that not generally the case they are in that easement they are outside the public right of way and they are within that easement. Because we only have a limited distance between back of sidewalk and the edge of the right of way and so they do stray over into the private property or into that utility easement. So that, like I said earlier that is standard statement, standard requirement that we use on subdivisions to allow the utility to Locate. (Inaudible) on final plats we normally always get comments from the utilities whereby they state they are requesting certain easements, certain width of easements. Johnson: I was under the impression they kind of dictated or at least requested where the easement would be, whatever fits their needs. Smith: Right Johnson: It is really nothing that we decided for them was my impression. Smith: Correct, and typically our utilities, the sewer and the water part of this thing is located within a public right of way or right on the edge. So there isn't a problem from the City utility standpoint. One thing that, and I may have missed it in this review by my staff is one thing that we do need consideration from Albertson's for is an easement to extend sewer and water services to the property to the west which is owned by Wally Lovan. I visited with the architect for Albertson's concerning this issue and it may not have gotten transmitted to my staff to include that as a review comment but I have talked to Mr. Craig Slocum from CHSQA concerning that issue. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, there is a comment from Idaho Power that says we require a permanent 10 foot wide public utility easement along all lots adjacent to a road right of way dedicated to public or private use. Johnson: Which is also probably a standard comment. Anderson: If they are not going to need it we would like the right to not have that easement on the commercial subdivision. It may conflict with setbacks or other issues that could come up. Johnson: I don't think we are in a position to grant any exception to that is my own feeling Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 28 are we Wayne? Crookston: It really depends on what the utilities want because they have the ability to condemn if they need to. Johnson: Absolutely. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I think this (inaudible) as the utility being out of its designated corridor and if another utility wants to locate within their designated corridor then they simply get permission from that utility. If we had permission from the utilities to not require these easements then I would think that would be appropriate. Shearer: Why are you concemed about this, isn't that supposed to be a landscaped area in the first 10 feet off the (inaudible) paving clear out to the existing right of way? Something sounds fishy here to me. Anderson: I am not real concerned with it personally but Albertson's does have concerns with maintenance of the utilities in that easement, closing down driveways, not accommodating the owner of the property needs due to the utilities needs. The utility may need to dig up that line, may need to occupy part of the driveway, may need to close it down or close all the driveways down. So as an owner needs to keep his doors open that is their concern and it has happened in the past. They have had better success with limiting the areas where those utilities are or maybe not limiting but specifying where the utilities need the easement, giving them the easement in that area only and not having a blanket easement that surrounds the property like that. So, if Idaho Power doesn't need that 10 foot or if they need it along a strip or portion of the property they would like to provide that for them and in just that area. Johnson: Well, we appreciate your comments but I don't think this body can resolve that. I think that is between Albertson's and the utility really. Anything else you would like to comment on? Anderson: Another issue is that of ingress/egress which is on page 2, item 11. Both properties have the same zoning designation, the proposed plat and the property to the west. Albertson's doesn't know what the intended design is going to be for that, it is hard for them to provide a future access corridor or location without know what the intended use of that is. They don't want to incumber a large portion of their property, they are having a hard time figuring a way to provide access in the future without accommodating the existing conditions which would be maintenance over that access, right of the ingress/egress. How can they limit that access to a future use. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 29 Johnson: Well, you can certainly understand the position of the property owner to the west can you not? Anderson: Does that mean that Johnson: That just means that I think that is a pretty standard request that we have access to adjacent properties and we take that into consideration when we look at a plat and look at a presentation such as yours so we don't shut off adjoining parcels and we don't limit the use of the adjacent land. Anderson: By Ada County policy and standards, a piece of property with 150 to 600 foot of frontage is allowed 2 access. So is the circulation to better the property to the west or is the intent to limit them to less access points on the property. We are not really sure how we can encumber the property properly with an access easement not knowing what that use is and not knowing how they are going to access that property in the future. Johnson: Is this at all related to your comment Gary or is this strictly with respect to sewer? Smith: Strictly to sewer. Anderson: ACRD has a similar comment on there (End of Tape) on ACHD's facts and findings page 4 this is their report dated March 6th, item 9. In the tech review meeting they didn't have a real good explanation why they wanted that access without knowing what the intended use of that property is. Still by policy they are allowed 2 accesses with the frontage that they have. Hepper: I guess I don't understand, you guys are making the proposal for the lot but you are not going to allow them to have an access? That is what I am getting. Anderson: Let me clarify, Johnson: I think we are getting off track here, I don't like the tone of the way things are going, it seems to be dictating. Anderson: What we have here is the existing parcel, it is almost 7 acres, then we have proposed Lot 1 and proposed Lot 2. This is the westerly parcel that we are talking about. The subdivision will incorporate a cross access easement to be recorded simultaneously to the subdivision map itself. What it looks to me and what this comment 9 from ACRD they want some kind of an access to this parcel here. Is that how you read it? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 30 Hepper: 1 was under the impression we were referring to Lot 1 under the engineer's comments, item 11. I am confused, we are talking about something else. Anderson: They must be trying to incorporate 2 comments here, they want, the staff, maybe we can get some clarification. They're asking for an access easement to the westerly parcel which is not a part of the subdivision then also in the statement they say they want a cross access easement to Lot 1. Which would be across Lot 2 to Lot 1 and we are going to accommodate that. What we are questioning is what is the need for an access easement to this parcel here. Johnson: And ACRD apparently is only addressing the single issue. Anderson: Comment 9 Johnson: Which is to the west for access to Cherry Lane Anderson: And by policy with a 150 foot to 600 foot frontage they are allowed 2 access points on that property. Johnson: ACRD is talking about a cross access, right? Anderson: Yes, they are talking about either an access corridor maybe they are talking about a cross access. Johnson: I think they used the term cross did they not? Anderson: ACRD in their March 6th preliminary facts and findings don't talk about a cross, oh I guess they do I am sorry. Johnson: Number 9 says provide a cross access easement to the abutting parcel to the west for access to Cherry Lane. Anderson: What I was thinking interpretation of a cross access is access that allows them to go in and out of every driveway anywhere across Lot 2 to Lot 1. They are stating they want a cross access easement could be a corridor easement to this parcel. Without knowing what the use is here it is kind of hard to describe where that would be and definitely don't want to allow this person now to go across all of lot 2. Johnson: Well, that use is probably not known yet. Are there any other items? Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Shearer? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 31 Shearer: I think we have covered it. Johnson: Thank you very much, this is a public hearing, is there someone else that would like to come forward? Wally Lovan, 3415 Cherry Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lovan: As you members here of the board know that I do have access to the property we were just talking about just west of Albertson's. I am concerned about Albertson's store, I became concemed in talking with the Mayor and he was talking about shielding of some of the homes across the ditch. About November of 1994 1 was contacted by a representative from Albertson's to perhaps purchase my property. And we have never been able to get together since then and 1 assumed that because of lack of interest on their part I will have to wait until there is a bona fide offer for that property. In the meantime I will have to live there and I do need some type of shielding from these people. Their front door will be in my back door. Johnson: About where is your home located on there, can you just kind of point it out to us? Lovan: (Inaudible) that is what I am requesting this evening that some type of shielding of noise and sight be required by Albertson's to shield my property. Alidjani: (Inaudible)right of way from your side, especially on the back side of (inaudible) equipment that you have (inaudible). Lovan: The old bridge was torn out. There is no access. Alidjani: (Inaudible) Lovan: Cherry Lane itself. Johnson: It would appear to me that the location of the access to the west could hurt you as much as it could help you, depending on where it is located in terms of what you are trying to do to screen yourself from the project. Lovan: I certainly don't want to live there the rest of my life so I would not tum down a good reasonable offer. Alidjani: I think you are going to be there a while because we are going to finish the 18 holes and then you are going to play a while. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 32 Lovan: How am I going to get money to finish the 18 holes? That is all I have. Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Lovan? Hepper: Wally you mentioned a screen, it shows on the site plat here that there is a wood fence proposed along there. Lovan: i have one in there now, if that is the fence I am sure they are considering there. It is a split rail fence. Hepper: What did you have in mind? Lovan: Well, something that will keep people from looking into me out on my barbecue. Hepper: Are you proposing a 6 foot cedar fence or (inaudible). Shearer: (Inaudible) between residential and commercial. Hepper: It also states a 10 foot side yard building setback which certainly would not meet a 20 foot landscaping easement. You want something where people cannot look through you and you can't necessarily see them. Well a split rail fence does not do it. That is the only question I had. Johnson: Anyone else from the public that would {ike to address the Commission at this time? Bob Higgins, 1400 Oak Creek Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Higgins: I just have a question of the developer, we own the houses on this side of the culvert and I am curious to know about the height of the building that is going to be built and what type of fencing is going to be on the back side of that property because they are looking dead into our backyards, that is the curiosity that I have. Johnson: We wi11 permit the developer to come back after all of the testimony and address those concerns. Are there any others? Higgins: I do have one other question, is that the original location of the plan for Albertson's, originally we had heard that it was on the other side of Ten Mile south of Cherry Lane. Johnson: I don't know the answer to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 33 Crookston: It is my understanding that there was a mix up that they somehow, that there was some indication that it was going to be on the east side of Ten Mile I believe. I do have a question, you have lots in Parkside Creek? Higgins: Yes Johnson: Thank you, anyone else that would like to come forward? Michelle Robey, 1418 Oak Creek Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Robey: My question is in regard to his last statement was, Johnson: Excuse me who's last statement? Mr. Higgins? Robey: Yes, about the prior agreement to Albertson's being built somewhere else. My question I guess would go to the developer, what was the reason for the change, we just built there we are in Parkside too and we asked in regards to this land before we built and we were told that Albertson's was being built somewhere else. Johnson: Was that a realtor or someone that told you that? Robey: Yes Johnson: Well, we can perhaps get to Albertson's representative to answer that question if he knows the answer. Robey: I am issuing concern here obviously for the same reason that the person just left is, the noise, the traffic and so on. Johnson: Any questions of Michelle? Thank you very much anyone else from the public? Would you like to please address those if you can, either one of you. Craig Slocum, 2581 West Leonard, was sworn by the City Attorney. Slocum: I am representing CSHQA Architects, the architect for the applicant Albertson's. In regards to the question the Albertson's being proposed for the other comer of this intersection, that was an error in the Statesman. At no time that I am aware of has it ever been thought of for a different corner of the intersection. In regards to the concerns both Mr. Lovan and the property owners to the west and Rod's Parkside Creek, as a part of some variance that have been previously requested of the City Council. We are in the process of developing a detailed landscape plan that will indicate berming, the • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 34 construction of sound walls along the easement which abuts the Eight Mile Lateral. We had requested of the City Council only along the westerly edge of the property a variance to the landscaping and they approved it based upon us providing adequate screening. We are providing berms. To Mr. Lovan's property we are providing in excess of the required 20 feet i think it is a minimum 25. We would also berm that as well so that head light glare would not encumber his property. If I could address a couple of the issues that Gordon in his opening, the issues that Albertson's has a concern about. One the ten foot utility easement it is certainly not Albertson's wish to not give the utility agencies the easement that they require or that they need. They are certainly willing to work with them and give whatever they do need. They just felt that a blanket 10 foot easement may encumber the property more than is required by those utilities and that is all they are requesting is the ability to work with the utilities individually and it appears that they are a part of the plat process and would be involved in that. In regards to the other issue of cross access, or access it is (inaudible) and so does ACHD. The plat that Albertson's is requesting is strictly for the 7 acre site, they have an option to purchase this property an option to purchase only this property. They have no option to purchase Mr. Lovan's property that I am aware of currently. The plat should stand on its own individual merit and requiring the owner of this property to be encumbered by an access to Mr. Lovan's property I guess I don't follow the reasoning behind that. When Mr. Lovan currently has access and by all State rights and ACHD rights would be continued whomever that owner would be to have access. That is what they are really requesting the elimination of a very unnecessary easement. In both of those issues the utility and that easement Albertson's wishes to just not encumber the property that they own anymore than they need be. Alidjani: (Inaudible) some kind of berm. (inaudible). Slocum: The plan still being developed and we will be getting that to Shari and the City Council I believe what we are proposing at this time is a 4 foot high berm. The distance between the west property line and our parking is I think a minimum of 25 feet. Hepper: Would there be any fencing? Slocum: Other than what exists there now? Hepper: Yes Slocum: None is proposed. Shearer: (inaudible) Slocum: Yes, landscape plan indicates many trees and the exact species of which is what Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 35 we would be submitting to both Shari Stiles and the City Council. Hepper: What about on the south property line, what was your proposed landscaping on that? Slocum: It is a combination of, I don't know if you have a plan in front of you. What we end up with is 2 triangle shaped pieces of landscaped area adjacent to the shops building. Those would be fully landscaped with trees, we are then required to provide a fence along the easement to Eight Mile Lateral and at that point we are proposing a chain link fence from the corner of Albertson's southeast to Ten Mile. The concern was what happened behind the Albertson's from the standpoint of trucks and noise so from the corner of Albertson's where it is near the easement southeast to Ten Mile we are proposing a masonry wall and a berm with 10 feet of landscaping. Hepper: What would be the height of that masonry wall? Slocum: I believe it is 6 feet. Hepper: Then from that nearest corner of the Albertson's to the property line going northwest that would be a chain link fence along there? Slocum: That is what we will submit, that is what we are proposing. Hepper: Is that a tiled ditch? Slocum: No the other variance that we requested of City Council was not to the it. That was granted for Rod's Parkside Creek and was granted to us fast Tuesday. Hepper: So part of the reason for the chain link fence I would assume would be so that if they burn the ditches they don't burn the fence down. Slocum: True Hepper: Has Albertson's, at some point in time, I would assume that Albertson's sent a letter to the property owners within 300 feet. Were the property owners along there aware that Albertson's was going in before the misprint in the Statesman? Do you have any idea at what point in time they became aware or they were notified or the developer was notified. Slocum: Of Rod's Parkside Creek, that 1 can't speak to. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 36 Hepper: Was the developer aware that Albertson's was going in there prior to selling some of those lots? Slocum: I can't answer that, I would not know. Obviously Albertson's real estate people do a lot of dealings months maybe years before it is anything that we as the architects see. So I couldn't speak knowledgeably about. Johnson: Anyone else? Crookston: Does your architectural firm, do you do quite a few Albertson's stores? Slocum: Yes we do. Johnson: Is there anyone else from the public? Anyone else from the public that hasn't already testified? Robey: When we bought our land, do you want me to show you where our property is. (Inaudible) when we purchased our land we spoke with our builder and our realtor about this land back here. We knew that was commercial, it was our understanding. We also were told by both that Albertson's was not going in there. So to our knowledge and 1 know to Mr. Higgins and my brother-in-law Albertson's was not going in there. For my family we would not have built there if we had known. 1 have a question, we did not receive a letter, the only reason we are here is because my brother-in-law did. I know that Mr. Higgins has never received any information about this either. So just because my brother-in-law received it and he is the only one of us 3 that did receive any information about this Albertson's. My question is because we haven't received any information I have very little idea of the layout of this whole entire land. My question is the top part, the parking lot and the middle part is the Albertson's then what is the back triangle area. What is that small triangle area that is in my back part. What are those parts of that land? Johnson: In the notice you would have received if you would have received it, it would not give you that detail. That is what this hearing is aN about. But I am concerned that you did not get notified if you are the owner of the property listed with the Assessor's office, I am concerned if that is true of Mr. Higgins too because that constitutes an improper notice and we have no way of policing that unless people tell us because the list of property owners is supplied by the developer. It is not supplied by the City and they are obligated to notify anyone within 300 feet so that this point in time I appreciate your comments I am interested in seeing a list of those people that were notified. Mr. Higgins did you have something you wanted to add? Higgins: I was concerned on the height of the building. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 37 Johnson: The height of the building we never did address that. Higgins: We a1f bought those lots right there because they had a great view of Bogus, we don't have that view no more. 1 feel that was mis-represented to us. Johnson: l think that was an oversight so we will ask what the height of the building is and they probably have that for us. Anyone, either one of you that can answer that question. Slocum: I can't tell you the exact height because at this point Albertson's doesn't own the property and we certainly haven't done design documents. Johnson: Is there a typical height? Slocum: I think the zoning of this particular project allows a 35 however at the rear of the store we are typically 25 to 30 feet. i can just speak from a typical Albertson's standpoint. Johnson: Okay, and addressing while you are there Michelle Robey's concern about what she might be seeing out her front door right at the back door I guess it would be. Slocum: {Inaudible) the Albertson's building is proposed to be here, (inaudible) these areas back here are landscaped and what is shown here is 60 foot easement that the (inaudible) and 30 feet on this property. Johnson: Where would the delivery entrance be? Slocum: (Inaudible) Johnson: And the actual dock or receiving area? Slocum: (Inaudible) Johnson: The access has to be off of Ten Mile right? Slocum: {Inaudible) Johnson: Thanks a lot, do you happen to have a list of those people you notified? I think we have got one here. We have a Robey listed at 1378 that might be brother-in-law or brother. Slocum: The list that we submitted with our applications was obtained from the Assessor's office and was current as of the day we got it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 38 Johnson: Do you know when that would have been? This list is dated as being received in Meridian on February 23rd of this year. Berg: (Inaudible) Johnson: Just for the record were he Higgins and other Robey's there prior to that? When was your date? (Inaudible) Johnson: Of 1995, those are fairly recent moves and this has been in progress for awhile.. So the owner of the property on record at that time though would have gotten a notice which was L and R Sales was notified then. (Inaudible) Johnson: It is not recorded until it is closed. Well, I think that is something our City Attorney needs to look at rather than try to decipher that here. Is there anyone else from the public that has any further comment or questions? Questions from the Commission? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. This is a request for preliminary~nal plat. What is your pleasure or do you need guidance on what we do at this point? Guidance Counselor? Crookston: What do you need guidance on? Johnson: On our next move. Crookston: There are no findings required on plats. You basically have, you can approve, you can deny, you can table for additional information, those really are you options. Do you have a comment Gary, it looked like you wanted to say something. Smith: I was thinking about a couple of things, one was the access issue the cross access easement that the Highway District was requesting. Just as a note, the Highway District signs the final plat, if the applicant has an issue with the Highway District recommendation then I would suggest that the applicant take that up with the Highway District and resolve that with them. Our comment was just a reiteration of the Highway District's request. The second thing I wanted to ask was, I didn't hear the applicant respond to my comment concerning an easement for sewer service to the Lovan property. Also, I have talked with the project architect about an easement for water service because there is no water line in Cherry Lane in front of the Lovan property nor is there a sewer line. Those 2 issues need to be resolved whether they are resolved here tonight or not I don't think is critical Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 39 but they do need to be resolved. Sometimes my signature on a final plat can get kind of stingy if things don't get resolved. They do need to be resolved so I just wanted to make those comments. Johnson: I closed the public hearing, what is your pleasure gentlemen, what would you like to do considering we have at feast 3 options. Shearer. l move we approve the preliminary and final plat with the conditions set forth by the City staff. Alidjani: How about the concern for the berm, fences, and all the other concerns that the people have. Shearer: 1 think the architect indicated those are in there. Hepper: (Inaudible) Alidjani: The berm is only 4 foot high and Shearer: (Inaudible) Alidjani: (Inaudible) they can see across he just wants some kind of shield (inaudible). Shearer: Landscaping, shrubbery. Johnson: We have a motion is there a second or more discussion? Hepper: I would like to see a stipulation added that a cedar fence be installed along the west property line as an addition to the motion. Alidjani: Do you have a problem with that suggestion? Shearer: (Inaudible) Hepper: What is the point of order if we wanted to make an addition to the motion? Johnson: Well, he would have to withdraw his motion or it dies for a lack of a second and then you have to have another motion. You are getting to the point of letting things die. (Inaudible) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 40 Hepper: I would like to amend the motion to stipulate the 6 foot Johnson: We have to vote on this one. Crookston: You can't vote on it because it hasn't been seconded. Shearer: You have to second and then he can make (inaudible} Alidjani: I will second his motion. Johnson: We have a motion and a second. Hepper: I would like to make an amendment that we require a 6 foot cedar fence along the west property line. Alidjani: I second that. Johnson: All those in favor of the amendment to the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Vote on the motion, all those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there anything else you guys want to bring up tonight because that is the end of the agenda. Stiles: I would just like to clarify one thing on the site plan. Albertson's has come in with a variance request on the 20 foot landscape and the tiling. As part of the findings for that the City Council is requiring that this site plan be presented to Council so that they can see the berming, the fencing, whether it is block or chain link, whatever else. If these people would like to give their name to the City Clerk we would be more than happy to let them know when that is going to be on the agenda. It is not going to be a public hearing but it will be brought before Council again. Johnson: I appreciate that. Anybody else? Shearer: I move we adjourn,