Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 3, 2008 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 46 of 59 Siddoway: Okay. Mr. Chairman, let me start over. I'm so ready for the next one I can hardly tell you. All right. Moe: Okay. Yes, sir. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-018 and PP 07- 023, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 3rd, 2008, with one clarification that the portion of the Settler's Canal along McMillan Road west of Penning Grove is not expected to be titled.. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve RZ 07-018 and PP 07-023, Bridgetower Crossing Office. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: RZ 07-022 Request for a Rezone of 7.37 acres from C- G and R-4 to C-N zones and a Rezone of 5.88 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 07-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial lots and 1 other lot in the proposed C-N zone for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: Moe: Now we are to -- Siddoway: Okay. Now we are to commercial. Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026 for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial and start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight are a rezone of 3.25 acres from C-G, general commercial, and R-4, medium low density residential, to C-N and L-O, limited office and preliminary plat approval of nine lots consisting of eight commercial lots and one other lot for the Bridgetower Crossing Commercial project. The site is located east of North Ten Mile Road, approximately 400 feet south of North McMillan -- or West McMillan, excuse me, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 47 of 59 Road. The property is bordered on the north by the Bridgetower Marketplace, zoned C- G. To the south is Bridgetower Crossing No. 2, zoned R-4, proposed for L-O. To the west is the Voltera Subdivision, zoned C-G and L-O. And to the east is Bridgetower Crossing No. 5 and 7, zoned R-4. The subject preliminary plat is a resubdivision of four lots approved with Bridgetower Crossing No. 7. The commercial portion was conceptually approved. and the office lots were granted as use exceptions for the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision and are currently zoned C-G and R-4 respectively. The applicant is requesting -- is proposing to zone the land to match the land use and match the existing commercial and office portion of the development with the city's Comprehensive Plan. As part of the rezone the applicant has also requested the existing C-G portion of the development, along with additional office parcel, to be rezoned to C-N to allow for more diverse mix of retail and commercial uses in the area. Staff believes this to be a good compromise between the two zoning districts and is supportive of the applicant's request. In addition to the C-N zoning district -- in addition, the C-N zoning district requires more stringent setbacks and requires the same amount of buffering from the residential districts as the L-O zone. So, that I can step back here, you can see here where one existing lot is zoned C-G -- currently zoned C-G and the remainder of the three lots associated with the plat are zoned R-4, but approved for office. So, what the applicant and what staff is in support of is rezoning these four lots to C-N. In addition to the rezone request, this is currently called the Gallery Subdivision and this is another lot within the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision and those are., again, zoned R-4, but are being rezoned L-O to be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Siddoway: Bill, I don't mean to interrupt, but are these additional lots remaining R-4? Parsons: That is correct. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, the applicant no longer owns those parcels and they have already -- I believe there is occupancy on those. Siddoway: Okay. Parsons: The applicant is requesting approval of eight commercial lots and one other lot. Access to this development will be provided from a total of five full access driveways, two full access public streets, which are West Quintail Drive, an existing street, and Capris Street, which will provide access to North Ten Mile, and one backage road, Alba Avenue, providing access to and from the two other public streets. Two of the proposed driveways will access onto Alba Avenue, two driveways will take access to and from Capris Street and one driveway will access onto West Quintail Drive. All of these driveways are expected to align with future public roadways and driveways. Again, here is -- the applicant is proposing this new public street. This is, actually, currently in its state it's a driveway to access the -- to access these approved lots. At the time of this staff report staff did not receive ACHD comments, but I have been told by the applicant that they are supportive of that request for that becoming a public street Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 48 of 59 and that will link to this existing street, which is Bell Tower Drive as well. Here is your full access -- two full accesses here on Capris Street. One full access onto West Quintail Drive. And., then, here are your two accesses onto Alba Drive. And this is, again, the existing Gallery Subdivision and they have their access here onto Alba Avenue, too, for additional connectivity. The entire perimeter landscaping along North Ten Mile Road has been installed with the approval of Bridgetower Crossing No. 2 and No. 7. The applicant has also installed the required landscape buffers where the commercial uses adjoin the residential uses. As part of this application approval the applicant will be responsible for installing and maintaining the ten foot landscape buffers along West Quintail Drive, Capris Street and Alba Avenue. So, again, you can see the dashed lines here showing you what's already been installed and what's out there and what they are proposing to install. And., of course, condition to install. In addition to the preliminary plat, the applicant has submitted three concept plans for how this site may develop. Each concept plan shows three different scenarios depicting a variety of commercial and office uses, such as an office supply store, a nursery, multi-tenant retail, and personal and professional services on the site. It is important to note that version two and three are similar in pad layout, however, the proposed parking for the front three pads are located adjacent to Ten Mile Road and in version three the proposed buildings are fronting along Ten Mile with their parking in the rear of the buildings. The submitted plat shows eight buildable lots. The submitted concept plan shows a range from two buildings pads to seven building pads in square footages ranging of 2,500 square feet to 33,725 square feet. Because the applicant does not have a clear vision for how this site is to develop, staff is limiting the development not to exceed 80,260 total square feet of nonresidential uses on this site. Again, this is 25 percent of the gross area of the land. This is well below the allowed nonresidential square footage located in a mixed use neighborhood land use designation. Staff is generally supportive of the concept plans, but believes version three is a better concept plan based on the configuration of the proposed buildings on the site and its location to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Staff is recommending the applicant combine concept one and three, allowing a larger retail box north of Capris Street and transition to a smaller neighborhood retail south of Capris Street. If these changes are made staff is supportive of the concept development. So, here is the three concept plans that were submitted with this application. Again, here is where the applicant is proposing two building sites and these are the two similar concept plans. What staff was recommending is allow this -- this type of development to occur north of Capris Street and kind of move this section over here to kind of transition from the C-G to C-N to less intensity and to the L-O Gallery Subdivision to the south of that site. So, we think that would provide a good transitioning area from C-G down to that L-O zone that we are talking to in between West Quintail and Bell Tower Drive. I won't bore you with the elevation details, but, again, this is similar to the Verona and the Bridgetower Crossing Office. Again, the same elements, the same criteria that's being proposed in that DA are also being proposed with this development. With that, that concludes my presentation and, then, I'll stand for any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 49 of 59 Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: I have none. Siddoway: Just one. The staff report says that no ACRD comments have been received. Do we anticipate some coming? We don't usually forward them onto City Council until we have received the report. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, I spoke with. the applicant, they just received the staff report from ACHD. I have also been in contact with several phone calls and a-mails trying to get that staff report and I was told that the -- the planner working that project was on vacation. So, we have not received that. But I -- once I receive that, that will definitely be inserted in with the staff report for Council review. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Steckline: Actually, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, if I could also add something. Moe: Yes, sir. Steckline: When you're making your motion, staff made a typo in condition 2.2, if you could strike the portion where it says the applicant shall be responsible to install two water connections from North Locust Road due to fire flow requirements, Public Works would be very happy with you. Christensen: We would be really happy about that, too. Moe: Okay. Christensen: My name is still Chuck Christensen. Moe: Change your address yet? Christensen: No. My address is still 1904 West Overland Road in Boise and still work for Quadrant Consulting and all the conditions look great for us. Once, again, we do have a little bit of a clarification on the tiling of the ditches. There is a -- if we turn to the -- the White Drain runs along the south boundary of the preliminary plat right through there.. It is not tiled.. We are -- and it has not been tiled as part of either Bridgetower Subdivision No. 2 or the Gallery Subdivision. The White Drain, actually, lies outside of our proposed preliminary plat boundaries, but it is still I guess technically adjacent to our plat boundaries and we would not like to have to file that. That, plus the clarification Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 50 of 59 about building a water main from Locust Grove to the conditions of approval. Moe: Any questions? O'Brien: I have none. Road are the only changes that we had Siddoway: Are you amenable to the concept combination of A and C or one and three or whichever it was? Christensen: Well, the concept plans -- as I said before, the concept plans are just plans we put together. It's our understanding that the concept plans will be primarily discussed as part of the development agreement ppmeelt w'th staff and aev°ew any of are discussing tonight. And we would be happy. those issues that they would like us to change. Siddoway: Is staff looking for a motion from the Commission on the concept plans or is this -- would you like just to make a recommendation on it for the -- for consideration with the development agreements? Canning: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, if there are comments that the Commission would like to make on the concept plans that might be helpful. If there is ones that you favor or whatever concept you -- or whatever comment you would like to make we can include that with the development agreement. It's always a little awkward when there, is an eight lot plat and a two lot concept plan. It's nice when they kind of coincide with one another. But we understand the flexibility necessary for the commercial development. So, not opposed to that portion of it. But we would welcome your recommendation on the concept plan. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: And one final question. Is staff -- I'm concerned about the missing ACHD report. Is there no issues of concern that you would expect to have a problem with this being forwarded on to Council? I just know we have held up several in the past to wait for that ACHD report to catch up. Canning: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, you know, this is really a clean up of the DA, which is already allowed for commercial use and the rezone is not to add new commercial properties to the area, it's only to have the appropriate zoning on those. I would not anticipate that ACHD would come up with something that's significantly new. The application has seen the staff report and perhaps they can give you a quick rundown on what issues and -- I just can't foresee that ACHD all of a sudden came with a lot of issues for this project, because it's really been approved for years now. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 51 of 59 Siddoway: Yeah. I couldn't see it Wa d fferent number of lots andtthings I ke thatr so expect anything based on the plat and Christensen: I do have the draft staff report from ACRD and we just got that today. They are supportive of what we have shown. There is one clarification that I want to make with them regarding the right of way width for Alba Avenue. Siddoway: Uh-huh. Christensen: Alba Avenue is similar -- we have a similar driveway installed for both Bridgetowers 15 and 16. They are currently just parking lots and we have met with ACRD, because we'd like to dedicate them as right of way. The ACRD staff report for 15 said, that's fine, you construct a 25 foot roadway and you can dedicate it as right of way. The staff report for 16 says, that's fine, you construct a 25 foot roadway and put it in a 42 foot right of way and we will accept it. So, I think it's just an error. I think we just need to clarify that with them, the actual right of way width for Alba Avenue. So, at that point that's really the only thing in the staff report that we have that I need to clarify with ACHD staff before they can finalize their report. Siddoway: And your proposed plat is based on the 25 foot roadway and -- Christensen: And a 27 foot right of way. Siddoway: And a 27 foot right of way. Christensen: The only change to that is there is a well lot, it looks like lot number one, there is a square lot right there, that's a City of Meridian well lot and it abuts the roadway. So, right there we have to have a two foot narrow -- narrower right of way to avoid the city having to dedicate two feet of right of way along there. So, it's just some technical stuff that we need to doesn't reflectt to because I haven't) had 'a chance t ago problem, but their staff report over that with them yet. Siddoway: Does Alba have sidewalks along it or will it? Christensen: It will. Yes. Siddoway: It will. Okay. So, it's not just 25 curb to curb -- Christensen: On one side. Siddoway: It's -- Meridian Planning ~ Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 52 of 59 Christensen: It's 25 foot curb to curb, plus a sidewalk. Siddoway: Plus a sidewalk. Okay. So, the sidewalk is outside of the right of way? Christensen: Yes. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Just another question of staff. Bill, in regards to the tiling, is that something that we do want to have done? Steckline: Mr. Chair, just some clarification on that. Basically, further down on that, what we have written in there, what we are looking for is plans to be approved by the appropriate irrigation district or drainage district or lateral users association -- basically, the ditch owners, with a written approval or nonapproval of tiling it. It's not the intent of the city to the make direction on whether or not they are tiling it or not. So, if they have taken the necessary measures to contact those actual owners and relayed that information back to us, that's, basically, what that condition is looking for. And that would apply on the last application also. Moe: Okay. Christensen: That sounds good. Moe: And you're saying you shouldn't have a problem with that. Christensen: That shouldn't be any problem at all. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Rohm.: I guess my only question would be are you comfortable with us moving this forward with the condition that the ACRD report be included? Christensen: Yes. Well, not the draft report, but the final report, sure. Rohm: Not the draft -- you're comfortable that you can work out the differences -- Christensen: Yes. Rohm.: -- between what the draft says and the final report before it goes to City Council? Christensen: I'm comfortable with that. Is my client? Yeah. ' Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 53 of 59 Rohm: All right. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Canning: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Rohm, I suspect that the 42 foot right of way is the correct answer, not the incorrect answer. But they could always keep it private or do it as a private road, because that -- it does meet the standards for that, which is sidewalk on one side and the 25 foot drive aisle. So, there are other options available if they are not able to get the reduced right of way width that they are looking for, that shouldn't impact the development. But I have never heard of ACHD approving a 27 foot right of way. They generally are 42. So, I suspect that that was the more complete answer. Moe: Thank you. Well, again, no one has signed up for this. At this time anyone like to come forward, feel free. If not, can I get a motion to close the Public Hearing. Rohm: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07- 022 and PP 07-026. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026 for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial. All those in favor say aye.. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: I don't really have too much of a problem with this at all. In regards to whether or not we send this on to City Council, because of the fact we have the -- the Bridgetower Crossing Office and Verona and they are working the DA agreements up and whatnot, I'd hate to have something lag and, then, have to pick it up again. So, I think if, in fact, if there was a motion basically stating that we approve it based upon the fact that, you know, ACHD approvals are met, I don't have a real problem sending that one forward at this time. Siddoway: And. my only concern with that, Mr. Chairman, is the -- now, if ACRD does stick with the 42 foot right of way, going to either have to modify the plat or make whatever changes are needed make it a private road, I'm just wondering if that issue needs to be cleaned up before going on, but I suppose it could be cleaned up as it goes to Council. That's my only hesitation. I don't have a problem with the rezone, with the layout. I do support the modified one and three concept idea and would go on the record for that. I just have concerns about sending it up without a clean report from ACRD. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 54 of 59 Moe: Well, I would say I would agree with that reasoning as well. We always held it up to get the reports, so that ourselves can see that. I'm just concerned with, you know, trying to work with the applicant on this one. But I would have no problem with going the other way. And I, too, like the concept plan, the one and three, and I like the way what staff is anticipating in doing some transitioning through that area. I think that makes a lot of sense. Mr. Rohm, do you have any have comments? Rohm: Oh, I agree with Commissioner Siddoway and your comments and I do think that it would be nice to be able to move this forward with the assumption that they are going to be able to find resolve with ACHD and those answers will be available prior to City Council hearing the project. So, that's my position on this. Moe: Okay. Mr. O'Brien, do you have anything to add? O'Brien: Boy, I sure don't. I think you have covered it pretty well. So, thank you, I don't have any. Moe: Having said that, then, can I get a motion. Rohm: Before I make a motion I'd like to ask legal counsel here, can the motion include the provision that the Ada County Highway District report be resolved prior to City Council hearing or how do you -- how do you word a motion to that effect? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it's really difficult to condition something on an agency that we don't control. I'd recommend you just let staff handle that and if the report turns out to be significant. Staff can manage a continuance, perhaps, if necessary. I know they continualluld avoid conditioning this on som thg g that we don't that's different from that, but I wo have -- and they don't have control over. Rohm: That's why I asked the question. So, if we were to make a motion just recommending approval and, then, in fact, they -- the applicant could not come to agreement with the ACHD, then, staff themselves would not move it forward to City Council, is that kind of what you're saying? Baird..: Well, I'd let the planning staff address that, Mr. Chair, and Members of the Commission.. Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, there is - Canning: Chairman Moe, - when staff prepares your recommendation to forward it to Council, they include all the discussion that went on tonight and, then, there is a last section that says outstanding issues and anytime on any project the Commission can feel free to add a comment to that. Like if you didn't like a -- not suggesting that this is going to -- if you didn't like a Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 55 of 59 project and say, well, you know, we couldn't really deny it, but we didn't like it. You know, you can tell us that and we can put it in the outstanding condition. In this case you can say, you know, our -- our approval was based on the assumption that the ACRD report would not cause a significant change to the preliminary plat and, therefore, we recommended it onto Council in order for all of these to catch up with the Verona project. Something of that sort. And we can include that in the outstanding conditions and -- and if there were ever conditions under which you wanted it to -- to come back to you, you know, if, for some reason Council feels it's appropriate, we would -- you know, please remand it back to us under these conditions or something like that. That could be appropriate as well. The outstanding issues comment, we use it all the time and it never occurred to me that perhaps we should tell you you guys can use it, too, so that's always -- Moe: That's very good to know, as a matter of fact. Canning: Yeah. But we can certainly add a comment in there. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. I`m going to make a stab at this, then. Okay. Mr. Chairman -- did you have anything else that you wanted to -- Siddoway: Well, I was just noticing on your notes to delete 2.7, but I was going to -- to note that I think it's just the -- Rohm,: That was for -- that was for another project. Siddoway: All right. Moe: 2.2? Siddoway: 2.2. It's just the middle -- there is two -- there is three sentences in that and it's just the middle sentence that needs to come out, so -- Rohm: Okay. Siddoway: That's the reference to Locust Grove Road -- Rohm: And the applicant shall be responsible to install two water connections -- is that the one that comes out? Canning: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 56 of 59 Siddoway: Well, I think the first sentence and the last sentence stay; is that correct, Mr. Steckling Steckling: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Siddoway, that's correct. Siddoway: Okay. So, it's just the middle sentence that gets deleted. Rohm: Got you. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Rohm: I'd like to make a motion to -- let me read this here. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026, to include the staff report with the following modification: In Public Works Department, Section 2.2, the second sentence that begins with the applicant shall be responsible, that sentence will be deleted from that condition and I further would like to point out that the ACHD report has not been accepted in its final format and that that needs to be resolved to the applicant and staff both agree to it before City Council is to hear this project. End of motion. Siddoway: Before I second it, just -- not to be anal, but the third sentence also starts with the applicant shall be responsible to. So, I just wanted to clarify that we are only talking about the second sentence, because they both start the same. Rohm: Excuse me. Just the second sentence. Siddoway: Second,. Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026 for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial with modifications as noted... All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Canning.: Chairman Moe, it doesn't need to be part of an official vote or part of that previous vote, but did the Commission choose to comment on the concept plan for this project? Siddoway: Yes, please. Rohm: Yes. I'd like to make another motion -- can we have an additional motion or do we need to modify the previous motion? Moe: Counsel's going yes. So, yes, we can do this. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 57 of 59 Rohm: Okay. Canning: It's just a comment. Siddoway: It's a comment. Moe: Mr. Rohm would like to make a comment. Siddoway: Make a motion. Rohm: I'd dike to make a motion to address the preliminary plat 07-026 and to forward onto City Council recommending that we adopt the north half of concept one and the south half of concept three. End of motion. Siddoway: Second. Moe: Okay. Siddoway: And just for clarification, that's to be used with the development agreement language; correct? Rohm: Correct. Moe: Okay. All those in favor of that motion signify by saying aye. Opposed? That motion carries as well. MOTION CARRLED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: At this time Mr. O'Brien requested that he have the floor, so before we adjourn, Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: Yeah. I don't know if we need to have anybody else -- it's a public meeting, so will just go ahead with it. From time to time we have had applicants come through and continually continue their application for long periods of time -- in other words, it might happen four or five times a year and I think that in doing this it's a great misuse of time by staff, by the city and by us and I would like to recommend that when we see an applicant that continues to continue their application, that we would recommend denial of their application for at least a year. Maybe Anna can explain a little bit more in detail about what I talked with her about earlier to clarify that, if you could. Canning: I would happen to. There are some projects that for different reasons end up being continued time after fiime after time and it does place an extra burden on staff to notice them, to put them on the agenda, to generally keep track of them, to keep the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 58 of 59 public informed of those, and yet we receive no additional fees. So monetary aspect to this is just the first and probably most minor on ~ there is the that the public has to watch the agenda, see if it's actuall e• Another aspect is have revised their concept plan, come in, talk to staff, so t'gsoanburde a on, see if they public as well. It's a burden when it comes to schedulin non the general anticipating that that's going to be on there, sometimes weowill' ut anoause if we are another applicant off to another hearin date and then p ther project or agenda occasionally, maybe. So, there is some burden that it places onving a very light all the tools necessary to take care of the problem. It's quite simple. Yo You. You have last time I'm going to continue -- we are going to continue this. Next ti u say this is the the project. You can either withdraw it and resubmit or we will den it fo If you. deny a project, they cannot bring substantiall the me we will deny Y r you next time. year. So, there is -- there is a real penalty to denying a project. pSoeCOU sh within a them that option of would you like to withdraw your project and resub y ' °uld give ready or -- you should at least give them that option. But I think that there) i When you're some real valid reasons for having people just withdraw the application and re there are Sometimes the code changes. We have to keep track of what codes submit. were in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete and if it goes on for you know, the code can change and we have got to somehow keep track of -- it's not always that easy. a Year or more, that and it's Siddoway: Anna, if they withdraw, do they repay fees when they resubm' ~ it . Canning: They sure do. O'Brien: Thank you. Siddoway: Sounds like sound advice. Moe: I guess the question would be there are some that staff contin correct? At times? So __ ues on as well; Canning: Very rarely do you get staff continuation. Most of them are posting and we are -- I think -- did Caleb talk to you about that at all? We ha many continued for improper posting lately I'm tem due to improper pted to do the posting for folks, to charge an additional fee and actually do the posting. It's so ve had so mething we need to run by the Building Contractors Association. But something to think about b a big impact on your agenda lately as well. ~ ecause that's had Moe: Okay. I'm all in favor of that, simply because I have got a few that I'm tired of seeing for the last year and a half or so. projects in mind Canning: Yeah. Yeah. There is one in particular that's abusin the s g ystem Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 59 of 59 Moe: Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. O 'Brien, thank you. O'Brien: You're welcome. Moe: I'm looking for one more motion. O'Brien: Mr. -- oh, you get the privilege. Siddoway: I get to make it? Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Rohm:: Second.. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRFED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe:: Adjourned at 10:00 p.m. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED: DAVID MOE -CHAIRMAN I I DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG JR. CITY CLERK