Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 3, 2003Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 8 of 91 Zaremba: And abutting sidewalks of seven-foot width. Paragraph 6 can be deleted as satisfied. Paragraph 7 can be deleted as satisfied. Paragraph 8 the first sentence stays as is. The second sentence will have an addition so that it reads beginning all remaining site improvements, including landscaping, shall be installed. The rest of it remains the same. End of motion. Rohm: I will second that. Centers: We have a motion and second to approve Item 4 on the agenda, all in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 5. Public Hearing: RZ 03-007 Request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook - 921 West 2"d Street: Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 03-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit to remove existing house and construct four apartments, 2 story with bedrooms on upper level, and four single garages attached in a proposed O-T zone for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook - 921 West 2nd Street: Centers: Moving along. Our next item on the agenda -- I would like to open both Public Hearings for Items Number 5 and Number 6. Item 5 is a request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for Schroeder Apartments. Item 6 is a Conditional Use Permit to remove existing house and construct four apartments, two story, with bedrooms for Schroeder Apartments. Open with staff comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a proposal to Rezone a lot in Old Town from R-4 and to put on that property a 4-plex apartment. It is located at the end of West 2"d Street just north of Pine where it dead-ends into the Meridian Elementary School. You can see the subject property outlined on the vicinity map. This is an aerial photo of the area. You can see the open play area for Meridian Elementary. This is 2nd Street and the stub. There is an existing 4-plex that is on the lot just to the south and the proposal is to place a new 4-plex just north of it at that location. There is an alley that runs from Pine Street in at the rear of the property as well. You may remember that this is in the vicinity of the Schmeckpeper day care project that came through recently. This is just a simple diagram to show the improvements that they intend to do as required by the Ada County Highway District, plus some additional that the applicant is proposing and is willing to do on his own. I do address this in the staff report as well, but just to show you on here, this is the subject property up in here, this is the existing 4-plex. Pine Street is down below. The dark lines over here are where the applicant is proposing to do curb, gutter, and sidewalk in compliance with ACHD requirements adjacent to the subject property and continuing down in front of the existing 4-plex. Both of these lots are under the same ownership currently. They would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 9 of 91 also, then, end the sidewalk at that point and continue their curb and gutter down to tie in with Pine Street. In addition, the alley is not currently paved and they are being asked by ACHD to pave that alley and they are in agreement to do so. This is the Site Plan for the project. The property line runs right about through here. This is the existing 4-plex below. The 4-plex apartments would all have ground level entries and two of the units would have parking on the 2"d Street side, two of them would have parking off the alley. Each unit would receive one garage and one open parking space adjacent to it. The proposed Rezone for this, from R-4 to Old Town, is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which does show this lot as an Old Town lot. These are the elevations for the proposed 4-plex. You can see the two doors here, two doors here. The garage is extending out on the sides. I have floor plans available should you wish to discuss them and I just wish to point out a few things in the staff report. The first item is on Page 5. The only condition of approval related to the Rezone that needs any discussion is on the trees. As you can see in the site photo there is -- there were a number of large existing trees on the site. They have been since removed. The ordinance dealing with removal of existing trees would suggest that acaliper-for-caliper mitigation is required. That's going to be difficult to do, given the constraints of the size of the site. However, we are proposing that they work with staff to maximize the number of trees on the site and to upgrade the size of those from the two inch caliper currently required as the minimum in the ordinance, to be at least two and a half, to try and help get some more plant material in there. The other items are on the special considerations on Page 7. The first one deals with the off-site improvements, which is the curb, gutter, and sidewalk that are beyond the extent of this project. ACHD does mention them in their report, they do support them, but because they are off site, ACHD mentions that they cannot require them. The city has the option of requiring them as part of a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has generously offered to do this. We would just like to make sure it is done and would ask the applicant to address the willingness to make them a condition of approval on the project. That is in their site- specific condition Number 2. Number 2 under special considerations, on Page 7, deals with setbacks. There are some small setbacks proposed for the project. Staff does recommend approval of the setbacks as shown, but we do raise them for the Commission's approval and to any discussion related to that that you would see fit to do. Item Number 3 on Page 8 is walkways. Simply, this is the walkway that connects from the parking stalls to the front doors. It is currently shown as a five-foot walk. We are recommending making it a four-foot walk in order to just punch in a little bit more green into there. Number 4 is the fire turn around. The fire turn around is shown just below the project. It's, actually, on the lot that has the existing 4-plex on it. Since it is an off-site improvement, we are recommending that the applicant submit a recorded easement for that turn around prior to issuance of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the new 4-plex, and item Number 5, the trash enclosure. I have been -- had several discussions with SSC recently. I, just this afternoon, received some new comments based on a meeting that Steve Sedlacek had with Mr. John Cook, the applicant's representative, today, which I'm going to submit to you in the record. Mr. Sedlacek has asked that we include these comments into the conditions of approval, simply that they are working -- brief history. The original proposal was to put a trash enclosure and storage shed on the west side of the property up against the alley. That structure would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 10 of 91 straddle the property line and would be accessed from the alley. The Sanitary Service Corporation had concerns about their ability to access this with the alley and their inability to turn around from there and didn't want to have to back out from there onto Pine Street. They have asked that the trash enclosure be moved over to be accessed from 2nd Street. The applicant does not wish to put it right at the entrance of the project right here and are proposing to put it south on the existing 4-plex site, which would require a joint use agreement to be recorded. That if these two properties -- one of the two properties or both were ever sold to other owners, that there is a recorded agreement in place that would allow this lot to continue using that. It is some distance and I have some concerns about the fact that these folks, when they want to take their trash out, have to come out and down the street to get to the dumpster that they need to access, but we can have the applicant address that. Nonetheless, the remaining issues as far as Sanitary Services is concerned, are not project killers at this point they have just asked that these four conditions that are handwritten on here be incorporated and that they would work out an approved design prior to submitting for a certificate of zoning compliance. Centers: Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: Yes Centers: Could that be something that we could give the staff the authority to work out at the staff level? Siddoway: Yes. Absolutely. We -- something that -- like that we could certainly work out prior to issuing them a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. It's standard procedure for that certificate to require sign off of Sanitary Services Corporation on their trash enclosure anyway, so we will -- it will be caught, then. Centers: So, necessarily mentioning all these conditions wouldn't be necessary, we could just give mention that that way that staff would be given the authority to sign off on SSTs intended use or whatever. Siddoway: Right. I -- yes. I would recommend going ahead and including his comments. I don't know that you have to read them into the record, but just reference the fact and we can make sure they are incorporated. Centers: Sorry to interrupt. Siddoway: Oh, not a problem. The last item, item number six, is the Landscape Planters. Typically, for a commercial apartment project off of a local street you would see a street buffer between the road right of way and the beginning of the structure or any parking given the site limitations here that's not possible. We are proposing a couple of things for alternative compliance. One would be between the two garages, punching in -- you can see they have added a planter here.. We would want to do something similar in scope, but narrower, between the two. It looks like it would be too Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 11 of 91 narrow to accommodate a tree, but, nonetheless, could at least get some green space out here to break up the expansive asphalt. Finally, they are showing -- if you follow this line, this is a parking space. Their parking space curb wraps up at this point and down and we are just suggesting that this should come straight out until it reaches this curb and that this area be given over to landscaping. I believe that is it and I will stand for any questions. Centers: Thank you. Mr. Siddoway, (noticed -- first of all, you wouldn't happen to have a picture of the house that's going to be removed? Siddoway: I do not. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: I don't know. The applicant may and, if so, we can project it up. Centers: I noticed, you know, on the petitions that were signed that there were just a number of people wanting to see that eyesore removed and on those petitions, it mentioned townhomes on each and every one. What we have is a four unit apartment complex, one owner, they are not to be sold separately; correct? Siddoway: Correct. Centers: Okay. Because each petition mentions townhomes and there is a difference. Big difference. Because it could be condo minimized, you could call it, and sell them separately, so -- Siddoway: Yes. This proposal is to keep it under one ownership on a single lot. Centers: Very good. Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yes, sir, I do have a couple. Mr. Siddoway, on Page 10 of the staff comments, standard requirement, Item Number 6, it says provide five-foot pedestrian walkways in accordance with City Ordinance. However, on Page 9, Item 3 of the site- specific asks for, as you have previously mentioned, the four feet walkways going to the front doors. Siddoway: If you turn -- Zaremba: There seems to be a contradiction there. Should we delete Number 6 under the general -- Siddoway: Instead of deleting it, I would just add a clarification. If you go to Number 3 on Page 8 -- Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 12 of 91 Siddoway: -- it talks there that staff recommends narrowing the five-foot walkways aldng the south side of the building to four feet and, then, the last sentence says sidewalks adjacent to the street should remain five feet wide. The intent was to widen the access to the front for -- but still require five-foot sidewalks adjacent to the street. I think if we just modified Number 6 on Page 10 to say provide five-foot pedestrian walkways, we change that to sidewalks adjacent to 2"d Street that would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: Any other questions? Zaremba: I do have one additional question. Centers: Okay. Go right ahead. Zaremba: Okay. This is referring to the fire chiefs comments in bold letters. He says an additional fire hydrant will be required to be installed at West 2"d and Pine. My question is by whom? Siddoway: The applicant would be required to do that and they have been -- I would have them address it, because they have been talking with Chief Silva directly. Zaremba: Okay. I have another question. Oh, the other was about the trash enclosure and that's thoroughly discussed so far, so -- Centers: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Well, I wasn't so sure about that, the trash enclosure being thoroughly discussed. I'm still kind of thinking like the staff, that it's too far away from this proposed 4-plex and I'd like to have staffs comments. Would you like to see it closer or have you talked to the applicant and where are we going with this? Siddoway: I think we should hear from the applicant first. Like I said, I do have some concerns about the distance. I know the applicant does have some concerns about having it right at the entrance, so I think it will need to be weighed. Rohm: And maybe we will just listen to the applicant's proposal. Siddoway: Yes. Rohm: Sounds good. Centers: Okay. Is the applicant here and prepared? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 13 of 91 Schroeder: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioner. John Schroeder. And I do have my architect here as well. Centers: You need to talk right into the microphone. Schroeder: I'm sorry. John Schroeder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Centers: Give your address, too, please. Schroeder: 3786 South Suntree Place in Boise. I'll just briefly respond. Those are pictures of the current home. With regard to the trash enclosure, we are flexible in that. The sole purpose of doing what we are doing is for 30 years everyone, including my neighbors, we all have trash cans and everyone leaves them out front on West 2nd Street for virtually the entire week and dogs get into them. We wanted to corral this problem and make it look nice, dogs can't get in it, and everyone has got a nice facility to use. We are flexible in positioning it. The only thing I was worried about was putting a trash enclosure on the tail end of West 2"d Street up against the school. Oh, thank you. Centers: You need to -- you need to get the microphone. Schroeder: I'm sorry. I didn't want to put it at the end of 2"d up against the school, because people driving in would see the dumpsters. Putting the trash enclosure in this area would not be satisfactory, because we are putting that sidewalk in and landscaping behind it, which would look very nice coming in on West 2nd. Frankly, I wanted to hide it as best I could and, certainly, recently understand the Sanitary Services. This is more difficult. I thought it would work, but it wouldn't. Those big trucks just wouldn't -- even with the improvements we are making I don't think it's satisfactory. We are willing to work with staff to work it out, we just want to make it as sightly as possible, and the trashcans just are not working. They could work, I suppose, because each party has a garage and they can just keep it in their garage and, then, during the pick-up day they could bring it out. That would work. These people would, obviously, have to bring it further. That's why this idea came through. We are willing to -- and, then, putting it here, I really didn't like that idea, because of the people and the neighborhoods, this seemed to be the site that was the least exposed to all the neighbors, but we are certainly willing to work with whatever staff would like to do. Then, just a couple brief comments we are willing to put in the fire hydrant. That's a substantial expenditure and it's a good idea. It would be on West 2"d and Pine. The fire marshal desires that. Frankly, I'm 'for it, because the locations of the existing fire hydrants are quite some distance and that's not satisfactory, so, correct, where staff is signaling would be a new fire hydrant right there. Then, the significant improvements on the curb, gutter, and sidewalk, we have been looking forward to getting that done, because this area doesn't have any sidewalks, except on Pine, and we need some definition and the drainage is a problem without the gutters. With that, I would turn it over to Mr. Cook. Thank you. Appreciate it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 14 of 91 Cook: Mr. Chairman, my name is John Cook and I'm the architect representing Mr. Schroeder and Margaret Schroeder. We have put our time and effort into developing a 4-plex to fit the tight constraints of the site. You can see that our challenge was working with setbacks and I realize that's going to be an item that you'll probably want to discuss. We looked at the existing street width and being able to create a plan here that would give them at least two parking spaces for each tenant. The alley is pretty well defined by the existing amount of property that was allocated for an alley. We are looking at being able to pull the vehicles into the garage and the position of the side parking and being able to back out and resume the direction back into West Pine Street. Our position in regard to walks, we addressed basically with ACHD. We have afive- foot sidewalk on the frontages and we will reduce those down to four feet, as staff recommended. Again, the fire hydrant, I have met with Public Works, they have indicated that the applicant -- the owner will be required to provide engineering and pay for the cost of installing that second hydrant. I have sat down with Fire Marshal and we went through the new IBC fire code and 4-plexes require two hydrants under the new code, so that's -- we are only addressing that. We do have a colored illustration here, which represents the color combinations that we would like to propose for the project. I can bring that forward if you like and show you what we propose to do there. I realize we have got a double application here, Numbers 5 and 6, the Rezone and CUP. I'm open to any questions you might have. Centers: Commission, any questions of Mr. Cook or Mr. Schroeder, for that matter? Zaremba: Yes. Just carrying on with what Mr. Schroeder was talking about and I guess the big subject for tonight is going to be the trash enclosure. I agree with not having it out by the street on the new piece of property. It would seem to me that it would be more convenient for all of the people in both 4-plexes to have it somewhere between the properties. It would also seem to me, even though this is not a real attractive location, that some attractive enclosure could be put around it and that would solve SSTs problem, they would be able to drive in, pick it up, back out, and, actually, leave 2"d Street driving forward. I guess I heard Mr. Schroeder's comments that it would not be very attractive to be in this area, but that seems to be the most practical location and I guess I ask for your comment. Cook: As a design professional, I try to keep trash enclosures out of the landscape corridors. We got a land corridor between the two 4-plexes and with that you're going to have a natural breezeway through there and wind and that's when you -- when you put a trash enclosure there it's not just sight, but you're going to have odors. I think that would be probably a key item with whether it's a trash dumpster or whether it's cans with lids, I'm concerned, basically, for the amenity and the odors that come from trash cans, even though you have the weekly pick-up, just having it in that corridor. If we had to, we can split the trash enclosure, possibly, with the 4-plex here to the south, having four cans for those particular tenants and possibly have something maybe a little further north and extend that landscape to go along with that curvature in that curb and gutter, possibly to put an enclosure in that area and we will screen that maybe with trees and shrubs. I mean it's open for discussion and, as Mr. Schroeder has indicated, we will Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 15 of 91 work with staff. I'm sure there are at least two or three solutions and we can come up with one that will satisfy everyone. Centers: Well, yes, that's my comment. I think I would be -- I would want to include SSTs comments and, then, let staff work it out, because I don't have happen to be a trash enclosure engineer and, then, let them work it out at that time. Zaremba: I can be comfortable with that. Rohm: The only thing I wanted to mention is the location down in the south property down here. It seems a long ways away from the new 4-plex and that would be the least desired location, from my perspective. Centers: And I would agree, Commissioner Rohm, and I think staff understands that and wants it on the site, too. On the property because if you went with that, you would have to have -- call it across-access agreement to that and we didn't require that, so -- correct, Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: Am I hearing that the Commission would prefer to see it happen somehow in this location right in here, if possible? Centers: On the property. Cook: Adjacent to the -- Zaremba: I was leaning toward that, but the objection of the smell in a landscape corridor -- Cook: Yes. It's not going to be attractive. Centers: What do you have for the existing 4-plex? Where is that? Cook: Trash cans out of the garages, I believe. Schroeder: They are trash cans and they are right in here in this location and the former owner had trash cans up in that area and, then, the neighbors would have trash cans along West 2nd Rohm: I think it's suffice to say that you can work it out with staff, but, you know, it's our comments that we would prefer to see it adjacent to the property, as opposed to down at the south corner and that's as far as we need take it tonight, I think. Zaremba: I'm comfortable with staff working it out and I support the comment that I would like to see it equally convenient to both properties. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 16 of 91 Cook: There was one comment in there on conditions about signage. Mr. Schroeder does not indicate that he wants any -- has any desire to put up a permanent sign identifying the project. There is no signage on the project. Centers: Mr. Cook, you and Mr. Schroeder have read the staff comments? Cook: Yes. Centers: And the way I hear it, you're in agreement with the entirety and we have addressed the trash enclosure and -- Cook: That's correct. We don't have any problem with any of the conditions of approval. Centers: Very good. Any other questions? Zaremba: I would just emphasize the observation that Commissioner Centers made, that there are a number of petitions and letters signed by several people that show that you and Mr. Schroeder have done a lot of community work in spreading the word and I commend you for doing that. I think it's wonderful that we have been provided with all these testaments in favor of what you're doing and that you have taken the time to go talk to your neighbors. Cook: Mr. Schroeder has been a good neighbor and it's my understanding that he has, in the last month, become a little better neighbor. Centers: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Cook. We have one individual that signed up that would like to speak. Charlene Rokovitz. Rokovitz: My name is Charlene Rokovitz. I own the property 918 West 3`d. 918 West 3`d, just across the alleyway from -- west of Mr. Schroeder. Centers: Right in there? Rokovitz: Yes. Okay. The -- right up -- up -- right there. Mr. Schroeder met with my husband, explained all the plans and everything, and my husband come home very excited that they were very good. He was very impressed with them. At the time, though, nothing was said about this being rezoned to Old Town. We are just a little concerned that because of the problems we have had in the past -- and you all know what they were -- that this is going to open up the neighborhood on Old Town. Is this going to be strictly just this one property? Is it -- how is this going to work, so that we don't end up going to battle again in a month or so? Centers: Yes. Let me interrupt and let Mr. Siddoway or someone appropriate answer that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 17 of 91 Siddoway: The Old Town District, as it currently stands, would require a Conditional Use Permit for almost any use. I believe your concerns were if it were to try and go to a day care or commercial in some fashion and have a larger impact in terms of traffic. Rokovitz: Well, is this one piece of property going to open up the rest of the neighborhood to just what you said? Siddoway: The Comprehensive Plan is what opens it up. The Comprehensive Plan shows this entire area as Old Town and would support a Rezone to Old Town for adjacent properties, whether or not this one goes through. Rokovitz: So, would we still have a say in -- if something else opened up? Because, otherwise, we are against the Old Town, but -- the apartments we are not against. We think they are going to be, you know, just fine. There is not a problem with the apartments it's just the rezoning of it that's got us really worried. Siddoway: The apartments are prohibited in the current zone of R-4, so they have to rezone it in order to do the apartments. If you look at the Comp Plan for direction as to what it should be Rezoned to, it states that it should be Rezoned to Old Town and the Old Town's district, those apartments require a Conditional Use Permit, which is why we have the application for bath the Rezone and the Conditional Use tonight. If they were to try and change the use under the current ordinance, it would require another Conditional Use Permit and everyone within 300 feet would receive notice of that as well. Rokovitz: Okay. If it is gone through as Old Town, which I'm sure it will, it will just be the one property? Siddoway: This is just for the single property. Zaremba: Yes. I would clarify that you may have to come back again -- any of your other neighbors that apply for a rezoning, but they would have to go through the same kind of Public Hearing. Rokovitz: Well, like I said, that -- Zaremba: Changing this property does not change any other piece of property without somebody else making an application. Rokovitz: Okay. We were just really concerned, because this is taking its toll on us and we do think the apartments will be very nice. He's been very cooperative and I think they will be very nice. Centers: Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify in this application? All right. Any other questions, Commission? I'll entertain a motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 18 of 91 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 5 and 6 of our agenda. Centers: Motion to close the Public Hearing. Do I hear a second? Rohm: Second. Centers: All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Centers: Discussion? Zaremba: I do think it's appropriate for the Rezone to be the Old Town zone, it looks like a good project to me, and we have testimony from neighbors and personal testimony that that part of the project is acceptable. I would be willing to leave it up to staff and applicant and SSI to work out the trash solution. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: That seems appropriate. Centers: Right. I would agree. It's just -- it's going to remove an eyesore and put up some good base there. I think -- Zaremba: It is a small piece of property and I think they have done everything they can with it to shoe horn a good project in there. Centers: I think as long as we include SSTs comments and put them in the record and, then, let staff determine where they want that located I think that would be my opinion. Zaremba: I'm prepared to make a motion, if that's appropriate Centers: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item five on our agenda, RZ 03-007, request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook, 921 West 2"d Street, to include all staff comments of the memorandum, transmittal date June 26, 2003. Rohm: I will second that. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 5 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 19 of 91 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, CUP 03-026, request for a Conditional Use Permit to remove existing house and construct four apartments, two story, with bedrooms on upper level, and four single garages attached in a proposed O-T zone for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook, 921 West 2"d Street. To include all staff comments of their memo, transmittal date June 26, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 9, Paragraph 4 the first sentence stands. The second sentence shall be modified to say: Regarding the trash enclosure storage shed, the applicant will work out with staff and SSI a satisfactory arrangement considering SSTs concerns that the enclosure size will need to be adequate. A road service damage waiver will need to be signed between SSC and the owner. The enclosure will need a concrete floor and apron and drivable hard surface as necessary between the enclosure and any vehicle turn around. The point being there that the applicant and staff will work together to resolve that issue. Then, Iwould -- on Page 9, I would add an Item 12 that says install new fire hydrant at Pine and 2nd, in coordination with the staff and the Fire Department. On Page 10, Item Paragraph 6, is modified to read provide five-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to 2nd Street in accordance with city ordinance. End of motion. Centers: Excuse me. Did you mention Page 9 Paragraph 12? Zaremba: I added a Paragraph 12 to require the fire hydrant. Centers: Okay. Okay. Correct. Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: Just one comment. On Item 4, Page 9, when we were talking about the trash enclosure, I'd like to keep the second sentence in about the joint use agreement, because even if this is intended to be a joint use facility, I would just like to make sure we keep that in, in addition to the language that you offered. Zaremba: I agree to add to the motion that if the result is that both properties will be using it, that there is a joint agreement recorded before the issuance of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Siddoway: Thank you Centers: Very good. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 6 on our Agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT