2015 06-18Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 18, 2015
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June18, 2015, was called to
order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Rhonda
McCarvel and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald.
Members Absent: Commissioner Patrick Oliver.
Others Present: Machelle Hilll, Ted Baird, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
X Gregory Wilson X Patrick Oliver
X Rhonda McCarvel X Ryan Fitzgerald
X Steven Yearsley - Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we'd like to call to order the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the
hearing date of June 18th, 2015. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I have
no changes, so with that can I get a motion to approve -- or to adopt the agenda.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would move we accept the agenda as written.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as written. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of June 4, 2015 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 15-
010 Papa Murphy's by James Wylie Located 2723 S. Bartlett
Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Restaurant in an
L-O Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have on there the
approval of the minutes of June 4th, 2015, Planning and Zoning meeting and, then, the
Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for the CUP 15-010, Papa Murphy's. Is there any
changes to the meeting minutes or -- at this point or -- if not, I would entertain a motion to
approve the Consent Agenda.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would move we adopt the Consent Agenda as submitted.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Before we go onto the next, I want to kind of go through the process of the
public hearing, how it will go tonight. We will open each item one by one and we will start
off with the staff report. The staff will comment on the application and present their
findings and how it regards to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code
with staff recommendations. After the staff has had a chance to make their presentation,
the applicant will have an opportunity to come forward and present their case for approval
and respond to any staff comment at that time. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes
to make their presentation. After that we will open it up to public testimony. There is a
sign-up sheet in the back, anybody wishing to testify can sign up and they will be given
three minutes to comment on the application and -- and if they are speaking for a larger
group, like an HOA and there is a show of hands, they will be given up to ten minutes.
After the public has had an opportunity to testify, the applicant will have an opportunity to
come back and rebut the comments from the public and he will be given up to ten minutes
to do so. After that we will the close the public hearing and discuss and deliberate and
hopefully make a recommendation to City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from June 4, 2015: RZ 14-007
Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC
Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and
S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN-
R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and 0.83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4
B. Public Hearing Continued from June 4, 2016: PP 14-017
Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC
Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and
S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of 167 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 329
Common/Other Lots on 48.56 Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and
TN-R Zoning Districts
Yearsley: So, with that let's open the public -- the continued public hearing of June 4th,
2015, of RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017 and let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The applications
before you tonight are a request for a rezone and preliminary plat. This project was heard
by the Commission on December 4th of 2014. The Commission requested the applicant
revise Block 3 -- and I will just get to that real quick here -- which is this -- this block right
here -- along the southern boundary of the site to comply with the maximum block length
standards listed in the UDC and to provide examples of the various architectural styles
and types that are proposed for this project. The hearing was left open for discussion of
these items. Since that time the project has been continued several times. It was
renoticed by the clerk for the June 4th hearing, but was continued again to tonight's
hearing. The applicant has submitted a revised plat as shown that complies with the
maximum block length standards. Pictures demonstrating architectural styles and types of
homes proposed to be constructed within this development and design guidelines as
requested. I believe we have a couple new commissioners since this originally went
through, so I'm just going to go ahead and go through and recap on the whole application
again, so bear with me for those of you that already heard it. So, here is a zoning and
aerial view of the property. This site consists of 48.56 acres of land. It's currently zoned
R-4, R-8, R-15 and TN-R and is located south of West Overland Road on the west side of
South Linder Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are future single family
residential properties in Southridge Subdivision No. 1, zoned R-8 and TN-R and vacant
undeveloped property, zoned RUT in Ada County and TN-C. To the east is North Linder
Road and future single family residential properties in Fall Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8.
To the south is the Ridenbaugh Canal and rural residential properties in Aspen Cove and
Ariel Estates Subdivision, zoned RUT in Ada County and to the west is the Ridenbaugh
Canal and vacant, undeveloped land, zoned R-2, R-4 and R-15 that's also of the
Southridge development. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for
this site is medium density residential over the majority of this site, 48 plus acres, and
medium high density residential for approximately three acres of the site. The applicant
requests a rezone of 3.05 acres of land from R-15 to TN-R, 1.67 acres from R-4 to R-8
and .83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4, which staff deems generally consistent with the
medium density residential and medium high density residential future land use map
designation for this site. Here is just a little rezone exhibit here that demonstrates the
zoning. The proposed rezone to R-4 and R-8 will clean up the existing zoning boundaries
in accord with the proposed preliminary plat and the proposed rezone to TN-R, will
increase the area of the existing TN-R zoned area. Development of the northwest portion
of the site proposed to be zoned TN-R is governed under the Southridge Apartments
development agreement. Prior to Council action on the subject rezone plat the
development agreement is required to be modified to include a concept plan for that area
consistent with the proposed plat. A preliminary plat is proposed. It consists of 168 single
family residential building lots, which is more -- one more than originally proposed on that
plat to your left and 32 common lots on 48.56 acres of land. The overall gross density for
the subdivision is 3.43 dwelling units per acre, with a range of densities between 2.22,
3.74, and 5.91 units per acre between the R-4, R-8, and TN-R zoned areas respectively.
Access is proposed via existing streets to West Overland and South Linder Roads. Stub
streets constructed with phase one are proposed to be extended with this development.
Stub streets to adjacent undeveloped parcels to the north and west are also proposed for
future extension in accord with the concept plan approved for this site. Common
driveways are proposed for access to the lots along the southern boundary of the site and
these are right here that you see. Landscaping is proposed along Linder Road, an arterial
street, and South Spanish Sun Way, a collector street, in accord with UDC standards. I
apologize, I had to kind of copy and paste here different sheets of the plan together, so it's
a little disjointed. A segment of the city's multi -use pathway is proposed along the
frontage of Block 3. So, that's across the front of this block right here where my arrow is.
And along the west side of Linder Road consistent with the pathways master plan.
Detached sidewalks with parkways are proposed throughout the development. Staff
recommends the landscaping and pathway along Linder is installed with the first phase of
development. 5.31 acres or 11 percent of the site is proposed to be qualified open space
in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of two site amenities are required. Applicant
proposes a ten foot wide multi -use pathway through the site and along Linder Road and a
picnic area as amenities. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Council to allow the
Ridenbaugh Canal to remain open and not be piped. Because this is a large facility staff
is supportive of the request, provided fencing is constructed to preserve public safety. As
previously noted, the applicant has submitted design guidelines and pictures of homes
that represent the type of construction planned for this development, which includes one
and two story homes, with a mix of three types of building materials, contrasting colors,
varying roof lines and five different architectural styles in accord with the development
agreement, which requires Council approval of architectural guidelines. A variety in
structures within a block is also required. The design guidelines here just represent the --
the pictures for the most part here. Written testimony was received back in December
from Jason Densmer, the applicant's representative, response to the staff report. I did
revise the staff report at kind of the last minute today. I sent a memo out to the
Commission last week, but after looking at the staff report a little bit more I thought it
would be clearer just to go through and clean up the conditions that no longer applied
since the plat's been revised, so you should also have a copy of that tonight. Staff is
recommending approval of the proposed rezone and preliminary plat with conditions in
Exhibit B of the revised staff report. Staff will stand for any questions Commission may
have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Before I go any further, I also want to acknowledge that we are
opening this public hearing only for the block length and the condition of the home design
guidelines. So, with that would the applicant like to come forward. And, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Densmer: Yes. Thank you. My name is Jason Densmer with The Land Group. 462 East
Shore Drive in Eagle. Thank you, first off, to the Commission for your patience as we
worked through those design guidelines and the modifications to the preliminary plat that
were asked for in December. We realize that coming forward tonight did require us to ask
to have the application continued several times and we are certainly appreciative that that
was acceptable to you. We are pleased with the modifications that have come together
now and I think that the changes we have made have improved the project as you
intended and helped clarify the intent of the architectural design and the homes that would
be built there. That's really all I have to add, unless you had questions specific to the --
the new application materials. I would say that we have had a chance to review the
revised staff report that was issued today and are in support of staff's recommended
conditions as written.
Yearsley: Okay. Are there any questions? No? Thank you.
Densmer: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have one person signed up. Steve Prizbos.
Prizbos: Prizbos.
Yearsley: Prizbos. Would you like to come forward? Well, we need you to -- to talk in the
microphone.
Prizbos: I'd to look it over, the whole map of the whole project, where everything is
located.
Yearsley: State your name and address for the record and, then, just --
Prizbos: Steve Prizbos. 4530 South Del Rey Lane.
Yearsley: Thank you. And, then, if you would -- that's the overview of the whole site. And
if you want to go to the next one, show him the --
Watters: Mr. Prizbos, did you want to see the aerial on the zoning or did you want to see
the plat?
Prizbos: The plat versus where I'm at and where this is at.
Watters: Okay. So, this map shows the boundaries of the property that's proposed to be
platted. I believe you're over in this area?
Prizbos: Okay. I'm -- we are upside down. Okay. Yeah.
Watters: The top is north.
Prizbos: So, we are looking at the northeast corner --
Watters: Yes.
Prizbos: -- is what you're talking about?
Watters: Yes.
Prizbos: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody else signed up to testify. Would -- is there
anybody else? With that I will assume no one else wants to testify. Mr. Densmer, do you
want to -- I don't know if there is anything to rebut with that -- okay. He, basically, stated
there was nothing else to add. So, with that I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing on RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on RZ 15-007 and PP 14-017.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments or thoughts? I know you guys haven't -- I guess if you would, at
least with this, for the record state that you have had a chance to review the plat, all the
conditions, and what was heard last time and actually -- so, you're -- I'll let --
Baird: Mr. Chair, I think what you're saying is you'd like each of the commissioners,
Commissioner Wilson and Commissioner Fitzgerald, who weren't here in December, just
to state that they have reviewed the record and they are comfortable with all the facts and
they are comfortable deliberating and making a decision tonight.
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: And we'd like to hear from them if that's correct.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I -- thank you to staff and for the review, but I feel comfortable having reviewed
the package and the minutes from the previous meeting and feel comfortable making a
decision going forward.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I reviewed the minutes here. I have reviewed the facts of the case and I'm
comfortable with deliberating --
Yearsley: Okay.
Wilson: --on this.
Yearsley: Any comments, I guess, with that going forward? I guess I will go. I -- I do like
the changes. I think they did a good job meeting the intent of the code and the design'
guidelines were nice and be able to see the pictures of how they would -- the homes and
stuff. So, I -- I think they will look good and I think it will turn out well. So, if there is no --
are there any additional statements?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I think the -- I think it looks good. I appreciate the efforts that's
been put forward by the applicant and I think it was wise of the Council -- or the
Commission to send it back before moving forward. So, I think it's -- it looks good. I think
the -- bringing it forward with the density looks good, closer to the apartments. I think it's a
good project.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I appreciate the photos and all the detail that's gone into displaying the
housing that's going to be there and the work that they did on making it up to code with the
block length.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 18th, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: With no modifications?
McCarvel: With staff's recommendation.
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Second again.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve -- to approve file number RZ 14-007
and PP 14-017. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing: CUP 15-011 CFT Retail Drive-Thru Building A by
Charlie Shen Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and
W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for
a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of an Existing Drive-
Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District
D. Public Hearing: CUP 15-013 CFT Retail Drive-Thru Building B by
Charlie Shen Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and
W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for
a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Proposed Drive-
Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District
Yearsley: For the next item we are going to open both of these items at the same time,
because they are in close proximity and the same site, but since they are two separate
applications we will have to make motions individually for each one of these. So, with that
I will open file numbers CUP 15-011 and CUP 15-013, CFT retail drive-thru and let's begin
with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the
agenda this evening will be two conditional use permits for the CFT retail drive-thru
Building Pad A and Pad B sites. You can see here on the aerial on your left here that the
site is currently zoned C-G within the city and it's surrounded by properties that are zoned
C-G as well. Currently there is a Walmart store that it is built northwest of this site and the
only other commercial development, as you can see in the aerial, is the commercial
development located on the southeast corner. The surrounding properties are currently
vacant as well. The applicant is here this evening to discuss constructing two drive-thru
uses on the same parcel of ground. Recently the subdivision, which you acted on several
months ago, called the Coleman Subdivision, was recorded and this was a lot and block
that was approved with that subdivision. Also later -- or in 2008 this property went through
a rezone and a Comprehensive Plan map amendment for a concept plan for a retail
development, which is consistent with the site plan before you this evening. As part of
that approval the City Council did approve and record a development agreement, which is
also subject to this piece of ground as well, so moving forward they will have to comply
with the recorded development agreement as well. The graphics on the left-hand side
depicts how this proposed development will interact with the adjacent Walmart store here,
so this is the entire 26 acre site or a majority of it here. When the applicant came forward
to staff we wanted to make sure how this development would interface with the adjacent
property to the west and the Walmart store moving forward. We wanted to insure it was
consistent with that concept plan as I mentioned to you with the -- that's required with the
recorded development agreement. The applicant was -- also sought and approved --
received approval from the director for an alternative compliance application to allow a
majority of the parking between the buildings and the adjacent streets and I will get into
that more as I get into the landscaping plan. So, the site plan on the right-hand side is,
basically, a zoomed in version of this proposed development. For purposes of the two
applications this will -- the pad site -- the western pad site will be known as Pad A and the
northern -- I guess the northeast corner will be Pad B. So, the pad site A will consist of an
8,600 square foot multi -tenant building. The end user for the drive-thru use will be a
restaurant, which is a permitted use in the C-G zoning district. You can see here that the
actual stacking lane comes along the western boundary with an exit lane on the south side
of the building. The proposed drive-thru for this portion of the site is consistent with the
UDC standards. The pad site B, again, will have a 2,500 square foot building -- at least
that's what's depicted this evening. At this time this is merely speculative. The applicant
does not have an end user for this building. They merely want to establish the drive-thru
use in order to be able to market the pad site and get further interest in having someone
locate in conjunction with the restaurant use and the other multi -tenant building. Access
to this development was approved -- was approved with not only the Walmart store, but
also the Coleman Subdivision. If you go back to the graphic on the west -hand -- or the
left-hand side you can see here there is a right -in, right -out only access to Ten Mile along
the north boundary of the proposed development and, then, the access road that you see
here to McMillan is also a right -in, right -out, which during the review as a commercial
subdivision, staff did require a cross -access agreement for this property to use those
access points. So, no other access points are approved -- requested or approved with the
application before you this evening. The landscape buffers around the perimeter along
McMillan and North Ten Mile Road were approved -- reviewed and approved with the
Walmart store and subsequently approved with the Coleman Subdivision as well. As I
mentioned to you earlier in my presentation, the applicant has received alternative
compliance in order to modify those buffers. Typically under our design review standards
we don't like to have the parking area being the primary focal point along -- adjacent to
streets, we want the building to be the primary focal point. The applicant has presented
an alternative compliance to enhance the landscape buffer and provide a decorative
feature at the entry corner -- or at the intersection, which staff feels does enhance the
development and also provides screening from the adjacent Walmart store parking as
well. So, I think the applicant's argument states that the building -- having the back of the
building and the drive-thru being the predominant feature along the street, in this particular
scenario staff feels is probably more prudent to have landscaping and a decorative
feature, rather than having the back of a building and the drive-thru use. So, we did side
with the applicant -- or the director did find -- make the findings to approve that alternative
compliance. Staff has a condition in the staff report that requires that those improvements
be put in prior to occupancy of the first drive-thru, the first structure on the site and we
would be looking for consistency with those standards as well. As you see here in the
upper right-hand corner that's what we envision looking at. As part of that alternative
compliance the applicant has also provided additional landscaping within the parking lot to
help break up the parking, get some more landscaping in there as well and, then, also
they have received alternative compliance to convert two the internal parking items into
patio areas for outdoor seating as well and, again, there is a detail of that and it will be
brick pavers, which will be consistent not -- with the proposed building materials of the
structures. So, here are the two elevations for you this evening. The larger building would
be the color rendering and the smaller building was proposed for the speculative site.
Proposed building materials consist of stucco, brick, stone, tile and glass, of course. Staff
is supportive -- or staff finds that these elevations do comply with the UDC that -- the
design guidelines and the Meridian design manual. Moving forward the applicant will have
to go through the CZC and design review process with the city before they can get a
building permit on the site. The only recommendation to the proposed elevations to you
this evening would be along this west elevation or the rear elevation. If you look at the
color rendering here you can -- you will note that the applicant has provided a -- a metal
banding strip along those elevations and also on the proposed elevations for pad site B.
Staff has a recommended condition that that design element be placed along this back
building as well. Staff has not received any written testimony on this application. We are
not sure if the applicant is in agreement with our staff report, but they are here this
evening as well. Staff finds that this site does generally comply with the Comprehensive
Plan of commercial designations for this site and complies with the -- as conditioned in the
staff report does comply with the requirements of the UDC. I will conclude my
presentation and stand for any questions you might have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come
forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Lee: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Crystal Lee from
Gary Wang and Associates, 1255 Corporate Center Drive in Monterrey Park, California,
and we agree with the staff recommendations. We are in agreement with -- with the minor
recommendation -- sorry. With the minor recommendations that they have put on site.
We have been working closely with Bill on this site design to make a really nice project
that we feel will benefit Meridian and the residents. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No. Thank you.
Lee: Thank you.
Yearsley: Since there is no one else in the audience to testify, we won't have her come
back and -- I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on CUP 15-011 and
CUP 15-13.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I move we close the public hearing on CUP 15-011 and CUP 15-013.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments? You know, I look at it -- I think they have done a good job. I like
alternative compliance with the entry feature. I think that will stand out and I think it will
make it look really nice. I like how they have kind of -- with the drive-thrus that they have
oriented away from the buildings and into the street side, so I think it will look nice and it
looks like it flows well, so I think it looks -- looks really well.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I think -- I agree with you completely. I think it's -- I mean it's a commercial
use already. The Walmart parking lot is kind of vast and large and I think the features that
they have provided give a buffer -- exactly what Bill said. You have a feature that breaks
that up. I mean it will kind of -- gives a little bit of a buffer between the giant parking lot
that you see as you drive by right now. So, I think it -- I think it's good. It looks nice.
Yearsley: Thank you. With that if there is no other comments, I would entertain a motion
-- let's start with Item No. CUP 15-011 first.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number CUP 15-011 as presented in the staff report for hearing date on June 18th,
2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: So we can go onto the next one.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve
file number CUP 15-013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 18th,
2015. And I think we -- do we need this on the first one? Do we need to --
Fitzgerald: Alternative --
Yearsley: I think the alternative --
McCarvel: Staff needs to prepare findings document to be considered --
Yearsley: Yes.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings
document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on July
2nd, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number CUP 15-013. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: With that we have one last motion to make.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Yearsley.
Fitzgerald: I move that we adjourn the meeting.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: We stand adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:30 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
STEVEN YEARSLEY - CFWfRkAN
ATTEST:
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK
-7 I2-I,g06'
DATE APPROVED
`0QpRATEOgLCGr1
-�u
^y S 10
p,„N7
r! A
•''�° ldFASu�Bv �