Loading...
1999 02-24MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order 6:30 P.M. by Malcolm MacCoy. MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Tammy De Weerd, Keith Borup, Mark Nelson, Byron Smith. OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Will Berg, Bill Gordon, Bill Musser. MacCoy: We would like to start this Planning and Zoning meeting which is an extension of a meeting we had a few weeks ago on the subject of annexation and zoning for 40.55 acres here in Meridian for a school site, for School District No. 2, because of the crowd we had and the direction we were going, this commission called it to a halt, we tabled the topic. The school board held a meeting information wise, question and answer here Monday ago. It was well attended by 75-100 people and I thought a lot of things were said that should’ve been said earlier and hopefully we got the air cleared and what we are after. I want to remind everybody here that this is what we are after is annexation and zoning of the property which was bought by the educational section of our community here. We’re not talking building, size, height, the color, the nomination, grass or anything else here. We are talking about the plot of land which is being requested to be annexed into our city which will allow them to get sewer and water attachment to their land and then we will go from there. At this point, I would like the staff—do you have any comments right now? Any additions or anything that you think should be said at this point? Stiles: I don’t have any additional comments. MacCoy: With that, I want to continue the public hearing. I want to ask that the applicant come forward and make any statements that they want to make right before we continue on with the rest of the public hearing. Who is that going to be? CHRISTINE DONNELL, 454 E TOBOGAL COURT, MERIDIAN, ID. Donnell: I’m superintendent of the Meridian School District and as petitioner for this request of annexation, it is again a request that the property be annexed and zoned so that we may go forth and build a professional technical high school on this property. With that, I will just stand for any questions. MacCoy: Staff, commissioners, anybody? Any questions? PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 2 Smith: I have a couple of questions Mr. Chairman. I was just skimming through the minutes which I read a couple of nights ago, I didn’t run across what the other phases were going to incur as far as what areas we were going to focus on (Inaudible). Donnell: Commissioner Smith, Chairman MacCoy, the planning for further development of this will again, if you noticed—and we are looking at the site plans, are again additional buildings that will be like the one that we have planned so far. We have yet to determine what pathway, career pathway those might be. We will look and take information from industry and business as to what the next pathway would be that would provide our students with the greatest advantage when they complete our—the schooling from our district or go on to a secondary education. It could be along the field of health occupations, it could be travel and tourism, it could be even actually fine arts. That has not been determined at this point. Smith: Okay, so how did you arrive at—then how did you make the decision that you needed 40 acres and that you needed six buildings that build out and so forth if you are not really sure what… Donnell: What it will be? Smith: What those demands or needs might be for the community? Donnell: Commissioner Smith, we looked at and Bob Haley is here who has been involved in the planning and I will—you may ask him those questions too. Actually we realized that eventually we would want a school that could house about 1,000 to 1,2000 students, eventually that could be 10-15 years. Smith: Is this a model of this type of facility then? Ideal size, maybe around the country? Donnell: It is. Smith: That was my other question, there was some conflicting testimony as far as the number of students in the minutes. It’s 200 at the first phase? Donnell: That is the maximum number for the first phase. We will actually be looking at 156. Smith: Okay, I think that is all my questions. Donnell: Okay. MacCoy: Any other commissioner have anything to say, any questions? PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 3 Donnell: Thank you. MacCoy: Is there anybody else you want to have up here to say anything? Okay, all right we are going to open it up to the public for those who are in favor of this annexation to come speak first. Remember that you have three minutes and then we will move on to somebody else. Is there anybody here that would like to get up and speak in favor of this annexation? Yes sir, come up. SAM JOHNSON, 603 LOSLASARIOS, EAGLE, ID. Johnson: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I was a small business owner in the Meridian District for ten years and my children attend the Meridian School District. So I would like to speak in favor of this school being a product of a school that was founded nearly 100 years ago by the Wright Brothers in Dayton, Ohio brought along these same principals. Most people say I turned out okay, but having gone into engineering, I see a real need in the technologies and I would like to speak that this school would be a tremendous asset for the business community, not only as the mentors and trainers of these students, but also as the potential employers and also for the tax base that these highly skilled and technically trained and professional people would represent. The caliber of the students I think you would find to be fine examples of young people. I don’t think there would be any problem with discipline or other types of issues, so with that, I would like to encourage you to support this program because I think it’s a model that Meridian will be proud to have kind of the first in the state. Thank you. MacCoy: Before you leave the podium, is there any question from the commissioners? Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone who would like to step forward on the pro side here? All right, then we will change over to the other side and those of you who are in opposition to the annexation of the school site, will entertain the fact and you can come forward and have three minutes at the podium. JAN SYLVESTER, 1775 E SUMMERHEIGHTS DRIVE, MERIDIAN, ID. Sylvester: I have a question regarding this hearing, is this hearing to annex a piece of land to build a high school or is this a hearing to annex a piece of land to build a Charter High School. MacCoy: It is an annex a piece of land for the educational department of our school district here that will put on that site. We are not looking as to what from our view point as what it will be, because they have the respons—we don’t dictate to them what they put on that property. We have a chance to be involved PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 4 in the discussions, but we are not here as a ruling body to tell them no you can not put an elementary school there or do anything like that. Sylvester: I spoke with the—Wally Hendricks at the informational meeting, he told me, the City of Meridian in order to build a high school, had to have a 50 acre site, this is 40 acres. MacCoy: All right. Sylvester: Why have they selected 10 acres less for their high school? MacCoy: We will have to ask the question to the experts that are here. We don’t have that information. We will have someone come forward in a few minutes to answer your question. Smith: Is you question whether or not that is a city ordinance that requires 50 acres for a high school, or whether that is school district policy. Sylvester: I believe that is school district policy. Smith: It is school district policy, it has nothing to do with this commission or the city. Sylvester: So the question would be to the school district, why there building a high school on less than 50 acres. MacCoy: (Inaudible) ourselves. Anybody else have a question to put forth or a statement? REBECCA YOUNG, 4053 N LOCUST GROVE, MERIDIAN, ID. Young: I’m on the other side of the street where the school would go in. Originally I stated that I was opposed to it, it’s not so much that I’m opposed to the school as what preparations are being done for us to live around the construction of the school. Some of my questions that I had written down were what kind of issues are going—I’m going to just read them off so I don’t forget anything or repeat myself. With the recent construction of North Locust Grove, for example, we have a church to the right of us and a church meeting hall that has gone down the road to the left of us and new subdivisions. It is very evident that there has been significant increase in traffic with the addition of this school, the traffic issue will become even greater. This is not only due to the fact that buses and students will becoming and going, but because the school has stated that they plan to build one building for now and that additional buildings are projected over the next few years. This means that all residents will have to contend with continuous construction in the years to come. As the plan states PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 5 their goal is for a total of six buildings in future years. Ultimately the residents will have large industrial type traffic to contend with, in addition to the increase traffic from staff and students. Also, what is the impact to current septic and well customers as the new sewer and water companies push through. Are we going to be asked to change our current systems to conform? If so, is the cost of this project our responsibility? What if any impact statements have been done regarding interruption to Settlers Irrigation system? What are the proposed hours of operation for the school? Is this a 12 month schedule? Is it open into the evening hours for night classes? Will types of flood lighting or security lighting be used at night time? Will these lights glare into people’s homes? Will there be any loud or disturbing types of sounds or noises that the residents will be exposed to? Why aren’t the road improvements done? You guys might have already looked into this, but before a new proposal for construction is accepted. So far we have two new churches, new subdivisions and no new road improvements have begun. I think these are questions that deserve to be addressed, simply so that we will know how our living conditions will be. If they build one building for now and then in two years another one, then you are looking at 10-15 years of new construction going in, we have all seen the weight of the traffic from that. IF you spend a 5:00 evening at Ustick and Meridian Road, interfacing there where there is a four way stop sign, the traffic backs up now at 5:00. Is there going to be a light system put in. Those are the type of concerns that I have had. MacCoy: Very good questions all of them. Before you leave the podium, is there anything that the commissioners want to say, (Inaudible) put it over to staff in a moment here. Or you want to wait till after the staff talks. Bruce? You heard her questions, what about sewer, water, irrigation, all those things for this area? Do you want to make a statement on that? Freckleton: Chairman MacCoy, members of the commission, as we address those items in our comments, city ordinance does require that the ditches, historical flows are passed through the property, by city ordinance they have to be able to pass through the water. You have to be able to get you historical flows to your property. I assume it goes through this property to yours? Young: Before it gets to ours. Freckleton: That is something that would be addressed during the design review of their site plans and that sort of thing. As far as the sewer ability of the parcel goes. As I mentioned in my comments. That’s getting out on the fringes of our service area. Some engineering is going to have to be done, they have located their building on the southwest corner of the parcel, where—that’s the best location for it as far as getting into the sewer. The farther away you get from our mains, the harder it is to gravity into them. So that was a concern that I raised in my comments and that is something that is going to be addressed PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 6 again during the design of the facility. Water, we have water right there at the end of Summerfield Subdivision, so it would just have to be extended up. The city does have a new well site in Summerfield Subdivision that we are proceeding with drilling a new well there. So we feel the supply will be there. Does that cover your questions? Young: It kind of answers the question, I guess. Except for--if everything goes through, what is going to be proposed to us to give us that information later down the road? Once this has the green light and it’s in the go, then the impact that you are not sure of now, how would it be addressed or answered to us before it actually began, as we are the residents near that? Freckleton: Okay… Young: Once you get the go on that, we are not going to probably have a say so anymore at that point I don’t think. Or I don’t know what the system is, but I’m kind of concerned about are we going to have a say so down the road if the choice comes up and decisions are being made. MacCoy: Go ahead Shari. Stiles: If it is the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for this annexation, they may place conditions on it, such as a site plan review. It may not be a public hearing, but it would be public before the planning and zoning commission. Anymore than one building on the property would require by our ordinance that a conditional use permit be approved, which you would be notified of, it would be a public hearing, both before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Young: So those things are addressed then? Stiles: Yeah. Young: Also, maybe you know more about what preparations have to be done on that road prior to constructions. MacCoy: Excuse me, I’ll talk to that, because we have had a numerous number of meetings of recent in the last months and we had a very heavy one last night here at this same place. We are looking at our priorities in our community as to what we have to have, what we need. That white board was full of various things last night, because of the school district and we haven’t passed anything yet for annexation, but we know that the entire area is going to grow. We are addressing traffic lights, traffic signals, roadway expansion, time element as to when you have to get them done. One of our problems is that everybody has and knows for a fact that money is a big problem. We haven’t got that much money in PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 7 the total bank for Ada County, so we have to put our bid in sort of speak, which we are doing. We are making very heavy noise about the fact that we have not be handled correctly in the last four or five years with Ada County. What you saw was a result just recently is Franklin Road going in from 1st to Linder. That was due a couple of years ago and we finally stepped on the right toes and got that one done. We also know that we have done a lot of things a lot smarter now and we went through that last night too about what we thought we could get done in this year, 99 looking at our construction sites, our approvals and so on and we are going to be pushing very hard for a number of areas to get things done. In fact we were evening looking at staging last night, when we have to have say what Bruce had just mentioned here to do with our water and sewer piping, that has to go in ahead before they do the road work. There is a situation where we are faced with a (Inaudible) done the road work, you can’t come back… Young: …have to rip it up. MacCoy: For some years, five years before you can go ahead an cut it up again, or you pay a very heavy fine for it. So we are looking at dollars and sense. So we are trying to stage all of this. Our city engineer took note he was here last night and he will keep the highway department as to what our schedule is, how we see it because we are building out and everything, so we get ours ahead of them so we do one thing and then the next thing in steps. So we are trying to do it very smartly. Yes we are very concerned about our roadways, it’s not just the one that you are speaking of, we have Linder, Locust, and it goes on and on because we see our community expanding in all different directions and we’ve got to have proper road size, proper signals, proper everything. We did get the approval and are in that position right now, maybe you’ve seen some of the work done here last fall, the summer and fall on the streets of Meridian and 1st for Pine street crossing. We got new lights put in, you may have wondered why the boxes that went on the side piece of the curb are so big. We’re stepping into something this year which has been promised to us. We’ve been doing all the piping work, which has tore up our community for long here this past summer, we are going into an electronic situation so every light in this city will be controlled out of a single control house. So we can change things the police department has a handle on this. We can look at what the work load is, what the traffic load is, etc., etc. and we can control our lights. That’s going to be not only what you see today, we’ve included all the new lights going in. We’ve already marked the spots on our map as what we want for the new lights. ACHD says they will do that for us this year. So you are going to see a lot of changes come into our community in this year 1999 and on going, because we’ve got the lead position right now on getting a lot of this road work done. We haven’t forgotten this, we’ve planned way much in the future and are saying give us the help, ACHD and Idaho Transportation, because we need it. We have people, we have the largest expanding community in the state. We deserve the money coming in to do a lot of this work. They don’t disagree with us. We have a continual running PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 8 meetings now with a lot of very educated, very good expert people to see what we are doing and they agree with us. So you made some very good points and we are looking at those very hard because we want to see the thing cleaned up also. We hear this all the time at this desk up here about our roads, our lights, and so on. So you’ve just echoed what we think also. So I thank you for thinking of the issues, bringing them forth, gives me a chance to say a few things about it. Okay, I’m going to ask the commissioners here, do they have anything else they want to add to any of your questions? None, okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to ask questions or figure out what they might want to do or are going to do? If not, I would like the applicant—I don’t know who that is going to be—who will come forward to answer some of the… De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, there is another hand up. MacCoy: All right, come on up. Are you going to be pro or con? DAVE WINCOUP. Wincoup: I’m a volunteer trustee of the Meridian School District. It takes maybe courage to admit that sometimes. I just wanted to point out, I didn’t testify the other night when I was here, I’m not doing this as the representative necessarily of the school district, although in my capacity I guess I do that some extent. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, I just want to point out from the point of view of this trustee, I think this idea of a charter school for technology is an absolutely wonderful idea that is desperately need for our community and it is desperately needed for this fall. The commissioners may be aware that our high schools are pushing 2,300 kids. We need to get any possible child we can into another opportunity. This would provide a wonderful opportunity. As you know, we are growing extremely rapidly. We had half of the growth in the entire state of new kids. We had 3,300 new kids in the last three years alone. So we have a responsibility as the trustees of this district to find a place for these kids and to provide the very best education that we can for these kids. As trustees, like you as volunteers, we put in a lot of time, but we take this responsibility very responsibility very seriously. This site has been owned by the school district for many years and given that rapid growth, it would be absolutely unconscionable for the school district to not take advantage of this site. I want to point out a couple of things that this hearing is not. I’ve put out a few things that it is. It’s not tonight about specific design of the building, the specific design of the site, that will come at a later time. This site is not going to remain vacant. There are those who would prefer and in my professional life I’m going to turn in, I do some land use work and I’ve had clients myself that boy, lets do what we can to close this project, because we hope that this site will remain vacant. This is a great site. It’s filling in quickly, it’s not going to remain vacant. There is going to be something there. A school site is probably one of the best potential uses for this area. These people would be able to use as my children would be the area of PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 9 this for essentially a defacto (sic) park and fact, as you know the Meridian School District to some extent at least historically has been the defacto park system for this whole western end of the county. We’ve attempted to cooperate. Given the fact that something has got to go in there, a school might be far better than a McDonalds or a six story office building, or some use that would be far less compatible with this particular site. This is not about switching this site with the middle school site which is proposed. There are some who have talked to you about that and testified in that regard. This tonight is simply about annexation and zoning for school purposes. Accordingly, this individual trustee volunteer would request your affirmative recommendation to be Meridian City Council and with great appreciation. MacCoy: Is there any questions for him? Okay, thank you very much. Anyone here who would like to speak? Yes, come on up. LARRY LIPSCHULTZ, 3332 N SUMMERFIELD WAY, MERIDIAN, ID. Lipschultz: First I will tell you that my sense is that a lot of people think this is kind of a sour grapes thing, the people in Summerfield don’t want the charter school, because they want the middle school. The people in Westdale want the charter school so that they can have the middle school. I think they are two very separate issues and I think there are real significant questions with both. In terms of the charter school, I have three issues that I’m kind of struggling with. I think two of them are in your direct control. The first is the traffic issue. I’m concerned that I’m not seeing a firm commitment as to when Locust Grove and Ustick will be addressed by the highway department and my concern is that I don’t think that the highway should follow the school, I think the school should follow the highway. I think that at best, if the school is a success, we are going to have anywhere between 500 and 1,200-1,500 kids driving to school going to their intern programs and I don’t think that road is prepared for today. I think that with the chance of that happening in the next couple of years. I would like to see a firm commitment on what is going to happen with the roads before we approve a site to build any kind of a school there. The second concern is with—what happens if this school does not succeed. Do we have a building and what use is it for? I would like to see some kind of covenant where this building is designed such that it could be used as either an elementary or middle school or a traditional high school. I think to see a building there that the only other use would be either light industry or office in that area, I don’t think is right for that area. That’s not what it’s zoned today. While I understand that you have a lot of control and power in those situations, cross the street from our house is a half finished house that’s been that way for four years and nobody on the town council or your group has been able to do anything about it. So I know that the control of the city is not all encompassing, but if in fact that school didn’t succeed, that it puts it as an empty building. So my second concern is in the design. My third issue which again, I think is more a school board issue than PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 10 yours, just with the basic concept of investing three million dollars at this point and time. I assume with land and building, it’s probably somewhere in that area. In fact, today we don’t have enough books in our schools. All the kids don’t have books, we don’t have enough teachers, the resources aren’t there. So it bothers me a little bit to invest that kind of money for 156 kids. Thank you. MacCoy: Before you leave the podium, is there any question (Inaudible)? Smith: I have a question, roads should follow the schools, do you believe that the road should follow the subdivisions too? I’m sorry, schools should follow the roads, the subdivisions should follow the roads too? Lipshultz: Yeah I do. Smith: Do you live in Summerfield Subdivision? Lipshultz: Yeah I do. Smith: Okay, another example of the roads following the subdivisions. I think if you look at the design of this facility. Now I’m not familiar with exactly what all the programmatic requirements are, but it’s a teaching facility. When I was employed with the University Architects office at Boise State University, the University acquired the ITT facility across Capitol Boulevard and converted it into teaching space, it was a natural transition. It’s a teaching facility. It’s not going to be something that—I just don’t believe that this technical training is going to constitute something that can only be used by a light industrial type use. Lipshultz: Well my concern is that it is a 1,600 square foot stand alone building. I mean my preference would be to see a spoke and hub type of situation where you have a central area with one wing that goes off now that is used for this and then add wings as we go on which would be more conducive. Smith: We are not here to speak to design and aesthetics. Lipschultz: Okay. Smith: Even though I like to look at those things, that’s not what we are… Lipschultz: The idea would be more aesthetics and more utilization, if in fact it didn’t succeed. MacCoy: I think your question as you said earlier, is to the school board, not to us. We are interested as Commissioner Smith has talked about, we will be looking at how it’s built and what the thing is. You have to remember that it’s a campus situation. He is correct, it will not be used for light industrial, it will be PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 11 used for education. I would like to go back one statement twenty years there, abut the roads, ahead of the development. That’s a very good idea, except that we have our hands tied. The ACHD has got a rule of thumb, which they live by, ever since I’ve been in this state. You’ve got to have 65% or better of the area that they are going to fix the road in populated either by homes or businesses before they’ll step in and do any planning about what you are going to do with that road. So we are having, we are forced to be the other side of the fence, to be buildings and people first and the roads come second. Then they come back and they have the thing that say then they can then develop the road situation to match the people. We have a lot of places here we would like to see the roads go in now because we know what is going to happen in the future, it’s inevitable, but that makes us no way at all, we have no voice in this situation. I’ve been in these meetings and time and time again, I might as well talk to that wall as to tell them how it’s going to develop. They say it’s not there now, they don’t build it, they don’t fund it, they don’t do anything. So the best that we can do is keep tight as possible and keep them up front so that we are having them design things, even though they can’t get them built right away, because that takes time to design. That’s lost time to us for getting the job done when we want it done. So if we can keep the heat on them, from this city that we need that, and we can show that we need that. We are talking about dates and so on, which we are, we hope the design gets done which is a good example, is Franklin round here, we did Franklin from here to Linder, 1st to Linder. We want as a number one item, from 1st to Locust Grove, because we have to deal in one mile increments because we have been pushing that is already on the drawing board and we want that as soon as possible. If we could get that by the end of this year, we would be very happy, because we have hit, we can prove we have hit the mark, beyond the mark as what the need will be. So it’s just a matter of information to you for planning, yes we are heavily involved in this thing and we believe as you do. We would like to have it first roads and then development, but it’s not in the cards for us. Okay? Any questions about that? Lipshultz: The only thing that I would say is that it seems to me that a charter high school of this type where most of the people will be driving and they will be coming from a wide area is less location sensitive than an elementary or middle school. So therefore, I have a little bit of a problem with creating an unsafe condition for a traffic standpoint with out investigating all the alternative sites. From the fact that maybe there is 40 acres somewhere that wouldn’t create that type of traffic hazard for the elementary school kids in the area. MacCoy: Well, I don’t disagree with you, but I leave that up to the educational department because they are very sensitive about safety for the students. They look at not only where people presently live, where they are going to live, what we are going to have in the community, we do hear from them as to what, how, and what have you, but it’s not our decision. So, yes we are with them, we work PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 12 with them, they work with us, that’s the best that I can tell you right now without— I can’t give you a date for anything in other words. Lipshultz: Thank you for hearing me. Borup: I just have some information, there seems to be some concern on the zoning issue. I just want to point out that the request is for R-4 zoning. There are only two permitted uses in R-4 zone, one is single family residential, the other is public schools. That’s it period. So office buildings or industrial buildings or anything else would not be a permitted use. MacCoy: Thank you very much for that one. Anybody else want to get up here and say anything? Yes sir, come ahead. I figured that I would ask you to give a little background like you did the other night, which I thought was very interesting and good ground piece for what we have been discussing here. Go right ahead. BOB HALEY, 577 E LINKERSHAM, MERIDIAN, ID. Haley: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I thought maybe I would attempt to answer some of the questions that have been posed for you. There was a question about the schedule of the building again. Again, as we begin this program, our intent is for the class schedule the length of the year be approximately that of the traditional high school. Beginning roughly at 7:30 AM and going till 3:30 PM. Starting approximately one week before labor day and ending approximately one week after memorial day weekend. I will say as was said once before, just with any of our schools, those schedules are subject to change, they could vary from year to year both in the length of the school day and in length of the school year. To stand here and tell you exactly what those changes might be would be impossible at this time. Question about lighting for the parking, there will be lighting on the outside of the building that is typical with most of our schools. There will be lighting in the parking lot that again is directed downward and shielded. We will make every effort so that this doesn’t infringe on the community around the school. Question about noise, this school would probably have a tremendously less amount of noise than your traditional high school would because we don’t plan to include an athletic program, we do not plan to have a band. We get comments from our schools when the bands are out there practicing at 6:30 in the morning or 10:00 at night. There won’t be a band practicing out there. Nor will there be football games and stadiums and those kinds of things. Of course that has to do with the size of the facility, or the number of acres needed for a traditional high school 50 acres will accommodate all the athletic fields and so forth, that’s not needed in this case. The question about 1,200 students coming and going, to take part in job sharing activities, even if this school were totally developed into the six pathways that we envision could occur over the next 10-15 years with 1,200 students. You would not have more than ¼ of those students going out to work sites. Those would just be the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 13 seniors that are involved in this program who would be leaving at noon each day to go to work sites. They are going to leave sometime during the day anyhow, whether it’s at noon, or at 3:30, the same number of kids would be leaving. As far as the use of the building, if this program should fail, there are all kinds of uses that this building could be used for in the district. Classroom space is always a premium. The building is designed so that we could add on to it if we needed to. Certainly as it is constructed, we could house 250 elementary students there easily and we could add another four classrooms if necessary. So I don’t think there is any question as to what this facility would have plenty of use for the district should this program fail. I will tell you though that from the meetings that we’ve had around the district so far, there is tremendous amount of interest in this. I suspect we will have far more kids than we can handle and that we will probably use a lottery system to select the original 156 students for it. Comment about the cost and so forth, every program that we go into has an investment. Certainly we would be making an investment into this program, but again, even if the program were to fail, it would be an investment that would still be a very good investment for the school district and for the students of this school district. Finally I know that some of you have had indication that this charter school does not meet the intent of the charter school legislation, because we wanted to make sure that it did before we moved forward with this petition. Trusty Wincoup and I met with representative Fred Towman who is the sponsor of the legislation for charter schools and he more than welcomed us to move forward with this idea. The best of the two worlds and the charter area is to have the community and the school district working together on a charter. I was told over the weekend in a conference that I attended, that there are only three such cooperative ventures in the United States where the district is actually willing to work with the community to develop a charter school. So with that Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to try and answer any other questions we think that we have covered all the bases on this. MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Anything for the doctor? Nelson: I have a question, and I don’t know if you are the appropriate one to answer this, but the issue has come up repeatedly about the construction, trash and also there has been a request for some chain link fence between this site and some existing homes. Could you answer to that request from the community? Haley: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Nelson, yes we held a hearing on this a week ago Monday, I guess it was and that did come up. One of the things that we are committed to taking a close look at would be a berm between the school and Summerfield Subdivision, which was not included in the original plans, along with additional landscaping. As with most of our school sites, we would look at chain link fencing, where it would be appropriate for control of students, trash and what have you. Certainly there are complaints about any school in any PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 14 neighborhood about trash. Certainly we try to be good neighbors. We do involve students and custodians and so forth in trying to keep that cleaned up. We like our schools to have an excellent appearance to the neighborhood, but we certainly can not guarantee that any time the wind blows it isn’t going to blow a piece of paper. Neither can this neighborhood guarantee to us that their trash won’t be blown into the school site and collect against that chain link fence like it does in many of our neighborhoods. Did that answer your question? Nelson: That was a detailed answer. I don’t have the letter with me, there was a couple that sent a letter requesting… De Weerd: The Hollisters… Nelson: The Hollisters, did we specifically address them and their property? Haley: I’m not sure that we’ve seen that letter. We did purchase the property from the Hollisters, so this has been a cooperative… Nelson: Davis. De Weerd: The farmer. Nelson: I guess it would be the dairy farm next door. De Weerd: Tom Davis. Haley: Mr. Chairman, commissioner, I assume that his question was the same as he posed here at the last meeting about who would take care of the trash and so forth. Again, offer the same answer that I just gave that we would do our very best. MacCoy: Any other questions? De Weerd: Mr. Davis was the one that requested the nine foot chain link fence, I believe, but we do have a fence ordinance that limits that six foot. Would you be agreeable to help by fencing in that property line? Haley: Mr. Chairman, could I ask our architect, I believe that is already included in the plan, is it not? MacCoy: Do you want to come forward, we can’t hear you. De Weerd: No, we just meant the property line that is shared with the Davis’s… WAYNE THOWLESS, 1735 FEDERAL WAY, BOISE, ID. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 15 Thowless: As was mentioned in the last hearing, the portion of the site that is intended for initial development is about 3.5 acres in the extreme southwest corner. Mr. Davis owns the property east of the 40 acres. Given limited budget constraints, it would be our preference to not do work of any type beyond the boundaries of that initial 3.5 acres that needs to be developed for this first building. We’re talking something on the order of 700-800 feet from this first phase building and that east property line, which the district is considering, continuing to lease for farming until additional portions of that property are needed for school development. So the plan at this point, was not to fence either the north property line, the east property line, or even the portion of the southeast property line that abuts Mr. Hollister’s Property. Given there is no proposed change in use of that portion of the 40 acres in the foreseeable future. De Weerd: With Mr. Hollister with the access road that he has requested, is that on your piece of property, or his? Thowless: That is his property. He owns… De Weerd: Where would you be doing the additional berming and landscaping? Thowless: Could I show the site plan? De Weerd: Yes please. Thowless: North is up on this drawing. This particular drawing shows just 3.5, approximately 3.5 acres at the southwest corner of the site. The building is there, you can see parking on the west between the building and Locust Grove, as well as parking on the south side of the building. Mr. Hollister’s 40 foot property that he intends to build a new driveway to his property is here on the south property line. We—there is already berming on the site, along Locust Grove, as well as further north, that will remain. The berming here in this first phase development will be re-contoured somewhat, it will be landscaped with grass and trees in response to neighbors concerns. We are going to be looking at some low berming along the south property line, between the proposed parking lot and Mr. Hollisters driveway. But we would like to at least at this time, stop that landscape treatment, trees, grass, berms, fencing, if desired, etc. at the eastern limits of this first phase of development which is about 30 feet behind the proposed structure, roughly at that location. If I may show you the other site plan of the entire site, the shaded building… (END OF TAPE) Thowless: …phase building, that corner of the site you can see—get some perspective of the percentage of the site which will be developed initially. Mr. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 16 Davis’s property is back here, the Hollister’s Property is in the southeast corner. So you can see it’s a long, long way between phase one of this professional technical school and Mr. Davis’s property line. It would be a significant investment to fence the entire property at this time, but as Dr. Haley mentioned we do want to be good neighbors and if it comes down to that, we will try and find a way to deal with that concern, in the most efficient way possible. Nelson: I have a question, while you have that site plan. Is there any plans to do anything with that—are you just going to grass the difference between the parking lot and buildings and the Davis property, after this is all complete? You will end up with that open area right there on the right. When this is all said and done, is that just going to be grassy area, or what is the plan? Thowless: All said and done meaning built out the buildings as conceived at this point, how will that likely be used? I would expect that at that time there wouldn’t be enough residual property to warrant continuing to farm. As with as many as 1,000-1,200 students potentially on the site, even though athletic programs won’t be offered per say, there will probably be demand, or need for some fields for student activity. That decision has not been made yet and will be up to the board governing the charter school as it develops over time. There has also been interest expressed by the City of Meridian in terms of possible joint use of that property for a community park. I’m sure those discussions will be ongoing. Nelson: Thank you. MacCoy: Any other questions for him? Smith: Wayne, the other site plan, the phase I, you talked about additional berming on the south property line. Is that—will that encroach into that loop road, I’m assuming that’s a loop road on the south side, between the parking lot and Mr. Hollister’s Driveway. Thowless: The portion of the loop road that would be developed at this time, it is anticipated would end at that point. Ultimately, there will be two landscape strips along that loop driveway, one between the driveway and the parking, and another one between the loop driveway and the south property line of the site. So what we would probably be looking at would be two low, modestly slopped berms, one on either side of that loop road, both of which would have grass and trees on them. The planting strip that we have shown adjacent to the parking lot is approximately, 10-11 feet in width and between the proposed extension of the loop driveway and the property line, is approximately 17 feet in width. You can’t get a real high berm in that space, but we can do we believe attractive landscape treatment and at least do some shielding of cars and vehicular traffic, at least to a height of three feet, possibly four feet. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 17 Nelson: While you are up there. Take a look back at the full site plan, I think that by the end of this project, you are going to end up with a chain link fence anyway along the Davis Property, just that far—not the whole property, but just the chain link fence right along there. I know there is quite a bit distance there, but there is quite a bit of difference—or distance in the subdivision I was happy to be the first phase in. So every garbage day I did a lot of pick up from homes far, far away. Also I think he is an exception to the rule and I think he does have some cattle there that actually feed, some dairy cows. So anyway, I would like to go ahead and consider the chain link fence just along that perimeter, even now. I don’t know what the board feels about that, but that’s what I would like to do. MacCoy: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Thowless: Thank you. MacCoy: Anyone else that has, yes sir, come forward. TOM DAVIS. Davis: I have the property on the east side, the reason I requested that fence was—is that my property also goes along Summerfield, and when they built Summerfield, they started along Locust Grove, and from the time that they put in the sewers and started in the houses, we didn’t have any fences and it’s nothing for a wind storm in the spring to push that clear over into my agriculture fields and we never got a wood fence until the third phase, but even a wood fence, it won’t stop it. We picked up trash two times a week, especially on the lower end. When the wind blows with little plastic bags, piece of installation, our house is over a ¼ of a mile from there and it would get clear up to our house and we would pick up 20 acres and pick it up at least once a week. This went on for about three (Inaudible) now, and the reason I requested the fence was that the air will go through the fence, it will catch some of that stuff. If the construction, or whatever they are building, had a little more control to pickup their stuff, it would help a lot, because when I had all the trouble with Summerfield, if you went over there and talked to those builders and see if they could kind of keep it picked up, they said when the trash goes off of the property line, or the lot, then it’s not there’s, nobody claims it. So anyway, if they think that is a long ways for the trash to go, it isn’t, especially when you are on the east side, and the westerly winds and have a summer storm or something. That’s why I requested also on Hollister’s I requested a fence along there to try and help stop some of that stuff. Plastic bags and all this little stuff goes out in these fields and we chop our crops for dairy cattle and a plastic bag, or a piece of plastic, if a cow eats and stuff it can cause a lot of problems. So that is the main reason why I would like to have a fence to catch some of that and if they would pick up along that fence once in a while, because in Summerfield the trash would get that high up there against the fence, get a good blow and it would just push it over. I picked up 36 shingle PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 18 wrappers one Saturday morning all over that field, because none of the builders will pick up their stuff. I think there ought to be some way (Inaudible) that they could do a little better job of keeping their stuff picked up. That is the way that I make a living. That effects the way I make a living and I spend extra time doing that, and I’ve got to do it if I’m going to protect my feed. MacCoy: We understand your concern. A couple of us work jobs and we know for a fact that what you say is very factual. We understand the plastic bags, because we’ve had to do the same thing. Yes it can be controlled, one way is the chain link fence because the wind blows through there and on a wood fence it just—does a plane, goes over the top and away it goes. The jobs can be controlled if you have got a good superintendent, they make the subs pick up their material on a regular basis. It’s part of a contract, so it can be enforced. Yes we agree with your view point and why you want it. Smith: Mr. Davis, you understand that our fencing ordinance doesn’t allow fences over six feet tall? Davis: I talked to Planning and Zoning and they said there was no way to have a nine foot fence, but a six foot fence would be better than nothing. MacCoy: It would be adequate. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Mr. Davis, you think that if they make a commitment and particularly during the construction phase and keeping that area clean, would that be sufficient or do you still think it’s still necessary for a fence. Davis: I would still want a fence because even when they put in the roads, water, or sewer, you’ll be surprised of how many card board boxes there is and packing material and all that stuff unless it’s gathered right up. It goes west—I mean it goes east because the wind is from the west. I don’t see how they—I can’t believe that they would do that, could keep it cleaned up that good, but I know they sure never when they built in Summerfiled. When they first started, they were over ¼ of a mile on the other side of my place and we started getting stuff right away because when the wind blows, it just keeps rolling and rolling. You get a gusty wind in the summertime in the evening or something, it moves, especially plastic and installation and these fiberglass shingle wrappers. MacCoy: This is a request that I think is very valid, I don’t see having any problem with it. We are working in the side that you are one. Even construction sites that haven’t got the problem that you’ve got--we require in the jobs that I worked on over the years, a construction fence to be put up as a temporary fence for that very same reason, to keep in control of the trash that comes off of a job. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 19 Davis: If there was a fence around the construction part of the building, well then it would probably contain probably 85-90%… MacCoy: I think that is up to the school board as they do their contract work is to make that kind of decision with the contractor and write it into their contract… De Weerd: We could require a construction fence as well. MacCoy: We could require it, but also the school board is hearing the stories that we are hearing and would very much agree to work something out. Smith: Yeah but, this trash problem goes way beyond construction. You are going to have 120-150 student here in phase I, 140 of them could throw there trash in the trash can, ten of them don’t give a crap and I went to school in the school district, I know. I’ve driven through Eagle and seen the parking lot next to Circle K after lunch and it looks like somebody took a dumpster and dumped it over in the middle of the parking lot. I think it’s got to be a long term solution, it’s not just a construction… MacCoy: Wait a minute, that’s true, I think the fence that he has asked for. A construction fence is an in between thing that they do to keep the thing closer to their site. I don’t know how many jobs you’ve worked on, but on ours we have done that for even big projects, in order to make it a second level of control, so you don’t have to walk half way mile to get their stuff off that fence. So we want that thing enclosed so the superintendent can control it. I’m just saying that you have a valid point, I think it should go. I think you hear from the commission here that we agree with you. Just make a comment to the school board that they have to consider that, that’s all. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I had a question for Mr. Davis too. Just curious what you feel, what you would be more comfortable with on this site as far as trash generation in a school district doing one building, or five buildings or whatever, or 130 homes in the same location? One be better than the other as far as you are concerned? Davis: I’m not opposed to the school and I’m not opposed to the… Borup: No, I understand your concern on the trash and it sounds like—with a lot of homes, it looks to me like a lot of homes are going to generate a lot of trash than a school building over a longer period of time--cause you more problems, is that your feeling too? Davis: Not necessarily, Mr. Hollister when I tried to testify the other day and he told me to sit down. It’s that if he has an R-4 he could have four homes to the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 20 acre and that’s why I want—I asked for that time a chain link fence across his and across the school districts to help try and control some of the trash. I agree with you, the school won’t produce as much trash probably on the building phase, after the kids are all there, if they put a park—field or park down there, there is going to be some trash too. It’s a problem to me, it’s not—I can’t get anybody to take any responsibility as far as picking it up. We picked it all up, nobody ever come over and helped us pick any of it up. Like I say, it effects the way I make a living and it takes me extra time. That’s why I feel that I should have some protection, I know that it can’t stop 100% of it, but when we are out there picking up two times a week sometimes for about three hours. Sometimes after a blow, I can pick you up a pickup load, and if I brought—if I was putting trash here on City Hall steps, somebody would be after me real fast. My fields are just as important to me as the City Hall steps are to you. MacCoy: We are talking about annexation and zoning, so let’s get back to the subject. Nelson: I would like to comment on this issue. For one thing, trying to control a dozen independent contractors is different than one commercial developer with ties to the school district. Mr. Davis will have the school district to—I guess their ear to bend and also the developer, you have a little more accountability in this issue than you did with all the contractors with residential. In either case, I think in the end you are going to end up with a chain link fence situation. I think it’s a matter of whether the school district buys it this year, or five years from now. So I would prefer to see them do it now. MacCoy: Okay, can we move on? Is there anybody else here who would like to make a comment pro or con? Nelson: I would like to move that we close the public hearing. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Very good, thank you very much. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, would the school district like to respond one last time. MacCoy: I was going to ask the question and somebody jumped my… Smith: I thought you did ask the question and nobody raised their hand or stood up. MacCoy: I was going to say the next thing was the school board like to have anymore (Inaudible). That’s okay, we’ve closed the public hearing. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 21 (Inaudible) MacCoy: No we haven’t, that’s true. Do you want to reduce, or back up for a moment here till we find that question out? You take back your second… Borup: Well, do we know what it is we want to find out specifically? Let’s narrow it down to a specific question. Smith: I don’t have anymore questions for the school district. Unless the school district has something new to add to the testimony that has been given for the three and half hours that this commission spent on this item, I think we can move on. MacCoy: I was going to be the courteous situation here, but if—since they didn’t answer or raise a hand, I would say that you are probably right. Let’s move forward. We’ve got a motion and second for closing the public hearing. Do I hear a vote? Yes or no? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: So the public hearing is closed. Now we are open for discussion and for a motion to make on the annexation and zoning for this property. If there is no discussion, we’ll just move forward. Smith: I have some conditions that I would like the commissioner to consider on the annexation and zoning. One is the fence that we’ve debated here at length. I think it’s important that a chain link fence be placed along the east portion of the property line between the school district property and the Davis property, on the south property line between the Hollister property and the school district property, and also on the east side of the school district property between the Hollister property and the school district property. I’m not sure exactly what we could put in for construction fencing, so I’m open for suggestion on that. Then either a conditional use permit or site plan review or staff level review of future development on this property and that we put some type of a restriction in our recommendation to not allow single family residential to be developed on this property. This annexation and zoning albeit for R-4 zoning, it is specifically because there is a school proposed for this site, not for single-family residential homes. That would follow all of the conditions that I would like to see as part of this annexation and zoning. De Weerd: I would ask why he wants it fenced on the south side… Smith: Between the Hollister property and the… De Weerd: So you want it to go down that whole road? PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 22 Smith: No, no. I meant just, not at the driveway, just at the extreme southeast corner of the—not the driveway, not along the driveway, just between the— (Inaudible) Borup: The eastern boarder again. Smith: This one here, and this one here. So there is a barrier on this eastern periphery of this school district site. In lieu of doing it across--now it could go over here too, I guess, it would be—it’s not much difference in length. De Weerd: That’s not their property. Smith: But that’s not their property, right. That’s why I was saying this way. Borup: Were you aware that the other, that there were two annexations here. I mean not here right now, we’ve got one, but the other was addressed last time for R-4. The Hollister property, is a separate annexation there. Smith: What was the proposed? Borup: It was forwarded on. De Weerd: Shari, was that fenced? Did we—is Hollister going to fence their property line? Stiles: I don’t remember if that was your recommendation or not, but we could address that at City Council. Smith: How many acres is the Hollister property? Stiles: Ten acres. (Inaudible) Stiles: Bruce read the minutes on that, and the motion did not include fencing of the Hollister property. De Weerd: Was fencing included in staff comments? Stiles: I don’t believe so. Smith: This was annexed and zoned for R-4? PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 23 Nelson: While you are looking at that, Shari, isn’t the conditional use request that Chairman Smith had already part of the ordinance? Excuse me, isn’t the— Chairman Smith was concerned about requiring conditional use for any additional buildings isn’t that already in the ordinance? Stiles: That is in the ordinance. Nelson: I think that is already covered. Smith: Okay, so there is going to be ten acres here that is to be another subdivision… Borup: The immediate intention it’s going to stay a single family lot. Smith: Right, but I guess it doesn’t make any sense then for… Borup: It can’t be a subdivision, it has no legal access. Smith: That roadway is not wide enough. Borup: Just for private drive is all. Smith: So he could develop up to three residences there? MacCoy: Three or four. Borup: Not in R-4, I don’t believe. Smith: What was that one we went through? Borup: Well, that was acre lots, that doesn’t make a difference. Smith: How many lots they could develop had to do with how wide the driveway was, the road. Borup: But they would have to plat it, it would have to be a platted subdivision. At this time, it’s just annexed and zoned. Smith: I guess what I’m getting at is, this doesn’t have legal access to develop a subdivision then. Then I would still like to see that the school district property not be developed into single family residential, whatever portion is not developed. MacCoy: Got a motion? Smith: I will make a motion, if—but I don’t… PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 24 Borup: The only other thing that I may throw out for discussion and this wasn’t mentioned, but if another option to the fencing, it would not be cost effective in the long run, but maybe in the short run is to fence the phase one site rather than the whole property if that would accomplish the same thing. Smith: I thought about that too, but then they’ve got to keep moving their fence. Borup: That’s what I’m saying, in the long run, it wouldn’t be cost effective. Nelson: Also you get the issue where we discuss the fencing at this meeting, and then at the next conditional use meeting and then fencing would be a continuous issue. I’d rather just fence it and be done. You know what I mean? Borup: I don’t think it would be productive to keep doing it every time. At this point we don’t know when the next phase will be. Smith: Feel better about giving them the option. Borup: That’s what I was wondering. One way or the other. Smith: I think that is valid, I mean it’s an economic decision, if they want to keep moving it, moving it and moving it, they should be able to do that. But the idea is that we want the fence up. Borup: I would hope that they wouldn’t move more than once. Nelson: I still think though that even with a 150 students an operational one building is still going to produce trash. Borup: That’s why the fence would be important. Nelson: I see, you keep that there, not just a construction fence. Borup: No, no, permanent fence at the site. It’s probably better to contain, I mean the closer to the site the fence is I think it’s going to contain it better. You get the thing ¼ of a mile away and it’s going to be blowing up over and spreading every which way. Smith: Well is there something… De Weerd: So you are asking for a site plan review and also… Smith: No, we have a conditional use permit process don’t need to do that. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 25 Rossman: Now when you say conditional use permit process, that’s for development of buildings beyond the initial building that they are proposing. Smith: I think we’ve seen enough information on this, I haven’t—I read the minutes of the last meeting and I’m familiar with the architectural firm and they are a reputable firm. Rossman: That is a provision in the ordinance, so I don’t know that it’s necessary to make it a condition. Smith: Right, I won’t—right I take that one out so, if nobody else has anything to add, I’ll go ahead and make my motion. MacCoy: Well, see if it flies. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend to the City Council approval of annexation and zoning of this parcel with the following conditions, that a fence six foot height, permanent chain link fence be constructed in one of two methods. One around the north and east boundaries of the phase I, proposed phase I development, or that six foot high permanent chain link fence be developed on the east property line between the school district property and the Davis property and on the north property line, of the Hollister property between the school district property and the Hollister property. Again, on the east boundary of the school district property between the school district property and the Hollister property. Borup: Could they also have the option of running that straight down the east boundary of the Hollister… Smith: Also be given the option to negotiate with Mr. Hollister that in lieu of placing the fence between the Hollister property and the school district property, that they extend it directly south on the east property line between the Hollister property and the Davis property. The other condition would be that this annexation and zoning is approved specifically for a school educational use, not for residential subdivision. Nelson: Second. MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson seconded it. Any discussion? De Weerd: No. ROLL CALL: Borup-aye, De Weerd-aye, Smith-aye, Nelson-aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE 26 MacCoy: All ayes have it, it is passed, annexation and zoning for the Meridian Joint School District No.2. Any comment on closing the meeting now? Nelson: I would like to make a motion that we adjourn. Smith: Second. Borup: Before we do, I would like to mention this is Commissioner Nelsons last meeting, unless arm twisting changes his mind. MacCoy: He gave me the option if I thought I should ask, he should be able to stay on another month. We can do that for him. Nelson: What is the status of my replacement. MacCoy: We will talk about that after this meeting. Commissioner Nelson has asked for removal from the staff due to personal reasons. Just for the audience here, he has agreed to stay on for this particular annexation, because he had been in it from the beginning and thought in fairness for everybody involved that he would be here for the final vote. I applaud that very much. Thank you. We’ve got a motion and second for adjournment. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: Thank you very much for coming this evening. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED: _________________________________ MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK