Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 05/26/1998 `CITY OF "��� Jim White, Mayor — 1sq V7&`ff� Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253)850-2544 James P Harris,Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing May 26, 1998 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Brad Bell at 7 20 p in on Tuesday, May 26, 1998, in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Brad Bell. Chair Steve Dowell Jon Johnson Terry Zimmerman LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Sharon Woodford, Vice Chair, excused Ron Harmon, excused David Malik, unexcused absence PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom. Planning Manager Kevin O'NeiIl, Senior Planner Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board member Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to approve the January 26, 1998 minutes. The motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None - 2204th AVENUE SOUTH 1 KENT WASHING TON 98032-5995/TELEPHONE (253)859-3300 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 2 #CPA-98-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT Jon Johnson MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to open the Public Hearing. Motion carried. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom gave a brief synopsis of the proposed amendment. He explained that this comprehensive plan amendment request is being heard outside of the City's annual review period as it has been declared an emergency by the City Council. Mr Satterstrom stated that the City is allowed to collect school impact fees through the Growth Management Act for residential development within the City of Kent. The City of Kent has been collecting this fee for the Kent and Federal Way School Districts for three years Mr Satterstrom said that for the City to continue collecting these fees the Capital Facilities Plans for both the Federal Way and Kent School Districts need to be adopted by reference into the City of Kent's Capital Facilities Plan. Mr Satterstrom explained that planning staff has reviewed the school's formula for charging school impact fees to new residential development as it pertains to the Capital Facilities plan He stated that the plan takes into account site acquisition costs and elementary through high school facilities cost. • Mr Satterstrom said the plan also factors in new student capacity cost based on a ratio of number of new students per new residential construction. Mr Satterstrom explained that the formula used by the school districts to determine a fair impact fee took into account the aforementioned factors minus the district match, the state match and other funding sources. Staff recommends that the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan be amended to adopt by reference the Capital Facilities Plans for the Kent and Federal Way School Districts. Dan Moberly, 12033 SE 256" Street, Kent, WA represents the Kent School District as Superintendent for Business He referred to the Kent School District's Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan while speaking at length on the factors used to calculate the amount of the impact fees. Mr. Moberly explained for every 100 new homes built 84 more students need to be housed in a school. He further stated that for every new residence approximately $15,700 of additional funding is needed to allow for new facilities construction, staffing and student costs Mr Moberly stated the State absorbs $4,300 of the $15,700 cost per student The remaining $11,400 is absorbed by the local school district Mr. Moberly said that if the impact fee were perceived as property tax relief, the $11,400 would become a property tax debt. Mr. Moberly stated that the impact fee has been calculated to be $3,744 per residence and the remaining $7,700 to be absorbed by the local levy He explained that if the impact fee is approved, the local levy could be decreased to 49 percent. Thus the impact fees would be 24 percent of the cost, the local levy would be 49 percent and the State match would be 27 percent. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Moberly explained that the school district anticipates a growth of about 11,000 more residences over the next five to eight years He said that over this time period, the school district projects a saving of approximately $50 million through school impact fees Mr Moberly emphasized that school impact fees are not used for operational costs but strictly for student housing construction. Fred High, 12033 SE 256"' Street, Kent, WA 98031 represents the Kent School District as the Executive Director of Finance. He spoke at length about the major changes in the plan currently in effect within the City of Kent Mr High defined the school district's relationship between current school construction and student enrollment projections over the course of the next six years for kindergarten through senior high. He stated that the six-year financial plan is a key ingredient to the Capital Facilities plan and stressed that the impact fee plays a significant roll in paying for the cost of facilities. Mr High indicated current elementary capacity is approximately 12,300 students This year 416 student spots have been added with the Kent Learning Center(an alternative school) configured as an elementary school. Mr. High reported that the following schools have been constructed or are scheduled for construction: • 7 Glenrid e Elementary School opened in 199 . g rY p • The newly constructed Kent Elementary School is scheduled to open December 1998 with the addition of 295 more spots • Elementary School Number No. 29 is scheduled to open in 1999 with 540 spots. • Elementary School No. 30 is scheduled to open in 2000 with 540 spots. Mr. High explained that by using portables,the school district can adequately house students through the year 2000; based on new school construction, the district's current enrollment capacity, and enrollment projections. Mr. High spoke at length about the need for adequate junior high and senior high student housing. He stated that at the end of the six-year enrollment projection, housing would need to be found for 1500 more senior high students even with the addition of Kentlake Senior High School. Mr. High reported that the following two factors have led to changes in the fee structure. These factors have increased the single-family school impact fees from the plan currently in effect in Kent by a net $69 00 and reduced multifamily impact fees by $48. 1. An increase in construction cost, with bids estimated at $9 million for Kent Elementary and Elementary School 930 with the high school bid at $1 million under budget. 2. Tax credits have increased offsetting the cost. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 4 Geri Walker,31405 18`h Avenue South,Federal Way,WA has been employed in the Federal Way School District Business Services department since 1988 and has been a resident of South King *' County since 1976. Ms. Walker stated that six elementary schools have been built, two reopened and a junior high built during her tenure with the district She explained that these facilities are at one-year capacity today. The last schools were opened within the district two years ago and uses portables on site to house students today. Ms. Walker explained that with a strong economy and low vacancy rate, she foresees an increase in new housing within Federal Way generating student growth Ms. Walker stressed that the district has set several goals focused on continuous improvement for student performance She stated to meet those goals adequate facilities are needed to house the students. She cited that 800 students are currently housed in portables. Ms Walker spoke at length about Federal Way's six year planning forecast. She stated that school ,1 impact fees play an integral roll in planning for new facilities. Ms. Walker explained that the Capital Facilities Plan is just one tool to collect information on growth and plan for future student needs and the continued collection of impact fees depends on the efficient use of the plan. Ms Walker attributed the increase in single family residents to two reasons: • Site acquisition cost in the 1995 Capital Facilities plan was$4,500 per acre. The properties were deeded to the Federal Way School District several years ago • The new plan is based on current negotiated site costs of$25,000 per acre. Wayne Thueringer,858 First Avenue North,Kent,WA voiced concern with the implementation and control of school impact fees He questioned if a contingency plan was in place to control the amount of fees requested or to amend the portion of the law dealing with impact fees. 4 Mr. Thueringer stated that the original proposal for school impact fees was heard before the Council four years ago and was resisted by the citizens of Kent, developers and realtors The proposal failed. Mr Thueringer explained that a group was formed by the Chamber of Commerce to study the impact of school impact fees on the residential market in Kent He said the group included Associated Builders and Contractors, Master Builders, South King County Realtors and Mortgage Bankers as well as other interest groups concerned about the impact of school impact fees on the residential market in Kent. Mr. Thueringer stated that the Chamber of Commerce released a report in 1995 to recommend lobbying for repeal of impact fee collections in conjunction with other chambers in the County He explained that even though the chambers presented their reports before the Council in opposition to the impact fees, the fees were retained Mr. Thueringer said a diverse group consisting of mortgage Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 5 banking interests was appointed by the Council President at that time, Christi Houser, to study impact fees. Impact fees were approved. Mr. Dowell stated his belief that the Land Use and Planning Board is not related to the group appointed by President Christi Houser and questioned if the group was an official body Mr. Dowell explained that the Council is the official body elected by the citizens. The Council formed the Land Use and Planning Board who is responsible for making recommendations to the Council. Mr. Dowell said that to his knowledge, there has not been any input from groups other than those representing the school districts at this hearing. Mr. Thueringer reiterated his concern about how the difference in dollars would be obtained to meet the six-year plans for Kent and Federal Way School Districts if we lose school impact fees Laurie Evezich , Assistant City Attorney with the City of Kent thanked Mr. Thueringer for his comments and addressed his concerns She stated that authorization for imposing impact fees was coincidental with the implementation of the Growth Management Act by the Washington State Legislature in 1990 Ms. Evezich explained that City Council has authority to direct local jurisdictions to impose impact fees to the extent that they are done in accordance with the provisions • of RCW Chapter 82.02 and directed at the cost of new construction. Ms. Evezich further explained that if the citizens of the State of Washington determine that they no longer support this type of an impact fee program than the legislature could act at the state level to repeal the provisions of the RCW. Ms Evezich stated that a referendum could occur but was not occurring at this time to her knowledge. Ms Evezich spoke at length about the process involved leading to the failure to implement the impact fee program when Mayor Dan Kellerher was in office She stated that during Mayor White's tenure the impact fee program was implemented and that she was involved in that process. Ms. Evezich explained that one provision to the plan included a low-income exemption into the City of Kent Code Provisions under Chapter 12.13 of the Kent City Code. Mr. Dowell discussed with Mr. High of the Kent School District, how impact fee rates are determined based on assessed property evaluation which directly affects tax rates Mr High emphasized that future need is the key in determining impact fees. Connie Baesman, 10206 SE 2241' Street, Kent, WA has resided in Kent for 25 years. She has served on the Kent School District Citizens Facilities Planning Committee Ms. Baesman said that she understands the need to adequately house students without placing undo burden on taxpayers and has seen the Kent School District make a strong effort to do this. • Ms Baesman stated that the Capital Facilities Plan is not changed on a yearly basis but merely updated A consistent formula is used to adjust fee rates based on different student generation Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 6 factors per district as well as land cost adjustments. These factors determine the raising or lowering of rates Ms. Baesman explained that impact fees play a major roll in the development of new student housing. She stated that for every dollar not collected in impact fees a $1 80 would be asked for from the taxpayers Ms Baesman cited that in 1994 there was a $130 million bond issue which along with impact fees and a state match extended the bond issue to cover$147 million worth the facility needs. Mr Dowell stated his concern is that for a tax to be implemented it needs to be broad based and fair. He felt that taxing builders or new homeowners does not equate fair Ms. Baesman responded that the equity issue is important. She explained that where a community is growing at a modest rate, it becomes easier for taxpayers to handle new growth without a major struggle Ms. Baesman said that it is in the interest of the community that we maintain an efficient school system with a good reputation and not a system that cannot pass its bond issues, is double shifting or is over crowded. Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Steve Dowell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to approve staffs recommendation #CPA-98-1 School District Capital Facilities Plan Amendment to adopt by reference the capital facilities plans of the Kent and Federal Way School Districts as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan . Motion carried unanimously. I #ZCA-98-1 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT PHASE I Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill stated that the present Zoning Code was adopted in 1973 with over 100 amendments made to it since that time. In 1996 staff felt that it was time to look at the code from a broader perspective and the Council concurred Staff felt it best to split this project into phases. The first phase is to look at the code in terms of. • reformatting it to make it user friendly for staff and the public, • to clean up areas where the code is in conflict with itself or other sections of the Code, • to bring into compliance with State law those sections that are currently not in compliance. Mr. O'Neill stated that this project began one year ago by meeting with developers, architects and • Chamber of Commerce representatives as well as City departments to determine where the code was not working well. Mr. O'Neill covered the proposed changes to the Zoning Code by referencing the report entitled Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 7 "Summary of Proposed Updates to Title 15". He noted staff s recommended changes to definitions in Chapter 15 02. He explained that several definitions were not up to date with City Code or State Law Terminology not being used was deleted. In addition, there was some terminology added as well as revisions were made to current terminology Mr O'Neill explained that Chapter 15 03 establishes current zoning districts and Phase II of the Zoning Code update will look at possible change or consolidation of those districts Phase II will be a more public involved project Mr O'Neill explained that staff has taken the purpose language of those zoning districts and moved them out of Chapter 15 04 and moved them into Chapter 15 03 which establishes those districts. Staff has made recommendations on amending the purpose language of some of those zones to correlate with the comprehensive plan adopted in 1995. Mr. O'Neill stated that staff recommends reformatting Chapter 15 04 by reorganizing and consolidating the existing provisions into a tabular format He stated that reformatting Chapter 15.04 would streamline the code and consolidate handouts to the public. This is a mechanism other jurisdictions have used successfully in presenting information Mr. O'Neill stated that staff has added language defined with italicized and underlined words throughout Sec 15 04 of the Zoning code to clarify terminology. Mr. O'Neill referenced two new categories in Sec. 15 04.020 "Modular homes" and "Accessory living quarters" He defined modular homes as a manufactured home that must meet uniform building codes and Accessory living quarters as a classification where a single unit would be allowed in a commercial or industrial building as opposed to an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. O'Neill said staff recommends(per Laurie Evezich's request) amending the definition proposed for Sec. 15 02 004.a Accessory Living Quarters to read "Accessory living quarters ,.@ 41,,ifig quai4e_� is a single residential unit in a commercial or manufacturing building which afe is and incidental to the commercial or manufacturing use." The purpose is to clarify this as a single unit. Mr. O'Neill referenced Sec. 15.04 130 Resource Land Uses and Sec 15.02 to explain new definitions proposed for home daycare versus daycare centers based on 1994 state law changes regulating daycare uses. Mr O'Neill said that other substantive changes were reflected in Sec. 15.04 of Development Standards on page 21. Mr O'Neill said staff is recommending amending Sec. 15.05 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements" by adding a section to allow for administrative flexibility to off-street parking and by reformatting the parking use and parking garage section, making it easier to locate and understand certain uses. • Mr. O'Neill explained that at the May workshop,the board asked about parking standards relating to senior housing, auditoriums, and high schools He stated that the City's consultant, Ron McConnell reviewed parking standards for different jurisdictions. Mr. O'Neill said the results of > Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 8 the survey indicated that our parking standards were fairly consistent with other jurisdictions with the exception of senior housing Specific standards allowed for one parking space per two units. The City of Kent allows for one space per four dwelling units Mr O'Neill said that staff would like the Board to consider an amendment to Kent's senior housing parking standards to bring it in line with one parking space per two dwelling units Mr O'Neill indicated the one change in Sec.15.06. Sign Regulations regarding a height change for freestanding signs in the downtown district. Mr O'Neill said the only substantive change in Sec.15.07 Landscaping Regulations is the addition of language to tie in the zoning code landscaping requirements with public works construction standards and consolidating existing standards. Mr. O'Neill spoke at length on Sec 15 08 "General and Supplemental Provisions", referring to this section as a catchall for several different substantive issues M Mr O'Neill said that staff recommends revising Sec. 15.08.230 "Solar access setback—Purpose" as a design guideline as opposed to a regulatory provision He said that staff is recommending . changes to Sec 15 08 300 "Zero lot line development-Authorized"to bring setback standards into alignment with other changes. Staff further recommends that the Planned Unit Development(PUD) section be moved from Chapter 15 04 to Chapter 15 08 as a PUD is a process for review rather than a typical zoning district. Mr. O'Neill said Chapter 15.09"Administration"is a consolidation of three administrative review processes into one section. Mr O'Neill stated that Sec. 15 09.055 Zoning of Annexed Lands brings the code up to date in terms of how annexation-zoning issues have been handled by the Land Use and Planning Board and predecessors on the Planning Commission Mr. O'Neill explained that Sec. 15 09 065 "Interpretation of uses" has been added as a new section to include language on how that the Planning Director would interpret specific uses Mr. O'Neill submitted for the record a letter from Elizabeth Warman, local Government Affairs Manager, The Boeing Company, Seattle, WA as Exhibit 1 Steve Dowell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing Motion carried Board member Terry Zimmerman concurred with staff s recommendation to change senior housing parking requirements to one parking space per two dwelling units. • Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to change the senior housing parking requirements from one per four units to one per two units. Motion carried. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 9 Mr. Dowell concurred that all the zoning code change requests are necessary. Mr. Johnson questioned if staff had reviewed the Boeing letter and had any comment Mr. O'Neill stated that the first paragraph of the Boeing letter deals with Phase I and the second paragraph deals with the agenda item relating to ESHB 1724. Mr. O'Neill said staff recommends striking out Sec.15.02.031 "Easement" and adding to the definition of Sec 15 02.230 "Lot Area" the term including any easement area for clarification as recommended by Laurie Evezich with the City Attorney's office. V Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to recommend to the City Council, #ZCA-98-1 Zoning Code Amendment Phase I with the recommendation to change the senior housing parking space requirements. Motion carried #ZCA-98-2/SCA-98-1 1724 ORDINANCE-LAND USE PROCEDURES AMENDMENT Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. < Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill spoke about draft ordinance, Chapter 12.01 Administration of • Development Regulations. He referred to Laurie Evezich's memorandum in pointing out that State Legislature adopted ESHB 1724 in 1995, a procedural law, which defines the term"project permit' Mr O'Neill defined project permits as building and land use permits, which includes conditional use permits, shoreline substantial development permits and items heard before the hearing examiner Mr O'Neill spoke at length about the project permit application framework and how the permit process procedures will be administered as it relates to the ordinance He referred extensively to the Draft Code Revision for meeting ESHB 1724 provisions. Mr O'Neill said staff is recommending that the ESHB 1724 Draft Ordinance be moved forward to the City Council along with Laurie Evezich's recommended procedural changes to the Subdivision and Zoning Code as outlined in her memorandum of May 18. Jon Johnson MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried Mr. O'Neill summarized the information contained in the letter from the Boeing Company He stated the letter's first comment concerned a provision regarding clarification of the early environmental review process. Mr. O'Neill defined the State Environmental Policy Act as a process used for projects of a certain size and scope. Mr O'Neill said the City of Kent feels that allowing for an early review process shortens the time needed to identify conditions This serves as a courtesy to both the City and the applicants and meets the intent of SEPA. Mr. O'Neill explained that the • process involves: Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 10 • Receiving an environmental checklist on a project. • The Planning Staff reviews the checklist and the Director would identify conditions. • The applicant than submits their permit. Mr. O'Neill clarified that ESHB 1724 does not allow the City to issue an environmental determination without the permit application being submitted simultaneously. Mr. O'Neill stated when an environmental checklist is submitted without an application, the applicant must include a conceptual site plan proposal Staff reviews the proposal. Potential conditions are identified and notification is sent to the applicant Mr O'Neill explained that upon receipt of the application, a formal determination is completed. Staff believes it benefits the applicant to have the option of turning in their environmental checklist with or without their application. Mr Harris stated based on ESHB 1724, if someone applies for a SEPA checklist along with his permit and a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued, the applicant could appeal. However, the Hearing Examiner cannot hear the appeal because the applicant did not turn in their SEPA checklist prior to submitting their building permit. Mr Harris explained that the ESHB 1724 • process will not allow a person to come in with an early application for SEPA and work with the City in meeting the condition requirements prior to going to the expense of drawing up plans. He said that staff would continue to process the SEPA checklists as before but not issue a final DNS until the applicant has submitted their plans. Mr. Dowell questioned if the potential existed for an applicant's building permit to be denied after Mr. Harris had approved the SEPA Mr Harris responded that if denial were to occur. it would be at the time of a permit application submittal. Mr. Harris stated that to his knowledge. there has not been an occurrence where a permit has been turned down. Mr. Harris stated that staff consistently informs the applicant at the time he submits his application; if the property is zoned properly, necessary setback requirements, height limitations, landscaping, off-street parking requirements and any other requirements pertaining to their property. Mr Harris explained that SEPA addresses the applicant's responsibility in sharing in the building of a traffic light, curb gutters and sidewalks in front of their building in addition to doing a biofiltration swale or other environmental issues not listed in the zoning code. Mr. O'Neill addressed concerns brought up by Mr. Dowell in connection with City liability and staff s commitment levels to the applicant He stated that Planning Staff issues a letter to the applicant explaining that by applying for this project under SEPA there are likely to be conditions.. The letter will include a caveat stating conditions may change when you bring in your plans. Mr. • O'Neill explained that staff is actively working with the City Attorney's office in further clarifying the SEPA process Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 11 Mr. O'Neill responded to questions addressed in the Boeing letter regarding shoreline permits. He explained that the current Shoreline Master Program states that when a shoreline permit or conditional use permit variance is appealed it is heard before the City Council and if necessary to the Shoreline's Hearing Board Mr O'Neill stated that the Boeing letter recommends that appeals go directly to the Shoreline Hearing Board. Mr O'Neill commented that staff would prefer maintaining a local appeal process prior to having an appeal move directly to the Shoreline Hearing Board at the State level. Mr O'Neill addressed the final comment in the letter from Boeing regarding a section of the ordinance regarding joint public hearings Mr O'Neill remarked that Boeing stated that an applicant should be consulted of joint hearings organized by the city, state or federal agencies. Mr O'Neill concurred and stated that the "Draft Code Revision, Subsection B 12 01 040 "Process Decisions, Project permit application framework" explains that the applicant has the right to request a joint hearing and be privy to that decision Mr O'Neill reiterated his believe that it is the intent of the ordinance to involve the applicant in the decision process. He stated he would send a letter to Boeing clarifying the intent of the ordinance. Steve Dowell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to accept staffs recommendation • to approve and send to the Council, #ZCA-98-2/SCA-98-1, the 1724 Ordinance(sic)relating to the implementation of the Land Use Procedures Amendment. Chair Bell stated that the memorandum of May 18, 1998 from the City Attorney's office be included as part of the proposal to Council. Ms. Zimmerman voiced her concern about recommending approval of the draft ordinance without being given the time for the board to analyze the material. Ms Evezich responded to her questions. Ms. Evezich stated that staff recommends that the Board move to offer its recommendation to the City Council that the new regulatory reform provisions be adopted and that the provisions of the Kent City Code affected by the State law mandates be amended correspondingly as mandated by State Law under RCW 36 70B. Ms Evezich explained to Chair Bell that certain provisions of the Code were no longer necessary due to streamlining the process for permit notification and the integration of environmental review as part of the permit process. Mr. Harris reiterated that the recommendation before the board is just one component involved with implementation of ESHB 1724 Conversation ensued between Mr. Dowell and Ms. Evezich regarding public bodies, ex parte communication and conflicts of interest as it applies to the Board. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 12 Ms Evezich responded to Ms. Zimmerman's questions regarding a portion of KCC 12.04.250. Discussion ensued regarding the period for appeal changing from thirty to twenty-one calendar days. Chair Bell invited Laurie Evezich to present the Board with the provisions of "open record public hearings" and specifically "ex parte communications"at a future workshop Ms. Evezich concurred. Steve Dowell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to approve staff s recommendation for #ZCA-98-2/SCA-98-1 1724 Ordinance (sic) Land Use Procedures along with the recommendations of the Assistant City Attorney in her memorandum dated May 18, 1998. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Bell thanked the Planning staff for a job well done and Laurie Evezich for her attendance at the meeting. He recognized the value of Mr McConnell's input Chair Bell noted his appreciation to Jon Johnson for attending the meeting while he was ill in order to meet the quorum Mr. Harris thanked the Board for their careful attention to the agenda items in clearing up issues that needed clarification. Mr. Harris stated that the City Council appreciates the Board's recommendations. • Jon Johnson MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9 20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James P. Harris Secretary U\USERDATATUMMINUTEM98526MIN DOC •