Planning Commission

CITY OF MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Murfreesboro Water and Sewer Department Operations and Maintenance Building, 1725 South Church Street, Conference Room June 23, 2015 Bob Lamb 10:00 AM Chairman 1. Call to order. 2. Determination of a quorum. 3. Approve minutes of the June 3, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. 4. Old Business: a. Proposed Amendment [2015-803] to Sign Ordinance regarding temporary signs and signs that are exempt from permitting fees, City of Murfreesboro Legal and Building and Codes Departments applicants. 5. Adjourn. MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF COMMENTS, PAGE 1 JUNE 23, 2015 4.a. Proposed Amendment [2015-803] to Sign Ordinance regarding temporary signs and signs that are exempt from permitting fees, City of Murfreesboro Legal and Building and Codes Departments applicants. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding this Sign Ordinance amendment at its April 1st regular meeting. After the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to defer action. On April 28th, the Planning Commission convened to take a tour of the City and view temporary signage. This tour was advertised as a special meeting and was open to the public. At the May 20th regular Planning Commission meeting, this ordinance amendment was discussed under “Old Business.” During that meeting, the Planning Commission requested a special meeting/work session, where it could devote more time to this issue. A memo from David Ives, the Assistant City Attorney, is attached. It outlines a number of discussion points for the special meeting. Per the attached memo, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission schedule this matter for another public hearing.  MEMORANDUM CITY OF MURFREESBORO LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO: Chairman Lamb and Members of the Planning Commission CY: Rob Lyons, Jim Crumley, Gary Whitaker, Susan McGannon FROM: David A. Ives DATE: June 18, 2015 RE: Temporary signs and Exempt signs Special Meeting: June 23, 2025, 10:00 AM Murfreesboro Water & Sewer O & M 1725 South Church St. Murfreesboro TN 37130 STAFF COMMENTS Following up on the discussion after the public hearing held April 1, 2015, the “ride around” on April 28, 2015, and the further discussion on May 20, 2015, the Commission suggested that we schedule this Special Meeting to discuss this topic. The amendment originally proposed by Staff has raised the following issues for discussion: 1. Whether the total allowable number of temporary signs on a lot should be increased; 2. Whether flexible “feather” signs should be separately regulated and whether they should be further from the ROW; 3. Whether temporary banners should continue to be allowed on canopies; 4. Requiring the calendar date of the event on all temporary directional signs; dai c:\users\mblomeley.citymboro\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\92i1bco9\mm.pl.com.temp signs.4 (2).doc 6/18/2015 11:22:47 AM #1  5. The number and size of “machinery and equipment” signs and “convenience” signs; and finally 6. To what extent, if any, should window signs be regulated, and if regulated, should the Gateway provisions be different from the provisions for the rest of the City. As a preliminary matter, the Planning Commission should address whether, to be covered by the regulations, signs must be “readable” from the ROW or only “visible.” The current definition of “sign” is a device that “is placed outdoors in view of the general public.” This implies “visible.” Several years ago when the City enacted more detailed prohibitions of changeable electronic signs, we defined each type of changeable sign, in part, as being “visible from a public” ROW. That inclusion was specifically to avoid the current Sign Ordinance provision that something that is more than 3 ft. behind a window is not considered a sign. This “visible” standard seems to be working well, and we recommend against moving a part of the Sign ordinance to a “readable” standard. 1. Whether the total allowable number of temporary signs on a lot should be increased. There has been substantial – but by no means universal – consideration that the City does not allow enough temporary signage, especially at election times. With the City’s April election now consolidated with the County General and State primary election in August, there will be a much larger number of candidates vying for attention at the same time. Some jurisdictions have separate time and number requirements for “election” signs or “political” signs; the City Legal Department continues to believe that that approach is very risky and invites a legal challenge. While there is not likely to be any number that will make even a majority of those interested in this issue happy, Staff recommends that the total allowable number of temporary signs be increased from 3 to 4. 2. Whether flexible “feather” signs should be separately regulated and whether they should be further from the ROW. These devices have been regarded as “other” temporary signs and addressed only if there are more than 3 total temporary signs on a dai c:\users\mblomeley.citymboro\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\92i1bco9\mm.pl.com.temp signs.4 (2).doc 6/18/2015 11:38:54 AM #2 lot at any one time. They are becoming increasingly popular, and increasingly taller. As “other” temporary signs, they are only required to be 1 ft. off of the ROW. This is a concern as the flexible poles can bend or break and obstruct sidewalks and become traffic hazards. Staff proposes to add a definition of a “Feather sign” as a “Wind activated feather, blade or teardrop shaped sign of flexible material attached to a support pole and normally inserted into a receptacle in the ground.” They would be required to be placed at least 10 ft. behind the back of curb (and not in ROW). They would continue to be counted toward the total allowable number of temporary signs. 3. Whether temporary banners should continue to be allowed on canopies. Currently, banners are allowed to be attached to a building or a canopy. Two are allowed on a lot, except only one is allowed in the CBD. Duration of display is unlimited except within the CBD where banners can be displayed for only 90 days. Neither a permit nor a fee is required, except a permit without a fee is required in the CBD. Total maximum size is 120 sq. ft. After the review and discussion, Staff believes that banners are better suited to buildings than to canopies and recommends that the words “or canopy” be deleted from “Other limitations” in the proposed provision regarding banners, Section 4, (E)(1) of the proposed Amendment. 4. Requiring the calendar date of the event on all temporary directional signs. A concern was expressed that the cost burden this would place on a relatively small number of who utilize small, temporary directional signs would be excessive and disproportionate to the public benefit that would be provided. After further consideration, Staff recommends that a calendar date be required for all directional signs that are larger than 3 sq. ft. 5. The number and size of “machinery and equipment” signs and “convenience” signs. The ride around illustrated that this signage is being abused at some business locations and causing significant visual clutter. A complicating factor is that many of the dai c:\users\mblomeley.citymboro\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\92i1bco9\mm.pl.com.temp signs.4 (2).doc 6/18/2015 11:38:54 AM #3 “machinery and equipment” signs are manufactured into the product. Others are attached by distributors without knowledge of – or regard for -- local regulations. After much gnashing of teeth and scratching of heads, staff recommends the following: Machinery and Equipment signs: 2 sq. ft. for each 1 linear ft. of width, each side. Convenience signs: not more than 3 sq. ft. each; unlimited number. 6. To what extent, if any, should window signs be regulated, and if regulated, should the Gateway provisions be different from the provisions for the rest of the City. This is without doubt the most difficult of our topics, in part because the existing ordinance provisions (purporting to limit window signage to 15% coverage) are so convoluted and conflicting that they have been considered unenforceable, with the result that a substantial number of businesses’ windows will be in violation of any regulation that is adopted. Staff has found some jurisdictions that treat permanent window signage as counting toward the allowable amount of signage that may be attached to the building. Others do not, and we are not proposing to do so. Some jurisdictions differentiate between permanent and temporary window signs. Our current ordinance does, but Staff is proposing to abandon that distinction. It seems that the amount of coverage is more important than whether something is attached with Scotch tape or glue. The two extremes, of course, are prohibit everything or prohibit nothing; neither seems appropriate. A “happy” or even acceptable middle ground may be unattainable. Staff has considered several different approaches: (a) Regardless of the amount of coverage allowed, (1) treat all windows and glass doors on each façade as “one window;” or (2) address each individual window separately. (Addressing a façade rather than each window would allow most existing businesses with the full window graphics to keep at least one of them.) (b) Allow 25% (or 50%) coverage of ground floor windows city-wide; allow 10% (or 15%) coverage of upper floor windows city-wide. dai c:\users\mblomeley.citymboro\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\92i1bco9\mm.pl.com.temp signs.4 (2).doc 6/18/2015 11:38:54 AM #4  (c) Allow 25% coverage of ground floor windows in the Gateway and 50% coverage of ground floor windows outside the Gateway; allow 10 % (or 15%) coverage of upper floor windows city-wide. After much consideration, including discussions with the Police Department, Staff recommends allowing 25% coverage of ground floor windows, and 10% coverage of upper floor windows, throughout the City. Staff also recommends that each individual window be considered separately. As previously proposed, staff recommends a six- month grace period after adoption before beginning enforcement. Conclusion. Staff believes that the changes from the draft ordinance upon which a public hearing was held on April 1 will be significant enough that another public hearing should be held by the Planning Commission. We recommend that this matter be set for another public hearing on August 5, 2014. dai c:\users\mblomeley.citymboro\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\92i1bco9\mm.pl.com.temp signs.4 (2).doc 6/18/2015 11:38:54 AM #5  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Bob Lamb, Chairman Gary Whitaker, Planning Director Doug Young, Vice Chairman Matthew Blomeley, Principal Planner Eddie Smotherman Margaret Ann Green, Principal Planner Kirt Wade Robert Lewis, Planner Ken Halliburton Joe Ornelas, Planner Kathy Jones Carolyn Jaco, Recording Assistant Tom Clark David Ives, Assistant City Attorney Ram Balachandran, Traffic Engineer Sam Huddleston, Environmental Eng. Taylor Drury, M.T.S.U. Intern Chairman Lamb called the meeting to order after determining there was a quorum. Old Business Autumn Wood Apartments, Phase 2 [2015-3055] site plan for 144-unit multi- family residential development on 6.86 acres zoned RM-16 located along Old Fort Parkway, Mr. John Elliott developer. Mr. Matthew Blomeley began by describing the site plan review for the second phase of the Autumn Woods Apartments multi-family development. Phase 1 was approved at the March 18th Planning Commission meeting. Much like Phase 1, the plan for Phase 2 consists of 6 buildings with a total of 144 dwelling units. The property is zoned RM-16 (except for the northernmost portion of the access drive off of Old Fort Parkway) and multi- family uses are permitted by right in the RM-16 zone. Access from Old Fort Parkway is proposed to be via a private drive, as opposed to a new public street as 1  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 had been previously contemplated several years ago. The Planning Commission reviewed this site plan at its May 20th regular meeting. Due to discussion regarding ownership and access rights pertaining to the portion of the subject property directly adjacent to the H&K property to the west and containing the drive to Old Fort Parkway, the Planning Commission deferred action on this site plan. Since that time, City Staff has researched these issues. On the site plan that was submitted for the May 20th meeting, the applicants proposed leaving the existing drive that serves Town and Country Apartments to the west in its current condition. They proposed to expand the width of the driveway, however, to serve the needs of the proposed apartment complex as well. If that was to be the case, the topping for the new portion of the driveway would also need to be applied to the existing driveway, so that the entire driveway is one single surface. Approximately 5’ of the existing driveway, though, is on the H&K property to the west. This 5’ would be part of the existing driveway to be topped. In order to work in this 5’, the applicants would need to provide evidence that they have permission to work on the H&K property. In addition, they would need to provide evidence that they have access rights to use this 5’ of the existing driveway in order to benefit their property. If they could not provide the aforementioned evidence, the driveway will need to be reconstructed entirely on the subject property, so that the proposed apartment complex does not rely on the portion of the existing driveway that is off- site. 2  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 In addition, buffer plantings are required along the west side of the shared driveway adjacent to the H&K property. A Type D buffer is required where the subject property is zoned CH, and a Type C buffer is required where the subject property is zoned RM-16. Mr. Matthew Blomeley made known earlier today that revised plans were brought to the office which shows access to the southern portion of the H & K property from the main access drive south of the second building. Mr. Matthew Blomeley also discussed the following issues:  There have been discussions with the applicants and the adjoining property owner that this access on the site plan does not satisfy the minimum road frontage requirements if they ever intend to subdivide the property in the future.  The landscaping buffers along the appendage that leads out to Old Fort Parkway cannot meet the landscaping requirements. This will require a landscaping variance. The applicants will be submitting an application to the Board of Zoning Appeals this month. All landscape variances would have to be reviewed and approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.  The latest revised plans show a reconstructed driveway that will meet current requirements. Both parties have agreed they would work together improving this driveway. The access to the existing apartments will remain.  In lieu of the required buffer plantings along the northern existing apartment building on the Town & Country site, the applicants have agreed verbally to a shared landscaping yard. Staff has requested that the shared landscaping 3  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 yard be 10 feet wide on the H & K property along the west side of the northern building towards Old Fort Parkway. This should be planted and maintained in accordance to Section 27 of the Zoning Ordinance.  The proposed access easement that will serve Town & County Apartments, the lot for the proposed chiropractor’s office, and the proposed apartment development should include the proposed access drive south of the two existing apartment buildings. Whatever development that occurs south of Town & Country will have the legal rights to use the proposed access drive. Lastly, Mr. David Ives has researched and it is opinion that the appendage is owned by the applicants/developers for this apartment complex. Mr. Ives stated that this 50 foot has been deeded to the applicants. They have agreed to work with H & K properties regarding access. Any questions regarding ownership of the appendage has been answered. Mr. Ken Halliburton stated that he has spoken with Mr. Howard Wilson, owner of H & K properties, in which he has confirmed they have worked out the issues that are now being discussed. Mr. Wilson had requested this information be shared at this meeting with the Planning Commission since he was not able to attend this meeting. Mr. Chad Gilbert and Mr. John Elliott were present to represent the applicant. Mr. Doug Young made a motion to approve subject to written and verbal staff comments, seconded by Mr. Ken Halliburton. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. 4  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 Public Hearings Rezoning application [2015-412] for approximately 0.46 acres located along the east side of South Highland Avenue to be rezoned from RD to RS-4, Rutherford County Habitat for Humanity applicant. Mr. Matthew Blomeley began by describing the subject property located at the northeast corner of South Highland Avenue and Reid Avenue. It consists of two parcels, both of which are currently vacant and zoned RD (Residential Duplex). Both parcels are also located within the CCO (City Core Overlay District). The parcel on the corner was previously developed with a single-family residence, while the northern parcel was developed with a duplex. Both structures were demolished around 2007. Rutherford County Habitat for Humanity has purchased both parcels and wishes to subdivide them into three (3) lots of record. Habitat intends to build a total of three (3) single-family detached homes. The current RD zoning has a minimum lot size of 8,000 square-feet for single-family lots. The area of both parcels combined is 20,124 square feet, which is not enough land area to yield three (3) lots under the existing RD zoning. In order to create three (3) lots, Habitat has requested that these two parcels be rezoned to RS-4 (Single-Family Residential District). The RS-4 zone requires a minimum 4,000 square-foot lot size. The subject parcels are bordered to the north and east, as well as to the south across Reid Avenue, by RD zoning. There is also RD zoning to the west, at the southwest corner of South Highland Avenue and East State Street. The properties in the nearby RD zone are developed with both single-family residences and 5  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 duplexes. The subject property is also bordered by RS-4 zoning to the west across South Highland Avenue. The properties in the nearby RS-4 zone are predominantly developed with single-family residences. Mr. Roy Saylor was present to represent the applicant. Chairman Lamb opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak for or against the rezoning request; therefore, Chairman Lamb closed the public hearing. Mr. Doug Young made a motion to approve subject to staff comments, seconded by Ms. Kathy Jones. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. Rezoning application [2015-413] for approximately 6.17 acres located at the southwest corner of Medical Center Parkway and Robert Rose Drive to be rezoned from MU to CH, Mr. Tommy Smith applicant. Mr. Matthew Blomeley began by describing the subject property located at the southwest corner of Medical Center Parkway and Robert Rose Drive. It is currently undeveloped. The properties immediately to the west are zoned MU (Mixed Use) and CH (Highway Commercial), respectively. The CH parcel is developed with the Peter D’s restaurant. Further to the west, The Avenue shopping center is zoned CH. The property to the south is zoned MU and a site plan for this property has been approved for an apartment development called Everwood at the Avenue. The properties to the east, across Robert Rose Drive, and to the north, across Medical Center Parkway, are zoned MU also. 6  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 The subject property was rezoned from CH to MU in 2013 at the request of the applicant. Since that time, the applicant and his engineer have been designing a plan to subdivide the subject property into four (4) separate lots of record. One of the lots proposed is a flag lot. The Zoning Ordinance is silent on flag lots in the MU zone. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 200’ lot width in the MU zone when the property is adjacent to an arterial or collector street. One of the lots proposed along Medical Center Parkway does not meet the minimum 200’ lot width requirement. Therefore, the proposed plan to subdivide, as currently designed, is not possible under the current MU zoning. The applicant has requested to have the property rezoned back to CH in order to subdivide the property as desired. The manner in which the property is proposed to be developed is more consistent with the CH zoning than the MU zoning. If rezoned, the property will remain in the GDO-1 (Gateway Design Overlay District) and will still be subject to the GDO development requirements. Mr. Matt Taylor was present to represent the applicant. Chairman Lamb opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak for or against the rezoning request; therefore, Chairman Lamb closed the public hearing. Mr. Tom Clark made a motion to approve subject to staff comments, seconded by Mr. Ken Halliburton. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. Asbury Road and Florence Road [2015-712] right of way abandonment request for 2.4 acres of Asbury Road right-of-way and 0.21 acres of 7  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 Florence Road right-of-way, Mr. Kevin Waldron applicant. Mr. Matthew Blomeley began by describing the subject property located along the west side of Florence Road. It consists of excess right-of-way that remains after the relocation of Asbury Road in conjunction with the construction of Thistle Downs, Section 4. It also consists of excess right-of-way that was left over after the reconstruction of Florence Road several years ago. The excess rights-of-way along both streets are adjacent to the Thistle Downs Subdivision, and the developer of Thistle Downs has requested that this right-of-way be abandoned and transferred to him. Mr. Matthew Blomeley made known staff is still working out the details on what would need to be done in transferring this property in the future. Such as the following: 1. What easements would need to be retained 2. What construction elements would need to be modified or removed The details would have to be worked out before it went further to City Council for approval. The Planning Commission should consider the right of way abandonment without regard to the proposed conditions listed in the Staff comments. Mr. Sam Huddleston, City Environmental Engineer, was also available for any questions regarding this abandonment. Chairman Lamb opened the public hearing. Mr. Joseph Smith 5295 Asbury Road – made known he is a state trooper and has lived at this residence for 24 years. This road is their primary ingress/egress to 8  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 their property. Mr. Smith provided handouts that provided email information from City Administration and City Police Department. He explained that the new Asbury Road has created a dangerous intersection but the crash reports do not relate to the intersection. He made known how there are other property owners that will be affected closing the intersection. He requested for this request be deferred or not voted on. Mr. Rick Powell 5299 Asbury Road – opposes this request and asked for the access to be reopened the way it had been originally. Mr. Rick Smith 5295 Asbury Road – made known he is a state trooper and has lived at this residence for 24 years. He stated the adjoining property owners are affected with site distance being the bridge at the old intersection and the curve being hazardous at the new intersection. He suggested opening both intersections. Mr. Kevin Waldron 3435 Florence Road – he explained when Florence Road was rebuilt they gave the city 3.5 acres for road improvements. He made known he had a letter from the city dated January 9, 2006, explaining the agreements made for rebuilding Florence Road. Chairman Lamb closed the public hearing. Mr. David Ives requested that he would have to research further this agreement made with the City and Mr. Waldron. He requested that the Planning Commission review this matter again at the first meeting in July. 9  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 Chairman Lamb made known there would not be another public hearing regarding this right of way abandonment. Ms. Kathy Jones made a motion to defer until July 8th, seconded by Mr. Kirt Wade. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. Rezoning application [2015-414] for approximately 21.6 acres located along Joe B Jackson Parkway to be rezoned from L-I to H-I, Mr. John Harney on behalf of Elam Road Partnership applicant. Mr. Matthew Blomeley began by describing the subject property located along the south side of Joe B Jackson Parkway east of the I-24 interchange. It consists of 21.6 acres and is currently zoned L-I (Light Industrial). The applicant has indicated that he has a potential buyer for the property whose use will require H-I (Heavy Industrial) zoning. Specifically, he has indicated that the user is an auto parts manufacturer. Auto parts manufacturing is only permitted in the H-I zone. The adjacent property to the east is developed with NHK seating, which is also an auto parts manufacturer and is zoned H-I. The Amazon distribution facility, also zoned H-I, is further to the east. The property is also directly adjacent to CH (Highway Commercial) zoning to the west, where a Subway restaurant was constructed several years ago. A multi-tenant commercial building has also been approved in the same CH subdivision. Directly to the north of the subject property, across Joe B Jackson Parkway, is the Elam Farms warehouse development and Schwan Cosmetics, both of which are also zoned LI. The Magnolia Trace and Sunset Ridge single-family residential developments are further to the east along 10  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 Joe B Jackson Parkway and are approximately 2,000-2,500 linear feet from the subject property, as the crow flies. Mr. Blomeley made known for reference that there was a rezoning public hearing on the property across the street from this site at the Planning Commission’s April 1, 2015 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval for the rezoning of that property to H-I. The City Council had scheduled a public hearing for that property for June 18th. Since the time that public hearing was scheduled, Mr. Harney has withdrawn that rezoning request. That particular property now has a contract on it for warehouse use, which is permitted by right in the Light Industrial zone. There will not be another public hearing at City Council for the property across the street. Mr. Matt Taylor and Mr. John Harney were both present to represent the applicant. Mr. Taylor began a presentation providing an aerial map showing the distance from the subject property to non-residential uses within the immediate area. He explained that Joe B. Jackson had been constructed over fifteen years ago with the intentions for this area being used either for Heavy Industrial or Light Industrial land uses. He explained the access point that would align with Elam Farms Parkway across the street. This access would allow for future signalization if ever warranted. Chairman Bob Lamb opened the public hearing. Mr. Keith Jones 127 Tenby Drive – made known that he was thrilled that Mr. Harney had withdrawn the Heavy Industrial zoning request across the street. He 11  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 made known that he does not approve of any Heavy Industrial zoning along Joe B. Jackson Parkway, but he does not oppose this proposed zoning change. However, he suggested the City should not allow Heavy Industrial zoning within two miles of residential homes. Chairman Lamb closed the public hearing. Mr. Eddie Smotherman made a motion to approve subject to staff comments, seconded by Mr. Ken Halliburton. The motion carried by unanimous vote in favor. Staff Reports and Other Business First, Mr. Gary Whitaker made known there is a Special Meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2015, to discuss changes to temporary signs in the City Sign Ordinance. This meeting will be conducted at the Water & Sewer Operation & Maintenance Building Conference Room located along South Church Street. This meeting is scheduled from 10:00 a.m. until noon. A lunch will be provided during the meeting. This will be an open meeting and notice will be posted in the local newspaper. Second, Mr. Gary Whitaker explained that the 2035 Comprehensive Plan consultant is currently reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and will be coming back in the future with possible recommendations. Chairman Lamb made known that Mr. Robert Lewis had distributed the 2015 yearly summary of the training hours required for the Public Chapter 862 Education and Training Act. This list provides the Planning Commissioners and 12  MINUTES OF THE MURFREESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 2015 Staff their current education hours. There will be a teleconference next week which would be an opportunity to those who need education hours. Mr. Sam Huddleston introduced Ms. Taylor Drury, an intern with the City Engineering Department. She is a student from M.T.S.U. and is in the entrepreneurship program. Please make Ms. Taylor feel welcome while she is with us the remainder of the summer. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. _______________________________ Chairman _______________________________ Secretary JDA:cj 13