Aug 23, 2023 Planning and Zoning

[00:00:01]

AND. MAYBE SHE JUST LET ME JUST.

WHAT WAS OUR LAST NAME? AUGUST 9TH.

I CAN SAY THAT IT WAS A. SEE AUGUST 10TH.

AUGUST 9TH. DID I TELL YOU I HAD BAD EYES? THE COMPETITION WAS.

OF. IT'S A COUPLE OF THINGS.

IT WAS STILL MUTED. YOU'RE GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

GUYS. DON'T HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING ALL OVER AGAIN.

NO. OKAY, SO THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

[3. Public Comment At this time, any member of the public may address the Commission on any subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled before the Commission on that day. Due to Open Meeting Laws, the Commission cannot discuss or act on items presented during this portion of the agenda. To address the Commission on an item that is on the agenda, please wait for the Chair to call for Public Comment at the time the item is heard.]

OKAY. DONE. AND IF WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 9TH, UNLESS YOU WERE HERE.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

SECOND. AND MY ONLY DISCUSSION WAS WE DID HAVE SOMEBODY WHO CAME AND SPOKE, BUT SHE WON'T GIVE HER LAST NAME.

SO IT'S JUST A QUESTION MARK.

DO WE NEED THAT QUESTION MARK ON THE AGENDA OR CAN WE TAKE THAT OFF? DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S ON THE MINUTES.

AND JUST YOU. IF YOU WANT ME TO REMOVE IT, I CAN REMOVE IT.

IT JUST LOOKS STRANGE TO ME.

INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING HER NAME WAS KATHY.

IF WE COULD SAY LAST NAME NOT PROVIDED MAYBE.

LIKE LAST NAME NOT PROVIDED.

THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU, MARIE.

IS THAT ALL RIGHT WITH THE TWO OF YOU? OKAY, SO IT'S BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE MOTION MAKER AND THE MOTION SECONDER.

THAT THAT'S OKAY.

SO IF WE CAN APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY NAYS? HEARING NONE, THE MOTION IS APPROVED.

AND SO WE'LL GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[A. PZ-23-00125: Pine Canyon Lot 361 HOH A Conditional Use Permit request from Hugh McMahon on behalf of Two Hawks Design and Development to allow a Single-Family High Occupancy Housing Development in the Single-Family Residential (R1) Zone at 3699 South Woodland Hills Drive in the Estates at Pine Canyon Pine Run subdivision. The proposal is for a 5,790 square foot, 5-bedroom, 5.5-bathroom, single-family dwelling on approximately 0.55 acres. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with the findings presented in this report, Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PZ-23-00125 with the following conditions: 1. The development of the site shall substantially conform to the plans as presented with the Conditional Use Permit application. 2. The property owner shall maintain compliance with the Flagstaff Police Department’s Crime Free Multi-Housing Program, unless exempted by the Police Department’s representative.]

SO ASK STAFF IF THEY HAVE A REPORT.

ALRIGHTY. GOOD EVENING.

CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME OKAY? YES, PERFECT.

OKAY. LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.

IF YOU WANT TO NOT BE, SHE'LL GET MINIMIZED.

OKAY. AND IS EVERYBODY SEEING MY PRESENTATION OKAY? YES. OKAY, PERFECT.

LET ME MOVE THIS OVER HERE.

ALL RIGHTY. WELL, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS BETH AND HANG A PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF TONIGHT.

THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 3699 SOUTH WOODLAND HILLS DRIVE.

THE APPLICANT IS ATTENDING REMOTELY TONIGHT.

NOW THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3699 SOUTH WOODLAND HILLS DRIVE.

IT'S LOCATED IN THE PINE CANYON AREA, SPECIFICALLY THE PINE CANYON PINE RUN SUBDIVISION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

AND THE PROPOSAL TONIGHT IS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

IT IS A FIVE BEDROOM, 5.5 BATHROOM.

AND BECAUSE IT MEETS THE FIVE PLUS BATHROOM RULE, IT KICKS IT INTO THE SINGLE FAMILY HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TYPE, WHICH REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING THIS REQUEST TONIGHT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR R1 AND THE SURROUNDING SITE IS ALSO R1.

SO BEFORE YOU IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S A TWO STORY 5790 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

AND BEFORE YOU IS THE PROPOSED FLOOR FLAT FLOOR PLAN.

THIS IS A TWO STORY FLOOR PLAN.

SO WE HAVE HERE THE BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN, AS WELL AS THE FIRST STORY FLOOR PLAN.

AGAIN, AS MENTIONED, THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS FOR 5.5 BATHROOM IN A FIVE BEDROOM HOME.

[00:05:01]

SEVERAL FINDINGS NEED TO BE MET.

THE FIRST OF WHICH IS THE CONDITIONAL USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE SPECIFIC ZONE.

SO AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR R1 ZONE.

IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND BECAUSE IT IS A HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, IT NEEDS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR A CUP TO BE DEVELOPED AS SUCH.

SO BY PURSUING THE CUP WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT, IT'S MEETING THIS FINDING.

SO THE SECOND FINDING HAS TO DO WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

AND THIS IS DETERMINED BY MEETING THESE FOUR CRITERIA, AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN.

NOW, IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODES, STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS, THEN THE PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

THEREFORE, MEETING THIS FINDING AS WELL.

SO THE THIRD FINDING HAS TO DO WITH CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

NOW, IN ORDER TO MEET THIS FINDING, CHARACTERISTICS HAVE TO BE REASONABLY COMPATIBLE WITH USES PERMITTED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AS PER THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.

AND I WILL GO INTO MORE DETAILS IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES FOR THESE CRITERION.

SO THE FIRST OF WHICH IS ACCESS, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION.

NOW ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE PROVIDED FROM SOUTH WOODLAND HILLS DRIVE AND A TIA OR A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS NOT REQUIRED OF A SINGLE PRIVATE RESIDENCE. NOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOA DEVELOPMENT ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ONE OFF STREET PARKING PER BEDROOM.

AND THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSING FIVE BEDROOMS, SO IT NEEDS FIVE PARKING SPACES.

AND THE PROPOSAL FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT ADEQUATELY.

SO THE NEXT CRITERION IS ADEQUACY OF SITE, OPEN SPACE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION.

NOW, A RESOURCE PROTECTION PLAN WAS PROVIDED WHEN THIS SUBDIVISION WAS PLATTED, AND THE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED FOR THIS REQUEST WILL NEED TO BE WITHIN THE PERMITTED BUILDING ENVELOPE, AND PART OF THAT ENVELOPE DETERMINES WHAT TREE RESOURCES NEED TO BE RETAINED AND WHICH OF THEM ARE ALLOWED TO BE REMOVED. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS MEANING THAT BUILDING ENVELOPE.

SO AS WE'RE IN NOISE, LIGHT, VISUAL AND OTHER POLLUTANTS, IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THE PROPOSED USE FOR THE SITE WILL CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS INTO THE AREA, AND THE SITE IS CURRENTLY WELL MAINTAINED IN TERMS OF STYLE AND SITING OF STRUCTURES AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, COLORS AND MATERIALS FOR THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENCES THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION.

SO FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING, PROVISIONS DON'T APPLY TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

AND IN TERMS OF IMPACT ON PUBLIC UTILITIES, THE SITE PROPOSES TO CONNECT TO EXISTING CITY WATER AND SEWER SERVICES.

THERE ARE NO NEW OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THIS USE.

FOR SIGNAGE AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING.

NO SIGNAGE IS PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS USE AND ANY NEW OUTDOOR LIGHTING MUST COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE.

IN TERMS OF DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF STREETS.

THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL DEDICATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC STREETS, AS ALL OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WAS DEDICATED WHEN THE SUBDIVISION WAS PLATTED.

AND IN TERMS OF IMPACT ON RESOURCES.

NO IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ON SITE.

SO THE LAST TWO FINDINGS HAVE TO DO WITH HERITAGE PRESERVATION AS WELL AS TRANSIT.

THESE TWO FINDINGS DON'T APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.

SO PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR PROCESS INCLUDES THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN.

NOW, INSTEAD OF HOLDING A VIRTUAL OR IN-PERSON NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, THE APPLICANT WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE A MAILER IN LIEU OF THOSE MEETINGS.

HE MAILED, UM NOTICES TO RESIDENCES AND OWNERS WITHIN A 300 FOOT RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT SITE OF HIS INTENTION TO REQUEST THIS CUP.

TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED TWO EMAILS OF CONCERN REGARDING REGARDING THIS PROJECT, AND STAFF HAS CORRESPONDED WITH THE SENDERS OF THOSE EMAILS TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE.

[00:10:08]

AND AT THIS TIME WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? HEARING NONE.

DOES THE DEVELOPER WANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? UH, NO, I HAVEN'T.

OKAY, SO THEY'RE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? I BELIEVE THAT WHICH I LIVE.

SO IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OF YOUR COULD BE YOUR BUSINESS, IT COULD BE YOUR HOME ADDRESS, HOME ADDRESS AND ADDRESS WHERE WE CAN CONTACT YOU AND ADDRESS WHERE WE CAN CONTACT YOU.

OH, YEAH. MY NAME IS HUGH MCMAHON AND MY ADDRESS IS 3328 NORTH LOMA VISTA DRIVE.

FLAGSTAFF 86004.

THANK YOU. YOU NEED A DATA.

ALL RIGHT. SO HEARING THAT THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON THE PROJECT AND NO PRESENTATION FROM THE DEVELOPER. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU, BETH, FOR A GREAT PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

IS THERE ANY? WELL, I GUESS I HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION BEFORE DISCUSSION.

SO IS THERE A MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE IT.

AS WITH THE.

WE NEED TO. EXCUSE ME.

DO WE NEED TO CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? JUST FOR THE RECORD.

DON'T THINK IT'S HERE, BUT CAN'T CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PROJECT.

AND THEN MARCION WAS.

DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? MARCEL? MARCEL.

LOOKING AT BOTH AND PUTTING THEM TOGETHER.

HAS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE PC 23 00125 PINE CANYON LOT 361 H WITH THE DOES THIS NEED TO GO TO COUNCIL WITH THE WITH APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED BY STAFF? IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS.

THANK YOU. AND AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS.

THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY.

SO IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? NO, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.

I KNOW THIS KIND OF BUILD IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT IS INTENDED FOR THE TO CATCH IN THE CODES, BUT THANK YOU FOR GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS. APPRECIATE APPRECIATED.

YEAH. THANK YOU. UM, I DO.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE TIME FOR THE QUESTION, BUT I DO HAVE SEVEN MORE LOTS THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED WITH A SIMILAR SITUATION. IS THERE ANY.

POTENTIAL WAY TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS OR TO LUMP, YOU KNOW, THE SEVEN PROJECTS TOGETHER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I'M GOING TO DEFER THAT QUESTION TO STAFF.

STAFF. DID YOU HEAR THAT QUESTION? CAN YOU STATE THE QUESTION AGAIN? YOU. YEAH, I HAVE SEVEN SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS OR HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS THAT ALSO FALL WITHIN THE FIVE PLUS BATHROOMS. UM, AND I WAS CURIOUS IF THERE WAS A WAY TO LUMP THEM TOGETHER OR STREAMLINE THE PROCESS IN ANY WAY.

UM, SURE.

A ZONING CODE. TEXT AMENDMENT.

WE COULD. YOU COULD PROPOSE THAT AND WE COULD GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

OTHERWISE, UTILIZING THE CODE AS IS, YOU WOULD JUST BE LOOKING AT HAVING TO DO EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY.

THE SAME PROCESS.

[00:15:01]

THAT WAS A GREAT PRESENTATION.

YOU CAN JUST REDO THE JUST CRANK THAT.

CRANK THAT OUT. SO I'M CURIOUS IF THERE WERE A TEXT AMENDMENT COULD SAY THAT FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A WAY TO DO IT SO IT DOESN'T TAKE OUT THE HOA FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS? ABSOLUTELY. CHANGE IT FOR SINGLE FAMILY ALONE.

SO MY ONLY ISSUE WITH THAT WOULD BE LIKE RIGHT NOW IN A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS, WHERE IT'S WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND GOVERNING DOCUMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVE A CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR THE KIND OF USAGE, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THINGS LIKE THIS.

BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, IF ANOTHER HOME, A LARGE HOME, WAS BEING BUILT ELSEWHERE WITHOUT DESIGN, REVIEW PROCESS AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS, IT IT MAY NOT CATCH THOSE ABUSES OF THE HOA.

I THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO ADDRESS IT.

STAFF I KNOW PERSONALLY STAFF MADE ATTEMPTS TO NOT REQUIRE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO JUST HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

IT SEEMED LIKE PARKING WAS A BIG CONCERN AT THE TIME THAT CAME THROUGH AND THAT ONE SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES WERE KIND OF ADDED TO THE IDEA OF IT WAS BECAUSE OF HOUSES WITH MANY BEDROOMS, MANY INDIVIDUAL TENANTS AND EVERY TENANT OWNING A CAR AND PARKING IT.

AND THAT BECAUSE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ONLY REQUIRE TWO PARKING SPACES AT THE TIME.

THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAID.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, BRIEF DISCUSSION OF CAN WE JUST MODIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE LARGER HOUSES? AND THAT ACTUALLY IS PART OF THE CODE.

NOW, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT IF IT'S OVER FOUR BEDROOMS, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THERE ARE OVER 200 MEMBERS.

AND IN REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE SINGLE FAMILY ZONED.

SO, HUGH, I WOULD I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO.

MY JOB IS JUST TO GIVE YOU OPTIONS OF HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.

BUT I THINK I THINK THE ACTUALLY THE SMOOTHEST PROCESS MOVING FORWARD WOULD BE TO CONTINUE WITH THE INDIVIDUAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR EACH HOUSE UNTIL WE LOOK AT MORE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT.

BUT WILLING TO DISCUSS FURTHER IF YOU WOULD LIKE, MAYBE A LATER DATE.

NO, THAT'S GREAT.

I APPRECIATE YOU THE CONSIDERATION.

UM, I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION AND JUST REGARDS TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION.

ITEM NUMBER TWO, I'M JUST NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLAGSTAFF POLICE DEPARTMENT'S CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM AND WHAT THAT ENTAILS.

UM, YOU CAN WORK WITH STAFF ON THAT.

I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE WE'LL PROBABLY BE LOOKING AT, AT TALKING WITH, UM, WITH THE POLICE AND GETTING A WAIVER. UM, IT'S REALLY, THAT PROGRAM IS REALLY DESIGNED FOR MULTIFAMILY TO HAVE WHOEVER THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IS AWARE OF CERTAIN, UM, CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN OUR CODE AND WITH THE POLICE TO ENSURE GOOD BEHAVIOR AT, AT A DEVELOPMENT.

UM. LESS NECESSARY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, ESPECIALLY.

YES. SO BUT WE'LL WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ON THAT.

OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, I WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.

SO THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO AND FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS.

[6. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO/FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS]

[00:20:03]

UNUSUAL. FROM THE LAST MEETING.

SO SHE PROVIDED HER NAME.

IT JUST WASN'T. WE COULDN'T HEAR WHAT THE NAME WAS.

AND THEN WHEN WE FOLLOWED UP WITH HER, SHE WAS NOT WILLING TO GIVE HER NAME.

THAT WAS PART OF THE ISSUE.

AND SHE STAYED HER ADDRESS, I DON'T THINK.

DID SHE? AT THE MEETING? I'M NOT SURE. I'M NOT SURE EITHER.

I DON'T THINK SHE STATED HER NAME.

SO. HER ADDRESS.

SO. IS THAT A PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE? WE CAN I CAN TALK TO LEGAL ABOUT IT AND SEE HOW WE WANT TO ADDRESS THAT IN THE FUTURE.

THIS IS REALLY JUST THE FIRST TIME THAT'S HAPPENED, SO.

OKAY. YEAH.

AND I THINK I FORGOT TO ASK FOR THAT INFO.

UM, I ACTUALLY THINK YOU DID ASK FOR THE INFO, AND SHE KIND OF MUTTERED HER NAME AND KIND OF THINK YOU DID ASK HER, BUT SHE JUST STARTED TALKING.

SO I DON'T KNOW.

WITH THE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND STUFF THAT WE CAN JUST SAY, YOU CAN'T ADDRESS US IF YOU DON'T GIVE YOUR NAME.

BUT THAT'S JUST MY I MEAN, PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN A DIFFERENT STATE.

BUT. YEAH, THAT MAY BE TRUE, TOO, BUT I'LL FIND OUT, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE BETTER DIRECTION.

OKAY? OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE FROM COMMISSIONERS? OH, GO AHEAD. I SAID I'D LOOK FORWARD TO DOING THIS SEVEN MORE TIMES.

YEAH. SEE YOU SOON.

YOU. THANK YOU.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO THIS SEVEN MORE TIMES.

OR SIX MORE TIMES OR WHATEVER.

I'LL SPREAD THEM OUT A LITTLE BIT SO YOU DON'T GET BORED OF ME.

THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU, BETH ANN.

AND WITH THAT, WE'RE ADJOURNED.

IT'S 428.

BYE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.