HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-20 PZC MINUTES. '
•
•
•
I.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
May 20, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
7:00 p.m . in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Waggoner presiding.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Adams, Diekmeier, Mueller, Roth, Schum , Welker, Waggoner
Krieger, Lathram
Lauri Dannemiller, Senior Manager
Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 8, 2003
April 2 1, 2003
Chair Waggoner stated the Minutes of April 8, 2003 were to be considered for approval.
Roth moved;
Adams seconded: The Minutes of April 8, 2003 be approved.
AYES :
NAYS :
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT :
Adams, Mueller, Roth , Schum , Waggoner, Welker
None
Diekmeier
Krieger, Lathram
The motion carried .
Chair Waggoner stated the Minutes of April 21 , 2003 were to be considered for approval.
Roth moved;
Adams seconded: The Minutes of April 2 1, 2003 be approved .
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Adams, Roth , Waggoner
None
Diekmeier, Mueller, Schum , Welker
Krieger, Lathram
The motion carried .
1
•
•
•
Ill . SOUTH PLATTE RIVER OPEN SPACE PLAN
Case #CP 2003-01
Chair Waggoner stated the public hearing in Case #CP 2003-01 was closed during the
meeting of February 25, 2003. At that time, the Commission asked staff to meet with
Sheridan residents and Council members to determine the City of Sheridan 's position and
any modifications they wanted to the Plan. Chair Waggoner asked staff to give the
Commission an update on what transpired since the last meeting.
Mr. Welker asked if the public hearing needed to be opened. Chair Waggoner reiterated
that the public hearing was closed on February 25. Ms. Reid stated she reviewed the
Minutes of February 25 , and the public hearing was closed. The Commission has asked for
an update from Sheridan and staff concerning the status of the proposed Plan. Mr. Welker
stated he thought the Commission had taken action to continue the public hearing to a
date certain . Ms. Reid stated that was incorrect; the Commission continued the case but
did not continue the hearing. If the Commission wishes to receive additional testimony, the
public hearing would need to be reopened.
Lauri Dannemiller stated that at the February 25 public hearing she received direction from
the Commission to contact and work with the City of Sheridan for the purpose of gathering
more input and determining a course of action both cities could agree upon. She was
scheduled to attend a meeting May 6 with the City of Sheridan to discuss the information;
however, that meeting was cancelled b y the City of Sheridan. Ms. Dannemiller stated that
as of tonight, she does not have information to present to the Commission as to any
changes that have been agreed upon by both cities . It is her understanding that Mayor
Carter would like to speak to provide an update as to their position. She stated it is not her
position to speak for the City of Sheridan. Ms. Dannemiller noted that it is an option for the
Commission to make a recommendation to adopt the Plan as is and send it on to the
Englewood City Council. That is one decision the Commission can make following input
from the City of Sheridan.
Mr. Waggoner stated he had a letter from Mary Carter, Mayor of Sheridan. He asked if
everyone received a copy. Mr. Welker asked if the letter could be considered since it is
new information Ms. Reid stated she didn't know if everyone had a copy of the letter
because it was received late . The letter is for purposes of announcing that Mayor Carter
would like to make a statement regarding the City of Sheridan 's position which is not
additional information . The Commission 's decision must be based on the public hearing
held in February. Mr. Welker stated that if Ms. Carter is allowed to talk, the public hearing
would need to be reopened because it becomes new information. Ms. Reid stated that
was incorrect; if Ms. Carter is just making a statement regarding the position of Sheridan on
the Plan before the Commission. Her statement would be limited. If someone wishes to
take more information, then the public hearing would need to be reopened. Mr. Welker
asked whether or not it was new information if Ms. Carter's comments are substantive. Ms.
Reid stated she can 't make that determination until it appears there is testimony that is new .
Commissioners present at the February 25 can make that determination and decide on
2
• whether or not to open the hearing. Ms. Reid reiterated that if Ms. Carter limits her
comments to the position of Sheridan, there won't be a problem .
Chair Waggoner stated it is evident from the letter that the City of Sheridan has not made
any commitments as to what they wish to change or do with the Plan. The Plan itself is
conceptual in nature and is not binding upon anyone . Chair Waggoner stated he believed
the Commission could make recommendations on the Plan. Ms. Reid stated the
Commission can make recommendations on the Plan as far as Englewood is concerned.
She stated she understands the Plan is over several jurisdictions. The Commission can
make the recommendation, but it only valid for the parts of the Plan that are within
Englewood . It is a cooperative Plan, but any city can "opt out." The Commission does not
have any authority to bind anyone except the City of Englewood.
Ms. Dannemiller stated as part of the comprehensive planning process, Englewood can
plan outside its boundaries; however, implementation would need to be coordinated with
the City of Sheridan.
Mr. Welker clarified that Commission action on the Plan would be a recommendation to
adopt the Plan. Ms. Dannemiller stated that was correct.
Chair Waggoner reiterated that the Plan is conceptual and has no binding effect on any
jurisdiction . Chair Waggoner stated he would accept a motion that the Commission
• forward to City Council Case #CP 2003-01 with a recommendation of approval.
•
Welker moved;
Adams seconded: TO FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL CASE #CP 2003-01 WITH A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
Chair Waggoner as if there was any discussion. Mr. Schum stated he disagreed; he thought
the whole idea of the Plan was to be a multi-Plan between many cities. Basically, the
Commission is in the same spot as it was on February 25. There is still a lot of
disagreement. None of the issues from the February 25 meeting have been resolved .
Chair Waggoner stated it is his opinion Sheridan had three months to provide input. It
seems as if Sheridan is not that interested and the Commission could wait forever, which is
not the purpose of the Plan. The purpose was to obtain a conceptual Plan for the Platte
River Open Space area and to let that Plan go forward.
Ms. Mueller stated she wondered if the Commission should be recommending a Plan to
City Council that has not been agreed upon by all the municipalities involved. Englewood
doesn't own most of the land along the corridor. She asked why the Commission would
forward it on to City Council if the Plan has not been a cooperative effort. She stated she
understands a lot of research and money has been put into the Plan , but it seems that it
needs to be a common vision before it can go anywhere .
3
•
•
•
Chair Waggoner stated Sheridan, Littleton, and several other entities had representation on
the steering committee. Mr. Welker stated that was correct; in the sense that the steering
committee approved it and forwarded it to the Commission, those representatives stand
behind it.
Mr. Schum asked if the steering committee Minutes were sent to the mayors of all the
municipalities each time a meeting was held. Ms. Dannemiller responded; the process was
to make sure there was an understanding of what was accomplished at each prior meeting
by attendance at the meetings and by updates from the previous meeting to those persons
on the steering committee. Inasmuch as an entity had a representative on the steering
committee, they were updated after every meeting as to what was accomplished at the
prior meeting. Mr. Schum clarified that it was the representative 's responsibility to go back
and keep each one of the entities updated; it was not something done with a paper trail.
Ms. Dannemiller stated that is the concept of a steering committee; it is the responsibility of
the steering committee representative to inform their jurisdictions and interested parties as
to what was being accomplished at each meeting. Mr. Schum wondered if the steering
committee was flawed in the manner it was set up. It doesn't appear that the Plan got out
to all the right people, and he doesn 't understand where the breakdown occurred.
Mr. Welker stated that information sent to the committee were notices of meetings and
continual updates of documents. In addition there were public meetings which were
published and notices sent to property owners. Some people came to those meetings from
Sheridan. It is not that no one in Sheridan knew about the meetings; he believes Sheridan
was going through changes in their government at the time . They had other matters to deal
with and the Plan fell through their "cracks." Mr. Welker stated he doesn 't believe Sheridan
was uninformed; it was a matter of too many things going on beyond the committee's
control. It was not the committee's responsibility that the current administration didn 't
know about the Plan .
Prior to the February 25 hearing, the committee didn 't know Sheridan opposed the Plan
because Sheridan didn't convey their opposition to the committee. Mr. Welker stated he
believes the Plan can go forward or it can be stopped. The Commission can make a
recommendation to City Council; it cannot take any action . City Council will decide
whether or not to adopt the Plan. He stated a "no" recommendation will kill the Plan for a
period of time; and there is too much good in it.
Mr. Adams asked who funded the Plan. Mr. Welker responded that it was initiated by
Englewood. Mr. Adams confirmed Englewood has the contract with Wenk & Associates.
Ms. Dannemiller stated that was correct. Mr. Schum asked if there was any responsibility
under the Plan since the City received grant monies. Ms. Dannemiller stated when the
application was submitted to COCO, which funded $17,000 of a $50,000 plan, the
understanding was there was support from the City of Sheridan for the planning process,
which was indicated by a letter of support. Englewood was always the primary funder of
the plan because it had the ability to provide the additional $35,000. Sheridan agreed their
contribution would be in-kind support which they did by providing a representative to the
4
•
•
•
steering committee and any information needed. Sheridan met their contribution from that
perspective.
Mr. Adams asked if Englewood is bound by a contract to move the Plan forward. Ms. Reid
responded; any contract the City enters into with a consultant does not guarantee any
action. It is a legislative decision which starts with the Commission. The issue before the
Commission is whether or not to approve the South Platte River Open Space Plan. The
Commission is not bound by anything except the testimony it received on February 25 and
any discussion held. Ms. Reid stated the contract was only to provide consulting fees to
obtain a proposed Plan , which has been accomplished.
Chair Waggoner asked if any additional changes to the Plan would be at an additional cost
to the City. Ms. Reid stated that was correct. Chair Waggoner asked if GOCO would need
to be refunded the grant money if the Plan is not accepted . Ms. Dannemiller stated the
Plan has been submitted in its proposed form and she has informed GOCO that it is still in
the adoption phase. The City does not have a further commitment to GOCO to refund the
money if the Plan is not adopted . The grant is basically closed out at this point. If the Plan
is amended, there needs to be an additional funding source. She does not have authority
to commit additional funds to significantly amend the Plan .
Ms. Reid stated with a conceptual Plan , the Commission 's recommendation is to City
Council to either accept or reject. If the Plan is accepted, any implementation is done with
a recommendation from the Commission and a Council decision. The implementation
phase is very different from the conceptual phase .
Discussion ensued . Mr. Schum stated the Plan runs through a corridor that is the heart and
soul of both cities, Sheridan especiall y. There is a lot of businesses paying Sheridan 's tax
dollars helping their city when it has been struggling. A lot of these businesses are in the
middle of this Plan in a lot of different wa y s. That is one part of the Plan that scares him;
there are areas where it seems people are being pushed out. Other areas of the Plan do a
great job. Mr. Schum stated there is a lot of great things in the Plan, but it is not mutually
agreed upon . The Plan covers 60 percent of Sheridan and 40 percent of Englewood. The
area needs to be planned, but the Plan needs to be restarted in a different way.
Mr. Welker stated the Plan is a vision and is less concrete. The reality is everything is
subject to change based on when it is implemented . Implementation is not what the
Commission is currentl y considering. There is no part of the Plan that forces anyone out.
Mr. Schum stated it is not wrong to plan the area, but it should be done responsibility. If
Englewood is not careful about the Plan , a lot of damage can be done. There are a number
of low-income people in the area that no one has given any thought. These are the people
who are working in Englewood . This Plan has not taken them into consideration.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker stated it was not the committee's intent to take people's
property. He believes the Commission can proceed on a decision . Chair Waggoner asked
staff when the first steering committee meeting was held on the Plan. Ms. Dannemiller
stated a consultant was selected in November, 2001 . The primary planning effort took
5
•
•
•
place the majority of 2002 . Chair Waggoner confirmed it had been 3 months since the
public hearing. Ms. Dannemiller stated that was correct.
Ms. Mueller stated she is torn . The City of Englewood contributed the majority of the
money to develop the Plan. While she sympathizes with the City of Sheridan regarding
their leadership change, 12 weeks is a reasonable amount of time for Sheridan to come
forth with a response . She stated she doesn 't like the idea of approving a Plan that doesn 't
have everyone 's input; but she doesn 't want to see everything go to waste by putting it on
hold or not recommending approval.
Mr. Schum stated if the Plan is trul y something that everyone wants to eventually go
forward, Sheridan should take the Plan , learn from it and provide a limited study back.
Chair Waggoner stated they could also take the Plan and apply it to their advantage .
Mr . Diekmeier asked if the Sheridan representatives on the steering committee were
citizens or staff. Mr. Welker stated he recalls they were staff members at the time . Ms.
Dannemiller stated there was a combination . A representative from Sheridan's schools ,
Tina Podalak, and Patrick Goff, Sheridan 's Interim City Administrator, were asked to
participate. Also Aileen Marple, a Sheridan councilperson, was asked to participate,
ho w ever, she choose not to participate in the planning process because the meetings were
at a time she could not attend. Staff asked Sheridan to send another councilperson in her
spot, but the y did not. Sheridan's representation was Patrick Goff and the school
representati ve. Mr. Welker stated those two people were at meetings and talked with
some reservation of taking of land and the impact on both their citizenry and the city .
Mr. Roth stated he is also torn. He stated he doesn 't have a lot of problems with the Plan
north of Oxford; however, when the Plan moves south , outside Englewood's jurisdiction, he
has concerns . For the past 10 years , he has served on the Keep Englewood Beautiful
Commission w here recycling and environmental issues are perennial topics. Mr . Roth
stated there was a recent news item where Denver is about to curtail their residential
rec ycling program because it is too costly . There are a number of businesses in the area
that the Plan interferes with that have been in the recycling business for decades. During
the February 25 testimony, it was stated that relocating those businesses would be difficult,
if not impossible. Moving those businesses outside the city limits would put them further
away from their customer base which adds to air pollution and sprawl. If they are
displaced , there is also the possibility of their going out of business , which would be even
more environmentally problematic. Most of the materials they take in would then be
placed in landfills . The Plan should have taken a slightly different view of those businesses
which are environmentally-friendly businesses . To disrupt those businesses for additional
bike paths and parks is not the right direction to take . Mr . Roth stated he believes there are
compromises that can be worked out where those businesses can still operate and still
obtain open space along the river.
Mr . Adams asked for alternatives; he asked if the Plan would "die " or be picked up later if
the Commission doesn 't approve it. Chair Waggoner stated there is no money available to
"pick it up later ." Ms. Reid stated Council can ask the Commission to review it again; her
6
•
•
•
best understanding from the February 25 meeting is that the issue is whether or not the
Commission wants to make a recommendation to City Council to approve the Open Space
Plan as written . There is a motion on the floor to make a recommendation to approve the
Plan . There is no motion on the floor to make a recommendation to approve part of the
Plan.
Mr. Adams stated the City of Sheridan has had three months to present alternatives. Even
though they are forming a new government, they could have at least indicated that they
didn't want to accept the Plan. Ms. Dannemiller stated the Commission does have the
letter Mayor Carter submitted on May 16. Ms. Reid stated the letter came from the City
Manager's office today and she provided a copy to Chair Waggoner. Ms. Dannemiller
asked that the letter be read to provide an indication of Sheridan's position on the Plan.
Ms. Reid stated if the Commission is not reopening the hearing, then it needs to be taken
solely for the purpose of looking at Sheridan 's position otherwise it becomes additional
testimony. Ms. Reid stated the questions and discussion thus far have been for legal and
clarification purposes which, in her opinion, is not testimony on the Plan itself. The purpose
of the public hearing was to review the Plan. If the Commission limits its consideration of
the letter, it can go on the record, but the consideration of the letter can only be for a
review of Sheridan's position on the Plan.
Chair Waggoner stated he didn 't remember anything in the Plan putting anyone out of
business. It is a conceptual Plan and in his opinion, it is there for the cities who have
control over the properties to use as they desire . Chair Waggoner directed the
Commission 's attention to the Zoning Map at the rear of Chambers. Parks are denoted in
green ; the area in purple is industrial. Looking at the map shows that Englewood controls
more than 50 %. He suggested it is a 60 Englewood/40 Sheridan split. Mr. Schum stated
he disagreed. The Plan clearly shows that it is 60 Sheridan /40 Englewood. Chair
Waggoner stated that is assuming Sheridan has control over the golf course, which he
doesn 't believe they do.
Mr. Welker stated he doesn't believe it needs to be a battle between Englewood and
Sheridan . Chair Waggoner agreed. Mr. Welker stated he is also torn about whether or not
the Plan is worthy of recommendation since there are a number of unresolved issues which
didn't come to light before the hearing. His fear of not recommending the Plan and not
continuing with the process is that it will be lost. When monies become available and
opportunities arise that fit into the Plan, it won 't be able to be completed at that time
because this Plan would be gone.
Discussion ensued. Ms. Mueller asked if the Commission could amend its motion to cite
their concerns. Ms. Reid stated the person who made the motion can accept a friendly
amendment and a new motion amending the first motion.
Mr. Adams stated he is satisfied with the information he has received. Mr. Adams asked if
the Commission was voting on approval without amendments or amending the approval.
Chair Waggoner stated there is a motion and a second to send the Plan to City Council
with a recommendation for approval. Mr. Welker stated he would like to complete the
7
•
•
•
discussion of who made the motion. Ms. Reid stated if the Commission wished to vote on
the current motion as is then someone can make another motion if the current motion fails.
Ms. Reid asked who made the motion. The recording secretary stated Mr. Welker moved
and Mr. Adams seconded. Ms. Reid stated it is the Chair's call.
Discussion ensued regarding amending the motion. Ms. Dannemiller stated it is her
understanding that the Commission can make a recommendation to adopt the Plan with
specified changes, which would be the Plan that would be sent to Council. City Council
would have the decision of whether to ask staff to make those changes or adopt the Plan in
its original form . Chair Waggoner stated at the present time the Commission doesn't know
what Sheridan wants changed. Ms. Dannemiller stated that was correct. Chair Waggoner
clarified there was no contact either way with Sheridan as to any changes to the proposed
Plan. Ms. Dannemiller responded; the information she presented in the staff report was her
contact with the City of Sheridan in addition to the letter received from Mayor Carter.
Chair Waggoner stated there were no requested changes received. Ms. Dannemiller stated
that was correct.
Chair Waggoner asked if the Commission had any further consideration or comment. With
no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes.
AYES:
NAYES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN:
Adams, Diekmeier, Mueller, Waggoner
Roth , Schum, Welker
Krieger, Lathram
None
The Chair announced the motion approved by a 4-3 vote and moves forward to City
Council with a recommendation for approval.
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
Chair Waggoner asked if anyone wished to address the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Alice Corns, 2151 West Radcliff Avenue asked why the agenda shows a public hearing on
the open space plan . Ms . Reid stated the public forum is a time for the public to make
comments and the Commission doesn't answer questions during the public forum. Ms.
Corns stated the agenda calls the meeting a public hearing, but the meeting was closed.
The onl y information the Commission considered was what was presented at the February
meeting, and the Commission still didn 't listen to what was said at that meeting. She stated
she has a lot of reservations regarding the Commission's actions. The landowners did not
know what was going on . She stated no one at the Februar y 25 meeting testified in
support of the Plan . Englewood 's mayor was not present to support the Plan; however,
Sheridan 's mayor and City Council spoke against the Plan. She continued; it doesn't make
any difference what she tells the Commission. People are not going to go away.
Englewood continues to take land from Sheridan . She stated she spoke with a landowner
who owns a substantial amount of acreage, and he still didn 't know about the Plan .
Englewood didn 't want the word to get out and didn 't listen to people. By approving the
8
•
•
•
Plan, she guarantees people will show up for every City Council meeting even though it's
not the City of Sheridan . She asked if anyone in Englewood listened .
Tim Soule, 2045 West Union Avenue stated the Commission is adopting a flawed Plan.
Public comment was received in February and the Plan did not change. He attended both
public meetings. He was told at both those meetings not to worry the Plan is a 15-25 year
plan. At the February meeting, he learned that the property he owns is not going to be
redeveloped; it will be taken for parks and recreation . In the Plan, there is a timeframe of 3-
5 years. He commended the members who voted against the Plan. The Plan is not
conceptual; it contains dates and times. It is not fair; it is not right.
Chair Waggoner commented that the Commission did not adopt anything. Ms. Reid stated
that was correct; the Commission passed a motion to recommend the Plan to City Council,
who does the adopting.
John F. Kent, 2400 West Oxford Avenue stated his family owns Oxford Recycling . He
spoke at great length at the February meeting and is also confused at the Commission's
action. He felt the Commission would postpone the Plan. Mayor Carter is in attendance
and he assumes she wants to speak. He believed Sheridan's position on the Plan was to
have more time to complete their Comprehensive Plan before they could address the
Open Space Plan. There was change in their government, but those issues are behind
them . He feels the Plan is good until it starts interfering with businesses. He agreed that he
doesn 't want to see the Plan "scrapped", but he doesn't understand why a decision wasn't
postponed for another 3, 6 or 12 months to gather more input from Sheridan. His family
wants to be part of the solution; his type of business cannot be easily relocated. In tough
economic times, it is not as important to beautify as it is to employ more people and try to
help those businesses . He stated the river should be beautified without interrupting
businesses. His company is participating in the Sheridan cleanup in a few weeks.
Englewood directed their residents to take their tree branches from the snowstorm to
Oxford Recycling because it was the closest facility. He doesn't want his company driven
out of business. He asked the Commission to allow Sheridan and landowners more time
to provide input on the Plan. If the Plan is flawed from the beginning, he believes it will be
very difficult to change later. It is part of the Commission's job to correct those flaws
before it is sent to City Council.
Mary Carter, 3195 South Clay Street stated she had hoped to speak to the Commission
before the vote. She understands that the Plan is now being recommended to Englewood
City Council. Englewood will then do what it wants and it gets passed on to the Planning
Commission of the Sheridan, and then onto the Sheridan City Council before anything is
finalized. She stated she is not worried about the Commission's vote. She understands her
letter came late, but they are working as fast as they can. Anyone who has been in
government understands that government works very slow sometimes. It is only just
recently that Sheridan formed an Urban Renewal Authority and are in the process of
developing a Comprehensive Plan. Sheridan's grants require that their Comprehensive Plan
be completed by January 2004 so it will not take a couple of years. The Urban Renewal
Authority will be in effect before the end of the summer because the blight study will be
9
• finished by the end of the month. Sheridan has been promised an Urban Renewal Plan by
the first of August. At that point in time, a lot of the areas in the Open Space Plan will have
a different idea of development than what is contained in the Plan. Sheridan tried to
provide Ms. Dannemiller with changes, but it was too late. Sheridan will accomplish those
changes when it reaches their Planning Commission or City Council. The Commission's
action does not stop Sheridan from doing what they want, and it doesn't stop the input of
the businesses who are within the boundary of the City of Sheridan. Sheridan will listen to
them and try to accommodate them. She thanked the Commission for their time. If
Sheridan needs to obtain a grant to modify the Plan , they will apply for a COCO grant in
September so the Plan meets their expectations and their development plans.
Jose Tafoya, a Sheridan City Council person, complimented Ms. Dannemiller on a job well
done; it is a good Plan. However Sheridan is working on a Comprehensive Plan and
developing a Urban Renewal Authority, and the Plan is unacceptable at this time . Sheridan
is asking for more time and will listen to and support the property owners. As long as he is
on Sheridan City Council, he will support the property owners. He stated he hopes the two
cities can reach some type of consensus. He applauds those Commissioners who voted
no.
V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Ms. Dannemiller stated a full copy of the Unified Development Code will be delivered on
• May 23 and the June 3 meeting packet will be delivered on May 29.
VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further.
VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
Mr. Schum stated he was surprised at the artwork on South Broadway; it is quite
interesting. He loves art in Englewood, but he is having a hard time understanding two of
the pieces. He stated it was a rough evening and that a lot of people feel as if their
involvement has been pushed to the side . He stated he is all for bringing the river up to
snuff and making it a beautiful place for everyone, but once again everyone needs to be
involved equally.
Chair Waggoner stated since construction has started on the Safeway Parking lot there are
no turns on the ends of the parking aisles.
Ms. Mueller stated the agenda was noted as a public hearing and she thought the
Commission was taking more testimony, which was her misunderstanding. It is a shame
that the Commission didn't hear about Sheridan's plans and their dates before now.
• There was no further discussion . The meeting was declared adjourned at 8 :30 p .m.
10
•
•
•
11