Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880503 ~ , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAliINING 5< ZONING MAY 3. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 4:40 pm. Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, and Michael Herron and Welton Anderson. and Ramona Markalunas were excused. David White, Jim Colombo Roger Hunt, Mari peyton COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. HAZEN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Cindy Houben: Showed map to Commissioner's to familiarize members with project. The applicants are proposing a single family house as well as a pond which is located within the 100 year flood plain area and the only condition we have to it at all is that the pond has to go through a process with the Army Corp of Eng ineers. What they are doing is setting a 2 ft berm along the back side and any time you put fill in the flood plain the Corp has to look at it so we have made that a condition of approval. Brian Hazen: Showed members map showing floor plan changes and the moving of the house back from the river from what the plan in the packets showed by 10 ft. Welton asked members and Hazens if anyone had any problems with the conditions in the memo. MOTION Michael: I move that we approve the Hazen Stream Margin Review with conditions as listed in the Planning Office memo of May 3, 1988. (Attached in records) Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion. Erin Hazen: I wanted to make sure that the approval isn't specifically for the original. Michael amended the motion to include that the house has been moved away from the river by approximately 10 ft and to the west. Jasmine amended the second to the motion with all in favor. PZM5.3.88 334 WEST HALLAM HISTORIC DESIGNATION The applicant showed pictures and maps orienting the Commissioners with their plans for this project. After discussion between the members of the Board and the applicant-- Welton asked the applicant if they had recommendations from the Planning Office. "No, there were no problems". any problem with the The applicant said Jim Colombo made a motion to approve the application of 334 West Hallam Historic Designation as submitted with the conditions of the Planning office memo dated April 26, 1988. (Attached in records) Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY CONDITIONAL USE Welton then stepped down for this application since he had done consulting work with them. Tom Baker: The Christian Science Society is making applicant for conditional use approval for a church and book store at the existing structure located at the corner of Main and 7th in what was the Danish Antiques building. The staff really doesn't have any concerns. We do have a couple of recommendations that we are making in conjunction with the approval. One is that we get a site plan that identifies the trash location. The other is that the representations in the application, in terms of numbers of members and hours of operation shall be adhered to. And if that significantly changes in the future that is going to be considered an amendment to this approval and then they should come back to the P&Z. The last 2 items the applicant would like to make some modifications to. what the staff was trying to get at was the sunday and nursery school that was mentioned in the proposal. If it was going to be a use in and of itself daycare center or something like that, we want to make sure we would be notified. Finally the housing authority right now is putting together an enforcement program and cleaning up all their deed restrictions. To assist them in doing that we would want to make sure that they get a chance to review the deed restriction on this structure that was part of the approvals in 1978 and let them amend that if necessary. 2 PZM5.3.88 ,-" Jasmine asked the applicant if they had any problem with the conditions. Jane Ellen Hamilton: No. Right now we don't have any nursery school or sunday school but if that need should ar ise we would like to be able to institute that without having to come back for further approval so long as it is just a part of the church ceremony and only lasts during the hour. Also the 4th condition about getting a letter from the Housing Authority. We will be glad to do that and be glad to commit to doing it within one month. Michael asked about an easement on exhibit A that was not attached. Tom: There is an easement that is recorded between the Hickory House and Danish Antiques. Michael: I am concerned about a significant increase in the use. I am not concerned about the use now. I think we should try and work out some parameters. I think a number is better so that the Planning Office isn't telling you next month to come back in and re-apply. Jane Ellen: The parking works out very well with the Hickory House because the church's hours of operation are during the Hickory House's quiet times. Michael: -perhaps fluxuates I would not have a problem with a larger number than 9- 20. I think it talked about that the membership to a maximum of 9. Jane: At last count we had a maximum of 9 full-time members. Michael: The hours of operation too--2 hours a day certainly isn't much of an operation on that site. When it was a business, it was open all day long in normal business hours. I wouldn't have a problem with 5 or 6 hours a day. Jasmine: The point is this way we specify a number of hours. It is very clear that if you go up to 11 members or whatever there is explicitly no need for you to come in again. Therefor you are not qoina to be subject to a judgement by somebody down the line as to what is significant and what isn't. Jim: If you are going to do that, we are going to have to tie that to something substantial and the thing is going to be is the 3 PZM5.3.88 off-street parking. They have spaces for 9 now and I assume that is why they have used that as a number. Jane: We have 9 on-site and then we do have the Hickory House parking lot during those times if we need to. Michael: There is on-street parking especially on Sunday that isn't being used. Jim: So if the use was doubled, Tom, you don't see any problems? Tom: If the membership was doubled I would think that the traffic impacts would still be fairly low. Jim: If they can provide 9 parking spots, I think it is reasonable to assume that between Hickory House and on-street parking could provide an equal number--9. So I think it would be reasonable to say that there are 18 spots available for when the membership is doubled. Jasmine: Could we say that this application need not be amended if the number of members stay below 25 and as long as the hours of operation do not exceed the hours of operation that are currently in use for the antique business. Michael: Why don't we just make it 6 hours, 5 days a week. Jasmine: Then 25 on the congregation and 5 days a week, 6 hours a day. So that condition B instead of where it says "If either the hours of operation" it will just say "This application need not be amended until such time as the membership exceeds 25 and for the hours of operation exceed 5 days a week, 6 hours a day". Michael: Can we do something about C. I think what Tom was getting at is that as long as the day care nursery and chancellory and church services or church functions then it is OK. It is when it is something independent of that that it becomes a problem. Jane: We could just commit that a nursery school will only be operated in conjunction with the church. Jasmine: But that is not the same thing. We are talking about a daycare center whether it is operated by the church or not if it is open 5 days a week as a daycare center it does have a difference in traffic. That is the point. David: It would be like a place for the kids to be while their parents are in service. 4 PZM5.3.88 ~.... Jasmine: I think we can take out Sunday. "The applicant shall notify the Planning Office before instituting any nursery school to determine whether or not this is appropriate and/or needs to be reviewed by the City." Jane: But we may still have a nursery school on Sunday? Jasmine: Yes. That is why I took out Sunday. And then change D to start with "Within 1 month of this approval, the applicant shall provide etc." Tom: The applicant should be aware that the Colorado Dept. of Highways is undergoing the environmental impact statement. One of the alternatives of that is making the final list of alternatives is using the existing alignments. Part of that is the entrance to Aspen. One of the alternatives is making the final list of alternatives is using the existing alignments which would cause the taking of the Christian Science Church. Jasmine then opened the public hear ing on the Chr istian Science Conditional Use. She asked if any members of the public to comment on the application. Ben Rawlins, member of the congregation: Thanked everyone. Bill Stone, manager of the Hickory House: I would like to re- iterate that we have told them that they can use our parking lot for any of their functions. Our time schedules are such that there is no interference between our busy periods so the 2 uses of that parking lot would not conflict with each other at all. We think it will be fine to have them next door. There were no further public comments and Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Michael: I make a motion that we approve the Christian Science Society Conditional use subject to the conditions of the Planning Off ice memo of Apr il 27, 1988 as modified. (memo attached in records) David seconded the motion with all in favor. PUBLIC HEARING 334 WEST HALLAM Jasmine opened the public hearing on 334 West Hallam and asked for public comment. There was none so she closed the public hear ing . 5 PZM5.3.88 Jim: I move to approve as previously stated. Michael again seconded the motion with all in favor. PUBLIC HEARING CARLEY DESIGNATION. CONDITIONAL USE AND COlilDOMINIUMIZATION Jasmine opened the public hearing. Steve Burstein: Showed photos of 2 houses that we are considering. The house that has the address of 134 is Lot K and the house that is 120 N Spr ing would be Lot L. Lot K is on the corner of 1st and Hopkins. Peter Carley and Julie Wyckoff are the co-applicants in this project. There are 4 actions they are asking P&Z to take tonight. The 1st one is to recommend his tor ic designation of this property. The second is conditional use approval to locate a second detached structure on the 6,000 sqft lot. Special review for the parking is required to reduce the required spaces of 5 to 4 on the property. And then condominiumization is requested so that they would have separate ownership of the 2 houses. The proposal consists of restoring the existing house on Lot K which includes the removal of the asbestos siding and adding some shed dormers on the east side. That is what is conceptually done and approved by HPC. And then to move the house presently at 120 North Spring where 700 East Main project is going to be building. And to do a gallery and an addition to the rear of that house to be moved in which there would be a garage and another bedroom. with regard to historic designation: HPC recommended designation on January 12 and they made it subject to one condition that is volunteered by the applicant. That was to remove the asbestos siding on the existing house on the site within 1 year after designation. With regard to historic standards: The first standard is association with historic persons or that it is a place of some significance or event. This does not appear to meet that standard. with regard to architectural style, both staff and HPC did feel that these are good examples of miner's cottages. Likewise as being an architectural type of specimen. We think that they meet that criteria as well. John Kelly, representative for Peter Carlin: On behalf of my 6 '",", PZM5.3.88 _. client I believe we don't have any intention of expanding past what we submitted. Jim: Can you explain to me how this garage with the bedroom above it is going to be--is this an accessory use? To be attached to the main dwelling? Steve: It is attached. The garage is accessed off the alley. They are not applying at this time through HPC's review process to go above the allowed FAR of 3,200 sq ft. It is possible that the project may require a certain amount. Jasmine: But should they go above the 500 ft then they would come back to P&Z? Steve: They would need a variance from the Board of Adjustments. One last point with regard to issues of designation: In this neighborhood there are actually quite a few his tor ic structur es within a fairly small radius. We think that the way in which this particular project works that it is enhancing the his tor ic quality of that neighborhood. The demolition which is another option would negatively effect the neighborhood. So we do support this designation for those reasons as well. Jasmine: I would tend to think that even though neither one of these buildings is really that highly ranked as far as historic designation, that the combination of the 2 of them in that location would enhance both the structures. I don't have any problem with this project. David: This is exactly what I think we all have tried to do. It is a great idea. It bothers me a little bit that we have a lot of homes around town that because they don't have a great home next to it they are not graded as high as they should be. Maybe if we look at those we could get more people doing this. There have been a lot of homes that have been razed in the last couple of weeks that maybe somebody could have moved them and really had something nice. These are the kind of things we are trying to preserve to preserve the character of Aspen. Anything we can do to accommodate this sort of thing I think we should do. Jasmine asked for comments from the public. There were none. MOTION Jasmine: I would entertain a motion to recommend historic designation for 134 West Hopkins and 120 North Spring Street subject to the conditions listed on page 8 of the Planning Office memo dated May 3, 1988. (attached in records) 7 PZM5.3.88 Jim Colombo: I so move. David White seconded the motion with all in favor. CARLEY CONDITIONAL USE Steve: The first area we looked at in conditional use was compatibility of the neighborhood. We looked at the density, the street pattern in the way the house is positioned so that it is facing the street. Also one of the characteristics of the property would be a long-term rental situation. That goes with the condominiumization since there would be 6-month minimum lease restrictions on this. We felt that it is compatible with the neighborhood . With regard to parking: There is 3 parking spaces off the alley and 1 space would be within the proposed addition. There are 5 bedrooms in the 2 houses so this is 4 spaces rather than 5. There is a reduction of 1 space. We did support that reduction. Then Engineering Dept. as well as the Planning Office felt that it would not seem right to put an undue burden on the neighborhood. Given the status of Mr. Carlin being a part time resident of Aspen he would not be having a car in Aspen at all times. It would seem a reasonable thing to reduce the parking requirements. putting more parking on the site would be a detriment to it. Jasmine asked the applicant if they had any problems with the conditions listed under the conditional use approval. Julie: As far as the park ing goes, because of the other house going on the lot it does cut the yard space in the back by half for cars. I would like to ask you to consider dropping the number of parking spaces for the whole project to 3. Steve: Elyse Elliot and I talked about this because we understand that the tradeoffs of having parking and what we arrived was that we felt that the best deal was to provide the 3 spaces because you don't know exactly what is going to happen in the future with park ing needs. Hopefully the landscap ing wi 11 make it more pleasant. David: I have no problem with going down to 2 spaces. Michael: I don't have a problem with any of it. It is a residential neighborhood and there is plenty of spaces around there and on the street too. You can't make everybody bear the burden for what we did not do in the past. 8 PZM5.3.88 _ Jim: I do have a problem. I think it is required as part of the code. It is required and it can be accommodated here. If the reduction of 1 parking spot would give this woman a substantially better yard I would go along with it. with the way these spaces are arranged on the lot the reduction of a single park ing space will not give the woman any real substantial increase in her yard space and they will end up putting a car in the street. I think it is appropr iate to go ahead and require the parking spaces. Jasmine: Your memorandum does recommend reduction of the parking spaces from 5 to 4. I think that is reasonable. I think reducing it 1 more space is just that much more squeezing and pushing into the neighborhood and I would be more inclined to go along with the Planning Office's recommendation for 4 spaces on the property rather than 5. Michael: Why not bring it down to 2 and if there is complaints from the neighborhood it can be put back up to 3. Jasmine: The problem with that is I think it does put the burden on the neighborhood. First of all they have to know that if they make a complaint that this would be amended. And I don't think it is necessarily fair to put the burden on them just to find this out. Michael: Except that the neighborhood is only going to have a burden because they didn't have to do what these people have to do now. Jasmine: But there is going to be other construction in this neighborhood. This is not the last building that is going to be built in this neighborhood. Probably the buildings that are going to be going into this neighborhood, chances are they are going to be bigger than the ones that are there now. Or that there may be more intensive uses of this property. I don't think we can take this in isolation from what is going on. Michael: If each new use adds 3 parking spaces then it is going to work out. If we make everybody that comes on line in that neighborhood add 3 more parking spaces for every 6,000 sqft there will never be a parking problem in that area. Jim: If we are going to enforce what the code says, it requires off-street parking. We are already giving an exemption of 1 parking space. Now we are talking about 2. And it is in a situation where geographically it is not going to effect that property a great deal. It can easily accommodate those 3 spaces. If it was going to eliminate her yard completely or was going to 9 ..'.'" PZM5.3.88 '--'''-'- benefit her drastically by allowing the reduction parking space then I think perhaps an action could be called for. Michael: Except that the code gives us the discretion. The applicant feels that it is going to benefit her and that is a subjective decision that she is entitled to make. And the people are mak ing the use of the property that we find extremely favorable and I think we should do everything we can to co- operate. One parking space, if it makes her happy, I think we should accommodate her. I will change my mind as opposed to not giving them an approval. MOTION Jasmine: I will entertain a motion to grant conditional use approval based on conditions listed in the Planning Office memo dated May 3, 1988. (Attached in records) Michael: I will make that motion. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Michael: reduction spaces. I make a motion that we grant special review for on on-site parking requirements from 5 spaces to 4 Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION Steve: The Planning Office recommends that a plat be filed and a statement of subdivision exception. Within that are the agreement to join any special improvement districts, waiver from purchase rights of existing tenants which is this right of first refusal which seems to be redundant and unnecessary since the Loushins perhaps at this point have sold the house. Jasmine: I don't understand why it has to be waived then. If they have already sold it then there aren't any existing tenants. John: If there were existing tenants, it would have to be waived. In fact Julie is the actual owner of the property right now. She is the owner and occupant of the property. Jasmine: So it is not really waiving. It just doesn't exist. 10 PZM5.3.88 Steve: I think they still need to give notice in order to condominiumize. John: What this is--if in fact Julie or Peter were to long-term to somebody they would then have to give notice. in fact, there is a tenant they have to give notice. lease If, Steve: Tenants within the preceding 18 months. That is what the code states. It doesn't sound like it is a problem either way whether it is waived or not. The 3rd condition is the 6 month mmlmum lease restriction with no more than 2 shorter tenancies per year. The 4th condition is payment of affordable housing impact fee. And this was calculated by the Housing Authority to be something over $11,000 based on the new fee schedule. While the applicant made application while the old code was in existence, they did make a request to be heard under this provision where the fee structure would apply. We feel that this is a reasonable request that they simply pay the new fee structure. John: In this project it is my feeling that the 2nd house coming onto the site does not in any way effect low or affordable housing because it is, in effect, a new structure. If we don't buy it and leave it sit where it is it is going to be demolished. So in terms of effect, it is a new structure. The theory in the old code was there shouldn't have to be a fee on the unit. We don't dispute that the old unit, there was a fee attached to that. The code says "The city of Aspen is determined that condominiumization of a residential dwelling has the impact on the availability of affordable housing in the community". I am not sure what the theory behind that is. The theory always was in the past that a new unit did not take away from the pool of housing. And I don't think that the addition of the house being moved takes away from the pool of housing. Also the unit that is actually being moved has already been paid for once or will be paid for. Because it is--the developers of the Fein property got charged for that unit. They are getting credit for the unit but they also paid the impact fees. Steve: They paid under GMP for new development. Michael: No they didn't. They paid what it was before city Council approved it. II PZM5.3.88 Cindy: I think when you are mov ing old structures around, they shouldn't be double dipped. I don't think that seems fair at all. Steve: I think that the intent is the condominiumization of all residential units. And that is specific and that the fact that they took a reconstruction credit to build a new unit at 700 East Main is a separate issue from this unit being condominiumized through a GMP exemption to move it to another site. And now condominiumizing it is the idea that through that activity there is an impact on employee housing. There is a waiver provision in here which states that if the applicant is willing to make this unit remain available to employees of the community--without rental or income restrictions--but just simply have some sort of restriction that it is available to employees of the community then this indeed can be waived. Jim: To me this is not a lot which is conforming. This is a non-conforming use that is being allowed pr inc ipally because of the fact of this historical designation that is even allowing this to come onto the lot. Therefore the lot that it is occupying and the use that it is functioning at would not even exist if it were not for the fact that it was historically designated and getting these special treatments. Therefore I don't think that you could say we are displacing low income or any type of employee housing because there would be no housing built on that particular lot had this particular occurrence not come up. So I think it is a totally separate and different situation. Cindy: My viewpoint is that this housing fee has been paid already. It was paid on another end but it was paid already. So the impact of that house being in the community has been paid. It has just been move to another location. Jim: I agree with Cindy that it was paid once already and that it does not apply to this particular lot anyway because this is not a conforming lot that could be built on to begin with for employee housing. Michael: How are you calculating the $11,000? Steve: The fee schedule is calculated on the numbers of bedrooms. For a 2 bedroom unit it is $6,025. Michael: It is just 1 of the 2 structures? David: No, it is on both of them. 12 PZM5.3.88 Steve: The way that this was written, it takes away that idea of displacement of affordable housing. It is based on all the bedrooms. Michael: So basically what Cindy says and what Jim says is that it has already been paid on one of the bedrooms. Steve: For the GMP exemption--for the reconstruction credit, that is true. Michael: It has already been paid if we think their theory is true? On 1 building--the one that is being moved. It would have been destroyed if it wasn't being moved. Steve: It would have been destroyed. Instead they are adding that unit. They have taken it and moved it. Michael: In other words then there is nobody effected by that. But there may be somebody who is effected by the one that is there. Steve: This whole property is effected in some respects. And I think that this provision applies to the parcel at 134 West Hopkins which includes 2 units. Michael: What is our discretion? Steve: You can make any recommendation to Council you wish. And certainly there is a waiver condition that the code allows. David: I think we should give them some credit for the fact that credit has already been paid for 1 bedroom and they are going to build another bedroom. It seems too high to me. I think that they are building some new but that they should get some credit for what they are moving. Michael: Why should they pay for what they add? What they added was not there in the first place. David: And what they add--part of the concept was when you added something that you would pay for that impact. That was what the impact fee was for was when you added something. Jasmine: We are talking about 3 different things in the same situation. The premise behind the new fee did not necessarily have to do with displacement. It is a clear situation that the way that the new code is structured either they demonstrate that there has been no displacement or they go for the fee. That is the code and those are your choices. 13 PZM5.3.88 Whether we think this is right or wrong, that is the way it is. If we go with the fee, that is when you get into the discussion of whether or not this amount is correct. And whether or not they should get credit for something else. Or go back to plan A and say you must demonstrate that you didn't displace housing. Do we want them to go the route of demonstrating that they didn't displace or do we want them to go for the fee with possible negotiations. Jim: I think they should go for demonstrating there is no displacement. John: We can't demonstrate that on the Loushin house. We have no argument about the Loushin house. We are not thrilled about the fee but we have no argument about that. On the new house I think it is obvious that there is no displacement. The thing would be a pile of sticks if we don't buy it. We could have, under the code, gotten another bonus to put another structure on this house--new or old. We could have put a new phony victorian on the place and that would have no displacement. The code still refers to impact. I don't see what the impact on moving that house. That would have been destroyed on that property. I don't see an impact on the housing pool of any kind. Jim: I think they should go for no displacement and I think they should be held responsible for only one bedroom. David: I think that they should pay impact although less than currently is calculated. Michael: When we discussed this initially the impact was that the new condominiums in town weren't rented out to people so that is why there was an impact on the availability of housing. That was what the theory of what this imposition is. And based upon that I don't think the house that is being moved has any impact whatsoever and I think the house that was there does have an impact. I think they have already demonstrated that there is no impact on the house that is being moved and they should go through the fee process on the house that was there. David: That would be closer to what I was saying. Jasmine: Then we can do this on the condition that they should go for the fee process only on the Loushin house in which that reduces the fee to-- 14 PZM5.3.88 John: That knocks $4,000 off. Julie: Can I ask a clarifying question here? impression that this was for the Carley house. for both houses? I was under the Was this $11,000 Steve: Yes. It is based on the total number of bedrooms in the 2 structures. Julie: So the Carley house doesn't get an impact fee then the Loushin house is paying $6,000 in displacement fee? John: That's correct because it was historically rented. Julie: Something doesn't make sense to me. And this is just a statement. I have lived here for 20 years. I have a regular job. I support 2 children. How--It is just a preponderance that I should pay a displacement fee to someone when, in fact, my income is probably accumulatively less than those that I am displacing. It is interesting. Steve: There is a waiver provision that says that if a unit will remain available to employees of the community, and that can be demonstrated, then this fee can waived. Julie: Is a unit a bedroom, a house or what? Steve: Dwelling unit. It is one of the houses. John: If what you are saying is that the future Carley remain available for employees, it won't be. Jasmine: You can't waive it. Steve: I am just saying that Julie is stating that she has been a long term resident, maybe she is willing to-- Jim: What? Deed restrict it forever? What you are saying is very valid but--there is a possibility that you could sell this home to somebody else. And unless you are willing to put a deed restriction forever on the title so that whoever buys it has to have the same restr iction--you can't say because I am in it now it is never going to be used a different way. Julie: I understand that. That is what I made a statement to as a thought, and not as a request. The fact that you have people being penalized-- Jim: For the period for which they are in the home. 15 PZM5.3.88 Julie: Right. '- Fred: In terms of the waiver provision, it is my interpretation that if you determine that there is an impact fee on one residence and not on the other that is being moved on the property, I don't believe that is a waiver determining there is no impact based on the fact that there is not new construction or that it doesn't qualify under the interpretation under this section of appropriability. Secondly I think that if you assess an impact fee on the project, the parcel, it is up to the applicants to decide as to whether or not it goes on one side or the other or split it down the middle. I don't think you are the persons who are going to say it goes on the Loushin house and therefore whoever owns the Loushin house pays the $6,000. It will be assessed the $6,000 on the assess- ment fee and then they can determine themselves how they want it to work. You don't have to take care of that aspect for them. Michael: We have found that there is no impact as a result of the house being moved and that the impact for the house not being moved is in accordance with the code being $8,050. And it is not assessed against a house. It is assessed against the property. That the property be assessed an impact fee of $8,050 based upon the fact that one house be found that there is no impact and one house has an impact fee based upon 3 bedrooms. David: I will second that. Jasmine: That will be the wording if and when we ever get to the condominiumization. John, is there any problem with any of under subdivision exception for condominiumization? the other condition s the purposes of John: As far as my client is concerned, no. Jasmine: Julie, do you have any problems? Julie: No problems. Jasmine: In that case I will entertain a motion to recommend approval of subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumization of the 2 residences on 134 West Hopkins. Michael: I make a motion that we approve it in accordance with the Planning Office memo dated 5/3/88 (attached in records) with 16 ...;""'''>, PZM5.3.88 the exception of condition 4b which we have previously amended. Jasmine asked if there was any public comment. There was none. David seconded the motion with all in favor. RITZ/CARLTON POD/GMP AMENDMENT Jasmine opened the public hearing. She then entertained a motion to continue the hearing to 5/17/88. David: I so move. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine then closed the public hearing. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:00 pm. _~~d~~J:}J~_~t-:______ Ja~:M. carne~ City De~ty Clerk 17