Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890606 .xV ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting or order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Mari Peyton was excused and Jim Colombo was absent. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS None. STAFF COMMENTS None. MCCLAIN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Leslie: McClain Stream Margin Review: The applicants would like to table. MOTION Roger: I move to table the McClain Stream Margin Review at the applicant's request to date certain of June 20, 1989. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. GOLDSMITH CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Welton stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record. Upon review staff feels conditional use review approval. (Attached in these conditions. that the proposal meets all of the criteria. We have 4 conditions of record) The applicant has agreed to Michael: Would this be a conditional application or conditional use if they weren't going for the affordable housing? Leslie: If they were not providing accessory dwelling, right. Michael: They could get it as a matter of right. Leslie: Right. ........... PZM6.6.89 Michael: So that means that if somebody wants to go along and give us employee housing, the City now puts another impediment in their way of doing that. Roger: Well, they are really not giving us any housing. are giving what they are taking down. Michael: There is going to be a duplex and 2 accessory units. They Leslie: Right now there is a duplex with 2 bandit units. Michael: But they are going to give us a duplex with 2 accessory units. If they demolished it and just came in with a duplex they wouldn't have to be here. Jasmine: Is that correct? If they were just going to tear down and just put up a duplex, they would not have to come in? Michael: My point is if they came in and took the maximum for themselves they could, as a matter of right, build a duplex. If they come forward and want to do more than that and add 2 accessory dwelling units which benefits the community then we have added another step in the planning process. Roger: That would be nice if they were adding something. are not adding anything. They Jasmine: Based on Ord 47, they couldn't come in and just build a duplex with no employee housing. Is that correct? Michael: In 47 duplexes are exempt. Leslie: pending Ord 21 that takes this duplex language with accessory dwelling units and extends it to all the ordinances. Roger: In condition #1. Qualified employees of Pitkin County. Pitkin County is a political entity. I would try to re-word that as qualified employees as resident in Pitkin County. Jasmine asked if there were any public comments. There were none. Steve Goldsmith, representing the appl icants: We don't agree with all of this. We did the initial pre-application. We were told some different things than what ended up in here. We had that interview and then spent thousands of dollars based upon what we were told there. What we were told was that we were required to be a 6 month deed restriction which we are willing to do. And that it would be any Pitkin County employee. 2 PZM6.6.89 specifically it was stated that it would not be tied to the Housing Authority--that it would just be no short terming there. It would be a regular unit in the free market. The problem is we are going to be selling one of the sides. My Dad will be staying in one side and we are going to be selling the other side. And that will affect the marketability. The whole design and everything was based on those initial assumptions. Jasmine: The problem is that the definition of the accessory units is that they are deed restricted to full time occupants of Pitkin County and that this be under the jurisdiction of the Housing Authority. There is no way we can change that. You can still put whoever you want in there. But the Housing Authority must approve that you are not putting in somebody who is not a resident. So it must be OK'd by the Housing Authority but that is part of what accessory unit means. Leslie: I talked with the Jim Adamski of the Housing Authority this morning and they assured me that there are deed restrictions that only address 6 month minimum lease and do not address income and price which is not supposed to be in accessory dwelling units. Your accessory dwelling units have to restricted to 6 month minimum lease and qualified residents of Pitkin County regardless of income. Steve: There is one other thing in this document that you must rent it out or the Housing Authority finds someone to rent it. Jasmine: Right. Michael: They just don't want to find it empty or available for part time use for guests. steve: Just so we are crystal clear. Then the only restricted elements are 6 months, Pitkin County resident. It is under the guidelines of the Pitkin Housing Authority subject to their approvaL Jasmine: That there is somebody in there who is in there for 6 months or more and a resident of Pitkin County. Steve: And a caretaker does fall into that. Jasmine: That is correct. Tom Baker: The impact is changing to the lesser degree theoretically in terms of density. Then the question is do we "',..~-" 3 PZM6.6.89 need to republish and make a new application and technically I can't really answer that but I would say given the nature of the application and the level of impacts we are doing nothing but reducing it. I would say that what we ought to do tonight is go ahead and act on one accessory dwelling unit. I will confirm this with the city Attorney and what we are doing is in good faith we are saying this doesn't appear to be any problem. But there might be a technical legal aspect that could hang it up. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Goldsmith Conditional Use of the 793, 795 Cemetery Lane duplex with one accessory dwelling unit subject to the condition #1 of the Planning Office memo dated June 6, 1989 (attached in record) with the first sentence being modified to read "The proposed accessory dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to occupancy by qualified residents in Pitkin County. conditions #2 through #4 being the same as Planning Office memo dated June 6, 1989. This approval is contingent upon review by the City Attorney. Michael seconded the motion. Maybe we should give the applicant the alternative of approving it this way and approving with 2 accessory units so that if the city Attorney comes back tomorrow and tells them that they have to republish a notice and wait a month they may be willing to go forward with the original application. That way they could have the option of going forward with the original application as opposed to re-publishing and come away with just 1 accessory unit. Roger: I will include in my motion an approval for 2 dwelling units under the guidelines of the Housing Authority as originally proposed. Michael amended his second. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Jasmine closed the public hearing. 514 NORTH 3RD STREET HISTORIC DESIGNATION PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: Made presentation as attached in record. ,.,.--- 4 PZM6.6.89 Welton opened the public hearing. and he closed the public hearing. There was no public comment MOTION Michael: I move to recommend approval of historic designation for 514 North 3rd. street. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. 1004 EAST DURANT AVENUE HISTORIC DESIGNATION PUBLIC HEARING Welton stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. Jasmine opened the public hearing. There was no public comment and she closed the public portion of the hearing. Roxanne: Made presentation as attached in record. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the Landmark designation of 1004 East Durant. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Welton: At the Meadows meeting last night that Graeme and I attended one of our newly elected city council people thought it would be a good idea if we had an Affordable Housing Zone District--at least one required in every block of the city so that nobody could say "Not in my back yard". Then everybody would have it in their back yard. Actually what I was thinking was that these million dollar houses in a block wouldn't be worth a million dollars if they had employee housing clustered on one side. It would take some of the pressure off of tear-down rebuilds for second homes. Rick Neiley: If you could create more land it would solve some of our problems. Roger: Well, we have Hilliard Park. .~ 5 PZM6.6.89 Michael: I was just in Hawaii and I read the local newspaper and a guy wrote a letter. It could have come right out of the Aspen Times. It was how they don I t want any employees there and everybody has to drive. Tom Baker, Planning Dept: The goal is to scatter the affordable housing throughout the resident housing, throughout the neighborhoods. And what we realized is that if we used this zone district and plunked it down in the middle of an R-6 area, we might have some significant incompatibilities. There is no reason to think that we would let anyone go to the maximum that we were talking about. But we thought that how could we insure compatibility to the neighborhood if we have this zone district. So we started looking at an overlay. We looked at the old RBO stuff and you might recall why that didn't work. Welton: Because of public hearings. That was exactly our point during the Goldsmith hearing. Why make them go through a Conditional Use Hearing if they are adding employee units which are in the best interest of the community. Then we have to let the next door neighbors know that the density is going to be higher than what is allowed and take those neighbor's input. Jasmine: Every time a 7030 came up, there was always tremendous opposition from the neighbors. Tom: I suspect there will always be opposition to affordable housing as well. Tom: If we are going to look at an overlay, and by no means do we know that an overlay is going to be the answer. I was talking to Bill Tuite today and his concern as part of Council is that we don't create another code amendment that isn I t going to create some housing. He said what we have to keep in mind is see what is going to happen in these areas. For instance, if residence-occupied units were the definition you gave to units that were deed restricted to employees of the County which means that you have to work here 9 months a year but not restricted to price or income. So they could be big and they could be expensive and to get a handle on what the market would bear in terms of resident-occupied units. We looked at the free market-Hunter Creek. They have got 6 month minimum lease restrictions. They came out at about $200 a sqft. Leslie is will have guidelines low income researching a development at Business Center another set of figures from that. Middle are at about $120.00sqft. Moderate income are is $69 or $72. and we income $93 and 6 PZM6.6.89 So just running straight ratios on that, we need 2.5 resident occupied units for every free market unit. We need 4 middle income units for every free market unit and 5.25 moderate for every free market unit. That gives us a guide at what we are looking at when we create an overlay zone in terms of density. FAR seems to be a problem in all the zone districts. Density was a problem but not as much as we thought. When we looked at the RMF, C-l, 0 and the LTR those were the zone districts where Ord. 47 created that density bonus for 100% employee housing where you had 300sqft per studio. If you crank that out on an acreage basis you get 145 units per acre. That is plenty of density. Maybe we need an FAR bonus in those 4 zone districts. We certainly need a density increase in the R-6, R-15, the R-30. But we weren't sure what. I thought we would follow on a 2 to 1 to 100% increase. I don't know why. And when I started running the numbers I really don't know why. It looks like if we do a combination of these 2 we are at 3 to 1. And maybe that is OK. That is density only. And we will have to make the FAR just the FAR to make this work because you are not going to sell a resident occupied unit for $200 a sqft if you have got only 500sqft. So we will probably have to adjust the FAR. At the last meeting P&Z was concerned about getting too much middle income stuff. They wanted the moderate and the low. You wanted to focus on that. In talking with Francis in the Planning Office he reminded us of the affordable housing production plan. And what we were saying in there was that if we can provide a family oriented housing over here and the low income housing over here--the Red Roof and the Marolt that the thousand units that we have in place will loosen up because people that are overcrowded in one end because it is unaffordable will go the Red Roof or the Marolt. If we focused on the middle income stuff here and the low income stuff here then the existing thousand unit inventory that we have could work for the moderate income group. Then we talked about the old issues of water tap fees. In talking with Bill Tuite he said it seems reasonable to be willing to buy down the cost of the land to some degree--maybe10 maybe 15%. Whether we buy down the land or we subsidize the water tap fee, there is going to be some subsidy involved and maybe the Housing Authority pays for the tap fee or the city can afford to waive it. That is more of a political decision. open space really isn't a dollar concern. It is if we do an FAR bonus we have to make sure everything works--parking, FAR, open space. We were looking at doing open space and parking by special review. Bill Tuite's concern was that OK let's make sure ~,.""",' 7 PZM6.6.89 that instead of the traditional way of doing parking and open space special review where you can provide 1 parking space per bedroom but it can be reduced by special review, he would like to see that you can--parking is done by special review up to a maximum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. His concern is that if we are going to have the ability to do special review the developer ought to know what the worst case scenario is up front. And that worst case scenario should be a break and not the standard for the development. Welton: That has the advantage in providing more multi-bedroom uni ts or at least being more of an incentive - to provide more multi-bedroom units. If we are providing 2 and 3 bedroom units which I think there is a need for, and somebody can get by with 2 and 1/2 parking spaces for a 3-bedroom then that would be the 1 thing that would encourage him to provide a larger unit. Michael: Maybe if we did it by making it one space per o~e bedroom or studio and 1 and 1/2 for anything over that. I am ~n favor of anything that eliminates the review so that people don't have to waste their time coming before us. Tom: We always want to give them the option to argue for fewer. Say they have an off-site area where they can store cars and they are right on the bus line or right at the base of the mountain. I think we have all agreed that people are going to have cars whether they use them or not. Our parking problems aren't necessarily everywhere. And if we did some affordable housing in the west there is plenty of parking on the street. If somebody were to have their employee housing parking on the street how big of a problem is that in the west end? Roger: That depends. For example if you are looking at such a project on a 6,000sqft lot, there is potentially 2 parking spaces in front of that 6,000sqft lot. So that basically I think should determine how far you can go in that direction. Somewhere there is a limit with what you can do with the cars. Tom: So it has to be a combination of providing some on-site and some off-site. Another area is setbacks. Bill Lipsey, Roxanne and Karen Day have come up with an idea of having carriage houses in the west end. There are some in place but they are talking about new. Now they are all in the setback because they are right up to the alley. This housing overlay could waive that setback as well. ~- 8 PZM6.6.89 Graeme: property physical Right now you can build a 6ft fence right on your line in the alley. A lot of people do that and from a standpoint it is common to go right up to the lot line. Welton: And we have reduced the garage to 5ft. 5ft makes the alley seem kind of tighter than even a 6ft fence does and as far as turning movements particularly in the winter time, 5ft is about the minimum. A 0 setback on an alley is counterproductive. Graeme: If you have a garage then you should set it back to provide your turning lanes. You need to supply yourself the room to do it. Baker: The overlay can provide in the R-6 zone the ability to do multi-family, higher density building in the setback. The task that we have got is to come up with some sort of formula to make that overlay sensitive to the needs of those zone districts. We are leaning to the overlay as opposed to the zone district. But we can change our minds. Jasmine: Can't you do both? If somebody just wanted to apply for a straight rezoning it would be one thing. If they wanted to come in under conditional use review for the overlay-- Baker: So have a high-density affordable housing zone that could be applied in appropriate areas but the overlay would probably work best in the lower density areas. Jasmine: I think it would give an applicant more options. If we are trying to create more housing we need to do more things that will encourage affordable housing. If you have 2 different options that an applicant can choose from, that just gives the applicant one more option to choose what might work out better. Roger: Part of the inducement is integrating it with other restrictions in the zone district. For example area and bulk restrictions. Right now we basically have the area and bulk restrictions that these units could fit in very well. So there is not going to be any inducement because we basically can't go much higher in density. But what we can do is lower the area and bulk requirements for family dwelling for example. And then by special review with this overlay or zone district bring it up to the FARs that we have right now. When you look at the entire district when people complain about the mass of these buildings that are going up--right now we have the Arabian Knights at 2nd and Bleeker. That thing looks massive and that is with the current restrictions. I guess we can accept that if it were multi-residential housing unit but we certainly wouldn't be able to go more. 9 PZM6.6.89 Baker: So you are saying the R-6 the low and middle, moderate density zone districts we might take the approach of looking reduced FARs and allow those to come back up to what we have now with special review for affordable projects. How about in the zone districts like LTR, RMF, C-1 and Office where the density is significant now. It seems to make those work, maybe a 20% FAR increase--1. 2 to 1 for those 4 zone districts. For Office it is 1.75 to 1 but it is increasable to 1 to 1. Michael: I thought we just changed the Office Zone so that the only way you can get residential in there anymore is by special rev~ew. This would only be applicable for residential. One of our concerns was trying to discourage people from building any residential in the Office Zone. Baker: family. Duplexes are prohibited. I don I t know about single Michael: C-l I think we prohibited them. In the Office I think we made it conditional. Baker: But for affordable housing for and overlay in the Office Zone maybe it is appropriate. I think what P&Z talked about the last time was that the density in the LTR or RMF Zone district is amounts of 27, OOOsqft or less is 300 for studio, lot area, 400 for 1 bedroom. Maybe that can be extended to 1 acre by special review. By right for 27,000sqft or less and by special review up to an acre or up to 50,000sqft or whatever number you think makes some sense. Parry: You just need to set some standards for that. Maybe you don't want to do maximums. You just want to put in some wording that gives an applicant some concept of what they are getting into and gives you and your successors some concept of what was intended. Roger: I like where the LTR is and I like it for that purpose. There has been reasons for that over the years. As much as I like employee housing I certainly would not want to see the LTR district become all employee housing. That would not work well for the community. We have a very limited area for LTR. Over a period of time as lodges may grow old and they figure they can chop them up into smaller units and make them employee housing where that might be nice for that facility but it has some dire effects on the long-term aspects of the planning of that area being LTR. 10 PZM6.6.89 Baker: Where do you think the density ought to go? ~,..' Welton and Roger: Everywhere. Roger: Include it in the R-6, yes. Welton: Every block. Baker: So it is not out of the question in the overlay if we look at density increases of on a scale of 3 fold. Parry: Look at a 6,000sqft lot. What FAR can you put on that? Graeme: 3,400. Parry: At $500 a sqft is what you could sell it for as a single family residence. If you can achieve the same sellout by doing 3 residential housing deed restricted units at $200 a foot your costs go up a little bit because you are adding kitchens. Michael: You have gone from almost a $2 million dollar sale to a $600,000 sale. Parry: Not if you can do the same 3,400sqft. Michael: It is then going to be $680,000 as opposed to being able to sell 3,400 for $500 as opposed to $2 million dollars. Anybody who would make that election-- Baker: Roger was saying if you reduce the FARs in those areas-- Parry: That is another alternative. I don't know what the public response would be to that. Does it make any sense to go back to a minimum lot of 3,000ft instead of 6,000ft in the R-6 if there is some sort of restriction on there. In other words a guy has got 6,000ft he can do 3,400sqft house. If a guy has got 2 3,000sqft lots he can do 2,400sqft. Then he has got 4,800 instead of 3,500 in 2 separate dwellings on those 2 lots. And if there is some kind of deed restriction on that, is there an incentive for a guy to come in, get a lot split, do 2 smaller houses that fit the scale of the west end that are resident housing restricted and can be sold at $220 a sqft as long as it is a resident employee purchaser. That is one way to skin the cat. Give them some more FAR creating smaller houses and give a guy an incentive to come in and do that. Welton: That is a real good idea. 11 ."'-.... PZM6.6.89 Jasmine: houses. It covers 2 things--one of which is the 4, OOOsqft Baker: Let's run that real quick. allowed right now--about a million 6. 500 is about just shy of a million. We have got 3,400 that is OK and then FAR 2,400 at Michael: It is almost a million and a half. Or a million 250. Baker: So that then the money that you have to recover on the affordable unit would be the difference between the million 6 and a million 2. That might work! Michael: Except you multiply it be 5 and you have to multiply by 200 which is 400. Baker: But one of them will be free market. If I own a 6,000sqft lot I have the ability to put a 3240 single family unit on it or 2 2400 single family units on it of which one of those will be deed restricted. Michael: But I don't think the math will work. Parry: The math will if only 1 is deed restricted. .,..,...~ Baker: If only 1 was deed restricted I think it will. Neiley: It is also more expensive than building 1 building with an affordable housing unit. Graeme: Then you have these 2 things standing side by side and 1 is worth 3 times more than the other. Neiley: The problem I see is that the affordable housing price guidelines don't reflect the reality of the price of the land. Even if you split your prope~ty and allow double the density and given FAR bonus. Graeme: I think there are a few people who are building houses in this town who are building here because they want to live in them. Most of my clients are local people who are building their houses for themselves. So I have a problem basing everything that we -are doing here on the speculation market of $500sqft. Do we base all of our decisions on trying to make sure that somebody gets a return? I don't think we have to base everything on that. Michael: Say though you build your house for yourself. build 600 less square feet than the FAR allows. 2 years you want to move to Boulder. You put your house up for And you from now sale and ........,...... 12 PZM6.6.89 I come to you and say "I can pay your $200 a sqft". Then Coates Reid says "I can get you $500". Who are you going to sell to? Graeme: Obviously I am going to sell to the highest bidder. But I am not building out to my maximum and also am not putting the maximum amount of dollars into the house that I would need to in order to sell it for $500. Michael: Couldn't we solve all of our employee housing problems if we annexed all of the land behind the Grand Champions Club, down-zoned it and let some developer put up employee housing? Baker: It doesn't achieve what we would I ike to do which is invigorate the west end with some life on the landscape. Michael: Most of the west end is all built up with those lotline to lotline. Frank Peters house--you can't put an accessory unit on his. You can't split up his lot. And he is just like everybody else there--all that stuff on North street. Baker: How about the R-15 Zone? Would it be sacrilegious to think that we could split an R-15 lot for 3 or 4 units? Michael: No it wouldn't be. Neiley: But it is to the public. Look at the outcry that came up when Ord 47 proposed putting in impacts of single family duplex. The Council chamber was full of people. I think people were concerned that their neighborhoods were going to be overrun by employees parking on the street and parking in the alleys. Roger: That is my problem with condominiumization in the R-6 for the accessory unit. Because the "homeowner" has a degree of control over the unit that is rented that he doesn I t if it is condominiumized. All of a sudden he has a next door neighbor he has to deal with-- ,Parry: But he is also a home owner. ownership? Isn't there a pride of Michael: I would have not problem with seeing the R-15 be reduced to like 3 5,000sqft lots. I wouldn't want to see it cut down to any more than that. Welton: I think a threeplex like the Goldsmiths were talking about on a 15,000sqft lot is less impactive than 3 little houses. It is just a real jolt in the neighborhood of houses with lots of big yards around them to basically allow a 6 configuration to an R-15 a neighborhood. 13 PZM6.6.89 Jasmine: I think that Parry's split--for the few that could we shouldn't put it in there. can give should be included. Graeme: As this gets more and more complicated do you think there is any chance of having somebody in the Housing Authority or somewhere explain all this to some people who need it rather than going and hiring professionals and spend literally thousands and thousands of dollars just to figure out what they can do? idea about the 6,000sqft lot being use it I don't see any reason why I think that every option that we Baker: that. I don't think the Housing Authority is equipped to do Welton: I don't think the Planning Office knows what is going on either. Michael: Part of our system is that nobody knows. ,,..,..." Welton: It is just going too fast. Roger: Something that should be kept in mind for the annexed areas of large parcels is the concept of the 3,000sqft lot but allowing in the fashion of row houses and make their open space in their back yard. '-,.... Baker: If we are going to try to encourage carriage houses we just have to say "Regardless of what has gone on on the site in the past if somebody--we restrict it to a certain footprint--a certain square footage. If they want to do it, they can do it and the FAR on the site coverage is just--that is the price we pay for getting affordable unit in the west end. The overlay would waive the setbacks theoretically. The overlay would allow the structure to perhaps go right up to the alley. We have seen an example of a nice--it was about 350sqft carriage house or if you went to 2 stories 700sqft. There are examples all over the west end and they work. Welton: Roxanne is on a rampage about making carriage houses not look like people live in them. She thinks carriage houses should like carriage houses. Only horses and carriages live in them. And she has got a whole photo board of things with new dormers and new sky lights and with new windows that just--she is on a rampage--she just can't stand them. And on the Elisha House to do a dwelling unit upstairs in the Elisha Carriage House we were allowed to add 1 window. Only 1 window into what was a hayloft. Baker: That is an issue that we are going to have to address. 14 PZM6.6.89 Welton: We have to do some cross pollination here because the HPC is really beginning to take Roxanne at her word. They have now come into their own. They' are now the biggest, meanest Mothers on the block. The HPC are. Roger: No. The Board of Adjustments still are. Welton: They are closing in on the Board of Adjustments. Jasmine: There is no reason why you can't have something that says "Carriage House". But if it is part of a development in which the basic style of the house is not victorian, I don't see any reason why the HPC should have anything to say about it. Baker: They could be in an overlay district. Parry: I think you would want to cut HPC consideration as much as possible to limit the number of steps of approval. """,,,,,- Baker: The historic integrity of the existing carriage houses is important. Welton: Is as important but not to the point of making it not liveable. And the dwelling unit on the Elisha House is borderline liveable. It has got exactly 2 windows this wide facing south in the whole thing. Neiley: I think Jasmine is right. If you want to encourage people back to the west end' you have got to propose something that is relatively small that is not going to upset all the neighbors when somebody goes out to do it. Yet you have to encourage people by adjusting your FAR to go out and do it. Parry: It seems to me to reduce the FAR and give a bonus to come back up with a caretaker unit--it is going to be harder to get that through the community than it is to simply group a caretaker unit on existing lots with certain parameters of square footage-- a rental only. Welton: When that caretaker comes out of your gross FAR then you can sell the gross FAR for $500sqft vs. renting it for-- Parry: You put a rental restriction on it. restricted. Maybe it is Welton: You are talking about making it a required unit. Parry: I think the R-6 Well, not require--just saying that it can be done. But if you try and go in and cut the FARs across the board in you may be out with the bath water. 15 PZM6.6.89 Roger: But no one will do it because there is no incentive to do it. Neiley: Then your only answer is to require it. 25% of all square footage or 25% or all bedrooms and all construction in Aspen has to be affordable housing. Roger: Well, that is another way of doing it. Baker: I have a lot of information here. Michael: I think he is moving to adjourn. this meeting. I move to adjourn Jasmine seconded the motion. Welton: This public hearing is continued to the 13th of June. Everyone Time was ~-''''', "';"-'" 16