Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-13 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 13, 1988 CALL TO ORDER. D R A F T The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Doyet Barbre at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Fish, Such, Tobin, Volkema, Carson, Barbre, Draper Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Schultz Also present: Assistant Director of Community Development D. A. Romans Senior Planner Susan Hirsch Assistant City Attorney Dan Brotzman Mr. Barbre outlined the procedure to be followed during the course of the meeting, and stated that the Commission is authorized to function as the fact finding hearing agency on all rezoning and subdivision applications; to make written findings and recommendations to the City Council regarding a Planned Development District; approval of conditional uses; approval of adaptive reuse of historical buildings, and other similar matters relating to land use in the City of Englewood. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 6, 1988 Mr. Barbre stated that the Minutes of December 6, 1988 were to be considered for approval. Draper moved: Carson seconded: The Minutes of December 6, 1988 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Such, Tobin, None Schultz None Volkema, Barbre, Carson, Draper, Fish The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT 90 West Belleview CASE #17-88 Chairman Barbre stated that the Findings of Fact for Case #17-88, a proposed car wash at 90 West Belleview Avenue, are to be considered for approval . Fish moved: Such seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #17-88, a car wash to be lo- cated at 90 West Belleview Avenue, be approved as written. -1 - • • • AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Such, Tobin, None Schultz None Volkema, Barbre, Carson, Draper, Fish The motion carried. IV. SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT VACATION OF S. 366.10' OF 3400 BLOCK SOUTH PENN. VACATION OF N. 375' OF 3400 S. PENN/S. LOGAN ALLEY CASE #14-88 CASE #18-88 CASE #19-88 Mr. Barbre stated that the Public Hearing on the Planned Development submitted by Swedish Medical Center had been opened on November 15, 1988, and continued to this date. Mr. Barbre outlined the procedure that is followed during ad- ministrative hearings. Mr. Barbre noted that while only Case #14-88 is an actual Public Hearing, the requested vacation issues are interrelated to the overall development plan submitted by the applicant, and will be considered at the same time. Separate decisions will be required on each request, however. Mr. Volkema stated that he is President of the Swedish Corona Cooperative, but there is no affiliation between the Swedish Corona Cooperative and the Swedish Medical Center. Therefore, he is of the opinion that there will be no con- flict on his part in hearing and voting on matters before the Commission sub- mitted by the Swedish Medical Center. Mr. Barbre asked if there was verification of the Posting by the applicant. Ms. Susan Hirsch was sworn in, and testified that correct and accurate posting of the property in seven locations 15 days prior to the date of this meeting has been verified. Ms. Hirsch testified that the Planned Development submitted by Swedish Medical Center (SMC) is a voluntary submittal in compliance with a request by staff. The plans depict the eventual total development of the Medical Campus as visualized by SMC personnel. There are three facets of the Development Plan which are proposed for imminent development, these being the Medical Office Building II (MOB II), the parking structure on the west wide of the campus, and the expansion of the hospital facility itself to the west for the ICU center. The parking structure will ultimately contain in excess of 600 parking spaces; at the present time only 300 spaces are proposed. The Planned Development is consistent with the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan does address the area around the medical campus, particularly those areas to the south between Hampden and U.S. 285; to the west; and to the east. Ms. Hirsch discussed the proposed right-of-way vacations of South Pennsylvania Street and of the South Pennsylvania/South Logan alley in the 3400 block south. Ms. Hirsch stated that a cul-de-sac will be constructed on South Penn- sylvania Street in the 3400 block to provide vehicular access to the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dunn, and to provide access for motorists using the parking structure. The vacation of the north 375 feet of right-of-way in the alley will not affect the Dunn property, because there is no direct access to the alley from their property due to topography. The south portion of the alley will remain open, and an access route from South Logan Street to connect -2 - • • • with the alley will be dedicated by SMC. This access route from South Logan Street will also provide access to motorists accessing the southern part of the parking structure. The vacations will provide for sufficient internal circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Ms. Hirsch stated that all three issues before the Commission tonight have been considered by the Technical Review Committee. Members of this Committee have requested that easements be retained for utilities and drainage in the 3400 block of South Pennsylvania Street. The applicant has submitted legal descriptions for the areas to be vacated and the easements to be retained. Ms. Hirsch stated that the applicant has agreed to upgrade the signalization on South Logan Street at East Girard Avenue and at East Hampden Avenue. While the through traffic presently using the 3400 block of South Pennsylvania Street is minimal, the closure of this street to through traffic will have an impact on the adjacent streets, and the upgrading of the signalization is an effort to minimize that impact. Ms. Hirsch stated that 25% of the area is required to be landscaped, but SMC will be landscaping 30% of the area, ---all in living material. Ms. Hirsch addressed some variations in setbacks that are proposed under the Planned Development. Ms. Hirsch asked that the Staff Reports for Case #14-88, Case #18-88, and Case #19-88 be entered into the record of this Hearing. Mr. Fish stated that while the setback for a three-story structure is 15 feet, the setback for a six-story structure would be 25 feet. Ms. Hirsch agreed. Mr. Fish asked how it was determined that the traffic using the alley and South Pennsylvania is minimal. Ms. Hirsch stated that traffic studies have been submitted by the applicant, and verification has been made by the City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Fish asked about the setback variation on the development adjacent to the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dunn. Ms. Hirsch stated that the request is for a 3 foot setback rather than the required 15 foot setback. Mr. Fish stated that the overall plat shows a number of other structures, but as he understood the request before the Commission, it is only for the MOB II, the parking structure, and the addition to the hospital on the west; is this correct. Ms. Hirsch stated that it is correct. The total overall plan was presented to give the Commission an idea of future expansion and development. Mr. Barbre asked if there were other questions of the staff. No further ques- tions were posed to the staff. Mr. Barbre asked the applicant to make their presentation. Mr. Nick Roccaforte was sworn in, and testified that he is the Vice President of Swedish Medical Center for development. Mr. Roccaforte stated that SMC is a 328 bed community hospital, and that a large number of employees at SMC are residents of the City of Englewood . Mr. Roccaforte expressed the appreciation -3 - • • • of the Swedish Medical Center personnel for being allowed to participate in the planning process for the development of the medical campus . Mr. Roccaforte presented a slide show, indicating the three areas of imminent development: The Medical Office Building II, which will be five stories in height, and office approximately 40 physicians; the neuro-sensory center will also be quartered in MOB II; the parking structure, which will initially be three and one-half stories and contain 312 parking spaces; and the addition to the hospital itself on the west side for the ICU center. Mr. Roccaforte cited reasons to request the vacation of the South Logan/South Pennsylvania alley, these reasons being: (1) the importance of providing a protected pedestrian/patient walkway from the parking building to the hospital structure itself; (2) the provision of a southern entrance to the parking structure and the dock/loading area of the hospital itself which will be ser- viced from this point of access; (3) access from the north to the parking structure and the surface parking areas in existence. Mr. Roccaforte stated that they will make every effort to preserve some of the "historical" trees in the area, and indicated areas that will be landscaped in conjunction with the development plan. Mr. Roccaforte stated that the addition proposed to the hospital itself will be an expansion of the Intensive Care Unit. The present ICU was constructed in the early 1970's, and needs to be upgraded and modernized. Mr. Roccaforte emphasized that the ICU needs to be located in this proposed area because of internal adjacencies to support units in the hospital . Mr. Roccaforte addressed the vacation of South Pennsylvania Street, citing three reasons for this request: (1) architectural constraints in the addition to the hospital; (2) protected pedestrian access from the parking structure to the hospital itself; (3) the loading dock service is on the west side of the structure. At the present time, Mr. Roccaforte stated that the delivery trucks have to back in from South Pennsylvania Street, which is not a safe practice. This will bring the delivery trucks in from South Logan Street, and provide maneuvering space free from through traffic. Swedish Medical Center will develop a cul de sac on South Pennsylvania Street which will serve the Dunn properties on South Pennsylvania Street. SMC will maintain the portion of the street that is not vacated, such maintenance to include snow removal, lighting, repair of pot holes, etc. Mr. Roccaforte stated that he would like to introduce several people from SMC who would like to address the Commission. Mr. Fish asked if the six story parking structure is a certainty. Mr. Roc- caforte stated that they are asking for approval of the 600 space parking structure, but are now planning to build only three levels with 315 parking spaces. Mr. Roccaforte stated that the 600 parking space structure is contin- gent on other development which is probably five years in the future. Mr. Draper asked if the property north of Mrs. Dunn's property on the east side of South Pennsylvania Street will be developed in the near future. Mr . Roccaforte stated that it is part of the Planned Development, and indicated -4 - • • • the portion that is proposed for development; the total site may not be devel- oped immediately. They do need a corridor for emergency access to the inten- sive care area. Mr. Roccaforte stated that Ms. Mary Smith, Ms. Vonnie Molgaard, Mr. Harris Cohn, Dr. Bob Gillespie, and Mr. Nick Hilger would be addressing the Commission. Ms. Mary Smith was sworn in, and testified that she has been employed by Swedish Medical Center for 10 years, 5.5 years of that time in the intensive care unit. She stated that she is now the critical care educator. The ICU has 26 bed capacity now, only 12 of which are private beds. However, the rooms for the private beds are too small; there is no privacy for the remain- ing 14 beds. State-of-the-art medical equipment dictates larger rooms, and a modernization of the entire ICU. Renovation of the existing facilities was considered, but to reach the minimum room size needed, the number of beds would be reduced. The ICU needs to be on the same floor with the support ser- vices needed by ICU patients, such as X-ray, and labs. Ms. Smith stated that they want to improve the care for ICU patients, and urged approval of the development plans. Ms. Vonnie Molgaard was sworn in, and testified that she is the director of radiology at SMC. She stated that she is a 28 year employee of the Hospital. Ms. Molgaard stated that hospitals are now seeing more critically ill patients and need modern facilities to care for these people. Additional parking facilities are needed for the hospital staff and physicians, as well as the visitor and out-patients who frequent the hospital . Mr. Harris Cohn was sworn in, and testified that he is Chairman of the Board of Swedish Medical Center. There are 19 members on the Medical Center Board, and 18 members on the Swedish Foundation Board. These boards are composed of citizens --doctors, lawyers, housewives, etc. --who give of their time to the hospital, and believe in a "community'' hospital. This hospital is not owned or controlled by a "chain" of hospitals, or subject to governing from a body in another state. This is a community -owned hospital, and they are responsible to the community. Mr. Cohn stated that the staff of SMC was asked to look at the facilities and determine where the improvements were needed. The Intensive Care Unit was an area in great need of improvement and modernization. Dr. Robert Gillespie was sworn in, and testified that he is a physician, and is on the Board of Directors of SMC. For the last three years, there has been discussion regarding the upgrading of the ICU. Dr. Gillespie stated that over 2,000 patients were treated in the ICU last year, and ranged in age from 18 months to 97 years old. The average was 60 years; the longest stay was 108 days in ICU, and the average stay in ICU is 3.3 days. Dr. Gillespie stated that 12 beds are "private''; however the rooms are approximately 100 square feet and the ideal space would be 250 square feet to accommodate the equipment needed for ICU patients. The remaining beds which are not private are only separated by curtains; there is no privacy for these patients or their fami- lies, and patients do not receive the quiet and rest that is needed in the ICU. Dr. Gillespie pointed out that the isolation required in treating pa- tients with AIDS cannot be carried out with the present ICU facilities. Dr . Gillespie stated that Swedish Medical Center is now part of the trauma facili- ties in the Denver Metro Area, and that 26 ICU beds will not be sufficient to care for trauma patients that are brought in in addition to the patients in -5 - • • • ICU for other reasons. Dr. Gillespie addressed the need for a catherization laboratory in conjunction with the coronary care unit, and the need to upgrade the monitoring system. Dr. Gillespie stated that the protected pedestrian access from the parking structures to the hospital is important, and cited the unsafe conditions experienced by persons parking in the parking structure south of East Hampden Avenue who must cross the street at-grade. Mr. Nick Hilger was sworn in, and testified that he is President and CEO of the SMC. Mr. Hilger stated that all of the expansion proposed on the south- west part of the hospital will be ICU related; a small part will be the catherization laboratory for the coronary care unit. Mr. Hilger stated that SMC is trying to be good citizens of Englewood. This planning process was begun last March, and hospital personnel are trying to do what is required of them to make this a first class medical institution. Mr. Barbre asked if there were further questions from the Commission. No fur- ther questions were asked. Mr. Barbre then asked if anyone else in the au- dience wished to speak in favor of the proposal. No one else spoke in favor of the proposed Planned Development. Mr. Barbre then asked if there were members of the audience who wished to speak in opposition. Mr. R. M. Huckeby addressed the Commission, and stated that as an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Dunn, he did not need to be sworn in. Mr. Barbre pointed out that if Mr. Huckeby wanted the Commission to regard his statements as sworn testimony and to be taken into consideration in any deci- sions that are made, he will have to be sworn in. Mr. Huckeby stated that he will not be presenting testimony, nor will he be presenting any witnesses. He suggested that he will be offering his opinion and advice to the Board. Mr. Huckeby suggested that the Commission does not have the authority to hear this matter at this time because of improper publication of the notice of hearing. A question was raised at the previous meeting of November 15 on the impropriety of the posting of the site, and the Commission voted to have the property reposted for this date; however, there was no republication made in the official City Newspaper giving this date for the hearing. The Commission had no authority to consider the matter on November 15, and no authority to continue the hearing to this date; therefor the Commission does not have au- thority to hear the matter at this time. Mr. Huckeby stated that the three cases have been consolidated into one "hear- ing". In the absence of proper publication there is no jurisdiction to hear anything, much less to bring anything forward from the previous meeting. Mr. Huckeby suggested that the Commission should consider this matter following proper posting and proper publication as required. Mr. Huckeby stated that following the previous meeting remarks were made to him and in his hearing to the effect that he was a "road block on the SMC parade to development". Mr. Huckeby stated that he did not think that SMC had rubber stamp approval from this Board, or from the City Council. Mr. Huckeby stated that his clients are Homer and Eleanor Dunn, who have lived in this location for over 30 years, and are good tax-paying citizens. The development -6 - • • • proposals of SMC have created an "octopus" encircling the properties owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dunn; amenities such as a through street and an alley are being taken away from the Dunns by the proposed Planned Development. By vacating the south portion of South Pennsylvania Street, and allowing SMC to assume maintenance of the remaining portion of the dedicated street, the Dunns will be living on a "private" street that isn't really private. Who can Mr. and Mrs. Dunn call if the snow is not removed, or if a pot hole is not repaired; it will not be the responsibility of the City to do these things if Swedish is given that responsibility. Mr. Huckeby stated that the Ordinance governing Planned Developments was first enacted in 1972, at a time when many cities were adopting some form of regula- tion for Planned Developments. The ordinance was re-enacted at a later date with substantial amendments, and is now referred to as §16-4-15 of the Engle- wood Municipal Code. Mr. Huckeby cited the following provision of the Planned Development regulations: "If the proposed development includes multiple fami- ly or non-residential buildings or structures and it is adjacent to a single- family residential use district, the development shall contain a buffer. In order to minimize any adverse effects on the adjacent single-family area, the buffer shall be not less than a twenty-five foot (25') landscaped area, and an opaque six foot (6') decorative fence shall be provided." Mr. Huckeby cited other sections of the Municipal Code, including the R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C Districts, which are for single-family residence development; the R-2, Medium Density Residence District, and R-3, High Density Residence District. Single- family residences are a "use'' in those zone districts. The property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dunn is zoned R-3, High Density Residence, but is used for sin- gle-family purposes. Mr. Huckeby stated that he is of the opinion that a 25 foot buffer is required around the Dunn's property. Mr. Huckeby asserted that the Planning Department staff have taken the position that the word ''use" has no meaning, that the provisions do not apply unless to a single-famly "dis- trict". Mr. Huckeby suggested that there has been such a hurry to approve this Plan that this facet was overlooked, which is an important matter to the Dunn's. Mr. Huckeby asked who it is important to insure privacy for --the single-family homeowner, or someone who is in ICU. Mr. Huckeby cited Colorado Revised Statute 31-23-225, which requires a Major Activity Notice to be sent to the State for development of areas over five acres in size. This is required before approval of any rezoning or subdivi- sion, and before building permit application is made. This requirement will, in Mr. Huckeby's opinion, have to be met before the request from Swedish Medi- cal Center can be submitted to City Council. Mr. Huckeby suggested to the Commission that in the discharge of their duties, there are technicalities that the Commission must be sure are taken care of and complied with. After those technicalities are observed, he would urge that the Commission require compliance with the ordinance. He suggested that this request be sent back to staff with the direction that the 25 foot buffer be placed in the Development Plan and brought back to the Commission prior to submission to City Council. Mr. Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney, noted that at the previous meeting of November 15, the Commission determined by vote that the property was properly posted and that proper publication had been given. However, the hearing was continued, and the applicant directed to repost the property in an effort to clear up any confusion. Mr. Brotzman stated that there was no requirement to re-publish, and the Hearing was properly continued to a date certain. -7 - • • • Mr. Fish asked Mr. Huckeby to re-cite the State Statute to which he had made reference. Mr. Huckeby stated that it is CRS 31-23-225, Major Activity Notice. Mr. Huckeby asked that the record reflect his objection to the con- tinuance of the Hearing, and the grounds for his objection as stated. Mr. Barbre asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission in opposition to the proposal. No one else addressed the Commission. Mr. Barbre asked if Commission members wished to recall any witnesses. No member of the Commission asked that any witnesses be recalled. Mr. Barbre asked if the applicant wished an opportunity to rebut any of the statements made by Mr. Huckeby. The applicant did not rebut statements made by Mr. Huckeby. Mr. Barbre asked if anyone else wanted to speak regarding the matter before the Commission. No one addressed the Commission. Mr. Barbre declared the Public Hearing closed. Mr. Fish stated that he wanted to ask a couple of questions of the staff. Mr. Brotzman stated that the Public Hearing would have to be reopened to allow Mr. Fish to ask questions of the staff. Fish moved: The Public Hearing on Case #14-88 be reopened. There was no second to the motion . Mr. Barbre stated that the determinations on the Planned Development and the vacation of South Pennsylvania Street and the vacation of the Pennsylvania/ Logan alley should be considered separately. He asked the pleasure of the Commission. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE #14-88 Volkema moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Planned Development for Swedish Medical Center as submitted, and refer the request to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Volkema, Barbre, Fish, Tobin Schultz None Carson, Draper, Such Chairman Barbre declared the motion carried. ·Mr. Barbre stated that the Findings of Fact need to be addressed. Have all the criteria for approval of a Planned Development been met. Mr. Volkema stated that he finds that the criteria has been fulfilled, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the property has been properly posted, and proper notice was given through publication. The proposed use is permit- ted in the R-3 Zone District, and the landscaping requirement and off-street parking requirements will be exceeded. -8 - • • • Mr. Fish stated that he voted in opposition to approving the Planned Develop- ment because he felt that there were issues raised by Mr. Huckeby that are pertinent to the development which were not discussed, such as single-family "use", and the "private street"; the impact of the development on the neigh- borhood, and the space between buildings was not addressed. Ms. Tobin stated that she would agree with Mr. Fish that these matters were not addressed. VACATION OF S. 366.10' OF SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA STREET CASE #18-88 Mr. Barbre asked the pleasure of the Commission regarding the vacation of the south 366.10 feet of South Pennsylvania Street in the 3400 block south. Volkema moved: Draper seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the south 366.10 feet of the 3400 block of South Pennsylvania Street be vacated; it is further recommended that a utility and drainage easement be retained by the City within the vacated right-of-way. Mr. Fish asked about the tax status on land that is vacated. Ms. Hirsch stated that she had spoken with the County Assessor, and checked the County records. Approximately one-quarter (1/4) of the area to be vacated will re- vert to property that is presently taxable, and this portion of the vacated street will also be taxable. The vote on the motion to approve the vacation was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Barbre, Carson, None Schultz None Draper, Fish, Such, Tobin, Volkema Chairman Barbre declared the motion carried. VACATION OF NORTH 375 FEET OF THE 3400 BLOCK OF SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA/ SOUTH LOGAN STREET ALLEY CASE #19-88 Mr. Barbre asked the pleasure of the Commission on the requested vacation of a portion of the Pennsylvania/Logan alley in the 3400 block south. Fish moved: Such seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the North 375 feet of the South Logan/South Pennsylvania alley in the 3400 block south be vacated. Mr. Draper asked if the vacated alley will revert to adjacent property owners, or will it all go to the Medical Center. Ms. Hirsch stated that a portion of the alley that is vacated will revert to Mr. and Mrs. Dunn. Ms. Hirsch stated that she had checked with the County Assessor, and the 400 sq. ft. which will revert to Mr. and Mrs. Dunn would not raise their taxes. Another very small portion of the alley will revert to taxable property. The vote on the motion to vacate a portion of the alley was called: -9 - • • • AYES: NAYS: Carson, Draper, Fish, Such, Tobin, Volkema, Barbre None ABSENT: Schultz ABSTAIN: None Chairman Barbre declared the motion carried. Mr. Barbre stated that the Commission has voted to refer all three issues to the City Council for approval. V. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. Barbre expressed the appreciation of the Commission to Mayor VanDyke and to Council members Hathaway and Byrne for their attendance at the Hearing, and asked if any member of the audience wished to address the Commission. No one addressed the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush asked that the Commission give thought to designating a member to serve on the Code Review Committee. Messrs. Carson, Fish and Such expressed an interest in serving. Mrs. Romans stated that she had talked to Mr. Schultz, who had also expressed an interest in serving on the committee. Mr. Carson withdrew his name from consideration. Written balloting was held, and Mr. Fish was designated to serve on the Code Review Committee. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Members of the Commission discussed the Public Hearing on the Planned Develop- ment. Mr. Fish stated that he feels perceptions are very important in this issue, and that the issues raised by Mr. Huckeby were not addressed. Mr. Fish stated that he did not vote in opposition to the request because he did not feel it was a good plan; he does, in fact, feel it is a good plan; he voted in opposition to approval because the issues raised were not addressed. Ms. Tobin stated that she felt the perception gained by the audience was that the decisions were "cut and dried'', which is not the case. Mr. Draper pointed out that if there were objections or questions to be asked, they should have been raised or asked prior to the closure of the Hearing when an opportunity was given to do so. Discussion ensued. Mr. Wanush suggested that following the making of a motion there is an oppor- tunity for discussion. Mr. Brotzman expressed the opinion that the hearing would have to be reopened to allow discussion and questioning of the staff. Mr. Wanush stated that there is no reason the Commission could not ask ques- tions of staff during a discussion among members. Mr. Brotzman disagreed . Mr. Fish stated that if the Hearing is not reopened by motion, there is no discussion on an issue, which is what happened at this meeting . Mr. Wanush stated that he wanted to discuss this issue with the City Attorney. There should be a free flow of information between the Commission and staff without jeopardizing the public hearing. -10 - • • • Mr. Volkema stated that he was of the op1n1on that discussion could occur after a motion was made. He stated that he did not want to reopen the Public Hearing but felt it would have been good to have discussion. Mr. Barbre stated that he felt the time to ask questions would have been when he specifically asked if Commission members wanted to recall any witnesses. Mr. Brotzman stated that there are six options to consider when making a deci- sion on an issue, those being (1) Make a decision without discussion; (2) Open discussion before the Public; (3) Close the discussion before the public; (4) Recess or executive session; (5) Continue the consideration to a date certain; (6) Reopen the hearing. Further brief discussion ensued. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:50 p.m . -11 -