Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20120110 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 Conflicts of Interest 2 217 - 219 South Third Street 2 AACP "gap Issues" Code Amendment 2 1 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Council Chambers Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia, Bert Myrin, Keith Goode, Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer, and Cliff Weiss. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Chris Bendon, Jessica Garrow, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin asked how the land for Theatre on the Park was purchased 5 or 6` penny taxes or open space; this was a request that was made during for Theatre in the Park Hearing and would be carried onto Council. Jessica Garrow responded the determination was that yes it was purchased and this was an appropriate use and it didn't violate any of the rules related to that election for the use of those funds. Jessica said the determination was given to City Council from John Worcester and the Parks Department was that the issue raised by P &Z was not an issue but it was appropriately done. Jasmine Tygre and Bert Myrin requested something in writing about the funding. Bert asked about the AACP scheduling. Chris there is a schedule. Jessica said the gist of it is after the Council Work Session with P &Z they requested public input through a public input process and they have set up schedule to go into 1 S ` and 2 readings with City Council over the next few weeks and the second item tonight are those "gap" code amendments and priorities on implementing the AACP. Declaration of Conflict of Interest None stated. LJ asked the Commission members if any had to leave at 7 o'clock. Jasmine Tygre said that she had to leave before 7 and Jim DeFrancia said he had to leave at 6:30. Public Hearing: 217 - 219 South Third Street LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on 217 — 219 South Third Street. Chris Bendon stated this was an application regarding 219 South Third Street that has been noticed pursuant to the City Code. Chris said the application seeks to develop 2 single family homes where there currently is a duplex on the property. The property is at the corner of Hyman Avenue and South Third Street just west of the St. Moritz Lodge. Chris utilized the overhead to show a map of the property and the same one that is on the front 2 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 page of the memo; the property consists of 2 lots on the "lower lot" that is the primarily flat portion of the property that is currently developed with the duplex and then there is the "upper lot" bisected by the Midland Trail. Chris noted there is a lawsuit between the applicant and the City of Aspen regarding ownership of the upper lot. Chris said the applicant has a claim to this property and the City has a claim to this property; there is litigation that is pending. The application before you is potentially a way for the parties to resolve the litigation and Jim True is Special Counsel for the city. Chris said the lower lot was approximately 9,942 square feet and is zoned R -15; there is a mixture of zoning in this area that you saw; the upper lot is smaller at approximately 3,496 square feet and it is zoned Park. The application is to split the lower lot through a lot split which is a type of subdivision that some Council can approve; it is typically an application that is only reviewed by City Council so there is no action required by P &Z on that matter. However the resulting lot size of splitting the lot that 9,942 square foot parcel into 2 lots is smaller than what is required in the R -15 zone district so there is a PUD (Planned Unit Development) that is proposed that would do 3 things; it would recognize the new lot sizes, it would recognize or establish a floor area for the 2 new properties and it would also establish setbacks for the 2 new parcels. The upper lot would be preserved as open space and deeded to the city; it is a potential way to resolve the litigation and would be in the resolution. Chris said the lower lot allows for a duplex and there is one there currently; it allows for a duplex to be built at 4,145 square feet and is probably a little more than double of what the current structure is now. That would be approximately 2,707 square feet if you were to divide that between the 2 duplex units. The request in the new application is for each of the 2 new lots to have a floor area of 2,951 square feet; the premise of the request is that is the floor area that would be derived from the size of the 2 new parcels. Staff does have a concern about the magnitude of that floor area of these parcels; the R -15 zone expects to deal with properties that are 15,000 square feet plus or minus. So the scale for floor area in our opinion ends with a floor that is somewhat over sized and over scaled for the properties. Staff proposed 2,707 square feet for each lot taking half of the potential lot total 5,414 square feet and this would be a reasonable lot. Chris said the upper lot is zoned Park but concurrent with the litigation of the ownership of the upper lot; there is probably a very similar argument about the upper lot. The park zone district was in the late 1970's or early 1980's; they haven't found an Ordinance yet but it was rezoned to the Park Zone District is the assumption is that it was owned by the city. Chris said if it were zoned to R -15 depending on slope reductions the 3 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 floor area would be anywhere between 1900 square feet and up to 2500 square feet. If you take the maximum potential floor area of that upper lot which is roughly 2,538 square feet; if you assume that a maximum potential build out of the upper lot and you divide that in half and you assign that floor area to the existing floor are of the lower lot you end up with a total 5,414 square feet if you divide that you end up with 2,707. Chris said that it would be more reasonable to develop on those lots and for the neighborhood. There were pictures of the neighborhood that Chris showed the 219 property and the corner of Hyman and Third and the alleyway condition currently that we talked about in the memo and an encroachment from the northern part of the property with a small shed and residence connecting into the right -of -way. Chris showed the access way to the Midland Trail and a photo from the Midland Trail to the east. This photo was taken on Third Street looking north and the large building to the right is the St. Moritz Lodge. Chris described more photos, the Scott Building, a multi - family on Third and Hopkins, looking down Hopkins etc. Chris said there was a request that the 2 new properties enjoy additional deck floor area in addition to what the code normally allows; staff does not support this because the 2707 floor area is adequate to recognize the open space preservation and that it is reasonable for these properties and secondly they were concerned that deck space in addition to the traditional space might look like the deck that ate the house. Staff supports the request for 10 foot setbacks on all sides; a 25 foot setback would not align with the neighborhood. Chris said the hoses across the street have a 5 foot setback so we are supporting the 10 foot setback on all sides for the 2 new properties. Chris said the applicant wanted the lower lot as a flat lot and there was some desecration of man -made slopes; it is actually a discussion that we have had before with this applicant and when you are on this site; the grade was manipulated for the midland railroad and was originally a lot flatter than what exists today. Staff supports that where they have been before. Chris stated the application requests a covenant on the open space for the purpose of maintaining landscape and the City does not support that; the Parks Department believes that they have adequate capability to manage the property appropriately and would prefer that the applicant would just quit claim that upper property to the City with no reservations. Chris said there was a request that the affordable housing mitigation requirements be waived for these 2 new lots; staff and the housing authority do not support that. 4 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 Chris said the reason for not supporting that was that affordable housing resources to support open space and it is kind of a mixing of policy areas. There is a request that the secondary mass requirement of the residential design standards be waived for these 2 new properties and staff does support that; going from a duplex structure to 2 single families is a preferable way to break up the massing. Chris said during the DRC Committee an issue came up that one is the alleyway is currently constrained by the lot to the north having that structure partially encroaching into the alleyway. The city engineer is requesting a 16 foot wide clear space for the alleyway and a 1 foot buffer along that structure so 17 feet from the edge of the structure to the south that would likely result in an easement on new lot 1 so we are putting that in as a condition of approval to allow for adequate access in and out of the alleyway. Chris said there was a concern over the sequence of development of both lots to be somewhat limited in terms of being able to properly stage construction activities; there is some ongoing discussion going on between the applicant and the City Engineering Department; that department regulates the construction management program. Chris said there was a consideration that lot 1 would house the existing residence and lot 2 would be developed; so that doesn't allow for lot 1 to be used to stage the development for lot 2. Chris stated there was a proposed resolution with a couple of areas highlighted in red and the commission would need to discuss and make a decision on. The applicant proposed in this staff memo floor areas on page 3 for both lots 1 and 2; the next page the issue regarding deck allotment you see the staff recommendation and the applicant request and on page 5 you will see the staff and applicant request for the open space transfer. Staff is recommending it be an unconditional transfer and the applicant is requesting a covenant for their ability to maintain landscape. Section 7 of the resolution discussed affordable housing mitigation. Cliff said the Midland Railroad has been there since the 1880's and there are a lot of adjacent properties that have lots that were re- proportioned in the 1970's and this is not the only property along the Midland Railroad Trail so what has happened to all the other properties along the Midland Trail. Chris asked Jim to help him answer. Jim True said there was the Midland Trail which is the trail and the Midland Railroad was carved out in the 1880's; Jim asked if he was talking about the trail that exists. Cliff said he was trying to determine this proof of ownership and what happened with other lots that would be adjacent or further up the line towards Shadow Mountain. Jim True said there were different ownerships of properties as it went up but at this point the ownership of that upper lot is not 5 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 something for you to review; it is part of litigation. Jim said the applicant here produced a title commitment saying that they own the upper lot and that is what is used to establish ownership to pursue an application based on their assertion that they own this property. Jim said what was before P &Z was this PUD to be under the assumption that they own that upper lot. Jim showed a map of the 3 lots that were conveyed to the city next to this lot; there is no formal deed to the city for these 2; we none the less have claimed to that ownership but for the purpose of this application they have submitted based on the claim of ownership by a title policy. Cliff asked if there was a document dating back to the 1970s. Jim said it was very complicated and he didn't want get into an effort to litigate the ownership of the lot. Stan said he didn't understand how he got the 2707 per lot because the R -15 Zone District (page 12 of 700). Chris responded the lot size was 4,971 so what we want to know is how much is in excess of 3,000 that gives you 2910; that is what you get with the 2 new lots so the proposed subdivision so staff is suggesting a lower floor area. Chris said this was a PUD and the PUD would subdivide the parcels, recognize the lot size as allowed in the R -15 zone, it set the FAR and sets the setbacks at 10 foot all the way around the perimeter. Chris said everything else was by code. Jasmine Tygre said that on page 7 of the memo a parcel of land across from the Boomerang was rezoned from R -15 to R -6 as was determined that the character of the neighborhood determined it allowed for denser smaller houses; since we are doing a rezoning right here would it have made more sense to rezone this R -6 with a PUD overlay. Chris replied potentially yes; the floor area schedules are the same for R -6 and R -15 at this size property; the applicant has recently proposed that the property be rezoned to the R -6 zone district. They received a negative recommendation from the P &Z and they did not pursue that application to City Council and withdrew that application. Staff did support that rezoning application. Bert Myrin said so 4145 is the FAR number for something. Chris said that is the allowable floor area for the lower lot; if Suzanne were to walk out of here and go to the building department and pull a building permit for a duplex she could build 4145. Bert said the memo from the last time we saw this has the FAR but also a slope reduction. Bert said master page 4 talks about setbacks and the rear setback would be 25 feet in R -15. Chris said that would be for the front from Third Street. Bert said and this is being proposed to be 10 from 25. Chris said this may be useful; the current building is approximately 10 feet off the property line so you can see the eastern carport; it is 10 to 12 feet off the property line. Bert asked if a 6 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 TDR could land on a PUD. Chris replied only to the extent the PUD recognizes TDRs as being able to be landed in PUD; not with the current proposal as requested, so no. LJ asked if the berm could be removed. Chris replied they could retain it, dig into it; depending what that berm is made out of the soil might need to be remediated before it is removed from the site. Chris said a soil's report is included and required for building permit solution based on that report; City Engineering would recommend different remediation or covering or whatever. LJ asked if the state should require this. Chris said based on that soils report it will be required or not required to go to the state. LJ asked if the drainage report had requirements that the applicant has to follow. Chris said there was a drainage manual that the City Engineering that describes the details for how you design a drainage plan. Chris said to get back to Bert on TDRs; this resolution is not explicit on TDRs so you would refer to the R -15 zone district which does allow for TDRs to land. Suzanne Foster introduced herself and her husband Tim Foster and attorney Ed Timmons. Suzanne thanked everybody for coming out and appreciated the time and Special Meeting. Suzanne thanked their planner who was Alan Richman and she thanked staff. Suzanne said that she wanted to clarify something about the FAR and why they feel the FAR that they are asking for makes sense. Suzanne said what kind of mass is going to be and how much actual build out on can be on this site and for what you understand a duplex with a single family FAR in the district currently without a PUD; they can build at 4145 square feet. In addition we can build a for sale carriage house that would be about 1200 square feet; it would be affordable housing and you get a 600 square foot bonus. Suzanne said if they were not going to have a PUD and build today under R -15 and had to build an attached duplex it would make sense to build the affordable housing carriage house; it would fulfill the 10% detached mass requirement and they would get the 600 foot bonus and it would mitigate about $300,000.00 in employee housing fees so under today's circumstances the amount of mass that can be on site is 5,945 square feet. Suzanne said the code says 5,902 square feet after the lot split is less amount of mass on the site than we can currently put on the site now without the PUD and without giving away the upper lot which has its own additional FAR and massing; she wanted to make sure everyone is clear on that. When staff thinks that there is going to be too much density on this site and they want to reduce that we can actually put more on the site right now than is allowed by code after the lot split. Suzanne said they 7 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 bought this property with the intent to make it into 2 parcels, keep 1 parcel to raise our family here. Suzanne said when they bought the property it was under Ordinance 48 as being a potential resource and with a lot split accompanying that there was a good chance that we were going to accomplish our goal. Suzanne said that they did go before Council with that with staff and HPC review and Council did deny that. As Chris mentioned we did go before the P &Z about a year ago with an idea to again separate the mass by rezoning the property R -6; if it R -6 you are allowed to detach the duplex instead of attaching it and that would satisfy that 10% detached use. Suzanne said this would mitigate for affordable housing and we would achieve our goal a single family home that is a sensible size for 3 people. They did go before P &Z and they were not receptive so they decided to withdraw that application; it is important to note in both those applications the Ordinance 48 and the R -6; it was just involving the lower lot, it did not have the upper lot. Suzanne said that was changing under this new PUD they are bringing the upper lot into the mix; after discussions with our planners we came up with the idea of the PUD to accomplish our goal on the lower lot which is to split up that mass and in return give something to the City that is valuable for them as well; that is the preservation of open space and the Aspen hiking trail. Suzanne said they would like to see P &Z recommend this application to Council for the discussion about some of these issues that can take place but we feel it is an appropriate place for development for this site when you think about the kind of mass that can be on there anyway and make it make sense to put on there without the PUD under R -15 as a single lot and then you look at the neighborhood and things with mass and scale under this PUD with the amount of FAR that we are asking for and that would be appropriate for any other lot under similar circumstances. Suzanne said this was the most appropriate development opportunity for this property. Suzanne said there were some questions about the front yard setback and there is a map of this in your packet showing the aerial view of this area and she pointed out the 5 foot setbacks; there is a historic log cabin; she showed the out building that encroaches on the alley and showed their property. Keith Goode asked the approximate square footage of the house in place now. Suzanne replied it is about 2,000 square feet with a much bigger footprint because of the carports. 8 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 Bert Myrin said he was trying to find out the differences to make this a PUD and the last one to rezone from R -15 to R -6. Suzanne said the difference was the R -6 we would have been able to make a detached duplex. Cliff Weiss asked about the alleyway that needs 16 feet plus a foot buffer was a structure that blocks the alleyway; what is your position on that structure. Suzanne answered they were happy to install the bollard that is required and we are happy to create the easement that is needed on their property LJ Erspamer asked about the fence on the property at the deep end of the alley. Suzanne said the fence on the end of the alley is on the property line that's not the part of the alley where the encroachment is and that is a temporary thing so that is not the section of the alley. Chris stated that they should have derived 2951 from their lots and then you don't need any development rights from the upper lot to get to get to that development scenario. Bert asked if it was a staff recommendation to move in this direction because there is some controversy over that claim of the upper lot and transfer that development to the lower lots. Jim True said in his opinion the staff recommendation is to approve this application and move it onto Council; one of the effects in the interest of the city to do that. Chris said like with any PUD application we look at the base case so with this application if you take away the lawsuit and look at the base case and you have 3 houses and development on the upper lot which would be unfortunate at best and so what is an appropriate result of a PUD application here is what we are supporting the 2 houses at 2707 square feet each. Bert asked about the lot that that was to be sterilized or owned by the Parks. Chris felt the application was a little soft on that point and we weren't sure if the applicant was going to just quit claim that portion to the City or is they were going to dedicate an easement; what we suggest is an unconditional quit claim to the City in addition there would be an open space conservation easement dedicated to Aspen Valley Land Trust or a similar land trust. Suzanne asked to comment on that. LJ asked if this title was acquired through a quit claim or was it specially warranty deed or general and that would be a question for City how did your title company insure over this and how is the City going to take title especially if it is a conservation easement, which has different requirements to it than opposed to a different designation. Jim True responded that we would anticipate taking title to this with a quit claim deed from the applicant; what we think is important is you 9 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 were willing to approve this and move it to Council the language be such that we come up with an appropriate method to address their concerns; whether it be through a conservation easement or otherwise. Stan Gibbs asked if there was a precedent for a PUD expanding multiple properties; he didn't remember one. Chris replied you can have it multiple lots and they don't have to be contiguous, they can be separated by right -of -way, they can be one on one side of town and one on the other side. Stan said if this PUD all goes forward and they have a lot split and a PUD over the whole thing is that single family residential; which goes by the use so each of the lots would allow for a single family. The third lot the upper lot would be an open space parcel not a development parcel. Stan said that if you want to do a parcel that is residential the parcel has to be more than 27,000 square feet; if it is less than that you can do multi - family residential so what was he missing. Chris said it talks about a single family not requiring a final PUD approval; so if you have a lot that is zoned with a PUD overlay and you want to develop a single family house according to the underlying zoning you are not required to go through a PUD review. LJ opened the public comments. Public Comments: 1. Scott Stewart read a letter into the record saying that our community was under siege right now; at the moment we have the Jewish Center will start to be built shortly and then the Boomerang. As such the community has gotten together and hired an architect to help with our responses, Jake Vickery, who was unable to be here tonight. Scott read Jake Vickery's letter into the record dated January 10, 2012. (On laserfiche with the packet.) 2. Dan McCarty said he was a resident of the neighborhood and this application to P &Z was premature at this time and it seems as if the planning department is trying to help out the legal department here and he doubted if this was moral given the contentious of this development. If P &Z continues with the application they are just being complacent with a project because this is way ahead of its time. Dan said that we need to resolve all the legal issues before proceeding with this application. 3. Tita McCarty read a letter from Cheryl Goldenberg dated January 7, 2012. (On laserfiche with packet). 4. Paul Young IV said that he was representing his mother Angela Young who could not attend tonight and read her letter into the record dated January 10, 2012. (On laserfiche with packet). 10 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 5. Paul Young said he lived at 413 West Hopkins and said in March of 2011 Mr. Gibbs said making something conforming was a good principal to uphold and please encourage the applicant to build a one single family residence on her one single family lot. The surrounding neighbors as depicted by the red Xs opposed up- zoning, they opposed increased development of 2 separate homes, they opposed the reduced front yard setback and the neighbors oppose the increased impacts on the alley and the Midland Trail. Paul said the board of directors of Shadow Mountain which represent 1,000 members have gone on 2 previous letters expressing their opposition. Paul had charts depicting the area. Paul said the applicant has less than 1/3 of the minimum lot areas. Paul asked for denial of this application in support of the neighborhood and for Mrs. Foster to build only what she is entitled to by code and standards without exemptions, variances, waivers and special consideration. 6. Michael Beherant said he lives across the street from 219 and he didn't know how many meetings there have been about 219 in the last couple of years. Michael said the title work will show that there is no claim to that upper lot. Michael said once you ask-for a PUD everything is open and optional. Everyone in the neighborhood thinks the applicant ought to get what they bought so all we are talking about is what they bought; we know that they bought an R -15 non - conforming duplex with a certain amount of square footage. Michael said the neighborhood is asking to keep this what it was when they bought it because we are creating a lot of something else if we don't. LJ Erspamer closed the public comments portion of the hearing. Jim DeFrancia asked the legal status because of the picture that they are painting. Jim True replied there is a trial set for May, the 3` or 4 setting and it may not go through. Jim DeFrancia asked if the ownership confusion impact the validity of the PUD application. Jim DeFrancia asked the primary benefit to the public. Chris answered the preservation of the open space, the upper parcel which included the heavily used recreation trail through the center of it. LJ said there will be something built on this lot and agreed with staff on 2707, he voiced concern for the berm and would like to have it memorialized that they don't remove that berm and they do keep the landscaping as recommended by staff. LJ said it was reasonable that the setbacks are coordinated with the other buildings in the neighborhood. LJ did not want to waive the housing requirement and it is a big 11 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 issue with the ownership of that parcel. LJ said no TDRs can be transferred to this site and the fence has to come down. Cliff said he couldn't support this without proof of ownership. Cliff said that he would not be for the affordable housing waiver and was for not being able to buffer or screen the trail. Bert said the 3 bullets were what we were requested to do on pages 2 and 3. Jasmine said she agreed with what was said about the deck space but she wanted to go back to PUD because PUD allows a better development so the question she has is this PUD better than under regular R -15 zoning or not. Jasmine agreed with the other members of the commission on the third lot and the extent that development would be permitted on it. Putting the 3rd lot in especially when there is such question about the ownership and possible usage in this steepness of slopes and how much development would be allowed and the soils and all of those things. Jasmine suggested tabling this application until we have a better idea of what is going to happen with that 3` lot. Chris said the PUD as it is now provides for 2 smaller houses on 2 smaller lots. Jasmine said it starts getting murky with the 3` lot to affect what can be developed on the first 2 lots. Chris said the uncertainty of the 3` lot is just kind of clouding everything. Jasmine said she thinks so but again she is speaking as her own preference would be to see that 3` lot separated and just deal with those 2 lots. Cliff said that the compromise situation was before them and he agrees with Jasmine's assessment of this. Jim True said that under our code they have presented an application with proof of ownership in the form of a title commitment. Jim DeFrancia endorsed Jasmine's suggestion to table the application and encourage the applicant to listen to the views that were expressed and work with staff and make some changes and amendment and maybe we will consider that in the future. Jasmine stated the reason the 3 lot is important is not necessarily the ownership but because that lot is being used in the calculations of allowable FAR; the lot looks separate. Chris said if the position of the commission is that this shouldn't be discussed until the ownership of the 3` lot is fully resolved and it would be useful to City Council 12 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 to recommend denial of the current application because there is uncertainty around the 3rd lot and be willing to entertain the application again after the resolution of the ownership of the 3 lot. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to table the 217 -219 South Third Street seconded by Bert Myrin. Vote 2 to table and 5 not to table. Discussion prior to the vote: Suzanne Foster said that she would prefer that we not table it and would rather P &Z deny it and just move on. LJ Erspamer said the applicant said not to do this so he was going with the applicant. Stan said that he discounted the upper lots and he doesn't have solid information and it was not something he could do to make a decision but on the other hand he didn't actually see it required. Stan said he believed they could build just given the R -15 zoning; he said you can build 2960 on each lot. Stan said he was the only one who supported the R -6 and given the alternative the applicant is stuck with R- 15 but he cannot support a greater non - conformity by splitting these 2 lots. Stan said that he didn't believe that it was appropriate for a PUD to be placed on this property and he hasn't seen significant community benefits demonstrated. Stan said the variance for the employee housing was also inappropriate. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved that we forward to the City Council with the recommendation for denial of 217 — 219 South Third Street; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: Jasmine Tygre, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Bert Myrin, no; Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJ Erspamer, yes. Approved to deny 6 -1. Jim DeFrancia and Jasmine Tygre excused themselves at 6:55 pm. Public Hearing: Code Amendments "gap issues" AACP LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing. Jessica Garrow said the P &Z needs to open and continue the public hearing on the AACP "gap" Code Amendments to next week January 17 at 4:30 in Sister Cities. Jessica said staff wanted very initial feedback from the commission on the content in the packet. Chris said they wanted to consider the gap Code Amendments first on the 17 and the 31 just in case and present the South Aspen Street to open on the 17 and continue to the 24` Cliff Weiss said that we needed a whole meeting for this. Bert Myrin asked for the 2 Tuesdays in January the 24 and the 31 13 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 10, 2012 Jessica said while the code may not be perfect and the "gap" language may not be perfect we think that it does a good job covering our bases. Jessica said it was important to keep in mind what is a gap issue and what is a substantive issue that really changes policy and really changes the code. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to continue the AACP "gap" Code Amendments to January 17` seconded by Cliff Weiss. Adjourned at 7:35 pm. c Lothian, Deputy City Clerk • 14