Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940630HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING JUNE 30, 1994 Present at the worksession were HPC members Joe Krabacher, Jake Vickery, Les Holst and Tom Williams. P&Z members present were Roger Hunt, Bruce Kerr, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich and Steven Buettow. Leslie Lamont, Interim Planning Director: In the memo the only things to be excluded are the R15B zone district and any commercial industrial development. Amy Amidon brought up mixed uses and we can discuss that. My intention in the office buildings or commercial buildings that they go with the standard one to one FAR at this point and that we are not discussing a reduction of that. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: In an office building you have to provide employee housing. Leslie: In the office zone district for historic landmarks you can have free market units and office mixed. Leslie: I would like to do an introduction. In our recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan there is a recommendation that the Planning Department take a look at the allowable floor areas of the R6 zone district. More and more the Planning Department is thinking that there are other residential neighborhoods that we should look at also or take issue. Council tells me for three years that they have asked Staff to look at the issue of FAR. P&Z in the past has also requested that we look at scale and massing of homes. HPC has also been looking at this and they recently passed a resolution that they recommend to Council an immediate 30% in allowable FAR with the ability to go above that via a special review process using the neighborhood character guidelines. This joint meeting is to try and come up with a recommendation that we want to pass onto City Council. Council also wanted a special public meeting on this which is why we are here tonight. The Planning Office recommendation is to reduce the FAR by 20% for all the residential sliding scales. We are also recommending exclusion of the R15B zone. You have several alternatives to discuss: We can go with the 20% reduction across the board or we can talk about the original 1987 recommendation or a special design review across the board for any new design review. If you go that route a joint sub-committee would be recommended using the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. We are also suggesting that people have the ability to go above the 20% with design review. At the last meeting Bill Stirling recommended a development moratorium or demolition moratorium on any further demolition so that we do not loose what we have until we come up with a measure that we all can agree on. Roger Hunt will go into volumetric details that we has started looking at. I tend to agree that FAR is not the entire issue. We may want to look at expanding the overlay districts and getting more design review over more of our inventory than we have. We need to look at a slope FAR reduction and rethink how we calculate our height. Roger is looking at how to calculate volume. Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 Amy Amidon, Planning Historic Preservationist presented a slide show on different heights of houses in different zone districts. She also indicated heights in different zones that were not appropriate in scale. Roger Hunt: I have attempted to show a 6,000 sq. ft. lot and roughly a building envelope that includes height. The height is show at approximately 20 feet. I have been working on a variable aspect as to what happens with the volume of the house and the FAR under our existing code. We have a 6,000 sq. ft. lot and 2,850 sq. ft. of it is involved in the setbacks and that leaves a 3,150 sq. ft. area on which a house can be placed. There is a restriction that the maximum site coverage is 40% for 2400 sq. ft. so the 3150 sq. ft. could be covered by 2400 sq ft. footprint. We have confusion here because we are talking about different things at the same time. When looking at building volumes assuming a ten foot ceil height which is in the code basically what we allow and to be counted on a one to one basis as far as the FAR is concerned. If you go over a ceil height of ten feet then there is a formula of reducing the FAR of the house and that formula I have attempted to do. It would reduce the FA_R area by a ratio of .05 times the number of feet over ten feet times the square footage of that space. The end result starting out with a two story building with no extra roof height you would end up with a site coverage of 1620 sq. ft. and that would have a volume of 32,400 cubic feet. For comparison a house with a 25 30 ft. space or 600 sq. ft. with a 20 foot ceiling height the allowable FAR area would be reduced by 300 sq. ft. to 2900 sq. ft. but the volume is allowed to increase 3,000 sq. ft. to 35,400 cubic feet and that in effect makes the apparent FAR area of the building about 3,540 sq. ft. When you allow an increase in height of the ceil even though the FAR is technically reduced the overall body is increased. If you had 15% decrease in FAR through this process you end up with a 71/2% volume increase. Maybe we should be looking at a volume limitations. I do not have a solution all I see is that we have a problem within the code. PUBLIC COMMENTS John: I live on the 600 W. Francis Block and I am not clear other than code violations and if you get special review why this is necessary. By code violations I am referring to the one on Third and Smuggler. Nancy Tharp: John has spoken my concerns also. Terry Moray: I have a house on the 16th fairway of the golf course and everytime I come back to the house it has gotten smaller. Other houses around me draft it. Mine remains one story and everyone around me is two story. Lynn Haynes: I represent energy 2000 and I am here to observe the Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 process and tie energy issue into what you are trying to do. Ramona Markalunas: I built in 1957 in the west end and am getting ready to expand and you all are going to limit me and my view plane is totally gone. Many of the expansions of victorians have been reviewed by HPC and the expansions sometimes wipe out everything but the facade of the small victorian. Sven Alstrom, architect: I have been here 7 years and have seen Aspen change rapidly. Even Francis Whitaker years ago said Aspen needed a design review and designate the entire original townsite in 1970 and it is time for City Council to approve design review. I would encourage an interim overlay district so that you don't loose the properties that you are worried about. Also an interim demolition policy should go into effect. We desperately need design review. The HPC guidelines need to be incorporated also. Dottie Kelleher: The Trentis house just vanished and something will go up there and there will be this cluster of three big monsters and there should be a way to address that. I think there should be a way of addressing the problem without hurting these people. Gideon Kaufman: We have a smaller FAR and I would like to share some observations that I see coming out of this. Who is affected by this. My neighborhood is thinking about asking for an increase in FAR. When you take existing buildings and try to add to them they are not very efficient. We talk about families and you are talking about four bedrooms and when you are looking at 3,100 sq. ft. in an older house that is not efficient you find that it is'difficult to expand. A lot do not have basements. People then find it easier to tear down than rebuild. At the last meeting people felt that the issue is not FAR but there is a need of city-wide architectural review. I personally have questions about that working. You should go to Snowmass who has had architectural review since the inception and maybe you should see what you get and is that what you want. We always have a tendency to react to people who violate the system. I do not understand the logic of the tear down prohibition. HPC protects historic structures from being torn down. Hallam Lake had an overlay put on to protect the views and some severe setbacks. If this goes into effect you are penalizing them twice given the location. All sites do not mean all things to all people. We need to understand what we are doing. I am glad to see the office space taken out of this. David Brown: Before I stepped down from P&Z we went through the Community Plan process in the last couple of years. Part of the community character section is the encouragement to consider and pursue ways to reduce the apparent volume and mass of the homes on the west end. It was not specifically called out to reduce the FAR. I have mixed feelings about design review. The bulk plan is used around the country and it a geometric system that could be written into the code. The property line is indicated and you come up a certain number of feet Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 and come in to a defined angle and you can't violate that line. What it does is the closer you get to a property line the lower the house is. The further you get away from the property line the higher the house is. This might be a simple solution. There can also be numerous studies done to analyze variations of this. One thing that is unfortunate is if this was a hard and fast line and you don't violate the plane you could not do a dormer even though it might enhance the livability of the house. There have been some projects done in town with this method and even though it is more costly it has been successful. By reducing FAR you are not going to get good design. Good design and a good owner have to go hand in hand. Going through a reduction in PAR is not going to get it by itself. There are a number of issues that go into design review. In Cherry Creek the bulk plane is very low. One of the original reasons for zoning was to get light and ventilation to the street. Joe: Is there some special review that allows you to intrude beyond the bulk plane? David Brown: Yes, in Denver you go to your neighborhood organization which has the political power and then it goes to the city council for special review. Amy: I would like to explain why we have made the recommendation that we have. At the last meeting the group decided to reject the FAR and go with architectural review. The reason we came back with both is HPC has had design review for 20 years and we are still saying there is a problem. We struggle very hard and when someone comes in we know the design will be too big. Design review plus some teeth will get us on a plane where we can work together. In the slides three houses look the same and architects play a game where they get to 3250 sq. ft. and they are going to make it to exactly what they can have and so they start looking the same. If we draw that pyramid, are the houses all going to look the same. David Brown: I feel the answer is no. As Roger pointed out there is a 40% open space requirement and there is opportunity for one or two story with skirts around the houses. Garages or no garages. There are sculptural opportunities within the bulk plane. Rogers is a rectangle and this plan puts bevels on it. If you maximumize the volume and have a good designer it is not necessarily bad. Sven Alstrom: I feel a complete design review is necessary to protect the historic houses. There is no easy answer and design review is the answer. Gideon: One of the things David mentioned is that the houses tend to look alike when you put restrictions on them. Amy: In the west end there is a house and they found out they cannot add on at all because they have a site coverage problem so we forced Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 them to go to a second story. On the other hand I worry about the loss of green yards and open space. Gideon: Rather than have an out right prohibition you could exchange for reducing height the ability to spread out more. Leslie: Jake made a comment that if we choose to do something in the interim we should do something that everyone knows how to figure out. I doubt that in the end we will adopt an across the Board reduction and we want to work with those that have an unique situation. What is your recommendation to Council and do you want to do something in the interim. Les: What would work for me is mountain to mountain, river to river and a 20% reduction of FAR and a review to get up to the net allowable. That is something we can do now. I also feel something needs to be done immediately. Jake: Presently a landmark property needs to come in for review and the guy next door doesn't and something needs to be changed about that. By reducing the FAR it gets people in the effected areas to pay attention to the historic guidelines. The reality is that they will be able to build the same amount of square footage as before but when they go to do it they will have to pay attention to the guidelines. I would exclude the two historical districts and properties that are on the inventory or make it clear to them that they are not the target of this. Joe: I have an historic property and I would be effected by this in some fashion and on the other hand people sitting here own properties in town and if your property is built out you have a conflict because you are voting to reduce everybody else. If your property is not built out you have a conflict if you vote because you don't want to have your house reduced. As to the motion I think it is clear that FAR is not the specific problem. I think the better approach is to clearly identify what the problem is and use the landuse tool that can most excise that problem. I don't think a 20% across the Board FAR reduction does that. I would be in favor of a design review as an alternative recognizing that there is a problem that in general people think something needs to be done. As a method to address those problems I would be in favor of the design review. The recommended motion with the 20% FAR reduction and the right to go back up with special review I am not sure that does anything because everyone will be coming in for special review anyway. Maybe there is a level at which you don't have to have design review. There is also a fairness issue here that we have to look at and there are some sub-standard lots. If you area going to propose some sort of FAR reduction there should be some minimum floor that you are not reducing people under. You are trying to keep families in the community and if you knock off 20% off a 3240 sq. ft. lot it takes it down to 2,500 sq. ft. Who can afford a million dollar property and have a 2,600 sq. ft. house on it. 5 Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 Leslie: But you would have design review to request it higher. So you would say a sliding scale for the residential FAR's. Would you support a non-conforming lot less that 6,000 sq. ft. being left as is? Joe: I would support a minimum FAR. My recommendation would be to have design review for any projects that want to develop within 20% of their allowable FAR but it is not an FAR reduction and that there be some minimum floor. Leslie: So if you are 20% below your allowable you don't have to do design review. Leslie: Gideon is saying that we should stick with what we have. Gideon: You said to people designate your structure and we will give you breaks and now you are saying you are cutting back on the historic structures. There has to be a way that 90% of the town is not nonconforming. There has to be a balance. Jake: This way you are not reviewing everything in the city only the 20%. Les: One of the jobs of HPC is to get everything on the inventory and you can give side yard setbacks. If we get an overlay over the town we have half our problems solved. Roger: I am against a general overall review of everything and I do not feel that works because you end up like Snowmass. I am in favor in the interim of the reversal of the 20% increase that occurred in 1988 in the interim. I have no problem with a special review but in the long run this is complicated and we have to look at the issues. We will probably end up with a two tier system. Bruce: Everyone has the concern on how the town looks and by adopting the 20% reduction we effectively reward those people that have already built and maxed out and I do not like that. For immediate terms I would propose that if we do something on an emergency nature I would buy into a six month moratorium on demolition on existing residential structures with the provision that the replacement structure is subject to some sort of review whether that is HPC, P&Z or combined. While that is going on we continue to work on crafting the appropriate regulations, ordinances. That way we don't penalize those that want to add onto existing structures as they are not doing any demolition. I would be willing to halt demolition of the entire structures and if they want to rebuilt immediately within the six month period that they go through special review. Bruce: I do not want to penalize those that want to add onto their existing houses and I do want to address the problem of people tearing down little houses and building monster homes. 6 Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 Leslie: If you wanted to demolish your house but were only going to build back 80% of the allowed FAR you could go forward without special review. Bruce: My concern with that is that the 80% might be out of scale with the neighborhood character. We are all trying to address the neighborhood character needs. Steve: I agree with Staff regarding the special review and in the interim we need to take a look at what is needed. I also support the moratorium. Robert Blaich: I think if you look at the tone and scale of the community a lot of people think that what we are talking about is the 1890's buildings. That is not realistic anymore. Living within the existing FAR forces the developers to maximumize on things like volume and scale. Aspen has a selection of eclectic architecture. We need to look at what is appropriate for each area. Robert: If we look at reduction and scale, 30% or whatever this does not guarantee that these abuses will continue. 20% or less may encourage developers to make the house look bigger and get more value even though the lot has not changed. I would like to see the Richmond 87 file and study it. I would like to do documentation of an area in the community with a video tape and then you would have the feeling of what you are looking at vs. looking at one specific house that has to be appropriate or inappropriate by someone's vision. The guidelines and the AACP should be used as bench marks and then we should meet with the developers, builders and the architects. I also feel we need some teeth in this. I do not like the i~ea of review police. I would like to stay with the recommendation of 20% and use that as a temporary measure to pull out of the woodwork all of these things and have a good dialogue with the people who are concerned about it and the ones that are causing it. There is nothing we can do about existing buildings that do not fit. Les: The motion that I would make is that we propose a 10% decrease from the current FAR figures with the potential to regain FAR through special review using the neighborhood character guidelines and the 10% be reduced to permanent 5 % and City Council adopts HPC & P&Z review for the original Aspen townsite. Also mandatory adoption of the A3~CP. Leslie: In the interim you are proposing a 10% reduction with the ability to go above with a special review and use of the character guidelines and once we establish our boundaries for historic review in the overlay for special review in the original townsite and once Council adopts that we also reduce FAR 5% permanently. Les: We proposed 30%, Staff came back with 20% and I feel 10% doesn't damage anybody. 7 Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 MOTION: Bruce made the motion that we recommend to City Council the imposition of a six month temporary moratorium on demolition of existing residential structures and any demolition 25% or greater of the existing structure with the replacement structure and or additions to that structure subject to a joint P&Z and HPC review for compatibility with the neighborhood character guidelines as stated in the Aspen Area Community Plan and that while that moratorium is in existence the P&Z, Staff and HPC continue to work on crafting an appropriate regulation to address the problems we have been discussing at these meetings and that HPC continue to review and recommend expansions of the overlay districts and or inventory; second by Robert Blaich. Jake: I would like to see it a joint board. Bruce: In the review if it fits the guidelines they might even be able to go to maximum FAR. Jake: The Neighborhood Character Guidelines are urban design guidelines and they deal with neighborhood character and they address the streetscape etc. They are not architectural design and it is not the same as Snowmass. When you go to Snowmass they tell you the type of material, siding, roof pitch etc. They have true architectural control. This is a different level. Leslie: Do you feel the guidelines will get at what we are concerned about. Do we need to work on the guidelines. Jake: That is what is important about the six month period. It gives us a break-in period. They are tested and adjusted in action. Leslie: We can give the guidelines time to get fixed. Jake: The guidelines are not just for the west end either, they are set up for Smuggler also. Bruce: In the motion it also states that HPC will continue to come up with a review process of additional historic overlay districts and or inventories. P&Z will continue crafting appropriate legislation for long term of bulk and mass. Les: I would like us to ask for the overlay. Tom: I totally agree with the motion that Bruce made. I still have mixed emotions about reducing the FAR. I would be in support of architectural review addressing only mass and scale only. I am also comfortable with using the neighborhood guidelines in the interim. Tim: I too am in favor of Bruce's motion and I think the things we have to consider in the six month period are mentioned in the memo. Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 My problem of putting a number on reducing the FAR is that it is down to the same old story the resort area vs. the community. The houses are being built because the resort is growing. There is not much of a neighborhood left in the west end. We need at least six months to start and re-establish the community with the community plan. The moratorium is the first way to get at the time frame we need to enact the principles of the guidelines and of the AACP. Amy: In some ways the moratorium is tougher than a drop in FAR and are we going to have 100 people pulling demo permits even if they do not intend to demolish just so they have it. Bruce: City Council may choose something else and that is why they are elected. I made the motion on what I am willing to recommend. Jake: The demolition doesn't protect vacant land at this point. Leslie: When P&Z votes to send something to City Council a six month suspension of building permits is imposed and nobody can pull a building permit that is incompatible with what the commission voted. Then it goes to council and it can be overturned or change the amendment. Amy: Only rezoning has an immediate effect. Leslie: Council can do an emergency ordinance if they all vote unanimously. Sara: Don't you feel we should be taking leadership? Bruce: My motion demonstrates leadership. Sara: I am encouraged by this action and it is a very important measure and I feel you would be amazed how supportive the majority of the town will be. I feel the overlay is the safest way to take care of what Council, Staff and the community feels we should do. I will not vote for this motion but would support Staff's motion. MOTION: Bruce: The motion is to recommend to City Council a six month demolition moratorium on demolition of 25% or more of the existing residential structures with the replacement structures and or additions subject to joint HPC & P&Z review for compatibility of the neighborhood character guidelines and A3tCP. The intent is to ensure the maintenance of character and design quality of compatibility features and that during this six month demolition moratorium that we charge P&Z to continue to work and craft the appropriate regulations and that HPC is charged with reviewing the expansions of the historic overlay districts and inventory properties; second by Robert Blaich, motion carries. MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC & P&Z recommend to City Council Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 adoption of an interim overlay that will reduce the allowable FAR for residential zone districts by 20% with special review by a sub- committee of P&Z and HPC members to review requested increases beyond the 20% reduction up to the FAR that is currently allowable. I also move that the R15 B zone district be excluded from the overlay as well as commercial offices or industrial development; second by Sara. DISCUSSION Jake: It is my understanding that we want to stop large houses being built next to small ones. Sara: To me abuses have been with historical properties and it needs to be part of the overlay. Amy: We can find a way to put the reviews together with the two different boards. Leslie: If you are landmarked you would be reviewed by HPC and the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. AMENDED MOTION: Jake 9ade the motion to include commercial offices and industrial development; second by Sara. Jake: I would prefer to exclude the districts. Tim: It is important to have an overview of everything that is done and to exclude is not appropriate. A~ENDED MOTION: Jake amended his motion to state that the interim period is six months; second by Sara. Les: We need to come up with something that can solve this problem. Sara: I agree with Les. This is an overlay for everybody. Les: A demo and major buildout should have to face some sort of scale and massing whatever it is. Bruce: That is the intent of the motion passed. I do not feel we are not doing anything. My intent was to stop demolition and to get to work on putting this together. Les: Why don't we stop any demolition and make it stronger. If we have 25% demolition I guarantee there will be 5 architects tomorrow to get around it. We go through it all the time, 49% etc. If we say any demolition has to have review we have teeth in it. Sara: Staff knows procedurally what will work and that is why I went with it. Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 Leslie: Anything you do we would follow July 5th and July 19th. Les: We can ask an emergency session of City Council to approve our recommendation. Les: It would be stronger if you all have consensus on that. Jake: I would like to amend the motion one more time. With a special review by a sub-committee of HPC & P&Z members to review for compatibility of the neighborhood character guidelines with requested increases. Leslie: It is the same motion and you are excluding the districts and adding back in any commercial office development that is not in the districts and you are adding in compatibility of neighborhood guidelines. Les: Is this doing us a favor or what? Sara: Jake and I want to do the Staff motion because I feel it is a more efficient motion procedurally. But we can do both. Bruce: I will not vote for this motion. Les: It would be nice if we could all go in the same direction. Bruce: I have a problem with the arbitrary 20%, 25%. There maybe people out there that have bought million dollar lots in reliance of what our current FAR regulations are and I know some of you say too bad but as a matter of fairness I can't recommend adoption of an emergency 20% across the board. Les: The stronger we are the less people get hurt. It is the stuff that is between that hurts people, a little of this a little of that. Everyone should have to work within the parameters of what they have. They will charge what the market will bear and people will buy garbage just to be in Aspen and the architects will have to learn how to do remodels, nobody looses. Jake: There are two parts to the motion and one part is the addition of the neighborhood character guidelines and the second part was the districts. Sara: I want the districts left in and an overlay over the city period. Jake: If they were doing a project in the core area they would have to go through the same thing. Sara: Yes and Amy would like to see the districts under the overlay. Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 Amy: I am surprised that you Jake do not want the districts in the overlay because you ware the one leading the Main Street discussion. I do not know about the core because we have not had a lot of problems there because that is where the density is supposed to be but Main Street which is a residential area in character has been a problem. Les: One of the things that started this was the approval of the building next to Joe which is totally inappropriate and out of proportion. Les: If we do not include the districts the same thing will happen all down Main Street. Jake: I'll withdraw the exclusion of the districts. Leslie: So we have an overlay over the entire city except for R-15B. Gideon: What does that do to people in the pipeline? Leslie: It usually doesn't effect them but that is Council's call. Roger left the meeting. MOTION: Question called passes 5 to 4. Leslie: To initiate the six month suspension in building permits it has to be at a P&Z public hearing to get to that point. Tonight we are looking for recommendation to council for July 5th. I want Council to support the July 19th meeting. Sara: They may reject it also. Leslie: Three people voted against the demolition, Les, Joe and Sara. Tim Mooney: I thought what Joe said is that we review everything that is being requested to be built to its maximum FAR now and we don't review things 20% under. I was in favor of that. If someone voluntarily reduces their FAR 20% they don't get reviewed. But if they come in and request to maximize their FAR the way the code is now then this committee which is a joint body reviews them for this overlay. I like the overlay. I like the overlay to include the commercial office and industrial and I want to get at the message that what we want to do is encourage people not to build these "max-o" houses so if they want to come in and not be reviewed because of the overlay they can volunteer to reduce their building plans by 20%. Sara: What is the difference? Tim Mooney: If you want to max out we are going to look at you with Historic Preservation & Planning a Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 another step process and it will be compared to the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. If you reduce voluntarily you don't go through the review. Put it on the developer. Jake: Here is how I would state that motion and whoever wants to make it can. I would move that HPC & P&Z recommend to City Council adoption of the overlay that would require special review by a sub-committee of HPC & P&Z members for any application that exceeds 80% of the current allowable would be subject to review of. Tim: Staff also recommends R-15 B excluded and districts included. Leslie: We would say the only people who don't have to go through this is the R-15B and then you have covered everybody. Bruce: That means you are not taking away peoples property all you are saying to get that additional 20% you have to go through special review. It is a matter of semantics. Les: When someone comes in you as a sub-committee will have to be able to say you'can't have the 20% it is too big and not compatible. Les: How do we get these people on the inventory? Jake: There is no need as it is an overlay. Sara second the motion. Leslie: Jake will you read the motion again. MOTION: Jake made the motion that HPC & P&Z adopt an interim overlay that will require a special review by a sub-committee of HPC and P&Z members of any applications that are 80% or exceed 80% of their allowable FAR. Special review will address neighborhood character guidelines and the AACP. The R-15 B zone district will be excluded, second by Sara. Amy: The guidelines will be permanently adopted July 13th. Robert Blaich: This has to be put into a form that people will understand what it is. Jake: For clarity under this motion it is addressing new construction and the other motion was addressing demolition. They are two different things. I can still go in and get a demolition permit under this motion. Joe: Under the other motion you cannot demolish. Jake: You have two motions that are complementary. Historic Preservation & Planning & Zoning Joint worksession of June 30, 1994 Leslie: Lets vote on this motion and then we can talk about the two motions. MOTION: Ail in favor of motion except Bruce. Motion carries 8-1. Bruce: I am not prepared to vote but am sympathetic in what we are trying to do. Leslie: We have two motions that have passed. The question is do we want to send both to council? Joe: Both motions were recommended to be sent to council. Amy: P&Z at a public hearing makes a recommendation and there is an immediate effect. We chose that because we do not believe we would get an unanimous vote of council if we went the emergency route. We have already not'iced the P&Z meeting on the 19th. Why can't we go to council and ask them to do something on an emergency code. If they don't do that you still have the P&Z mechanism. Tim Mooney: not. We voted on two motions whether they were unanimous or Sara: Maybe council will agree on both motions. Leslie: So both motions are 8 to 1 as Sara and Joe changed their vote. Les voted no. Leslie: Would you like to request that council initiate an emergency ordinance to get these adopted. Sara: I would request emergency action. MOTION: Leslie made the motion to request that emergency action be taken by Council; second by Tim. Ail in favor, 8 to 1. Bruce voted no. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk