Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19870127 ---,~-~------ A RECORD -OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING JANUARY 27. 1987 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Welton Anderson at 5:00 p.m. with all members present except Al Blomquist and Jim Colombo who were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS - SCORING SESSION 1010 UTE AVENUE Glen Horn said there had been some recommendations made at the previous meeting with respect to improving the site plan to some extent. He pointed out that the key consideration in the category of public facilities and services category is whether or not the improvements are beneficial to the neighborhood or just serve the project itself. In 5 out of 6 categories this project is proposing improvements which in our opinion will improve the situation in the neighborhood as well as serving the project. The only category in which this was not the case was in the sanitary sewer service which is why we are recommending an average score. In every other category we are recommending a superior score. In the area of quality design, there were 5 categories for recommending top score and 3 out of the 5 categories. In 2 of the categories we are recommending just an average score. The reason why is that we think although the design overall is an excellent design, there were minor site planning considerations with respect to site design which led us to recommend down their score. In particular there were the visual impacts concerning the houses which were proposed on the ridge. Then a problem with respect to the ponds. Our recreation and parks department said that in the event we have a drought year, there is a possibility there won't be enough water running in the Wheeler Ditch to divert into the ponds without drying up the Glory Hole Park in the Mall. In the agreement between the applicant and the City there probably will be a condition in that agrement that says that in a drought year the priority for the use of the Wheeler Ditch water is going to be for the mall and Glory Hole Park and this site might not get water for the ponds and that might lead to an unsightly situat- I ion. Because of these two problems we are recommending an average score on site design. There are 4 trails involved with this property. We think that the trail alignment that is proposed between Ute Avenue and the Roaring Fork River, the Gordon Bridge Trail, is a poor alignment and has detrimental affects on the neighbors. Due to this problem we are recommending an average score on trails. The other 2 categories are basic cut and tried categories. There is no discretion involved. The project is 5 blocks from the commercial center. Therefore it should receive the scores we have recommended on your sheet. Finally for the employee housing we recommending a score of 7 points. Overall we are proposing a score of 35 points. an excellent project and has done very well criteria of the code. We think this is according to the Dick Fallin, architect, said this project consists of l.6 acres of park area. The Ute corridor area, what we are calling west meadow, east meadow and the riverfront lots. These are the five areas of this project. The park area benefits are unique in that we are able to offer almost a 2 acre parcel of public open space. We are going to cut a new length to nordic trail. We are going to construct new parking for the public and we are going to construct, landscape and irrigate a new passage park area. The Ute Avenue corridor; several things happened there that we think are good. One is that we are going to realign and repave Ute Avenue pushing the roadway to that side to ease the curve situation. We are going to give an extra 10 feet of right of way along this area. The benefit of that is that we are then able to create and widen this bike path to 10 feet and create extensive landscaping on both sides of the path and create good separation from the roadway. We are also going to provide curb and gutter along the project side of Ute Avenue. The West Meadow Area; the concept here is that its been a traditionally open space area. Our concept for this area after many considerations was that the maximum benefit that we could gain from the open space is to really concentrate it as much as we can in the middle and to cluster our sites around the perim- eter. We have paired clustrients so that the houses can be built against land forms thereby creating a feeling of an open meadow with the houses clustered around. The roadway we are taking through the middle but we are limiting the width of the paving to 20 feet and providing grassy shoulders 2 of 2 feet on each side so we have our 24 ft. width for the fire department. We are going to prohibit any parking in the roadway in this entire system. All of the parking is to be on site. We feel that the other natural area that we have clustered around is what we are calling the east meadow. This is an area bounded on three sides by a woody hilly site. The concept here is to maintain and concentrate our open space in the middle. We are clustering our houses around the perimeter building into the hillside maximizing the solar exposure. We are leaving 60% of the ridge undeveloped. We feel that we have responded well to that terrain feature of the site. The other areas we feel we have responded to are the areas of the bypass along Ute Avenue and the two trail proposals. Irrigation wise we are picking up a couple benefits from the ponds using water from the City rights creating these irrigation ponds that will be, as well as landscaped areas, storage areas for irrigat- ion. The irrigation system services all parts of the property as well as the public park area. Gideon said in reviewing the Planning Office scoring there were two areas he wanted to go over. The first was the site design. There is a philosophical difference with the Planning Office in that they may have laid some of the sites out a little differently. When we reviewed this at the last meeting, you agreed with our choices. Pat Maddalone, one of the owners of the property for over 20 years, in public comment told you that ours is the best site design of the many that she has reviewed for this property over the last 20 years. If you look at the scoring criteria, our landscaping and open space concepts are excellent, the extent of our undergrounding utilities is excellent, the arrangement and improvement of proficiency and safety are excellent. Therefore, I believe the site design is deserving of 3 as opposed to a 2. The only concrete issue that made the Planning Office suggest a 2 as opposed to a 3 involved a question of availability of water for our ponds. I have a memo I would like to submit to the record from the City Water Attorney, John Music addressed to the P&Z. In this memo he states the City can in fact supply water. It only enters into agreements the City can honor and that even in the worst drought year, there would be water available to us. This memo removes any question along these lines and we are entitled to a 3 in the site design category. The other scoring area I would like to review is that of trails. The Planning Office suggests 2 points as opposed to 3. The focus of the Planning Office rational for 2 points is the alignment of the trail Option B and their dissatisfaction with that alignment. On our site plan we didn't design the trail. We gave it a general location because we hoped you would go along with trail 3 alignment B. I therefore could understand the score of 2 if we were only providing one trail. That is not the case. In addition to this trail, we are proposing two additional trails, a ski trail and a realignment and recreation of Ute Avenue Trail. Not only are we providing easements for these trails, we are also constructing these trails. These trails weren't even called for in the trail master plan but new trails that everyone thinks is a good idea. I think this goes way beyond the scoring criteria. Therefore, when you look at the two additional trails we are providing, paying for and constructing these trails, I feel strongly that 3 is an appropriate score. I would encourage you to go along with the rest of the Planning Office scoring for our proj ect. The Planning Office, does not as a policy, make recommendations for bonus points. I believe in our particular project, bonus points are most appropriate. Jay Hammond, City Engineer, in his memo strongly recommended 3 bonus points. The code specifically states that when a project exceeds the substitive criteria and achieves an outstanding overall design meriting recognition you can give it bonus points. I believe that the II out of 12 points in public facilities and 14 out of IS in quality of design is indicative that this project deserves maximum bonus points. Our project is providing a new bike trail bed along the river, a new nordic and a new downhill ski trail. We are dedicating land to create a City park. We are providing improvements to that park and irrigating it. We are providing public parking in an area that desperately needs public parking. We are looping the City water system. We are utilizing City well water for irrigation which will unburden the City system and at the same time help the City water rights. We are upgrading Ute Avenue with additional rights-of-way, realigning it, repaving it and providing curbs and gutters. We are constructing a new Ute Avenue Trail and landscaping that trail. We are providing additional fire hydrants in the neighborhood. We are even improving the Ute Cemetery. We have lowered density by 35% and we have lowered FAR below what is allowed. Welton asked if there were any more questions. There were none. He then opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING 1010 UTE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL SUBMISSION Pat Maddalone said she supports this project. She is one of the neighbors and the former owner of the land. Since 1969 she has seen many different plans for this particular land. Those being mUlti-family plans, the Little Annie plan, the John Roberts plan which was strictly employee housing and now this plan which she thinks is most attractive. It is a low impact and the character along Ute Avenue of single family residents is important to the 4 neighborhood. as possible. She urged the Commissioners to score this as high Craig Ward with the Aspen\Snowmass Nordic Council said they had been developing a trail system in conjunction with the Planning Office. When I heard about this development and saw the plans of not only improving the trails around the area but also making more access up from Ute Avenue through the new park they are going to dedicate, I thought it was a fantastic addition. I would want to strongly point out that a lot of times developers give an easement but sometimes they will actually pay for the design of the trail. The City bought some property last year but the Nordic Council had to go in and make the trail. Here the applicant is going to not only give the easements that are need but are going to pay for the trail. Molly Campbell, general manager of the Gant, here to speak for the homeowners and Board of Directors. We would like to say that this application has worked really closely with the Gant Board and has been very sensitive to the needs of the Gant and to the needs of the neighborhood. The Gant Board of Directors has studied this plan rather thoroughly as well as having reviewed plans in the past of other proposals and they strongly believe that this is a tremendous improvement over other plans. They also believe that the improvements being offered in the plan are really of a special nature to the neighborhood and w ill be of special improvement In particular the Nordic Trail, the realignment of ute Avenue, public park, the additional parking in the area are of significant public benefit. We would hope that the applicant's plan would be put forward and approved and we are so strongly supportive, we would like to see you give some bonus points. Bob Stirling, interested citizen, said he thinks it is interest- ing to see a developer come in that hasn't tried to maximize densities and FARs and has brought something to the area that goes from open space to single family to mUlti-family rather than having only multi-family. Bob George said he also wanted to commend the applicant on the plan. The public benefit has been served when we consider that we are getting in excess of a city block as a new public park and the trails, the realignment of Ute Avenue, the building and winding of the bicycle path. I am very much in favor of the water element that exists within the project itself. I think that it is unique to Aspen. This far and away exceeds what we have seen for this project so far and I would encourage you giving bonus points for this. It is a real nice project and they are to be commended for it. " Wel ton asked if there was any more public comment. none. He then closed the public hearing. There was 5 Roger Hunt asked what is sac and the trail level. in that area. the grade difference between the cuI de Is there a possible trial right-of-way The answer was yes it was possible. The Commissioners then did their scoring. 700 EAST HYMAN RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION Steve Burstein said this is two duplexes on the corner of Hyman and Spring Street. The applicant is competing for only two units because a building permit for one duplex is already given. In the area of public facilities and services the recommended scoring in three areas was for I point if the services are adequate and in two areas we felt that services would be approved in the area. In water and sewer the commitments are standard and no improvements would result to the system so we recommended I point in both of those areas. In the area of storm drainage, we have also recommended I point. The rational which is set up by Jay Hammond is that they would need to increase the recharge to the aquifer in order to score the 2 points. They would need a delayed type of system for drainage. In fire protection we recommend 2 points because of the fire hydrant being provided. In the parking design we are recommending 2 points because they are providing for 8 spaces within garages and 4 additional spaces on an apron off the alleyway. They are having some screening and they have paving for snowmelt for safe access. We thought that deserved 2 points. Roads category: No improvements so it is I point. In the area of quality design and neighborhood compatibility we recommend 2 points. We thought the size, the massing and the siting of the structure is in keeping with the neighborhood. Its a very acceptable design. We did note that the small victorian to the east would be dwarfed by this structure and we felt that that was some reason for not recommending a 3. In site design we did recommend a 3 and we felt that the 40% open space, the landscape scheme with the street trees and the scattered vegetation throughout the site, the sunken patio, the 6 sodding that would basically be a green area were all good amenities and the fact that there will now be sidewalks and landscaping to a corner that doesn't have that at this time. In the area of energy, we have recommended 2 points. While it is an excellent energy strategy for the efficiency of the structure itself, we thought there were several non-efficient aspects of the project including the snowmelt in the alleyway for the apron for parking, the north facing glass which is fairly abundant and the use of non-efficient fireplaces--one per unit so there would be 4 fireplaces as well as 4 clean burning stoves in the total project. In the category of trails and green space, we felt that they were standard. We recommended 2 points in those two categories. Support services and employee housing are done according to formula and there is no need to discuss those in more detail. Sonny Vann said we have taken the Planning Office and the P&Z Commission's recommendations and comments into account and come up with a residential project which we believe is an asset to this area of town. It provides a unique product in that it is essentially a single family attached units in the transition area between the city's commercial zones to the west and the more traditional residential neighborhoods to the east. We believe the project is very low impact and that it is intended primarily as a second home market. We are requesting only two units, but we are providing the entire site plan for your review as a way to demonstrate the extensive treatments and improvements the property itself and public right-of-way. We do have one technical clarification with respect to the drainage issue. Our representation on our application would be that we would reduce the historic runoff level from the property and thereby reduce the impact on the storm sewer system. There is no problem with our commitment as far as the Engineering Department is concerned. The problem arises out of the technique which we propose. We were going to retain it through on-site drywells. The Engineering Department has some concerns with this affecting the water level underneath the property. Those concerns were not conveyed to us to on either our pre-app through the Planning Office or with the Engineering Department and therefore we followed the more traditional pattern of using 100% retention via the drywells. We have clarified to the Engineering Department's satisfaction that we can achieve the same results through temporary small body of water on the property through shallow swails in the grassed area or through engineered design of the parking aprons to the rear of the property. Introduced record from Schmueser, Gordon & Myer regarding same. We have discussed this with the City Engineer who will concur that if we 7 comply with this, and we are saying we will, it will improve the impact on the storm drainage system and the project would warrant a 3 score. With respect to quality design, our problem stems from a long- standing practice of the Planning Office not to recommend fractional scores. The standard score that is recommended by the Planning Office should be improved on based on the improvements that we are proposing to provide. Larry Yaw said the strongest factor in the architectural design itself was the unique location of this site relative to both its surroundings and zoning in turn. It is located on an important corner of the office zone of Hyman and Spring. The zone is a transition zone between the C-I zone to the west and the residential zone to the east. It really is a site that wants to be compatible with both. The first choice the owner made was to put the lowest impact use on the site which is residential. We think it is really important that the design be compatible with both the urban and the residential. We have tried to give the building a sense of permanence--one that relates to the downtown area by using brick and sandstone and a banding which we drew from the victorian buildings downtown that used horizontal banding. We are using it to create a lower appearing building. To relate to the residential areas, we have used a theme of scale in identifying each unit. The building is broken down in scale in all its elevations. It is staggered to create an individual unit scale. The building is 2 ft. lower than the 25 ft. height limit. It is the lowest building in its immediate neighborhood. Another thing we did to relate the building to a residential environment was a combined use of flat and slope roof. In terms of site planning we carried that through. We have staggered the building on the site back toward the corner so we have opened up the corner of Spring and Hyman. There is 12 ft. of sidewalks which the project will improve and maintain. Each unit also has in individual entrance. The site in total for an urban site is very open--40% of the site is open. This is designed around a unique style of living for Aspen as it is within two blocks of any destination in town. The Planning Office noted that we didn't design relative to the victorian which sits between the Aspen Athletic Club and this project. If we were to build a 12 ft. high building to be compatible with that rather unremarkable victorian, we feel the next project along would in turn dwarf ours and a true incompatibility would set in. We think that the zoning and the economics that follows zoning really determine the essential land use for that and that it would be some folly to, in fact, use this as a determinant to design. We request that you consider that in your scoring. 8 Sonny Van said in the area of energy we recognized initially that we had several drawbacks regarding our project. We intentionally sunk the project into the ground to reduce the height and the bulk as it appeared from the surrounding streetscape. As a result, the parking apron in the rear ramps down to the garage and it is necessary to snowmelt that in order to avoid excessive ice buildup. Two woodburning devices are allowed by the code in each one of these units which is standard. Since we were not sure about the ultimate marking for the project we showed both of those devices as part of this application. This gives us the flexibility to delete one or use one or the other. Since both of those features are standard, we felt it necessary to improve the actual design of the building from an energy point of view in order to enhance our score. So we exceed all of our minimal requirements under the UBC for the buildings themselves to the extent that the Roaring Fork Energy Center in its referral comments refer to this as an excellent design. We took a basic standard project and improved upon it. In the Planning Office's opinion, even though we have an energy efficient building with an excellent design, the fact that we have a fireplace and the snowmelt brings it back down to standard. I think the problem here is obvious. We could have not done anything to improve the energy of the building-- just met the minimum requirements of the UBC--had a standard design and gotten a 2. Whereas we have clearly gone beyond those and have been recognized as such by the Roaring Fork Energy Center but we still get a 2. I would suggest that a score somewhere between the 2 and the 3 is more appropriate. Regarding green space and trails: This is a city lot. It is not a raw parcel of land where one can go PUD design. There is no trail we can hook up to. In an attempt to improve our score we have taken the entire public right-of-way, put in a well- designed sidewalk system and extensively landscaped public area. We have included street furniture and bicycle racks. We believe a score above the 2 is appropriate here. Regarding greenspace: We have certain site limitations that dictate the building footprint on the property itself. There is no open space requirement in the office zone. We have provided over 40% of the site as extensively landscaped open space. In addition to 3,500 sq. ft. of right-of-way or some 30% of the total site. The Planning Office's concern here appears to be that it is not usable. Obviously we can't create a public park on the property, but we have created areas that are passive recreational landscaped open space for the residents of this proj ect. More importantly the extensive landscaping, the setbacks we have maintained, the retention of over 40% reduces the public perception of the bulk of the project and offers a significant reduction of the impact of the residents of the surrounding 9 properties. To simply call such an excessive amount of landscaping standard under the green space criteria simply because it is not a big open area that you would see under a traditional PUD is inappropriate. Regarding bonus point: We believe this project merits bonus points for a variety of reasons. There are site limitations inherent in trying to do a residential project in what is essentially a commercial zone. As a result of doing residential, we bel ieve there will be impact reduction because of the frequency of use in the proximity of the downtown area. There is over 40% open space provided, there is 33% more parking than is required under the code. There is 3,500 sq. ft. of landscaped pub I ic property. There is substantial energy savings as witnessed by the Roaring Fork Energy Center. It is low impact use. We have enhanced the drainage on the property. We exceed the requirements for employee housing by 15%. The Engineering Department has recommended bonus points because of the excellence of the site plan. PUBLIC lIEARING 700 EAST HYMAN RESIDEN"J.'IALGMP SUBMIS~I-oN Elyse Elliot, from the Engineering Department, said they have recently reassessed their criteria for evaluation. We used to think that maximum amount of points should be awarded for 100% retention. Now the Department wants applicants to maintain it as storage runoff. This way you won't change the ground water tables. In this case the applicant has provided an excellent design. There was no further comment. Welton then closed the public hearing. Sonny Vann said the position on the clarification of drywells is the drywells are still here. We have initially said we retain 100% at the drywells. Engineering now says you have to put some on site. We have said we can maintain on site without redesign- ing the project, it looks the same. The original representation is the same. Roger Hunt said the applicant should not be hurt because of a change in the criteria of the Engineering Department. The Commission then proceeded with scoring on this project. 1001 -RESIDENTIAL ~MP -SOBlUS~ION Glen Horn said he would again focus on the categories where there 10 '''''-. is some discretion involved. There was not much discretion with categories 3 and 4. In the public facilities category we are recommending above average scores in each of the categories with the exception of two. In the sanitary sewer service category we are recommending standard score because there is nothing being done in this project which benefits the neighborhood. In the roads category, the applicant has made a commitment to provide any widening of curb gutter improvements along the street frontage as required. We consider that to be standard because there is nothing specific in terms of what they are committing to do. As a general policy, we usually rate something standard unless there is a specific commitment. The quality of design is where we have our greatest concerns. You will recall last meeting we focused on the site design and the perception of density on the site. After the meeting I was talking with the applicant's representative, Joe Wells, who indicated to me that the site plan indicated foot prints of the building based upon all of the buildings being only one story in height. In other words the potential perception of site coverage was increased due to the way that the architect drew these rough footprints. I asked if they could give us a technical clarifica- tion that the buildings would not be one story in height. Would they be two story or stepped up the hillside which would reduce the perception of density. Unfortunately the applicant could not commit to us that the buildings would be precluded from being one story buildings. We consider this to be a site design flaw and therefore we are recommending a substandard score on the site design category because there is no commitment that the buildings will not be one story buildings. Another consideration in the site design category is the perception of density that will be created due to the tennis courts and the fixed nature of the tennis courts in front of the buildings. In the trails category: We are recommending just the standard score rather than above average score because, as a general rule, if an applicant proposes to donate or dedicate a trail easement we consider that to be a standard type of commitment because they are required, by code, to dedicate a trail easement that is on a trails plat. On the other hand if someone is going to dedicate an easement and construct a trail, we consider that to be an above average score. In this case they are just dedicating a trail easement and therefore it is just a standard project. 11 In the greenspace category, we would be recommending an above average score for this project due to the dedication of open space on the hillside. However we feel that the presence of the tennis court on the site and the paved area of the tennis court right in front of the buildings reduces the greenspace score and the greenspace proposal here to just a standard proposal. Likewise we are recommending a standard score for the energy proposal because there are no specific commitments as to the energy conservation program. In the other categories of quality design, we are recommending above average scores. We are recommending a total score of 30 points on this project. We consider it to be an average project and think you should score it accordingly. Joe Wells said this is a 4-lot subdivision proposal on Ute Avenue to the east of the Aspen Chance Project. Three of the single family homesi tes will incl ude caretaker, restricted housing units, restricted to the low income category. Hopefully we will be able to clear up some of the misunderstandings between ourselves and the Planning Office tonight to enable you to be able to score this project high enough to reach the threshold. At present the recommended score is 2 points below the thresh- hold. To the extent that we are able to do that, we will be able to proceed with the next stage of the subdivision review. The difficulty that a small project has, particularly one that is near the perimeter of the community, in the scoring system. First of all the likelihood of being able to offer some of those elements that would be perceived as a community benefit are lessened on a smaller site. This is in regard to roads and trails. In the case of roads the right-of-way that is already in existence on our site is greater than on the site immediately to the west of us so it would be of no benefit for us to offer the City more right-of-way because you are short of right-of-way further to the west. In the case of trails there is really only one logical trail alignment on the site because it is a small site. These are disadvantages which are difficult for us to respond to because of being a relatively small project. Both in terms of the size of the parcel and interims of having made commitments which are community benefit, this project suffers to some degree in the scoring process. Obviously proximity is an issue about which the applicant can do nothing. It is an area where points are awarded and they are fixed. We also have some concerns about the nature of employee housing points. 12 Regarding public facilities as to roads commitment. The misunderstanding centers on the word "if required". We know several things about Ute Avenue. First of all the capacity exceeds that which is needed. To the extent that a realignment is appropriate. We felt we were making a commitment to participate in that realignment to the center line of the road along the property. Our commitment is to participate in the realignment of Ute Avenue along the property if the City desires that. If that is viewed as a benefit to the community, that would merit 2 points. In the design section which is where we have to convince you that there may be some flexibility in the recommended scores. The first area we want to talk about is neighborhood compatibility. John Doremus said in regard to neighborhood compatibility we got 2 points and we wish to argue for 3 points. The criteria is the consideration of the compatibil i ty of the proposed buildings in terms of size, height and location with the neighboring development. The key word here is compatibility. 2 points is for acceptable but standard design. 3 points is for excellent design. This relates to compatibility. There is agrement between Glen and myself that the significant neighboring development that we need to be compatible with is the adjacent Chance Subdivision. We are proposing single family dwellings some with caretaker units. That is exactly the same as the Chance. We are proposing with the assistance of the Chance architect design controls since it is not our intention to build. This is a land subdivision. We don't feel that there need to be a penalty because you are developing a subdivision rather than building homes. The opportunity there to be compatible is to use the architect that designed the Chance dwellings to instigate design control in order that the 1001 project emulates, compliments and enhance this quality project of the Chance Subdivision. These design controls were assured the same general character, height, interior uses and roof lines. I don't know how we could be more compatible short of actually constructing the buildings. We did not need to put in that whole requirement for covenants in design control. It is a pain in the neck when you are selling lots. We only put it in because we think it will make a better subdivision and we think you need to recognize that and give us the points for it. The design in general and the FAR in this category under this criteria and we suggest that is not the issue in this section, that is the issue in the next section called site design. What the issue is here is compatibility with the neighboring property and we feel we have earned 3 points. Joe said that site design focuses on the character of the proposed landscaping and open space, the undergrounding of 13 utilities and the efficiency of circulation. Apparently there is still some misunderstanding about the amount of open space provided. As we pointed out last week the open space commitment for the City portion of the site exceeds 50% of the site. The Planning Office said 33% of the site. That does not include the tennis courts which technically do not count in the open space calculation. I want to remind you that there is no open space requirement in the R-15 zone category. We believe this merits at least a 2 as an acceptable design particularly in comparison to 700 East Hyman which merited a recommended score of 3 for 40% open space. In regard to the issue of ownership of the County open space, the parcel outside the City limits we had proposed to retain the ownership in the homeowner's association name generally for maintenance purposes. We thought the City would perceive that as an advantage to have the homeowners maintaining it rather than the City. If the City feels strongly that they would like that portion of the site dedicated, we are prepared to dedicate that portion of the site. Glenn apparently feel we have not made a commitment to not do one story structures. If I have misunderstood what he was asking for in our phone conversation let me make it perfectly clear that we have no intention of doing one story structures on the site and we thought that was clear from the elevations provided with the submi ttal. John said the criteria on the issue of energy is the consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar or solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation energy in the use of solar energy sources. 2 points is for acceptable absol utely standard design. 3 points is for excellent design. The Planning Office emphasizes the lack of specificity. Some of these homes may not be constructed for 5 or 10 years. How can we be more specific? The state of the art is constantly changing. Mention is made of the relatively shady site. To quote the Roaring Fork Energy Center's remarks "The overall energy strategy for 1001 Residential GMP Submission looks good." I also want to make sure everyone understands the meaning of our statement that the 1001 residences "will be required to exceed the City's design standard of a maximum heat loss of 18 BTUs per hour per square foot and outside design temperature of -IS degrees fahrenheit". In an interview with Rob Wain of the Building Department, just to handle this subject-just to get the real facts from the Building Department as to what is going on-what are the top standards, he suggested that this not only was the most restrictive of the City standards, it is the most contemporary way of looking at heat load, particularly in a changing market where the state of the 14 art is changing so quickly. In the insulation standards we will be in excess of 25% of the City's standards. The 1010 Ute Avenue project proposed 25% above minimum standards and received 3 points. We argue that we are well within that range if not above. Joe Wells said on the matter of greenspace, Glen continues to emphasize that the 4 acre parcel in the County is unsuitable for development. We agree with that and that is precisely why we feel it is so advantageous to tie it up now in the event the rules change in the future, it will be nice to have that taken care of. One reason there is so much emphasis placed on the need for bonus points is because of what can be argued as some unfair advantage by residential applicants in terms of the employee housing requirement relative to other categories. The residential applicant is disadvantaged in three ways. The employee housing points represent 33% of the total relative to 29, 16 and 14% of the total in other categories. He must house at least 35% of the population of the project as opposed to 35% of the employees generated by the project which is a much stricter standard. In the other categories, the applicant has the flexibility to provide low to moderate middle income housing mix. In the residential competition, you have to provide low income in order to be limited to 35% if you want a proper moderate income, the percentage of your total project population jumps to 70% etc. So I think that is why so many people are insisting that the bonus points are an essential part of the scoring category when 33% of the points are associated with employee housing. PROJEC'l' HI OOl POBfrIe- HEARING Ed Zasacky speaking in behalf of the Neal Meyers Development for Aspen Chance. We have some problems with this project in terms of neighborhood compatibility being that we feel we are the neighborhood in large part. For one, some technical problems we have with the application. The applicant has proposed to loop the water system. For that a 2 is recommended. However we believe this is inappropriate since Aspen Chance water system is currently a private system and, therefore, the applicant cannot loop without our approval which he has not received. I don't see, therefore, how he is improving the quality of service in the area. The second concern that we have is in the recommended score for parking design. The applicant has committed to parking all cars in the subdivision and has also proposed guest parking spaces to accommodate visitors. So this commitment by applicant should IS receive a I as opposed to a 2 since the improvements he is proposing benefit only the project and not the area in general. The 1010 Project across the street provided public parking spaces that improves the area. Public parking is a commitment that should receive a 2. Whereas the commitment this applicant is making only deserves a I. In addition there is required parking for the tennis courts along Ute Avenue. I see utilization of this parking as a potential goal dipping of new parking and required parking which they are receiving a score for. The major flaw in the project relates to site design and green space. We believe the site design should receive a I as recom- mended by the Planing Office because of the massing on site, maximization of FAR density and the fact that almost all of the open space that they are proposing is unusable. The applicant has attempted to clarify the massing issue by showing or by discussing the use of two story buildings. However, without a deed restriction requiring that, you cannot be sure how the massing will look. Therefore, you have to score as previously presented. The deed restriction at this time would not be allowed because that is not a technical clarification. Even if it were all two story, its visual impacts would be negative because of the high profile that the two stories would create. The solution to the massing issue isn't one or two stories, it is one less unit. I also believe that I as opposed to a 2 is appropriate for greenspace. The 4.13 acres of land within the county that is being proposed as open space is meaningless. That land is unusable and cannot be utilized. Of the roughly 38,000 sq. ft. of land that is to be retained in the City as open space, the vast majority of that is the tennis court and the spaces between the buildings. There is no true usable open space on the project. Again one less unit could solve this problem too. To us, the number of units being proposed is a major design flaw of both the site design and green space and consider those major design flaws as deserving a I instead of 2s. There was a statement in there that Aspen Chance has no usable open area. You can see that in no part of Aspen Chance, which is the same width as 1001, are there any more than two houses across the property at any given point. In addition there are 4 separate benches in Aspen Chance. There is the Ute Avenue level, a level at lot 5 in the Alps tennis courts, higher middle level of lots 3 and 4 and again a higher level at lots 7 and 6. Where the houses as shown there have 20 to 25 feet of distance between them, our houses never get closer than possibly 50 feet and in most cases there is 50 foot proximity. There is also vertical separation of an additional 20 to 30 feet. So as people who will be living there, I don't think these people will agree that this site is compatible. Again one less unit would help that a lot. 16 Welton asked if there were more public comments. Chuck Brandt representing Michael Dingman who owns a home in the Aspen Chance subdivision on lot 6 which is in the third tier that Ed just alluded to and also a lot in the Aspen Chance lot I off of Ute Avenue. And I think really that Ed has said it all. I simply wanted the Board to understand that there is at least one owner in the Aspen Chance who shares those concerns and is quite concerned about the density of this project. Andy Hecht. I represent John Nichols who owns a lot and a house in the Aspen Chance and joins in the protest. Welton asked if there was any more public comment. none. He closed the public hearing. There was John Doremus said the water line was proposed as a recommendation from the City Water Department. The density is almost identical, please listen to this, one dwelling unit per .43 acres-IOOI, one dwelling unit per .47 acres in the Chance, almost identical. Any argument about the density is inaccurate. Mari Peyton asked if this included the tennis courts or not. Joe said it does include the tennis courts which were a part of this application. He said on the matter of parking, the standard is consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the proposed development. On the plat which Ed showed you, he identified the gray areas as open space areas. You should know that there are considerable roads in those gray areas that he has identified as open space. The Board then proceeded with scoring. M60NTJtlN- VfiW-RESIDENTIAL Steve Burstein said this project consists of 58 units and it is located above Dean Drive. Aspen and Garmisch Streets are the main connecting streets. The grade of Aspen Street from Durant Street to the entrance is just less than 10% and the grade up to the Aspen Ski Company parking is about ll%. We recognize that this general site has advantages for some kind of development. The applicant has made in many ways a lot of good commitments. However we feel the problems stem from the density, the size of the buildings and the impacts on the neighborhood as well as the open space. In the area of public facilities and services, we have made a number of notes in those areas. The water system and the system 17 both receive certain improvements and we feel they deserve 2 points in those areas. Regarding storm drainages, they have also committed to do certain improvements including drywells, curb and gutter and a 20' drainage easement. We recommend a 2 on that as well. Regarding fire protection they have provided two fire hydrants and an upgrade to the system. We feel that those are improvements deserve a 2. The area of parking design is where there is some disagreement. We have noted that they are providing a 124 space underground garage, 24 spaces are above ground. We consider this really auto intensive and in fact is an incentive to use cars because they are far above what is required. Only 58 spaces are required and just the garage alone they are providing 66 additional spaces. So we suspect that the intended use is for something different going on on this site or almost a public parking. If you can remember in the TDP process there was a decision early on that there should not be major parking south of Durant Street. We feel that this is contrary to that plan and that there are a lot of problems because of it. We also note that AFC spaces at the top of Aspen Street are particularly hard to get to and that their serviceability is questionable for that reason. We also note that there is too much paving and curbing services and visual impacts created because of that. For these reasons we feel that zero points should be awarded in that category and that there are indeed additional public burdens because of this. In the area of roads we note that the level of density creates particular problems where a smaller project might be manageable. In regard to the steep grades, it is evident to anyone going up South Aspen Street in the winter time there is a problem. On Sunday I was there and noted a van stopped at the mine dumps and a car coming behind it was unable to have the momentum and also stopped and had to back all the way to Dean Street. At the same time there were pedestrians with ski boots walking the middle of the road. That is a typical situation on the way up to Lift One. And that was late in the afternoon after the snow had been cleared. We note that the Aspen\Durant intersection is commonly identified as a problem. Bringing this size of development and a parking garage up there will necessitate parking at that intersection. Also Garmisch Street which would be one of the main arterials to this is not designed as an arterial and goes through the neighborhood. There is a concern as to whether this will have a negative impact on this quiet neighborhood. 18 __._______.,,_~_.., _~.H_._"~_._...__.~__._'.=.~~__..,._______.____........_.___."_. The Barbee property would not have a publ ic access because the roads will be privately owned and maintained. That is the problem the Barbees have with the street vacation. We have also recommended zero in this category because we see the additional burdens in that there are some real problems in servicing this area. With regard to neighborhood compatibility we have noted that in comparison to the projects to the north, Lift One and Timberridge, this project is twice the size FAR per foot area than Lift One and it is about 4 times the size of Timberridge. This is a continuation of density further up the hill. We feel that it is not appropriate to bring the density up the hill and not appropriate to the single family neighbors to the west and to the open space on Shadow Mountain and Aspen Mountain. We feel that there is a flaw there and recommended a score of I in this area. In the area of site design, there are some positive features with the abundant trees and the siting the projects in the middle of the property. However there is a great deal of impervious surface with the parking circulation, the terraces within the project. We feel there is urbanization of the site. We notice that the AFC parking is off site and that is also a design flaw because it is not actually part of this application and is not appropriate to evaluate that without evaluating all the impacts that go with that site. So we recommended a I in that area. In the area of energy, this is not a solar site because of the shade of Shadow Mountain. Despite this their commitment has been very high and the Roaring Fork Energy Center has recognized that their commitments are good. They have wanted additional information and there may be further clarification by the applicant in this area. We recommended a 2 in this area. In the category of trails. They are providing a 12' bike trail, a ski trail easement, Dean Drive and Aspen Street sidewalks. We have noted what appears to be a conflict in two of those alignments along Aspen Street as well as a trail that would go through the trees. There may be some clarification on this commitment. We stated in our review that there is not a commitment to construct all the trails. Doug Allan said there has been some confusion and some conflict between us and the Planning Office relative to philosophical issues. I want to point out for the purposes of your scoring that this site is in the Aspen Base Neighborhood Planning area as defined by the Planning Office in 1984. That is pursuant to the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. As such the neighborhood is "considered to be the major lodging area within the City." That is the type of facility we propose to build in this area. 19 The down scoring by the Planning Office is largely because of philosophical differences in what should be built there. Even the Planning Office begrudgingly agrees that we are vastly improved over last year. Sam Hyatt said the code for Planning and Zoning for this whole approval is very objective in certain areas and becomes much more emotional and much more generic to a specific neighborhood. One of the things that is important about this site and yet difficult is that it is an area that isn't a lodge district, that can handle a larger number of housing units because of the land available, because of the location. You can pick up on a lot of the publ ic amenities and also begin to f ill in an area of your City with additional need. One of the issues we have str ived for, the density issue, is a result of two items. One is the desirability for a number of units, the number of people to house in a convenient location. The other is a type of architecture which begins to condense, urbanize a particular part of the City. The original City plan has it all laid out in lots. Those lots aren't dissimilar from the lots which the Wheeler Opera House sits on or the commercial. The City went into a depression before this was ever built out or this may have traditionally been a larger housing area. We feel that the nature of the project, the type of project and your process allows for a lot of these issues of site design and quality design to continue through your process. Juan Street was deemed as necessary for fire circulation, for public access and for private access. The desirability to relocate that, maintaining a road which continues to service the Barbee residence and\or any circulation up the mountain that may have originally been handled by Juan Street continues to be handled by the Garmisch Street extension. We don't see that as being a major roadway access for our particular project. Our project will enter on the existing City Dean Drive which will continue through on our property, continuing what originally would have been Dean Street through that location had Lift One not vacated that where they built their building. The whole issue of parking is relative to program and program need. We would like to have 58 cars. That is a number that can be negotiated and worked out. In light of the fact of our adj acency to Durant Street, the indication of proposed transit systems in the long term aspects of the project, maybe no parking is necessary. At this particular issue it seemed to indicate that we can't satisfy all of our parking below grade with no impact on grade is significant. The public parking provided along Dean Street is a gesture for the Timberridge and Lift One. The Timberridge is presently parking on the Dean Drive City owned street. That parking would provide something for them in a more orderly fashion. 20 .._~.._-_.._._..-~'-- The site planning and greenspace issues as relative to a transition to a very large mountain, I have to have some quest- ions about. Because of the nature of the hillside I am not sure that a participant, either a pedestrian or an automobile, is going to perceive that additional 10,000 sq. ft. of greenspace when you are at the base of that enormous mountain. I think the way we have tried to use the land is to set the building in a parkscape in a tradition of any mountain resort type facility. There are a lot of options in the detail of how that landscape is used, not only for the project but also for the neighborhood. There is the possibility of creating a garden landscape that may relate to the residential character of the Barbees. In reference to the greenspace there is a very nice park here. It is heavily landscaped. The combination of the whole area may create a richer pictorialism to that aspect of the City that a series of duplexes or oneplexes or single family homes. Luxury housing verses non-luxury housing is a relative issue of economics. In order to provide that economic base to a larger mass of people a more condensed architectural prototype is what allows that. Single smaller individual units because you do have an expensive land base and an expensive construction base in this City. You have to build a larger project to provide a lower income housing unit type in this particular location. Doug Allan said we were scored down last year for a project on this same site for not enough parking. This year we have provided more than adequate parking and the Planning Office scored us down even more for providing excess parking. Nowhere in our proposal did it say anything about this being a public parking garage. That can be covered in the final plat approval that it not be a public parking garage. It is solely for the use of this apartment development. We think the best feature of the parking is that it does have excess rather than deficient capacity. We also think that where we have relocated the Aspen Ski Company parking lot is far superior. It is much easier to drive up that hill than it is to walk up that hill in ski boots and we have moved the parking up the hill closer to Lift One A. 700 East Hyman was scored by the Planning Office with 2 points on their parking due to the fact that they did provide extra parking. We submit that we have provided extra parking. We have an excellent parking plan. It is out of the weather. It is a very real amenity to the proj ect and we still leave 42% open space on the site. We should be entitled to 3 points on parking. The roads go along with this. The Planning Office admits that there is an adequate capacity on both Garmisch and Aspen given their width and traffic volume to handle the additional traffic. The creation of the new Garmisch Circle directs traffic to the 21 project approximately 100 feet up Garmisch Street from Durant in the direction into Dean and then into the garage. The employees and residents related to this project will not be using South Aspen Street to access the project. Rather they will come around the easier grade and go into the garage and access it there. And the lessened grade of Garmisch Circle improves the circulation in the neighborhood. There has been some question about the status of the new Garmisch Circle and Dean Drive. Our proposal very clearly states that these will be dedicated to the public for public use. We thought it would gain us more points by the developer agreeing to maintain privately both of those streets and not put that burden on the City. If that is a perceived problem, we would be happy to dedicate the streets themselves to the City. Relative to the roads, the Engineering Department supports the new Garmisch Circle as the grade substantially improved over Aspen Street and neighborhood circulation is improved. The dedication and maintenance question relative to the road system can be disposed of in the final plat. We feel the new road system is a real benefit to the quality of service in the area. The Barbees, who have sent in a letter about the access to their property as a result of the realignment of Garmisch Circle, have the avail- ability of access at more points than they have at the present time. We feel that the road system merits a score of 2 points. Neighborhood compatibility: We have addressed previous Planning Office comments from last year as well as P&Z comments and reduced both mass and unit count. This is an urban site but we have retained 42% of it as open space. Our FAR ratio is less than any of the surrounding projects to the north. We have more square footage of building. We have a substantially larger tract of land so the ratio of our coverage on FAR is less than any of the projects to the north. We have addressed every item that was criticized in last year's application by lessening the mass, unit count and square footage. By doing so we have created a transition area from the area below up to Lift One and Shadow Mountain and thus created our own buffer zone by concentrating the building elements within the center of the site. The Shadow Mountain is a dense development up the hill as are Lift One, South Point and Timberridge to the north down the hill. The criteria for a neighborhood compatibility relates to these. The Barbees have publicly stated that their land is available for redevelopment. Theirs is a single family house on their property at the present time. All of the other single family houses in the neighborhood in the immediate neighborhood are on our site and will be removed as a result of this development. We feel that this is an excellent design for the recreation accommodation zone as set forth by the policy of the City of Aspen and merits a score of 3 points. Site design is closely interrelated to this and the Planning 22 Office started out in their comments being quite complimentary about many aspects of the site design. In response to last year's comments, we have reconfigured the open space to be more usable and visually available to the general public and substant- ially increased the building setbacks. The Planning Office states that a major design flaw is the location of the Ski Company parking and conflict with mine dump footprints. This statement is not correct. The mine dumps parking for the Aspen Ski Company is without conflict to the existing development on the mine dumps property. With the design alternative for Garmisch Street, we still keep 42% greenspace. The Aspen Ski Company parking is maintained at a better location than it is now. The neighborhood circulation is improved and all of the positive items mentioned in the Planning Office's comments merit a score of 3 for excellent design in this area. Regarding energy you have heard comments from the other appl i- cants here tonight about energy. The Planning Office comments on 1010 Ute Avenue gave them a rating of 3 points for excellent design because they exceeded the standard energy conservation by 25%. The Roaring Fork Energy Center r s report states that we exceed that by 37% but the Planning Office only gave us a score of 2. Mountain View's energy conservation commitment exceeds standards. We feel that our energy commitment gives us a rating of 3. On trails; there is a mistake in Steve's memo to you. I met with Steve after looking at his memo and pointed out to him that his statement that the trails would not be built by the applicant is incorrect. Page 42 of our application specifically states that the trail will be constructed by the applicant to Nordic Council's specifications. Also on page 43 the applicant commits to co-ordinate and perform the construction of the trail improvements based on designs approved by Lodge Improvement District. We were rated down for only dedicating the trail and not building it. Regarding greenspace: Since the criticism received last year, the greenspace is directed more to the front of the project and more to the outside where it will be an amenity to the neighbor- hood and a benefit visually for the general public. 42% is in open space. The Mountain View project is constructed in an urban environment. But it does provide substantial and significant greenspace which provides visually throughout the project. We feel it merits a score of 3 points. MOONTAIIt VIEW RESIDEN"J.'IAL GMP PUBL~--:REARING Steve presented one letter from A. Dellas. 23 Donna Fisher, manager of a building at Shadow Condominiums, said she is concerned about the impact on the neighborhood because of the hill. The density of this development is not workable. People have to race up that street and I personally have been hit twice on that street by cars driving down the hill and people get stuck all the time. They slide right into that intersection. I just can't imagine 58 more units in that neighborhood that high up the hill. I think it is going to create some problems. I do think it is an improvement since last year but it has a long way to go before it is really workable. Ed Zasacky said he thinks the Planning Office is really hammering on this one. He does not see any better location for this density than right where it is at the base of the mountain. The overall philosophical question in the scoring is where you are going to allocate your quota. Are you going to allocate it to second homes that will be used a few weeks of the year or would you allocate it to one-bedroom units that could be used to serve a resort in a location that can't be better. While you mayor may not like the design, this project should not be getting hammered as hard as it is. Rob Small said he wished Sam would show someone how the traffic pattern would actually flow into the project of Garmisch Circle. This may relieve some of the question as to the congestion on Aspen Street. George Shaw said he wanted to set the record straight regarding the fact that he knows nothing about this project other than a conversation years ago. Dave Ellis, representing the Timberridge Condominium Association, said in terms of the Garmisch Circle realignment the specific drawing that has been shown is definitely the same as the one in the book. There is one terrace between the road and the building. By scaling the drawings on submission, the 36 feet required for realignment from the Darby property to the north of the Barbee property would put that road within about 5 ft. of the building without any additional right-of-way clearance for snow storage. This is a major design flaw in that they cannot provide the transit stop as they say. The intersection where or iginally shown would be an improvement but "down here it would be worse than the existing intersection and does not meet the City design standards in terms of subdivision street design standards". There is a minimum offset di stance--you end up with a dogl eg. The traffic and parking impacts on Dean and Garmisch are significant. The Garmisch Street right-of-way at this point is 41 ft. To have angle parking in 24 ft. of travel plus a sidewalk obviously requires more than 41 ft. At present Timberridge Apartment parking occurs about 50% on our property and 50% on the right-of-way. Even 24 taking that into account you are not going to have adequate right-of-way there as they have proposed. The extension of Dean Drive is shown as being head-in and the right-of-way is being proposed to be 50 ft. in width. On page 31 of the application the applicant indicates they are going to construct a 12 ft. pedestrian trail, institute 45 degree angle parking and a 24 ft. paved street. That adds up to using the minimum design standards of 55 ft. of the required right-of-way. If all this parking were found to be necessary, and you were to go to angle parking, you would have to eliminate all the green- space to get the 24 spaces in. Angle parking is 45% less efficient. I agree wholeheartedly with the Planning Office on the relocation of the Ski Company parking lot. On the question of proof of ownership on the property regarding clear title, I would like to state that that does have a bearing and there is a limited number of allocations available. Everyone else has met the minimum number of qualifying prerequisites. Mary Barbee said the Barbees do not feel that vacating Juan Street is to our advantage. I too own property on Juan Street and I don't choose to have Juan Street vacated. It serves the area very well. I would hope that there would be no advantage deemed for Garmisch Circle. I simply does not exist. Welton asked if there was more public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing. Steve Burstein said he wanted to clarify four statements which he did not think were appropriate. There is parking on Dean Drive. That should be cleared. Also it was said the applicants did say that they would dedicate and maintain the streets. That was not in the application. The mine dumps footprints; there is a conflict in the way it is shown. It is not shown as they have shown it on the site plan here. Regarding trails is based on a reimbursement from the Lodge Improvement District. Doug Allan said the parking he referred to as self contained is the parking for the residents and employees. The surface parking is for the benefit of the public and all of our parking is handled underground. On page 67 of our booklet you will see where the parking is. It is not in conflict with any of the existing building on the mine dump property. David White said the applicant had made allusions to the Lodging District and asked if the applicant was going to become a member of the Lodging District. 25 - Doug Allan said that it is stated in our application that we will join the Lodging District. Our trail system and our road system is going to done in co-ordination with the Lodging District. The Commission then proceeded with scoring. Glen Horn said the scoring was done very quickly and that there may be errors. They would be thoroughly checked over to make sure of the totals. The threshold is 3l.8 points. In the event someone is below the threshold they would not continue. If everyone is above the threshold we look at bonus points. Following are points without bonuses: Mountain View 700 E. Hyman 1010 Ute Avenue 1001 Residential 33.79 36.46 36.5 31.67 Allan said bonus points cannot be used to reach threshold. With bonus points the scores are as follows: 1010 Ute Avenue 700 E. Hyman Mountain View 1001 39.7 37.38 There are no bonus points 32.5 Glen Horn said the next question is to make a recommendation to City Council regarding allocation of the quota. There is quota available for the first 2 projects. This year the quota is 22 units. There is carryover of unallocated quota of 35 units from previous years. At the discretion of the City Council based upon P&Z recommendation, they may carryover that quota of 35, they may use it this year or they may wipe it out. It is up to P&Z to make a recommendation as to what you feel the best thing to do is with that quota. It is our recommendation that the past unallo- cated quota of 35 units not be allocated this year. We base that recommendation on two reasons. First is the consideration in allocating quota out of the future years. In the last couple of years in the lodge sector, we borrowed from the future in the lodge sector and we feel that just because we borrowed from the future in the one sector, we should continue to abide by the quota in the residential sector so we don't get out of balance with our quota system in two sectors at the same time. This is based on the fact that we are still trying to maintain a growth rate control system in the City of Aspen as well as Pitkin County. 26 The second consideration we feel you should consider when you are looking at the quota question is that in the near future, we are going to see many changes of uses coming on line that have already been approved. When all of those lodge units were approved in the past couple of years, there were commitments to take existing lodges and change their use from lodge use to residential uses. There are approximately 75 units in the Alpina House, the Copper Horse and The Holiday House which in the future are going to be converted from lodge to residential units. What we would like to do is to preserve the unallocated quota so that we have it available in the future when this change of use occurs so that we don't have to borrow in the future to compensate for these changes in uses which we know are coming on line. Based upon these factors, it is our recommendation that you recommend to Council that they continue to carryover the unallocated quota for the 35 units and the quota that is available, 22 units, be allocated to the top projects in this year's competition. Roger Hunt asked for the number of units in each project. 1010 1001 Mountain View 700 16 Units 3 Units 58 Units 2 Units Allan Richman said there is no requirement that the Commission make a recommendation. There is nothing in the code that states the Planning Commission makes recommendations. Traditionally you have made recommendations and you have also chosen not to make recommendations. The choice is wholly yours. Roger moved to recommend to the City Council that 18 units be allocated to 1010 and 700 and that the remaining units go into the unallocated reserve and that the unallocated portion not be allocated this year. Allan said that of the 22 available this year, all must be allocated. Roger Hunt moved that City Council allocate the 22 available units this year to the applicants in the order of their scoring. And that the 35 units that are presently unallocated be maintained for the reasons given by the Planning Office. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned at 7:45. ~. .!1: --- ~~~ ~-- Ja ce M. Carn , City Dep y Clerk 27