Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19881101 r ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 1. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Answering roll call were Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Jim Colombo, Mari peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Graeme Means arrived at 5:05. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Jim said he would be leaving at 5:00 in order to attend a county Board of Adjustments meeting after which he would return. Roger Hunt: The Hotel Aspen which we approved 9 years ago has just put on its new addition in the back. In that new addition is this contraption up on top on almost a steeple or smoke stack. It is some sort--apparently an exhaust blower. The thing is hideously loud by itself but it is even punctuated by the fact they have got loose meet metal that buzzes on top of it. This isn I t quite the thing to have in a residential zone so I have contacted Cindy on it and she has taken action to get this thing corrected. Welton: How did that addition get built? Did they enlarge some rooms? Roger: That was originally approved and then they kept getting extensions on the approval. I do remember during approvals that we were sensitive to the fact that the back end of the Hotel Aspen is in the R-6 zone. And we were sensitive to what was going to be back there particularly industrial sounds that belong in SCI zone and not in the residential zone. Mar i: I noticed that we still have headless lamp posts on Rubey Park after a year. Is that always the way it is going to be? Roger: I have been after that too. Apparently there is lamp head to put on it. The Engineering Department knows it and their are trying to figure out what to do with it. ran out of matching lamp heads from one supplier. Jasmine: Alan, did you have a chance to check out on that trail on ute? not a about They Alan: No, it was not a required trail by the applicant as part of the PUD. They originally offered to put the trail in mostly on public property. The trail meanders on and off private and public property. They offered as part of the Growth Management package to put that trail in. The feeling by the Commission and the Council was it was more important to get the trail dedication and trail construction through the PUD which we did get the one PZMll.I.88 along the road that connects the PUD out to ute Avenue. We really wanted that active trail installed and since the other trail the one down by the river basically meanders mostly on public property that the city could if it so chose go in and install it. The developer's offer to install was not a big deal. The real big deal on that property was getting the r-o-w, getting the easement, getting the trail across the property. So they were not required to install the trail. The issue, I think, that you have raised that we need to resolve is whether the house in terms of where it is sitting does not only cover the trail but in fact block it. We feel that the results of the construction that the trail is going to be capable of being replaced. It should be. Jasmine: And the bridge will connect the trail that goes through 1010 ute? Alan: That is my under standing. But it was actually not a requirement that they install the trail nor that they grant us a trail easement along that area. The main trail that we have been discussing and finally requiring is the one on the ute Avenue side of the site--the community trail as we call it. Mari: My recollection of it was that we did have that r-o-w already--or that easement. That easement was there and the only thing that they were offering was to actually construct the trail on the easement that was already there. So I am very concerned that the easement is no longer there. Alan: No. The easement is definitely still there. The question is whether they put the building envelope sitting on top of the trail or do you simply see debris from excavation that has made it appear that the trail is not there. Once the site is cleared up after construction the trail will once again be there. Jasmine: And there will public access along the river? Alan: Yes. Mari: Behrhorst said "NO, there will be no trail there". Alan: I know that he said that at the meeting that we held on the site and he is incorrect. Michael: that? If he is incorrect, is anybody going to follow up on Alan: Yes. Us. We have got a substantial bond in terms of the landscaping on the site. Those always come in as part of PUDs 2 PZMll.I.88 and if we are not satisfied with the way it is cleaned up and the trail goes along and all of a sudden there is a huge pile that used to be the ground--we certainly have the money in house to clean it up. There is no reason we can't get the trail restored. Welton: zone? Alan, are house trailers a permitted use in the SCR Alan: I doubt it. I only know of them being allowed in MHP-- mobile home park zone. We can't prohibit manufactured housing from being built in residential zones. That is a state law but a trailer I don't believe is allowed anywhere but in MHP zone. Welton: There is one on Spring street. There are 2 of them in there. They look pretty permanent because they have pink flamingos and flower beds. Alan: I will have Bill Drueding investigate that. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. RESOLUTIONS 88-12 AND 88-13 COMMENDATION FOR DAVID WHITE AND RAMONA MARKALUNAS MOTION Roger: I move to adopt Resolution 88-12 and 88-13. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. DISPLACEMENT/AFFORDABLE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENTS CONTINUED PUBLIC BEARING Welton re-opened the public hearing. Alan: Applicability: After our discussion last week about how to deal with substantial demolition or partial demolition vs. rehabilitation and alteration, I finally decided that the cleanest way to handle it was to come up with separate definitions for demolition and then substantial alteration which would then allow the City to write separate standards for what would apply under demolition and when you did a substantial alteration that looks and sounds like demolition but couldn't actually be called demolition. I did that so that the standards could be different because we really came up with innovative ideas as to what the standard would be last week--that payment in lieu idea. Then what happens 3 PZMll.I.88 if Council decides they want to eliminate it. This is very severable. The rest of the regulation can live if this is taken out of it. And if we are challenged in court over either of these provisions, the whole ordinance doesn't go down if we go too far. Michael: The last sentence of applicability on page 4 works away from where you are looking to go. I am not in favor of this ordinance. For example--if you had a 1,700 sqft house in a zone where you could add 700 sqft to it and somebody turned around and was going to do an 80% demolition, they would be subject to the ordinance. But if they add 700 sqft then they are exempt from the ordinance. Is that what you really want to do? It would seem to me that what you want to do is not compute the addition. Alan: Yes. That is correct. what I am suggesting there is that 700 sqft that you are talking about is comparing to the 1,700. Michael: Shouldn't it be that the area that is added is not computed in determining 75% as the original area? Because when there are additions to the original floor area of the unit, the area of the addition shall be used in determining whether the 75- -it should read that the area that is added is not computed in determining 75% as the original area. After further discussion it was determined the wording shall be-- replace "shall be used" with "shall be compared to the original floor area". This at the end of the 3rd paragraph, page 4. Alan: One thought I had was to be able to get at substantial demolition--demolition that effectively takes the unit down for all respects except it might leave up a wall or even less. I was able to get at that in the definition of demolition alone. We talk about it dismantled to raze such that the unit is no longer habitable. All that the second substantial alteration, remodeling or reconstruction then gets at is somebody who is doing I of 2 things. Either somebody who is wrapping a building around a smaller building or somebody literally coming in and appointing something with the marble bathtubs or something of that nature. If either of those 2 things is your greatest fear, we may be able to drop this whole alteration/remodel approach and just go with the demolition definition and have an ordinance that you are go ing to get a lot less publ i c coming in and screaming. The demoli tion definition goes further than I thought it would and maybe we don't need this alteration. 4 PZMll.I.88 Brian Harper: Example: You have a family with a I, 700 sqft house. They want to add a family room and another bedroom which they need with a growing family. They want to do a 700 ft addition. Does this ordinance require them to build an additional unit to that? Alan: It is an option. They do a 700 ft addition--no. If they affect 75% of the original floor area, they have 2 choices. They can build a caretaker unit or they can put in a restriction on the unit--on their home. They write a restriction on their home saying "We agree that this house will only be occupied by residents or employees of the community ie people that live and work here". And they are exempt. Brian: So they have limited their market. Alan: They have limited their resale market to employees of the community. Not price, not income, just the occupancy. Brian: But then nobody will buy the house. Alan: That is what I am saying--just how far do we want to take this ordinance? Brian: I ask you to really think about this because the people who are working in the community could barely afford to do the addition. Now you have doubled the cost by requiring them to build another unit in a single family neighborhood. Bill Dunaway: Oh no. You can just say that only residents will live there. You are a resident--you can live there. Jim: But suppose someone wants to move into the community. They are buying a home in order to move into the community. They have to establish the fact that they are a resident prior to the time of purchase. How do you do that? You can't. So you are preventing possible residents from coming into the community. Michael: Alteration section: The dwelling unit that you refer to--that is any dwelling unit regardless of whether it is a mUlti-family, single family or duplex? Alan: That is correct. Michael: The other thing is whose choice are these options? Alan: The owners. Michael: So now we are going to get back into the fact that you 5 ~-',--~ PZMll.I.88 can have cash-in-lieu not at city Council's direction but at the owner's option. Alan: In this case, yes. Michael: Then why wouldn't we make that same option available in a demolition? Alan: Because I think it is clear that if people have the opportunity to buyout the requirement to provide that, they will. And the whole direction in this ordinance has been to try to have the private sector producing affordable housing on-site to a degree which is feasible. Mar i: In the case we were just di scussing--when we said such families were exempt, does that mean that now you are saying that they would have to restrict their house at the time they did the alteration-- Alan: That is the only way they become exempt. Mari: So it is really not an exemption. Alan: No. The way this has been written, we have accomplished substantial alteration and addition into the concept of demolition out of a concern that people will use alteration or remodels to avoid ever being effected by the demolition regulation. I think we can go far enough with the demolition definition that maybe we don't need to do that. Maybe we test it with the definition of demolition. I am afraid it is more of a reach than people in this community will stand for and either the whole ordinance will go down on that basis or a lot of the positive things that we have done here will get lost in that discussion. Jim: In general whether it is alteration or demolition if the home were restricted that they could only sell it to a resident. Alan: Right. Jim: Suppose those owners who had lived here 10 years and operated a business here decided that they wanted to spend part of their year in Miami Beach? Would they be forced to sell their home? Alan: No. They would be forced to do the payment that would be required had they never put the restriction on it. Essentially they would be breaking that restriction, lifting it and saying "OK, now we are subject to the other limitation". There has got to be a way to get out of it. 6 PZMll.I.88 Jim: So they would be punitively dealt with some fee basis because they decided to-- Brian: Who can buy these properties if you are restricting it? welton: Anybody can buy it. If it is going into the second home market then the person that buys it is going to be responsible for putting in a unit into the house or cash-in-lieu. Alan: We don't care who it is. It has to be a person that lives and works here 30 hours a week 9 months of the year. That is a resident. Brian: You have got a single family neighborhood, free market. These people have paid the price to buy. They have not bought subsidized housing--have not had subsidized interest. They have paid the price for free market. They have lived in the community maybe for 17 years. They are ready now to do an addition on their house. They have a growing family. Look what you are doing to them. You are essentially saying "OK, you are going to have to sell if you can't afford to do a double addition". You have doubled the price of the addition. Jasmine: No you haven't. Brian: Why haven't you? If the 700 or 900 sqft addition--if it puts you over the 75%, you are required to provide cash-in-lieu or build another unit. Jasmine: Not as long as you are living in it. Or deed restrict it to a resident. Brian: You deed restrict it to a resident. What have you done then? who is going to buy it? A working man cannot afford to buy it. A school teacher cannot afford to buy a free market unit. Its the economics of the community we are in. We are way beyond that. Mari: That is just what we are trying to fix. Alan: Maybe we are trying to affect the economics. It has gone haywire. We understand that. And it is our job to intervene in the market that has gone beyond the ability of the community. Brian: There is no way you can do that. You cannot. There is no way. Bill: I don't understand the objection to deed restricting to a permanent resident. 7 PZMll.I.88 Brian: I can tell you the objection. It cuts your marketability at least in half. Bill: That is the idea. Brian: These are not subsidized units. These are free market that people have paid the price for, have owned for a number of years. Bill: The problem with Aspen today is everybody is getting on the bandwagon to make the most money out of their property and the whole community is suffering. Brian: That is not the case. The effect of this is going to be to drive people out because they can't do an addition. Jasmine: I think you are misinterpreting what was said. If the family is expanding and they want to do the addition--as long as they continue to live in the house they qualify as residents. There is no reason why they can't do this addition. They don't have to pay a fee. They don't have to pay cash-in-lieu. They don't have to build another unit. Brian: They have got to deed restrict it to somebody who can't afford to buy it. Jasmine: If, in fact, they want to sell it. people who are living in the community who want to do an addition or improve their property for their own personal use are not penalized. The only thing that is happening is that the amount of speculation that they get if and when they decide to sell will be restricted. It does not affect people who plan to stay and live in this community. Brian: Everybody sooner or later is going to move on and going to need to sell their house. If you put a deed restriction on it, you may not be doing it now. It may be 10 years or more. If you put a deed restriction on it, it is going to affect the ability to sell it. Jasmine: Exactly. Michael: An example of what this gentleman is trying to say is if you took 2 houses that have 1,700 sqft that were occupied by residents and one of them wanted to expand it to the point that he was subjected to the ordinance and he agreed to deed restrict it and the other one didn't and they lived there for another 7 years, the one who didn't do anything to his house who had been there as long as the guy who did do something to his house, could 8 PZMll.l.88 turn around and sell as a free market unit and may get $750,000 or $850,000. We live in a free country where people are entitled to sell their property for the best value they can. The guy who went ahead and fixed up his house a little bit is now restricted to selling it to a resident and there is no resident who can afford $850,000. So if he does want to sell it to somebody, he has to sell to somebody who can only afford $250,000. That is the difference. That is where the effect of this ordinance comes in. If that is what you are looking to do then that is fine. But what you are accomplishing is #l you are never going to get anybody to fix up their house because the minute they fix up their house to the point where they are subject to the ordinance, they are giving away 3/4 of the value of their property. The ordinance, to me, just doesn't make any sense at all. I do think the Planning Office has done a phenomenal job of trying to come up with something that works in the situation. It is just illogical to me. What you are going to do is penalize people who are living here who have a house and I don't know what you accomplish by doing that. Jasmine: What this resolution is really aimed at is to try to preserve the community for people who want to stay here and live here. And the ultimate price of what happens when they sell or if they sell is really something that goes on down the line. We are trying to deal with the problem that is existing in the community today of making sure that this becomes not a community of just millionaire second homes. That is what this ordinance is all about. We may have to make some refinements on it because it may cause undue hardships on people that it is not intended to apply to. But this is a very good approach to the problem. Rick Neiley: I tend to agree with what Mick says and with what Brian says. But it seems to me that of you are going to err one way or the other, it ought to be on the side of the people who want to do some remodeling or development on their own homes and not come back and say "If we are too harsh on them down the road, we can change it". I think the attitude of this ordinance ought to be if we find that the ordinance doesn't work well enough, we can come back and reconsider it rather than putting the burden on the homeowner to come back in and say this doesn't work. An ordinance like this has a real potential to have a negative impact on the typical homeowner in Aspen. Someone who has bought a house here over the last few years and maybe wants to upgrade 9 PZMIl.1.88 it--the potential for a negative impact on that person is really great. This Board ought to be directing its attention towards trying to minimize that impact and saying if we can't come up with an ordinance that works right now we have an option to look at it down the road. But that requires your citizenry to come back in and say this is hurting us too much, please change it. That is too much of a burden on individuals out there that have no ability to realistically get together to form a group and come before a board like this and present any kind of logical case. I have got a lot of other problems with this ordinance. This is one that really strikes home to me. I have got an expanding family. I can see myself in exactly this kind of situation. I feel real threatened by it. I bought a house 2 years ago that was rented for many years and was essentially trashed. I have been spending a lot of time working on it and I can see a lot of other people in that kind of situation. It is threatening to me because I feel that at some point I would like to sell it and get as much as I can out of it and buy another house in this community that is maybe in a more desirable location or a more desirable house. It would seem to me that this is likely to impair my ability to do that. It is liable to reduce the market place or the people in the market by saying that it has got to be residential. My concern is not so much that. My concern is being able to improve my living and my life style here. This seems to really impair it and in a way that I don't necessarily see it as being justifiable. There are a lot of provision in this ordinance as a whole which create--whether you call it incentives or inducements or penalties. If you don't provide affordable housing which we ought to take a look at as far as whether or not they are successful over the next couple of years before you put this kind of burden on your existing really middle income property owners. This seems to represent a real threat to those people and to me. I think you should err on not putting something like this in with the thought that you may have to come back and implement it down the road if you find that the other provisions don't work. Welton: To summarize where we are I think you are saying that this alteration/remodeling can either be deleted by us now and City Council later or we can enact it and see what is going to happen. 10 PZMIl.1.88 Alan: If we just drop it right now, it will leave some openings in the ordinance--Ioopholes--for ways that people can substantially alter a building and get out of the principle home market to the second home market. Maybe that is not the end of the world if a limited number of people choose that option. If we see that is what everybody is doing and the ordinance having no effect on the market then we have got a problem but I hate to penalize as many people as we are going to. I just know we are going to catch a huge number of people in this wide net that we don't want to. It is either going to be the death of the ordinance at Councilor if it gets enacted we will all doubt the validity of this provision. I think we have gone far enough with the demolition definition. Welton: I tend to agree with you. I think the Council is going to react to the emotional outcries of the public during the public hearing and is liable to eviscerate the whole ordinance. Mari: tough. down. I wonder if we shou ldn' t er r on the side of being too You know when Council gets it they are going to cut it Michael: I would like to see us delete it. The way it is written right now somebody who has got the bucks can get around it to begin with. So all we are doing is just making this one more thing in Aspen that is only affordable by people who have money. A family who has got enough money to pay the cash-in-lieu payment is going to avoid the consequences. The family who doesn't have the money to pay that is not going to be able to avoid the consequences. Bruce: I must say that at this point you probably don't have a consensus. In spite of valiant efforts by Alan and the rest of the staff and by this Commission and in spite of our concerns about employee housing and the displacement problem, we all recognize that that is a problem, I would vote no on the ordinance even with the deletion for the following reasons: I think, at best, it sends a mixed signal to the community. On the one hand we have concerns about growth and our burgeoning growth. I don't think this resolution deals with that. In fact I think it encourages growth. I think it does not solve or ameliorate the real problem with displacement. It attempts to. I don't think it really solves it. I think it does away wi th GMP because in effect at least at a minimum doubles density. You have got single family houses being forced to go duplex by adding the caretaker unit or some other restriction. 11 PZM11.I.88 It irrevocably changes the character of the neighborhoods--single family neighborhoods into duplex neighborhoods--duplex neighborhoods into quadplex neighborhoods. And as has been discussed in our previous meetings I think there are some real problems about constitutionality. I think it may place unreasonable restraints on alienation--transferability of property. And for all of those reasons I must say that I will vote against this ordinance. I am concerned about our problems. I am concerned about the work that Alan has done. I understand that we have got a charge from City Council to address the problem. But I don't think we have done anything to solve the problem in this ordinance. Roger: I am in favor of dropping the alteration paragraph. I do like in the demolition which in effect covers really alterations is that the unit is no longer habitable. prevents a remodel leaving a 2 X 4 sticking in the air. what major This Not having a 2 market system right now is pushing a lot of residents out of town. Residents can't afford to compete in the single market system in this area. It is not what I like but I don't see a better solution. We do have to deal with the problem of potentially doubling the density. I can't handle the potential of doubling the number of home owners in a neighborhood. That is through the condominiumization allowance which I am adamantly opposed to. That allowance causes me not to support the ordinance. It is only that so far. Marty Schlumberger: In Mountain Valley this was tried a number of years ago when Kinsley made all the illegal units legal out there. And the reaction of the people at Mountain Valley in the subdivision was horrendous. That is because of the fact of the number of people that now live there, the number of cars that are parked, the snowplowing, the fire--all those types of situations. It seems to me if you are going to increase this in the downtown area that the impact is going to be surmount compared to what this is going to be. All of these employees have car s, motorcycles and boats. And when you put all of this downtown-- all that impact in a very tight area--well, Mountain Valley residents didn't like it at all. Frank Peters: On the condominiumization issue I think if you are going to do it you have got to let them condominiumize it. If you are going to force somebody into building an accessory dwelling unit on their property you have to give them ability to sell it and give them a little bit more control over who is there than if they just have to rent. And then if they can't find a suitable renter the Housing Authority is going to come in and put somebody in. I think condominiumization is going to be the one thing that is going to make the whole thing palatable. 12 ~-- PZM11.I.88 welton: Bruce is going to vote against the ordinance. Roger is going to vote against it if we don't take the condominiumization out. Mickey is going to vote against it. Let's take a straw poll to see who else is going to vote against it. Assuming we are going to drop the alterations who else is going to vote against it? The vote was 4 for the ordinance and 3 against. Alan: Demolition: Of course this will be changed now and we won't have a subsection A and B. That is the last 2 paragraphs in Section 5-702 and subsection B of 5-703 will not be in this ordinance. In Section 5-703 A we mention the term Resident Occupied Units which I find also on page 9. It is not a new requirement in the ordinance. It simply for the first time I defined this thing of what it means a qualified employee only occupied unit. The suggestion was made looking at the FAR sliding scale where we have got the 75% and the 100%--you can get to the 100% by either having an accessory unit on the property or having the deed restricted affordable housing unit--a price and income restricted unit. They said "Do you also want to let somebody have 100% of the FAR if they restrict it as to occupancy"? I think it is your intention that those units qualify in all ways to meet our requirements so they ought to qualify for the FAR as well. Hopefully you will agree with that concept. eligible for the FAR. Michael: what I don't understand is if you opted to build a smaller house, you are still stuck into this ordinance by somehow having to provide it when you sell it to a non-resident anyway. There is no way to build a smaller house and escape the provisions in the ordinance. They should be Alan: Sure there are. For someone who has a vacant piece of land right now and in no way is affected by this ordinance and wants to build a single family house, they can choose to build at 75% FAR or 100% FAR. Someone remodeling a house that exists, they can choose a 75% or a 100%. The only time that they are affected by the provisions of this ordinance is when they choose to demolish the residence. The effect of this new sliding scale will be to make anybody who is above the 75% and doesn't have affordable housing effectively non-conforming. But the only impact in terms of the code is you can't get any bigger. You can remodel, alter in any way that does not increase the non-conformity. 13 PZM11.I.88 /" Frank Peters: If this goes to City Council one of the things I think is wrong with it is that I think it is going to preclude a lot of people that have lived in this town for a long time that will not fit into the Housing Authority guidelines. And just because they may not be an employee, they may not work but they may have lived here for 40 years--they are not going to rent one of these units. A definition should be made for resident as opposed to employee and make these things restricted to residents. That will include everybody that lives here whether they fit under the employee housing guidelines or whether they don't. Michael: One of the things that really bothers me about this ordinance is the fact that I still think we are building smaller employee units than garages. I think this is unfair. It looks horrible and I think creates a caste system of employees who are living in the little doll houses. If we are willing to recognize that somehow you have got to have demolition, then why don't we have a fee where somebody can pay to the Housing Authority a cash-in-lieu. Make that an option. At least then you don't have to build that small house. If you are going to sell the property, you can afford to bump the price for whatever that fee is. I don't know if I am in favor of that but I am certainly in favor of that over this ordinance. At least give the person looking to demolishing the house the option of being able to do that. That would let the Housing Authority, which really should have the responsibility to provide housing, somehow provide proper housing for people in this town. It may not be the fairest thing in the world but it certainly is fairer than this. Alan: To this point we have been pushing the creation of these units on site in the hope of disbursing employee housing throughout the community. The Housing Authority's most likely solution on given cash and given the fact that they are not going to go out and do 20 or 30 projects at a time--2 or 3 is a full plate for the Housing Authority. They are going to try and get the most bang for the buck with those projects. They will be at the Marolt Dorm or they will be an addition to the Red Roof. They are not going to be what we are really trying here which is to bring some life back into the neighborhoods in town that are dying in several seasons of the year. I have been an advocate for requiring those units on site. I think that is the most appropriate answer. Welton: I agree. 14 PZMIl.1.88 Alan: The definition of who is a qualified person for resident occupied unit. I used the Housing Authority's guidelines because these were adopted by City Council. The 3 categories are #l the person who works 30 hours a week 9 months of the year. This takes into account the person who seasonally goes away in the Spring and Fall but works the Summer and winter. #2 a senior so it brings hypothetical case somebody who has been 40 years if they are 60 years of age or older by definition. #3 a handicapped person. You can come up with a residency criteria if you so choose. Discussion was then held on establishing what qualifies a person for resident occupied units. Bruce: I would like to hear Alan's explanation of this ordinance. Since we are an advisory board and this has a legal effect only when Council does something with it, I might be inclined to let it go to Council for them to do whatever they want with it so that we have showed them we have satisfied our charge to send something to them. Alan: There is a provision in the City Land Use Regulations which says that once the Commission passes a resolution, nothing that would be prohibited by that resolution can be granted a building permit for a 6 month period or until the City Council shall act to either approve or deny that action. Do you want to change the definition of resident occupied unit in any way shape or form? Roger: I would like to see it include the ability by the Housing Authority on their judgement taking into consideration such things as record of where they have voted, where they pay taxes and so on leaving it open ended--Iet them make the judgement as to whether that proves the residency. Jasmine was in favor of this option. Mari: I would prefer defining it but I can go along with it too. Graeme: I would rather see it defined unless the Housing Authority has a board that that can be appealed to. Alan: They have that. Graeme: Then I can I support that. Bruce and Michael agreed. 15 PZMIl.1.88 Alan: We will create that criteria and add a second sentence that will say something to the effect of in granting such approval the Housing Authority shall take into consideration where the person is voting, where the person pays taxes, length of residency in the community. The only other thing I did on this was to reverse the sliding scale which took an enormous amount of work. Welton asked for further public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. MOTION Michael: I would like to move that we approve this resolution as amended tonight with one additional stipulation. That is that there be one additional option available and that is the payment of cash-in-lieu to avoid the consequences of the ordinance. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Jasmine: I would move to approve the resolution as amended. Mari seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Graeme Means, yes, Bruce Kerr, no, Michael Herron, no but I think Alan did a fantastic job in working with this difficult problem. I think the ordinance is probably one of the worst pieces of legislation that I have ever seen under any set of circumstances notwithstanding anything that Bush or Dukakis has come up with. Mari, yes, Roger, no for the reason that I have stated before and only that reason, Jasmine, yes, Welton Anderson, yes. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:15pm. . - ~-<-&u{k;---- carni~ c~ty DepuEY Clerk 16