Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890808 ~:xu RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Herron, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Anderson. Graeme Means was excused. Michael Welton COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jasmine: I had asked about the Community Center and the possibility of the city and Housing Authority buying that and using it for employee housing. Has anything further happened on that? Tom: It is a site that we are looking at and seriously considering for affordable housing. Jasmine: If the City and County owned it jointly, it would be a very good experiment. That could certainly be zoned for permanently restricted affordable housing. It is a small enough site that it wouldn't be a big block buster but big enough to see what could be done with it. Tom: We agree. We think that is a very strong possibility. Mari: I know it is too late for this but the Winfield Arms was condominiumized and it went on the market last week. All 28 units were snapped up. I just wonder why the Housing Authority-- I mean that would be a perfect opportunity to provide housing for those kind of people who live here and work here and now it is gone. Tom: One of the options that you all provided for in the Masterplan was to purchase marginal lodges or marginal multi- family structures. Right now the Housing Authority is focused on Red Roof, Marolt etc. I think that is all that they are seeing right now. Mari: If it went through condominiumization-- Jasmine: It wasn't a secret! Mari: As far as I know most of the people who bought were just investors. They weren't people buying to have a place to live. The building when it was sold originally could have been bought for about $50,000 a unit. Jasmine: That is something that should be pursued more actively. PZM8.8.89 Roger: Regarding last night's meeting. I came out of the Council meeting totally confused as to what is happening here. It is the first time I have ever known the city to be the planner for private property. This is a new place for us to be in. I am also confused because Bill stirling said to go ahead with the SPA without prejudice which seemed like the incongruous statement of the century. What is going to happen here? Tom: It was pretty clear last night that the Council was more concerned with the developing plan than to go in there and zone it. They want a community-wide consensus built for the property. Roger: What was this SPA for? The whole process? It was a rather strange process. It was a work session yet not much work got done as far as I was concerned as far as an interchange between City Council and P&Z. If that is a work session--what is the point? I find it very incredible. Welton: I would like to make a suggestion of the Commission that in the hot summer months that we move from the hottest part of the building to the city Council Chambers for our meetings. MOTION Jasmine: I make a motion to that effect. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. BARKER 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW CHOAG) Michael excused himself from this hearing because of a possible conflict of interest. Leslie: staff recommended tabling this application until further information could be provided from the applicant. However I would like to go through the memo on the presentation and then indicate to you where we think the holes are as far as the information needed to make a recommendation on this proposal and then let the P&Z decide whether we have enough information to go forward or to table. 2 PZM8.8.89 Leslie then made presentation as attached in record. staff wanted to see a more lengthy and in-depth report regarding the ability to construct a home on this site that could withstand avalanche forces. There are two pieces of information that were asked for under that tabling memo that staff has not received yet. One being that we asked for specific recommendations from geotechnical engineer as to the ability to construct a house on that slope. Chen has given us those recommendations. We need to know from the applicant as to whether these recommendations are going to be followed. staff had asked for a complete drainage plan of the site and show the impacts of development on the site. A drainage plan was submitted and it did address drainage impacts on the particular site. However there is some concern that it does not address the Forest Service property down here and what happens to drainage down there. We are recommending that the Forest Service review a plan and sign off a drainage plan that also addresses their property. The 8040 criteria addresses this particular proposal. There are 2 outstanding issues that are in conflict with the 8040 review. The first is the road. The road right now is a utility and public trail easement. The Nordic Council feels that they have invested a lot of time and money in it. The city has invested money into upgrading this road as a nordic trail and there is quite a bit of concern regarding vehicular access on that road and that road being used as a trail easement for nordic skiers and also hikers and bikers in the summer time. There is also concern from abutting property owners on lots 4 and 5 that that access was never intended for vehicular access and they are concerned about traffic. The applicant has proposed to widen the road and to essentially go in 12 feet along the road so that access is totally on lot 3 and is not on lots 4 and 5. Staff has concern regarding whether that would take care of the conflictual problem with the trail easement and vehicular access. And also the idea that if it is necessary for the applicant to widen the road it may be necessary to widen the road in the Forest Service section to get into that increased portion of the road. The Forest Service has indicated that any amount of construction that is done on their land even though there is special use permit for that road that they would need to review an application and sign off on that application. 3 PZM8.8.89 It is similar to what happened when they proposed the upper road. Originally approval was given pending Forest Service approval of any road cut and then the Forest Service denied that road cut. The Nordic Council in the past reached an agreement with the applicant that snow pack would remain on the road. The Fire Marshal has indicated that the road does not have to be maintained for fir vehicle access if the house is sprinkled. At some points there is not land where it is platted. So if he were to widen the road, take over the whole width of the road on his property, there are points where the trail would not be 12 feet wide which is what is platted. There are points where the land has sluffed off sufficiently enough where it is only 6 feet wide. The applicant has proposed that when he goes in and cuts in to the hillside that he will then replace the fill down here to give us wider easement. Our major concern with widening the road is that an increased road cut will remove additional terrain and then we will have perhaps a 24 foot wide road vs. just a 12 foot wide road. The applicant has since proposed a boulder retaining wall that will reduce the necessary slope cut. Our Engineering Department has requested a vertical tie-in retaining wall that even reduces that slope in order to preserve as many trees as possible. The Parks Department has estimated that about 100 trees would be lost in widening the road and that each one of those trees would have to be replaced. Criterion #7 regarding height and bulk; the total square footage of this building is estimated to be 4, 792sqft. The proposed building has an approximate 98ft wide facade stretching across the hillside. The height is approximately 38ft. In the Conservation zone the height is 28ft. Although the applicant proposed to use hand hewn Lodgepole pine logs, staff feels that the size and bulk of the building and the way it stretches across the hillside is inappropriate with he goals of 8040 Greenline Review. Staff has recommended tabling this application primarily because of the outstanding issues surrounding the road. Bruce: Is there a piece of Lot 4 located south of Lot 3--an arm that comes off of lot 3? Is there any access or easement going across Lot 3 connecting Lots 4? Someone answered yes. 4 PZM8.8.89 Mari: The road that is there now was approved by who? Leslie: In 1971 when subdivision was originally approved there-- it identifies that road as utility and trail easement. Richard: On the original plat was there any access indicated for vehicular access to that lot? Leslie: Fred Gannett and I when looking on the plat that says that this is a 15ft wide utility/trail easement. The Lot panhandles down and Fred's interpretation that this panhandle was created to allow access to Lot 3. The proposal for the upper road was to come out of the Forest Service land across Lot 4 and come in to the site somewhere along this plain. And that was denied by the Forest Service. Marty Pickett, representing Joe Zaluba: We certainly are going to follow the recommendations of Chen and Associates. That is why they were hired and retained. They were retained to totally monitor the project and worked closely with Jim Gibbard during this process. The first we hear of wanting something on the Forest Service property was in the memo. We are certainly willing to extend the drainage plan. As far as the Forest Service goes we have a 20ft easement across their property to access this lot. This current road is only 12 feet wide so we have no problems with expanding that to 20 feet if necessary. The special use permit from the Forest Service is so that Lot 3 owner may get to Lot 3--this panhandle by virtue of coming through the Forest Service. Then in the plat it shows this utility and trail easement that it really straddles the property line. It straddles these lower lots and this panhandle of Lot 3. So originally what we propose to do is just leave the existing road where it is and then we would just add whatever we need to so that we would have 12 foot driveway on Lot 3. And at one point the Planning Dept. asked us to put a fence down to separate the 2 uses. Then they realized this had sluffed of so much that in some places there would only be 6 feet left on the side where the easement really does exist. Then we said what we will do is build this 12ft driveway just on our side of the property--we will help with our fill, we will help construct at the Engineering Dept. direction to have a 12 foot trail easement on this side. What you have then is a property line with a 12ft driveway and a 12ft trail. Jasmine: So they will be right next to each other? Marty: Yes. 5 PZM8.8.89 Bruce: Is this a special use permit or is it an easement? Marty: It is a special use permit from the Forest Service. It is not recorded in Pitkin County property records. Brooke Peterson: I would remind P&Z that they have dealt with this issue 3 times already with reference to vehicular use of this road. And in fact, the easement granted to the city for the use of the Nordic Council contemplates the vehicular use of what is disputed as whether or not it is a public trail access easement and was granted on the condition that Mr. Barker also be able to use that for vehicular access to his property. Mr. Zaluba is proposing to deal with it even more by widening the existing access to separate the 2 uses and moving the actual trail on to what is, in effect, the platted access, not the as built or existing access. Zaluba: whatever what you This is the 3rd one we have been through. the city Engineer thinks is appropriate. want and I will do it. I will do Just tell me Marty: We are within 28ft building height requirement. All of the houses in that area range from 4 to 6,000sqft. We feel it is compatible with the neighborhood. There will be more landscaping and trees in front. There will be buffering and planting of trees to divide the use of the driveway from the trail easement itself. And that will be right in front of the house. Welton: I am still uncomfortable with this co-use of the road being entirely on your property and the trail being entirely on Lots 2,4 and 5. Barker: Separating skiers and trucks for traffic is preferable. Leslie: Maybe if the road could be separated and elevated up a little bit so you could have an elevated separation and have a vegetated buffer between the 2 roads. They would still have to work with the Forest Service with expanding the road here but it wouldn't be a total new road cut in the Forest Service mind and you would take care of that conflict if you had it separated. Welton: From the memo it says there is going to be in the neighborhood of 100 trees lost by widening this. And there is not going to be a very happy marriage between the driveway and what some of us consider to be an important additional link in the trail system that doesn't have quite enough link as it is. 6 PZM8.8.89 I am wondering if you are going to be cutting down 100 trees, would it not make sense to cut down 150 trees, move the whole thing up higher and provide that landscape buffer entirely on Mr. Zaluba 's property or Mr. Barker's property between the nordic Trail and the new driveway and use that panhandle for what it was apparently intended for in the first place. I think the solution could happen entirely on Lot 3. Brooke: The Forest Service has already allowed us to grant to the city the right to use the Forest Service property. The easement that was granted to the city By Mr. Barker included the right to utilize the portions of the Forest Service property for which he had a special use permit. That was confirmed in conversations with and correspondence with Greg Thompson from the Forest Service and with Paul Taddune the City Attorney at the time. So those 2 uses by the Forest Service decision are going to co-exist on the Forest Service property. Wel ton: That is correct and I don't think we can necessarily anticipate what the Forest Service mayor may not do on their property but on Lot 3 I think we can. Fred Gannett: We have 20 feet right here. The current use of it is about 6 to 8 feet. We have the ability based on what Brooke said to expand it to 20 feet. If what you are suggesting is to expand the road more than additional 12 feet on Lot 3 say up to 16 feet and then put a 2 to 3 foot separation from between the trail and the driveway. Then all we are going to have to do is worry when we get down there you can funnel it in or to try to put some pressure on the Forest Service to give us an additional 8 feet. Welton: uses. I am talking about a larger separation between the 2 Barker: The only reason we didn't go for that is because we didn't think you would. Half of the existing road is on Lot 3 so I am only talking about widening what is up there 6 feet. It is not 12. Welton: You could take the portion of the existing road that is on your property and re-forest it. We are talking about replacing a heck of a lot of trees with the widening of the road anyway. It might as well be a good physical separation that provides some screening to what will be a big cut. John Kelly, representing Jack Davis, Gary and Susan Rappaport all of whom live on ute Avenue. The trail goes virtually right behind their house. I think that Welton hit on a really key point here. That is compatibility between driveway use and trail 7 PZM8.8.89 use. I just don't think it exists. unless the roads are physically snowplowing in the winter and the the right when they go uphill, I unworkable situation. I don't think you can do it separated. I think with natural tendency to drive on think it is a dangerous and We also question whether that road has the capability to handle the truck traffic etc. a project this size is going to take. Certainly hundreds and hundreds of truckloads are going to have to come out of there on both the building site and the widening of the road because of the steepness of the slope. Barker: That existing road is the old railroad right-of-way and carried a lot of ore out of the mountain. It is a very stable road. All of the land in this subdivision is very stable. Marty: The applicant is willing to separate that and vegetate a buffer or whatever width we all com to some agreement on. Barker: I think that is the best way. Had I thought you would have gone for that the thing about that is when we get to the Forest Service then we have got another situation. Roger: Because of this road cut aspect I can see no solution but to table because I am not sure about a road set farther up into the hill gives you much more total impact than cutting the existing road farther into the hill. So I want to see that. Welton: We can approve. We can approve with conditions. There is tabling. There is denying. I was offering the suggestion that the property boundary between the Lot 3 and Lot 5, 4 and 2 be reclaimed and reforested with the exception of the trail is to offer an opportunity to screen a new road cut that would be up higher. To my mind the approach taken here is very similar to the house that was built on Lot 5 down on ute Avenue. The building is perpendicular to the slope of the hill as if it is almost applying for the job of being a snowbrake in case of an avalanche as opposed to the approach taken on lots 4 and 2 which are parallel to the slope and stepping up the slope and have a much less impact on ute and on east Aspen Mountain. I find that repeating the mistake on Lot 5 which was limited primarily because of the shape of the lot is not an approach that I feel comfortable with approving given the criterion 7 of the 8040 Greenline Review criteria. In that one regard I would not be inclined to give approval of 8040 because of the design approach of the house. 8 PZM8.8.89 Rick Neiley, representing ute Place Homeowners: We share a lot of the same concerns which John Kelly expressed about access. That may well be something that can be resolved but Welton, your comments are of more concern to us. We look at a 3 story house in that extremely steep hillside as being wholely inappropriate with the character of the hillside and the visual impact that it is likely to have up there. I think that recommendation #5 for minimization of visual impact of that building is appropriate. It is something P&Z ought to focus on. Because you made a mistake on Lot 5 don't duplicate it on Lot 3. If you made a mistake on 1010 ute, don't do it again. Jasmine and Roger: We have to agree with you, Rick. Barker: The Davis's house down below is actually 4 stories. That is on Lot 2. If you look at that house it does step up into the hill. Welton: It is 4 stories but not really more than a story and a half in anyone location from the adjoining grade. I think it is a very environmentally sensitive plan. If you would step back your second level from the first level and your third level from the second level and narrowed it down by about 85%, you would have a solution akin to what was done on Lot 2. Barker: We have a road to deal with above now. So as you see the house, the footprint up there now--if we squeeze it in like you say, make it less in width and more up we may, in fact, have a problem with that road up on top. Welton: I don't doubt that you might have a problem with that road but criterion #7 is the building height and bulk will be minimized and a structure will be designed to blend into the open space and character of the mountain. To my mind this solution counters that criterion to such a great degree that I would be inclined to vote to deny the 8040 Greenline because it runs in conflict with that criteria. Lennie Oates, represent Rappaports, and Mr. Howard the next door neighbor: I think we need to know really what is going to happen in the use of whatever road is used up there. The applicant must know or have some idea of what the total reach of this easement could be. I think you should have available the information in terms of what the estimate is of potential development before you make any decision. This is not a single use easement. That trail does retain snow now because you have a very dense vegetation. If you start widening that up it is going to be just like ute Avenue and you are going to see a great deal of snow 9 PZM8.8.89 melting. We think the approach of separating the roads has some merit if you are going to approve some development up there. Jasmine: If I had to vote on this tonight I would have to vote for denial. I don't feel comfortable with the proposed solution to the road. It is such a complicated issue that it is something I am not willing to let somebody else sign off on. I would like to see a more detailed plan of the road separation making sure that the necessary permits from all the various entities who are all jammed into this road would agree to the separated road. I would like to see a detailed plan of what that separation would entail, how much of a separation there would be, what kind of revegetation would occur and whether that would be satisfactory to the Ski Council. I couldn't agree with you more about criteria #7 and the location and facade of the house. I am tired of being told by people that once it is up you are not going to see it and this is the worst view of it because that is not true. It usually is much worse than the worst picture. MOTION Jasmine: In order to give the applicant time to address these questions, I would like to make a motion to table. Roger seconded the motion. Marty: First of all there are no entities that need to sign off on separation. We can do whatever we want to on Lot 3. We have the right of access to this lot via that panhandle. The best route is to separate it. We are willing to do that. Our difficulty in going back and getting another plan is the delay. We have done that time after time. Can we get some approval and then we will come back with a plan. Jasmine: Absolutely not. Welton: Jasmine, do you want the public record of this meeting to be their guide towards relocation of driveways, redesign of the house? Jasmine: I don't feel that I am competent to make a specific decision or recommendation about that. Welton: I am in agreement with Jasmine as far as not letting the Engineering department have final sign off on a driveway alignment. I too would like very much to see a revegetation plan and a regrading plan for the driveway. And I personally think that an 8ft wide trail with a 15ft planting strip and then an 8 10 PZM8.8.89 to 12ft wide driveway physically type in that will be impacted widening this out to 24 feet. Barker: Supposing we do another drive up above. The existing road now which is approximately half on Lot 3 and half on the trail easement--you are talking about revegetating the part that is on Lot 3. Is that what you are saying? removed with trees of Evergreen over the long run less than Welton: The part that is above the trail easement on Lot 3. Barker: That is not going to help the skiers any because then they are going to be still forced to a 6ft trail on the easement. Welton: If you put a row of trees on your property line, yes it will be a 6ft easement. But if you allow the easement to straddle--and revegetate above. Barker: Suppose we just leave the road where it is now. Instead of trying to revegetate it-- Welton: I am talking about revegetating above. Barker: OK. Above is no problem. I am talking about below. I am talking about vacating the existing road and just leave it. But you will need an easement from us then to participate skiing trail easement on that portion of Lot 3 below. Leslie: So that I understand--if we are talking about a separate road cut really what we are saying is when we go in with a separate road cut to leave a vegetated cut between the existing road and then-- Mari: The existing road will get-- Too many people giving their own impressions here. get it clearly. I couldn't Roger: 2 feet isn't significant. Barker: OK. asking is-- I agree with you. Let's do it right. All I am Welton: Enough to allow for the survival and healthy life of full grown Evergreen trees, squirrels and songbirds too. Barker: So you are leaving that up to us to design that. I don't want to design it for 6 feet and then come back and you say "Well it should be 8". 11 PZM8.8.89 Welton: It may vary from 6ft to 15ft. I don't know. Barker: So I guess the word is significant buffer then, right? Leslie: Significant. Marty: And we will work with the Parks Department on it. Welton: There is a motion on the floor and a second. Mari: I don't think we ever discussed the avalanche issue. Leslie: The avalanche issue was really something the Planning Department focused on. I have included in your memo some very lengthy report done by Mr. Meres discussing the ability to construct a home on that avalanche area and keeping the house within this particular location in this wedge. The Engineering Dept. felt that the avalanche issues had been sufficiently addressed. Mari: My concern concerned about. the house. was raised that it is not just the house we are It would be people who would be in and around Barker: The avalanche danger is very low but it is there. Welton: I think when these other 2 criteria--the conflict of the trail and driveway and the elements relating to criterion 7--when they are satisfactory I think we can address the other issues too. Leslie: In my recommendation for I wanted more information on. recommendation? tabling I listed 10 items that Would you still go with that Jasmine: Yes. Welton: And I think we could just note the emphasis of the discussion on the separation of the trail and the driveway and on the architectural impact on the hillside of the structure. Any further discussion? There was none. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. 200 EAST MAIN STREET GMOS EXEMPTION Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record. 12 )(J-c) 'C lMv. \ h PZM8.8.89 Bruce Sutherland, architect for applicant: for is the 155sqft of FAR addition. This is method of calculation. What we are asking due primarily to the Welton asked if anyone had a problem with this application. MOTION Jasmine: I would like to move to recommend approval of this special review to increase FAR to .80 to 1 with the condition that the increase is only in those areas as stated by the applicant in the application. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS 706 W. MAIN STREET HISTORIC DESIGNATION 309-315 EAST MAIN STREET HISTORIC DESIGNATION 100 EAST BLEEKER STREET HISTORIC DESIGNATION Roxanne: 100 East Bleeker Street did not notice. So we need to withdraw on that one. We will re-schedule. There is a recommendation on the 309-315 E. Main that there be a condition to your approval. Welton stepped down from the hearing on 706 West Main because of a conflict of interest. Jasmine opened the public hearing for 706 West Main Street and asked for public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Roger made a motion to approve landmark designation for 706 W. Main Street. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. 309-315 EAST MAIN STREET Welton opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Roxanne: The applicants have agreed to our recommendations. 13 PZM8.8.89 MOTION Michael made a motion for approval with condition as per Planning Office memo of August 8, 1989. (attached in record) Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. 100 EAST BLEEKER STREET Welton opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Roger made a motion to table 100 East Bleeker date certain August 15, 1989. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. KRABACHER CODE AMENDMENT Welton stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. Jasmine opened the public hearing Roxanne: Made presentation as attached in record. Alan had recommended that the language be amended per the applicant's language that would include this provision for only residents of the structure that would also be employees of the business. We are thinking that the business use would become accessory to the dwelling unit and that the resident of the dwelling unit be an employee of the business. I believe from a preservation standpoint this is a good way to be and the impacts are going to be minimal city wide. Jasmine: place. A conditional use hearing would still have to take Roxanne: Absolutely. You would still have the final sayan whether or not that particular site could handle it anyway. Jasmine: It seems to me that specific criteria would apply. seem to be the problem. Roxanne: It is a single family residential dwelling anyway. That is the only permitted use. conditional uses that a site It is the permitted uses that 14 PZM8.8.89 Joe: No matter what the zone nonconforming lot of record--the single family residential. Like a lot of these preservation incentives I think it comes out of in my case you know specific instance where I am thinking in my mind you know I have a specific piece of property and you know we would like to do an antique store in it. You know--a little background. I live full time in the city and I work full time in the city. My wife lives full time in the city. You know it is not an application where we are asking to add anything or build anything onto it. district permitted uses are only use that is allowed is And you know we have to go through 6 hearings between HPC, P&Z and City council just to do it. And it really came out, you know, I am on HPC and I am on the Board of Aspen Historic Trust. So we have been considering different kinds of incentives all along to try and you know aid the preservation of some of these structures. Fortunately I like that, you know and I got this house and it all sort of fit together. The incentives that you guys have already gone through you know the Ord. 16 which waives, you know, allows the sliding scale to waive employee housing and to waive open space exactions, you know. In addition there was Ord. 42 which was the Bed and Breakfast Ord. The idea is if it is a historic landmark, you know, to provide an incentive or somebody to designate it and yet you give them, you know the opportunity to help save it. If we had thought of this it probably would have been included in one of those passed ordinances since all it is directed at is if you have a non-conforming lot of record then you are allowed to change the use only after you go through a special review you know for whatever the use is. And you know I appreciate Alan's comment in saying here is a saying "here is a way we can make it very narrow and it will help Krabacher out". You know it would solve my problem but I would prefer to see something broader that is going to help the other historic structures around. You know there are some in the commercial core that are on non-conforming lots and you know those are treated as non-conformities. And if it is non- conformity, you know the theory is they are subject to abatement and we are gong to, you know, whittle away at them little by little. Jasmine: Are you trying to tell me that your amendment is saying that you do not have to come in for conditional use permits? 15 PZM8.8.89 Roxanne: No. Joe: I am saying that you have to do that anyway and so if Alan has, you know, concern that Alan expressed in his memo about so- called land use and density those will all be addressed anyway in a special review for any of these. Michael: I agree with Joe's approach. Rather than make it so narrow that it only affects one person that doesn't seem to accomplish anything and is wasting a lot of time. I can see the concern that we make it so broad that we end up with some developer that we don't like doing something and I don't think that is possible. Roxanne: HPC is saying do whatever we can do within reason to encourage people to adeptly renovate, in an innovative way, their historic resources. Roger: I have no problems if we can do this on a special review basis. But it worries me on small lots to get something that is completely out of scale use-wise for the geography. Not only the square foot area but the surrounding neighborhood and the impacts. Roxanne: point of covered. We have 2 boards reviewing that. HPC on the design view and P&Z for the use. It seems to me that we are Doug Allen: I think that this is a low impact incentive to help maintain some of the historic structures. We keep hearing all the excuses about why they can't be maintained because the economics don't work etc. And if Joe is going to do something on the front of his house that allows that house to stay there without vastly expanding it and maybe allows a few more that are on your inventory. A lot of these historic structures are on tiny lots. They are not on now-conforming lots. And if we can save just a few of them I think it is a good motive and I would encourage that you pass this ordinance. Richard: I am very much in favor of it too. The permitted use is single family residence. And you ought to allow conditional uses--what is otherwise permitted in that area. What is to say that the conditional use uses up 90% or 75% of the building and there is a tiny apartment in the back for an employee. Jasmine: They would come before us. We would be reviewing that on a case by case basis. 16 PZM8.8.89 MOTION Jasmine read into the record a letter from Sandra Lohr in support of this code amendment. (attached in record) Mari: I make a motion to recommend approval to add paragraph C. in Section 9-106, under "Nonconforming Lots of Record" as in the Planning Office memo dated August 8, 1989. (attached in record) Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 17