Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19891107 ~o(u l.- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:32pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Herron, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Mari Peyton arrived immediately after roll was excused. Bruce Kerr, Michael Richard Compton and call and Roger Hunt COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Amy: City Council met last night on the Hwy 82 EIS. They did not make any decision as to what route they prefer into town. They continued it to Wednesday November 15th and that is contingent on whether we get an extension from the Hwy Dept for our official comments. Council met last night in executive session on the Ritz and will meet again on that in open session on the 13th. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jody Edwards: I represent the Nelson DeVore Partnership. Edwards asked P&Z to sponsor our application for rezoning. Welton: I would entertain a motion to sponsor rezoning of the Billings property on ute Avenue. Mari: I move to sponsor a rezoning of the Billings property on ute Avenue from R-6 to RMF mandatory PUD. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. There was no further public comment. MINUTES JULY 5. SEPTEMBER 19 AND OCTOBER 24. 1989 Bruce made a motion to approve these minutes. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. PZM11. 7.89 1001 UTE AVENUE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE AND GMOS EXEMPTION PUBLIC HEARING Leslie made presentation as attached record. Sunny Vann representing applicant presented affidavit of notification. (attached in record) Some background on why we changed the project might be helpful. We had conceptual approval for 2 lots. We were going to create 2 lots and offer them for sale. The applicant decided to go ahead and design the houses. The applicant retained David Finholm to design the house. David has designed all the houses in the adjacent Aspen Chance and has been designed in close cooperation with the neighbors of the Aspen Chance. David Finholm: When we started the Aspen Chance it was a big bunch of mine tailings also. We have re-shaped the land. We have provided these buildings so that they have privacy from one another and also have good sunshine. Since this was about 6ft higher my idea was to shape this top bench to be the same level where house 7 and 6 are. This is at 8020 and from the 8020 line then call that the existing grade to start our height. We also then push some of that earth out a little bit so that we could create these south spaces. That has seemed to be very successful. Then we get the good sunshine. Some of the things we learned from building on mine tailings is you have to drive very large caisson columns in or overexcavate and then fill back in. with the overexcavation concept we decided to do it like a big underground parking garage in this building which would reduce grading, snowmel ting and also this big turn-around area that would be required to come up the hill. So what we propose is the lowest area of this building would be underground parking for 8 cars and vertical circulation in the form of an elevator and some stairs opening into a kind of an atrium space that would get a good south light. The total concept is that this would complete Aspen Chance as a park-like appearance in conjunction with this Hoag Subdivision Park that we have that is over here that is along that bench. So we have extended that bench and moved the earth around to provide some privacy for the tennis courts and we look at not having to move any earth off the site. In terms of the size of the building, in terms of FAR this is less than the 2 houses that were previously proposed and also I 2 PZMll. 7 . 89 have kept that building in mass to be the same size as the 2 largest buildings we have at the Aspen Chance. So that that gives you all a ready reference as to the size of the building. Mari: What is the floor area? David: 7,200sqft FAR. The maximum allowable is 7,400. We will use the same basic architectural forms in the dormers, the skylights, the rock bases and wood siding will all be consistent with the existing Chance Subdivision. Sunny: There is a lease to the Gant for the tennis courts. We are improving and landscaping of the court area. We are creating some guest parking for the tennis courts. The basic footprint for the area is almost identical to where the original buildings were except it is lower and is 1 envelope instead of 2. David: We proposing to cut off 6ft and say this is the existing grade. That way this whole building moves down and stays the same as the height of the Chance maximum and protects the 8040 Greenline. Jasmine: On this model you have got lots of trees in the front of the house which would help screen the house. How do we assure that that in fact is what is going to be done? David: You had asked for a landscape plan for the Chance and we defined for you at that time which trees and how tall they would be and where they would be placed and that was approved. The concern was very similar and we have planted all those trees. A similar kind of request would not be unreasonable for this. Jasmine: That did work out very well with Aspen Chance. I think that as far as fitting into the terrain and being unobtrusive and conforming to what we would like to see with 8040 type of review that Aspen Chance has been done well. I would like to see this done the same way. Sunny: A condition that we reduce this plan to a 2 dimensional drawing with specifications and then submitted to the Planning Dept. prior to issuance of a building permit is acceptable. Jasmine: Where is the accessory dwelling unit? David: In this area right here and it is resident occupied. Sunny: There was a requirement. units required as far as the lot approval. We got to Council. application but we couldn't get a There was no employee dwelling split. That was the previous There were no issues on the motion to approve. Then Bill 3 PZM11. 7.89 stirling said "I move to approve subject to the inclusion of 2 mandatory employee housing units". The City Attorney said "There is no requirement". They moved and approved until Alan changed the code. So now all lot splits require accessory dwelling units. Since we were committed to providing in the original project we are putting in 1 unit. It is 1 unit per lot. It is a very generous accessory dwelling unit. We have created this outdoor terrace area to serve as that accessory dwelling unit and is provided with its own on-site parking. Welton: I am in a quandary. I did not realize this property was still owned by Peter Coventry until that Aspen Chance letter came by. I did some work on this property for this client about 2 or 3 years. I don't know whether I should step down. After discussion between the members of the Commission and the applicant the general consensus was that Welton need not step down from this hearing. A letter from Aspen Chance Homeowner's Association in support of this application was admitted to the record at this time. (Attached in record) :~ Welton opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the pUblic portion of the hearing. Bruce: Are all 12 parking places underground? Sunny: 8 below ground and then there are 4 we are providing here that can be used as overflow parking for this structure or for the tennis parking. The tennis court is on a long term lease to the year 2080 to the Gant. Leslie: Condition #4--1 would like to change the working to read "At such time the alignment is determined, the applicant shall grant an easement for the Spar Gulch Drainage Project". We know that we need a Spar Gulch drainage and Engineering Dept is in the beginning stages of planning it. We know that it will not fall below the Midland ROWand that it will probably be the minimum ROW or above but we will need an easement. And the applicant has agreed. #8--The 2nd sentence--"The applicant shall adhere to the satisfaction of the Environment Health Dept to recommendations by the Chen-Northern Geologist regarding contaminated soil and mine wastes on-site and providing an imported non-contaminated soil to cap the materials." 4 PZM11. 7.89 #9--The applicant shall follow the specific recommendations of the Chen-Northern report regarding solid stability and retention of slope cuts and the final grading plan shall be reviewed by the Engineering Dept for consistency with the Chen's recommendations." #ll--prior to the issuance of a CO. #12--Prior to the issuance of a CO. #13-"Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall dedicate a 12ft wide public trail easement to the City for the new trail. #14--is fine. #15--"If ever the tennis courts are construed to be another building site before the year 2083 the Planning Dept shall not accept any development application for that site." #16--"Easements for the Spar Gulch drainage and the public trail shall be filed with the city Attorney's Office and recorded by the Clerk." Since they are not filing a plat we have to have some mechanism in here to get the easements. #17--"Prior to the issuance of a building permit a landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Park and Planning Dept." #18--1 would like to prepare a condition if you find that the elevation should be measured at finish grade or natural grade. We need to get that in. Welton: Does any member of the Commission have a problem with the way the applicant is suggesting that the grade be measured? Taking it 6ft below what existed for 100 years seems to be a reasonable approach. Jasmine: So why don't we just say that that is what this grade is going to be instead of confusing us with terms like "natural" and "existing" which really don't describe what is happening? Leslie: So we would establish that the height would be measured from the elevation of 8020. Sunny: I think there is a concern about development of the tennis courts. Rick Neiley: Leslie and I discussed this. It is pretty clear that the prime place to develop the site is where the Gant tennis 5 PZMll. 7.89 courts are right now. The property continues to be the subject of a 99 year lease with the Gant which we have no unilateral ability to terminate or otherwise affect. The proposed condition that no development application could be accepted for that site until 2083 seems to us to be unduly restrictive. It is impossible for us to project into the future what the needs or interest might be for that site of the Gant or for anyone else 30 years down the road much less than 85 years down the road. What we would propose as an alternative is that so long as the lease is in effect with the Gant that there be no development application accepted for that parcel. Arguably a lot split application could be submitted which would permit some sort of re-development of that site or possibly even a sale of that site to the Gant as opposed to the existing lease. Because it is such a long term lease and because it actually doesn't represent a full conveyance to the property, we hate to preclude somewhere down the road the possibility for the use of that site other than tennis courts. I don't have any idea what that other use might be but it seems unduly restrictive to say that the year 2083 has some magic meaning. That happens to be the year that the lease runs to but maybe 50 years from now the entire Gant project will be obsolete and someone will have some proposal for a re-development at that site. We ought to have the opportunity to at lease come in and present an application. We don't have an objection to restricting it to no development on the site so long as the lease is in effect or no development application for the site as long as the lease is in effect but the year 2083 is frankly too far out to make any sense to us. Sunny: It is also important to know that there can be no further development of the site without some form of approval. At present the only way to obtain additional development rights would be for growth management in which case it would be reviewed on its merit. Or be an exemption from growth management and the only one that is currently available would be a lot split exemption. And it would also require an application, public hearing review by the P&Z and the City Council. So to simply say no application for 85 years is really harsh. Rick: We would have certainly preferred to propose development where the tennis courts are had we had the ability to terminate that lease. A building site at the tennis court would be relatively easy to develop. Again, we simply don't want to cut off the ability to have the City entertain an application down 6 PZM11. 7.89 the road to the point of 2083 simply because that figure comes up in the lease. If the lease is terminated or if there is some change in use which is reasonable we think that we ought to be able to present an application for the City's review 10, 15 or 30 years down the road and not have to wait for 85 years. Leslie: We agree with the applicant because the tennis courts are there that the only other feasible location for this building is up on top of the mine tailings. From 8040 Greenline perspective with the hillside if the tennis courts weren't there I would probably strongly advocate that the building be moved lower. What we are saying is yes we review this 8040 Greenline on top of the mine tailings and because you are encumbering the site with the tennis courts that we don't think that we should have to review the development application if the lease should be mutually terminated 2 years down the road for another development site. Because that is primarily the perspective of the 8040 Greenline review for this building at that location. A lot split is something that someone possibly could do and in my opinion lot splits--the criteria is very clear, you meet that criteria and you get your lot split. I am saying that this had a little advantage with it and if staff 10 years down the road were to review a proposal for this site that there is some caveat. Sunny: If the tennis court lease weren't there we probably wouldn't be coming in for one unit on the site. We probably would be coming in for 2 units or a lot split or perhaps more units under growth management. As a general rule we review applications and it either stands or falls on its merits. In this case it seems to be that this 8040 Greenline stands on its merits based on its design. We don't routinely restrict parcels from further development simply to preclude development. If this is an acceptable 8040 Greenline application what benefit is gained by restricting? Rick: You have to bear in mind too that we completely excluded the land area of the tennis courts in determining what can be developed on that site. We intentionally minimized the development potential. Those tennis courts frankly are an excellent development location. They may not be available right now and they may not be available 15 years down the road. The Gant doesn't have any other location for their tennis courts. I presume that they are going to want to keep their tennis courts. But it is such a long 7 PZMll . 7 . 89 period of time and it is so difficult for us to project the future with any sort of accuracy that we think this is really a burden that is not warranted by the application that is submitted. When the first GMP application came in they included in the calculation the density and so forth. The Attorney's Office construed that the long term lease for all practical purposes was a conveyance and therefore while the previous owner owned the property it was controlled by a third party. And therefor they were required to be a co-applicant in the process. In other words they had to give permission to allow that land to be included in the density calculations. It never occurred to us about additional said if it is going to be construed as purposes as a parcel we will simply development application. So what we restricting a parcel which we have no further development. development. We simply such for all practical subtract it from the are really doing is control over against Welton: And at the same time you are reserving the FAR on the tennis court property to be used in a future time on the tennis court property if that was to be developed. Rick: You are right, Welton. The effect of this is to reserve that FAR. But that was not our intention. Our intention was to avoid having to go to the Gant Board of Directors and have them review every aspect of our development application. Welton: I am not sure that saying that nobody can even make application or they can make an application but the Planning Office accept an application for 95 years is something that I have not seen in the dozen or so years that I have been on the Commission. But I tend to agree with the intent of it. Graeme: I tend to agree with the applicant in that maybe to somebody who would be able to build some affordable housing on here and I think there are some uses that the Planning Dept would want to entertain an application on it. Bruce: I agree with the applicant. The land is already encumbered by the lease and I don't see any reason to place another encumbrance on this parcel of land. Michael: I understand what Leslie has said. I think what she is trying to tell us was the fact that we have approved the 8040 in this application only because the tennis courts were there. But by the same token I am inclined to go along with the developer or the applicant on the basis that the City has previously approved 8 PZM11. 7.89 the lot split of the area with the tennis courts being there too. So that the worst that could happen is that they could buy their lease back from the Gant and come in for a lot split and submit an application and we end up with 2 houses on the site which is what we could have had anyway with the tennis courts. So I don't think it is any real additional development if we go along with what they have asked for. Richard: I would support the Planning Office's imposition in that this site is designed with the tennis courts in place. Either you do it as is and the tennis courts are restricted from housing or they come in with other plans which say OK if there is going to be a building on the tennis court site then this is what the rest of the site looks like. The height on the parcel of this present building as Leslie said is based on the fact that the tennis court property is not available for development. So that what we are getting is a single family house on the lot. Then suddenly come around and it becomes a lot split and it is a whole different development than what we are looking at now. So I think whatever the intentions of the owner and developer I think we have to look at it in those terms. Mari: It is hard for me to believe that a tennis court lease could be worth more than a development right. I will be very amazed if those tennis courts stay there if they do have the right to develop that piece. What is the square footage of the tennis courts? David: It would be 180 by 120 which is 15,000sqft. Mari: What would be the allowed floor area of structure on that? Sunny: Something in the range of 4,000sqft. It would still come before the 8040 Greenline because of the elevation of the courts. Jasmine: I share Richard's concern and Mari's concerns. I think what we are looking at here is the beginning of an application for another development on the tennis court site. I don't have the same confidence in the adamancy and quality of leases as you seem to have having been ejected from various leases during my days as a renter of various properties when you think your lease is a protection. I really do not believe that the lease agreement is sufficient safeguard against the kind of development of the tennis courts which is bound to happen. And I can assure you, Graeme, I would bet you every penny I have that it will not be affordable 9 PZM11. 7.89 housing. I would like to see the Planning Office's condition retained. The development of this entire parcel and the considerations that we are taking for this 8040 Greenline Review is based specifically on the fact that the tennis courts are there now and because of the representations of the applicant. That because of this unbreakable lease, they are going to be there for the next 80 years. Sunny: There is no intent here for another application. I am just saying if you have a chance to approve something and it stands on its merit, why are you making a decision at this point that further development is inappropriate? Rick: It is a question of to what extent development is acceptable on a site such as this. It was acceptable to have 2 properties, 2 separate lots developed up there with almost 11,000sqft. We have done everything that is reasonable given the circumstances of this site to develop a good project that doesn't have the maximum impact. This restriction has the effect of penalizing us because we have done that. If we had pursued the lot split as it was conceptually approved there is no restriction on courts and we get 2 lots. The courts were still not included in the application and would still be up for future development. Jasmine: You are telling me that you should get credit for only putting a single family house on this parcel because you are not putting up another house and then you are to come in later and put another house. The logic of this totally escapes me. Mari: How many times can you split a lot? The answer was once. Mari: What I am saying is if the lot were split to begin with then the tennis courts would no longer be-- Neiley: Actually, that is probably true but we have 2 houses there in any event. Both of them up on top. Leslie: That is the way the original lot split was proposed. Mari: But I just wonder if that house is 7,000 and another house can be 4,000, you have still got--you know, what I am saying is you still have 11,000 total floor area on the parcel where if you split it like you said, I mean you--I don't see where you are ahead. 10 PZM11.7.89 Neiley: But the ultimate consequence of that is absolutely no greater than what was previously approved by both this commission and Council. Welton: I don't like the wording of the Planning Offices's condition but I like the intent of it. I have got a sneaking suspicion that if enough research was done back in the approval of the Gant the developer of the Gant probably did not provide those tennis courts out of the goodness of his heart but probably as part of the PUD agreement to get the amount of density the Gant got built on that property. You don't normally go beyond the bounds of your property unless you think it is going to be an amenity both for your property and to get it approved. Leslie: If you would like Fred and I to work on this more and come up with some different wording that is acceptable-- MOTION Welton: alien. I agree with the intent. It is that the wording is I would entertain a motion that takes all of the conditions as enumerated and revised and renumbered with the new condition #15 concerning this lease and the availability for the next 95 years- -that be reviewed as to form by the City Attorney. I don't know if a condition like this could be held up in court. Michael: It is similar to a restriction that you put on a lot split that you can't come in for a further split. I don't know that it wouldn't be. Fred should look at it to make sure it is legal in the verbiage. I so move. Welton: I agree with Richard, Jasmine and Mari that we looked at this when it was 4 units and when it was 2 units and now it is 1 unit with the understanding that the tennis court was always going to be in the foreground as relief to a fairly high density street. Leslie: Also in your conceptual review of the lot split you didn't deal with 8040 Greenline issues because that was to come with the final 2 steps and you really didn't do a lot split. You dealt with the conceptual PUD. 11 PZM11. 7 . 89 Bruce: I am curious as to what our purpose would be in trying to sterilize those tennis courts. A deal has apparently been struck between this applicant and the neighbors saying that they would rather have 1 house up above as opposed to 2 houses up above. I would be curious to know what their position would be about potentially some other house down below at the tennis courts. It seems to me that the community over there has struck a deal that says this is what we want to do. We want 1 house up above. We don't want 2 up there. And I really am having a hard time understanding why we want to sterilize for 94 years a piece of ground down below that may very naturally in 5 years or 50 years be a site that ought to be developed. We don't know what should happen there 5 or 50 years from now. Welton: I think though, in truth, this condition however the wording is ultimately made if somebody wants to do something the conditions change conditionally in 5 years or 15 or 50 years. That application will come forward regardless of what this condition says. Bruce: Then why put that in? Welton: Because on the record it makes the intent clear. Michael: I disagree. I made your motion that you suggested because I figured you were going to vote against it and I didn't want to waste any more time. But what you are saying is you think it is the way it should be then you are going to put this condition in and prevent somebody from doing anything. Or there is going to be a group of people coming here and opposing it on the basis of the language we are imposing. If you want to give them the ability to be able in 5, 10 years down the road to develop this as it is appropriate at the time then we shouldn't put this condition in. Mari: What I am wondering is if it is reasonable to change the number of years. Michael: I don't think it is the number of years. #1 the Gant is not going to give up the rights to the tennis courts as long as they are there. This is an amenity of the Gant and you couldn't give them enough money to get them to change their minds. So I think the reality of it is the courts will be there as long as the lease. If something should happen and the Gant is no longer there and the tennis courts are no longer there then it is probably appropriate that it becomes developed. If you feel that way my point to you is that let's not restrict it with something. We don't have a crystal ball to see what it 12 PZM11. 7.89 I is going to be. If the tennis courts were not there right now I don't see what would be wrong with having a house there. Welton: But conversely I feel more comfortable restricting it at this point so that it is on the record as being restricted and they can certainly in 5 or 50 years appeal to City Councilor whoever is running things then to have this condition struck. Bruce: are not going to How are they going to appeal? Planning Office says we even going to accept an application. We are not even talk to you. They can go straight to City Council. Welton: Mari: The point is that if we were not looking at the tennis courts being there right now we probably wouldn't be approving that house to be sitting there in this review right now. Sunny: We are talking 2 and 1/2 acres of land. Very few people would come in for 1 house because of the cost of the land. They would be coming in for several houses. So if I came in for 2 houses on 8040 Greenline basis and you were asked to review it, would Leslie have any different findings than she has on this 1 house? Richard: Would we be looking at a 7,000sqft house on that site as part of that? Neiley: I guess I have a hard time seeing why the possibility of the development of 3 to 4,000sqft house down there as opposed to 2 which would be more obtrusive in the 8040 Greenline area is offensive. Especially something which we don't have any unilateral control over and which is, for all practical purposes, merely projecting what mayor may not occur in the future. Richard: We are not in any way rejecting that house with this restriction. Sunny: You are requiring us to go to Council and have them overturn the condition so that we could submit an application. Richard: To develop the tennis courts. Sunny: I guess. Richard: But it would not make it any harder to build this house. Sunny: No. The one clarification I would make is that this 13 PZM11. 7.89 condition applies to this approval. That leaves us with the opportunity to pursue a 2-house subdivision on top. Welton: Yes. Neiley: Which seems less desirable. Welton: And I like this one better. Neiley: And it is better. So why penalize us for doing a better project? Welton: I don't think it is really being penalized. Neiley: You are placing a burden on the land which carries down the road 94 years. Richard: You just stipulated you hadn't even thought about it so what is the problem? Neiley: Because to place a burden on the land for 95 years--how can I think about what is going to happen in the year 2030? And yet you are saying that this land may not be used till the year 2030. Welton: No. It is only saying the Planning Office is not going to take an application for development. Neiley: That is the same exact impact as saying you can't do anything. Welton: There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second. Jasmine seconded the motion. Michael: I made the motion just so that we can get going here. I think it is very foolish to restrict these tennis courts in this fashion. I just think it makes no sense. I don't think that is planning to turn around and put this kind of restriction on the project. Maybe what we are going to do is kick them up into their lot split idea where we will end up with 2 houses up there and we have gained nothing. The reality of the situation is I don't think these tennis courts are ever going to go away. Welton: If that is the case then we don't have anything to worry about and neither does the applicant. Roll call vote: 14 PZM11 . 7 . 89 ","", Welton: In a situation like this I would have liked you to have come to an agreement with Leslie on this issue prior to the meeting. Or if you had come up with alternate wording that would have accomplished the same basic thing. Neiley: I went and talked with Leslie yesterday and proposed that simply as long as there was a lease on that property there would be no development application. The language of the condition got worse after that. It eliminated any reference to termination of the lease. Leslie: You did say for the life of the lease and I thought that was redundant because as long as the lease is there, you can't do anything. Neiley: That is not true. We could submit an application with the Gant during the life of the lease. Roll call vote: Compton, yes, Means, no, Kerr, no, Herron, no, Peyton, yes, Tygre, yes, Anderson, yes. Motion carried. Welton closed the pUblic hearing. Leslie: I will review this with Fred Gannett and I will get back to you with the resolution. 127 EAST HALLAM - LANDMARK DESIGNATION PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Roxanne made presentation as attached in record. Notice of public hearing was presented. Welton asked the applicant's representative if they had anything to present or comments to make. Representative: Whatever this man said was inaudible. Welton asked if there was any public comment. There was none and he closed the pUblic hearing. "- 15 PZM11. 7 .89 MOTION Michael: I make a motion that we approve this application and recommend City Council give the grant. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. CHOUMAS CONDITIONAL USE - ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record. The one condition that I did have on pedestal easement--4x4 pedestal easement--they already have the transformer on the site. So we are saying "If necessary a 4x4 pedestal easement shall be granted for a phone and cable". Welton asked if there was any public comment. There was none and he closed the pUblic hearing. Welton asked if the applicant or applicant's representative if they had any comments or questions. Again the reply was so faint as to be non-transcribable. Jasmine: Do you know if the applicants are planning to use this for a caretaker or do they have any specific thing in mind? Just for curiosity only. Representative: who lives here residence is for This is and has a second to provide housing for their daughter lived here for 10 years. The main residence/vacation home. There were no further public comments and Welton closed the public hearing. MOTION Michael: condition pedestal, I make a motion to approve the conditional use with the that the applicant, if necessary, shall provide for a phone and cable easement. Representative: The only thing that the applicant expressed is if we did have to provide an easement they are willing to do that but they wish that it be in the same area as that existing transformer. They want to keep the utilities in the same area instead of stringing it out. 16 PZM11. 7.89 ( Leslie: In discussing that with the Engineering Dept they thought that maybe they don't even need the easement because the easement where the transformer is now might be big enough to accommodate the pedestal. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. MEANS CONDITIONAL USE - ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PUBLIC HEARING Graeme stepped down from this hearing because of a definite conflict of interest. Richard: I am stepping down from this hearing. I might have a real conflict of interest as I am presently employed in the construction of this house. Welton opened the public hearing. Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record. We recomend that there be a 4x4 pedestal easement that should be phone and cable only. Again there is a transformer across the alley. Michael: For that you would not need 4x4. That is awfully big. (' Welton: cable". How about "Easement of sufficient size for phone and The applicant approved of that suggestion. Ms. Means: We showed this house as a 4-bedroom house. This is a new house presently under construction. We were required to show 4 parking spaces for that house which we did on the site plan for the house. Now one of those bedrooms is being converted, assuming this is approved, into the affordable housing unit so that we would only be required to have 3 parking spaces. I would like to have that clarified in here so that I can go back to the Building Dept. and submit a new site plan that shows 3 parking spaces and that they can look at this application and it will make some sense to them. Welton: Are you asking basically for an exemption for the parking requirement for the employee unit? Means: Yes. MOTION Michael: I make a motion we approve this application with the 17 PZM11. 7.89 change being made for the exemption for the parking space for the employee unit. Welton: employee units? Leslie, housing. parking can be exempted for deed restricted Can it also be exempted for accessory dwelling Leslie: studio and 1 bedrooms are not required. You don't have to provide a parking space. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Mari: I support this motion only because I know Graeme always rides his bicycle. Welton: I support this motion only because I know that the member of the Means family on its way will not be driving for at least 16 years. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:00pm. Clerk \,- 18