HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19891114
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 1~. 1989
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Richard Compton, Graeme Means, Bruce
Kerr, Michael Herron, Roger Hunt and Welton Anderson. Mari
Peyton was excused as was Jasmine Tygre.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
The only item of significance here was that Graeme has a baby
son, Gaelen Donald.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
HOAG LOT 3 - 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
Michael excused himself from this hearing because of possible
conflict of interest.
Leslie Lamont, Planner: Made presentation as attached in record.
I would like to change the wording of the first recommendation to
say "Prior to a CO the applicant and City Staff shall work
together with the Forest Service to create a barrier".
I would add condition #9 saying that "The new road shall be used
instead of the old road for construction of the home site".
Welton asked for comments from the applicant.
Joe Zaluba: I don't have any problem with that. I think that is
fine.
Regarding the tie wall--Obviously $300,000 is a lot of money. I
am willing to work with the Engineering Dept to find a happy
medium. I think the other thing that should be pointed out here
is that this wall will really not be seen by anybody from ute at
all because of the tree coverage in front of it. I am aware of
the reason for the tie wall but I also have to point out that
this is not a big visual thing that everybody is going to see.
"
I have personally walked it as Leslie has
with George Robinson from the Parks Dept.
the trees that we would have to take out.
and Jim. I walked it
We physically counted
It amounted to about
PZMIl.I4.89
25 as what he and I agreed to in the full length of the new
driveway. I had thought it was going to be 100.
If we do go to the boulder wall, and in certain instances I don't
think it is going to affect any trees, I would be sensitive to
the point that if we got into a spot where we had to do trees
then I could take the option of either doing the boulder wall and
replacing the trees somewhere else or working something out with
the Parks people to replace if in fact we have to anywhere along
the drive.
What I would like to do is let Jim and I and Leslie come to an
agreement on this if we can. If we can't we can always come back
to you and let you decide what is fair. I would rather see what
we are working with when we get up there and leave it as a
condition of occupancy that this wall be accepted by the
Engineering Dept and myself and leave it as a condition of
approval.
Welton: You suggest changing Condition #3 to a vertical tie-in
wall shall be constructed by the applicant where agreed upon with
the Engineering and Planning Office. Leslie, do you have any
problem leaving it that way?
Leslie: No. I don't. Jim Gibbard from Engineering agreed.
Welton: I am kind of ambivalent about a sheer
wall vs. natural stone, drive laid up rip rap
eventually have weeds and stuff growing in it.
aesthetic trade-off that.
poured concrete
wall that will
To me it is an
Jim: It wouldn't necessarily have to be concrete.
Joe: I think there are a lot of alternatives.
back and let you look at it.
We could come
Richard Compton: On the wall I see no objections to a boulder
wall. It doesn't look to me like a significant difference. It
is a much more natural look than something else as well as being
less expensive.
Graeme: I agree that the boulder wall would be acceptable. But
somehow in my mind I am really surprised that this has come this
far. I think there is a certain point where there is just a
cutoff point where a lot does not become buildable under the
standards that we have been given. And unless somebody says
something in this meeting to change my mind I feel that this is
beyond that point.
.....".,.,.~
2
PZM11.14.89
The reasons for this being--I go to criterion 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and
10 of the 8040 Greenline Review. And then I will add in the
avalanche problems. I disagree with something said in the
avalanche report that the most likely times of avalanche the
people are likely to be in the building and not outside. I don't
find that to be a valid statement at all.
There are 2 times when an avalanche might happen here. One is in
a snow storm when kids might want to go out and play in the snow
or ski or whatever. The other is in the Spring when it is warm
and that whole slope softens up and gets heavy enough with water
that the whole thing goes. And that is the same time that
somebody might want to be out in the sun on the south side of the
house. So I think there is real avalanche danger problems. I
don't feel good about approving something that has the potential
to have an accident like that.
Going to the conditions: criterion #1. I think we have a site
here where the slope is steeper than what I feel to be a
buildable slope in this situation. criterion #2. We are talking
about a retaining wall averaging 8ft high and 400ft long. I
think it is going to have a significant impact on the drainage
and it is going to disturb the natural ground cover which adds to
that problem. #4. I don't know how to talk about this one in
specifics. I don't believe a building of 4,600sqft belongs on a
hillside of this steepness. Any grading will minimize the extent
of the disturbance of the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features. When you talk about minimizing something, a 400ft long
8ft high wall doesn't, to me, fit into the minimal type of
grading plan. Building height and bulk will be minimized. Again
I think it is a large structure and to be up there it is larger
than it should be. Adequate ingress and egress is available to
the proposed development. A lot of the problems with this
surround the ingress and egress.
I understand the applicant has worked with the Planning Dept to
mitigate the problems and I feel that the thing has gone an awful
long way. I, in my mind, don't understand why. If there is some
kind of a problem with the City being liable for taking issue or
something like that I think they definitely need to address that.
If they feel that this building site means that they have to
purchase the property or trade it for some City owned land on the
golf course, the city should have to face that. It is beyond
what I feel is a buildable lot for these reasons.
Zaluba: My main point is that the new cut was at the direction
of P&Z. Our proposal was not to do this. It has been turned
down twice before. I think a lot of the impact what you are
discussing here--drainage and things of this nature are because
of this road and this was not our proposal in the beginning. But
3
PZMll. 14.89
we were directed that that was what was wanted and that is the
way we went.
As far as the avalanche and things go I have built on steeper
lots than this before. It is not easy. I grant you that. It
can be done. I don't think there is any question technically
that it can be done. It is not a south facing grade lot. It is a
legal City lot that the city of Aspen granted as a building site.
So that is where I am at. I have a legal City lot that I want to
build on and I am operating under mitigating all of these things
that you have just discussed which are problems with this site.
But from the technical standpoints and the things that we have
done to alleviate these dangers I feel are adequate and it would
not bother me to live in that house.
As far as the drive goes I am operating under what was suggested
at the last meeting here. That was the way that the Commission
wanted to proceed with this project.
Welton: If I can differ with you slightly. What was proposed
before was just not acceptable because it would have had conflict
with automobile traffic and nordic ski trail usage just could not
co-exist in the same physical space.
Zaluba: We were going to widen the road and we still have that
condition. We have just eliminated 2/3rds of it. Our proposal
before was to put the driveway all on lot 3 which would require
widening the existing road which is half on the easement and half
on lot 3. So our original proposal was to widen that to 12ft all
on lot 3 so that the property owners below we have nothing to do
with as far as our driveway. We could still construct a trail
easement 15ft onto their property on the 3 lots below because
that is what that easement is there for. I offered in August if
we had widened the driveway on the upper side to 12ft so that it
was all on lot 3 to take the fill and the cut and widen the ski
trail and make it 24ft wide and put some kind of physical barrier
between it. That was my original proposal. And from the history
of this site there has been proposed driveways twice up here that
have been turned down. That is why we didn't come in with it.
John Kelly, attorney representing the Rappaports, the Davis's:
These are the people who are most impacted by this project. My
understanding of what happened with the road and the reason there
was a new road planned was that it was simply incompatible. The
trail use and the vehicle use. No matter how you slice it you
are widening the existing road and I think everybody at the last
meeting had a hard time figuring out how you could put a barrier
in the middle that would really work with regard to snow removal
and everything else. That was the reason for the new road. It
was not that everybody wanted a new road but it seemed to us to
4
PZM11.14.89
be a better alternative. If there is going to be an approval, we
want the upper road because it lessens the impact. It preserves
the trail and lessens the impact on the land owners along ute
Avenue.
Lennie Oates: We certainly concur with that philosophically with
the statement and position that Graeme has taken on this thing.
Frankly the idea of a community purchase is not an impossibility.
I don't think either Mr. Davis or Mr. Rappaport is prepared to
write a check for the entire project but certainly I think that
there are people within the area who would contribute to the
acquisition of the property for open space or whatever if someone
were prepared to spearhead such an effort.
Welton asked for a review of how this lot ever got subdivided
into a building lot in the first place.
Leslie: My understanding is that Hoag-whoever subdivided-Jim
Blanding was subdividing it had the ability to develop the ute
Cemetery also. And basically said to City Council "I am going to
develop it unless you work a deal with me". They said "OK we
will give you this subdivision". And they did Lot 3 up above
with the panhandle down. And it was legally subdivided.
Barker: And Lot 1 was also granted as open space.
Bruce: I am not sure that I agree with the position that Graeme
has taken. But I am certain that I disagree in regard of the
issue of the taking at this point. The very fact that the lot
was previously subdivided granted no rights to build on it. That
is what this 8040 Greenline review is all about. And if we
determine, and I am not sure that I have determined that yet, but
if we determine that based on the criteria of the 8040 that the
lot is not buildable I don't know that there is any taking issue
involved.
I was probably ready to buy into the deal when he was here the
last time subj ect to getting the business of the trail and the
safety elements resolved. So I am probably leaning in that
direction towards approval of it.
Leslie: Condition #10 that the existing road is the old road
shall be signed as a trail for trail use and utility use only.
Zaluba: That is the way it is now. I have no objection to that.
Leslie: I talked about this with the land owner's representative
along ute Avenue and--"That the new road shall be used only for
access to the single family residents on Lot 3".
5
PZMll.14.89
I understand there are some problems with that. That if a new
road is cut that that road will only access a family home on Lot
3 and there cannot be any spur roads off that onto some other
property.
Marty?: I represent Smuggler Mining corporation which owns the
Newfundland Road which is adjacent to this. Some time ago there
was a conflict about a triangle bottom portion of it and our
title company said that we owned it. Their title company said
they owned it. Jack and I have known each other for a long time
and just spent 5 years litigating this and what we did was
essentially waive our claim to that triangular portion in
exchange for easement crossage. We then did that easement
agreement. We each spent about $10,000 building that road. The
easement agreement basically gives us access to get to our
property. I just don't think it is reasonable or fair at this
stage to say "Well, if you approve this road instead of the road
that all agreed upon which (much rattling of papers)
It was determined Marty was referring to the road that is the
trail.
Marty: So basically the idea was when we entered into this
agreement that to develop one road instead of two and minimize
the exposure etc. and co-operate on it and have it designed
jointly. And that is what we did. And so I just think that if
this proj ect is approved and that the new road instead of the
existing road that we paid half of is approved that you shouldn't
set a condition that we don't get to use it because we were going
to get to use the roads that had been approved by the Forest
Service and put in and we jointly developed. We are only talking
about another potential single family residence at some time in
the future which is subject to 8040 review anyway. But it is not
fair to say "You can't have access to this road. You have got to
build another road".
Jack Barker, owner of the lot: This other administrative body
that we have had to deal with is the United States Forest
Service. They were greatly relieved when we came to this
agreement in that they feel that there is an obligation for them
to provide access to the Newfoundland Road regardless of all this
other thing. And since we were able to finish that for them they
were very happy about it because then they don't have to approve
another road above the road that we are proposing now to get to
the Newfoundland Road. And that is what will probably have to
happen if we cannot have co-use of this road.
There will be a 3rd road and that would be on Forest Service
property and I think that is also in the County and that is
totally out of your jurisdiction other than the building part of
6
PZMll.14.89
it. So all you do is defeat everything you want to do if you
don't allow him to join down the road because you probably will
have to have a 3rd road up there.
Marty: Our whole point in working with Jack was to keep one road
here. Don't add to whatever visual impact there may be. In good
faith we did that and we developed the road. Now of course we
can't use that one but we are happy to co-operate on this one. I
just don't think it is fair to say "you use this instead of the
existing road. We only want it for this house and we don't want
it to serve the Newfoundland Road".
Roger: Is this new information to the Planning Office?
Leslie: No. It was brought up at the last meeting.
Zaluba: I guess the land owners--the Davis's and the Rapapports-
-their position is to the extent that road is on the ute Trail
and utility easement. Mr. Barker never had the right to grant
them in the first place. That is a legal issue that has to be
decided by someone else. If he has the right to use that road,
so be it--the existing road I mean. But I think the land owners
want to limit the road use up there. And if there is a way to do
that we think it is in the best interest of the City and
everybody else to do that.
Welton: We are having SCheduling problems. This is a special
meeting and this 8040 Greenline was worked into a special meeting
that is supposed to be dealing mostly with the Housing
Replacement program. There are some new issues that have been
brought up or some issues that have been brought up that--
essentially the size of the house was my main concern. This high
up and this visible a location. The width of it has been reduced
greatly but the overall square footage to my mind has not shown
any greater conformance with the limitations of such a steep and
inaccessible site.
Yesterday I was riding my bike back from the Aspen Club and I
heard a groan that I thought was an earthquake or some other
natural disaster and in fact it was a truck trying to back up the
existing easement. And you could hear it for half a mile away.
Apparently the truck couldn't do it in forward because it was
doing it in reverse which only proves to emphasize how difficult
this site is going to be both to construct on and to gain access
to in winter time.
The new road is an improvement although it will be steeper than
this road was that he was trying to get up. I don't feel like we
are given the time tonight to properly reach a conclusion either
yes or no.
7
PZM11.14.89
compton: I feel the same way. I hear consideration about the
size of the house that high up on the mountainside. We are not
just concerned with people right on ute Avenue. They obviously
are most impacted. Anyone looking at it from across the valley
it is major.
Zaluba: The lower level is completely hidden and we can either
go up or across. By cutting 1, OOOsqft out of it I don't know
that it is going to be that much less of an impact than that
drawing which is an accurate drawing.
I feel like we are trying to work here and do all of this stuff
and then every time we get here we are getting totally new
information and I really don't know what to do. I accepted the
criticism on the last one. I think you were right. I don't know
if I cut it further that when I come back in then you say it
doesn't look that much different from the other one.
Welton:
probably
either.
If it didn't look much different from the other one then
it would not be received with a lot of enthusiasm
Zaluba: The Rappaport house is over 6, OOOsqft and it is not
hidden at all. This house has at least made an attempt to work
with the site, and the trees and things to mitigate as much as we
could the impact. I am asking for less than 2 of the 3 houses
right below me. And the Rappaport house which you just approved
is almost 7,000sqft and I am at 4,600sqft. I think the Rappaport
house has a terrific impact. Maybe not from across town but
certainly on ute it does.
city council approved this particular lot knowing that
going to be some kind of a fairly good-sized house
there. In fact we made ita 3 acre lot so that
substantial piece of property that that house sits on.
like 1010 ute and all those other places where you
houses crammed on top of each other.
there was
buil t up
it is a
It is not
see these
Roger: By definition it is a buildable site so we are going to
have to deal with it. As much as I don't like it as a buildable
site I still feel obligated to deal with it.
Now my problem is this access issue. I don't know what to do
with it tonight. If there is an obligation to access that
property through this property how is that dealt with with the
new road?
Welton: It is going to take a whole lot more input from our
Council to know how to make a proper decision on that.
8
PZM11.14.89
MOTION
Roger: I move to table action (a date certain was not reached)
on this at this time and request a meeting at which time the City
Attorney can be here and hopefully in that time the Planning Dept
can hammer it out with the City Attorney and help us with a
direction on this. If indeed they require access and it is not
possible with the existing road and the existing trail is going
to be used as that access to that upper lot anyway without any
control I would rather have it all on one instead of cutting a
new driveway up there.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor except Bruce Kerr.
HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
PUBLIC HEARING
Tom Baker: I will run through some updated information that we
have on the needs assessment. We have tracked development in the
ci ty. We have taken the 1. 9 figure and divided it into the
annual employee generation figure to come up with an annual unit
need. There was an informal policy developed by the Housing
Authority back in the 80s that said that the free market should
house 50% of the needs of the community's employee housing, and
the public sector should house the other 50%. I think it is up
to us to determine what is appropriate for the free market to
house--who can house what.
At this point as a staff we decided
meaningless right now--that the
concerned with is the 1128 number.
that that number is somewhat
number that we should be
Compton: Is that unmet need for units or an increase over the
1970 deriver?
Baker: I have another table that identifies what the shortfall
is. This is what has been generated in terms of--will show what
has been produced and then we will have our shortfall.
We decided on 1995 as being the target date to identify what our
need is going to be. We feel if we can structure a program to
address our needs in 1995 as we get there we will have taken a
big step.
We had 3 projections for growth. This turned out to be a middle
projection. As you can see in '89 the 1142 figure right now we
are projecting we are projecting that we are at about 1128. So
this particular projection in terms of annual growth at about
25,000sqft of commercial a year in the Aspen Metro area seems to
9
PZM11. 14 . 89
be the one we should track with. That puts us at about 1490 for
generation in '95.
Production: When we try to determine what the need is and what
the need will be--in 1979 we had a 250 unit shortfall. In the
'80s based upon the commercial square footage as an indicator we
generated about 878--a need for 878 units. We have produced and
in production we count everything in the inventory including
Hunter Longhouse and Truscott Place. That puts us at about 495.
That gives us a shortfall in that decade of 383. Add that onto
the 250 that we had in '79 that gives us a 633 unit shortfall.
From '90 to '95 our projections show that we are going to
generate about 362 units. What we have on the board right now
between the Marolt Ranch, the Meadow Ridge, the W/J, the Ski Co
stuff-stuff that is actually on the board we feel confident that
is going to be built we have between 160 and 210 units. So we
still have a substantial shortfall.
Bruce: What does that shortfall mean?
times 633 people don't have a place to
people have chosen to live down valley?
Baker: That is a theoretical number. Right now people are
overcrowding. People are living--being forced to live in
overcrowded situations, live down valley. We are not advocating
that the government ought to take care of this entire need. We
are just trying to identify what the shortfall is. Free market
is going to have a roll to play in this. I think that we will
all determine what seems appropriate for that. Free market in
terms of free market coming in and doing affordable housing in
the AH zone free market down valley as well as--
Does that mean that 1.9
live? Or does that mean
Bruce: But if those unit needs were met somehow magically all of
a sudden, there would still be 100% occupancy of--theoretically.
Baker: Yes. Theoretically.
So we have got somewhere between a 7 and an 800 unit shortfall
between now and 1995 and trying to figure out how we are going to
address that is the task we are undertaking dealing with the
housing replacement program and cottage infill.
It is clear that we are losing ground on the housing issue.
Growth management only provides for 60% as a threshold. The
housing displacement that we saw occur in '87 and '88--Amy had
Bill Drueding work up some numbers to give us a feel for what
demolition has done to the affordable housing in the community.
When I say affordable housing I use that term interchangeably.
Technically affordable housing means price and income. But when
we talk about demolition I will use affordable housing to mean
10
PZM11.14.89
stuff that was in free market that has been turned into second
homes.
Bill Drueding went through his records from '84 and '85 to the
present. He was able to identify 97 units that were demolished
and converted into second homes. So those 97 units were taken
out of what is generically called affordable housing. Although
free market was providing that. To put that 97 unit figure in
perspective--that started in the winter '84-'85. But we have had
administrative delays in place for a significant portion of '88
and '89 so that has dampened the effect.
97 units--Truscott Place is 48 units. That took us 2 years to do
and it still is not done. So 97 units can equate to 4 years of
public sector effort to develop affordable housing. If we look
at our total inventory it is around 1,000 units deed restricted.
97 units is about 10% of that. Or if you just look at what GMP
has provided over the last decade, 97 units equates to 33% of
that inventory.
.,./
So that whole demolition cycle that we were going through just
eroded a tremendous amount of effort on the community's part to
provide affordable housing. centennial was only 235 units.
Almost half of that project was rendered ineffective through the
displacement that occurred with the demolition. So that is a
huge concern. What we are trying to do as a staff and what you
were doing in Ord. 47 of '88 was trying to hit that across the
board.
Neiley: When you say unit, what are you saying we need? Is a
unit a bedroom? Is it 1.9 bedroom?
Baker: Unit is a generic say 1 or 2 bedroom facility that houses
1.9 people. It is a theoretical number to give us a handle on
what our need is.
Right now we can expect the free market to handle a certain
percentage of our future need. They always have. They always
will. People are moving down valley right now because the
options are becoming less and less in the free market up here.
The units that Bill identified were free market units.
Compton: Are they theoretical units? Or is that single family
houses that actually held 4 or 5 people?
Baker: No. It was a mix. We couldn't really track all the
different types so we just counted numbers at this point. It was
absolutely demolition permits.
11
PZM11. 14 .89
Compton: So it was actually a lot larger--I know some of them
were destroyed and they were lived in by a large number of
people.
Baker: Large projects were involved. The Agate--stuff that came
down when Roberts or Cantrup--I just remember there were 5
projects that Bill wasn't able to track.
Compton: Pitkin Row.
Amy: Aspen Chance, 700 Block East Hopkins, Grainery, 700 South
Aspen Street.
Roger: Don't forget Independence Lodging and the ones over
Sardy's.
Baker: The things that we have left to do are to try to
determine what the mix of units ought to be and how do we do
this? How much is going to be free market, how much is going to
be free market through the affordable housing zone, how much we
can expect, how much the government is going to do, how much GMP
can be expected to do. We are trying to sort that out and come
back to you with reasonable percentages so that we can then
identify what it is we feel the government, the public sector is
responsible for directly.
The other aspect is the types of units that are going to be
needed in the future. And this is also another one that we are
trying to get a handle on using income information. And Harry
Truscott--the Housing Authority worked on this problem and tried
to come up with some percentage breakdowns. I think we will use
Harry's information as a starting point. But we will be
including resident occupied units in this as well. He focused on
40% up to production in the future. Now that could be everybody,
not just the government but everybody. That would be low income
rental. The government has taken a huge chunk out of that
already with the Marolt Ranch effort.
Tom passed out a matrix to members as informational table. What
we found when we were discussing David's work was that
occasionally we come up with the question of why doesn't the Ord.
do something about new single family development. And what we
found was we had a difficult time was keeping on track as to just
what exactly we can expect demolition replacement ordinance to
do. So we developed this matrix to identify community problems.
David Myler: The draft Ord that you have with your package is a
complete housing replacement program in the sense that it has got
all of the parts in it. What we want to talk about is whether or
12
PZM11.14.89
not we need to adjust or fine tune those parts or perhaps scrap
this approach entirely and start allover again.
The purpose of this is to reduce the displacement of working
residents from rental housing. All three of those elements are
important; displacement, working elements and rental housing. We
define working residents in there in the same way that we have
historically defined it. There is nothing new. You live here
and you work here.
The Ord comes into play when an individual has or is the owner of
an affordable housing unit as we have defined it and wants to
either demolish it or enlarge it. We define both demolition and
enlargement. The regulation applies to any dwelling unit which
has historically been rented to working residents. It does
therefore not apply to the demolition or enlargement of any
owner/occupied housing or to any tourist accommodations. We
defined owner/occupancy to include second homes. The catch is
that you have to demonstrate owner/occupancy for a period of at
least 12 months prior to your application for demolition permit
which means that during that period of time it cannot have been
rented to working residents.
We included single family, duplex and multi-family dwellings if
they have been rented historically as affordable housing to
working residents. So your own home, you can tear down. Your
own half duplex, you can tear down. Your own condominium unit,
you can tear down or enlarge. Even though you may be a working
resident we felt that at least for the sake of discussion now it
wasn't necessary to protect you from displacing yourself. What
we are primarily interested in are renters who are being
displaced and they waive for second homes or some other form of
tourist accommodation-the 97 units that we lost since 1985.
Demolition is the same definition we have in Ord 47 of '88 which
is to tear down completely or to raze. Enlargement is to
increase the floor area over what exists or will exist on the
effective date of this Ord by 50% or a thousand square feet
whichever is less.
The reason for including enlargement is we felt that kind of
enlargement would have the same effect as replacing the unit if
we take it out of the affordable housing market. If you have a
unit that falls within this category and you want to demolish it
we have set out the affordable housing replacement requirements
and broken it down by the type of unit. If it is a single family
unit we require you to include an accessory dwelling unit in the
replacement or enlarged project, or at the option of the Council
where for planning reasons or based on the neighborhood
conditions it wouldn't be appropriate to increase the density you
13
PZM11.14.89
can pay affordable housing fee.
compliance.
You can buy your way out of
with respect to duplexes if you are demolishing or enlarging 1/2
of a duplex that is treated just like single family residence.
You can include an accessory unit or pay a fee. If you are
demolishing both halves of a duplex we have got right now a
requirement that is similar to that which was in Ord 51. But
there are 3 options--deed restrict one of the units as resident
occupied which is not price and income restricted, construct an
accessory dwelling unit in each of the replacement units or
enlarged units or pay a fee or combination of the above depending
upon the discretion of the Council.
MUlti-family demolition we have included enlargement but the
possibilities of enlargement are slim. So it is primarily
demolition that we are looking at. We require the owner to
construct replacement housing consisting of not less than 50% of
the square footage of net residential area demolished or
converted. That differs from Ord 47 of '88 which says you have
got to deed restrict 50% of what you build. You do not have to
replace 50% of what is already there. What we are providing for
in this Ord is a replacement of 50% of the square footage and
figured in such a way as to accommodate 50% of the bedrooms of
what is being demolished. Ord. 47 is going to be replaced by
this. That is what we envision.
The number 50% was one that we chose to use for the purpose of
discussion. It is not cast in concrete. The housing needs to be
on site unless there is a good reason for it to be off site. And
we have provided some flexibility that allows that housing to be
off site.
We have also provided that it needs to be subject to the rental
and resale restrictions. We have said no less than 20% of the
bedrooms and multi-family project would be low income. No more
than 20% would be resident occupied. We also at some point in
time may want to talk about how this particular program would fit
with the affordable housing zone wherein depending upon the
amount of property and what is on it there may be opportunities
to rezone the property on which a mUlti-family project is located
to achieve the replacement objective and to provide some density
bonus incentives for the owner of the property that makes it more
economically attractive.
That is an overview of how the program works.
The previous replacement programs haven't dealt with single
family and we decided to include it since the focus of this
ordinance is on reducing displacement. It was hard for us to
14
PZM11.14.89
really envision
resident out of
an apartment.
decided that we
a distinction between displacing a working
a single family home that he rents or a duplex or
It was all displacement and for that reason we
should include single family.
It is our perception in doing our little surveys around town and
talking to people that there is not a lot of that product that it
would be caught up in this particular regulation. Most single
family homes are owner-occupied. If we are wrong in that respect
we would like to know more about that but that is basically the
thinking as to why that single family rental should be included.
Dr. Whitcomb: You make a statement that the achievement of these
goals will promote a socially and economically balanced
community. How do you know that? How can you make a statement
like that as though it is a fact of life. How do you know that
that is a fact? Limit the number of individuals who face a long
and sometimes dangerous commute on the state highway 82, reduce
the air pOllution--I will not argue necessarily the aspects of
that. But how can you make the statement that this will promote
a socially and economically balanced community?
My point is that anybody who has tried to socially legislate a
balanced community has never come up with a successful plan.
Amy: I think that the purpose of this is to try and achieve a
planning bowl which is to keep Aspen in a place where people can
live and work. We see a trend of resident's housing being
converted to second homes. And so the goal from a planning
perspective is to provide for opportunities in the community for
a varied group of economic classes and varied group of economic
ability to afford certain types of housing. That is the crux of
it. It is not that we are saying it is right or wrong. It is
just that that is one of the goals is to try to have a balanced
community--not to let the community get locked by one side or the
other but to provide opportunities for both.
Whitcomb: I understand that. I am just saying that nobody has
ever been able to legislate it.
Compton: I think failure to do that notwithstanding I think you
can see from most of the large cities in this country what
happens when this attempt is not made is that you get the
opposite effect of social and economic breakdown and loss of
investment real estate with nobody living in it and the people
that need houses out on the street. So I think that statement
has a lot of historical evidence to support it.
Whitcomb: Then why doesn't it work?
15
PZM11.14.89
Welton: I think it is not so much a matter of making it work.
It is a matter of identifying the problem and trying to head it
off before we can't do anything more about it.
Whitcomb: I am just trying to tell you I know you can't socially
legislate who is going to live next to each other. It is never
going to work.
Myler: I don't think the regulation goes that far. It attempts
to provide a mechanism for maintaining a work force in the
community which will have the effect of maintaining some form of
balance. I think the key word here is to promote something that
we want not to establish a precise balance point or goal.
Whether or not this is being used in other communities--it is.
This Ord for example is patterned on one that exists in Hartford,
Connecticut. And I have also reviewed several ords in various
communities in California and Washington. This type of
regulation is be implemented and has been used in communities on
a pretty regular basis.
Herron: Has any thought been given or any study been made as to
what is left in this town that this ord is likely to affect. If
we lost 97 units in that period of time before the administrative
delay was in place is anybody going around to identify how many
units are available that would be suspect to being sold to
somebody who would be a speculator? I have a concern as to
whether we are going to address something that is going to
produce any kind of significant amount.
Baker: That is something that has been done. Glenn Horn and
Chuck Videl have been working on identifying likely areas that
would be threatened. I don't have a precise number on it.
Amy: We have partial numbers. We have done a couple of
neighborhoods. 44 total duplexes in just 2 neighborhoods in the
Snowbunny/Cemetery Lane area and the west end. We haven't gone
through the rest of the neighborhoods yet. In terms of multi-
family we have identified a total of 61 in the City and we have
to go back now and try and take that into view. So we haven't
completed that work yet. But it is a substantial inventory for
both duplexes and mUlti-family.
Baker: I went on a survey around town just to do sort of a
conceptual view of the neighborhoods. I think if you just take a
walk over on Riverside Drive, The Aspen Grove area--you can sort
of visualize what happened to the East end 2 years ago. If the
economy is right it could just sweep those areas as well. There
is a lot of people like us living out there and there are
16
PZM11.14.89
underbuil t properties so there is a substantial inventory out
there.
Welton: To get back and address the topics for discussion: I
think the Ord should have to cover single family demolition and
replacement because we have seen over and over again that
whichever loophole, whichever opening there is in the gas filled
balloon that is exempted from GMQS or development that is where
the thrust of the development is going to go. And if single
family is exempted that is where the developer is going to tear
down and rebuild. What little is left of affordable single
family is going to go the way of the do-do birds. I think that
absolutely single family has to be included.
Graeme: I think I agree with that for another reason and that is
that there is a community-wide problem and I think that it needs
to be spread throughout the community. Not only so that
everybody takes a burden but I really feel that there is a
benefit besides the fact that we are housing people in that they
are enlivening neighborhoods.
Whitcomb: The thing that ticked me off in the beginning is that
I felt that I was being selected to solve a problem that we have
in this town. My comment was that I would be willing to take on
my share of the burden providing that every guy in this town
comes with me. I was getting paranoid because I didn't feel that
people were looking at this as a community problem. I think if
everybody gets involved in that spirit, then I think there is a
lot of reasonable compromise and a lot of effort that will be
made.
Penny Evans: Where I see a problem with including single family
homes that have been rented out if the owner wants to come back
and re-occupy that home, I think that there has to be some
consideration for that person. That is for the owner who has
been renting out his own home and wants to come back, remodel,
enlarge or whatever, his own home and move back into it. I think
that needs some consideration.
Myler: The issue here is the holding period basically and it is
designed to prevent abuses and we have pegged it at 12 months but
I don't know what is fair in this situation. What that would
mean is that if an owner does want to come back and re-occupy the
house and move his renter out, if he lives there for 12 months he
can enlarge it or tear it down and he is exempt from this
particular regulation.
Evans: Why put that burden of the 12 months on him? Couldn't it
be worded in such a way he could demolish it but then live in it
for 12 months.
17
PZM11.14.89
Myler: In concept I understand what you are saying and maybe
there are ways to create some equity here where somebody is not
attempting to get around the ord but really has a situation that
shouldn't require strict compliance. And that is always where it
gets to be tough.
What we didn't want is a situation where we are going to have
premature displacement of people. An individual saying well this
is my second home and 3 weeks later applying for a demolition
permit. If that could occur we might as well exempt single
family. That is the dilemma that we are facing.
Compton: My concern is that it looks to me that for someone who
wants to turn a property you are just making them wait 12 months
longer and costing him a few thousand dollars extra and without
having any effect on the ultimate result.
Myler: Again, we are trying to balance and come up with
something that is some compromise that is reasonable and it is
very possible that in single family area and perhaps even with
duplexes we may lose a few units. Our goal here is not to
preserve every unit in this community but to reduce the
displacement that is going on.
Compton: Did you consider using period of ownership rather than
period of occupancy by the owner? So that if you owned the house
for 10 years and then suddenly decided you wanted to move back
into it and remodel or redevelop it you have the option. But if
you just bought it for the purpose of redevelopment--
Myler: That is an interesting concept.
Hunt: OK. If the owner/occupant decides to sell a single family
or duplex to someone and let's say the intent of the buyer is to
just have it be a second home, we have in effect at that point
displaced resident housing and then now if he wants to redevelop
or demolish obviously he will come under this requirement to put
a new unit in.
Myler: Actually he wouldn't. Under that precise scenario you
have got an owner/occupant who sells to another owner/occupant
which includes a second home owner. They are exempt and in that
case the owner has displaced himself and we don't care.
Hunt: Ok, but that owner who has displaced himself is probably
an employee of this community assuming a full time occupancy of
the home. So somewhere in here I was having problems with that
type of thing because we are still displacing a resident/employee
of this community by not addressing that.
18
PZM11.14.89
Amy: One of our fears in this was that these rules may lead to
an incentive for second homes. That is one way you can get
around it.
Welton: One thing I had a note on was that there
disincentive for second home form of ownership.
ordinance can't be everything to everybody.
Myler: The idea was that if an individual who was a member of
the work force wants to sell his own house to cash in as a lot of
people have said, we are assuming that we don't really need to
protect that individual. It is a voluntary choice. He may be
making a large profit. It is not our business to decide that but
they are probably not the kind of person who is going to be out
on the street and having to contend with moving down valley.
This is not the type of displacement that we are attempting to
deal with.
wasn't enough
Maybe this
Hunt: Keep in mind an owner of a house may be the manager of a
business and in effect what you have done is lost one employee
housing unit.
Myler: We have lost the unit. That is correct.
Hunt: And the new manager is going to have to find a place that
doesn't exist.
Myler: Displacement is the central purpose of this regulation.
If a second homeowner wants to tear down his house or enlarge it
and resell it, that hasn't had an adverse impact on the
affordable housing situation because we are not displacing any
employees.
Hunt: Though you may not be displacing an employee you have, in
effect. displaced an employee housing unit.
Myler: We have displaced a potential unit. That is correct.
Rick Neiley: I am not sure why we are creating any exemptions at
all. The idea is to preserve housing and to create housing which
seems to be dual purposes. Why create exemptions? Why just not
make everyone contribute to the solution of the problem. We
don't need exemptions in this. I think from the standpoint of
achieving what we need to achieve in this community that creation
of exemptions ei ther encourages people to withdraw properties
from the market place or discourages people from making available
additional housing units through the redevelopment process.
19
PZM11.14.89
If you require every single family home that is torn down to
include an accessory unit, you are going to create housing. If
you prohibit people from escaping the consequences of the
ordinance by removing something from the marketplace for 12
months or whatever fixed period of time you have, you encourage
them correspondingly to make the house available. So why exempt
it?
Welton: That is a good point.
Whitcomb: I can give you a lot of reasons why.
Baker: Rick makes a good point. I don't have an answer for it.
All I know is at staff we go around on those same kinds of
thoughts. What we ultimately hit upon is that--OK what can we
reasonably expect this particular aspect of the overall package
to do? And what do we have to defer to other aspects of the
package. We want everybody to contribute to the solution. But
does this particular ord have to be the vehicle for all of it.
Neiley: It can't be, Tom. But this ordinance also contains
provisions that permit enlargement and remodeling of existing
properties without impact of having to create additional housing.
So it doesn't preclude existing owners, residents from improving
their living circumstances. What it does is, as it is currently
drafted, I think it creates a bunch of loopholes that people are
going to use as the 18 month town condominiumization was used to
increase rents and displace people in order to get around the
negative impacts of the ordinance.
Welton: Which brings us to the second of these topics of
discussion which is the way we define affordable housing leaves
open the possibility of displacing long term residents in order
to avoid the legislation.
In my recollection in all the years that that 18 month rule was
in effect it never once did it accomplish what it was set up to
do.
Baker: We ultimately took it out of the code because we had some
concerns about the activity that was going on in terms of people
displacing resident long-term renters for that 18 month period
and then condominiumizing without paying the impact fee. That
was the concern we had. There is Penny's concern about being
fair to the owner and then there is our concern that the 12 month
period might not be enough to deter that displacement to get
around the legislation.
Herron:
eliminate
Another problem regardless of irregardless of whether we
the exemptions or not under the current affordable
20
PZM11.14.89
housing or the accessory dwelling ordinance, when we passed it
here it had a provision that if it wasn't occupied by somebody
then the Housing Authority could put somebody in it.
City Council took that out. So if we make this with no
exceptions or with exceptions it is real easy to put that in your
house and just never use it. So we haven't accomplished anything
by doing that either. Unless we have some kind of mechanism so
that particular unit gets occupied by somebody.
Welton: That was a different City Council that took that out.
Herron: I don't think so. It was this city Council.
Graeme: I don't think that you are going to find that somebody
has a unit that they can get a certain amount of rent for that
there is going to be a large proportion of those people who are
going to take advantage of it and just leave it empty.
Herron: There are people right now with second homes who don't
put them up for rent. They buy a house for a million dollars and
tear it down and build a three million dollar house. If they can
get 4 or 500 dollars a month rent, it doesn't mean anything to
them.
Amy: I think that a lot of people may not use it but if you
allow it a lot of them will be rented. You may not get 100% of
them but a lot of them will be rented I think as people want
someone to be there for safety reasons.
Baker: I think it is entirely within our purview throughout this
whole process whether we can fold it into the ordinance or not to
rectify those past what we consider mistakes and just go back to
Council with strong recommendations again and why. And I think
they will listen.
Myler: At the beginning I indicated there were a lot of moving
parts in this regulation that may need to be fine-tuned. I also
said that it may not be the appropriate solution and I didn't
really expect it to come up quite so soon but the reason for this
regulation is the existence of an exemption from GMQS when you
are demolishing an existing unit. Not only that but we don't
include single family and in some cases duplex units either. So
this is really--we have in this ordinance exemptions from
exemptions.
One way to deal with this would be to simply eliminate the GMQS
exemption for single family and duplex and to require as a
condition of obtaining a permit that the affordable housing
impacts caused by the particular development be mitigated. And
21
PZM11.14.89
perhaps take a look at the annual allocation and how it may be
divided between different types of units. That is a fairly large
thing to bite off but that really is a way that you would avoid a
lot of exemptions from exemptions and try and make these programs
work. It all stems from the fact that replacement is exempt from
GMQS and therefore it isn't required to contribute to the
affordable housing solution.
Amy: For example, that 97 units that Bill Drueding looked up,
one of the criterion for him to look up was units that were not
mitigated. So all of those units were torn down and replaced by
second homes and there was no mitigation, no impact fees, no
replacement requirements.
Herron: Wouldn't it be a better vehicle then?
instead of having more layers of ordinances and
are basically eliminating them.
Myler: I am not prepared to say it is better or worse--it is an
alternative.
Because then
regulations we
Neiley: Better get some more staff.
Myler: You are then increasing the numbers of people who are
going to want to compete for the allocations that are available.
Most of the development that has occurred around here in the last
4 or 5 years has been exempt development.
Herron: If you turn around though and instead of making them
compete, just make them come up with an affordable--an accessory
dwelling unit you haven't increased anything. Then they are just
in line with everybody else.
Myler: That is basically what this regulation does. In order to
be exempt from GMQS you have got to replace that housing but
there are exemptions from the exemptions. And in some cases the
law requires a degree of flexibility and equity to be built in
and that is where exemptions come from.
Welton: Well, there are exemptions from the GMQS competition
process and also exemptions from mitigating impacts for housing,
etc. And I can only remember one instance where a duplex came
in--the one over on Hyman st a second unit came in for
competition GMP and couldn't get scored enough points and it is
still sitting there just a half a duplex with a shear wall.
I would be real enthusiastic about talking about exempting the
projects that have already been exempted from the competition and
for the mitigation but no longer exempting them from taking from
22
PZM11.14.89
a higher level of--taken from the top of the stack rather than
creating exemptions from exemptions from exemptions.
Myler: What we really tried to do here was to try to find a
specific solution to a specific problem which was displacement
and not attempt to re-think the GMQS exemption process. In the
meantime we have had to create, from an equity standpoint, second
homes. We don't believe that that sort of demolition creates the
sort of displacement that we ought to be regulating.
Whitcomb: What is this going to cost me as an individual who
doesn't have the wherewithal that somebody has to come in and
tear down the Agate and fell all of those houses to get it done.
I have got to keep my economics in reality when I do what I do.
So I mean the cost of doing business has to be carefully
calculated and I am not going to be able to do what I need to do.
I am going to have to leave a building over there that is going
to slum away. The reason that I wanted to do what I wanted to do
is because this building needs to be replaced. It has had it.
So if you are going to put a whole bunch of economic blocks in
front of me and make it impossible for me to do this thing then
nothing is going to happen.
Amy: In general we feel that these options are reasonable.
Myler: Each particular property will be a little bit different.
I would be more than willing to sit down and try to figure out
what the likely economic consequences might be on your property.
Bring your own people as well who can assist us in making the
assumptions that we are going to have to make. There is no
question that in some circumstances this particular regulation is
going to eliminate some of the speculative value redevelopment
value of property.
On the other hand I don't think there is any question that it
won't have any impact on the current value in terms of an
operating rental project. We aren't going to require anybody to
change the way in which they operate to minimize or reduce their
rents, to hold their rents, to rent to anybody in particular or
to require a remodel or an upgrade some of the things that New
York city did and got into trouble for. So that we aren't'
decreasing the value of the property as it is currently being
used or limiting its current use.
What we would be doing in some case depending upon the
property involved is eliminating a redevelopment
reducing a redevelopment value.
individual
value or
23
PZM11.14.89
Graeme: We have also got to look at the long term economics of
it as well as the short term. I personally believe that if a
program like this can be effective in 10 years it is going to
make a better community out of where we live and therefor it is
going to be in a longer economic term beneficial to a broad
variety of land owners. It is taking the town from a boom and
bust kind of thing. It is going through this boom right now and
there is going to be a bust.
Amy: One of the things it came down to is we want to use this
mechanism to solve our affordable housing problems. There are
some other reasons that we want to see this demolition moratorium
lifted and replaced with something that works because a lot of
what we are looking at here is community character and not having
ghost neighborhoods where everything is second homes and people
aren't living there. It may have nothing to do with how much
that person makes. That is another need in this community.
There is this other group here that we are not really providing
housing for. There is the real high end second homes or it is
the deed restricted. And we are going to try to see if there is
a gap in there that needs to be filled. This might be the
mechanism to fill that gap.
",.-
Hunt: Our present FARs in the residential zone seem to be very
well geared for extremely expensive second homes. I have been an
advocate for some time of a 2 tier FAR. In other words below a
certain FAR for a single family home they would not have to
address something like an employee housing unit.
Going over that FAR you could totally
housing unit in that type of development.
is work to be done in that area.
tolerate an employee
And so I think there
If you had a 2 tier FAR limit established then if they went over
that first level FAR I don't say that the entire amount of the
additional FAR has to go to an additional dwelling unit--there is
some percentage of it that must though.
compton: We didn't get into the multi family ratios in this
discussion. My gut feeling and my philosophical approach to this
problem is that we have affordable housing to be developed as
affordable housing and any free market units are an incentive to
redevelopment rather than if you want to redevelop you have got
to throw in a few bones.
It is like saying "I have got a coke habit and rather than
doubling the amount I would use only 50% more".
24
PZMll.14.89
I can see there are some financial and other considerations
driving the 50% but I don't like that as a starting point. I
think we start with 100% unit replacement and then go from there
rather than looking at affordable housing as a concession of the
developer to the community--Iook on the free market unit as a
concession of the developer.
Amy: We looked at what would be a reasonable percentage. 50% is
really a starting point. We were going to try to premise it on
something that we felt would be feasible and reasonable to the
owners of those units so that they would actually do it.
Compton: So the question is what type of units do we want to
have be developed.
Myler: It is almost impossible to answer except on a case-by-
case basis. When we tried to come up with some general rules
that we could apply to arrive at a percentage of replacement,
every project was a little different. And we picked 50% sort of
on the low side expecting that there would be discussion of that
going any lower than that but there certainly would be discussion
of going higher. I think 100% replacement program would have
problems surviving.
I don't know that we do the work force in our community a big
favor by preserving a lot of substandard properties in town. At
some point we do have to agree that we would like to have
properties upgraded and replaced.
Amy: A lot of the mUlti-family units in town are non-conforming.
They are at a lot higher density than would be allowed if they
demolished those and rebuilt. That is an issue. We will be
losing units but according to our plan--
Compton: You would get better units that will conform.
Amy: They may not be able to replace them at 100%.
Neiley: Some of you may recall I went around, around and around
on this issue in connection with Ord 47. This ordinance goes
considerably further than 47 as it is drafted. I don't know if
it is right or wrong but one of the things that was included in
47 which it seems to be omitted and you mentioned that it is
omitted for the time being and the question is both density
bonuses or density increases and that they are bonuses.
Effectively the City currently has a density bonus for single
family and duplexes because it allows an accessory dwelling unit
with being considering that to be another unit. I can't conceive
of an ordinance that is going to work that is going to result in
25
PZM11.14.89
replacement or redevelopment of some of the substandard housing
that doesn't include both density and some sort of FAR bonuses.
Maybe Roger's suggestion about the 2 tier FAR scale makes sense
both for single family and for multifamily. So that once people
reach a certain level of providing that accessory unit or the
affordable housing unit or replacement housing unit there is a
mechanism that kicks in that provides an FAR incentive so that
they have a little more to sellon the same piece of land.
That is a controversial one because a lot of
enthused about the idea of increasing density.
to put something like that in here though.
neighbors are not
I think you need
Myler: Well, the density bonus is in the affordable housing zone
which can work in conjunction with that.
Neiley:
get.
It will be interesting to see how many applications you
Myler: It may make sense for somebody who has got an existing
property and is faced with compliance with the replacement
requirement and can get some increased density. If you have got
an underdeveloped lot and in some cases the lots are already
overdeveloped and you are allowed to redevelop what you have
there so you have got a bonus built in already.
Neiley: The problem is I know there were 2 specific projects
that were specifically targeted by the demolition moratoriums
that have looked at the affordable housing zone district and
rejected it. And one of them is Dean Billings property which I
always sort of anticipated that the affordable housing zone
district was being tailored toward. And they came in and said
"We want more like 6040". Or at least that was their initial
request.
Amy: That came because they were replacing 100% of their units.
Neiley: But the mix is what ultimately worked.
Hunt: I have a real problem with the 50% figure in redevelopment
because you are fighting a very losing battle because every
redevelopment you lose half of it as affordable housing. So I
somewhat like Richard's approach that for 100% you can get 10%
more or something on that order and I don't know what those
figures should be.
But on the redevelopment of a property we should look at the
ability to come up with density and FAR bonuses to accommodate
the free market portion of it. And that might mean a portion of
the 100% of the affordable units the FAR may be reduced for the
26
PZM11.14.89
../ additional whatever the percentage is of the free market units on
top of that in the total mix or something on that order. The
incentive is when you redevelop something approaching 100%. I
feel a lot better with 90% than I do 50%. But a much higher
replacement figure coupled with FAR and density bonuses for an
additional amount of free market units.
Myler: The one thing that I guess scared us away from he bonus
concept was the fact that we perceived that we were going to get
into too high of a density on most properties that would be
applicable for which this program would be applicable and this
was actually written before the affordable housing zone was
formally adopted.
The use of the affordable housing zone gives the City the
discretion to evaluate the overall density and decide whether to
rezone or not. If we built this program as a bonus system it
would be automatically available when somebody applied for it so
you lose some discretion and that is where we thought the use of
the rezoning would produce a better product.
Neiley: But where you know you need 6 or 800 more units to be
produced immediately, I don't see where you are going to produce
them unless you increase the permissible density. You don't have
a lot of land to build on.
Whitcomb: Right. Let me tell you what the reality is with
density in this town. They are densed out of their gazoo all
over town anyhow. I can tell you of example after example of 2
bedroom places that have 5 and 6 people in them right now.
Myler: There is no question of that.
Whitcomb: So it is ridiculous to talk about density when we are
already densed out of our gazoos anyhow. So I am saying it
should be a win, win situation for us guys. Like in my scenario
I would be willing to look at 2 free market units and 2 accessory
units. And I can tell you I am already overcrowded in my place
anyhow. I rent them one way and what they do with them is their
business.
Myler: I think out of the 600 or 800 units you are not going to
see that many built as new units within the City limits which
there is not any room for. You are going to see us be able to
buy deed restrictions on the and convert them to free
market to restricted housing and you are going to see us pushing
on the outskirts of town looking for areas that we can develop.
That should be obvious to anybody. There just isn't that much
land within the City limits on which to build new units.
27
PZM11.14.89
Welton: I am not at all concerned about in most cases extra
density because a lot of what we have seen torn down and replaced
over the last 2 years has been replacing high density with no
density because it is not used. If you look at the 6 units by
the Aspen Athletic Club, 3 of them--the fireplaces have never
been burned once which to me means they have never been occupied.
Barring objection, meeting is adjourned. Time
.
28