Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900508 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 8. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt, and Welton Anderson. Richard Compton was 15 minutes late, Michael Herron and Mari Peyton were excused and Jasmine Tygre was absent. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Graeme Means asked what the reason was for having a noon whistle in the west end. Roger: It rattles your windows every time it goes off. Graeme: Yes. Welton: It wakes up the baby. Graeme: Yes. Exactly. doesn't like it as much. that but why does it have I have always put up with it but he If there is a fire reason I understand to go off at noon every day. Roger: I think it is neat that it is not in my back yard. Graeme is right across the alley from it. And Eve Homeyer: About 19 years we had the discussion. Councilman thought it was an invasion of privacy to have thing go off every day. The real reason it goes off is to the fire whistle to be sure it is operational. One that test STAFF COMMENTS staff asked for a change in the agenda. allow the change. It was decided not to Roxanne reported on the to Vail, Breckinridge bikeway systems. This Advisory Committee. field trip she, Mari and Richard went on and Boulder to review pedestrian and was in connection of the Neighborhood PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES MARCH 27. 1990 Roger made motion to adopt these minutes. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. SANDERS STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE FOR SATELLITE DISH PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and he closed the public hearing. He then continued the hearing to date certain of June 5, 1990. SMUGGLER MOBILE HOME PARK CODE AMENDMENT AND PUD AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Welten opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and he closed the public hearing. He then continued the hearing to date certain of May 22, 1990. ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION ICE RINK PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and he closed the public hearing. He then continued the hearing to date certain of May 22, 1990. GOLF COURSE PUD AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Welton re-opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Glenn Horn: Presented plans for course maintenance, storage, parking and landscaping for golf course. Roger: There is not a major need for visitor parking but occasionally somebody has to go out there and conduct business at the Park's Office. Where would that be? Glenn: Using drawings showed where this would be. Graeme: A number of people use this as an access in the winter for Skiing the trails. Is there any provision for that? Glenn: You just take the bike path, you go right through the operation and go out 15 T. There is not going to be anything to prevent that from happening. That will still be open. Graeme: problem. I know the Parks Dept has a really serious storage Does this solve that problem? Glenn: It doesn't solve it on a long term basis. They still have the lean-to on the Marolt property. That could end and there could be a problem with storage at Truscott Place at some 2 time. But for the time being this takes care of all of the short term needs. This takes care of 100% of the Golf needs. Welton asked for public comment. Welton read into the record letter from Jess Graber in support of the proposal. (attached in record) Bill Sharp: hearing. The area already looks much better since the last There was no further public comment and Welton closed the public portion of the hearing. Welton asked if the applicant had any problem with any of the conditions. Glen: We have reviewed them and there is no problem. We will make this drawing a part of the plat amendment and it will go on to Council for their approval and this will become a sheet as part of the PUD plat of the golf course. Leslie: I would also add a 15th condition that outlines what they have said that there will be no more equipment storage there. I will define it so that the language goes with the map. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the amendment of the PUD golf course maintenance facility and surrounding area as presented here with the following conditions as amended at the April 17th Commission meeting. Conditions 1 through 14 (attached in record) being the same as Planning Office memo dated May 8, 1990 with the addition of condition 15-- Leslie: What I will do is I will say verbally what is on the map so that condition will match the map that will ultimately be approved. Glenn: This exhibit is part of the--and it has got the guidelines in it and we can reference this exhibit on the plat. Roger: OK. That will be basically condition 15. record) Bruce seconded the motion. (attached in I think it is a really good idea to include that as part of the public record. That way if we start having boats being stored there or other things that aren't on this list--everybody knows what things are to be stored there and if there are things that aren't supposed to be there someone can come in and correct it. That is where we ran into problems in the past. 3 Glenn: It will be a help the guys of the Golf and Parks Depts. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. COTTAGE INFILL PROGRAM CODE AMENDMENT FOR DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS PUBLIC HEARING Leslie made presentation. (attached in record) Tom and I were talking about the fact that if we are recommending that you can vary a side yard setback for a detached and you go all the way to the lot line the impact to the other potential development on the other side of that lot line could be onerous. Leslie: Basically what these code amendments do is it still keeps the accessory dwelling unit as a conditional use review. We have put a cap on the size of the detached unit which is 850. We are recommending that in the review of your detached accessory dwelling unit that you have the ability to vary the side yard setback, the rear yard setback in the R-6 zone, the height of the detached building in the rear 2j3rds of the property and the difference between the building and the parking remains the same as it is with an accessory dwelling unit. No parking requirement for a studio one bedroom but anything above that you are required a parking space for the additional bedroom. Roger: I agree with the limitation on square footage but like other places in the west end that doesn't really help the bulk situation. What is to prevent them from going 850sqft 3 stories high. Leslie: Site coverage. Welton: That height doesn't have anything to do with the site coverage. Leslie: To minimize bulk of filling up the lot is the site coverage requirement. Roger: That is site coverage but not bulk. refuse to address the third dimension. We continually Welton: If it is 850sqft space, once you go above 10ft every foot above lOft you start adding square footage. Roger: So it will be working with that existing formula then. Welton: That is how you figure any square footage. maximum is 850sqft then it is 425sqft per floor. If the 4 Richard: I like the Ordinance the way it is. The issue is about setback variance or attached units I don I t basically support that. It would allow people to extend the main house basically into the--create more space for the main house by shoving part of it into the side yard setback or the back yard setback. I support Roger's point on the wells and the side yards in the safety perspective as a prime consideration there. Say a detached garage scenario with an apartment above it, is that included in this? Roxanne: That is why you will have the ability to vary height is to allow that situation. Graeme: So this is a deed restricted unit and is it mandatory that they do rent it? Leslie: No. This falls in the same guidelines which if and when they rent it they must rent it to a resident of the County. If they don't rent it the Housing Authority is going to come along and say you have to take the top person from our list. The housing Authority or the Planning Dept isn't going to tell who they have to rent it to. The owner has the choice of who and when to rent it. Graeme: Or that they have to rent it. Right? But do they have to rent it? Leslie: No. Richard: But if they do rent it it has to be to a qualified person for 6 months or longer. Graeme: What is to prevent someone from building these and then just using them themselves? Leslie: There is really nothing. The philosophy behind the accessory dwelling unit program has been that we are getting an inventory. And as the inventory increases we will get more units that are rented. Graeme: Are there any rules about kitchens and things like that? Leslie: It is a unit so you have to have a kitchen and bath. Full kitchen and full bath. Welton: As far as the maximum of 850sqft I don't think that is-- I think that is a good guideline but I don't think it should be a 5 limiting factor because in certain situations--the Elisha Carriage House is one--that would have prohibited a detached accessory dwelling unit from happening in the Elisha Carriage House because the existing floor area of the second floor was 867sqft which 17sqft more than what this maximum would have allowed. I would like to see the 850 as a guideline but that it could be varied by special review so that there is some flexibility. Leslie: The way the language is proposed is the accessory dwelling unit shall be excluded up to a maximum of 400sqft. You can get a 400sqft bonus any time you go above 400sqft for your detached accessory dwelling unit. That is coming out of your allowable floor area. Welton: I just think that cap should have some flexibility designed into it. If we are going to be talking about varying side yards and rear yards perhaps the maximum if it is appropriate. Richard: Could a clause be added putting that in terms of percentage of the total allowable floor area so that you make sure you end up with an accessory unit instead of a duplex. Something in the 20 to 25% maximum or 850sqft whichever is greater. Roxanne: We looked at that too. percentage that made any sense. We could not come up with a Leslie: The thing that we did do is we reference the special review section that is already in the code and we think that probably as we get into it that we will have to tighten up the special review section in a manner that give you some true guidance on this stuff. Welton: It should also give us some flexibility. Roxanne: That is a good point, Welton. What we are thinking of doing with this special review section is actually standards for this kind of thing. Welton: I don't think it is right or proper to have one set of criteria for detached resident accessory dwelling unit vs a different set of criteria for attached resident dwelling unit. The same kinds of flexibility should be available whether they apply to attached or detached. Graeme: I think it would be a good idea to have someone research what the code says about window wells. 6 Leslie: Jack Reid of the streets Dept has asked that he be in the loop when we do accessory detached dwelling units so he can make sure that when we are looking at a 0 rear yard setback in an alley that given that particular situation that he has the ability to get down the alley with his plows. The Fire Dept has asked to be in the loop also for this kind of stuff. Bruce: I am in favor of some kind of cottage infill program. I may not understand all of the ramifications of this ordinance but I am a little concerned about its breadth and what appears to me to be kind of overreaching. I envision the cottage infill kind of unit being in areas where there are alleys. If I understand this right it looks like it is going to apply virtually every residential type zone district that we have got. So I am not too keen on that. I want to know if this applies just to R-6 or whatever. I am concerned about that maybe the detached affordable dwelling units or accessory dwelling units only ought to be in areas where we have got existing alleyways. In the Article V, section D where it talks about the conditional requirements it uses language where it says "The P&Z shall find that the variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence than would be development in accord with the dimension of the primary. I know that it says down below that subject to special review standards--but I am a little concerned about what criteria--is that sort of at the whim of P&Z? I am concerned about what criteria we use to make a judgment. When is it really more in character with the primary residence. Article 5-508-C. That language I am sure probably is already in the code. But I am curious as to why we don't want to give these kinds of units credit as affordable housing units under those various programs that we have got. Is there some reason why? Maybe if we did give them credit we would get more of them built. Leslie: For the exact problem that we have that the way the accessory dwelling program lS set up is they are only deed restricted to resident occupancy. All these other units we get through growth management are deed restricted to price and income and the people who rent those must qualify and they must be rented and they can also be sold. Bruce: But if our philosophy is to flood the market with inventory then why not give them credit? In Article 8 Section B where it talks about the development of no more than one accessory dwelling unit and I see that you are striking out the language "Per each dwelling unit". As it stands 7 right now someone could build on a duplex lot where there is an existing duplex--coUld build 2 detached or attached accessory dwelling units. Leslie: Right. That language was in there--we have it in the RMF zone and we have it in the Office zone where if you do a duplex you are required to do either an accessory dwelling unit per each free market unit or deed restrict one of your free market units. As we were going through Ord #1 that was one of the sections that we were going to do is accessory dwelling unit for each unit within the duplex. And the overwhelming community sentiment was that that was way too dense. Bruce: Surprise, surprise. So now if there is an existing duplex or a new duplex to be built, there is only one accessory dwelling unit. Leslie: Yes. Roxanne: To respond to Roger's comment on the language about the review standard--the language is in the code for when they review for mumble There had to be a way that they could link into-a-finding that--they couldn't just do it arbitrarily. They have a lot of guidelines that they use but there had to be some language in there that they tied it to. So that is verbatim the same language. If you have some suggestions as to how to change that-- Bruce: No. I am not a craftsman of ordinances. But it just seems to me that we are setting ourselves up for a case where someone would come in and say "Well you were arbitrary and capricious in the way you turned me down" if we don't really have standards. Leslie: So you think we should go back into the special review section and layout some standards for--to say subordinate and compatible with. Graeme expressed the same type of concerns regarding height variations. Wel ton: I have been on Roxanne's case concerning the HPC I S ability to vary certain things if they were compatible, namely FAR. There was a little FAR bonus that was created about 10 years ago for historically designated structures that was just icing on the cake for historic structures so that they have something that non-historic structures don't have. Graeme: But HPC has some guideline to go by where we don't. 8 Welton: Actually in that case it is hard to prove that that extra 100ft is going to make it more compatible with anything. And I think that same thing is true for the height or setback variances. How do you go about proving that allowing a setback variance is going to make it more compatible and conversely the HPC or P&Z can turn down everything just from the getgo because the burden of proof to prove it is compatible is on the applicant. Or the compatability is enhanced by moving into a side yard setback. So I am in agreement with you guys. It is to vague. Roxanne: So what do you recommend for language? Graeme: here. Let HPC deal with it. We don't have that expertise Roxanne: And we will. But you have the rest of the community out there which doesn't fall under HPC review. Leslie: We wanted this to be an incentives program and we feel we have to make it a conditional use. But we also wanted to avoid a 2 step process--HPC and P&Z. Graeme: I think we ought to come up with some clear things. I think things in order to come off need to have a certain scale or they are not going to work. And it is going to be almost impossible to design some kind of thing for every different situation. I think we need to put some figures down and sooner or later just say "That is it". Then people know they have guidelines. We are not going to get into as many arguments in review with people who feel they have a right because somebody else did something. Bruce: I think the fair way to do it is not allow these variances in the front yard, side yard setbacks. Because what about the neighbor next door if neighbor #1 is allowed to go into that setback then what does that do to the neighbor next door's right in the future to also get into his setback. As much as we may want these things to be built maybe the easy way to deal with it is to not allow variations. Roxanne: Then we won't see it happen because of the primary residence taking up as much land as they possibly can for their own. These are supposed to be alley oriented. The whole idea of this thing was alley structures. It was based on historic carriage houses that were on 0 lot lines and the adaptability of them and then allowing new construction that was very subordinate. 9 Bruce: Well, if it is on an alley and it is a rear yard setback I wouldn't have a problem with that. It is the side yards and rear yards where there are no alleys that concern me. Welton: I would like to see a lot of flexibility in the approach and a lot of breadth in where the approach is allowed to take place happen in this first attempt at seeing whether or not this is going to work. There are all sorts of locations where this should be allowed to happen and we shouldn't narrow it down because we feel this is the safest lane. I see this as an ordinance where it will grow and be refined. Roxanne: We are going to develop a handbook--a guide book that property owners will be handed when they are pre-apping with us. Welton: There is a thing called 0 lotline. It is a planning way of laying out subdivisions where everybody is up against the lotline for the entire block so that there is open space. It is all worked out together. The guidebook should address impacts on neighbors. Graeme: To focus again on the setback situation. I think if the City is comfortable with giving a 5ft in the rear, that is fine. And if you are on a corner lot on a public ROW, that is fine. But I think if you are on an adjoining private property line I think there ought to be a limit--maybe 2ft or something like that. I used to live in a place where they had a house that was right on the property line. All of the snow came down and destroyed fences, trees and damaged a gazebo. And you are trying to encourage sloped roofs and the snow is a real problem. I think any time you get within 2 feet of a property line, you really have got a problem with the neighbors. I think it could be clearly stated that way in terms of setbacks. I think if we came up with some setback rules like that and with a really definite height and area and bulk thing. I think we need to do that. Roger: Concerning the setbacks--I think it is a fairly simple matter to allow a 0 setback on the side yard with a provision that the slope does not go into the neighbor's yard. In other words they have to deal with the snow in their yard or the alley. Welton: This is in the building code. infill project. reference to the guideline book as opposed to This is for the do's and don'ts for a cottage Roger: Yes. And I don't have too much of a problem of the concept of a common 0 lotline setback on adjacent properties. I 10 wanted to get to the 850sqft which I basically agree with. But I also like the idea of being able to vary it slightly under special review. The formula for working out the total square footage that that maximum number stays the same but for any square footage over 850ft that may be multiplied by 1.5 times to be subtracted from the total. There may be a situation where 867ft is appropriate. Leslie: Rob Wein of the Building Dept did a workup for us regarding dwellings over a garage area and what the height would be for an adequate height. He came up with 16ft allowed height as a recommended for a dwelling unit above a garage. Roxanne: You are probably looking at a 19ft high to the ridge with a 12 12 pitch which is what we would encourage. I think that once we try to set a height then we are going to have any number of applications come that are not going to fit that exact formula. I think that we can encourage that and say this is the ideal and if your design does not fit this there is going to be another meeting. We have some cottages in the west end now that are 1 and 1/2 story that it would be appropriate at the rear at the alley that they did have a very small 2 story structure. Wel ton: I haven't heard anybody say anything in the proposed ordinance is off the mark. I think everything is on the mark. We are talking degrees of flexibility and how we can have standards through special review that will allow us to look at it with a critical eye. I think your booklet on design standards idea right now is going to be a very important element. It is something we should get to know and treat almost with the same kind of importance as the code. At least the intent of it. I was thinking about the 0 lotline (sketching on pad) where you and your neighbor both decide to do a carriage house infill and sharing the common property line gives you 3 exposures and this much extra yard. I think for that reason the side yard setback we can't anticipate all the various combinations that individuals and individuals in joint effort could possibly come up with to do something creative on the alleys. Roxanne: The HPC has granted many variations in setbacks and to date I am not terribly unhappy with what they have come up with. Those who are pushing the envelope, we always get some feedback from the Fire Marshal. Bruce: I feel very strongly that somehow or another it needs to 11 be restricted out. I would be much more comfortable with it being restricted to the areas where there are alleys. Roger: I agree with you there. Roxanne: But then there is the whole Smuggler area and there were a lot of opportunities up there for a similar application that we could still get a number of accessory units from there. And it fits in very well but not on an alley. So we have yet to figure out how that will work and how that will be accessed. ?: I do think that you have to listen to that 850sqft because for instance Bruce could essentially go out onto his property, build a garage and put a structure on the top. I think you have to look at that 850sqft just for that scenario because someone could build that at 30 to 40 dollars a square foot, he can rent out his big house at $10,000 a month and be sitting back in the garage. So I think you have to look at that. I was confused by one thing. Do you not require a parking place for a studio with a one bedroom accessory dwelling and if not, why not? Or where do they park? Roxanne: That has been discussed. Leslie: On accessory dwelling units program, we have given a break on the parking requirement which is in the residential as usual a 1 space per bedroom. So for our studios and 1 bedrooms we have decided that we would not require a parking space for those. It is another incentive to get different kind of units and one of the breaks is that you are not required to provide the parking space. ?: Why would it be a break as opposed to a congestion problem. Where are they going to park? Roxanne: One of the thoughts with that is that these people might not have an automobile. Also not providing the space might be an incentive to not have them bring a car into town. ?: We are talking R-15 and R-6. Where are they going to park? They are going to park in the alleys. They are going to park on the streets--just where you don't want them. It seems to me that it might be something to consider what is a hardship in putting in a parking space. I like the idea of not giving them a parking space hoping they won't bring a car but I don't find that happening with the out- of-towner who is coming in here. And since none of the units are 12 price restricted for rental, for a guy paying $1,000 for a studio or a one bedroom at the wrong time of the year--you know damned well if he is going to do that he is going to have his BMW outside or something like that that Daddy gave him. Roxanne: And then the idea to vary the height is to encourage a garage to be built and then allow a dwelling unit above it. Welton: In the other zone districts like R-15 zone districts, I am thinking Gaard Moses, his Conservation zoned property up near the Aspen Alps. It was a fairly standard suburban planning kind of layout. My Grandparents house was like this and it was built in the '20s where the house is on a street and there is a driveway that goes beside the house between the house and the property line and there is a garage behind the house and it has an apartment above the garage. Most people on Cemetery Lane have their garage facing right on Cemetery Lane. I don't think that sort of layout on a piece of property is inappropriate. I know the setbacks in the Cemetery Lane area were designed to sort of put the house in the center of the property and the garage attached to the house. So to say "No, it doesn't belong in anything but the R-6 where there are alleys", I can see all sorts of site plan possibilities with a little more flexibility when you are not so hemmed to the center of the site with setbacks. For that reason I would hate to restrict it to only R-6 or zone districts with alleys. Roger: But in the review criteria they have to display that there is acceptable access. Welton: And with the conditional use you have to notify every property owner within 300ft and if somebody thinks somebody is building right up to their property line and going to cast a shadow on their pea patch in the back yard then you know they are going to come and they are going to say something. Graeme: I still have a problem with getting within 2 feet of an adjoining private property line unless you can work something out with them. But I don't think that is going to happen too often. Having had the experience with it I think it is going to make for some bad neighbors. And I don't like it. Welton: I tell you if I was given a notice of a public hearing that the person next to me was going to do this, I would scream and yell unless I could figure out some way to make it to my own advantage to do something similar. 13 Graeme: But some people aren't going to want to scream and yell when they have the neighbor who lives right next to them who they are supposedly trying to be good neighbors with. If somebody builds a fence within 1ft of the property line, nobody can get in to paint the thing or repair it or anything like that. All the setback variations are fine with me except for that one. If you take that out, you will have a better success rate with these things. Make it up to 2 and 1/2 feet and only if it adjoins another private property. Welton: I feel very strongly the other way that there is a possibility where it would be appropriate. Roxanne: Direction: Recommendation on the ordinance and a good clear guideline either in special review or develop the handbook as quickly as we can roll on it that deals with all of these concerns. Leslie: What I would like to do is--I feel there is more discussion involved especially with other Commission members. What I would like to do is take a crack at the special review section. Maybe identify some of the suggestions you made within the review standards and give you a chance to look at some language like that. Maybe we need more of an idea of the standard unit. I get the feeling that you want more of an idea that you can visualize is going to happen there. The height, the setbacks and flexibility. Maybe we can look at the special review standards. In looking at this we can come up with more of an agreement on this. If we get a few that don I t work then we are going to have a lot of criticism. I would also like to take a further look at alley vs non-alley sites and how many we are talking about. Welton: I suggest that you pullout some of those aerial surveys of the west end and maybe other neighborhoods. There used to be more for alley walkers where you would see a lot of small buildings on the alleys and I think that might help some people visualize it. Roxanne: We will have a whole visual display at the next meeting. I would like to see the ordinance recommended so that we could get rolling with Council and we are going to have to do some amending on this. We know that. Once we see some applications coming through we are going to have to play with it. It is the building season. We have been talking about this for a year and I would like to see this ordinance get rolling on the 14 guide book. We will let Council know that you still have some reservations on this and they will too. MOTION Richard: I make a motion to send this Ordinance to Council stating concerns of Commission members regarding side yard setbacks where it adjoins another private property owner, zone districts outside alley zone districts where alleys are existing, height, square footage cap whether it should be by special review or should be a hard and fast number, flexibility in height, special review standards and that the finding that a variation is more compatible is a difficult judgement to make in lieu of more defined standards. Graeme seconded the motion. Roger: I have a problem with this going to Council and chances are we won't be seeing it again. I would prefer it going to Council more by interim fashion saying "Here is where we are now. We think these areas need more work". Roxanne: Would you feel more comfortable if Council saw it as it is with your recommendation that you get some feedback from them too before we re-work it. Welton: I don't think anybody would have a problem with that even if it came down to joint meetings with Council. I would like to see it see this spelled out in a concise, short and readable memo. Bruce: It might be advisable same we did with Ordinance #1. some very valuable input. to involve the pUblic in that the We invited certain people who had Leslie: We can take this to first reading and then at first reading request a work session with you all and any pUblic who would attend. Richard agreed to include these suggestions in his motion. Graeme agreed to include these suggestions in his second. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Welton then closed the public hearing on the code amendment. 15 .~._,- JAMES E. MOORE POOL COUNTY REFERRAL Leslie: This is a City project within the County so it is a County review. Mary Lackner, Planning Dept: record. Made presentation as attached in Bill Efting: What we are looking at is a higher degree of the old pool bubbles that came out 15 years ago that all caved in. That is what we were originally looking at. As the project progressed the pool committee got some more input and we did go around the country looking at different structures. This one was built down in Gunnison. For the snow load and things like that it was far and beyond anything else we ever looked at. What we are trying to do is generate the year-round usage of the pool. If there is the usage the place for it to be built is on the school property where it can really be maximized. Roger: I like the idea of the removable structure with the pool because it does allow use in the winter time as well as being an open pool in the summer. Bill: This will cost us about $100,000. Richard questioned regarding the color. Bill: We thought of the earth tones but-- Welton: Earth tone in the winter is white. Bruce: How energy efficient is this? Bill: It will heat itself. The water itself. We are going to keep records. these and they swear by them. in the pool will heat I visited several of We probably are going to have to look at some kind of emergency switch in case the electricity goes out and your pumps at the pool shut down and it is 4:00am. and it is the heavy wet snow. It is not going to be a pUblic safety danger but it could be one of those type things--I think the heat in there will be high enough where it would mostly melt on impact with the pitch of the roof. But we need to have some kind of backup device that notifies our pool management that the system is shut down. Roger asked regarding condensation. 16 Bill: The ones I looked at--one in Glenwood, in Gunnison and Rifle. The only place I notice was around the doors. They used to go with the metal doors. Now they have switched to either sliding glass or aluminum or glass with breaker doors. But that is where you could tell. The doors were a problem. We are now getting the pool back up to handicap access. The group in the community has also raised funds for a winch to put people in the pool. We are going to make it wheel chair accessed from behind now that it is year round use. So it has really turned into a good community project. Roger: Go forward with diligence. The other Commissioners agreed with this. INFORMATION ITEM EASEMENT ACOUISITION POLICY What can I tell you? Nothing happened. Meeting was adjourned. 17