Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910219 xU ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS r PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 1991 Meeting was called to order by Vice chairlady Jasmine Tygre at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Mari peyton, and Jasmine Tygre. Graeme Means, Roger Hunt and Welton Anderson were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mari Peyton: Asked regarding scheduling of the Ritz Hotel. Kim Johnson, Planning: people. Amy has been working with the Ritz Leslie: is done rink. I know that they cannot get their CO until the ice rink and we haven't gotten the final application for the ice Sara: Are there expiration dates on the building permits? Kim: You have to be in an active process within 18 months of getting a permit. Sara: But can it go on for 5 years? Kim: Yes. As long as there is active construction going on. Bruce: There are certain stage schedules where they have got to meet certain performance levels by certain dates. Mari: I believe the city Council revised all of those dates because they weren I t met originally. And then after the vote last year, they hammered out a new schedule. If possible I would like us to know what that schedule is. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES JANUARY 8. 1991 Mari made a motion to approve minutes of January 8, 1991. ~ Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. PZM2.19.91 ,., '-- GOLF COURSE PUD AMENDMENT NORDIC COUNCIL LIGHTED SKIING Kim Johnson, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. Bruce: Did staff recommend waiving the fee? Kim: We did not make any recommendation on that. Today I received a letter from craig Ward (attached in record) of the Aspen Nordic Associates. He could not make the meeting tonight but wished to make a few comments. He sited that the inspiration for this system came from our sister City in Davos in Switzerland. They have a well lit but inconspicuous lighted track that he has participated in which is also on their golf course. And he would like to see this initiated here. Jasmine opened the public hearing. /' Hal Clark, representing the Parks Association: Ward asked me to come. We first heard about this several months ago and we were aghast. We had this vision of lights running all around the golf course. At that time the Board voted against the application because we were very, very afraid of the visual impacts at the entry to town. We were also afraid about what else this may prompt at the golf course. There may be a request to do lighting on the driving range for example which I think would follow as night follows day. So we are very concerned about the potential purpose in lighting up that entire golf course. I have talked to Bob Wade and Craig Ward since then and frankly what they are proposing is very hard to visualize. I don't know if this is going to be a glaring problem or not. I am concerned about the wiring you are going to be using and if it is going to be a temporary installation because in looking at this as a temporary installation I think might satisfy our needs to better evaluate it. Betty Grindly: I wrote a letter to the editor expressing my desire to consume energy so there won't be Persian War #2, 3, and 4. I wish I had come with statistics as to how many Kilowatt hours you require and how much electricity you will use. Then I could be very effective in my plea that you don't do this. I would be willing to invest in some miner's caps that people could wear when they are around the golf course. /."....... - 2 PZM2.19.91 Bill Sharp: I am a neighbor and a cross country skier and I oppose it on both accounts the fact that I like to go out there and ski without the flood lights. If you must have it you should keep it you have some 50 watts with cover 4ft high with down angle. And if you would keep them all that way instead of throwing the 100 watt on top of the building at 8 and 10 feet high it would be much more desirable. I agree with Betty that we set this community up as being energy efficient and using the Rocky Mountain Institute here to help us do that right here in City Hall. This would certainly not fair very well with that. John Callahan: My wife and I have lived on Cemetery Lane for 25 years. We have brought up 4 children in that area and I have quite a few comments. When we moved there there was only one house on the other side of the Cemetery Lane from where we live. I have always felt that those houses have every right to be there. But they have gone in there they assumed living next to green space or in this case white space which is just as important to this town. I think we should consider whether it is a good idea and then if so what is the least impact we can have on the community. The community being the people who live along there. I wouldn't want lights coming in my bedroom or living room windows but I do like the idea of cross country skiing in the evening. We have several children who do race and when I have been out there in the evening I thought about using head lamps but you can't use a head lamp very adequately when you cross country ski. If you skate it doesn't work well. I have seen the children out there for the high school. I have picked them up many times at night. Those children on the high school cross country team race in the dark. You will see them out there-little bitty twerps. I think we should think about them. I think we should think about the working public. wWhen I say that I am thinking about the kids who work in town who do like to cross country ski but who can't do it in the daytime because they are working. I don't think it is such a terrible thing to consider some low-level lights. That would not be a great impact on the area. I think we can avoid nearby homes by just would hope that that would be the case. along a golf course they have to consider and the public is going to play golf in that when they went in there. Now this not going near them. I But when people build that it is public space the summer. They knew is something new but I o~_..'"",., -- 3 PZM2.19.91 don't think the public should give up their right because people choose to move in adjacent to public space. One of my daughters went to Europe for a year and she skied every night that the snow was there. Just about every town in Sweden of any size has lights for the public. This is a skiing town. I have gone around there at night on the golf course and I noticed one of the big impacts from Hwy 82. We have giant lights for the automobile but we can't put lights in for little people. I don't see why. The lights would be good for the ski team and will encourage pUblic participation. I believe it is a positive thing. We have forgotten at times that this is a ski town basically. We have 90 liquor licenses. Let's do something for the public. If it doesn't work out, we throw the damned thing out. We do want the impact to be minimal on the neighbors, of course. This is extremely well accepted in Sweden, Denmark, Finland--all through Scandinavia and also Anchorage, Alaska. They are used in Montreal. I think we should encourage anything that is physical fitness-minded in this town. Through the years we have always had a tough time pushing the things that are now taken for granted by the public. And now that they are in, nobody wants to give them up. We had a very tough time getting approval of the cover over the swimming pool. We have that now and nobody wants to give that up. We still haven't got a pedestrian or bike path or a cross country ski path over Maroon Creek Bridge, over Castle Creek Bridge. But when we get it the public will not want to give that up either. We have had a tough time getting the mountain hut system. I have worked in those huts. There too, nobody wants to give them up. I think we should give the lights on the golf course a chance. Jasmine asked for further public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the meeting. Richard: I have some of the same reservations that Hal Clark has as to visions of stadium lighting on the driving range. On the other hand I have done night skiing in New England and I really enjoyed it. So that is a balance to something that I think is a good thing to have against the increasing light pollution and energy waste in this valley. In reviewing the application I think the limited area and the limited amount of lighting that they are proposing is worth giving it a try and seeing if people do turn out and use it. - 4 PZM2.19.91 Jasmine: I would tend to agree with you. I think that the fact that it is a very limited use at the moment--we are talking about 8 weeks maximum and the fact that these lights will only be in operation until 8: OOpm. But mostly I think that the temporary nature of it so that we can see in fact what the impacts are would lead me to look favorably on this application. MOTION Richard: I make a motion to approve this application with the 8 conditions recommended by the Planning Office. (attached in record) Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. SCHILLER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. Richard: In looking at the plan, is this going to be underneath the garage? The garden level? Don Huff, architect, also the proposed resident: What this space was was a 500sqft ski storage room underneath the garage. It is unusual in that somebody had poured a structural slab so it is a nice open space. It simply lacked doors and windows. And Carl has always been open to promoting this sort of thing. We got a building permit to actually finish this space and with the addition of these 2 large windows and a new entry door with the light the space is fabulous. Sara: My concern--I would like to see how the policing of who lives there how that is regulated other than by neighbors. Kim: know you. Like most zoning complaints you can only catch the ones you about or physically see or the ones that are turned in to Richard: I would like to see that changed. I live in a deed restricted apartment owned by the Housing Authority. I have to re-qualify every year. I have to give them my 1040 every year to re-qualify. I don't see why if somebody is living in a single family residence should be any different. Kim: Once an owner chooses a resident to occupy one of these uni ts then they do have to go to the Housing Authority. But because these do not carry the requirement that they must be ~'" rented. It is basically a trust situation. -.. 5 PZM2.19.91 Jasmine asked for public comment. There was no further comment and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Bruce: I would like to move to approve the Schiller Conditional Use Review for this accessory dwelling unit subject to the conditions listed as #l and #2 in the Planning Office memo dated February 8, 1991. (Attached in record) Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. SEYMOUR CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine asked for public comment. There was no comment and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Bruce: I move to approve the Seymour conditional Use Review for a detached accessory dwelling unit subject to the 4 conditions in Planning Office memo dated February 13, 1991. (attached in record) Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. Bruce: In all of these discussions about attached or detached accessory dwellings I have been opposed to the idea of enforced occupancy. But it just occurred to me that even though these things have deed restrictions which creates an encumbrance against that property--against that lot--and they have a 6 month minimum lease requirement, there is no mechanism to stop that person from leaving that thing empty and only using it as a guest house kind of thing. We may not really be adding to our housing inventory. Jasmine: We have wrestled with this many times. One of the things that we were concerned about initially was that we were spending all of these hours threshing out all of this legislation and that we might not actually have anybody do this. Now we are seeing that people are actually doing this and it might be a good idea if we could get some information when we discuss it again as to how many of them are a situation where we "'-.., . 6 PZM2.19.91 do have a Don house. There are a couple of them that we have heard of that it sounds as though friends of the owners were actually going to be living in them. Bruce: There might be a way to do a confidential type of survey that we send out to everyone of these units that have been approved and ask for a response without them having to indicate who they are or what their address is just to find out how they are being used. Is it sitting vacant or is it being used? Richard: We could also get a survey through the Housing Office to find out--OK, so many of these have been approved, how many have come back to ask for approval for a renter? MOORES HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW SPECIAL REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. SETBACKS Kim: Review standards state that all development within 15ft of the setback from the top of slope shall be at grade or any proposed development not at grade be approved by Special Review. I have stated that I am not comfortable with the way that the top of slope for Lot A was established. For Lot B which is kind of a convex lot--the land form moves out in a way towards the bluff before it drops off. The applicant shows 6 points of reference to create the top of slope in the setback. The opposite way to calculate it for Lot A is a concave lot and comes in the applicant shows 3 points of reference traversing basically the big swail that comes into the site. The other setbacks on the lot those being lOft front setback on the west side of the property and if you move the structure which is my version of the site plan if you move that against the front setback it in effect takes away most of the non-conformity with my version of the top of slope. I have done basically the same thing with Lot B. Moving the structure as close onto the other setbacks as possible reducing the amount of encroachment into the 15ft setback. What staff I s opinion is is if the applicant is willing to re- ,~,,- locate the structures that granting the special review for - 7 PZM2.19.91 whatever encroachments are left which in the case of Lot B is 1 or 2 feet in the case of Lot A it would still be 4 to 5 feet. Approving the Special Review given that the structures were in fact moved back to minimize whatever encroachment exists. HEIGHT According to the sketches on Lot B the fireplace is also located on the most outward edge of the structure. I asked in a condition that the chimney be re-Iocated so that the tallest part of the house is not the closest part. It does encroach into the height setback as does the rest of the structure although the chimney is more pronounced. Jasmine: What is the total square footage of the 2 lots. Joe Wells: Approximately 35,000. Lot A is roughly 25 and Lot B is roughly 10,000sqft. LANDSCAPING The landscaping issue is something that can potentially be used to mitigate the encroachments. Tom Cardamone: I am not here to unconditionally support or undermine what Kim is recommending. I am also here to say that she was a great help in getting ESA in place. One of my major goals is to preserve the hillside around the lake. In this case it has been preserved 100%. That is important to recognize. The existing vegetative cover exceeds 50% in my opinion. In my meetings with Julia we have talked plantings as an enhancement to the property much as additional screening to ACES. about additional and the Moores as In working with the Moores, Michael Hagman and Doyle when ESA was just a concept and they were very willing to work with us and realize the importance of establishing some sort of protection. The kinds of criteria that I presented to them at that time was the notion of stepping back roof lines, softening the facades and using vegetation to break up the outlines of the buildings without protruding views from the homesites. As far as I can tell they really did respond to that. I do have a concern with the way the top of slope on Lot A was drawn. It is very difficult to pinpoint top of slope and my opinion was that if we are 'arguing over a few inches or even a few feet that I didn't want to make that a stumbling block that would kill ESA and make it an impossible process. But I do feel "- that this interpretation on Lot A is too big in it's magnitude --" 8 PZM2.19.91 and I would like to see the Planning Office's interpretation accepted as a precedent and at the same time I think it is worth strongly considering mitigating the impact of that and encouraging them to be 15ft setback with vegetation rather than moving the building. Moving a building is a big cost. And from our point of view moving the building 5ft could--an alternative could be putting a couple of Spruce trees in there and end up with the same effect. If indeed the building is only 4ft away from the top of a steep slope that would de-stabilize it by a basement level excavation it is worth the Moores considering their responsibility to keep the hillside stable and think about that. There is one discrepancy that I caught. There is ground water on the site that is going to be intercepted by the excavation. We have come up with a plan that actually will carry that ground water to a percolation hole to a midpoint on the hillside where it will be distributed in a surface system. In here I read that there would be no disturbance to the surface of the hill or excavation. That is a contradiction. ?: My understanding is that we have been monitoring the water in those test holes and we notice that in the Spring runoff the water tends to rise because apparently there is a level of permeable soil that the waters coming off of the _mumble_. That is only true for 2 months of the year. For 10 months of the year that is dry and when Don Erdmann dug his foundation it was dry. So to say that we are going to intercept ground water when we dig that hole is really not true. Jasmine: I think we have a real problem in this application in that there are 2 issues. One which is the actual visual impact and the other one which is compliance with the ESA that we spent so much time working out. It may very well be that from a visual point of view properly selected and ideally situated vegetation in terms of mitigating the visual impact of the guest house which the most pressing. But there is also the calculation of the slope and I think that from my point of view that is something that is in addition to the vegetation covering it up. If we had decided that we don't want building within a certain number of feet from the slope as determined, it doesn't matter how you cover it up. And I think that those are 2 separate issues. ,-- Joe Wells: I would like the opportunity to work on point that we can resolve your concerns with regardless of how the top of slope gets defined. this to the vegetation - 9 PZM2.19.91 Jasmine: My interpretation is that there was not to be, unless there was some special and unusual circumstances, that there was in general not to be development within that 15 feet. Mari: What we are being asked to accept is that if someone spent a lot of money in design fees that that is supposed to be accepted as a criterion for special and unusual circumstances. I don't really buy that. I am leery of accepting that criterion for fear that anyone from then on will use it as a precedent. That does not strike me as being a valid criterion. Sara: I recall in the process too of reassuring Mrs. Farrish that her circumstance might be unusual because of her trees and there were certain restrictions with her lot too. But I agree with Mari. I would rather see that special review be for special circumstances. Tom, aren I t you concerned that every development along Hallam Lake now will come for Special Review within the 15 foot? Cardamone: Yes. I think that is a real concern. What is difficult here is that there won't be any more development proposals coming forward that were being designed during the time that we were also designing the ESA. Jasmine: The point I make is that the screening and the vegetation and the distance from the top of the slope are 2 different issues. Bruce: My comment on this calculation of top of slope--I believe the ordinance says that the calculation is to be made by the Zoning Officer which I assume is the Planning Staff. Joe: It says that the top of slope will be established by 3 points. Bruce: But it also says at least 3. Height shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing the definition set forth. I remember us talking about how are we going to pick those 3 points and the problems that we would anticipate coming up. And here this is the first application and we are already there. It seems to me this is a point to be discussed between the Planning Office and the applicant to work out some kind of resolution. Jasmine: The intent of the ordinance has to do with the enforcement of the ordinance when it comes to a specific measurement. It is obvious to me that the intent of the "", ordinance was to be as protective as possible of the environment. -- 10 PZM2.19.91 Therefore deviations from the measured 15ft were not be undertaken capriciously and that measurement should be on the conservative and environmentally sensitive side. I would tend to think that the applicant could get a definite sense from the members of the Commission that they would much prefer to see the building envelopes moved back from the slope. Bruce: Question to Tom Cardamone: The overall intent of this ordinance I think you stated was to protect the Hallam Lake Preserve and to be sensitive to these property owner's rights. I think I understood you to say that you thought that through adding vegetation that protection of the Hallam Lake area could be accomplished. Now the area that was designed to be protected has said that they are going to be satisfied with vegetation. Maybe we are straining too hard to enforce little details of the ordinance when we have complied with the overall intent of it. Cardamone: My main interest in re-interpreting the top of slope of Lot A was not to necessarily change the location of the building but set a precedent for top of slope. That was my main concern. That the interpretation is too liberal because then we are going to start losing the intent of this. Richard: Essentially what the applicant has done with their interpretation of top of slope was to use the 2 end points on the lot. And the middle one just happens to be close to one of the end points of the line and fall onto it. And if you put the same interpretation on Lot B the top of slope' which cuts off that convexity it actually goes right through the corner of the proposed building. So if we use the same kind of interpretation on the convexity that they have used on the concavity they are actually over the edge of the slope. And of course we need some adjustment either way on that. But I think they have not done everything possible including moving the building back. The idea of Special Review is when we are at a point when we can't do anything more. And I don't think we are at that point yet. Sure they have changed the roof line a little bit but I haven't seen anything else being done in terms of moving it as far to the other setback as possible. They are pushing the setback on the Hallam Lake side without being all the way to the lot setback on the other side and not providing reasons why they can't do that. So I am certainly not at a point where I could give Special Review approval to this application. 11 PZM2.19.91 Jasmine: Under the scenario that involved moving the buildings back to would be the degree of encroachment Planning Office would measure it? Kim has suggested which the other setbacks, what into the slope as the Kim: It is like 1 and 1/2 to 2 feet here and here maybe. We are talking almost--you can't hardly measure it at 1 to 10 scale and then over here it was like 4 to 5 feet or 3 to 4 feet. Jasmine: So we can consider that a minimal encroachment? Kim: And with the condition of added vegetation which is what the Special Review criteria specifically states. Jasmine: It seems to me that if in fact we can maintain the interpretation of the measurement that if the applicant is willing to make the adjustment I have indicated on these diagrams then the amount of encroachment that we are talking about is much smaller and we are still preserving the interpretation of the slope and the measurements thereof. To me that makes this a much more acceptable way of dealing with this situation and does not compromise our position as regards future development in this area. Sara: Also more palatable to me would be to say if they agree to move the envelope that in the approval we specifically say that this in no way is to be considered a measurement. We do not agree with the measurement of the setback. Jasmine: What we are doing is we are saying we are moving this back that the applicant has agreed to move back the building envelope as measured with only very miner encroachment and that by special Review because the applicant has done that the miner encroachment especially in view of the fact of the vegetation would then be acceptable. But we are confirming our measurement- -the Planning Office measurement. Bruce: What is measurement and the took your 3 points? the difference between Planning staff measurements? the applicant's Is it where you Kim: I acknowledge that they used 6 points on Lot B and I chose 6 points on Lot A. From one corner of Lot A to the other it follows the 78-56 line almost to the T. Bruce: I don't know that the ordinance says who picks the points and where they have to be. We talked about whether they ought to be at the property lines on either end and one in the middle or whether it be just arbitrary. The ordinance doesn't speak to that and it doesn't say clearly that it is either the applicant 12 PZM2.19.91 or the staff that picks those points. It seems to me that we may have some work to do on the ordinance. And in lieu of that, if the applicant can buy into at least on this application the measurements as done by staff and leave the buildings where they are and screen with vegetation then maybe we have got a deal. We still have to do some work on the work on the ordinance. It is not clear as to who does what. Kim: In an earlier discussion with commission it was determined if we are taking away the ability for someone to build farther out to the slope, as a concession, we are giving them a greater ability to move out to the side. That is why I calculated all these setbacks to see if we could move the structure over. Jasmine: It seems to me that the sentiment of the Commission generally is that if the applicant is willing to move the buildings back as indicated in Kim's drawing that we can re- write the conditions and go ahead with an approval based on these conditions. Jasmine then asked for public comment. There were no comments and she closed the public portion of this hearing. CONDITIONAL USE #1. Lot split plat must be filed prior to filing deed restrictions or issuance of any building permit. #2. Has to do with the size of the accessory unit of Lot Band that must be changed to be within 300--700sqft of net livable area as defined by the Housing guidelines revised floor plan shall be submitted to and approved by Planning & Zoning staff. #3. Would be the same. #4. Which is recording the deed. That would be the same. ESA REVIEW #5. That language is OK, isn't it? Kim: Yea. If the Commission would feel comfortable with just the staff review of planting. Mature vegetation. There was general agreement on this. Joe: What is the benefit of photographs if you can't use it for your determination? -....- 13 PZM2.19.91 Kim: Well, what I was hoping is that you could show mature vegetation in there with the structures and just get an idea if 2 trees are going to be enough or is it going to be 4 trees. And with the top of the roof shown. I will look at their landscape plan and try and make a determination on that. I was thinking that some Evergreens might be appropriate in order to protect animals in the winter time. #6. Mari: Why don't we say liThe applicant shall adopt the Planning Office's 3 points. Jasmine: Adopt the Planning Office determination of the top of slope as shown on attachment B of the memo. The applicant shall adopt the Planning Office determination of top of slope-- Bruce: Kim, did you use 3 points or did you use 6 points? Kim: I used 6. Bruce: Well, if the ordinance says 3 I think we need to come up with a way to calculate it on at least 3. Kim: What is ironic about this case is that we are probably never again going to see a situation where an applicant is going to propose development on 2 side-by-side lots. You are right. It would have been more applicable for both lots to come in with just 3 points. If you want to say 3 then the 3rd, being equal distance, I think basically we are getting at this center point. Bruce: We are worried about setting a precedent. We need to know what precedent we are setting. If we are setting the precedent that the Planning Office is going to determine the top of slope and you are going to use 3 points or 6 points, let's make sure we know what we are doing. The ordinance says 3--at least 3. And if we are going to use 3 as our standard then let's figure out is that just going to be arbitrary to staff or is it going to be the end points with 1 in the middle equal distance. What is it going to be? Mari: I think that we should be working on the ordinance to mean that it is the staff's call on where those points or how many points are needed depending on the particular lot. Jasmine: That's why I if we re-write 6 to measurement as shown would like to say that it seems to me that say that the applicant is adopting the on attachment B which was done by the 14 PZM2.19.91 ."....~-.,.- Planning Office that that will give us a direction for future -- determinations. Mari: We probably need to make it very clear. those points are. to work on that language in the ordinance I think the question is who decides where Joe: I think Jasmine's language will work because the ordinance does give the flexibility of using more than 3. Jasmine: #7. Is pretty standard. We don't have to do anything with #7. #8. Also is pretty standard. #9. As it now says "Both structures shall be moved onto the front and side setbacks of their respective lots to minimize intrusion onto the top of slope setback as much as possible. And again we might want to refer back to the drawings. Kim: You could. Those are very rough sketches. are fairly accurate. I think they Jasmine: So you think #9 is all right as it stands? Kim: Yes. On their site plan they have to indicate at a really accurate level what the setbacks are. #10. The chimney. Michael: The chimney shall be re-Iocated to reduce intrusion. Are we talking about where it sits in the floor plan--just moving it? Mari: Why not strike #10 because it will be moved back. Jasmine: OK. We will strike #10. the moving of the house. Because it will occur with MOTION Jasmine: I will entertain a motion to approve this Moores Hallam Lake ESA and special Review and Conditional Use Review, etc. Mari: I move to approve the Moores Hallam Review and Conditional Use Review with Planning staff memo dated February 9, 1991. Lake ESA and the changes (attached in Special to the record) ,,,,,,,,~.., Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. - 15 PZM2.19.91 Joe: Kim rightly pointed out that the driveway as shown is on top of the irrigation easement which we are showing re-located to the south side of the property. The reason for that is there is some landscaping features on the adjacent property that was done by the adjacent owner that encroaches into the ROW. In order for us to move the driveway into the easement we would have to rip those landscaping improvements out and we would just as soon not do that. We are hoping to be able to convince the City to accept an underground use of this easement in any case so that any improvements that would be installed in that easement would be underground because we are giving the City the right to use that storm drainage. We would like to leave landscaping improvements. easement or shall we solve the driveway to Would you rather it with staff? the we south put it of in the the Jasmine:' I think you can resolve that with staff. The Commission is already sufficiently deranged for one night. I declare this meeting adjourned. - 16