Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19921110 ~i'V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10. 1992 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Richard Compton and Sara Garton were excused. David Brown was absent. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Diane: Brought Commissioners up to date on the Ritz. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. ZALUBA 8040 - NON-COMPLIANCE HEARING Leslie: All past documentation which Leslie referred to in her presentation is attached in record. At the time I prepared the memo we were representative, Marti Pickett that it didn't going to receive a letter of credit and we were the November 10th memo and everything else documentation. told by Zaluba's look like we were still working out is all our past At the time I prepared the memo we were told by Marti Pickett that it didn't look like we were going to receive a letter of credit and we were still working out additional details on the plans to define the plan before work could continue. So I went ahead and structured a memo again that we basically are recommending to Planning & Zoning commission that the 8040 Greenline approval be pulled because it is staff's belief that the applicant has not met with our deadlines. In the interim Marti discussed with Jed the idea of placing a lien on the property. And Jed went to Denver today and was supposed to be back at 3:00. But with the storm he will not be here. Marti had faxed a letter to Jed. I am talking about the secured agreement. There is a copy for you all to look at. Rob and I talked to Jed about this and Jed felt that placing a lien on the property was an appropriate form of retaining security to ultimately get our work done. In reading this and having a half PZM11. 10.92 hour to read this Rob and I have a couple conditions that we would place on it if this is what P&Z would accept. My memo recommends to the P&Z that we pull the 8040. However I was unaware of the ability to place a lien on the property at the time. The applicant now is asking that we go with the lien on the property for $75,000. Rob has looked at the recent plans and we have been in contact with the applicant about just a few more things that they need to work on. We feel that $75,000 is an appropriate amount. We would ask that if the P&Z with a lien on the property that we specify specific date that the lien is in our office and signed off on. For example 7 days out or 10 days out and if that doesn't happen that the P&Z gives us the ability to pull the 8040 approval. There is a couple other things. Jed has not had a chance to review this. So we would like to have stipulation in here that if the property was closed before we get the lien that whatever happens it goes with the property. Pickett: It won't. Leslie: So that is your first decision is do we want to go with a lien on the property or do you--given the documentation that I have provided you--would you like to pull the 8040 approval and be done with it. Anybody else who comes back in to develop the property and attempts to pull a permit would have to go through the 8040 review. Staff feels very confident that we could take a lot of the stuff that was not rectified with the first 8040 and make it a conditional approval for any future 8040 approval. Secondly if you do want to go with the lien on the property we have some amended the plans. We have been working with the applicant on a different wall--the retaining wall scenario. And it is fairly different from what was originally approved but staff feels that it meets our goals and it still accomplishes what we want and it probably will look a little bit better. And so we would want to go over those plans with you. We feel that since it is a fairly substantial change that we would want direction from P&Z on whether to go with the different wallar still with the original wall. Jasmine: Is there anything you want to add, Marti? Marti: I think Leslie has covered it well. On behalf of those problems one of the applicants flew to Chicago to go to the dentist there mumble And Joe Zaluba who you have seen before this Board before. The issue is merely cash flow for them. The wall would be in place or certainly a letter of credit would be in place 2 PZM11.10.92 if they had the money. They really have been diligent in trying to pursue various alternatives. They applied for a performance bond in a timely fashion as requested. But those are really for developers and not for private individual and it just wasn't something that was going to work. Dr. Collins has been trying to re-finance his house. He can get $30,000 but not $45,000. So there is a lot of equity in this land. There is a pretty viable offer the property right now that we are hoping will come through. Then that will solve the problem. But until then we think that a deed of trust on the property would help satisfy that. Which would stay in place until the work is done or it would have to be replaced by a letter of credit by a new owner. Jasmine: I guess I don't understand about the use of a lien. Doesn't the lien only come into place when the property is sold? Pickett: Right. Unless the city chooses to foreclose which probably wouldn't happen. At this point clearly the owners are not going to go forward with plans to build. It is on the market for that reason. So you are not going to be faced with someone doing the building of the home until certainly the property is sold. At this point I think everyone is pretty well satisfied that the driveway that is in place is at an almost final grade. It is not in a dangerous situation. It can make it through the winter. So we are looking at not doing anything anyway until next spring. Bruce: I am curious as to how we got from the sum of $300,000 in some of the documents down to $75,000. Rob Thomson, Engineering Dept: The first was--THE $300,OOO--we were putting a number to it. That was the retaining structures that were originally designed with the boulder walls and tie back walls and it went off at a $15 to $25 a square foot figure and multiply that by the height, 6 to 8 ft, by the full length of it. It was just a ball park number. Then, since we have changed the size of the wall and the amount of work going into the wall has dramatically changed, my first number probably was pretty high. I wanted to cover myself and have the applicant come back and prove to me that that was wrong. Bruce: Are you sure $75,000 is adequate? In the worst case scenario if we end up with a lien against the property and have to go up and do what needs to be done, $75,000 is going to cover it? Thomson: What they basically came in with was $40,000 to put in the wall. I went back and looked and felt that there was some initial landscaping that wasn't included. And I also felt that we 3 PZM11. 10.92 should tack on a 30% contingency to cover any administration cost for staff time if we had to go in and take it over. So it was the $40,000 and the additional to allow some leeway in there for man hours to do some of the work. Leslie: The $75,000 also includes the hydroseeding and the mulching that needs to be done on that lower slope from the road to re-vegetate that. It will include when they go and put in the retaining wall, they are going to have to cut back a little bit further. Relocation would be required for that and laying back the wall and the re-vegetation of the upper--that hairpin turn. And it also includes the $3,500 that Mr. Zaluba owes the Planning Dept for past fees. Pickett: $3,570. Thomson: Their estimates were provided to me by an outside engineer. Bruce: Originally 8040 Greenline approval which as I recall was based on a specific project. We dealt with things like avalanche and all kinds of stuff. And as I understand it from what you said, Marti, that basically the lot is for sale and potentially under contract. Does that mean that the buyer is accepting Mr. Zaluba's proposed house and everything that goes with it? pickett: At this point they do have some questions about a couple of changes and they have been in to talk to Leslie about that. And if it is substantive it would have to come before you. Leslie: I told her that. There is one change where she wants to move a door from one side around to the other side and increase the size of the deck on another side. Those, to me, are not substantive changes as long as we are not infringing in a potential avalanche path or within the ___?___. Some other things that she wants to do, in my opinion, are substantial changes to the original 8040 and I have advised her that she would have to come back to you all and show you the new plans and her changes. Bruce: What is the value of an 8040 Greenline approval on this piece of land? Pickett: get it. He could tell you the thousands of dollars he spent to I don't know what that figure is. Bruce: value. I understand that. But I am talking in terms of market 4 PZM11.l0.92 Pickett: I would be hesitant to put a money figure on that. It is substantial just because of--I think anyone that comes to buy property if it is just raw land then they are going to start from scratch-- Bruce: Is it worth $75,OOO? There was no answer. Leslie: Primarily my opinion of this is that we are not getting anything. When the property is sold then the new owner of the property will comply with the conditions of approval or we have $75,000 to go and do what we wanted to have done. In my discussions with the potential buyer there is quite a bit that she wants to do and she will probably be looking at a substantial change in the original 8040 approval. She will be back before you anyway. Bruce: That is the point I am getting to. It seems like to me we are doing a lot of churning here for no reason. It seems to me if there is going to be changes that seem substantial changes they are going to have to come back for 8040 Greenline anyway. pickett: I think in practicality you are correct. So I think as a legality it is a good safe effort on the City's part to work with these land owners and applicants to--Mr. Zaluba said "I would like for it to happen differently". It is a financial for them. And to penalize them for not coming through because of a financial problem is one thing. It is not--It has not been that they have just and said "We don't agree". That has not been the case. They really have made an effort. Bruce: Well, yes, I don't dispute that. I am not sure that from our standpoint--for my standpoint that the reason has anything to do with it--or good faith for that matter. I am a little confused as to about the signals I am getting from staff. Is it your recommendation to withdraw the 8040 Greenline approval or is it your recommendation to accept this letter and do the lien? Leslie: Well, the whole purpose and the whole intent behind threatening to pull the 8040 was we were hoping to either get money that we eventually could finish the job with or to get the applicant to go ahead and finish the job that he started. The mechanism that we had to get him to focus on his property and the disrepair of his property was ___?___ for an approval. I have never been in this process of pulling the 8040. I have been hoping that we could get the road resolved. From what Jed has told me the lien will do that. And the lien--we are all in agreement. Staff and the ___?___ engineer that Jed has been working with that 5 PZM11.10.92 the road is fine. The drainage problem has been taken care of. They canted the road back into the hillside. And they finished off the grade of the road. So the immediate danger of the road which is what their neighbors were complaining about has been rectified. The lien gets us I think to the point where we need to be. However Jed has not reviewed this letter and so I don't have the advice of my City Attorney. What I suppose would happen is Jed will look at this and we will together structure something that both parties can live with that gets us to a point. I would like to have a deadline on this letter when we get the lien and if that doesn't come through and is not all fine then we pull the 8040. I don't know if we can structure it in a way that comes spring and summer and the property still hasn't sold, we are in the same situation that we have been in. Jasmine: That is questions about the then where are we? the thing I was trying to get at with my lien. If, in fact, the property does not sell, We are nowhere. Roger: Unless we foreclose on the lien. Jasmine: Which I don't think the city really would like to do. My other concern about this is the fact that what was going to happen is that we are probably going to have to see this again. Because the new owner, if there is in fact a new owner, at some point whether it is this particular buyer or another buyer it is pretty clear that Mr. Zaluba at least for the foreseeable future, will not be able to develop the property. So we are going to be looking at a new owner and a new application. Pickett: Maybe. There is the option that some new buyer mumble - - Jasmine: I am just trying to figure out what we are really approving here. I am really confused. Tim: If you could show us a contract that it was going to be sold I would be more inclined to then say "Well, we can resolve our problem by Zaluba by eliminating him because now we have somebody else to attach ourself to". But my problem is with Zaluba, his performance, no indication that he is going to perform on a lien or a letter of credit or fixing the road. Pickett: But he has, I think, come through on fixing the road to the place where it is today to make sure it works through the winter. Tim: Which is another question that I have. What is the liability now that we have made an ongoing manmade obstacle? What if someone 6 PZM11.10.92 skied into that road and hurt themselves. Does Zaluba have adequate insurance to cover just having that road there now? Bruce: He doesn't have any insurance according to this performance bond application. Pickett: There is liability insurance on the property that would also conform to the requirements that he agreed to say that it would be fenced off and signed that people are not to ski up that direction. There would be no chance of someone skiing down. They would really have to be trespassing to get onto the road. But there is a ski trail on this property that is below the road that is used. Tim: I am concerned about that. unfinished state and-- I am concern about it in an pickett: I think that is what our final goal here is to get that driveway completed. By pulling the permit to do it everything goes away. There is no security. There is no commitment on his part to do anything. At least this has the continuing commitment by which you will know that he will do it by spring. He will either do it or get a loan or sell the property which will take it out. Leslie: By next spring? Pickett: I would think you would want some time limit on that. Like any--to be complete by X date or you are in default. Leslie: So you are assuming that such deed of trust shall be released by the City only upon completion of work required and P&Z resolution. Pickett: And we have a time deadline which we talked about from the beginning that he would have until July or something to have it completed or it is deemed in default. That is what a deed of trust is about. At that point he would if he is in default if he hadn't sold the property their only remedy is to foreclose. Leslie: On the deed or on the entire property? Bruce: On the deed of trust. Pickett: On the deed of trust. Leslie: Do we get the entire property? Jasmine: We don't know what other liens there are on the property, do we. 7 PZM11.10.92 Tim: There would be a Sheriff's sale for us to recoup our amount? pickett: Right. Well, what happens when you have--I can tell you it is about probably 20% encumbered at this point. Leslie: I am sorry. Jed cannot be here and Pickett: yesterday agree to agreement The letter is in excess that he had agreed to. the standard form, the of what Jed and So he certainly deed of trust, I spoke about would need to the type of ? representing Gordon Miller: I just wanted to make ____ I have been trying to co-ordinate getting this thing ___. They are obligated to pay half of the improvements. So if it is $50,000 whatever we are contractually obligated to pay half. So I don't know if that affects this but-- MOTION Bruce: I move that the Planning & Zoning commission revoke or withdraw the 8040 Greenline approval for Lot 3 of the Haag Subdivision because of non-compliance with all of our conditions of approval that had been previously iterated in numerous findings and resolutions for specifically that July 21, 1992 finding an order resolution and because of that non-compliance we therefore revoke the 8040 Greenline approval for Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen, State of Colorado. Tim seconded the motion. Roger: My first thoughts were to move to revoke as well. But then I continue down--my worry is--mine was to revoke the approval effective Friday November 20th, 1992 unless they came up with a lien or security or whatever that was satisfactory to the City Attorney. But then I think we should add continuing conditions on that. For example if this were the desire of the rest of the Board for example an absolute date certain that the job must be done. I don't know about you guys but I am getting pretty tired of seeing this over and over and over again. It is a blight on our system. And whatever other conditions along that line. My disposition at this point is in favor of revoking. Bruce: I want to tell where I am coming from. I don't question Mr. Zaluba's or anybody else who is involved in this project best efforts to try to make this happen. What I object to is the City using what I think are more than best efforts to try to make it happen. I think that is a dangerous thing for us to do is to start creating ways of doing something that are out of our normal 8 PZM11.10.92 process. I think when a developer comes to us and he wants to do a project we say "These are the conditions". And it is his job to comply wi th those conditions. It is not the city's job to help him comply. Now we need to be agreeable. Staff needs to work with the applicant. All of those kinds of things. I don't mean that we shouldn't be co-operative. But it seems to me we have crossed the line here. Somehow we are becoming co-developer with this developer to make this happen. And I just don't thing that is the way that we need to be going. I think we have given this applicant time after time extension. We are talking 2 years out. It was '89 or '90 when we first approved this. And I am sympathetic with whatever their situations are financially or whatever. But that is the world of big bad real estate development. And it is not our job to bail somebody out through a lien or whatever else. If the worst happens and we take this lien and they don't sell the property, we foreclose on it. We mayor may not get our $75,000. We still have got at that point in time to revoke the 8040 Greenline then and hire somebody else to do this and spend the $75,000. I don't want to see us even get to that point. I am ready to just get rid of it and let the new applicant come in and make a design for a new house. They can use the same house. They can come in and we can take a look at it again. That is where I am coming from philosophically. And most everybody on the Commission knows that generally speaking I am kind of pro developer. And I think this is beyond the bounds of where I am prepared to go. Jasmine: Very eloquently expressed, Bruce. Pickett: I need a couple of hours to present our case. We can either do it today or we can table it to do it at another time. I wasn't prepared to do it today. Jasmine: That is why I asked you in the beginning whether you wanted to say anything. Pickett: Just on the security I thought. of issues here beyond just the security. Because there are a lot Jasmine: I don't understand this. Why is this not in here in our memo. Why can't we just revoke it? Leslie: That was my understanding that--and Jed didn't review my memo and instructed me how to do the memo. And I asked him "Is it OK to just recommend revocation of the 8040 without giving you all 9 PZMll.lO.92 any other alternative. He said it was fine. Jasmine: I am not trying to shove you out, Marti, but I don't see any reason why we should have another meeting on this. We will be happy to listen to anything you want to say at this point. Pickett: Do you have a copy of the notice to show cause for me? Bruce: I didn't. Randy Weedum: Could I make one statement on behalf of my client that might solve some of this? Jasmine: Your client is not a part of this. Mr. Zaluba is the one who has the approval and the non-compliance. Weedum: If the question is the only ground that denial is based on economic guaranteeing of this improvement of roads I am sure my client would be willing give you whatever is needed to be done to guarantee that road improvement thing if his is not adequate. So if that is your only reason for denying I am sure that my client- Jasmine: Your client has nothing to do with this as far as the official record is concerned. Whatever your client's arrangements with Mr. Zaluba are they don't really affect our decision because as far as we are concerned your client has no official standing in this matter. Weedum: We are trying to improve the road. And if it is a matter of financial obligation to get this road improved we will be willing to make whatever it needs to get the job done. We owe half the road in our contract on location. If he loses his approval that affects us sooner or later. Pickett: I think the point is as we said from the beginning and the direction staff and from Commission is saying that we should provide whatever security is acceptable to Jed. He has accepted this and now you are not accepting it. Leslie: He hasn't accepted this. He has not had a chance to read your letter. Pickett: Well, we talked about it. Leslie: But we staff did not have the opportunity to come to an agreement on how we wanted to proceed with the lien. Jed has not had a chance to read your letter. He has been out of the office. And Jed has reviewed my memo. My memo was a recommendation to revoke the 8040. 10 PZM11.10.92 Pickett: That was before our conversation yesterday. Leslie: Right. But I feel confident that my memo, making that recommendation to the Commission is OK because he did review that. Pickett: Well, I think that is fine. I just need time to put on the record the directive. I am going to show cause to say why it shouldn't be revoked. Bruce: Technically on any of our hearings we have operated under the situation that it is understood that everybody is under oath. I think it is good to make a record officially that it is understood that anybody that testifies or speaks that the show cause hearing is doing so under oath. pickett: I am not very well prepared for this because I really thought we had this settled before I came in here today. From the first show cause hearing in July at that point and I would refer back to our comments made on the record at that day of July 21, 1992. At that point Mr. Zaluba was present. But the primary rational at that point was that because his driveway was begun 2 years ago and had not been completed that that was non-compliance with 8040 review or approval. And at that point the statements he made included the fact that his building permit was not given by the City or granted by the City until September after the first year so he missed the first building season. And at that point there was a contract on the property and he was prepared to move forward and complete it. When that was not forthcoming that contract terminated. So in the next year he wasn't able to complete it. So we are now in the next building season. There was no deadline of any kind for anything in the initial 8040 approval for completion of the house, construction of the driveway, completion of the wall. The very first summer, actually that fall, that driveway was first excavated. Mrs. Susan Rappaport who lives in that green house below had called to complain that she was concerned about some drainage because her house-her property is very steep and she was concerned that drainage could come down and jeopardize some landscaping she did. Jed sent me a letter and I responded with Joe's consultant's, Chen Northern and High Country Engineering, who went up and reviewed it and made some suggestions for work for that winter to make sure that everything was stabilized through last winter. And that was done. And then I guess this past spring that was raised again as to what was to be done for final completion. At the July 21st hearing and 11 PZM11.10.92 after that Joe had agreed to get it to final grading and to do some temporary measures if necessary before the winter such as a concrete retaining wallar other. But after various consultants looking at it the majority opinion, and there were different opinions, was that there did not need to be anything final done or even temporarily done for this winter that it was in a safe condition. There was going to be very little sluff-off with the excavation at the final grade and a gravel top that on the uphill side there was drainage completed so that the drainage was well away from the other property and down toward ute street the way it was intended to be. Mrs. Rappaport and the Davises who both live below and their attorney, John Kelly, met on site and have agreed that they feel like it is in a very stable condition and they are satisfied with the status today. So really what we are doing on the wall is a cosmetic issue more than a safety issue at this point. And it has been a visual anesthetic concern. It is not visible at all from ute Avenue and I had submitted photographs at your last hearing to confirm that. The only time you will see the wall is if you are on the Forest Service property or on Mr. Zaluba's land. The reason for the request for amendment to this new proposed wall was once they excavated the driveway they found that the cut was less steep than originally anticipated. In the early wall that you were asking about, Bruce, we had anticipated some sections being 8 to 10 feet high. And there are really no sections now that would require a wall of that height. In fact the tallest would be 3 feet or something? ?: Yeah. To summarize what the wall is doing--it is a stem wall in that the engineers and the architect all agree that the stability of this hillside is more than adequate--will hold itself and that the stem wall that we are proposing is only a functional thing for drainage and ?___ and for plowing and traffic on the roads ? base of the slope. But that there is no need for a retaining-wall in this particular situation. In fact putting in the stem wall the drainage solutions and the hydromulching the hillside and cutting it back that you would not need to build more for a functional solution. So functionally that is what they recommended. And that previously they didn't know. In other words the worst case scenario you would build an 8 foot wall ___?___. Rob Thomson: I disagree with that because anything over 6 to 8 feet needs to be retained. And that was a report from day one. Pickett: And I think you are right when you are talking about a retaining wall where the earth comes up to the wall. But what they 12 PZM11.10.92 are proposing now is that the wall is less than the slope and the slope comes into play. Rob: That is have done it. beginning. an alternate method. There is 2 different ways to The way it is now could have been proposed in the Pickett: Well, I don't think so only because Chen felt that originally that when the final grade was finished that that slope cut would be higher than it is. Tim: We have extensive documentation here as to everything you are saying. Are you going to tell us something new today? Or are you just going to reiterate what we already know? Pickett: I can appeal. as brief as just have to make a record today at this hearing so I It is merely a legal issue. I am sorry. I will be I can. Bruce: Let me see if there is a different way out of this to save you and us some time. I would like to withdraw my motion to revoke and have an alternate motion to make. Jasmine: will the seconder consent? Bruce: What I would rather do at this point is withdraw my motion to revoke and instead make a motion to table this item until next week or next regularly scheduled meeting and to have a final firm recommendation from staff. This goes back to the question that I am getting mixed signals from staff as to what their final recommendation really is on this. And if staff is satisfied fully, Jed and the Planning staff and Engineering Dept are fully satisfied with some means of saving this 8040 Greenline approval, then I can buy into it if they are fully satisfied. That is what I would like to do rather than go through this whole hearing process. If there is a resolution in the works and is available within the next week or so then that is what I would rather do than go through this whole hearing. Jasmine: I don't know whether that is agreeable to Tim who is the seconder of this motion. Tim: I withdraw my second. But I do it with reservations because I think that we are going to address this again. I think that we have a history of Mr. Zaluba non-compliance. We have documents that show us absolutely no movement. If Randy had the solution an hour ago he should have put the money on the table and come forward and solved this problem. If Counsel for Zaluba had the solution, she should have done it a month ago when we were addressing this same problem. I can't see how procrastinating this is in the best 13 PZM11.10.92 interest of the City, the public or Mr. Zaluba. And I can tell you that it is even going to make it more difficult for me in the future to go back and see any side other than revocation of the 8040 approval. So if we have to hear it now, I want her to go on record. I want her to do what she has got to do. It is my idea that I come here to do these things. And if it is just a matter of time, I want to take the time and I want it to proceed in a regular fashion. And I want every Mr. Zaluba to know that the City has a point where we are just not going to move. Roger: I feel uncomfortable having to conduct another show cause- -not to revoke hearing without our legal counsel. And I do like the idea of tabling action to a date certain and with that giving notice to the city Attorney that if there is a solution that is workable with everyone that they can get on and say "This is the solution"--fine. Then the point becomes a bit mute. But if not then the city Attorney should be here with us and help conduct the revocation hearing. Bruce: That is where I am coming that the counsel has had with the knowledge of or record of and proceeding without-- from. with the exparte contacts City's Attorney that we have no I just find it uncomfortable Pickett: I don't blame you and I don't want to push you. But I just really have to do this. Jasmine: problem. We understand your position, Marti. That is not the Bruce: You need to make a record in case you do decide to appeal. But I think it is better for us to have that record-making some time other than tonight. This is not time. I am willing to sit here all night if she wants to put on her case and if I fall asleep, so be it. But it is not the time. I just don't think we are proceeding prudently without Jed here. pickett: And in all due respect to Leslie and Rob who have worked very hard on this--to say that there has been no progress whatsoever is really not true. I think they would both admit that they have had meetings and worked with me and Randy. I think we have made some progress. Jasmine: I am telling you that I don't want to see this any more. Roger: I don't either. Jasmine: Ever again. We have had more meetings on this applicant, 14 PZM11.10.92 with the applicant, with the applicant's representatives. This has been going on for years. pickett: I know. I have been here from the beginning. Jasmine: Marti, we are not getting paid for this. We are really sick and tired of it. Tim: Can we call the attorney to find out if he is not back? Leslie: I called him and left a message in case he gets in that we are meeting here. Tim: Do you think we ought to call him and see if we have any news on where he is? If it is a matter of time I would like to get this done. Jasmine: It is just that nobody wants to deal with this any more. Leslie: I think you can table-- Jasmine: I don't want to table this. Leslie: You could table till next week so we have Jed here. And we go through the full show-cause hearing. Even if Jed says a lien is appropriate it doesn't mean the Planning & Zoning commission has to accept that. Bruce: Marti, I hope you understand at the least this applicant is on very shaky grounds. The fact that he hasn't even paid the Planning Office $3,500 doesn't show very much good faith or clean hands to me. So my inclination is still to do what I made a motion to do earlier tonight and that is to revoke. But I am willing to take another week to make sure we have full representation here for the City's standpoint. Therefore-- MOTION I move to table this item which is a show-cause hearing regarding the Zaluba 8040 non-compliance to date certain of November 17, 1992. Roger: I will second but will you also include in this motion to table instructions to staff and city Attorney that the direction we are going towards is to revoke unless something fantastic comes along that is a solution to this. But it has to be done by next week as far as I am concerned. I am as sick as you are bout this darned thing. 15 PZM11.10.92 Bruce: I agree. Next week is definitely the drop dead week. Staff can make any recommendation they want to to us. But I think it is clear we need to have full staff here and City Attorney. Roger: Exactly. And be prepared for a revocation hearing. There may be something that might mute that but be prepared. Bruce: I so move. Roger: And I have seconded. Roll call vote: Bruce, yes, Tim, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, no. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5:35pm. commission then went into work session on text amendment affecting FARs for porches and conceptual Rio Grande SPA Master Plan. n Janice ~ Carney, cit L ",~.,,"' 16