HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930420
~
. ~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
'"-..
PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 20. 1993
Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30 PM.
Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton,
Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Bruce Kerr and Richard Compton
were excused.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Sara: What is being done about advertising the city Shop el~ction?
Kim: We had a couple of public meetings where neighbors and
interested persons were invited to learn about it. Because of Ord.
#1 we can't spend more than $50 in promotional literature. We do
have an information packet available.
Sara: Are we going to have a total of
since the ordinance went into effect?
to be initiated by the Housing Office
rented or not.
the ADUs that have come up
And then the questionnaire
as to whether the ADU was
, Kim: Yvonne has done some research on ADUs and which units have
4 been submitted to the Housing Office for qualification of
, employees. She found none. So either they are not being rented
at all--and we are talking 50 or 60--or they are being rented not
through the qualification process.
Jasmine: We need to find that out.
All members agreed.
Tim: On Park Avenue there is another house being torn down on the
300 block. When we were going through that Shady Lane application
to have affordable housing on that corner property where the stop
sign is, we have a lot of input about the width of the street and
the sidewalk that were going to be required as the transportation
access is going through there. I wonder whether or not these
houses fit into a masterplan or if there ever was a masterplan done
by Streets and by Engineering for that corridor.
Now that there are 2 places that are leveled in that one block it
might be a good time to take a look at what we can do to plan for
that whole transportation corridor. That is a heavily traveled
access.
~
\".--
Leslie: The Engineering and Building Dept are working to make sure
that every building permit that comes forward--if it is in an area
where we need sidewalks and curb and gutters and has been
identified by the Pedestrian Plan, they will have to comply.
F
PZM4.20.93
STAFF COMMENTS
Kim: In a discussion with Tom Baker the question came up in AH
Zone District if single family parcels and homes could consider an
ADU. We came to the conclusion that in the AH Zone district,
unlike most of the other residential zones, ADUs are not listed as
an allowed or conditional use.
I talked with Tom Baker and he couldn't recall why that was like
that. He suggested asking P&Z if anyone recalled discussion on
this or if it is an error. And what would be your feelings about
a possible code amendment to allow them.
No one had any recollection of this.
Tim: I asked about it on the East Cooper project. The comment was
made to me "Well, the affordable housing is already taken care of
with the units that are being provided by the builder".
I thought that was still an obvious way to get more--what if some
of those homeowners wanted an ADU?
Kim: They are being in-town locals and in order to finance their
construction project--include one.
Leslie: We have just received the go-ahead from the Army Corp for
the picnic Point Bridge and the Betty Grindley Bridge. This means
that they have confirmed that the abutments to those bridges and
those bridges are out of the wetlands. So we do not need a permit
from them. So we will probably be putting those bridges up this
summer.
Castle Creek Bridge is on hold by the Army Corp. They don't want
to approve a bridge crossing Castle Creek in that location until
we have an overall trails plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
MINUTES
MARCH 16. 1993
MOTION
Tim made a motion to approve the minutes of March 16, 1993.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
"'-.......-
2
PZM4.20.93
FORTIER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Kim made presentation as attached in record.
Gideon Kauffman, representative for the applicant presented
affidavit of posting. (attached in record)
I see condition #1 b as overkill.
various utilities to say they have
square feet of development. I have
I feel it is a little too much.
I see no need to go to the
a problem servicing 600 extra
never seen this one before and
Jasmine asked who put this condition in.
Kim: That is Chuck.
Tim: How many people live in that house now?
Kim: It is a vacant lot. It will be a new house with a 2 bedroom
unit.
Kauffman: It is 2 people with a child. So it is just hard to
fathom that we should go to that trouble of having to go check with
all the utilities that they can handle an extra 600 square feet.
Jasmine: I wish I had some idea why Chuck has started to do this.
I don't remember having seen this before for an ADU plan.
After discussion it was decided to delete #lb.
Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none and she closed
the public portion of the hearing.
Tim: What do they propose to do with the ADU.
Kauffman: They have a business in town. They intend to house some
of their employees.
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve Conditional Use for a 699 square foot
attached accessory dwelling unit at the Fortier residence at 1465
Red Butte Drive with the conditions on Planning Office memo dated
April 20, 1993 except that Condition #1 has been modified to remove
sub paragraph b.
David seconded the motion.
The entry is on the north side of the house and it seems to have
a snow shed right into the entry which will probably cause some
access problems. I suggest the plans be modified with a dormer or
",~-
3
PZM4.20.93
whatever the designer finds necessary to mitigate.
To be Condition #9. Applicant will modify the plans to provide a
dormer or other modification to keep snow and ice shed away from
the front door of the ADU.
Roger: I accept that as a modification to my motion.
Everyone then voted in favor of the motion.
WHIPPLE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Leslie made presentation as attached in record and presented
affidavit of public posting.
?: Gideon handled the question about the utilities. That was
great. My other question is the drainage plan. That is a new one.
A storm runoff plan by a registered engineer?
Leslie: Maybe work with the Engineering Dept on that. Or your
engineer--whoever is going to do that. It is becoming more of an
issue because we don't have a City-wide drainage district. So we
have to rely upon review processes to make sure that our drainage
is held in check.
I would suggest that the condition remain as it is and that you
work with the Engineering Dept on this. Discuss what they would
accept from you to confirm that you are dealing with your drainage
problem.
Jasmine asked the applicant if there were any other concerns he
had. He had none.
Jasmine then asked for public comment.
John Sweeney: We live across the alley from this.
concerning the setbacks)
(Asked
Leslie: This accessory dwelling unit is below grade so has nothing
to do with setbacks. This project will be able to receive a 500
square foot bonus for a garage.
There was no further public comment so Jasmine closed the public
portion of the hearing.
MOTION
4
PZM4.20.93
Tim: I move to approve the 559 square foot accessory dwelling unit
for 204 North Fifth street with the conditions recommended in the
Planning Office memo dated April 20, 1993.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
The applicant asked concerning the recommendation regarding
utilities.
Tim: I move to reconsider the
withdraw section 4 Bii--the
communications and utilities.
previous motion to amend it to
revised response to contract
Everyone then voted in favor of reconsidering the previous motion.
Tim: I move to approve the 559 square foot accessory dwelling unit
for 204 North Fifth street with the conditions recommended in the
Planning Office memo dated April 20, 1993 with the exception that
under Condition #l--Bii be eliminated.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
GORDON/CALLAHAN PUD AMENDMENT AND REZONING
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Leslie made presentation as attached in record and presented proof
of mail ing . There is one condition of approval to add. The
applicants are proposing to put in an accessory dwelling unit in
every single home.
The condition will read "Prior to the issuance of a building permit
the deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit shall be
approved by the Housing Authority and recorded with Pitkin County
Clerk & Recorder's Office with proof of recordation to the Planning
Dept. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit
meets the Housing Guidelines for such units, meets the definition
of resident occupied unit and if rented shall be rented for periods
of 6 months or longer."
There was discussion regarding development rights.
Tim: I think it does effect what we are doing tonight. They are
coming in bargaining saying that we are going from 4 to 1. And
then they are saying "But we have not used our 2 development
rights." So how do they get to the 4?
I am saying that as soon as this was platted and deeded those
5
PZM4.20.93
development rights were used. And that what they bought were 4
lots. They didn't buy a piece of property and 2 separate
development rights. How did they create those lots if they didn't
use the development rights?
Brooke Peterson: I was one of the people who drafted the original
agreement creating the transferable development rights. The
concept back in '81 was that we wanted to create the employee
housing enclave but there wasn't enough land to offset the cost of
doing that for the developer. So what, we wanted to do was to
create an equivalent number of transferable development rights that
weren't associated with any particular piece of property.
What we did was we came up with a formula that said we have got X
number of free market rights that can go to any property that is
otherwise developable. Those two development rights haven't been
used because the concept was that if they were used not when the
lots were platted but used when something is built. That is when
the employee housing impact was created.
Employee housing impact wasn't created by the creation of the lots.
It was created when a unit was built from which an employee might
be displaced.
Jasmine: What Tim was saying is that it seems in a way as though
you are taking TDRs and going through approval of plans and then
they just get to be moved endlessly to other projects.
Tim: It is like what comes first here. Did you guys actually buy
the land knowing that there were 4 lots there?
Peterson: Sure. Yes.
Tim: Then how do those lots come about? They wouldn't have been
able to come about unless there were TDRs put there and exchanged
for the value of platting a lot and deeding a piece of property.
These lots were for sale individually.
Peterson: No. At the time we bought them I don't believe they
were on the market.
Tim: I think they were. So I think that they were created--these
lots were created with the TDRs as an entity to be sold--to be
negotiated. And I think that is what you guys bought. You
negotiated those TDRs when you bought those lots. And now to take
them off the property again--I don't think that you are capable of
doing that. That is my contention here.
Leslie: We agree that that is a question. That is what I want
6
/"'
PZM4.20.93
the City Attorney's office to research. They need to go back to
the original contract and work with the people who originally
drafted these to come up with the answer to the question. However
this PUD amendment I don't think it has any bearing on whether
Aspen River Friends still retains 2 TDRs or not.
Let's say that this was only 2 lots--Iot 9 and lot 2. No TDRs.
And Aspen River Friends are coming in and they are saying "We want
to amend this subdivision of lot 9 and lot 2 and eliminate lot 2
and create lot 9. That is essentially what they are asking to do.
Tim: Yes, but that is not possible because they are coming in and
saying "We have 4 lots and we want to go from 4 lots to 1 lot".
So it is a great scenario but it is not the one that we are dealing
with here.
Leslie: What I am saying is lot 2 and lot 9 are there regardless
of whether there are transfer development rights or not. And they
are going down to lot 9. They are eliminating all the lots and
going to lot 9. They are going back to what was previously
approved development rights regardless of whether they were
transfer development rights involved.
Tim: I agree with all the other proposals to the amendment except
for the transferable development rights.
Sara: I agree. That is a problem for me because if you still have
2 TDRs that are out there, I might prefer to see them there rather
than some unknown place in the City. That scares me that you are
going to have to go through Growth Management that you are all
exempt--that you have a City carte blanche to do 2 more. So my
approval of this depends on whether I know that have got 2 more
floating out there that don't have to go through this Growth
Management Exemption. That is important to me.
Jasmine: It is bother me as well. Perhaps we should table this
until we get more information.
David: Let's say the lot across the street were vacant. If you
were the receiver of those TDRs were to make an application for
that and it were currently approved for 1 house and you wanted to
put 2 more houses to be 3 houses on that--would that at that time
go through a condition review or any kind of review process other
than GMQS?
Peterson: It would still have to be a conforming lot and meet all
the rest of the requirements.
",
David: The underlying zoning?
-...-
7
PZM4.20.93
Leslie: It would go through subdivision. The only thing that we
can't do is say "You have to go through Growth Management and you
have to mitigate".
Jasmine: There is no mitigation.
Tim: You see? They already did those once with these TDRs!
David: So the mitigation is there.
John Worcester, city Attorney: So the mitigation is there. It is
there in the sense that it was already done at Smuggler.
David: So the mitigation at Smuggler has already been done. We
still get to review it for standard subdivision, underlying zoning,
traffic impact and all of that. So there still is review and it
would still come here and council before a final. It is just
floating out there waiting for that final review.
Sara: Outside of the community plan count.
Leslie: When we decide how much quota is available that year we
would take into account those things that have been built as
exemptions to the Growth Management system.
David: The question I have is those 4 lots right now--2 are TDRs
and 1 stays. Is there any mitigation for housing for that 4th
unit?
Leslie: Yes and they are proposing to provide an accessory
dwelling unit under Ord. #1.
David: That is the one, that would stay. What about the 1 that
goes away? What I am saying there are 2 TDRs. One stays. If that
one isn't built what is the mitigation requirements for that?
Leslie: All 4 parcels are going to provide an ADU.
David: So that is the mitigation.
Leslie: Essentially what you have with this PUD is 1 existing
development right that just goes away. That is never to be
exercised.
David: And the mitigation is for that unit.
.'
Leslie: You have I development right that will stay and will be
8
, PZM4.20.93
mitigated for by the provision in the ADU. And then you have 2
TDRs.
Jasmine: Which are the question.
David: What I do have a problem with is the entire package in the
sense that these are about a million five lots roughly speaking and
since we have an affordable housing problem here--to combine them
and it what could be a 3 or 4 or 5 million dollar lot--just takes
it further out of the reach of the common employee in this
community. It just makes the community that much more expensive
than it already is. That is one of the problems with that.
Tim: I can see the tradeoffs. I like the open space. I like the
bike path and the bridge. And I wouldn't mind 1 big house there.
But having negotiated these TDRs when they actually bought 4 lots
then to give them that as a bonus--2 TDRs back--and give them the
wild card of putting 2 development rights anywhere--I just think
that is too much. And I really don't think those TDRs are alive
at this time. I think they have been exercised.
Jasmine had to leave at this time. Roger is now in command.
Leslie: suggested an amendment. The Commission can decide whether
they would like to table waiting the decision of the City Attorney
or make a recommendation to City Council with the condition that
we will have the City Attorney's opinion before we go to Council
with this.
Roger then opened the hearing for public comment.
John Kelly, Attorney representing the ___?___ family. I think our
general concerns are size, height and building materials. Size,
I guess, is not a problem but height and building materials could
be. I will say the applicant has good intentions on what they plan
to do. But for the record I would like to have the board consider
putting some height limitations and such things as non-reflective
roof and things of that nature.
There were no further comments and Roger closed the public portion
of the hearing.
Behrhorst: I think you ought to step back and look at this. It
is really a win/win kind of a program for the City and the
neighbors. Reducing the total development, less traffic by 3
houses or about a 57% reduction in density, the bike path being
much more desireable a location for the community and preserving
a stretch of river that would have had 3 houses on it. These
people have created a better situation for the city.
9
PZM4.20.93
Roger: By and large I agree with that but we do have this problem
with what to do with the TDRs.
Sara: To respond to the community as a member of this commission
I would like to know more about everything that is in play in this
deal and what deal we are giving you. I may prefer to see 4 homes
there than elsewhere. I would like a response from the Attorney's
office before I vote on this. I would like to table this.
Tim: I think it is a pertinent piece of information.
Leslie: We could add a condition of approval in here that this not
go forward to the city council until we have the opinion from the
City Attorney.
Tim: In that case I think this is premature and I think we should
table it. And the legal entities should discuss what is going on
and then they should come back.
Leslie: To clarify: They can still request to reduce down to 1
parcel or 2 parcels regardless of whether they have TDRs or not.
MOTION
Tim: I make a motion that we propose this amendment with the
elimination of #9 which is the 2 transferrable development rights.
If you want to just come back in and make another application that
you have 2 transferrable development rights that is fine with me.
We will fight that on another ground. We can go forward with all
the other things.
I am in favor of everything else except the transferrable
development rights as a contingency on this.
Further discussion--
?: I think the one issue is a planning issue and one is a legal
issue. And we are acknowledging that we think these owners have
the rights to these TDRs. And whether they do or not this plan can
stand on it's own because there are 2 lots--existing lots.
Tim: I agree.
?: That existed before that are part of that plan.
Tim: I said I am in favor of the plan. I think it is a good plan.
David:
Even though there is one unit evaporating in this proposal,
-.........
10
PZM4.20.93
I tend to agree that it is in the overall community best interest
and it is in compliance with the community goals of retaining
access to the river and expansion of the bikeways. It does improve
the bikeway and open space in the neighborhood and the community
as a whole.
MOTION
David: I move that we approve the proposed amendment to the Gordon
Callahan PUD and the Rezoning from R-15 to RR with conditions #1
through #10 in the staff memo. Also to include #11 as read into
the record by Leslie regarding deed restrictions on ADUs in her
opening statements.
,"'"
Roger seconded the motion.
Roger: I don't see any point in holding this application up at
this point. However I do understand the viewpoints of Tim and Sara
that you would like to know--if we are reducing the density here
where are we going to be faced with density increase somewhere
else. Or if we will have to deal with density somewhere else. I
do agree with you. But I would like to see this go forward and I
would like to see an additional condition that a legal opinion gets
to City Council by the time this reaches City Council.
Tim: If we go all the way to City Council and then we find out at
city Council that legally the TDRs aren't alive are you guys then
going to change your application?
Peterson: That would be up to the owners.
Leslie: How about--"A legal opinion regarding the 2 transfer
development rights that were used for the Gordon Callahan PUD
Subdivision shall be rendered by the city Attorney's office before
first reading at City Council of this proposal. The Planning &
Zoning Commission shall be apprised of the determination."
David consented to add this to the motion.
Roger: I will amend my second.
Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes.
EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL REVIEW
FOR INCREASED FAR ON LOT 8
Kim made presentation as attached in record.
After discussion:
-".........
11
PZM4.20.93
MOTION
David: Because the applicant changes are consistent with previous
presentations and because this brings the unit count more in line
with the intent of the Affordable Housing Zone District and because
the changed FAR is still substantially less than the allowable FAR
within the Affordable Housing Zone District, I move to approve the
Special Review for FAR increase to .45.1 on Lot 8 of the East
Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision as allowed by dimensional
requirement of the AH zone district, pursuant to the criteria in
Section 24-7-404 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Tim seconded the motion with all in favor.
RIO GRANDE SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL SPA MASTER PLAN ADOPTION
Leslie made presentation as attached in record.
After discussion regarding "buffer"--
Leslie: On #10 say "A 20 foot transition zone has been delineated
on the site map. It's zone is a boundary between site A and site
B. The zone is intended to provide development flexibility for
both site A and site B taking into account topography, vegetation
and individual site development needs".
Regarding developing slope in excess of 20%:
Roger: Because of the creation of the berm east of site B there
are slopes in excess of 20% which may potentially be developed.
Leslie: I was thinking slope outside of the berms and the changing
grade between site A and B where the transition zone is.
Roger: Just say "excluding berms".
Then this is awfully specific--"Regional Rail Facility" is
developed on this site. I don't think it was the intention of city
Council to exclude the trolley line which goes along that portion
which has been removed from this map.
Leslie: We show the trolley line does not impact the recreational
aspect of the playing field. The only thing that is going to
impact the recreational aspects of this site is the rail system.
What Council is adamant about is the only thing we are going to
give up the playing field for is regional rail.
Roger: I would like to say it in the form of "Central
Transportation Facilities" and we consider something like regional
rail as opposed to just very specific regional ad infinitum.
12
PZM4.20.93
David: I think what we were trying to do is get away from this
particular site plan. By cO-locating trolley barn and regional
rail to get one massive structure and there is still provision on
site C.
Roger: But if in the future a Council decided that was the
desireable way to go this statement excludes the trolley from
joining in on the regional rail.
Leslie: This Council is excluding that.
David: But a future Council could change that.
Jon Busch: From the beginning the Teen Center came forward, the
Ruggers came forward, the Kayakers came forward. My impression of
Council's charge was to address all these potential users, see if
they were compatible and even to recommend if the committee felt
that there were inappropriate uses on the site.
What we found is everything was compatible. There were some slight
modifications. The Trolley Barn got backed up to accommodate the
Recycle Center and entrance tracks got put to the other direction
?' to accommodate a Teen Center and their playing fields and their
recreational area. And everybody said "No" to that snowmelter--
"Get rid of it".
So my concern is that what Council wanted was to make sure that all
users--all potential uses on the site were addressed and that they
were compatible. And what we have got in this study is so general
that it doesn't address what I thought was Council's direction
which was to find out in this plan whether these various uses were
compatible with the Masterplan.
I share some of Roger's concern about illuding to site B without
the trolley there. Clearly in the meetings with all these people
the trolley route accommodates the playing field but it doesn't say
that in the plan.
Regarding the trolley route--that has been going on for 13 years.
We started looking in various forms and it is not shown here.
~
?: I don't think this is the historical document. There has been
a lot of planning for the section of the Rio Grande that we started
out planning for. For 20 years there have been arts plans on that
section. Some even building along the river there. And I think
that for whatever reason those things were all abandoned. I think
that we on the committee get the feeling that it is being watered
down continually to get to the place that everybody can agree on
a base conception. And as disappointing as that is for us may be
-
13
PZM4.20.93
it is our first necessary initial step.
At least A, Band C we can get down to few guidelines for each
section and we can get that passed. And then if we want to go back
and add in in our next step you will say what that is. A lot of
the statistic things that we have spent a year and a half doing
and with many, many, many groups being part of this maybe that is
the time do to that. But at least if we can get the most
conceptual thing going.
Busch: I definitely heard Council say that this SPA plan was
supposed to take into account all the proposed uses and find out
if they work and if they work together.
If this goes back to Council as generic as that certainly
Council will come back and say we want more information.
frustration is it took us a year and a half to get to this
and we have done all of that work. But it is not here.
the
The
point
Tim: If they ask you what component will not fit in here, which
one do you say?
Busch: Snowmelt. That is the only one everybody agreed does not
fit.
Roger: On that map regional rail does not fit.
Tim: It can fit a certain way. And when the people have the money
to propose specifically what regional rail is going to need then
we have got the area designated that can be worked into what they
have the money to pay for.
?: When we had this full discussion that we are talking about
building a basketball court or a skate board ramp it has always
been my understanding and what the Committee agree on is that if
we get full blown regional rail and if that basketball court is in
the way of a transportation use then that basketball court will be
removed. It is a temporary use until a transportation use
overrides it.
The rail realistically may not happen for a number of years.
Meanwhile there are some uses for that that are worthwhile. What
I am proposing is that we go ahead and use that land and when the
regional rail comes through then that space will be used for a
transportation need. But I don't see that happening in the next
couple of years.
Sara: Why don't you, on the map then, just do what you did on the
playing field "Transportation/Youth Recreation".
14
PZM4.20.93
".-
Tim: What we needed was an umbrella--not specific spokes where we
were doing the planning for the rail system or the theatre or the
trolley. What we needed was a catch-all. So that when someone
came and said "We actually have our organization funded. We are
making a specific proposal for this amount of train travel, this
kind of car, this kind of cupula for tickets". Then we can react
to that.
But to put specific things like the size of the building, the
number of lines on a conceptual map we are putting words in
anybody's mouth who wants to pick up this idea. We think we should
just do this umbrella planning and create the idea that the space
is available. And then as the community develops and the needs
develop and as these ideas change there might be something new that
is more important. And without putting it on the map someone might
come and propose something that is drastically interesting to the
transportation needs of the intercity community that isn't a
trolley.
Busch: The trolley came to P&Z. I scraped, borrowed and begged
money to raise $26,000 to this preliminary study which included a
footprint of the car barn facility and the routing, analyze the
grades and that is what came to P&Z in 1990 and that is what P&Z
approved. It was a specific proposal. The Theatre group came with
a specific proposal.
Somehow our Committee's recommendation--if nothing else the process
this committee went through that determined that all of these uses
were compatible somewhere needs to be in the record that these are
all compatible uses. That is certainly what Council wanted. And
even if P&Z doesn't pass on those and think that that really needs
to be in the appendix somewhere it needs to say that all of the
groups and all of the potential users as per Council's instructions
were contacted and they were all worked with and the compatibility
of all of these things was addressed.
Leslie: So in the section under "Process" I should elaborate more
about this that we did all of these things. Maps #1, #2 and #3
show that the group agreed that the uses were compatible. And I
will include those that dropped out through the process.
I will include the Committee did find that all these uses were
compatible except for the snowmelter and maps #1, #2 and #3 exhibit
the variety of possibilities.
."
Sara: A concern I have is that Council understands what Tim just
said so well. That is that we didn't want to design it. We didn't
want to say "Look what you can do. This is the last great land
grab. Come and do it!" We want it to come from them and we will
weigh each one according to the Masterplan.
15
r -,
PZM4.20.93
""""-
MOTION
Roger: I will entertain a motion to move to adopt a plan as
amended at this meeting.
Sara: I move to recommend to Council adoption of Conceptual SPA
Rio Grande Plan as amended during this meeting. Also to include
suggestion of new boundary lines.
David seconded the motion with the suggestion that--
Busch: I remember a conversation happening at one point of the
possibility of trading some land because the particular
configuration--acts as a parking lot for that apartment house but
it is not theirs. So I wonder in terms of planning if it is
appropriate or if you should include some of that building area.
If you are going to trade to make anything useful--
Sara: Part of that motion will be the suggestion of redesigning
the boundary lines.
Roger: I would like to include in there that just by virtue of
,-" putting those boundary lines in there it doesn't preclude essential
transportation.
David amended his second to include same.
Everyone voted in favor.
Roger declared the meeting adjourned.
TimelJi "
P.M.
,~"-'
"'-'
16