Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19931005 , r -- ,- ... - ~p RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5. 1993 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Kim told Commission Chateau Eau Claire has been withdrawn and to be revised. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. LANDMARK DESIGNATION 834 W. HALLAM Bruce opened the public hearing. Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation: Made presentation as attached in record. Bruce asked the applicant if he had any questions or comments. He did not. Bruce then asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of landmark designation of 834 West Hallam which is Lots K, and L, Block 10 Hallam Addition, city of Aspen with Planning standards Band F having been met. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. BERGER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Bruce opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Sara: The current parking would be on the pedestrian walkway that now exists on Lake Avenue and up and around to the music tent. I know that it is a City Street but in the summer it is blocked off to go to the tent. ,/' \ ''-" r r- '-. PZMI0.5.93 Chuck Roth: Staff is seeking to improve that. We are trying to get those cars not to be parked there at all. Sara: This revised plan on the window well if that is existing grade isn't it going to be water pouring into that? Kim: I assume they are going to put in French drains or some other kind of drainage out of the window well area. The applicant is not here. MOTION Tim made a motion to table this hearing to end of meeting. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. EAST HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING REZONING. GMOS EXEMPTION SUBDIVISION. CONDOM. SPECIAL REVIEW AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Kim made presentation as attached in record. Presented affidavit of posting. (attached in record) Tom Baker, Housing: We don't have any problems with the conditions. There were approximately 6 neighborhood meetings and a full board conducted a couple of those. There was rather extensive public input that ended up with the application proposing 4 units. We had look at 7, 6 and 5 unit proposals and ended up on a 4 unit proposal. There was extensive debate on impacts. Kim: I did get one written response. A couple of phone calls specific to support of this project. But there was a negative response from a Paul K. Schroeder, 1024 East Hopkins. (attached in record) Sara: Is the 25 foot height from Hopkins Street or from the hill? Raul: It's from the existing grade. In order to widen Hopkins Street that whole hillside has to be cut and tailored back. So that is from the existing grade sloped with the street. We tried to address that by lowering the front part of the building and then stepping it back up to the rear part because of the hillside. Sara: What has happened on the alley easement? Raul: It hasn't been resolved but it is a condition of approval that will be resolved before building permits and plat. Baker: My understanding is that there are a couple of concerns of neighbors. What we are proposing at this time is to have access 2 PZMI0.5.93 to this structure here from Hyman. But not to have through traffic allowed. That would require then access for these units and this structure off of the alley and that would be our access as well. So the alley is being proposed at this point to be closed right here or the access easement to be closed right here and then there wouldn't be the ability to have through traffic in there. We are working on getting the easement abandoned in this point. One of the conditions of approval is to have that new access agreement signed by all appropriate parties before final plat. Sara: And if you abandon that end of the alley would the Fire Marshal agree to that? Raul: We have got a number of dead end alleys in town. Baker: I am not sure a hook and ladder truck could even make that kind of a turn. Roger: You have 2 car garages for each unit. My concern is that those garages might become underutilized. And people just tend to park in front of the garage which appears to be mostly in the ROW. <'",-, Baker: There is a 10 foot setback and there is not enough room for a car to stack in front of the garage and be on private property. David: I share Roger's concern. Is there any way to cut back the width of the curb cuts to 8 feet each? Baker: We could look at that. Tim: What is going to happen with the open space? This is city property and we are going to rezone this whole parcel to AH. What does that do to the qualities of the open space? Baker: It is City property. It was purchased for affordable housing. So the 9,000 square feet that was purchased by the City council was purchased with housing funds with the intention of using it for housing. commission and applicant then talked trash. Bruce then asked for public comment. Sandy Williams: I have lived at Riverview for 17 years. My concern is that that last block of East Hopkins really should have been widened long ago from a safety standpoint. I know the Fire Marshal is behind this because with that road so narrow and parking on either or both sides of the street it really is not wide enough for a fire truck to get through particularly in the winter. 3 PZMI0.5.93 -- We really are a dead end street there. The street above us is a dead end. And if they can't get through that last block on East Hopkins we don't have a prayer. It seems like constantly the city is doing things to increase the density and decrease the parking. Our concern is widening the street. It is a city responsibility from a safety standpoint. That is my big concern before any more density of any kind is permitted in that neighborhood. Anne Moore Noble: I am here in support of this project. I think that these concerns are valid. I was walking around the lot and I have stood on it at several different times. I think all the problems can be addressed. I think that the need for this sort of housing here is very important and this particular small density. I was amazed when I walked down there that it was so dense back there. And the size of the structures. But having watched the changes that have gone on in this valley I see it as being a very positive. And I hope to see it come to fruition. Norma Dolle: I am an original owner on Riverview. I agree with Sandy that we are really concerned about the density. There is hardly any parking along there at all. And if this project does go through they do need to widen the road and they also have to have adequate parking. There was not further public comment and Bruce closed the public portion of the hearing. David: There is a comment from the Fire Marshal addressing the access issue. He points out the bottlenecks in the area and that there are too many vehicles. I think whatever we do it is worth passing these comments on to Council to see if there is money in Public Works budgets to consider widening the street--widening of the cul-de-sac to allow for turn-around for fire access. Sara: Chuck, when they replace that bridge isn't that wide enough that a truck can get across it for an emergency? Roth: I don't think it would have the structural capacity to take a fire truck. Sara: I see the plan for this improving the situation on Hopkins Street. r' "- Tim: Are there long-range plans for curb and gutter and widening the street in this area? I walk and ride my bike back and forth on that bridge and if one person gets in late at night and angles their car in the wrong way it can just get really skewed down there. Is there going to be some plan that is going to park cars 4 / PZMI0.5.93 '- in spaces along the curb and have the sidewalk extend down there? Roth: I don't know the answer. I should find out the answer. Tim: This is a priority because of the density of the Riverview and the amount of people that are stuck in that corner. Roth: Administratively the City is hoping to have more of these projects come from the public such as the ute Avenue Improvement District. Tim: Then I think that the Riverview really has to organize this improvement district and extend it the length of this section of the road that connects their complex. David: Just to put this in perspective--the applicant is not the city. The applicant is the joint city and County Housing Authority. So question whether it is appropriate to demand that this applicant widen the entire street for the block. Bruce: Tom, would you have a problem with that being an additional condition of approval putting language to the affect that the applicant would join any future special Improvement District Agreement? Bak~r: We have committed to widening the street. We are taking the burden of doing our whole piece. But we would be glad to do that as well. I cannot speak for any future owners. Roth: I have talked with Dave Tolen a little about the improvement district and, yes, the Housing Authority would have done most of what would happen in an improvement district. But a significant thing that would happen in an improvement district for street improvements they aren't doing which would be helpful is storm runoff, storm drainage unless they would have a share in that. They would not have to share in the street, curb and gutter because they would already have done that. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Stream Margin Review and also approve the special parking review contingent on the comment we made about parking specifically with the frontage on Hopkins street. I include in this motion the approval of the special review of the open space. And I will include all the conditions on Planning Office memo dated October 5, 1993. (attached in record) I will add condition #10 that the applicant agrees to join in any special improvement district. ~ Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. "- 5 PZMI0.5.93 - REZONING. SUBDIVISION AND GMOS EXEMPTION MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the zoning to Affordable Housing, approval of GMQS and recommend approval of subdivision of the East Hopkins Affordable Housing Project with the conditions being #1 through #10 in the Planning Office memo dated October 5, 1993 #10 being the one that we added. Jasmine seconded the motion. Sara: Is there any plan for the parking of construction workers? After discussion on construction workers parking-- Roger: I will add condition #11 that in the form of a request to attempt as far as possible to require all construction vehicles and worker vehicles be parked off street--to provide off street parking for construction and construction worker vehicles. Baker: We will contact the Bass Family to see if they will allow their property to be utilized for this construction worker parking. , We will pursue this. Roger: The developer is urgently requested to come up with a traffic management plan which includes parking to minimize parking on Hopkins Street. And if possible to provide alternative parking during construction. Jasmine agreed to this for the seconding of the motion. Bruce closed the public hearing. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. BERGER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ADU Bruce re-opened this hearing. hearing. He also re-opened the public Kim presented the proof of posting and mailing. (attached in record) And also copies hand delivery of some of the public notices. Dick Fallin: We are going to do a French Drain in the window well. It is a drywell basically. . ',.,..... -',- 6 PZMI0.5.93 ....... Andy Hecht, Attorney for applicant did a presentation using drawings and plans. Bonnie ?, Landscape Architect from Design Workshop did a description of the landscape on this property. This site and the gardens has become one of the most photographed in Aspen. It has also been written up in Garden Design and victorian Home Magazine and also won an national award from ASLA--American society of Landscape Architects because of this effort to return this back to historic character. Dick Fallin using drawings described the proposal, required parking, the ADU. Hecht: What we are asking is simply to find as part of the conditional use approval for the ADU unit that we don't have to have parking on site. Bruce: The crux of the issue is whether we require 2 vs 3 spaces. The question is whether we require 1 for the ADU. ,,-... Roger: The shedding of snow both to the access to the ADU and also off that front shed roof basically onto a good portion of the stairs. They are both shedding right onto the access. -- Fallin: We are providing snow guarding on all of those roofs. The sidewalk, driveway, steps and landing all of those exterior areas are going to be snowmelted. Tim: Asked about the property line. Fallin: Showed on drawings property line. Roth: Pedestrian space in the public ROW: In the west end we have had a full spectrum of activity in the public ROW from outright planting of trees and placing boulders and building berms that totally prevent a pedestrian from walking anyplace except on the street to lesser development in the public ROW like flowers. This site doesn't have a pedestrian usable space adjacent to the street and adjacent to the property. This is going to come up again with McCoy and any projects in the west end. It is the intent that there be a place where people can walk without having them walk in the street. Kim: I have always had a concern with a parking space being located directly in front of the building because of the turning requirement necessary to come in off the street that effectively excludes any parking here. I do believe this is a real awkward ,-. motion right here being 90 degrees perpendicular to the garage ''-" 7 .....''''--'' PZMI0.5.93 '- entry. And also with the consideration of their revised site plan which now shows a stairway in this area. If a car is parked as close to the building as is shown it is really going to have a bad impact on the accessory unit. Fallin: This pad is that it is all paving. We have done our turning radius study to indicate that we can get into that space. PUBLIC COMMENT Anne Altemus: I live at 620 North 3rd. I face on Lake Avenue. I had to beg to get this public notice. My notice said that this was only to discuss the permit for the conditional use of an employee unit. I don't approve the conditional use for an employee unit. And I think the presentation is absurd because it is all about architecture and gardening. It is not about what we were told to come here for. ...v''''..... The tennis house has already had 3 Blue Spruce sawed down beside it. Big Blue Spruce. It is being accomplished without the input of the neighborhood. General Martin didn't have a notice. Carol Craig didn't have a notice. I didn't have a notice until Friday before this meeting. And the same is for the McCoys. We are supposed to be able to represent ourselves and we aren't noticed until 4 days ahead of meetings. I find that reprehensible. Who is supposed to get these notices to the neighborhood. I didn't get a notice from Mr. McCoy who lives 2 doors from me. And if you don't read the notice that is tacked on the building how else would you find out? '-- I know you postponed the variance for Berger's overhang. That was not noticed either by the Board of Variance. I didn't get a notice for that. And I think that he doesn't need an accessory unit. He owns the house next door. If he wants employees why can't he put it in the house next door? If he wants a driveway why can't he put it between these 2 pieces of property? He is only talking about the new building. The stairway that is right on this property line. These Blue Spruce have all been cut down. And he has this whole extra house that has sat empty. But this is his office. It is sitting empty. It could have been an employee unit the whole time. Bruce: Specifically what is your objection to the employee unit? Altemus: Because I think he has enough space. why he would get an accessory dwelling unit. for him having it? I don't understand What is your reason ',-- 8 ~' - .- " - r'" '-. PZMI0.5.93 Bruce: We don't have a reason for him having it. It is a right any person has to come in and make application for that. Bruce Berger: The house next door has been in ill repair and the people who were living there were not maintaining the property in the character which was similar to the rest of the neighborhood. I have invested in the house which I have tried to upgrade and keep. The direction which that house was going was further and further downhill. I purchased the house with the intent of protecting my property as well as the property in the neighborhood. The first thing I did when I bought the house was put deed restrictions on it which require certain levels of maintenance as well as upgrading the facility. As to the question of the property on the city ROW which I am maintaining landscaping on which is this piece of property on the curve--historically that has been a planting area at least since I have owned the property. It was there when I purchased it. It was in ill repair. Nobody was maintaining the planting. Just as these Cottonwoods along the streetline are on City property. I am maintaining and pruning those. Carol Craig: I never received notice for any of these meetings. And I live on the opposite corner from Mr. Berger. And I would like to know who is responsible for sending the notices. You never noticed me. The only reason I am here is because Anne got me here. Bruce: The applicant is responsible for noticing the public. They acquire lists of property owners within X number of feet depending on what the statutory requirement is and those come from title companies. Hecht: Dick went to the Assessor to get the list and names were not on the list for which we had to quickly go and notice them. Kim: Read the notice of mailing. (attached in record) I understand from talking with the applicant that on Friday they discovered that some names were not on the list and those are the ones that they hand delivered on Friday which is 5 days prior to the meeting. At this point all I can say is that the applicant has an opportunity to table. Or they can proceed with the under- standing that there are some people that may not feel that the noticing was sufficient. Bruce: This Commission is not in a position to determine the adequacy of the notice. The applicant submits an affidavit of notice to this Commission indicating that the noticing has been done. As far as we are concerned the noticing is done. We have an application in front of us. If the noticing is inadequate that 9 PZMI0.5.93 is to be dealt with in a totally different form other than this form. We are here to consider the adequacy of this application for the accessory dwelling unit. Altemus: I think that is ridiculous when you don't want to deal with this when we have 2 applicants tonight that can mess up my neighborhood and we didn't get notices. Bruce: But your procedure is not in this form. Leslie explained the procedure for Altemus. Hecht: This employee unit is intended for an employee that will be working on site. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS David: What are the provisions for trash to this unit? Fallin: This element right here is a shed that is built as part of the structure that is devoted to the trash outlet. David: I would like to see on the plans that additional snowshed protection be created for both the access sidewalk and the entry. I think that can be done by re-Iocating the sidewalk and perhaps the entry into that shed element to prevent snow from avalanching onto that side. Also I am surprised that the standard provision for meeting UBC sound continuation requirements is left off the conditions. I agree with the requirement for on-site parking for the main house spaces. I believe that since it is not required to have a space on site for the ADU on this particular location it being on the outside of the curb that it being on the ROW is not acceptable. Or within the ROW but off the street. Bruce: So it would not be an official. David: Right. Jasmine: It is my understanding as this application is presented that these are in fact 2 separate lots under common ownership and we don't know what the eventual ownership this second lot which is really the subject of this meeting is going to be. Right now it is like Mr. Berger is going to keep both houses. But there is nothing to prevent him selling the other house as a completely separate property. ,P- Hecht: Right. - 10 PZMI0.5.93 Jasmine: That has a lot to do with what I think might be the parking situation for the ADU. If these were basically 1 property with the ADU I think that the way the cars would be used, the storage and the parking of the cars would be quite different than if there was a completely separate ownership. That is one of the things that concerns me. I am not really sure what I am approving. Tim: I agree. I like what Mr. Berger has done. It is sensitive. I like the victorian quality. I think it is important that these gardens be maintained--that the open space be maintained. But I can't see sacrificing what the integrity of the City's needs are for his open space and green space. I frankly think that he should re-work this area right in here somehow which is the obvious spot so that he is in compliance with what the city needs are and down the road it is going to be an issue anyway. And I think we should solve it right now before we go any further. Roger: How does this relate parking-wise with the existing victorian? Where are those cars parked? Were those 2 spaces there basically for that other victorian? And now in effect you are going to lose those 2 spaces for that victorian. Where do those cars go? Apparently not on site. I have got a major problem there along with the geometry of getting into that exterior space because schematically they are showing a car right next to the wall blocking off access to the ADU. It is an impossible setup the way it is shown. Fallin: This is really schematic and the parking space is really at the property line. There is about another 18 inches in front of this area and our stair down is actually in front of this recess. So we are not creating a situation that the parking overlaps the stairs. There will be 2 separate issues and there will be room to walk between the car and the garage and to get to the ADU. So we haven't isolated the entry spot to the ADU. We think it does work. David: Am I correct in understanding that 5 parking spaces are required for both of these houses? Fallin: Two are required for the east house and three will be required under the new conditions for the west. David: And there is a new addition on the west one as part of this package? ,___ Fallin: That is right. "- 11 ,.'.","-"..~ PZMI0.5.93 - David: So the issue we are really dealing with is 2 on the eastern. We are not even addressing the west. Kim: Right. David: That makes it more important to me to get at least 2 spaces on this particular property. MOTION David: I move to approve the proposed ADU the Berger Conditional Use for a 397 square foot basement level accessory dwelling unit with Conditions #1 through #5 as in staff memo dated October 5, 1993. And with additional conditions that the site plan be noted to indicate where trash will be located and that the site plan and the house plans be modified to be worked out at staff level to include 2 parking spaces on the property and with the provision that one additional space could be located within the City right of way as part of the landscape plan. Kim: You are saying no on site parking for that accessory dwelling. /~'-... David: That is right. -- Kim: So scratch #3. David: Scratch #3. Bruce: Under David's motion. Kim: I think you all should make a recommendation to staff as far as locations of 2 parking spaces because the unit now appears to be part of the re-development of the site. David: That can be worked out by the applicant's designers and at the staff level have their prerogative to decide whether or not it meets normal circulation. Further conditions would be that the entry be re-Iocated not to be in the snow avalanche areas. That the sidewalk be pulled at least 3 feet off the southern wall again to get it out of the snow avalanche area. That the units meet UBC sound continuation requirements. Jasmine: I am not sure I understand David's motion. removing #3. You are ,,-... David: Essentially what I am saying is there could be a car there. '-" 12 .-"C'- - -.,.""""" I"~' .,'-. '''"-' PZMI0.5.93 Let the applicant's designers work this out. There could be 2 cars here. There could be a 3rd car here. That would meet the requirements of approval for the ADU. Jasmine: I don't understand what you are saying that they have to have a parking space for the ADU or not. David: Yes. I do. I am saying provide a space but not necessarily on the site. Right now my understanding of the way the street is aligned in this particular location is there is no off street parking. There is no gravel area. There is no apron to park on the street. Roth: But we can't have a dedicated private parking place in the public right of way. David: I am not saying dedicated. What I am saying is--somebody going to the music tent could park there. It is on the city ROW. I agree with that. But the landscape design could be such that a car could actually park there. Roth: You want them to change their landscape design to get another car out front? David: I don't want to change it. I want them to change it. That is essentially what I am saying. Jasmine: I still don't understand. Tim: What is the City's position. Bruce: I think your motion is going to die for lack of a second. Hecht: We would table for tonight and see if we can come back with something after hearing everybody's comments. Bruce: Our next regularly scheduled meeting is October 19, 1993. I would also suggest that as much as you can try to clear up the noticing. Hecht: We will re-notice to be sure. MOTION Roger: I will move to table action of the Berger accessory dwelling unit to date certain of October 19, 1993 and to continue the public hearing. The applicant in that time it is expected that the applicant will come up with further details primarily about parking and hopefully clear up the notice issue. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. 13 PZMI0.5.93 RESIDENT OCCUPIED It was decided at this point to not have this work session and that staff would decide when this would be scheduled. MCCOY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Leslie submitted the affidavit of public notice. (attached in record) She then made presentation as attached in record. She then read into the record a letter from Bart Pepetoni stating his opposition to this application. She then read into the record a letter from Beate and Martin Block stating their opposition to this application. (attached in record) Then a letter from McCoy answering the Block letter. -- McCoy: We do have the snowmelt. We do have the overhang. We do have the parking. There is not one thing that we have not corresponded with the City. The City asked us to do an ADU unit. If I had ever thought for one second it would be this kind of problem I would have put cash-in-lieu of. However, anything in the code--anything that you asked us to do we have done. We have the ventilation that is within the code. We have the glass that is within the code. We have the square footage that is within the code. And we want this access dwelling unit for a caretaker to live at the house. We are not renting out an access dwelling unit. The ADU unit was your idea. The ADU unit was your first preference. The city of Aspen for us to do that. We are now permanent residents. We want to do whatever the city wants us to do within reason. After all we do own the land and there is some kind of respect that we should have for what we own. We are not trying to create something that is an eyesore. Every rule that you have asked us to follow we have done. "...- The mechanical room is to the rear of the house. We have an access unit. We have a full bath. We have a full kitchen. The mechanical room is away from that. And I want to inform you that we have that like that because we have a full time caretaker that is there constantly. So that is his responsibility to take care of the house. As far as the snow we have overhangs. We have snowmelt. There is only one small part of the overhang that would be a slight problem. Sara: Leslie, is the ventilation to code? ",-, Leslie: The Building Dept checks ventilation, UBC, emergency '- 14 PZMI0.5.93 egress. It has to be to code. Bruce: That doesn't mean it meets the requirements of our standards for an ADU. They may meet the building code but may not meet this criteria here. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Gates, I am an agent and relative of the next door neighbors. My only question is can there be any contingencies put on the accessory dwelling unit as to it's use whether it is rentable, restricted to a full time employee of his? Leslie: No. The property owner can use the unit or not. If they choose to put somebody in there they don't have to rent it to that person. If they want to rent it they can rent it for as much as they want. They cannot sell it. They cannot condominiumize the property and then sell it. Gates: My clients would prefer not having the extra density in the neighborhood. /'-"'" Altemus: I assume you have read our petition signed by our neighborhood which is in your packet. (attached in record) I would like to ask Mr. McCoy how many cars he has and how many he intends to park. Bruce: You can make your comments. But this form is not a debate between members of the public or even us and the applicant. There were no further comments and Bruce closed the public portion of the hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: Leslie, you said if it were rented under Amendment #1 it could be rented for any amount but it has to be rented to a working resident of Pitkin County. That is only if it is rented. It is the choice of the owner whether it is rented or not. But it cannot be tourist accommodations. Leslie: The only thing someone really cannot do with their accessory dwelling unit is sell it as a second unit or short-term it out. You cannot rent it and use it as luxury guest quarters. David: In reviewing the glass and ventilation requirements for this unit that meeting the minimum standards of the Building Dept and the UBC does not necessarily meet the minimum standards of the conditions #A through #F that we review here. ~' "- 15 PZMI0.5.93 I think a couple minor modifications to the house would make it possible to meet those conditions. Moving the mechanical room out of the ADU so access is not through the ADU but directly accessible from the main house would be the first condition I would like to see before voting to approve this. Then that the appropriate deed restriction be filed that it meets UBC sound continuation requirements in the separation walls and roof to the rest of the main house. That a sidewalk be added from this unit to the street. And modify the roof or relocate the sidewalk area out of the avalanche area. As it is right now the entry to the ADU is not- -the top of the stairs is going to be impacted by snow shedding off that roof. That is a life safety consideration. It is critical to making that an acceptable dwelling unit in snow country. George Robinson, Parks Dept: The thing that we have is that there was a unit on the parcel and when that unit was removed there was a tree greater than 6 inches in caliper that we still need to find out why it was removed and the tree removal permit for it gets mitigation. --- Leslie: I would add that as a condition of approval if the dwelling unit is approved. If the dwelling unit was denied that would become a condition for issuing the building permit. -- Ms. McCoy: We don't know anything about the tree. Leslie: We will resolve that one way or the other. Roger: I agree with David. Virtually on everyone of his issues. David: I think what would make this even more desirable unit that it might be enough to get enough votes to get this passed would be something that could re-configure this kitchen so that it is against the wall. This becomes basically a small greatroom. Or not so great room but a greater room. It could be contained behind bi-fold doors or some sort of door system so that the entire kitchen is hidden. At mealtime it could be opened. Roger: My concern is the air space access to the unit is just by the one stairwell. And that may meet minimum code but I would sure like to see another egress to the outside somehow or another. And that could be through a window somewhere else. It is just not a very desirable unit. That is one of my major problems with it. J""~..>, ....-- 16 PZMI0.5.93 MOTION David: I make a motion to approve the conditional use review for accessory dwelling unit with the following conditions: To re- design the roof such that the entire access including the stair and sidewalk is out of potential snow shed area at staff's discretion. That the mechanical room be located out of the accessory dwelling unit. That the sidewalk be shown on the plan to the street. That trash provisions be shown on the plan for this unit. That this unit meet UBC sound continuation requirements. That appropriate deed restrictions be filed. Jasmine seconded the motion. Roger: You don't want to add additional light well-- David: I don't see how it could easily-- Roger: On the powder room side. Kim: You can't do it there. Leslie: They are at the floor area. /-',. ''', --- Sara: I would like to ask the applicant if these conditions are acceptable. McCoy: I think I can meet the appropriate changes. I don't see any major problem except the mechanical. I will have to play around with that a little bit. I don't think you are asking the impossible for the overhang. Sara: The reason I ask I wonder if it is correct to vote on an application if he doesn't think it can be done. ?: Yes. Everything you have asked for can be done. Tim: I think it is important for me to say what we are concerned about is the quality of life for the person who is living here. This is basically their home. Their bed is in the middle of their kitchen. So to have plumbing or heating or any kind of work done it really infringes on the quality of life for this person. That is what we are concerned about. We are not trying to deny your house. We are thinking about who is going to be here and what it is going to mean comfort-wise to have someone go through someone's bedroom to work on the plumbing. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Jasmine, yes, Roger, yes, Bruce,no. ,,,..... ",-", 17 PZMI0.5.93 -'''~- Bruce: I would offer a suggestion to the applicant that--you heard the discussion earlier this evening about the problems with notice. You may have some problems yourself that you may want to try to take care of. This motion passed 5 to 1. Bruce closed the public portion of the hearing. ICE RINK NAMES Commission members then made their suggestions for the naming of the ice rink. David suggested "Icearonie", "Ice on Holiday". Roger suggested "Silva coicle" (with a New York accent) David also suggested modifying the last entry on the list to read "The Hans Cantrup, John Roberts, Donald Trump, Mohammed Ish Hadid, Big Shot Developer skating on thin ice, Memorial Rink". Sara suggest "The Jerry Garcia Too-Many-Trips-Without-A-Car Ice Rink". Bruce: I am for the most vanilla, bland kind of thing you can come up with. Call it "The Ice Rink" or "Ritz Rink". David: As much as I would like to call it "Rink Around the Collar" I nominate "Ralph Jackson Ice Rink". Tim: How about "Stuart Mace". Or "Mace Memorial Rink". Tim: nIce and Easy". Roger: "The Silver Circle". Bruce: I think it needs to say "Ice" somewhere in the name. Sara: "The Ice Block". Meeting was then adjourned. Time was 7:20 P.M. /) ,Jan~ce Clerk ('" , '- 18