HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060307
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
MINUTES .............................................................:................................................... 2
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................. 3
HANNAH DUSTIN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ............................................ 3
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT FOR 2006........................................ 3
17 SHADY LANE - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW............................................... 4
719 EAST HOPKINS - MULTI-FAMILy............................................................ 11
1
"
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in
Council Chambers at 4:30pm. Commissioners Mary Liz Wilson, Brandon Marion,
Steve Skadron, John Rowland, Dylan Johns, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were
present. Brian Speck was excused. Staff present James Lindt, Joyce Allgaier,
Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Brandon Marion said that he would be leaving town on March 15th for as much as
two months. Marion received a packet from a lawyer regarding the Jonathan
Lewis project. James Lindt asked Brandon ifhe received public notice as a citizen.
Marion replied that he did not.
Ruth Kruger stated concern for loosing the L' Auberge Lodge Units and asked how
lodge units could be demolished without some sort ofland use (P&Z) review.
Chris Bendon responded that a land use review was not necessary for demolition;
they were going through a planning review. Kruger inquired as to what was going
on at the prominent Main Street property. Bendon replied that it was a
development application for the Jewish Community Center. Kruger asked when
P&Z would review that project. Lindt answered the 2nd meeting in May.
Bendon noted a work session on March 20th with council covering impact fees and
construction management; on March 28th there would be ajoint work session with
council on the Civic Master Plan. The commission was asked if they could meet
on April 11 th but there was no room available in City Hall.
Marion asked if the Sky Hotel appealed in a legal format or to City Council.
Bendon answered that it was both; there was a process for appeal, which goes to
City Council and the appeal was very legal in nature because it deals with the due
process procedural and was substantive. A notice was filed to appeal but there was
no actual appeal filed. Marion asked if the appeal would send it back to P&Z or
would it be taken at that level. Bendon replied that he would have to check the
code but he thought Council's options were to uphold the decision to change the
decision and effectively review the project themselves; remand might be one of the
options. Bendon said it was a procedural review of the record and not a review of
the project. Tygre asked ifit was did P&Z provide a fair hearing; like a court
hearing. Bendon replied exactly and there was a recommendation from the
community development director.
MINUTES
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve the minutes from 1/24/6; seconded
by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 5-0. (Dylan and Brandon abstained).
2
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Dylan Johns was conflicted on 719 East Hopkins.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/21/06):
HANNAH DUSTIN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for Hannah Dustin.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearingfor Hannah Dustin
to March 21"; seconded by Brandon Marion. All infavor, motion carried.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/28/06):
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT FOR 2006
Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing on the Growth Management Allotment for
2006; she noted that Chris made a presentation at the last meeting and the
commission wanted to continue for more review.
Chris Bendon said in the new Growth Management Quota System there was a
requirement that annually you review the last years growth allotments that were
granted and applied for and decide how many of those unused allotments to carry
forward into the next growth management year. The growth management year
runs from the beginning of March through the end of February. There were 2
categories of annual allotments; free-market residential units and commercial net
leaseable square footage. There has been a claim on all 37 allotments for free-mart
except for 1. Exhibit B in the memo was the development ceilings, which will
become more and more important in later years. The ceiling is the "build-out" for
30 years down the line. There was no annual limitation on lodge pillows or
affordable housing so in theory you could have an application that requests all of
those unit allotments; the free-market and commercial have both the ceiling and
the annual allotment.
Bendon stated there were criteria for this review in Exhibit A. Staffrecommended
that no allotments be carried over to the 2006 Allotments based on the criteria.
No public comments.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #11, series 2006 not
carrying forward the Growth Management Allotments from 2005 to 2006;
seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Skadron, yes; Rowland,
yes; Wilson, yes; Marion, yes; Tygre, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 7-0.
3
"
Aspen Plan nine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING:
17 SHADY LANE - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 17 Shady Lane Stream Margin
Review. The notice and mailing was provided by James Lindt.
James Lindt stated this was a public hearing to consider an application submitted
by Callwinnie LLC and Michael Stopler requesting Stream Margin Review,
Special Review to establish the rivers Top of Slope and several variances from the
Residential Design Standards to construct a new single family residence at 17
Shady Lane. P&Z shall be the final reviewing authority based on the code for all
of the land use requests associated with this application. Lindt utilized drawing to
show the site; a fairly large vacant parcel located on the southwest corner of Shady
Lane and Red Mountain Road.
Lindt stated the applicant requested Stream Margin Review because the proposed
single family house is within 100 feet of the mean high water line. Special Review
was requested to determine Top of Slope, which was located by their engineer.
They also requested 4 variances from the Residential Design Standards: (1)
Building orientation to meet the street facing fac;ade parallel to Shady Lane but
slightly off Red Mountain Road; (2) Fence height requirement variance request for
a 3 to 6 foot staggered height wall along Red Mountain Road (the code allows for a
42 inch high wall in the front of the house; (3) the applicant proposed a 3 car
garage and the code allows for a 24 foot wide garage entry; (4) they proposed
windows between 9 and 12 feet above the first finished floor level facing Red
Mountain Road.
Lindt stated that the applicants have proposed extensive landscaping and bank
restoration to do some additional plantings near the top of slope. The applicants
also propost:d to relocate a portion of Shady Lane approximately 9 feet to the north
at the intersection; Shady Lane is a private road that serves several additional
properties up to the northwest of the property. Staff believed the Top of Slope has
been identifIed appropriately; the residence will be setback 15 feet from the Top of
Slope and the building will meet the 45 degree progressive height limit from the
Top of Slope. The Parks Department has reviewed the landscape plan and
recommended some slight changes in the species, included in the resolution, and
requires the applicants a revised landscape plan at the time of building permit with
those changes to the species.
Lindt said the relocation of Shady Lane wasn't seen as a safety benefit to relocate
it by the Community Development Engineer and the Parks Department voiced
concern for the vegetation lost by the relocation to the north; the applicants have
4
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
modified the plan and will present that. Staff did not see a benefit of this
relocation.
Staff supports the building orientation variance because of the weird angle that the
streets intersect; there were sight constraints for building orientation. Staff does
not support the other 3 variances; staff understands the desire for privacy on the
fence height however in the context of the neighborhood there were no additional
parcels in the immediate area that had fences of that height except for the existing
fence on this property and staff does not believe it meets the review standards.
Staff believes that the applicant could meet the design standard for the garage entry
width by simply pushing one of the garage stalls back slightly; the review
standards for that were not met. The final variance request was for windows
between 9 and 12 feet on Red Mountain Road and staff did not believe that there
were sight specific constraints that necessitate windows between 9 and 12 feet;
staff did not believe the review standards were met.
Lindt said that staff recommends approval of the special review to establish top of
slope and recommends approval of the stream margin review believing that it
meets the standards and the variance from the building orientation standard.
Lindt said that ifP&Z agrees with staff findings then he suggests striking the fence
height variance, garage width and window height variances. Lindt said that ifP&Z
doesn't agree with the relocation of Shady Lane then strike section 8 from the
resolution. Lindt said that if the commission approves the Shady Lane relocation
there was an additional condition (distributed) that was not in the resolution.
Glenn Horn, Jeffrey Lester and Heather Stone represented the applicant. Glenn
Horn introduced Mike Stopler the property owner. Horn provided the history of
the property including the ownership by Nancy Oliphant. This house was razed
and a vacant site right now; the old house that sat here was similar in a lot of ways
because its sits in the same location with a low profile. Horn said that Heather,
Jeff and Charles would provide an overview of the site.
Charles Cunniffe said that he agreed with James on the jogging of the garages so
that variance will come off the table.
Heather Stone said the building was sited to be anchored by two existing enormous
Spruce trees so the building was sited behind the top of slope; the landscape would
contain as much natural plantings as possible. Stone said the entry to the property
was relocated away from the intersection of Red Mountain Road; there was an
5
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
entry courtyard with the garage courtyard and a back deck area and the rest of the
area was soft scape.
Jeffrey Lester said that they were about 18 degrees off of Red Mountain Road and
the fac;ade faces Shady Lane. Charles Cunniffe said one of the biggest issues was
the windows between 9 and 12 feet, which typically orientates to the grid of town
and window pattern of the West End. Cunniffe said there were not like or kind
houses along a streetscape; there weren't any houses to really relate to so it has the
opportunity to stand alone. Cunniffe said this house was down from the street in a
depressed lot area that doesn't have a street presence; there was no pedestrian
orientation because pedestrian access stops well short of this site and was related
more to the Rio Grande Trail than Red Mountain Road. Cunniffe said that
architecturally they symbolically picked up that band line by having a mullion
pattern that allows a gesture towards that regulation by carrying the element across.
Cunniffe said they could fill in that window to comply with that guideline but that
did not serve the purpose that it was set up to do to relate to two story buildings in
the West End. Cunniffe noted for the occupant, the building was low and the view
opportunity from the house in that direction was through that section of the glass;
more so than the low section.
Jeffrey Lester stated the design intent of the glazing of this particular house on this
riverside lot was to have a seamless visual transition from outdoors to indoors and
that was why the fenestration was such for that seamless transition; the context was
a county riverside lot. Lester said a solid fac;ade element in that area was counter
to the design of the house.
Cunniffe said the most prominent feature of this site was the wooden fence, which
was in disrepair because of snowplows and cars hitting the fence; they could leave
the existing 6 foot fence but they would rather put in a new more permanent fence
material, which would allow board formed concrete to look like a wooden fence.
Cunniffe said that no fence would be dangerous living there; this was a unique lot
and should be considered in that context. Stone stated the fence has varied heights
with gaps between.
Stone utilizt:d drawings showing the existing prescriptive easement with Mike
\
owning both sides of Shady Lane. Shady Lane got paved out of its easement onto
Mike's parcel. Stone said the center line of Shady Lane shifts 5 feet at the
intersection of Red Mountain Road and then tapers down to 2 feeJ just past the new
residence. Horn added that Heather met with the neighbors that access Shady
Lane. Horn said that there will be one 4 inch Aspen tree removed, a 6 inch
Cottonwood tree removed that was in poor shape and the other 2 Cottonwood trees
6
Aspen Plan nine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
would not be removed right across the drive. Stone said the front part of the
Serviceberry would be removed and re-vegetated similar to the same pallet that has
been approved for this native vegetation all along the edge of Red Mountain Road
so there was a continuity entering the site on Shady Lane (both sides would be
planted similarly). Bendon asked if there was anything that memorializes the
prescriptive easement. Horn replied there was an easement of record so it was not
just prescriptive and the road was not in the defined easement; at a minimum they
wanted to see the road returned to the easement. Lindt said there was a book and
page on the site plan that identified the recorded easement.
Steve Skadron asked how an easement changed. Lindt replied that it was a private
access road, not a city right-of-way; in most cases the people that benefit from the
easement have the ability to change the access easement. Lindt said the re-location
of Shady Lane falls under the P&Z purview because it changes the site plan; the
site plan and the stream margin review falls under the P&Z purview. Bendon said
the easement doesn't move; that prescriptive easement can be created when
someone is essentially trespassing on someone else's property and they are allowed
to continue to do so; it's a function of common law after a certain period of time
you have a continued right without it being considered trespassing. Skadron asked
why is the support of the neighbors required to shift this. Bendon responded they
were the beneficiary of the prescriptive easement. Horn said the way that they see
it is that relocation of the easement is a private matter between the individuals that
benefit from the easement and the property owner whose property is crossed by the
easements. Horn said P&Z should approve a site plan, which would enable this
transition to occur but the actual consent was a private matter between this
property owner and the neighbors down Shady Lane that benefit from this
easement.
Skadron asked what kind oflight would come from the windows for the variance.
Cunniffe answered it would be the same kind of light in any other house, like a
subtle glow, and it was only one window to comply with the guideline would have
the section of window would be blocked out.
Skadron asked Charles why having no fence was a hazard. Cunniffe replied that it
could be a hazard to the people in the driveway because that snow gets thrown
pretty hard and far; the curve was one to pay attention to the road and a fence
would help quiet down the activity for the occupant of the property and make it
safer and less distracting for the driver.
Brandon Marion asked ifthe front fac;ade faced Red Mountain and if the door was
pointed toward Red Mountain Road. Cunniffe replied that you come through a
7
Aspen Plan nine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
landscaped element and another landscape element where the door was seen.
Marion asked if there was any window seen from Red Mountain Road. Lester said
that the house was in a lower area and while driving you would tend to look over
the house. Lindt said that staff thought the house and window would still be
visible if the fence were not there.
Marion asked for clarification on the fence. Cunniffe replied it was poured colored
concrete to look like vertical wood with graining and patterning but so it could take
the abuse of the snow.
Marion asked how the Parks Department becomes involved in the easement. Lindt
replied that it was because of the trees and the jurisdictional issue on how it meets
the street.
Jasmine Tygre asked if the relocation of the access easement has any effect on the
possible divisibility ofthis lot into parcels. Lindt replied no.
Public Comments:
1. Marc Friedberg stated he lived on the adjacent property to the north and does
not use the Shady Lane access but rather the Red Mountain Road. Friedberg said
that he observed the traffic flow and the impact on the curve; he provided
photographs of the road and traffic. Friedberg noted there were only 7 houses up
that road that share the cottonwoods and aspens; the integrity of the landscape has
colored the feeling that everybody has for that area. Friedberg said that Shady
Lane had integrity and should not be moved into Red Mountain Road because of
the curve and the danger would be increased on the curve. Friedberg said it would
be a mistake to change Shady Lane and removing part of the serviceberry would be
a mistake. Friedberg said there was a rural feeling and the sitting of the house, the
wall and the windows were all elements that he hoped P&Z would be flexible on.
2. Rowine daughter of Peggy Rowland said that the safety issue was important
and spoke of people who did not spend time in this community moving here and
building. Rowine said the fence was a goof idea and was not in favor of the road
change.
3. Mike Stopler, owner, stated the reason he bought the lot was because of the
natural canopy and country road. Stopler said his instructions to Glenn, Heather,
Charles and everybody involved in this project was to do the right thing; to be
sensitive to any environmental issues, to preserve what attracted him to the
property in the first place.
8
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
4. Christina Crandall stated that she grew up in the area and works on land and
river conservation issues in the valley. Crandall stated that she was very familiar
with the area and asked if the riparian area would be protected during construction.
Heather Stone replied there were some declining cottonwoods, which would come
out and have been reviewed with Parks; everything within the Top of Slope is
basically remaining and all of the existing conifers within Stream Margin are
remaining, the house was designed around them. Crandall stated that she
appreciated the orientation for the house in a special place. Crandall stressed the
importance of construction management and erosion control and mitigation for
road construction. Crandall urged the commission not to forward the Shady Lane
relocation.
5. Marc Friedberg said that the Serviceberry was not owned by the applicant
but was in the right-of-way owned by the city.
Jasmine Tygre noted the garage issue has been taken out ofthe variance requests.
Alex Evonitz, Community Development Engineer, stated that the applicant has
lessened the impact that relocation was originally proposed. Evonitz said the
safety issue was important but to try and quantify any improvement safety by that
4 foot relocation was a difficult challenge for any professional.
Ruth Kruger said there were too many moving parts in the motion and maybe some
of them should come off. Tygre asked if each could be voted on separately.
MOTION #1: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #12, Series
2006, approving with conditions a Stream Margin Review, Special Review to
establish the rivers Top of Slope and variance for the building orientation, the
fence height be approved that it was not a solid fence having intermittent breaks,
allow the window height variance from the residential design standards and not
include the relocation of Shady Lane (striking section 8) to construct a new single-
family residence at 17 Shady Lane. Ruth Kruger seconded. MOTION
WITHDRAWN
Discussion of motion # 1: Marion said that he did not want the fence to be a
wall; not a continuous solid wall with intermittent breaks and the materials choice
was appropriate with the look of wood. Kruger commended Brandon on the way
the motion has been made. Wilson also stated concern for the fence being a wall.
Cunniffe explained that a picket fence would not work; this material would be
board formed with breaks in it for the trees but it was a barrier for the snow and a
picket fence wouldn't provide any protection. Skadron said that he could agree to
9
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
the variances for the windows and the building orientation however he could not
agree to a variance for the fence or relocation of Shady Lane. Skadron said a 6
foot fence was out of context with the neighborhood and it would be his hope that
a more subtle natural landscape occurrence could happen to address the privacy
and safety; he said an alternative to any kind offence could be done. Skadron said
moving Shady Lane will have negligible impact on the safety of the intersection.
Marion said that he understood Steve's concern and wanted to keep it soft by
basically making it a board fence that had some rural context as opposed to an
estate context of a big wall. Marion amended the motion to exclude the fence
language for the variance and Kruger amended her second.
MOTION #2: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #12, Series
2006, approving with conditions a Stream Margin Review, Special Review to
establish the rivers Top of Slope and variance for the building orientation, allow
the window height variance from the residential design standards and not include
the relocation of Shady Lane (striking section 8) to construct a new single-family
residence at 17 Shady Lane. Ruth Kruger seconded. RESTATED BELOW
Discussion of motion #2: Rowland said he could not support the fence but
now could support the motion. Rowland said the fence included a great use of
material and compliment the house; he said that to create more gaps within this
fence and perhaps the landscape to move out creating more motion that speaks to
the vocabulary of the architecture would be a compliment. Johns supported the
motion as currently worded and summed up his thoughts. Johns could support the
fence a little higher than 42 inches. Tygre agreed with motion #2 but did not find
the request for the window height was satisfactory according to the criteria. Tygre
complimented Brandon for the motions.
Horn stated that it was the applicant's intention that if the request to relocate Shady
Lane was declined that P&Z consider a site plan in which Shady Lane is returned
to the easement that is described and the neighbors on Shady Lane have the right to
use. Horn requested that this item be continued to the next meeting so that they
can bring a plan for Shady Lane, where it is returned to its original easement and
bring back a fence design along Red Mountain Road that is staggered and inter-
mixed with vegetation so that the commission could consider that prior to taking
action on the motion. Tygre replied that they could do that but they have a motion
that does not preclude them from coming back with a revised site plan or easement.
Horn said they do not want to have to submit a whole new application. Tygre said
that you don't if you do it this way; you only have those 2 issues. Lindt said that
an addendum would have to be submitted to this application, which shows a
different fence design with the materials that would be utilized. Bendon said the
10
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
motion would be clear that action was taken on certain of the elements and
continuing the other elements to another date certain. Horn stated that is what he
requests. Bendon said he did not know if the development of Shady Lane within
the existing easement even needs to come back to P&Z; it sounds like it does not
have dramatic changes from what it is. Horn said it will affect the site plan for this
property; they want to return Shady Lane.
Bendon suggested at the applicant's fence variance request and the relocation of
Shady Lane be continued to a date certain with the understanding that in the
interim staff might decide that the Shady Lane relocation to be within the easement
does not necessarily require a P&Z action. Marion said that he did not want these
to become negotiations; so ifthere is a motion, let's vote on it. Tygre said that
they would either vote on motion #2 or make another motion and not re-discuss the
merits of the application. Bendon suggested voting on the motion on the table and
there could be a second motion to continue the fence variance.
MOTION restated #2: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #12,
Series 2006, approving with conditions a Stream Margin Review, Special Review
to establish the rivers Top of Slope and variance for the building orientation, not
allowing the fence variance, allow the window height variance from the residential
design standards and striking the relocation of Shady Lane (section 8) to construct
a new single-family residence at 17 Shady Lane. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call
vote: Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Wilson, yes; Kruger, yes; Marion,
yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0.
MOTION #3: Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing to April
18, 2006 so that the applicant may resubmit an amendment to this application
regarding the fence height variance including the design submission and if needed
the reestablishment of the original easement on Shady Lane without moving Shady
Lane. Steve Skadron seconded. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Wilson,
yes; Skadron, yes; Marion, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 6-1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
719 EAST HOPKINS - MULTI-FAMILY
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 719 East Hopkins. Proof of notice
was provided. Dylan Johns rescused himself.
Chris Bendon explained the public hearing was for 719 East Hopkins; it was a
6,000 square foot site in the mixed use that was currently developed with 6 multi-
family residential units. The proposal was to redevelop with 5 units, 2 being free
market and 3 affordable housing units to comply with the multi-family housing
11
.,
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
replacement program. Bendon said the property is not on the historic registry; it
was until 2 or so years ago and was found by HPC and City Council not to have
any historic merit and was taken off of the historic list.
Bendon stated the application calls for subdivision approval, which is a
recommendation from P&Z to City Council; Growth Management Approval for
the Affordable Housing Units, which is final at P&Z; Special Review for increased
in floor area, which is allowed in this zone district and final at P&Z; Special
Review for Parking, a decrease in parking to zero parking spaces on site. The
Special Review for parking will be discussed if it is really needed to be part of the
revIew process.
Bendon said there was a discussion around the sub-grade nature of the affordable
housing units; there was no prohibition in the land use code for the affordable
housing units being sub-grade but part of the criteria was the negative
recommendation from the Housing Board.
Stan Clauson stated that he represented the applicant John Lauderback. Clauson
said the existing property consists of a single family wood frame residence and a
later construction consisting of 5 units to the rear. Clauson noted the parking was
in the right-of-way as was typical of many residences in Aspen where parking
evolved. Clauson said the existing 6 units contain 7 bedrooms and 3,178 square
feet of net livable on the 6,000 square foot lot. Clauson said under the multi-
family replacement it requires the replacement on units, 3.5 bedrooms, 1,589
square feet of net livable replacement housing fully deed-restricted but they are
providing 3 units with 4 bedrooms and 1,659 square feet consisting of 2 studio
units and 1 two-bedroom unit. Clauson said that they were exceeding the
requirement.
Clauson said that in the mixed use district the over all floor area was 2 to 1; the
free-market maximum was 1 to 1 with special review. Clauson said that not even
in the housing guidelines were there any statements prohibiting or recommending
that units not be sub-grade. At pre-application they were told there was no
prohibition against sub-grade units. Clauson said that this was not a mitigation for
some kind of housing but the most burdensome employee mitigation in the land
use code with the 50% replacement requirement. Clauson said on the 6,000 square
foot lot what evolved was 2 townhouses at grade and the 3 separate units; in every
respect this project meets the code; there were no requests for variances from the
residential design standards; no request for height variances; no setback variance
requests. Clauson said they respectfully withdraw their request for special review
for the parking variance because the code clearly says in Section 26.515.010B
12
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - March 07, 2006
"existing deficit of parking may be maintained if the property was redeveloped".
Clauson stated the new project will provide 4 on-site parking spaces dedicated to
the free market unit and there will be 3 on street new parking spaces with a
restoration of the curb and an addition of a sidewalk across the front.
Public comments:
Mike Hexner introduced his wife Karen Justice and stated they lived directly
across the street; he stated concern for the parking on the street because it was
busy. Hexner said the look of the project looks great and hoped the height would
not increase; they were working with John Lauderbeck on a non-reflective roof.
Brandon Marion asked ifthere were any code clarifications as to livability of the
employee units and if so he would like that brought forward.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing on 719 East
Hopkins to April 18'\ seconded by Steve Skadron. All infavor, APPROVED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 pm.
'~
"~~/
/Jackie Lot ian, Deputy City Clerk
13