Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.915 E. Durant ,'" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORlllO C.F,HOECKELB.B.a.L.CO. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 1980 Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to orderat 5:00 P.M. with members Hunt, Anderson, Pardee, Tygre, Harvey and alternate member Al Blomquist present. Also present were Vann, Smith and Vrchota from the Planning office, Hammond and Bruggemeier from Engin- eering, and City Attorney Bob Edmundson. Approval of Minutes Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of October 21, 1980 with noted changes. Lee Pardee seconded. The 10-21-80 minutes were approved. Roger moved to approve the minutes of November 4, 1980. Perry Harvey seconded. The 11-4-80 minutes were approved as written. Commissioner's Comments Olof distributed Community Service Awards and pins to the following Planning and Zoning Commission members; Roger Hunt, Perry Harvey, Lee Pardee and Welton Anderson. Lee Pardee procedures. twice. asked Sunny Vann the status of the TDR's and Cantrup Karen Smith said she has met with Cantrup's people Olof stated that Welton has submitted a letter to the P&Z. Olof asked Welton to present his position concerning his application for Arthur's Restaurant. Lee stated it in inappropriate at this time because it is not a commissioner's comment. Olof agreed, further stating that it doesn't concern the public, and since they are here waiting for the public hearing, the Commission should return to the subject of Arthur's during New Business. Roger Hunt said he would like to state three concerns; 1) Buses; if the transportation system is not reliable - how can the P&Z use transportation as a parameter for GMP point alloca- tions? 2) Rio Grande Task Force proposal - make sure all P&Z members get copies of the preliminary report. 3) Transportation (in general) - It's time the City and County start looking for alternatives. Planning for this problem should begin now. Karen Smith said the County and the Highway Dept. are working to- gether to accomplish an engineering study for the busway. The options include expanding Hwy. 82 to a 3 or 4 lane facility to possibly include a busway. Blomquist suggested the Commission spend 25-50% of it's time looking at applications in relation to adjacent areas, the General Plan, the Trail Plan, the Greenway Plan, and the zoning. He said he sees an absence of any map planning that ties all of these things together. Olof answered that the Commission has, many times, expressed it's desire to do more actual planning, rather than merely responding to the caseload at hand. Olof suggested AI discuss his plan with the Planning office and report back to the Commission at the next regular meeting. Lee said in response to AI, that he feels the aim of the suggestion is admirable and whether or not AI's idea is the correct solution, he thinks it is worth a try. He expressed his support to AI. Welton stated at the last meeting of the Trustees of the Aspen Historical Society there was concern expressed by some of the members that there is a deterioration of residential areas in town. The Historic Society has invited the P&Z to visit the Stallard House as a group for a meeting to discuss the idea of if this community thinks the FAR is essential. OLD BUSINESS Castlewood/ Headgate Pre- liminary - Public Hearing Olof said this question has been foremost in the P&Z Commission's minds for some time. Karen said the idea of a meeting is a good one, and Planning is anticipating having the entire city surveyed for historic sites, within a month. Sunny Vann, Planning office, introduced the Marolt application. This is a public hearing representing the second stage of the P.U.D./ Subdivision process. In addition to preliminary plat approval, the applicant's are concurrently requesting: 1. rezoning to R-15A/P.U.D./Residential Bonus in order to permit construction in excess of the underlying zone density, 2. exemption from Growth Management under the 70:30 provision for the free market portion of the project, 3. subdivision approval for purposes of condominiumization of the free market units, 4. partial exemption from the City's parking requirements, 5. exemption from the six-month minimum lease requirements applicable to condominiumization. These additional requests will also require Council review and approval, which will be consolidated with Final P.U.D./Subdivision procedures. In respect to the applicant's site plan, all of the conditions that were specifically outlined at conceptual submission have been met. In fact, the submission is to be complimented, the developer has been very cooperative and has attempted to meet the various stipulations that were attached to this application. Essentially, what the applicant's are now proposing is to subdivide the 35 acre site into 11 (eleven) discrete parcels. Parcel or lot #1 totals 4.76 acres and is earmarked for 80 employee units, a gross density of approximately 16.8 dwelling units per acre. Lot #2 will -contain 33 free market units and totals 7.1 acres, a gross density of approximately 4.6 dwelling units per acre. A third parcel designated as lot #4 totals approximately one acre and is the site of the relocated and renovated Marolt residence. The remainder of the parcels are designated as dedicated open space and rights-of-way or are scheduled for restricted sale to adjacent property owners. In general, the site plan and buildings are well designed and are consistent with P.U.D. objectives and design approaches. The Engin- eering Dept., however, has identified a number of primarily pljt related issues which are summarized in their memorandum of 11-14-80, and incorporated into the Planning office's recommendation. A number of additional issues were identified by the Planning office P&Z and Council which were deferred to the Preliminary P.U.D./ Subdivision stage. These issues include overall density, parking requirements, the Midland right-of-way and open space, trails and road dedications. The Planning office's comments with respect to each of these issues can be found in their memorandum dated 11-13-80. In summary, the Planning office recommends approval of the applicant's Preliminary P.U.D./Subdivision submission subject to the following: 1) The Engineering Department's conditions outlined in their memorandum dated 11-14-80, 2) The deletion of the Marolt single-family residence and lot from the PUD plan. Should the applicants require the additional dwelling unit, the Planning office would not object to its incorporation into the free market units, multi-family portion of the project, the spe- cific location to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning offices. 3) The provision of one parking space per bedroom for all residential development on the property. "..... - -..... - ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM"! C.F.HOECKELB.B.!!. L. co. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 1980 4) The retention of the Midland Right-of-way as undeveloped open space until such time as final disposition of the Highway 82 corridor issue occurs. 5) The provision of an appropriate trails easement across lot #2 parallel to Castle Creek in the event one is formed. 6) The dedication of the Main Street exten sion right-of-way. The Planning office further recommends that the applicant request for rezoning be approved subject to the deletion of the Marolt residence and lot; that their requests for growth management exemption and condominiumization be approved subject to the deed restriction of the employee units within moderate income guidelines and compliance with the six-month minimum lease provisions of Section 20-22; and that their requests for exemption from parking requirements and lease restrictions be denied. Olof asked the Commission for comments. Roger asked the Engineering Dept. if it is planned that the inter- section is going to be a four-way? Sunny said that no formal disposition has occured, but he thought it would be a grade. Secondly, Roger said it is his opinion at this point (re: Midland Right-of-way) that the Main St. Extension is the way to go through this property, and it doesn't seem necessary to hold the Midland Right-of-way. Also, that it is time for Council to act to release that Right-of-way from this property. Perry said that he too feels that something should be done about the Thomas property and the right-of-way. Secondly, Perry said he doesn't understand the rationale behind the 6 month minimum lease restriction. He said it has been shown over and over in town that the primary purchaser of such expensive property(luxury units) is a person that uses the unit in summer and/or in winter. Therefore, the 6 month minimum lease requirement becomes such an inhibition that the units would end up empty. Also, if the 6 month lease were ef- fective, it would make a much greater traffic and parking impact. Lee stated he feels Perry's question concerning the 6 month lease restriction is a very relevant one. That the major concern is the precedent that owuld be broken if a project of this size and nature had the 6 month restriction waived. However, if the Commission looks at this from a different perspective, as a 70:30 project, Lee thinks the Code change could be justified from a legal standpoint, with the exception being part of the special review procedure. Olof opened the public hearing. Sunny Vann stated he wishes the Planning office memorandum of Aug. 6, July 18, July 24 and November 13 as well as the Engineering Dept. memorandum of November 14, be included in the minutes of this meeting. At this point the applicant introduced a model of the project for public viewing. King Woodward said his concern is the Growth management exemption because of employee housing. He added that with all of the other employee housing projects around town, he is concerned about the entire valley and the highway and the excess of employee housing exemptions. Jim Mulligan, Attorney for the developer. To clear up some points; First, in regard to the six-month minimum lease restriction, leg- islation was introduced to put the restriction in this zone category and it was denied. Secondly, although the condominium process does require the 6 month minimum lease, the discussion centered around the need to provide and preserve employee housing. Lastly, the attempt should be to go through the 70:30 review process or bonus process, so there is discretion in the particular process. Ed Gustafsen, area employee, was interested in knowing the reason for separating the employee units from the free market units? Remo Lavagnino, stated his concern for the Castle Creek corridor and was happy to see the developments had been placed on the top side. Also, concerning the 6 month lease, Remo implored the Commission not to rationalize on the exemption from the 6 month lease re- quirement, unless there is an amendment to the 70:30 provision. Otherwise adhere to the existing code requirement uniformly through- out the district. Ann Runyon, wildlife advocate, said she feels the term "employee units" is most misleading because she knows of no employee that can afford to live in them. Further, that she feels such a project would be a gross infringement on the wildlife of the area. Nick Coates, further supported Lee and Perry on the 6 month lease requirement. Furthermore the 6 month restriction doesn't work. It isn't enforced uniformly across the community. Jerry Fells responded to Nick saying on that basis certainly all of the laws could be thrown out if they are not successfully enforced and prosecuted. On the subject of density, he and his neighbors were appalled at the amount that is planned to go into this area. They felt it is a beautiful green area and should be preserved. Also, that there will be an additional impact on the sewer system from this project and there isn't enough capacity to handle it. Ed Suzaki said his major concern was the overall size of the project. Since large complexes, like Silverking seem less desireable to employees than small projects. Most people don't come to Aspen to live in a large housing complex. Also, by allowing exemption from GMP, the City seems to be becoming a developer. Jim Breasted, Open Space Advisory Board, stated that there was an unanimous recommendation at the early stages of this discussion, that this property be purchased for open space. Secondly, if it couldn't be purchased for open space that it be annexed to the City with the lowest possible density in the City zoning Code. Speaking as a concerned citizen, he feels ghettoization is wrong and the purpose of government is to preserve the mix. Dick Meeker, stated his philosophical objections to the project. He said he has worked very hard for the GMP, and now it is being used at the expense of the employee. There will be an impact on the sewer system and on Hwy. 82 from the yet to be inhabited Water Plant Housing project. This impact is yet to be seen. Hans Gramiger, stated that he concurs with the plan in general. It would provide an opportunity to address the Main Street right- of-way issues. Gideon Kaufman asked if the employee units are separated from the free market units, how will the poor men meet the wealthy women? Lee Pardee said he had five points, as follows; 1) rights-of-way 2) 6 month, less traffic if P&Z would relieve 3) any and all needed parking in writing 4) trail - ask applicant to comply 5) approve moving of Opal Marolt house with no renovations Jim Reents noted that the house must, however, come up to Code. - - ..-"" -' # RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!4I C.F.HOECKELB.a.&L.CO. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 1980 Al Blomquist stated his four concerns, as follows; 1) should amend the General Plan 2) do whatever, with the Marolt house 3) parking should be definate in plan ie. 75% paved now, and 25% left as grass. 4) there should be a firm trail plan Cary Clark, managing agent for the Marlot family stated that this project has come through many stages to arrive at the current proposal. They have tried to dofue best for everyone all the way around. Olof Hedstrom made the following comments~ ....__..,_o!l c; 1) need to maintain the area as open space 2) too much density 3) it's questionable whether this project will achieve any valid employee housing. He also stated that everyone involved with this project has been cooperative and responsive. Lee said since the rental rates of the units are based on a cost per square foot, reduce the size of the employee units and they will be more affordable. After further discussion, Olof asked the Commission which course they were interested in taking. Since there were people at the public hearing wishing to make further comments, Olof suggested continuing the public hearing on Tuesday December 2, 1980 at 5:00 p.m., as Old Business. The Castlewood/Headgate application is tabled until 12-2-80. Schwartzbach Subdivision Exemption Sunny Vann, Planning office, introduced the application as one that had originally come before P&Z in June. The location of the properties is 901 and 911 East Durant. The previously existing single family unit has been removed and a duplex is proposed for each parcel. The lot size is 9,000 sq. ft. currently zoned R/MF. Sunny said Roger raised the issue of whether or not Section 20-22 of the Code was applicable and should the applicant have to mitigate the loss of the employee units that pre-existed on the property. There was a prior rental history in the existing units and the two proposed duplexes do not offer any employee housing. The applica- tion was tabled, pending research as to applicability of Section 20-22. However, the attorney has explained that Section 20-22 is written as a conversion ordinance. It addresses conversion of existing units to condominiumization and the need to provide an alternative to existing tenants. Nowhere in the ordinance does it address demolition and new construction. Perry said since this application came in under the current 20-22, which doesn't cover the above circumstance, this should be dealt with in rewriting 20-22, but it cannot necessarily be required in this case. Bob Edmundson, City Attorney stated that his interpretation of the Code is that all of the language in the Ordinance speaks to conversion, existing tenants, etc. Olof suggested the Commission follow the legal interpretation provided by the City Attorney. Perry Harvey moved to recommend to Council the approval of subdivision exemption for 901 and 911 E. Durant (Lots A,B and C, Block ll9, City and Townsite of Aspen) conditioned upon the applicant complying with the Engineering Dept. memorandum dated June 4, 1980. (As follows): I) That the owner/applicant submit a site plan to indicate the following: A) Show parking spaces as required by the municipal code. B) Show sidewalk on both the West End Street and Durant Avenue frontages. C) Show new construction indicating setbacks from property line. D) Indicate individual units and areas reserved for common uses (ie. shared mechanical rooms, utility areas, parking etc. ) 2) That the owner/applicant be required to construct a sidewalk along both frontages including a ramp for the handicapped at the corner. Also conditioned on, I) the applicant meeting the requirement of six-month minimum leases, pursuant to Section 20-22, and 2) the applicant noting that units having more than three bedrooms in the R/MF Zone district require special review approval, as outlined in Section 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code. Roger Hunt seconded. No discussion. All in favor with the exception of Lee Pardee. The motion was carried. Landow Subdivision Exception Sunny Vann, Planning office, said this application is a mirror image of the adjacent property (above). The address is 915 E. Durant and the lot size is 6,000 Sq. Ft. Perry moved to recommend approval of subdivision exemption for lots D and E, City and Townsite of Aspen at 915 E. Durant conditioned upon the applicant complying with the conditions of the Engin- eering Departments memorandum dated ll-4-80 (as follows); I) That the owner/applicant submit a site plan showing: A) Sidewalk along Durant Avenue. B) Parking as required by the Municipal Code. C) 10xlO foot electrical easement in the south-east corner of Lot E to accommodate a transformer in the event the electric lines in the alley are underground. D) Show new construction indicating setbacks. E) Indicate individual units and any areas reserved for common use (ie. shared mechanical rooms, utility service areas, parking, etc.). 2) That the owner/applicant be required to construct a 5 foot sidewalk along Durant Avenue. Also, conditioned on the applicant meeting the requirement of six-month minimum leases, pursuant to Section 20-22, and the proposed duplex complying with the bedroom: lot square footage limitation of the R/MF Zone district as described in Section 24-3.4, "On sites 9,000 sq. ft. or less, the following sq. footage requirements; 1,200 - 1 bedroom 2,000 - 2 bedroom 3,000 - 3 bedroom." Therefore, that the duplex units be limited to three bedroom per unit. Roger seconded. No discussion. All in favor with the exception of Lee Pardee. The motion was carried. ,..~, - "'"" - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMlI C.F.HOECKELO.B.& l. CO. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 1980 Goldsamt (Aspen Club) P.U.D. Amendment Karen Smith, Planning Office, stated the Aspen Club has requested an amendment of their P.U.D. plan to add 1200 sq. ft. of restaurant space. This would be above existing deck area and would be seating space for their existing kitchen facility. Karen stated the referral comments which were as follows: Environmental Health - no comment. City Attorney - the applicant must demonstrate change in condition and change in condition must come from without, "...the conditions that change are in community needs and what is appropriate for the community, not change in the applicants' needs." City Engineer - the number of parking spaces is currently in- sufficient. If the Club could pursue alternate transportation, that might alleviate the problem, but there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the transportation plan has or will work. Transportation - there is no agreement today with the city bus for providing service and city bus service has been reduced to two times per hour. The Aspen Club ran it's own van last year, but has not determined whether to continue this winter. The Planning office does not find enough of a change in condition or community policy since the last PUD amendment in 1978 to warrant the amendment now and to incur the impacts the addition would create. If the P&Z does find a change in community policy and recommends approval, the Planning office would recommend the following con- ditions: 1) Reexamination of the transportation/parking solution. 2) Review of schematic architectural plans and a determination that the additional massing is mitigated or minimal to begin with. 3) Conditional use approval of an expanded recreational club in the RR Zone. Representatives from the Aspen Club made the following comments: The I,OOO sq. ft. area in question will be enclosed. The area has been used for food and beverage service before and has been considered to be used for that purpose in the prior approval process. (That was made clear in a January, 1978 meeting with Council). The applicant further explained the Club's reasons for wanting this addition in the facility at this time. On the issue of impact he stated their proposal is only for approximately 36 seats with a top limit of 75 (already approved by Council). The only other issue being - is or is not there a change in condition? The applicant feels that because the Club has become very community oriented, the success of the Club is a community issue, and this meets the change of condition requirements. Olof asked for questions. Perry asked if the Club had any restrictions on the number of memberships. The applicant said when they first came before the Commission in 1978, they were looking at at limit of 1700 members. However, the mix has changed so substantially with the 50% loss in tennis membership. Perry also stated that if the applicant sees the addition of a restaurant/lounge facility as a means of increasing the tennis and non-resident membership, there will also then, be an increase in traffic congestion. Karen stated there will be an intensification of use, whether through increased tennis memberships or looking at the number of people on-site at anyone time. Also, that the 1700 member figure would've been reexamined if there had been foresight into the traffic and parking problem that has occured. Al asked if there was approval what would the transportation/ parking solution be? How serious is this? Karen said the parking situation is very serious. There is not a good solution at this time. The several solutions that have been tried have not worked. Jasmine stated she feels, as a member herself, one of the reasons the parking is such a problem is that working people use the Club during peak hours, ie. 5p.m. to 7 p.m., and this pattern is determined by people's lifestyles, not by what the Club does or does not provide. Olof asked the Commission if from within or from without. from without. Jasmine, Olof "outs" have it 4-3. Welton moved to recommend approval to the P.U.D., Aspen Club expansion based on the conditions set forth by the Planning office (as described in numbers 1-3 above). Perry seconded. Karen suggested that the Commission acknowledge the applicant's letter of 10-21-80 in which they made several representations as to access by Club members and guests only. Welton restated his motion to include, "...and the applicant's letter of 10-21-80." Perry amended his second. No discussion. All in favor with the exceptions of Roger and Jasmine. The motion was carried. they thought the changes have come Lee, Welton, Perry and Al thought and Roger thought from within. The Perry Harvey stepped down for Aspen Ski Lodge application. Aspen Ski Lodge Subdivision Exception Jolene Vrchota, Planning office, stated that this application is for the condominiumization of the renovated Aspen Ski Lodge (previously Smuggler Lodge). The current request is coming from potential new buyers. The application very carefully follows Ordinance 80-14, which was recently adopted to allow for lodge condominiumizations when specific requirements are met. The Planning office recommends subdivision exception for condominiumization of the Aspen Ski Lodge based on the following conditions; 1) Designation of a trash collection and removal area on the site, to meet Engineering office approval. 2) Identification of the zoning district in which the structure is located (also on the site plan). 3) Provision of proof of ownership - has been met. Olof asked the Commission for questions. Lee added that on-site management is not from 8a.m. to 8p.m., but from 8a.m. to 10p.m., also if the applicant would agree Unit #10 would be used for this purpose. Jolene asked for a clarification as to what employee housing will be available in the building this year. Ron Austin, representing the applicant, stated with respect to employee housing, the room that they intend to designate and restrict as employee housing has been rented for most of the winter because of the time period. Ron said he spoke with Jim Reents of the Housing office about the possibility of employee pillows outside the lodge and Jim said there should be some avail- able and that he would support that approach. The applicant in- tends to provide the two pillows they have committed to, on site, beginning after this winter season. (11", " - --' ,-., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIlI C.F.1l0ECK!LB.B.81L.CO. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CO}ll1ISSION NOVEMBER 18, 1980 Jolene recommended that the Commission consider including in the motion a requirement that there be a lease submitted prior to final ap- proval, that the employee housing units (2 pillows) will be provided on-site.. Lee moved that P&Z recommend approval of subdivision exception for the purposes of condominiumization, waiving conceptual approval before City Council, and preliminary before P&Z for the Aspen Ski Lodge based on the following 3 requirements: 1) Designation of a trash collection and removal area on the site to meet Engineering Dept. approval. 2) Identification of the zoning district in which the structure is located (also on site-plan). 3) An exception be granted this winter, 1980-81, for on-site em- ployee housing and that the Aspen Ski Lodge provide proof of 2 off-site pillows for employees. Welton seconded. No discussion. All in favor. The motion was carried. Lee Pardee strpped down for Marlow application. Marlow Subdivision Exception Jolene Vrchota, Planning office, stated this application is for subdivision exception in order to condominiumize an existing duplex which is located at Lot 7, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision,(1073- 1075 Cemetary Lane). The Planning office recommendation of approval E based on the following: I) Notice and option provisions to current tenants (Section 20-22) 2) Six-month minimum. lease restrictions with no more than two shorter tenancies each year, for both units (Section 20-22) 3) Deed restriction of the northerly unit to the City's middle- income housing price guidelines for rental or sale, for five (5) years; or other provisions to keep the unit in the employee housing pool. 4) The improvement surYey as submitted is not an adequate condo- minium map and should be revised and resubmitted prior to final presentation before Council. The map should include schematic floor plans and cross-sections designating the individual units, a dis- closure of ownership, zone district, common elements, on-site parking, and adjacent lots. Following council approval all recording cer- tificates would be added for Engineering department approval. Roger moved to recommend subdivision exception to condominiumize the existing duplex, Lot 7, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision, conditioned on Engineering Memorandum dated 11-14-80, numbers 1 and 2. Also conditioned on items number 1-4 of the above Planning office memo dated 11-12-80, changing number 3 to be consistent with the comment of the Housing Director, so that the above #3 would instead read as follows; "Deed restriction of the Northerly unit to the current rate of $585.00, with an annual increase as allowed by City Council resolution, defining low, moderate and middle income guidelines over the 5 year period, or in the case of sale; restriction to middle income guidelines at the time of sale." Perry Harvey seconded. All in favor. The motion was carried. Arthur's Restaurant Sunny Vann, Planning office, stated that the three building scheme received final HPC approval, it also received a conditional use application on which there were no referrals made. Engineering never saw a single drawing on it, there is no approved parking scheme, etc. Because the design has changed it has to come back to an HPC public hearing. The approval is not valid. The issue, as far as the Code interpretation is not thatfuis is a reduction of a prior approval, but the Code (Section 24-3.3 (c)) states, "No approved conditional use may be modified, structurally enlarged, or expanded in ground area unless such modification, enlargement, or expansion receives the prior approval of the Commission which approval shall be obtained by repetition of the granting procedures here-in provided." In short, the Planning office stated that this is a new application subject to conditional use expansion. Welton Anderson said it is not a new application, but a reduction of an already approved application. Sunny said the concept of conditional use expansion is to evaluate the impact of a conditional use. Granted the reduction in the size of the building/result in less impact, but there are no provisions in the Code to make that administrative decision. Karen Smith said she reads the language of the Code as saying,"... no conditional use may be modified, enlarged, or structurally expanded, without receiving conditional use approval." What the applicant is proposing is a modification and therefore requires review. That is a technical/legal interpretation. The practical interpretation is such that Engineering needs to review a new parking configuration and the time needed for normal referral processes. Bob Edmundson, City Attorney, concurred with the interpretation of the Code by the Planning office. Olof stated considering the City Attorney's interpretation of the Code, the Commission cannot forego considering this as an applica- tion for a new conditional use. Lee Pardee asked Welton if Engineering had seen this new applica- tion? Jay Hammond, Engineering Dept., stated that the prior approval for a conditional use expansion was not sent on any form of referral, was not sent to Engineering office, also Engineering hadn't seen any site plan prior to the current application which was received today. It did not include a site plan which showed parking, etc. Lee asked if the application needs a public hearing? Sunny Vann said yes, however, it is only noticed by 10 days prior. Al Blomquist stated the application should be handled in due course. Perry said scheduling is the responsibility of the Planning office. Jasmine concurred as did Roger and Olof. Perry moved to adjourn the meeting. Jasmine seconded. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. jjOJ'~A~~ Denise P. Elzin Deputy City Clerk - -- ,..,., -.I