Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19831004 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~~ C. F. H OECKEL B. B. 8t L. C~. Regular Meeting Planning and zoning Commission October 4, 1983 Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, David White, Roger Hunt, and Paul Sheldon present. Commissioner Comments Chairman Perry Harvey presented a letter to the Commission he had composed for the entire commission about separating the planning office. Harvey requested review and comments from the Board before presenting this letter to Council White suggested going over different project and plans and setting out purposes and goals for the P & z. Minutes Hunt moved to approve the minutes of April 19, 26 and June 7, and 21, 1983; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried Ms. Fallin moved to approve the minutes of May 4, 17 and June 21, 1983; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. Commercial GMP East Hopkins Ms. Penne entered into the record the planning office memorandum, a September 28 letter from Nick McGrath, a September 29 memo from Gary Esary, a September 29 memorandum from Jay Hammond, engineering department, regarding the scoring. Ms. Penned reminded the Board they did not take final action on this GMP application following the scoring at the September 20th meeting. The total points awarded the project were 22.58 and the threshold is 22.8 points. The memorandum from Gary Esary outlines some points requiring P & Z's consideration and if any of the mistakes outlined apply to the Boards' scoring, these need to be identified. If the final outcome changes the scoring and puts the applicant above the threshold, the P & z should direct the planning office to foward the project to Council. Harvey said it is important for the Commission not to set a precedent where someone can come back and complain about their scoring not being fair. Harvey said since this was tabled, and the public hearing continued, the Board can review it. Harvey asked whether this review could include the actual scoring without setting a precedent. Esary said an appeal in the GMP scoring can be made to Council, but such appeal is limited to due process and denial of that process. Esary said in the original scoring there were some areas that were oddly done, which may have resulted in miscommunication or misapprehension on the part of P & Z members. Esary said he feels if this is a precedent, it is a very narrow precedent. There was no other applicant in this competition. Ms. Penne said she had originally told the Board more informa- tion was needed on the trash category. Ms. Penne also pointed out in the original memorandum, she added a category wrong and if P & Z were following that, it looked as if the applicant had met the threshold, when it was below that. Esary said a trash system was presented, which received 1 point from the engineer- ing department. The engineering deparment told the applicant if they did certain things, they would get a higher recommenda- tion. The applicant did those things, but did not bring back the revised recommendation of the engineering department. Nick McGrath, representing the applicant, said they are only asking P & Z to look at a possible error in one line item, not the entire scoring. The applicant is requesting the Board to re-look at the trash scoring. McGrath said engineering's Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 1983 present memorandum states this meets all the relevant standards. The P & Z then has the discretion to grant up to 3 points for trash. McGrath said one person scored this 2, one scored it 1 and several people scored trash 1.5. McGrath:.said a score of 1 under the Code means a major design flaw; 2 is acceptable but standard. The engineering department is now saying the trash is standard but acceptable. Pardee said the engineering department had told the applicant their trash system was "X" but this was not relayed to P & Z. Pardee said he felt individual containers were a good idea but only gave this 1.5 because he was under the impression this did not meet standards. Pardee agreed to opening the scoring on this part. Esary said if the Board feels the difference between the planning office total and the planning office recommendation gave rise to a mistake, the P & Z would be opening the entire scoring. If the Board feels it is an individual mistake about the trash, they would only open that one item. McGrath said at the last meeting Ms. Fallin moved to table this item but with no limiting language as to denial or examine the trash only. McGrath said the P & Z is in effect at the same place they were at the last meeting. McGrath asked that the members re-examine their scoring on trash, as the applicant feels his proposal warrants at least a 2. Pardee moved the P & Z cons~r whether there are reasons to re-examine either total scoring or scoring for one item; seconded by Ms. Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. White said he is willing to look at his trash score and would be willing to give it a higher score than 1.5. Hunt said he does not like the trash at the rear and would not change his scoring. Hunt had given the trash a 1.5. Ms. Fallin said she would possibly reconsider the trash line item score. Pardee agreed with White and said separate trash receptacles is a good idea. Pardee said if he had known this met code and he could have scored it a 2, he would have. Pardee said at the time he thought it was sub-standard and scored accordingly. Ms. Tygre said she gave trash a score of 2 but was willing to open it for those who may want to change their score. Harvey re-opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Harvey closed the public hearing. Pardee moved the Commission reconsider trash and utility access areas in the commercial GMP applications because the engineering and trash departments were not solicited as required by Aspen Code 24-3.5(b) (5); seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Jay Hammond, engineering department, told P & Z his department was suffering from lack of information at the time of submission. In the C-l zone, there is a requirement to build a single trash facility. The P & Z has the authority to vary this. Hammond said in the absence of detailed information about what the applicant was going to do with utility meters and transformer! the staff recommended a score of 1. Hammond said since then, he has solicited information from the trash department, the electric department, whose comments have been positive. Hammond said the intent has been to create a better south facing elevatiol because of the residential uses. Hammond is recommended the P & Z allow the individual trash areas. Hammond said he would recommend a score of 2. There is room for the argument this represents some improvement over what the trash area could be. '-' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting October 4, 1983 FORM ~~ C. F. H OECKEl a. a. It L. CO. Andrews Conditional Use Planning and Zoning Commission -3- Hammond said there will be individual trash areas for each unit and they are each clearly responsible for their trash area. There is an inducement to keep their areas clean. Hunt ask~ if the proposal was adequate for the number of units. Hammond said the proposal will give greater volume than with one dumpster. P & Z rescored the trash item. Pardee 2.5; Ms. Fallin 2; Ms. Tygre 2; Hunt 2; Anderson 2.5; White 2.5. Ms. Penne said the applicant now meets the threshold. Anderson moved to recommend approval of 4,500 square feet of commercial space at the East Hopkins Professional Townhouse complex; seconded by White. All in favor, motion carried. (Harvey abstained) . Harvey opened the public hearing on the continued hearing for the Andrews-McFarlin conditional use approval, and said that this hearing had been tabled twice already, the first time to give the P & Z conditons that would give them the ability to treat this as a single finding, and the second time to get more speci- fics about the exterior of the building. Colette Penne, planning office, said this was tabled the first time to give Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney, time to come up with amendments to the conditions for approval. Esary did that and it was discussed at the hearing on September 20th. At that time the planning office was recommending denial. Ms. Penne said some Commission members felt if this was coming in as a whole new development plan for that parcel, and was going to be upgrading and adding additional S/C/I space, it would be viewed differently. At that time, the Andrews said they had condisered upgrading the exterior of the building, and it seemed to be the Commissioners' feelings that that would change some of the negative votes to positive because they felt that Andrews establishing a residence in the building while they built up the business and did a visual upgrading was a satisfactory option. Ms. Penne said the position of the planning office has not changed. However, the Andrews have submitted plans for exterior upgrading for the P & Z to look at. Ms. Peene said she wants the P & Z to be aware, as it is part of the visual upgrading, that the next item on the agenda is a similar request for same use in the same building. Harvey said the Commission is aware of this as well as the planning office's concern about opening the flood gates on residential use in the S/C/I zone. Ms. Penne said she did not know if approval by P & Z hinges on the exterior upgrading. Pardee said he could see a big differ- ence in the application now the P & Z can look at the plans for upgrading the exterior. The Commissioners examined the plan in deatil with the architect, Tom Crews. Ms. Tygre said she did not think it was the consensus of the Board that the upgrading of the exterior would have an effect on the conditional use. Ms. Tygre said there are two separate issues, and because of that, the P & Z cannot accept the upgrading as a trade-off for the granting of a condiuonal use. Hunt agreed on that issue. Harvey asked the applicants if they had agreed to the conditional use permit at the last hearing. Andrews replied yes. Harvey Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 1983 asked if the Commission had reviewed this and if they have any comments. Pardee said, as he recalled, the Commission had a split vote of 3 to 3 at the first hearing, and one member had said that taking the ugliest building in town and bringing it up to look liked the properties across the street (Clark's market building) would be a tremendous change. Harvey agreed but said that he did not think the Commission could consider upgrading as a reason to grant the conditional use approval. Anderson mentioned that it was tabled the first time for documentation, which is now in the packet. Harvey agreed, and said that it obviously did not resolved everyone's concern. Harvey added now the question is whether the Commission wants to consider this in light of the documentation, the restrictions on the residential use, or whether the Commission wants to look at the upgrading or it it is even relevant. Anderson said he through the documentation was pretty adequate as far as not creating a blanket policy on allowing residential uses in the S/C/I zone. Anderson said the issue today is seeing what kind of upgrading is planned. Ms. Tygre said she did not think that was exactly right. Ms. Tygre said there seems to be a great difference of opinion on this issue, as far as whether the conditional use is acceptable under any conditions, some conditions, or with the bonuse of the applicants remodelling the front of the building. Ms. Tygre concluded she did not think this iss ue that clear cut, there is a wide difference of opinion. Harvey asked Pardee if he felt that any motion should tie exter- nal improvements to the approval. Pardee said that it should be one of the conditions in Esary's documents. Harvey asked Esary if the Board is granting or considering granting a conditional use and asking for whatever this building might need in order to grant it. Esary replied if Harvey meant is it coercion, and if so, the answer is no. The Commissioners had struggled with this approval request over 3 meetings, trying to help the applicant and still balance the planning aspect, and to try to prevent more encroach- ments into the S/C/I zone as the planning office wishes. Esary added that he had been asked at the time he was helping to draft the permit for the Andrews if the improvements to the exterior were acceptable, or if he felt they were a coercion, and Esary stated then that he did not believe it was. Esary said because the applicants tried to prove their accessory use first by saying they needed to live there because of the nature of their business, and secondly because the own the building and it has been vacant for a year, and they have a negative cash flow, and the reason it all works is if they could start a business that is a permitted use, live there as an accessory use, and use the positive flow generated to improve the building to attract more SiC/I-type tenants. Based on that analysis, Esary concluded, there is a reasonable tie between the grant of the conditional use and the exterior upgrading. Harvey stated that it seemed to him the essence of the request is whether this business which is a permitted S/C/I business requires an accessory residence in order to function. Harvey asked the architect to show and discuss the drawings of the proposed improvements. Harvey commented in view of the proposed improvements, the P & Z must do one of two things; either make the completion of these improvements a condition of approval, or grant conditional use approval and conditional use permit and with a specific time period for these to be completed, and if not completed within the time period, then rhe conditional use approval and permit will no longer be valid. '-' , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '1 C. F. HOECKEL 8. a. I> l. ~O. Regular Meeting Planning and zoning Commission -5- October 4, 1983 Harvey opened the public hearing. Paul Sheldon, commenting as a public, said at the last hearing on this request, his concern was not with the building itself but with the issue of residential use in the S/C/I zone, and he felt the applicants were caught in an unfortunate bind, wherein there is a zone that does not allow residential use, and the problem is not with this application but with the designation of the S/C/I zone. Sheldon continued that if the P & Z approves this application, they would put themselves in a compromising positio~ with regards to the next application. Harvey closed the public hearing. Harvey continued that the Commission had tabled this issue the first time because of their concern for setting a precedent, and to see if specific language could be written into the permit to avoid setting that precedent. Harvey pointed out now the issue of exterior remodelling is presented with nothing more than a drawing to go on. Esary stated that the through renderings, budget, and date of completion would be sufficient. Andrews said they did have a budget. Harvey asked Andrews when they could have these improve- ments completed, and Andrews said in one year. Anderson stated he is satisfied with the conditions presented by the Assistant City Attorney, and what has been presented today. Anderson said he believed it in no way tied P & Z into speculative changes in the S/C/I residential uses. Anderson added that the language of the permit is very limiting, and that he would be in favor of granting approval for one year. Ms. Fallin stated that she voted no on this issue in the beginning and will continue to vote no. Pardee stated that he would be in favor of granting approval. Ms. Tygre said that she agreed with Ms. Fallin. She said she felt strongly about allowing residential use in the S/C/I zone, and that she felt the need for this business is the real criteria White stated that he through the S/C/I zone in that section was wrong, but because he felt it was the wrong zone did not mean that this was the right way to go about changing it, and would have to vote against approval. Hunt said that he would vote in favor of approval. Hunt said that the uniqueness of the operation and the hours, plus the limited scope of the dwelling unit were sufficient reasons to approve. Hunt added that theapplicants said that they would complete these improvements in one year, but as far as condi- tional use review, he would favor making it for two years. Harvey said that the only grounds that he could see for consid- ering an accessory dwelling unit is that the hours of the business, and the nature of the business is such that it requires someone to be on hand around the clock. In the condi- tional use permit drafted by the city attorney, it states that "the permitted use shall be a bona fide, for profit, equipment rental storage and repair business with customary and regular business hours." Harvey continued that customary and regular business hours to him were 9 to 5, 8 to 6, or whatever. Harvey said that he wans not sure that this type of business required strange and unusual hours, even though the applicant's letter stated that it did. Harvey said that he felt the equip- ;-,--..-;,--,.-...".." ~"..~....~ Regular Meeting Zebra Productions Conditional Use Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 1983 ment could be delivered during normal business hours, and that he did not see in the conditional use permit any rationale for an accessory dwelling unit. Harvey concluded that if everyone is concerned with preserving the S/C/I status, and are confronted with considering an accessroy dwelling unit because there is S/C/I space that has not been occupied, then there is something wrong. Bob Andrews said that if they had done what others had done in the S/C/I zone, they probably would have tried to attract retail tenants, but they were trying to stay with the S/C/I zoning. Andrews added that other surrounding owners of S/C/I space had gone to retail use. Harvey replied that he was aware of it, but that his concern was with the statement on customary and reasonable business hours. Harvey asked the applicants what their proposed hours would be. Andrews answered that they would have to meet the competition's hours across the street (Clark's Market), they would be opened from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Harvey said that he would want something in the motion to regulate the hours. Ms. Fallin pointed out that Clark's Market stays open until 10 p.m. but no one has to slepp there, so why should Andrews. Harvey said that the profit margin would not support paying some- one to work until 10 p.m., as it does at Clark's. Ms. Tygre said she was having a hard time justifying the accessory use definition in this case. Anderson said that he believed the request meets the intent of the accessory use provision. Harvey said that he would be in favor of this approval as it is drafted with an amendment to the conditional use permit to provide for business hours which are not customary and irregular, and that if Andrews and the attorney wanted to specify as 10 p.m. nightly, they could do so. Harvey added that the straw poll of the Commissioners indicates that the vote is 4 to 3 in favor. Hunte moved to approve the conditional use permit with accessory dwelling space in Units B-4 and B-6 of the North Mill street Andrews building, conditioned on the adoption of the draft conditional use permit dated 9-15-83, and with an amendment of that permit to indicate that the hours will be irruglar and in conformance with Clark's market hours.; the conditional use permit should also mention that the applicants have stated that they will add planters to the plat, and that the applicant has represented that they will completed the named improvements withir one year, and the final condition would be that this conditional use permit would be reviewed by P & Z in two years, and that Bill Drueding, building enforcement officer, will report on the improvements within one year, and also that said improvements will cost no less than $13,000; seconded by Pardee. Roll Call vote; Ms. Tygre, nay; Ms. Fallin, nay; Anderson, aye; Pardee, aye; White, nay; Hunt, aye; Harvey, aye. Motion carried. Richard Grice, planning office, said this is a conditional use request for a dance studio, catelog sales, and residential use in the S/C/I zone district. There is also a change in use request involved from commercial to residential. There is also a request to add a greenhouse of 71 square feet. Grice told P & Z with regard to the dance studio, there is not enough parking on site to accommodate the students. The applicants indicate they plan to use city property for parking. The staff's position is that any given site must provide for its own impacts on site. Grice said there is not enough parking on site for classes, particularly if there is reduction of parking resulting from the residential use. The recommendation for a dance studio is denial. "'" ,..".- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. F. ~OECI([L B. S. It l. CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and zoning Commission -7- October 4, 1983 The catalog sales office is a use which the staff cannot see any adverse impacts associated with this. The parking is adequate to accommodate occasional visitors. Grice said he feels this is a consistent use and compatible with other S/C/I zone uses. The staff recommends approval of the conditional use for the catalog sales office. Grice said as far as the residential use, the P & z is familiar with the pros and cons. The Board is being asked to find that the residential use is accessory to a permitted use. The permitted use is a shopcraft industry; specifically, the manu- facture of art work. Sarah Pletts produces art work on premises. Grice said he has met with the applicant and has some understand- ing of her need for a residential use located on the same site as the business. Grice told P & Z the applicant must demonstratE that the business requires a residence on site to operate effectively. Grice said the applicant has explained to him that her art requires applying many layers to material, perhaps as many as 20 layers, and it takes an hour for the color to dry; therefore, Ms. Pletts has all through her professional career lived in her studio. Grice said this explanation sounds like a home occupation. The Code states people are allowed to have art studios in their home as an accessory use, permitted by right in all zones. Grice pointed out there is some incidental sales on premises; however, he does not have enough information to understand the sales on premises. Grice said in the zone, there cannot be over the counter sales but incidental or contract sales might be appropriate. Harvey asked what Grice's finding is on the requirement that the expansion of commercial space receive an allocation or exemption from GMP, or is that a separate item. Grice said this is a separate item; the code requires expansion of commercial space requires a GMP allocation of exemption from GMP. In this case, it is eligible for an exemption. The Code allows an expansion up to 250 square feet to be determined by the building inspector and planning director. This element of the proposal is not before P & z. Harvey asked what uses were in this building before. Grice said he was not sure and that it has been vacant for awhile. Grice pointed out that the parking associated with the building does not meet the minimum standards. Harvey asked if the P & Z could deny approvals based on the parking deficit. Grice said he recommended approval of the catalog sales. Grice said the nature of the two requested uses is different; a class has 6 or 7 people showing up at one time. A catalog sales use would not have a devastating use on parking. Harvey asked about the Rio Grande parking, which is almost adjacent. Grice said the engineering department says that cannot be used. Harvey said the Rio Grande is existing, city-owned parking. Harvey said the Commission could make a condition that the applicant require students to park at the Rio Grande parking lot. Grice said any use should accommodate its own parking on site. If P & z feels the Rio Grande is appropriate, they could make that a condition. Sarah Pletts told P & z she has been an artist for many years and has proved to herself that living in a separate space from her work does not work. The temperature and humidity have to be kept at a constant level. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 1983 Ms. Pletts said her work requires certain conditions, like light and she cannot carry the work up and down stairs. Ms. Pletts said the Andrews building has 14 feet ceilings and is ideal for her occupation. Ms. Pletts told the Board the second thing that is important to her is performance art. She does large visual work in relationship to dance. Ms. Pletts said she colloborates with many artists. Ms. Pletts said she would be able to put together the constructions in this studio and walk them to either the Visual Arts Center or the performing arts center. Ms. Pletts said the last point in relation to her particular work is safety. If P & z allows the proposed use, Ms. Pletts will not have to be out and about in late hours. Allowing these proposals will also allow the Andrews to upgrade the entire building. Harvey asked how many square feet for the proposed use. Tom Crews, the architect, told P & Z with the greenhouse proposed, the total will be 730 square feet. There is a proposed storage loft of square feet. Crews said about 30 per cent of the area will be dedicated to living space and 70 per cent will be dedicated to the studio. Harvey read from the code, "the intention to allow the for the use of land in the preservation of limited commercial purposes, limited industrial purposes and customary accessory and institutional uses, which do not require or generate high customer traffic volumes, in addition, residences for those employed in this district may be included in service or commercial buildings or adjacent thereto as conditional uses". "Permitted uses: Limited commercial and industrial uses including the following; - read from list - and shop-craft industry; provided that no permitted uses create an unusual traffic hazard . . . and provided that no permitted uses sell da'ily or frequently bought items to the general public". Under conditional uses - full service gas station; dance studio, martial arts studio; dwelling units accessory to other permitted uses; catalog sales, photography studio." Harvey said given this application, the shop craft industry is a permitted use, provided there is no retail sales department. Catalog sales office is a conditional use. Harvey said the P & Z does not want to take away available S/C/I space to create residences, which is a valid argument. However, the P & Z has been looking at space in the last two applications which has been vacant. Harvey said this is not doing any good, either. Harvey said the desirability of a residence is not only mentioned in the zoning intention, but it is specifically mentioned as a conditional use when accessory to a permitted use, such as shop craft industry. Harvey opened the public hearing. Maggie deWolfe, president of the Aspen Council for the Arts, said they feel Sarah has made tremendous strides in the community for both the performing and visual arts. Ms. deWolfe said Sarah's catalog is wonderful. Ms deWolfe said she feels that Sarah should have a place near both the Visual Arts Center and the proposed performing arts center. The arts community supportE this request before the P & Z. Harvey closed the public hearing. (Ms. Fallin left Chambers). Ms. Tygre said one of her problems with these requests for residential uses is the necessity to live near one's work as opposed to just wanting to live near the work. Ms. Tygre said in this particular instance, Sarah's use of residence in conjunction with her work seems to be more probable than some others. Ms. Tygre said her only concern with the studio aspect is that it not turn into a gallery. If this turns into a gallery with too much retail, that would be disturbing "'" , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM-D C.F,HOI:CKELB.B.IIL.CO. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission -9- October 4, 1983 Grice asked why Ms. pletts business would not work in a resi- dential zone. Ms. pletts said most artists that work in their home work more like a hobby rather than designing sets and large artists things. Harvey asked the Commission members if they feel this falls within a "shop craft" and is therefore a permitted use. Ms. Tygre said she feels it does. Pardee said he had never addressed the question whether an artists studio fits within the SiC/I; it is not service, commercial or industrial. Pardee said this is everything contrary to what he ever thought of the S/C/I zone. Anderson said when he first read this application, he did not agree at all; however, he has never heard such compelling reasons to approve this use. Anderson said with proper working from the attorney's office regarding the conditional use permitted for a specific case, if the owner changes or the use changes, the permit ends. Harvey said if the Commission give a condition- al use permit for an accessory residence, they will want to tie it to Ms. pletts' proposal. Harvey said if Ms. Pletts sells or leases this, the Commission will have the opportunity to re-examine the residential use. Hunt said he has also been turned around by a convincing argu- ment. Hunt said this will have to comply with a 3-hour wall so it does not exclude any other S/C/I use. The inclusion of a residence should not exclude any S/C/I use. The Commission discussed the pros and cons of a three-hour wall. Sheldon said he was opposed to this application in the beginning, but after the previous case and Ms. Plett;s' preserttation, he would be in favor. Sheldon said a three~hour wall is the obligation of the owner of the building and a person who wants to instigate a hazardous use. What Ms. Pletts is applying for is a permitted use in the S/C/I zone and does not require a three-hour fire wall, and the P & Z should not require it. Sheldon said for the dance studio, some provision for parking should be required. White said he is opposed to a three-hour wall because he would not want that type of use to go in so close to the river. Pardee said the UBC requires a higher fire wall rating when there is a residence, and the applicant should put in the higher fire wall. Ms. Tygre agreed with the need for a three- hour wall because there will be a residence in this building. Anderson moved to approve 'a conditional use request for the catalog sales office, and dance studio, and residence as an accessory use conditioned upon (1) provision of one parking space on-site for the residence; (2) parking for visitors be provided for off-site either on the city's parking lot or through an agreement with the Trueman center; (3) the fact that this conditional use will run so long as Sarah pletts owns and occupies the space, and (4) the applicant agree to meet in the future any building code requirements that are necessary to allow any other uses to go into the basement space of the Andrews building; (5) the spaces are B-ll and the south portion of B-9; seconded by Sheldon. Anderson amended his motion to include this be replatted subject to the approval of the city attorney and planning office; Sheldon accepted the amendment. Roll call vote; Ms. Tygre, aye; Anderson, aye; Pardee, aye; White, aye; Hunt, nay; Harvey, aye; Sheldon, aye. Motion carried. II Regular Meeting Smuggler Drainage Margin Review Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 1983 Area Stream Sheldon moved to table the stream margin review and continued meeting Friday, October 7, 1983, at noon; by White. All in favor, motion carried. Durant Mall Condominium- ization have a seconded Colette Penne, planning office said the Durant Mall is located in the N/C zone. One of the residential units wants to recondominiumize from one unit into eight individual units. All eight units have rented outside the employee housing guide- lines. Ms. Penne said including the common utilities, these units are still outside the employee housing guidelines. Ms. Penne said all parts of Section 20-22 will be met by the applicant. The planning office is recommending approval of this request. Anderson moved to recommend approval of subdivision exception for the prupose of recondominiumization of Unit R of the Durant Mall into eight units (A through H) with conditions 1 through 5 in the planning office memorandum of October 4, 1983; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to adjourn at 7:30 p.m.; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. ""' , I