[0:00] Okay. Open public meeting, planning and zoning commission for Wednesday, September 2, 20, 26, and we have a roll call please.

[0:11] Max.

[0:12] Here.

[0:16] Here.

[0:17] Marianne.

[0:17] President.

[0:18] Eric.

[0:19] Tom.

[0:20] Here.

[0:21] Ken.

[0:24] Theresa.

[0:25] Here.

[0:25] Thank you.

[0:28] Great. Are there items from commissioners that are not on today's

[0:32] agenda comments?

[0:38] I just had it. I thought I know we've talked a lot about FAR and maybe

[0:44] this is more of a city staff question but I was wondering if at some point we could potentially

[0:52] do walk through of a space just to do one of our work sessions in that regard that's just

[1:01] suggestion. I need more information. I don't understand what you're asking. To work on

[1:07] understanding the mathematics and the metrics that we're utilizing to determine square

[1:14] footage.

[1:22] Okay.

[1:28] Okay. Charlie.

[1:36] Okay. Anyone else have comments for items at art on today's

[1:43] I will bring up that we have, when we all agree to be commissioners, we agreed to an attendants and our maximum that we're allowed to miss maximum meetings this for a year.

[1:57] And I would just like to remind everyone that this is an agreement we've all agreed to be here and I understand that life comes out sometimes.

[2:04] But I believe our priority should be to showing up to P&Z on Wednesdays because that is what we all agree to find.

[2:12] So just as an FYI, if you're going to be gone, I would appreciate that you email Tracy and myself just so we know,

[2:19] because a lot of times I have no idea, and I don't know just send a quick email that's like, hey, not going to be there.

[2:25] I'm going to be there, and the reminder is it's four meetings per year that we agreed that we would miss.

[2:33] the maximum form. If we are going to miss, and we are going to email, should we do two

[2:39] separate emails? No, because you can email me and Tracy totally fine. Great. I appreciate

[2:46] that you can't email me, Tracy, and Tom. Perfect. That's the problem. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you.

[2:54] No,

[2:58] just that you're going to be gone. Yeah, just not going to be absence and I also believe

[3:06] Eric just showed up, yes, I'm sure that, yeah, just wanted the notes to reflect.

[3:11] Thank you.

[3:14] Charlie.

[3:14] I'm going to order this one on Tuesdays when it changed.

[3:16] Can you use your microphone?

[3:20] Yeah, but you got to use it.

[3:23] Thanks.

[3:23] I was appointed to a board that met on Tuesdays.

[3:26] And that's when I made the agreement when it changed the Wednesdays.

[3:28] I said I had a commitment to ride bikes on Wednesdays in the summer.

[3:32] If they didn't want me, they knew I was in the summer.

[3:35] I offered to not be here.

[3:37] So if that was about me, that's fine, but just understand.

[3:43] All the number two.

[3:47] We've been brewing on parcels based off of F-A-R.

[3:53] And if there's not something, if anybody else does not understand F-A-R, is it scares me?

[3:59] That's someone who has been voting on stuff.

[4:01] where we talk about FAR, like police talk about speeding,

[4:06] and that it was all the time,

[4:08] that someone doesn't know how to calculate that for FAR.

[4:11] It scares me.

[4:12] Other things that people don't know about that they need,

[4:16] that they've been ruling up, just a question,

[4:21] from confidence of a board,

[4:24] because I would find that to be legally quite worrisome.

[4:28] I think that there are a lot of things,

[4:31] There's a lot of technical stuff in the code. I think that floor area is confusing even to those of us in the design community who

[4:38] No had a calculate it and I'm looking at Louise to say it's not always simple

[4:44] I think that we all have a lot we can all wear more things so and

[4:51] It doesn't concern me as much because we don't vote on the on calculating the floor area

[4:57] We rely on our very knowledgeable plan

[5:00] Thanks to have to confirm floor area at permit, and that is our job. Our job is not to calculate

[5:07] floor area. There's taken number 5,700 and say it's too much too little.

[5:12] Thank you.

[5:14] I agree allheartedly with what you just said. On the other hand, if what Charlie is suggesting

[5:21] is that we have a session where there's time on the agenda to have a tutorial on how to calculate

[5:28] F.A.R. and for a ratio or for that would be fabulous, because I would really like to learn some more about it.

[5:37] I think having a work session to learn how to do that is great.

[5:41] My comment is, I'm not concerned that some of our board members don't, because that is not necessarily our job.

[5:49] I think learning more how to do it is a great request, I think that would be really helpful.

[5:55] Which brings us to our planning staff comments?

[5:59] That's perfect timing.

[6:01] Perfect.

[6:02] Good afternoon everybody, Dan Fault, planning director.

[6:05] So yeah, we could definitely schedule some training on

[6:08] Flora areas and maybe some other technical standards that you

[6:11] see in your staff reports.

[6:14] One clarification, I don't think it's helpful to do it in a space

[6:18] because I think that that gets really confusing.

[6:20] I think doing it on plans is a much easier way to do it.

[6:24] And that's how it's technically calculated.

[6:27] So that would be my request.

[6:29] Yeah, I think we may have some agendas actually coming up

[6:31] in October or maybe we can do that.

[6:33] Anyway, it's some other things we were going to follow up on as well.

[6:38] So we can do that.

[6:39] And then looking for future agendas,

[6:41] you do have one item coming up in two weeks.

[6:43] So on the 16th of September,

[6:45] you'll have a special review for property.

[6:49] And that's about it for now.

[6:50] It's from future agendas.

[6:52] What's that?

[6:52] your favorite special reviews yes you remember there was a pretty

[6:58] lengthy list of things that fall under special reviews so yeah so the first

[7:04] meeting in October we have nothing we don't have anything on the agenda but that

[7:08] could change okay but at this point we don't have anything on the October date

[7:13] yet and if we don't we'll do some training at that first meeting okay that's

[7:17] It was great.

[7:20] Anything else for us today?

[7:24] I don't think so.

[7:25] Thank you so much.

[7:27] Thank you.

[7:28] Are there comments from members of the public for items that aren't on today's agenda?

[7:33] Okay.

[7:35] We will move on closing that section.

[7:38] We had some meeting minutes in our packet from, I believe, March 4th,

[7:45] 2026.

[7:45] Are there any comments or discussion points for that?

[7:49] is there a motion to a prayer?

[7:54] Motion to approve? Second. Can we have a roll call please? Max?

[8:01] Are you here? Charlie? Yes.

[8:06] Burian? Yes. Eric? Yes. Tom? I think I was there. Yes, I was there. Ken? Yes. Theresa? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you.

[8:25] What are the meaning were you are you supposed to abstain? Even if you read them, this is a question. Point per person.

[8:33] If you've read the meeting minutes you can vote, you are welcome to abstain if you would prefer.

[8:38] Thank you.

[8:40] There've been a case since I read those minutes.

[8:46] I can't vote now to approve.

[8:57] Are there any declaration of conflicts?

[9:10] Okay.

[9:25] Has legal notice been properly put in?

[9:27] No, you just had some questions?

[9:28] Yes.

[9:29] Please.

[9:29] All right.

[9:31] All right.

[9:34] Yeah, good evening.

[9:36] Pean members.

[9:37] They're talking with each other.

[9:38] They'll contribute their special review or be able to proceed straight to permit.

[9:43] So if you didn't have a chance to check that out, I would give it a read.

[9:46] It's a little confusing.

[9:47] I'm not gonna lie, but it's a little more info on kind of what the Condav director was thinking when we wrote that.

[9:54] And then Tracy sent out the drawings that were submitted.

[9:58] There was a little bit of a mix up.

[10:00] I thought I was just getting the last of the four-area counts, but it was a different plan set.

[10:08] So we had Tracyson that out. I hope you guys were able to go over that. I know the applicant team is going to go over that in detail.

[10:16] But if you have any questions, that's what we're here for.

[10:20] Yeah, with that, we'll have the applicant team take over and start this off.

[10:26] Thanks, Jeff. Chris, we'll least come on up.

[10:40] All right, good evening, everyone.

[10:43] Chris Pindon for the record.

[10:45] We send an end as our contact is here with me

[10:47] and Barry Cateon.

[10:49] It was the owner of the property is joining us.

[10:52] Hello, hello.

[10:53] I'm going to have Jeff mentioned.

[10:56] So we did have a updated drawing pack to go out Monday

[11:02] or yesterday to the PNZ.

[11:06] And just to be abundantly cautious about the record,

[11:09] we're going to make sure that we have everyone up to speed as those drawings on the

[11:14] asked Louise to walk through those.

[11:16] I have physical sets that I will pass out here in a second and we'll do a essentially a

[11:24] page flip. We'll go quickly because there's 32 pages, a lot of which is just information

[11:30] that is in every architectural set, but it's usually not all that interesting. Sorry,

[11:34] but it's just that way.

[11:37] So with that, let me pass these around.

[11:52] All right, Louise, if you want to just,

[11:54] I can flip through the sheets.

[11:55] If you want to just mention what the sheets are

[11:58] as we cruise through those.

[12:01] And this is the set that Tracy emailed to you.

[12:08] Oh, but evening everyone, I'm going to be swimming in this.

[12:12] So what's up on the screen now?

[12:14] If you make images, I'm just going to go through

[12:17] point out the differences in all of these drawings so we can just go through them quickly and

[12:21] about it with the ones that nothing has changed. What you notice here that's different from

[12:27] the prior design is that we reduce the amount of second floor exterior wall modifications

[12:34] while still maintaining a cohesive architectural relationship with the actual Indian unit.

[12:43] This is 3DU of the alley side of the property.

[12:48] The changes are primarily on the east unit, which is the one in the right-hand side

[12:53] in this view.

[13:00] We remove the second floor deck, Tom Gorman, and that's suggested that, maybe we can explore

[13:05] that option.

[13:06] We explored it and discussed it with the owner.

[13:10] He was kind of juggling priorities, the priorities being the elevator and the primary

[13:16] bedroom on the main living levels as for lifestyle. That's what's most important to them.

[13:22] So he has reached to remove the deck area and we remove the entire second floor deck on that east wing.

[13:31] Good thunder also raised the concern that maybe that deck was going to be overlooking their property.

[13:38] So, not only did we eliminate the deck, but we also preserved the south and east walls of that second floor of their entirety.

[13:48] So, it just provides even more privacy for that.

[13:53] This is the survey.

[13:55] Here we go.

[13:57] John also mentioned that there was an encroachment.

[14:00] And the encroachment that you see there is just that little bit of flag stone paving.

[14:04] That's crossing the property line.

[14:06] and we reach an agreement with the good

[14:11] than they're going to mean it, not a result.

[14:13] So that's no longer an issue.

[14:16] It's just that we can skip this one or something.

[14:19] That's changed.

[14:21] Flow area, this is the demolition calculations.

[14:25] There's four pages of that.

[14:27] The only thing worth noting here is that we were able

[14:29] to reduce the amount of demolition and destruction,

[14:32] which resulted a decrease from 18.94% demolition to 16.28 and we accomplished that by

[14:41] preserving. Again, most of those second floor east wing walls that I just mentioned

[14:46] in the previous 3D image.

[14:50] Existing if they are, no changes to that. We're going to skip

[14:53] through that. We low grade area calculations and no change there.

[15:01] Z008, that's the proposed floor area calculations. And I'll just note some variations from what's in the current staff report.

[15:15] I think the current staff report was a table on page 8. I believe it was, and it carried through the previous versions numbers.

[15:25] So I just want to update you with those.

[15:27] The first floor, the basements remain the saying 563 square feet,

[15:33] which represented at 245 square foot reduction

[15:36] from the existing basement floor area.

[15:40] The first floor area is 1514 square feet.

[15:45] The second floor is 1767.

[15:50] The total above-grade floor area represents

[15:53] and 11 square foot reduction in above-grade floor area from what currently exist on the property.

[16:01] The decks are now only 150 square feet, which is 328 square feet.

[16:09] That's going to be existing condition, and a 218 square foot reduction from the previous scheme.

[16:16] The total then out of the floor area becomes 3994,

[16:25] which is 584 square feet less than the existing and 220 square feet less than the previous scheme.

[16:36] Proposed basement wall area no change there,

[16:43] height, calculations you see on the screen now.

[16:48] We corrected the existing non-conformity by reducing the window wells to less than 100 square footage.

[16:57] Cycle and no change, existing basements and no change, same with the existing 104, no change, 105, no change, another these existing changed, 107, 105, no change, 108, no change, 109, we reduce the amount, so this is the demolition plan, the second floor,

[17:26] We reduce the amount of exterior of all destruction on the east wing, and that's how we were able to reduce that percentage to what I mentioned previously.

[17:36] One-to-one-ten, the proposed basement plan, no change other than a slight shift in elevator location.

[17:45] 1-11, no change again other than just a slight shift in elevator location, 1-12.

[17:57] So at the previous hearing, we were asked to explore opportunities to lose the amount of

[18:01] that area.

[18:02] And I mentioned we did that, and we went beyond that, simply very reducing an explore

[18:11] reasonable opportunities to eliminate or at least minimize the amount of floor area

[18:16] reallocation between the two units because the east and west wings are not connected

[18:22] above grade, some connection between the wings is necessary in order to incorporate

[18:28] an elevator serving all floors and to relocate the primary bedroom to the main living level.

[18:35] We were able to reduce the connection to the minimum necessary consisting essentially of

[18:41] bridge between the two wings on the second floor.

[18:45] The revised design also preserves more of existing building footprint

[18:48] in exterior walls.

[18:51] A first floor remains as previously designed.

[18:54] In order for unit 123 to satisfy the minimum area required

[18:59] by code, some reallocation or floor area between the two units

[19:05] is necessary at the first floor.

[19:08] But we get that to a minimum,

[19:12] one-third team.

[19:17] Here we just revised the root of the second-floor

[19:21] iswing to preserve more of the existing

[19:24] North Alleration.

[19:28] We kept more of the existing wall locations

[19:31] along the front view there, which is the North Alleration

[19:35] on the left side, which is no change on 202,

[19:42] 203.

[19:45] We reduce the amount of second for connection between the two units, which is what you can see there in section on the lower, on the lower, going

[19:57] 204.

[20:00] We removed the deck from the second floor, so that just becomes a green roof. There, what you can see between grid 4 and 5.

[20:09] We kept more of the south wall, like this thing south wall. We're still removing that existing kennel, you heard deck, as we were doing previously anyhow.

[20:19] And 2.05, we remove the wrap around that from the second fret more of the existing exterior walls on the second floor.

[20:32] No change there, 7.01.

[20:35] So here you can see the difference between the previous scheme and the current scheme.

[20:39] So the drawing number 1 and the upper left hand corner, that's the existing condition.

[20:46] The drawing to the right and below just that with more of the yellow highlight area,

[20:52] But that was the previous scheme.

[20:54] And all of that yellow area was a reallocation of the floor area.

[21:00] And on the lower left hand corner is the current version, which shows how much we reduced

[21:06] of that reallocated floor area to just that bridge connection between the two wings on the

[21:12] second floor.

[21:17] Okay.

[21:18] Thank you, police.

[21:20] Marianne, maybe second guessing her request to go through architectural plans.

[21:31] Thank you.

[21:33] Okay, so I am going to go through, I have some slides that are from a previous presentation.

[21:40] I will blast through those with being cognizant of Mr. Tarber, who was not at the last meeting.

[21:49] So give me a speed-up or slow down as you need to, Charlie.

[21:56] Just orientation pictures of the property from Havenet.

[22:00] I'm in Avenue 123, it's on your left.

[22:04] It's in the sort of original design state, 121.

[22:08] It's on the right in the remodeled state.

[22:11] That remodeled happened in 2012.

[22:15] All right.

[22:16] That was then, and you just finished six years ago.

[22:19] So, years ago, 2020, okay,

[22:24] need to refresh myself.

[22:27] Closer up on those two, 123 and the left, 121 on the right, and then the alley view of the two units, 123 on the right.

[22:40] And this view, 121 on the left.

[22:44] It's been a lot of time going through the criteria last time, I think we exhausted that conversation.

[22:52] So let me know if you want to circle back on that, but I feel like the record is complete on that and it had a pretty thorough conversation.

[23:01] So without being overly redundant on what the least went through on a highlight, the changes that you see in the plans.

[23:07] This is the basement plan.

[23:09] So there's no change to this plan from what you saw on August 5th, so I've repeated that on the right hand side of the page with it's both August 5th and September 2nd plan.

[23:21] But we mentioned that the large area way that you see on the existing plan requires the measurement for height to be measured to the bottom of that area way.

[23:31] And with what you see on the right is the two window wells, because they are window wells of minimal size, the measurement is taken from the top of the window well, and so therefore it's only 25 feet tall instead of on the left you see it is measured as 35.

[23:49] It is a technique over substance sort of issue because the building is essentially the same building, but there's no longer measured down to the bottom of that area away.

[24:00] But it eliminates a non-conforming aspect of the property, which is good.

[24:09] The first floor, this is on the right, you see the August 5th and September 2nd plan.

[24:18] The green area is that additional connector space that allows the access to the elevator.

[24:28] Luis didn't say it, but if he went, I don't know how many iterations have been around in multiple

[24:32] circles to come up with different plans, ended up landing back where he started, which is on the

[24:38] first floor, this is the connection that's needed. Driven by a couple of things, I mentioned

[24:44] the access. There's a floor area, Kelk, where the units need to have a maintain a certain ratio

[24:50] between the units. There's also an adjoining wall, a demising wall, connection that needs to be

[25:00] So, for those factors, what you see in the September plan is the same as what you saw on the August plan for the first floor.

[25:11] On the second floor is where you see the majority of changes. So, the second floor existing is what you see on the left.

[25:19] On the right is a highlight of the existing deck area that goes away.

[25:29] where you saw on August 5th is a sort of a pulling back of the deck that is on along

[25:40] the alleyway and then a conversion of interior space to deck area. So the actual amount

[25:49] of deck area on that deck of the unit got bigger. It pulled back from the alleyway

[25:54] but there was conversion of interior space to exterior.

[25:58] So if I flick it back and forth, you can sort of see where that interior space was here,

[26:04] gets converted to deck area. On the front of the building, there was a sort of alicova area

[26:12] and then it was large deck out front. The deck went away, but the interior space expanded into that

[26:19] footprint above the first floor. That was a master or bathroom and a sort of a wider

[26:28] connection area between the two units, okay? We had, after our meeting in August, we had

[26:42] phone call with Mr. Kaden, and the design professions, many of the meetings can be sort of fun,

[26:50] inspirational, rewarding, and invigorating. This conversation kind of shocked, actually, and

[26:58] which is part of the job, it comes in the territory. But added, described to Barry that the

[27:08] And I didn't go very well, and that there was a mixed opinion about the on the acceptance

[27:17] of the plan focused on some deck area, and if you remember Tom and I had a kind of

[27:25] back and forth about the extent of deck area, there was neighbor comments about the extent

[27:33] of deck facing the good-fender condos and on this page,

[27:37] it would be page top of page is the good-fender condominiums

[27:41] to our immediate east.

[27:45] And then I, in some concerns about noise and activity

[27:48] and disruption generating off of that deck,

[27:51] and some things about some encroachments

[27:54] back and forth along the property on.

[27:58] And I think for many of the members

[28:00] is just kind of the overall extent of the change.

[28:03] So, we had that not-fun conversation with Barry about the changes that we would need to

[28:09] make to be able to walk back into this room. And the X's you see on the plan there are

[28:17] the focus of those changes. So that deck in the back got totally creamed. And the expansion

[28:24] of the master bathroom in that connector piece, went away.

[28:32] So what you see here is these two areas in brown are existing areas that are interiors

[28:40] space.

[28:41] So you see here interiors space, this little alcoe that juts out in the front and this area

[28:46] here before you go out on the deck and the rear.

[28:49] Those spaces are essentially chopped off with the building and it becomes roof area.

[28:56] And the connector piece that you saw in the prior plan is just a sort of a narrow connection point.

[29:06] And at least I think you said that's 48 inches wide.

[29:11] Yes, the minimum required for a wheelchair site approach to the elevator door.

[29:15] Okay, so it might be for half feet, okay, it's the minimum.

[29:21] It's the minimum.

[29:22] Got it.

[29:23] So bearing is well, so I have to go through that space, single file.

[29:26] Thank you.

[29:27] But those are the changes that were made.

[29:29] So let me see those.

[29:30] Actually, as I was a conversation we made,

[29:32] I had with Dr. Kaden, we just got to work

[29:35] and came back with what you see here for some dripper second.

[29:40] So sort of composite view of that.

[29:43] These yellow duct areas are completely eliminated, these orangey brown areas that are currently

[29:50] inter-based or eliminated from the plan.

[29:53] This green area here is the connection point that was added to the plan.

[30:03] We didn't focus on last time the deck here. That plant hasn't changed from August 2, September, but just to sort of highlight that the existing building has a large deck on roof deck on actually both units.

[30:23] The deck area on 123, the roof deck area is totally eliminated in this plan.

[30:29] I think there's some area for mechanical and things, and it was actually a good place to put mechanical units that, especially tight neighborhood or otherwise,

[30:40] sort of bothersome to neighbors if you put it right on the property line.

[30:44] So that's the deck plan, hasn't changed, but we didn't dwell on it last time.

[30:49] The exonometric plans that you see in the packet on the left are what you saw in August

[30:59] on the right is what you're seeing in the September plan.

[31:02] This is a view from the front, sort of bird's eye, axon, and the connector piece that was

[31:09] much more robust on the second floor is omitted and that's just sort of additional roof

[31:14] base to see sort of a minimal connector, please bear.

[31:20] Axe-on from the career of the property is Luis is describing the

[31:26] deck area that you saw in August is eliminated here in the September

[31:31] Plan.

[31:35] I had a conversation with John Star.

[31:38] John Star was the neighbor who came to the meeting last

[31:43] last meeting in August.

[31:45] He's the neighbor in the Good Thunder condos.

[31:48] He's also the president of the condo association.

[31:51] John has been in town, I don't know, 50 years or so.

[31:54] I've probably known them, 30 of those years.

[31:58] Active in the community, I think he's on the CCLC.

[32:02] He's been active in open space.

[32:04] I know, I think he's been on the Wheeler board.

[32:07] So he's familiar with planning reviews and so on.

[32:11] So, his comments were too fold the extent of deck on that second level, that would be, you know, intrusive to his enjoyment of his condo unit and other condo units in the good thunder, and some overlap of property improvements down the property line.

[32:36] So, went out and met with them, and we came to terms on the property overages.

[32:45] So we have a small area where their fence is set back, and we use that area for kind

[32:52] of getting back and forth from front to rear.

[32:54] There's some irrigation that goes through there, both stepping stones.

[32:58] Not a lot of improvement, but we rely on, we don't have to have it, but we enjoy it.

[33:05] John has some area in the along the alleyway where he would like an expanded widened parking area.

[33:13] It's some changes to the landscape there.

[33:16] So we came to a agreement there.

[33:17] We can do an easement and swap.

[33:20] I called John today. He's in New York at a function with his daughter.

[33:25] And said to me that I could confirm to you that he and good thunder are in full support of the application that you see in front of you.

[33:34] tonight with the, with the amendments that we've made to the deck and the agreement we came to you on the

[33:39] land swap easement area. So, that's important to us and hopefully that's important to you.

[33:47] I will finish with kind of going through a scorecard of where I think we were at our last meeting,

[33:53] but I first wanted to have Barry kind of walk through and just say some comments about his

[33:59] experience living there and the plans that he's been working out with the

[34:03] least.

[34:04] Very good.

[34:06] Hi, everybody.

[34:08] Thank you guys for coming today, coming back.

[34:14] So my wife and I have been coming to astronaut for 35 years and we've had a house here for

[34:19] her 20.

[34:22] We raised, well, our kids grow up here, they learn to love nature, they learn to

[34:29] high sky, high ski, they developed a passion for that that they should keep today which

[34:35] to be is just fantastic.

[34:41] We live in LA, our main house in LA, we become pretty disenchanted with LA, as well as

[34:47] we lost our house, we had a little house in Alabama with the knowledge of fires, so we pretty

[34:53] much made up of mind that we would like to age out and spend a lot of money.

[35:00] Years in Aspen. This has always been a happy place. We always felt the safest here.

[35:10] You know, we love the community. We love the Aspen Institute. We love going to the theater here. I mean, it's just a wonderful environment. So we spent about four years, about four years ago, we started on the design of this house. I didn't think that'd be this kind of, you know,

[35:31] I wish back on it because the first one went pretty smoothly.

[35:36] The very exact same house, I mean exact or very similar.

[35:41] I understand things change and I

[35:50] just, you know,

[35:52] I recognize the important of having an elevator mouse,

[36:00] My wife broke her foot last year, and it was really challenging to get up and down the stairs.

[36:09] And I'm 73 years old.

[36:11] I mean if I'm lucky, maybe I get the same belt when I'm 76.

[36:17] Maybe I can enjoy it a few years at home.

[36:20] I'm really trying to build a generational house on my kids,

[36:24] that they will have their kids here, and they'll have the same experiences they've had.

[36:28] skiing, hiking and biking.

[36:34] So yes, Chris and Louise came to me and said, if you want to get back into this room,

[36:41] we need to make these changes.

[36:46] Even though it was a big part of the remodel to me, he was having a nice deck in the back of

[36:51] our master bedroom, we could have coffee in the morning and look at the mountains and

[36:56] Work out at the night and look at the stars. I guess if that's the sacrifice we'd have to make amongst others to get the process going

[37:07] We'll read it to make it so I'm hoping the changes you may be your expectations

[37:17] Okay, thank you Barry

[37:20] So here's where we finished my version of where we finished last time

[37:26] Both Ken and Marianne were satisfied with the project maybe for different reasons, but we're okay with the design.

[37:38] We've made some changes since then, but those changes further reduce the overage on Fleur area on deck area.

[37:47] And are based on feedback that we heard both here in the P&Z and we heard from our neighbor, Mr. Star.

[37:53] So we hope your position remains the same on the revised plan.

[38:03] Eric and Teresa were not in favor of the design that was presented August 5th.

[38:09] Maybe also for different reasons.

[38:13] We'd love you to join the Yes team.

[38:14] It's really wonderful over here.

[38:20] If your position is changing, or if it's changed, we have made some changes that I think

[38:27] are further toward where your position was in our last meeting.

[38:34] Max was not in favor of the application, I think there was multiple reasons, but there was

[38:40] concern that we heard about us increasing the level of non-conformity. I want to make sure

[38:47] that Max understands that we're actually reducing the non-conformities. We're not completely

[38:53] eliminating it, and then maybe that was part of your issue. But to the extent that we have

[38:57] non-conforming aspects of the property, those aspects are being reduced. So again, hopefully that

[39:06] helps understand if it doesn't.

[39:09] Tom was close, but not there.

[39:12] He was maybe among other things,

[39:15] concerned about the extent of deck area

[39:17] and asked us to take a hard look at that.

[39:20] We took that to heart, had our conversation

[39:23] that we need to have with very, and those second-floor decks

[39:29] are entirely eliminated.

[39:32] And Liz, you had mentioned the extent of deck reduction.

[39:37] I think it was 300, something to be 28.

[39:40] Free 28, spare feet of deck that's reduced off of the plant.

[39:48] Diana abstained, and she's not here tonight.

[39:52] So it would be amazing if she were, and we're in support, but she is not here.

[39:58] and Charlie was

[40:00] We're not here. And I hope that Mr. Tarve, you see that we have made some – we're making modest changes

[40:08] to what is a non-conforming structure. Town is full of non-conforming structures.

[40:16] We have lessened those

[40:18] non-conformities from our conversation in August. We responded to the P&Z as best we could,

[40:27] from the feedback we got.

[40:30] We also met with Mr. Star and have addressed his concerns.

[40:36] And the Good Thunder condos was not against the project,

[40:39] but they had those two concerns that they identified.

[40:43] And again, Mr. Star and the Good Thunder

[40:45] are now in full support of the application.

[40:49] So I hope you recognize that our ability to walk back in here

[40:53] with an amended plan that was possible the neighbor

[40:55] and that PNZV does is both important to us and important to other members of the commission.

[41:02] And with that, I'd be happy to answer questions.

[41:07] Thanks, Chris.

[41:09] Commissioners, do you have questions for Chris or Luis or Barry?

[41:15] Sure, I have one.

[41:17] In regards with your conversation with John the neighbor, do you have documentation

[41:25] and writing signed on both parties behalf.

[41:31] I do not. Mr. Shaw was under the assumption that we were meeting on the 10th, and I'm

[41:36] not sure where I got that number because I'm pretty clear with him when I met.

[41:41] And he actually says it could be on the 10th.

[41:42] So I just like what we'll have an email exchange.

[41:46] So email is went and text went and calls went and I called him.

[41:50] Luckily picked up because he was in an event with his daughter.

[41:53] I can tell you that my relationship with Mr. Star has always been that he's a man who says

[42:05] what he does what he says and says what he means what he says.

[42:11] So I've full trust that John is going to back that up.

[42:16] I was clear with him that what we could get to before this meeting would be an agreement

[42:21] in concept.

[42:22] Right, we'll get this area, it'll be an easement, you'll get this other area, it'll be an easement.

[42:28] We'll work through the lawyer and he's a lawyer, he understands that.

[42:33] So, Bart and Mr. Star will follow up with actually favoring that, but I can tell you a hundred percent that he is in favor.

[42:42] He is the president of the H.O.A. at the good tender, full trust in faith that he represents their position.

[42:50] And if that needs to be a condition, we don't have any issue with making that a condition

[42:55] of a criminal because it will happen.

[42:57] Okay, and I appreciate your due diligence and that matter and thanks for all your updates.

[43:03] I don't have further questions at this time.

[43:06] Thanks, Miriam.

[43:07] Tell him I saw it.

[43:09] Ask the questions.

[43:14] Sure.

[43:14] to report that the adjusted square footage is $3,994 is at that.

[43:22] That's correct.

[43:24] And could you remind us what the square footage for a duplex on that size a lot in that district is?

[43:33] Because it's a sub-standard size lot for a duplex, the allowable is $3,240.

[43:39] $3,240.

[43:43] That's all I have.

[43:45] Thanks, Tom.

[43:46] anyone else have questions? Charlie, please pull your microphone down. Thank you.

[44:05] What's wrong?

[44:07] Deemizing.

[44:10] That's the wall that connects two units that is a shared wall.

[44:15] It's a demizing wall.

[44:26] The city's code requires a duplex to have a demizing wall of a certain dimension.

[44:31] So now for in order to be executed, you can actually take it right away.

[44:43] So I'm going to go to yours.

[44:48] You're supposed to be supposed to be able to leave you.

[44:53] Okay.

[44:54] Why didn't you really enjoy it?

[44:57] Yeah.

[44:58] Good to see you down.

[45:00] Can you comment a little bit of that to be bridged? And that is an indicator for what you want to do to bring the way it's up to me.

[45:09] The so that the bridge and the elevator only connect 1-21. The units are right now, they're a side by side, and they become an over under.

[45:19] And the 123 unit, the one on the left-hand side, looking from the street, is a single floor flat.

[45:28] And it does not have access to the elevator and does not have access to the bridge.

[45:35] And so if it is severed off and sold as a separate property or buried continues to rent it off as a separate unit,

[45:42] It's completely stand alone has nothing to do with the 121 unit.

[45:46] They're not connected internally.

[45:48] They don't only the 121 unit has the elevator.

[46:19] I think that you could, you wanted this place, so you said we bought 20,000.

[46:25] Correct.

[46:27] Is that all?

[46:29] That's 20,000.

[46:31] Could be sold.

[46:33] They'd better think I can do it today.

[46:36] Yeah.

[46:37] Thank you.

[46:38] Yeah.

[46:39] The separate entrance.

[46:40] Separate groin.

[46:42] The separate entrance.

[46:45] Any further questions for our applicant, Dean?

[46:50] Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to come.

[47:38] All right. Again, Jeffrey Barnhill, city planner for the city of Aspen.

[47:44] I did not really change much about the staff slides.

[47:48] I really just wanted to pull back up the review criteria and I updated those photos but I

[47:57] think Chris did a adequate job of going through those sheet-by-sheet so I will skip ahead

[48:03] of bits. Again for a special review there are some dimensional requirements. Staff found

[48:13] those were met for this project. However, when you go to the replacement of non-conforming

[48:22] structures, standards, staff did not feel that there was special characteristics. You

[48:26] need to the property. Nor that literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions would cause

[48:33] a necessary hardship upon the owner.

[48:37] And it's important to note whatever sort of easement agreement

[48:41] they come to should not be considered for this.

[48:44] It's not part of the criteria.

[48:45] It's something that's great that they're good neighbors,

[48:48] but it's not really something that the planning

[48:50] is on in commission should consider

[48:52] in approving or denying this project.

[48:55] And additionally, staff's position on a project

[48:59] has nothing to do with the community members

[49:01] that might own that project or anything.

[49:04] We just review it by the criteria.

[49:05] We have a lot of great community members,

[49:08] and unfortunately sometimes we just don't agree

[49:11] with the project. With that staff recommends denial of the project, I can put back up these review

[49:20] criteria if you guys would like. Happen the answer any questions and thanks so much.

[49:25] Thanks Jeff. I have a question. Yeah.

[49:30] In your revised packet, you have a proposed first floor plan that shows a much smaller

[49:36] connection.

[49:39] But it's not in the four points that was included in the packet and it's not in the

[49:42] four points that we got reviewed that we've received later and it's not in the original

[49:46] four points. Where'd it come from? So that is in the packet.

[49:53] There's pulled out for you guys.

[49:56] Let's go there. Let's plan that.

[50:01] That makes it a real review plan, right?

[50:05] It's got a lot of great emails.

[50:08] It's not informing.

[50:12] Special review.

[50:15] Just depends on this.

[50:19] I'm just blind.

[50:21] Because I'm like, I looked and I couldn't find it.

[50:24] So this is what happened and kind of what I alluded to earlier.

[50:28] So this was included as exhibit a second reading drawings and these were the drawings that I initially got and I did not realize that these were changing I thought I was just getting the floor area sheets and that was it

[50:44] So I did not realize that these were also changing which is why we had to send you guys those updated that updated drawing packet yesterday

[50:52] And just to reinforce, that's on us as the applicant, applicant team, that's not on Jeff.

[50:59] We had sent this prior to going through the full calculations that Mary Ann will be learning about.

[51:07] And then realized we got a calculation oopsie.

[51:12] And then so further revised and sent Jeff a revised packet.

[51:16] So that's really on us.

[51:18] And that's why we spent the additional time the beginning of the hearing kind of going through

[51:22] I'm getting everyone situated with the current trunks.

[51:26] Okay, got it, thank you.

[51:29] Thanks for your honesty.

[51:30] All right.

[51:32] Commissioners, do you have questions for Mr. Barnhill of the gentleman of Aspen?

[51:40] The victorious gentleman of Aspen.

[51:43] Great pick in the paper.

[51:45] No, they got a good one in there for sure.

[51:50] Questions?

[51:52] Nothing's really changed in the 60s decision on this.

[51:56] Correct.

[52:00] Charlie, I see it.

[52:23] Red light.

[52:24] Oh, we're getting it.

[52:30] It's confusing.

[52:31] We need to call something a reduction of square footage.

[52:34] It's reduction in the, it's a recalculation of the square footage, which shows

[52:37] the reduction.

[52:39] Can we somehow turn it more like that?

[52:41] The, so if a building is actually making something smaller,

[52:44] that's reduction of square footage.

[52:46] This, can we call the recalculation resulting in reduction of square-fledging?

[52:53] I think we can accommodate that.

[52:55] Thank you.

[53:07] Okay.

[53:08] Any other questions for our staff?

[53:15] Okay.

[53:16] Thank you so much.

[53:19] Can I ask you to leave this up for us?

[53:22] I'm going to open it to public comment, but I think it's helpful to have our review criteria.

[53:27] Okay, are there any members of the public who would like to make a comment on this item?

[53:34] I guess none.

[53:37] Okay.

[53:38] With that, I'm going to end the fact finding portion of tonight's hearing, and we're going to go into

[53:44] discussion between commissioners.

[53:47] I would caution commissioners that we make our comments based on our review criteria,

[53:53] and whether or not the project as redesigned meets the review criteria.

[54:01] So, that'll open it up to whoever has comments or thoughts.

[54:10] Eric, pickin' on you first because I got yelled at for picking on the mask.

[54:16] Well, I appreciate the reduction.

[54:18] I still don't think it's enough to approve the project.

[54:25] Okay, can thoughts?

[54:30] Well,

[54:34] I continue to think this whole issue of non-conforities and special review is incredibly

[54:46] difficult, because the code is both ambiguous and seemingly inconsistent,

[54:57] and particularly

[54:59] given the f-

[55:00] In fact, that, Marianne and I seem to have a minor review at the last meeting, and I respect everybody else's views greatly.

[55:12] And so I wanted the reconsider, where I was, in light of, for the review, I actually went back in in a very painful exercise, listening to the audio of our August 5th.

[55:27] you have gotten for a person's punishment. Good job.

[55:31] Well, I mean, I didn't take this thing seriously.

[55:34] I appreciate that.

[55:37] I wanted to make sure that I understood everybody else's viewpoints and see if I should

[55:42] reconsider mine and light of what you all said.

[55:48] And having gone through all that, I didn't continue to have the same view I had before,

[55:54] which is that this project ought to be approved if we're up to me as I view the requirements of the code.

[56:09] And I start with the notion that recognizing the ambiguities and inconsistencies.

[56:17] What is the overall intent of the land you've coded with regard to non-conforming structures?

[56:24] It seems to me that there are a couple of

[56:33] principal, foundational policies that are set out explicitly at the beginning of the code,

[56:42] and it's the intent to permit non-conformities to continue, but not allow non-conformities to be enlarged or expanded.

[56:51] And non-conformities can be altered so that they don't change or decrease the non-conformity.

[57:06] And I don't see that this project, I see that this proposed project meets these general criteria.

[57:16] investors, something else in the code that would say, these criteria are overcome, then based

[57:26] on those criteria, I would, as I say, approve the project.

[57:31] But one issue that gave me a great deal of, not trouble, but I wanted to go back and look

[57:39] that it pretty seriously was to racist view that the word change meant that you couldn't

[57:51] move square footage around within a project because if you did that then you would definitely

[57:58] fall within the special review criteria and I think that's a reasonable

[58:10] reading of the statute. As I thought about it, I think that there's a more reasonable view.

[58:22] And that is that the word change, you have to look at it in terms of all the overall criteria.

[58:29] But it says a non-conforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases

[58:37] the non-conformity, and here's where the critical language comes in, a non-conforming

[58:42] structure may be extended or altered in a matter that does not change or that decreases

[58:49] the non-informed.

[58:53] And when you look, I mean what is the word change me and in this context, and it seems to

[59:00] That a more

[59:06] reasonable view is that change means you can't change the non-conformity.

[59:13] So if the non-conformity is in four areas, it means that in ordering the building, you can't

[59:20] create, for example, a setback, non-conformity.

[59:24] You can't change the non-conformity.

[59:26] And when what

[59:35] is the non-conformity with regard that we're concerned with here, it's for area.

[59:42] And the non-conformity is the total for area.

[59:46] The non-conformity is not the manner in which the for area is configured, so long as you meet the total for area criteria.

[59:58] So I see it.

[1:00:00] And to have a different view, which seems to me would create some real problems for folks that are trying to design these projects, because, for example, if you have a entry call, and they move a wall a few feet, that technically would change the configuration of four areas.

[1:00:30] But they'd move another wall that would result in there being no additional flurry towards the requirement.

[1:00:43] That, I mean, why is that a big problem? I don't see that it is.

[1:00:50] So I think we ought to encourage flexibility to the extent that we can within the code.

[1:00:57] And we had, I know what we said in the last meeting that architects have not

[1:01:08] construed

[1:01:09] this language to say that if you change the configuration of the four area, that is problematic.

[1:01:17] I don't know whether that's true or not, but I do know that the city, apparently, doesn't,

[1:01:25] But it doesn't seem to follow your review because when they go through the review criteria in

[1:01:35] their exhibit to the package they put together with regard to this specific language about

[1:01:44] change in a non-conformity, staff finds that this project meets the criteria.

[1:01:52] So, putting all that together, my view is that there's no reason for special review unless

[1:02:01] the language on purposeful destruction requires that there'll be a special review.

[1:02:08] So, think we're talking about, in my opinion, like, your interchangeings special review

[1:02:11] are not conformity to me, and I think I'm a little, because they're recommending denial,

[1:02:16] but not.

[1:02:17] They're not recommending denial for the reasons.

[1:02:20] What I'm saying is they're recommending denial because they don't see that special that the special review review criteria are met

[1:02:28] I'm saying got it have to get the special review

[1:02:32] Understood because it's not required under the code and so I think we went through this

[1:02:39] Previously and talked about special review with legal of our job

[1:02:44] Is to review

[1:02:46] The project against the code sections that were given

[1:02:49] And this is not a forum to discuss whether or not the project meets special reviewer doesn't.

[1:02:55] Like that part we've already been told by city it does, and that's our job is then to say,

[1:03:00] okay, meets special review requirements, now we look at the non-conformities.

[1:03:04] And if you recall during our discussion last time, it was Jim's view that it was extra jurisdictional

[1:03:11] for us to decide the issue of whether special review is required, although when this issue

[1:03:21] came up in conjunction with another project, the years ago, Kate took a different view of it.

[1:03:27] And what I expressed at the time was that I don't think that staff can constrain on reviewing

[1:03:34] that way.

[1:03:35] By telling us, we want you to review this project under this provision on the land use code.

[1:03:41] If we think it should be approved and we want to reject it under that, but we think that there's a different provision that applies,

[1:03:51] that we could approve it under.

[1:03:53] That seems to be that it totally constrains our view of our ability to do our job.

[1:04:01] But setting that aside and assuming that a special review is required here,

[1:04:08] You know, there are two criteria, one that are in dispute.

[1:04:14] One is whether there are special circumstances with regard to this property that are unique.

[1:04:22] And the second is whether there's under your hardship.

[1:04:26] And the one that, if assuming that we have to have a special review, the one that troubles me the most is the unique circumstances.

[1:04:34] because of the special circumstance.

[1:04:36] Jeff, can you go to that sign that you had?

[1:04:40] Thank you.

[1:04:42] Let me see, I've got to hear this.

[1:04:47] Whether there exists special circumstances,

[1:04:50] characteristics, unique to the property,

[1:04:52] which differentiates the property from other properties located

[1:04:54] in the same zone district.

[1:05:01] That's the most troublesome aspect of the special review today.

[1:05:07] The way, and I don't think that Chris really addressed it in his written presentation as the what, the special characteristics of this property are.

[1:05:17] The way I see it is that if we were to literally constru the code and the applicant wanted

[1:05:34] to basically tear down the property, start from scratch, which might be the best approach

[1:05:45] And it's up to them.

[1:05:48] This property would be incredibly narrow.

[1:05:53] And I'm not sure it's really doable.

[1:05:55] It'd be basically a shotgun house.

[1:05:57] So if the applicant decided to tear down this house

[1:06:03] and build something new, it is my understanding

[1:06:06] that because it's a lot that is not adequately

[1:06:09] sized to allow a duplex, they would only

[1:06:11] be allowed to build the single family home

[1:06:13] to the max floor area of 32.40.

[1:06:17] It would be, yeah, but the given, the way it's,

[1:06:21] it's a 6,000 square foot, correct?

[1:06:24] It's pretty, pretty, no.

[1:06:25] It's really narrow.

[1:06:27] So I think it's narrowness of the law

[1:06:30] that creates the special circumstance.

[1:06:32] Is that a closed question?

[1:06:35] Got it.

[1:06:36] As to the issue of a one-do hardship,

[1:06:40] I think that staff's position, as I've expressed before, on the issue of undue hardship, is unrealistic, essentially, they're saying that if a property has been used in the past,

[1:06:56] and that use can continue into the future.

[1:07:00] So, by definition,

[1:07:07] an applicant wouldn't be deprived of reasonable use of the property.

[1:07:16] So, it means that it's hard for me to envision a circumstance under which somebody could pass special with you.

[1:07:29] If you have a house, you've been living on the house for 20 years, and you could still have the house in the future.

[1:07:40] By telling you, you can't make any changes to the house. You're not being the private of reasonable use.

[1:07:45] So I think that's a problem, but beyond that, specifically in this case, I think that the way I would look at reasonable use of the property is in relation to what others in the neighborhood can do.

[1:08:03] And other people in the neighborhood can make reasonable alterations to their property.

[1:08:12] They can renovate their properties, put it in a little bit if they want to see something like that.

[1:08:16] So could he?

[1:08:18] So these are worse.

[1:08:18] Well, this is the way they want to do it.

[1:08:22] And again, I get back to the fact that I hate this whole special review process.

[1:08:32] Yeah, I've got it in a kind of plastic vision of it all, but

[1:08:37] You start the new world.

[1:08:40] The way that code reads, we're left with incredible discretion about what we want to

[1:08:45] approve and what we don't.

[1:08:48] And we've approved some projects on special review that are far more radical in design and

[1:08:56] in square footage, then this one, and I just don't think that this is that big a deal that

[1:09:08] we want to try to literally enforce the terms of a very weekly drone, I've been, I've talked

[1:09:20] a long time, I'm going to shut up, but I've put a little work into it, so.

[1:09:25] I appreciate that.

[1:09:28] Tom thoughts?

[1:09:31] I would like to defer because my thoughts might not matter until we hear from Charlie.

[1:09:39] Okay.

[1:09:41] Charlie.

[1:09:43] A read on.

[1:09:49] The boat last time went in a particular direction with a particular number and you were here.

[1:10:01] Can you use your microphone, please? Okay. Marianne? Okay. That's what you want. That's what I want to hear. Yeah, I mean, I would still reflect my former thoughts, not a substantial amount as adjusted, but they did clearly, you know, the applicant clearly has taken into account.

[1:10:31] to affect the neighbors' ideas and thoughts which I understand the city's stance of that

[1:10:41] doesn't quite matter what I've understood from the city's stance, however, I think

[1:10:47] that the side balcony would have been a little bit problematic and now that's obviously

[1:10:52] adjusted to reflect, you know, a more private entity for both properties in terms of the

[1:11:04] requirements, you know, to accept or deny, you know, the city still does believe that the

[1:11:11] dimensional requirements have been met in regards to the non-conformities and the definition

[1:11:19] of such, you know, it still does seem to reflect the notion that, you know, as long

[1:11:29] as it's, if it's in existence, which it's been for many decades, you know, and there's

[1:11:37] reduction in some of the sizing, it essentially does run with that part of that definition

[1:11:49] in the code and so I'm still in alignment with my former thoughts and I highly appreciate

[1:11:58] Ken's due diligence and time and effort that he's taken and I think that was really useful

[1:12:05] for tonight's meeting.

[1:12:09] Max?

[1:12:13] Yeah, I mean, I appreciate the effort made by our architect and re-arranging some items here.

[1:12:22] I certainly appreciate Ken's opinion on how he thinks about special review and what's coming

[1:12:26] to us and what's not.

[1:12:29] I am very much looking forward to city staff having a more direct route and saying yes

[1:12:35] or no to some of these things.

[1:12:37] But I believe, you know, these are the things we have to look at and have to decide on when they come to us.

[1:12:45] And whether they come to us in the future is how they come to us in the future is different.

[1:12:51] Until then, this is, you know, these are the criteria and this is what we have to make our judgments on.

[1:12:57] You know, and they're still not meeting all four.

[1:12:59] So that's how I feel about the project at the moment.

[1:13:04] And those are my thoughts on it.

[1:13:07] Thanks, Max.

[1:13:10] Charlie.

[1:13:14] No, no.

[1:13:14] If we could go that way, it would mean, you know, I would alarm all the time.

[1:13:20] Okay.

[1:13:21] Tom?

[1:13:21] Yes, sir.

[1:13:26] So, when we were presented with a request for a fair variation, I kind of distinguished

[1:13:33] what's necessary.

[1:13:35] So, no versus old had different criteria and strictness.

[1:13:40] And what's structural versus what's ornamental.

[1:13:43] What modification requests would be reasonable, for example, having to alter a foundation would not be reasonable for most owners to be cost prohibitive?

[1:13:58] And sometimes even modest additions to square footage can help meet city standards as in this project, adding a hallway between 1.21 and 1.23 to close the gap between buildings, which is now mandated

[1:14:11] for due plexus, but the factor means that this project, even after these revisions, would still

[1:14:20] be about 700 feet over square foot allowed for that lot in that neighborhood, which is problematic.

[1:14:32] So in my view, the rooftop decks are not structurally necessary. You've eliminated one, so

[1:14:37] mechanical only. There is still a second deck with a recreational component to it.

[1:14:47] I'm not opposed to the applicant keeping the LA face and gags on the second floor.

[1:14:53] But I don't support the application in its current form because of the recreational aspect potential.

[1:15:00] For the rooftop deck. I think the rooftop in that neighborhood, because of the square footage, overage, is less than fully compliant with the context that I think should apply there.

[1:15:23] So, I would not support the application as long as there is a recreational deck on top

[1:15:34] that we're utilitarian only, I could support it.

[1:15:39] Thanks, Tom.

[1:15:42] You want to hear mine, too?

[1:15:50] The lot is a normal size lot for the West End.

[1:15:53] It's the same dimension as a residential lot in the West End 60 by 100 standard button.

[1:15:59] can build a perfectly fine house on a 6,500 square foot lot. To me, it is not too narrow,

[1:16:05] it is not a shotgun. It does not create a shotgun house. I think there are ample opportunities

[1:16:12] within the existing residences that do doplexes that are there to remodel and get

[1:16:21] two units that are

[1:16:24] not one living in the 80s and one living in the 2020s. I think while I understand the clients

[1:16:29] desire to change the configuration to me that is a desire. If that is what they want to

[1:16:38] do my understanding or my how I interpret the code is that's great bring everything

[1:16:46] else into compliance. Meet floor area, meet everything. It's a choice to do this. This is

[1:16:53] not we're forcing you to do that. You're choosing to change from a side by side to an

[1:16:58] under. I wholeheartedly support it as long as you bring everything else into compliance. So

[1:17:05] to me, the changes while I commend them and I think they're going a long way towards it,

[1:17:11] they're not there yet for me. I don't believe that literal enforcement puts on do

[1:17:18] unnecessary hardship on the client. It's a property that they knew had these

[1:17:24] Now conformaries when they purchased it, I am assuming, because there is a smart man and

[1:17:29] he's got lawyers and new diligence and all of that, and you can ask for whatever you

[1:17:34] want, but I don't think you got there yet.

[1:17:38] So I'm not ready to support it.

[1:17:55] Is Teresa, I'm maybe confused about this, but the size of the lot is 60.

[1:18:03] 6,000 square feet, it's a 60 by 100.

[1:18:08] So, and that is up a lot.

[1:18:10] 60 feet wide, 100 feet.

[1:18:13] Both properties are just for one.

[1:18:17] So, it's one lot that houses a duplex.

[1:18:20] Okay, so.

[1:18:21] And a duplex in the zone district, and Jeff, please jump in if I'm wrong, requires a larger

[1:18:27] a lot. So it is a non-conforming lot size to allow a duplex as of today. Okay. So if they were

[1:18:37] to demo it, they would never be able to put back a duplex. They would have to put back

[1:18:41] a single family home. Good. Well assuming that one side of the duplex were demoed. That gets

[1:18:56] into your probably meeting demolition at more than 40 percent and that's a whole different

[1:19:01] conversation. But they're two separate properties.

[1:19:03] They are considered one building for the purposes of demo

[1:19:06] correct.

[1:19:09] And I could be totally wrong on that.

[1:19:12] But there's a couple different ways that it can happen.

[1:19:16] But essentially, one half of the due place could get a

[1:19:18] demolition element. And also the entire structure could, like the

[1:19:23] entire property could. So what I was thinking is that since

[1:19:31] viewing these as at this point, as separate, that could be owned by two different people.

[1:19:40] And the existing, the updated property, the 121 property, could stay.

[1:19:47] Could stay.

[1:19:50] The owner of 123 decides, given all these problems, I just want to tear the whole thing down.

[1:19:58] there

[1:20:00] Left with a 30 foot width by which to, I mean, and that would be what, how much score footage would

[1:20:10] they be allowed?

[1:20:14] That gets in, that's so hard. What isn't it, is it, aren't you talking about a very

[1:20:20] weirdly shaped building that, in my view, it's like a shotgun house, like one room from

[1:20:29] back the front. So if they demolished the duplex, if they demolished one half of the duplex,

[1:20:37] but they setbacks and everything else. Highly unlikely that they would be able to build it back

[1:20:42] since the lot's subsdandered to contain the duplex. Sorry, we'll keep that again, they would

[1:20:47] would not be able to build a back.

[1:20:51] Rightly not.

[1:20:52] And they would not.

[1:20:56] Because there's a lot of steps that go into figuring out something like this.

[1:21:00] And generally, if it's a substandard, a lot that doesn't allow duplex.

[1:21:04] If you demolish one half of that duplex, you would have to bring the lot sort of into

[1:21:11] conformance with what is allowed in the zone district.

[1:21:14] So you'd have to setbacks, and I'd just say, how much, how much of a house could be built?

[1:21:25] This is how many estimate?

[1:21:27] No, I mean, they could still build from setback to setback, but I don't know any of four areas sort of implications.

[1:21:35] Yeah, I think this is a thought exercise.

[1:21:37] Yeah, it's a short exercise, but for me it goes to the issue whether there are special circumstances that would justify finding that the special review requirements have been met.

[1:21:57] I think you lost me on that.

[1:22:00] If, if as a practical matter, the owner of 123,

[1:22:09] they either leave the building as it is without any kind of renovation.

[1:22:14] They do some renovation that is basically just updated, so it means it stays the way it is.

[1:22:27] Or if they want to have a modern building there, they've got to rip it down and start again.

[1:22:33] But to start again, the size of the lock, given all the setback requirements and everything else,

[1:22:39] we'll leave them with little option to build a viable house.

[1:22:48] Then, to me, that is a special circle of stance that would meet the second requirement for

[1:22:55] special review.

[1:22:57] Is it one of the gutter that the problem not be owner-generated or across?

[1:23:03] Yeah, but I don't know if that's applicable in this because it's in existence.

[1:23:09] It's on a lot of a certain size, a depth and weight.

[1:23:17] And it's giving current code as well,

[1:23:21] and depending on which trajectory of the day,

[1:23:24] it seems that the city staff would take on that given day.

[1:23:29] It seems like there's a lot of interpretation

[1:23:31] that could be swayed in all sorts of directions,

[1:23:34] that it's quite unclear even from the staff's perspective

[1:23:38] in this moment as to what would be the actual course

[1:23:42] of action, which almost makes it

[1:23:44] to the point where we're almost potentially creating a problem that technically doesn't

[1:23:52] even exist, which actually does put a hardship on the applicant's.

[1:23:59] This is a thought exercise that I think is way outside the current scope of our review.

[1:24:07] We've been asked to review a specific application, not a hypothetical if someone bought it in

[1:24:14] on half of it, we're talking about what is in front of us right now, so I want to make sure

[1:24:19] that we rain it back into where, how we're feeling about this application and which where are we

[1:24:27] leaning? I think you were ready to go on your conversation. Sorry, just before he does, we get into

[1:24:37] this, particularly often, actually, where it looks like we're going in a direction, there's

[1:24:43] This is a level of unclearity going on and yes I understand that our job is more or less

[1:24:52] to determine what is the next course of action in the moment at what we're looking at.

[1:24:58] However, there is some...

[1:25:00] And we don't ever have clarity when we ask these questions about if it were not to be accepted as such, what would be the next course of action if the applicant or another applicant in this same vicinity and property came to us at a later date given the same code requirements that stand in the moment.

[1:25:23] And I think that there is a level of due diligence in that notion that just to simply state

[1:25:31] to knock it down completely is actually not really doing our scope of what we're here

[1:25:37] for in the first place because there is a chance they would come back to us and then give

[1:25:41] us another instance which we do see in a different form on other projects and it feels

[1:25:49] little disjointed altogether. I understand that that's not the given application in front of us,

[1:25:55] but I do want to know what the other options would be and I would love to always get a clear answer

[1:26:01] from the city. I understand there's a ton of amount of due diligence that goes into each of these

[1:26:06] packets to come before us, but it's also, it does maybe affect, you know, potentially how I would even

[1:26:15] maybe votes in the matter.

[1:26:20] So I think that

[1:26:24] there are so many ways that a potential project

[1:26:29] could be designed on this lot that it is really, really, really difficult to put all of that

[1:26:37] in front of us and be like, okay, so if we say no to this, this is the potential options that

[1:26:41] could come in. And so I really want to put us back on track and talk about what's here currently

[1:26:48] in front of us. That's our job is this project as presented by the applicant team and by

[1:26:54] Jeff by the city. Not the potential what could happen in the future if something doesn't

[1:27:00] go the way this like that's yeah I'm just gonna intervene you need to focus on the request in front

[1:27:09] of you. What could be built is not relevant to this discussion and we're not prepared to answer

[1:27:14] most kind of questions. You need to review the request in front of you. Doesn't meet the

[1:27:19] findings, yes or no, and take action. I appreciate that. Thanks again. So, I want to bring

[1:27:24] us back to comments based on the review criteria, special review, you know, conformities. That's

[1:27:32] what we're asking about. We're not talking about whether or not special review is required or that.

[1:27:38] But do you believe the project as presented to us today, revised today, meets the intent, meets the letter, meets the review criteria we were giving?

[1:27:51] And I'm going to open the floor of Charlie, and I would ask that you make sure your microphone is on and that you use it, please.

[1:27:59] Thank you.

[1:28:00] Do you want this bread?

[1:28:01] Yes.

[1:28:10] You bought it, you didn't even roll live with it.

[1:28:13] Cali, can we hear it?

[1:28:15] You hear the rules?

[1:28:16] However, we change.

[1:28:21] We made a constitution.

[1:28:23] It was great.

[1:28:24] We amended it.

[1:28:26] It was a constitution.

[1:28:28] You get on people and women couldn't vote.

[1:28:31] That great thing, the constitution, it wasn't right.

[1:28:34] And what happened is, the amendments weren't all the sudden.

[1:28:38] What happens?

[1:28:38] You got some issues and you said, you know what?

[1:28:40] We wish we could change this.

[1:28:42] We can't, yeah, I could be on enough states to do it, but it ain't right, put it in the

[1:28:46] in the in-game right category.

[1:28:48] We get crap all the time that we have to approve, because they get to build on 6,000 square

[1:28:55] foot in the basement.

[1:28:56] And we wish that wouldn't be right.

[1:28:58] We're going to fix this on that.

[1:29:02] People need to change once they get married, and they need some space.

[1:29:07] We need buy a house.

[1:29:08] You don't have the right to see if we would allow it, make whatever you want.

[1:29:14] You gotta live within our room.

[1:29:15] this is our community, but you gotta be able to let your both out a little bit when it

[1:29:20] gains a weight. I think that's what this is. And I think, yes, there's a few rules that

[1:29:27] it doesn't really stick to, but

[1:29:34] this project allows to

[1:29:42] be lived in by people who didn't

[1:29:45] design the building to start with. It lets them make it more their own. Without

[1:29:50] They're like a bad thing, and they were the living.

[1:29:54] So I'm going to ask you again.

[1:29:56] Yes.

[1:29:57] Please address your comments to our review criteria.

[1:30:00] This is, this is, this is coming, this is coming.

[1:30:03] How did you say that you would find there's an undue hardship?

[1:30:06] Hold on, I want you to know what Charlie did do. Not you, to do it.

[1:30:11] Why comments? Or were you bored to interpret things? If it was factual, if it was just read and fact,

[1:30:24] They don't need us. I believe that this is a good project for this space. I have no other comment about that about the criteria. I do not believe

[1:30:40] We often

[1:30:42] There's something wrong with every project, and

[1:30:48] I think the law is okay

[1:30:50] So,

[1:30:54] okay,

[1:31:04] is there any other comments that?

[1:31:08] commissioners would like to make on our deliberation before we have a conversation with the

[1:31:13] applicant team. Because as I read it there are three to three at three at the moment.

[1:31:25] Yeah, one, two, three. I know it. Four. And what's the room?

[1:31:33] Can we have 27 people here?

[1:31:35] Yeah, yeah.

[1:31:36] OK, I was like, so we're four nose three, yeses.

[1:31:39] Well, the nose conditional.

[1:31:42] I want the rough deck go.

[1:31:46] And that might go well, switch.

[1:31:48] Oh.

[1:31:50] Let me.

[1:31:51] So here's the thing.

[1:31:53] We have a project currently.

[1:31:56] And if it goes as presented today, you're a no.

[1:32:01] Well, do we want to?

[1:32:02] I'm not not asking if they're going to make a change as it's presented right now. The answer is no.

[1:32:09] However, I hear you. So, what I'm asking for is, is there anybody ready to make a motion, because this?

[1:32:18] I think this comes to you for just a minute.

[1:32:22] Okay. Because assuming that we're going to focus solely on special review.

[1:32:32] and setting aside the special characteristics requirements

[1:32:38] that we have as we can do.

[1:32:39] The only one that is before us is the issue of undue hardship.

[1:32:46] And essentially what you're saying as I understand your position is

[1:32:54] that the applicant would have an undue hardship

[1:32:59] If they took away the rooftop deck, no,

[1:33:07] that's not my view.

[1:33:09] Then where is the code basis for making the distinction between the project with and without the rooftop deck?

[1:33:21] As I understand the code, one of the provisions is neighborhood character.

[1:33:27] And this house is, it does not comply with the Code Square footage requirements for that

[1:33:36] lot.

[1:33:37] Given that there are asking for a variance, I would like to include their impact on the

[1:33:45] neighborhood in my decision on whether we're allowed or not.

[1:33:50] Well, I think if that's part of your, like, pretty, there are other things in the code

[1:33:57] that we didn't discuss tonight, but especially regarding things as a duplex and that there

[1:34:03] is supposed to be symmetry of nature and there is none as current.

[1:34:09] Where do you see that there's supposed to be symmetry in a duplex?

[1:34:11] Absolutely symmetry in that code.

[1:34:14] I'll find it.

[1:34:15] I don't think that's a special review.

[1:34:18] I don't see that neighborhood character has any role, because there are four defined characters.

[1:34:25] The fortifying requirements, one in three or not in the spew, it's two in four.

[1:34:32] And it doesn't talk about neighborhood character.

[1:34:36] And on top of that, to the extent that we've heard from the neighbors,

[1:34:41] the neighbors have said they're fine with it.

[1:34:43] Well, let's see, we did get the next door neighbor who requested that the side facing,

[1:34:50] which is a deck, which they have done, and the project still remains about 700.

[1:35:00] 50 feet over the the current standard for that lot. And so removing the 134 feet of deck that are currently

[1:35:09] allocated towards four area would make you more amenable to furthering that. That and the effect that this

[1:35:20] It would still be an overly large for that lot in that neighborhood project, but it would be less so,

[1:35:33] if the roof was utilitarian and recreational.

[1:35:36] That's all.

[1:35:37] That's the question.

[1:35:39] How many of the other buildings are over there?

[1:35:44] A lot.

[1:35:45] Hey, you guys have an answer on that?

[1:35:47] How many more over?

[1:35:48] I don't think it's, yeah, I don't know if that's like, I don't know, I don't know if anybody knows and for

[1:36:06] I already count to really hard to come up with.

[1:36:08] But if the side of the thing is the problem, if the neighborhood characteristics

[1:36:14] everybody's going over, then that is actually a neighborhood characteristic.

[1:36:22] One of the neighborhood characteristics, but maybe two of that.

[1:36:26] Most of our neighbors are multi-family, and they enjoy a much higher floor area, smaller

[1:36:35] setbacks and a higher height allowance.

[1:36:39] Do you think there's a particular subset of the housing stock here, yes?

[1:36:44] Correct.

[1:36:45] And it has a lower, all of that lower height lower floor area and greater setback request.

[1:36:54] And we're characteristic to John Start building is greater than one on nine I think is the

[1:37:03] I'm going to decide that at the fourth one, right?

[1:37:06] I'm going to call it that.

[1:37:07] That is also.

[1:37:08] The different characteristic is the,

[1:37:11] about a lot of square footers.

[1:37:13] Well, fewer buildings, larger square footers, not to lot.

[1:37:17] But this is not that.

[1:37:19] This is a particular property with a,

[1:37:23] a characteristic that is going to be altered one way or another.

[1:37:28] And sorry.

[1:37:30] This conversation is proving one number two.

[1:37:33] It doesn't get past them or two, it is they are the same as the other properties in the zone district.

[1:37:39] It's not special, there are no characteristics you need to make it any different to approve it via special review.

[1:37:45] I don't know if you could say you could not get past because I think that you need to look at each statement,

[1:37:51] each number and its entirety and its severance from the others.

[1:37:57] but coming back to my former points in section 26.410.03O,

[1:38:05] single-family and duplex standards under B,

[1:38:09] there's a level of intent and it states that this standard

[1:38:13] seeks to establish a relationship between buildings

[1:38:16] and streets to create an engaging streetscape

[1:38:20] and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding

[1:38:23] neighborhood.

[1:38:24] So that is in the residential design standards,

[1:38:27] which is not asking for symmetry in a duplex.

[1:38:32] They're asking for a building that is

[1:38:36] approachable from the streetscape.

[1:38:39] Not saying that they need to look exactly the same.

[1:38:43] That's up to interpretation.

[1:38:45] And in my interpretation, I perceive it to be.

[1:38:47] There's other layers.

[1:38:48] That's just one.

[1:38:49] And I can keep going here.

[1:38:51] But there are other layers that

[1:38:52] discuss having an aesthetic appeal as well as symmetry amongst them and I

[1:38:58] think we've referenced some of that back to our cemetery Lane duplex with the

[1:39:03] large truck that was trying to park in its space as well. Okay let's bring

[1:39:08] it back to the current project as presented today and there are right now three and

[1:39:20] with the swing vote here. The way I read your current plants and tell me if I'm totally off-base is

[1:39:30] essentially you are using 150 square feet of deck square footage using that as FAR because you're

[1:39:39] over by that amount of your deck exemption, which is 416 square feet. Something like that correct?

[1:39:47] and so 16 square feet from unit 123 gets counter-torts for area and 134 square feet from

[1:39:57] 121 gets counter-torts for area.

[1:40:00] You are asking for a complete removal of the roof deck to get you there, which would then put them under their allowable floor area for deck.

[1:40:11] So they would have to, they would have whatever would be less than they really needed to give.

[1:40:20] Less than they would still have Jack in the alley.

[1:40:25] But the way the code allocates space.

[1:40:31] So they would still have billable deck that they vibrate can use.

[1:40:36] Okay.

[1:40:41] team.

[1:40:45] Is there any give on the deck, all right? So we had quite a lot of conversation and

[1:40:52] Barry probably had even more so with his significant other about the changes. And as you

[1:41:00] heard, Mr. Keaton said when he was presenting to you, you know, it's personal, right? It's

[1:41:06] home, we all look at our home as our castle, and in particular, it's a master bedroom, master

[1:41:16] bath.

[1:41:17] Jack, I mean, you can hear him envisioning being in that space that the resistance is

[1:41:23] So, difficult conversation for him.

[1:41:27] What's important to him is to continue to be able to have that rooftop deck on the Western

[1:41:36] unit, the 121 unit,

[1:41:42] and the 123 is where we focused, the entirety of those decks were removed.

[1:41:55] The deck off the master bedroom, removed the deck off the front, removed the rooftop deck,

[1:42:01] which has, as you can imagine, it's a very attractive amenity to the project.

[1:42:09] Barry is still married.

[1:42:12] Today, I just picked over, he's got to ring on his fingers.

[1:42:16] I'm guessing I mean, he's still married.

[1:42:21] The rooftop deck we're remaining on the 121 unit is key to him being able to maintain that status

[1:42:29] and being able to do this project.

[1:42:31] So I would ask you to consider that fact.

[1:42:34] I understand that there's a whole range of criteria

[1:42:38] that you're considering.

[1:42:39] It would still be over on both deck area and floor area.

[1:42:48] There are lots of unique characteristics

[1:42:51] of this property in the way it was built

[1:42:53] and the floor area is built under

[1:42:54] and the codes it was built under.

[1:42:57] But I can tell you that that tipping point, there is a tipping point there of removing that last remaining deck that is very important to Mr. Kidden.

[1:43:10] So I'd ask you, I'd ask you to consider that factor.

[1:43:16] With respect to the recreational ease of the decks, there is a spa on a 123 roof deck that is being removed.

[1:43:27] So we're reducing the amount of recreational use with those decks.

[1:43:32] I know this is a beard.

[1:43:34] Yeah.

[1:43:34] I can also offer that.

[1:43:39] It's interesting.

[1:43:40] I can also...

[1:43:41] I think it was like this.

[1:43:42] Wasn't it?

[1:43:43] The hot tub is existing.

[1:43:44] Yeah, this is today.

[1:43:46] I can also offer that, you know, you date here from one neighbor, Mr. Star that we've talked

[1:43:53] about, and, you know, we went quite far, maybe further than what this mission was expecting

[1:43:58] in terms of addressing his concerns about decks on the unit facing the good tender.

[1:44:04] I mean, they're completely removed,

[1:44:08] and Mr. Kaden in his ownership has never had a neighbor

[1:44:12] plane about him using the rooftop deck on his unit in the spa.

[1:44:18] I mean, he rented the property as well.

[1:44:20] He's never received a complaint there.

[1:44:22] We didn't have any neighbor comments or no one came into the hearing.

[1:44:27] So, you know, it doesn't mean that there aren't people that are annoyed,

[1:44:33] but no one has advanced enough to either contact,

[1:44:37] Mr. Kagan or to you know respond to a public public notice. So, you know, again, I'm sort of making a plea to you to understand that sort of the tipping point for the applicant in how he's envisioning

[1:44:57] Now continuing to be able to use the property.

[1:45:01] Okay. Okay. At this point.

[1:45:06] Yeah.

[1:45:12] So.

[1:45:14] At this point, we have three and three and one on the fence.

[1:45:20] As the project stands today, if there is a motion made to approve, are you voting us or no?

[1:45:26] As it stands tonight, I would vote no.

[1:45:29] Okay.

[1:45:30] So, as of that, I want you, if we vote today and you get a denial, that means you can't

[1:45:38] re-submit this for a year, correct?

[1:45:41] And so I want to ask you for what, how you guys would like to see, because I don't want

[1:45:46] to put you guys in a bad situation.

[1:45:49] Yeah, understand.

[1:45:50] I think the way we'd like to proceed is we'd like to ask for a continuation.

[1:45:56] I think there needs to be some design consideration.

[1:45:58] I think there's also a conversation between Mr. and Mrs. Keaton.

[1:46:04] So, yeah, so I think we would enjoy that additional time to be able to process that.

[1:46:09] Okay, I think that is, let's look at when we have time on the calendar and see when,

[1:46:16] give you guys time to make some adjustments and that, you know, it looks like the first week in,

[1:46:22] And the first meeting in October is probably too soon.

[1:46:26] I mean, and the second meeting we already have stuff on.

[1:46:37] But use of the 10, 16, we had a item.

[1:46:43] No, not a little bit.

[1:46:44] 9, 16, we have a special item.

[1:46:47] I think we did the answer.

[1:46:49] Was it October?

[1:46:50] October, 10, 7.

[1:46:51] Sorry, sorry, I get the money.

[1:46:57] You told me, go to 107, sorry, I don't think we have that sheet, by the way, if you guys can email it.

[1:47:06] Okay, I'll be helpful.

[1:47:11] That is an R sheet.

[1:47:13] That's everyone sheet, so R is different.

[1:47:16] So, thank you.

[1:47:17] We, 107?

[1:47:24] No, it's only 6 times.

[1:47:25] Not us.

[1:47:32] 107 works okay is there a motion to continue this until October 7th I will make a motion

[1:47:40] to continue this till October 7th is there a second

[1:47:46] second I'm not sure I can be there

[1:47:49] well I think at this point

[1:48:03] Okay,

[1:48:06] I will make a motion that we continue this to ten twenty-one.

[1:48:13] Wait.

[1:48:14] Ten twenty-one.

[1:48:15] I'm sorry.

[1:48:16] Are we going this seventh or the twenty first?

[1:48:19] There's like.

[1:48:20] But I'd love for Ken to be here, honestly.

[1:48:22] Okay.

[1:48:23] The twenty first.

[1:48:24] Perfect.

[1:48:31] And we have a roll call please.

[1:48:33] Next.

[1:48:35] Yes.

[1:48:37] Charlie.

[1:48:39] Yes. Yes. Yes. Tom. Yes. Can. Yes. Theresa. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, ladies. Thank you, ladies.

[1:48:51] Thank you, ladies. Yes. I'm going to pay you a little bit of time.

[1:48:54] It's a tough one.

[1:48:56] It would be difficult to build it.

[1:48:59] Keep it on your toes.

[1:49:03] We had the Aspen Meta's project.

[1:49:05] We only worked three times.

[1:49:10] It depends on the day of the weekend.

[1:49:12] It depends on the day of the weekend.

[1:49:13] So it's not a fault.

[1:49:19] Haley Hart.

[1:49:22] Good bye.

[1:49:25] Thank you so much.

[1:49:27] Thank you.

[1:49:28] All right, Haley, thank you all right, we'll make this quick. I don't even put slides together for this. So I've got the reservation so

[1:49:58] Charlie

[1:50:00] For your benefit. Yeah, I'm happy to swing me. Had a last meeting, remember, on the 19th.

[1:50:12] We reviewed a request for a code amendment to defer building department fees on some free market, something or something.

[1:50:29] The overwhelming response at this table was hard no, please update the resolution, and that is what Haley is presenting to us.

[1:50:44] Yeah.

[1:50:44] The only move that we approve Haley's due resolution?

[1:50:50] Hold on.

[1:50:51] I get to call for the second.

[1:50:53] to try to miss the meeting, I mean, it was just the prior meeting.

[1:51:00] You were here for the reach set of the, this is the meeting at which we decided that it was too difficult to...

[1:51:11] Yeah, to find a wall to work.

[1:51:13] Yes, yes.

[1:51:15] That was not at the meeting.

[1:51:17] That's okay, because it was in the package.

[1:51:19] Yeah, I did read it.

[1:51:20] But how are we going to do that?

[1:51:23] OK.

[1:51:24] Well, yeah, it's not even that we decided it was too difficult.

[1:51:29] It was too full.

[1:51:31] How do you just define a long term local A?

[1:51:36] And B, off its cuff, is this regardless of how we define it,

[1:51:41] is it appropriate to defend building

[1:51:43] department fees for free market projects?

[1:51:46] Sure, there are a couple of different questions.

[1:51:47] And the overwhelming response to that was a it's too hard to define that. So let's get rid of that and be we don't believe is appropriate to do that

[1:52:00] Yeah, and I added this comments into this to our estimates

[1:52:03] Did you?

[1:52:05] I like did you take this to council yet?

[1:52:07] No, not by it.

[1:52:14] Okay.

[1:52:15] Further questions further comments do you want to?

[1:52:17] I mean

[1:52:18] That's the problem one's time that one of the things it was hard to envision all of the various scenarios that might arise

[1:52:25] But some obvious ones indicated some great unfairness for example

[1:52:30] You could have somebody that would qualify as a long-term

[1:52:35] Local qualified local

[1:52:37] Whose billionaire

[1:52:39] The way you fees for sure, but you have somebody in after house and who on well never get their fees waves who can't get the fees weight

[1:52:47] So, that was the starkest example of how waving fees based on some definition of how long you've been here,

[1:53:00] or some other qualifications attached to who is an local doesn't make any sense.

[1:53:05] Unless you want to tie it to income or something like that, and that's a way beyond anything I think that makes sense.

[1:53:12] Yeah. So then was the pivot to something more workforce oriented.

[1:53:23] No, we just found it in the process.

[1:53:25] We had a long discussion about it.

[1:53:26] And we found that it just was not practically to come up with some kind of a definition

[1:53:32] that would kind of weave through all these different, or there's still been variables.

[1:53:36] Yeah, and you couldn't imagine all of them anyway.

[1:53:39] And ordinance 11 that we were presented with is very pointed so it wasn't like we're talking about a broad like how do we do this in all areas of the code it was a very specific request from one very specific property that asked Council to to do this and so Council directed staff and staff in there.

[1:54:01] the way they have to do it is coming to us saying here is a proposed ordinance 11 does P&D recommend approving it and we said we don't recommend approving it and additionally we don't

[1:54:16] recommend coming up with a qualified local definition because there's too many variables it's too hard to figure out

[1:54:22] from America. So what we did was we asked staff to come up with a proposed resolution that reflected

[1:54:31] or discussion. Okay. And so what Haley's done? And so resolution, I believe, Tracy, we are

[1:54:37] on resolution nine is recommending denial by city council to adopt the fee deferral in ordinance

[1:54:51] open now. No, we're just saying hey, we changed it. Thank you.

[1:54:57] And now, to save him.

[1:55:00] A lot of time, I know that we adopt the new resolution that Haley has written, resolution nine as a written.

[1:55:07] For a peaches in our packet, just.

[1:55:09] I don't look at the packets the same way you do, so I got no idea.

[1:55:13] But it's a really late.

[1:55:15] Wait, this should be the last page in your packet.

[1:55:19] So it is in 1847 in our packet of 150.

[1:55:24] Okay, so and all this is doing is...

[1:55:27] for a wine. Yeah. What we had, or the council not me, but all

[1:55:32] this is. Okay. Good. Is there a second? Second.

[1:55:37] Can we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Charlie.

[1:55:45] Good job.

[1:55:48] Marianne. Yes. Eric. Yes. Tom. Yes. Ken. Yes. Theresa. Yes. Motion passes. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you.

[1:56:00] Without further ado, is there a motion for adjourn to adjourn?

[1:56:03] I'm a adjourn.

[1:56:04] Is there a second?

[1:56:05] Oh, totally has some.

[1:56:06] Totally well.

[1:56:07] Oh, sorry.

[1:56:26] I don't want you gone.

[1:56:28] I do want you to do the courtesy of emailing.

[1:56:32] So, because I can't remember my own schedule,

[1:56:34] let alone is anyone's.

[1:56:39] So, I do not remember that.

[1:56:43] Nor is it reflected in meeting minutes.

[1:56:45] So, there you go.

[1:56:46] All right.

[1:56:48] All in favor of adjourning at 6.28.

[1:56:49] Hi. Perfect. Thank you. Who's the second on that? I'm Tom was the second on that.

[1:57:00] Do you want my meeting? My notes? Because I got something. Thank you. Actually go ahead, yes.

[1:57:08] There are some that I'm why I got nothing, but yeah, I take a lot of notes.

[1:57:12] I see. I'm boring for us. If I were taking notes I'd have a hard time following the discussion.

[1:57:18] It helps me fall into this guy.

[1:57:20] Otherwise I'm like, I have so many other things going on in my brain.

[1:57:23] I don't want to listen to this.

[1:57:25] I got a question.

[1:57:29] Thank you.

[1:57:31] See you.

[1:57:32] Good evening.

[1:57:33] Good job.

[1:57:34] Thank you.

[1:57:36] Thank you.

[1:57:40] And my hand is like,

[1:57:44] I'll see you.

[1:57:46] All right.

[1:57:47] Thank you.

[1:57:48] Thank you.

[1:58:19] Yeah, that's part of our demo, right?

[1:58:22] We never had the right idea of what we were talking about.

[1:58:29] We heard the operands.

[1:58:31] We heard the operands, right?

[1:58:31] Yeah, they were doing it very easily.

[1:58:33] I know.

[1:58:35] We're good at that.

[1:58:37] Sorry, that's so.

[1:58:39] I don't think I'm going to get under the level.

[1:58:42] I don't think I'm going to get under the level.

[1:58:45] I don't think I'm going to.

[1:58:47] Why is that?

[1:58:49] That was a...

[1:58:51] That the plan is a weird thing.

[1:58:53] It's a whole bunch of young adults.

[1:58:57] But you kind of, kind of,

[1:58:59] you know,

[1:59:00] but we're not going to do a technical matters.

[1:59:02] We need to know.

[1:59:04] So, if I say,

[1:59:05] a administrative assignment,

[1:59:06] we're going to be like,

[1:59:07] one hundred or one hundred,

[1:59:09] one hundred,

[1:59:09] two hundred.

[1:59:10] That's that.

[1:59:13] It was pretty stupid.

[1:59:15] It was...

[1:59:15] It was a very stupid thing.

[1:59:46] I think they're going to be local, sorry.

[1:59:49] Is that something?

[1:59:50] No, they don't.

[1:59:51] They don't.

[1:59:52] There you go.

[1:59:54] Do you think they're going to be local?

[1:59:57] They're going to be local.

[1:59:58] They're going to be local.

[2:00:00] The speaker is good to be good at all.

[2:00:03] The speaker is good at all.

[2:00:05] The speaker is good, the speaker is good.

[2:00:07] The speaker is good.

[2:00:10] The speaker is good.

[2:00:13] We're just gonna take a look at the deal with it.

[2:00:17] That's a good deal.

[2:00:19] Thank you.

[2:00:20] I'm so glad to have you here.

[2:00:22] I really want to thank you.

[2:00:24] It's a terrible,

[2:00:26] although we've identified with you,

[2:00:28] with your clothes, but I got

[2:00:37] it.

[2:00:38] I'm not saying that it's for two health workers.

[2:00:43] My name is Rolikron.

[2:00:46] Okay, so, the minute I go, I'm gonna go.

[2:00:48] Okay, so, the minute I go, I'm gonna go.

[2:00:50] I'm the next one.

[2:00:51] Yeah.

[2:00:51] I have grown a more covered-out love.

[2:00:55] It's sort of a question.

[2:00:57] It's basically based on the regulation.

[2:00:59] It can, like, be said.

[2:01:00] We're doing this at a philosophy company,

[2:01:02] and it doesn't mean that if you want to be coming out of that study.

[2:01:04] It would have been a whole different things.

[2:01:10] You mean that was the first question in the other end?

[2:01:14] We don't have to.

[2:01:17] Oh, maybe.

[2:01:18] That's all.

[2:01:21] Oh, it's a rule.

[2:01:23] If you didn't want to take it.

[2:01:24] Well, you know, you get right there.

[2:01:25] There are so many differences.

[2:01:27] Oh, yeah.

[2:01:28] She comes to me.

[2:01:30] Something like that.

[2:01:30] How do you process something?

[2:01:32] You don't know what's up.

[2:01:33] You know what's up.

[2:01:36] It's just kind of, you know, what applies here, because some projects would be, there's a simple sum of you on it.

[2:01:44] Yeah, you can do it.

[2:01:45] You can do it like something.

[2:01:47] No, no, no, no, no.

[2:01:49] You can do it like that.

[2:01:50] You can do it like that.

[2:01:51] I just know.

[2:01:52] I know that.

[2:01:53] In the last 10, 16, he can drive 13 sentences per hour.

[2:02:01] I mean, that's good.

[2:02:01] He's done. He's done the first.

[2:02:04] I mean without a record.

[2:02:05] You wouldn't be able to really prove that, I don't think.

[2:02:08] So, as an nature way, that doesn't allow them. That's a kind of stupid.

[2:02:13] Yeah, I would say that you need to change the nature way.

[2:02:15] Wow, that makes it a little better.

[2:02:19] That's perfect.

[2:02:20] I did it.

[2:02:23] Do you want this one sandwich?

[2:02:25] Oh, I don't give it something.

[2:02:26] This person who is...

[2:02:29] This is like very...

[2:02:30] I help you.

[2:02:37] There we go.

[2:02:47] I didn't think of all the crap we have proved.

[2:02:50] Do you stick around just to say that?

[2:02:56] Well, that's easy.

[2:02:58] Why don't you down on this one?

[2:03:00] A hardship.

[2:03:02] I need to build a three-dimensional group of basement.

[2:03:04] Over on.

[2:03:05] Well, what reason I'm drawing a lot of artists is that it's not pretty much a special necessity

[2:03:12] It's because the guy is not enough nothing that says it we have to be in the business

[2:03:16] Oh, we have to be in the business

[2:03:18] We have to be in the business

[2:03:22] But we've all stood out there, they're funny, fine

[2:03:26] And yeah, like, funny years are fine

[2:03:33] You could have been, probably, when you stole, you could have, I just go, I think you could try that.

[2:03:42] Okay, so it's been, again, usually, really, it's isn't, it's just, it's been a big amount of time of life until one that we could, you know, we're, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right.

ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

Agenda

Transcript