Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900102 A>\V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 2. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and welton Anderson. Richard Compton was excused. Graeme Means and Mari Peyton were absent. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS None. STAFF COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. MINUTES DECEMBER 19. 1989 Jasmine made a motion to approve these minutes. '........ Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. ,~ PUBLIC HEARING OBLOCK TOWNHOUSES SUBDIVISION. CONDITIONAL USE. GMOS EXEMPTION Welton opened the public hearing. Roger made a motion to table the hearing to meeting of January 16, 1990. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. HOAG LOT .3 SUBDIVISION (ZALUBAl Welton: I would entertain a motion to add this hearing to the agenda. Roger: I so move. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. - Welton: As long as we are on the record I want to clarify what seemed to be a confusing situation at the last meeting on this. I was perceived to have voted for the applicant on the voice vote and then when the roll call vote was taken, what came out of my mouth was not what I wanted to vote. For the record I intended to vote in favor of this applicant the last time. """""',, PZM1.02.90 - Zaluba: since that meeting we have attempted to reduce the mass which is what I am hearing here. We have made some changes in both the design and the square footage of the house as well as the facade to reduce the square footage and to also reduce the facade more. since December we are now dealing with the roof component down from 82ft to 62ft and created a deck over the garage which is actually pretty much covered by the tree line. We have eliminated another 402sqft from the house and reduced the facade by 20ft in this proposal that we are presenting today. In summary of this change the square footage has been reduced 402.75ft and the FAR now is 2438. The FAR didn't change much because we really took off stuff that was above grade and we did lose one bedroom. But we did move some of that square footage around to the back within the hill. We did eliminate 400ft which is almost 10% of the actual floor space in the whole building. Welton asked if there were any questions or comments. - Lennie Oates on behalf of Mr. & Mrs, Rappaport, owners of Lot 5: Mr. Zaluba obviously is making a very substantial effort to comply with the wishes of the P&Z. As a condi tion of any approval we would like to suggest 2 things: One would be that the access road which is the upper road and that is the one that he is going to build be restricted as far as going beyond the house that he is going to build on Lot 3 to service only 1 single family dwelling on the Newfundland unless everyone in the subdivision agrees otherwise. ...--- -,~ The second point would be since apparently there is a problem relating to bulk and scale on this I would ask a question as to is it appropriate as a condition of any approval that there be a deed restriction against further increases in the future in the size of the structure. Zaluba: The only thing I can say on the deed restriction would be that it would still have to come under review. Welton: It is sort of a double protection for the city. Leslie: You can go through an 8040 exemption if you do not add more than 10% floor area to an existing structure. Zaluba: The only other thing is Davis has added on twice to his house down below there. ,,~'-.~ ~- 2 '-"'-, PZMl. 02.90 -- Welton: He went through 8040 each time. The first time he went through 8040 and the second time he got an exemption because the exemption didn't exist the first time. Leslie: So there is that ability for someone to add on. Welton: Unless there is a condition that any addition-- Zaluba: I would agree to any-- Roger: Any addition is no exemption? Zaluba: Yes. I would agree to that. Roger: In other words no exemptions are available. Any addition has to go through 8040 review. Zaluba: So what you are saying, Leslie, is you can get 10% without--just automatic? Leslie: here) Well, if you submit an application--- (she faded away -- Zaluba: For 10% of the existing floor space? Is that FAR or is that-- - Leslie: Floor area. Welton: If you will abide by that. There is a lot of concern because of the height visibility there. Then we are not having games played that it comes off now and then comes back on by exemption next year. Zaluba: What we would agree to would be to releasing the exemption and that any addition would have to go through 8040. Welton: There was a set of conditions that were--a motion was passed on at the last meeting on Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision that were conditions arrive at by the planning Office and the motion was made by Bruce and there were no objections to those condi tions by the appl icant. The motion did not carry. Those same conditions could carryover if the applicant still has no objections to them with the 2 additional conditions that Lennie suggested which I think are real good ones to form a motion for approval. Zaluba: No. That is fine. ";.<";"'- Leslie: I have worded the first one Lennie suggests as the access to the Newfundland Lot 3 shall not be expanded for access ""~' 3 PZMl. 02.90 - beyond the Newfundland lot. homes. It did not include single family Lennie: But the owner of the Newfundland has agreed that they will restrict the development on the Newfundland to one single family residence. And I think we are all clear on that. Welton: And I think the possibility of getting everybody in the Hoag Subdivision to agree to a lot of access for more is not very likely. Zaluba: First of all that would be in the County--any of those mining claims--so they would refer it to you for access. So he would have to go through that and then come back through the County to do that. Roger: So we are going with the separate access road to this property. Is that road also going to access the Newfundland? Zaluba: It will. It goes through that jointly. Roger: And then this old cut back here-- Zaluba: That is going to be revegetated. .""""" - Welton: The area beyond your property that goes over like that and back up that goes up to that--Gard Moses sometimes uses to get up to his house--is that going to ge abandoned? Zaluba: That trail that goes up behind Gard's house? Welton: The one that Gard uses to drive his truck up every once in a while. Roger: There are actually 2 trails splitting off right below the house. Zaluba: Yes. That doesn't come across Lot 3. The trail that we walked up continues on and it goes up above Gard moses I shouse and it goes right out of Little Nell. The part we will revegetate is the switch-back part. I am not clear about where you are talking about. Gard doesn't use that road hardly at all. Leslie: One of the conditions that in fact Joe will sign is to put signage on the road limiting access to the trail and utility easement on there. 0_ Zaluba: Yes. At 2 points. One on the upper part--what I intend to do is when you come off onto Lot 3 from the west is to put a sign up that says "Ski Trail On Private Property" so that they -- 4 ., PZMl. 02.90 "- are aware of that. When they come down at the intersection of Lot 5, Lot 3 and the Forest Service is the main intersection. If we put a sign there that faces west that says "Skiers keep Left, Private Drive Right". And then we will build a 2ft berm there of gravel. Roger: You are talking about the lower end. Zaluba: Yes. At the intersection of the Forest Service Road, Lot 3 and then down at the bottom I guess we would do the same thing. We would put a thing that says "Public ski Trail, Right. Private Drive, Left". That would be right down on ute Avenue. I think that should work. Then we would either work with the City to widen that ski trail so that they can get their equipment up and down. That should be the best solution because we physically divided the trail and the drive all the way and we have eliminated a lot of the common use by building this new drive. We will do a nice job down by ute to make sure it is clear as to what is going on there so people aren't confused. Leslie: Joe, what is now the floor area of the house? /-~"""" Zaluba: what we grade. FAR now is 2,438. It didn't change much because most of took off was above grade. We put some of that under - Welton: There is one small item I would like to discuss and that is the amount of the cut on the west side. That is a tremendous gash cut into the side of that hill. Zaluba: If we raise it, it becomes more visible from ute. If we lower it, it is less visible from ute. And if we lower it we get a bigger cut. So we worked with this and we tried to minimize this cut. There isn't any question it is a large cut on the west side. And we are not opposed to raising the finish grade of the lower level. I don't see how we can do it any higher unless we came up here. We can do that. Under the windows. We have to meet our egress and then anything that was exposed--what I would do then is pour a foundation under there and start the logs up higher. Welton: This is a hillside and the house is built into the hill and the most disappointing houses I see around here are the ones where they just take a slope site and they chop it like that and they make it flat and they put a tract house on a 45 degree slope. ",", 5 ".-, PZMl. 02.90 - Zaluba: I will agree to raise the finish grade to the sill height on the west. Welton: The grade on the west side be raised to the highest extent along the walls-- Roger: sill height might be a little high. Zaluba: We will say "within a foot of the sill height" of any window of any west elevation. Welton: And how are you going to treat those cuts? Zaluba: It really depends on what it is going to look like. We can build a retaining structure in there if it is very steep with a boulder wall just like on Lot 5 in the back there on Rappaport's. On the west side we are probably going to have to do that. In order to taper it we are going to have to cut so much out that it will take a major revegetation. I am not opposed to working with Leslie and the Engineering Dept after we get a cut and the foundation is in to come to a plan just like we are going to do with the tie wall. - Welton: I would like to see a plan worked out between you and the Engineering Dept to even terrace it so that--a rock wall and then there is enough to put some Fir trees in and then a rock wall so that it can be revegetated or landscaped so that it is not a sheer cut covered with rocks. Zaluba: Raising the grade there on the west will help that quite a bit. Welton: So I am thinking of what is this house here and you are going to have a sheer cut there and to do several terraces where you can stage planting. Zaluba: Let's put that in that we will submit a landscape plan for that west cut. I have no problem with a plan like that. Bruce: Based on the fact that the December 19 meeting rejected this application, do we need to have a motion to reconsider? Welton: No. It did not reject it, it just didn't approve it. MOTION: ,.-. Bruce: approve subject Based upon the recommendation of staff I would move to 8040 Greenline Review for Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision to the 8 original conditions outlined in the November 14, -- 6 - PZMl. 02.90 - 1989 Planning Office memo (attached in record). Also subject to the 5 conditions that were referenced at the December 19, meeting which refer to #1 the utility trail easement, #2 signage, #3 the revegetation of the upper road cut and also #3 the access road going through Lot 3 shall not be expanded for access beyond what Lennie suggested in his comments tonight--One single family one the Newfundland lot. #4 the access road that was to be built first to accommodate excavation and development of the building site so that they don't use the trail down below. Also I guess the re-wording of the original condition .3 which referred to the vertical tie in wall and the boulder and a deed restriction of additions having to go through Review and that there is no exemption under 8040 for additions to this house. of 8 wall 8040 any And the new condition regarding the west end of the cut that the applicant shall submit a landscape plan that shall be agreed upon between the applicant, Planning Staff and Engineering staff and that the grade on the west side be raised to approximately window sill level. ,."'....... Also as revised as the plans have been submitted and revised to us tonight showing a reduction square footage of 402.75 and approximately 20 foot reduction in the facade of the structure. - Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5:00pm. - -- 7