Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19911119 ~ K' ".' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _.......",c PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19. 1991 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:32pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. David Brown arrived shortly after roll call and Tim Mooney shortly after that. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger: This has to do not with the stop sign by Original and Cooper but the change of parking from angle to parallel. I think we should give our support to getting it back to angle parking because there is one heck of lot of parking spaces that got lost with this change. Their rational was sight distance to the sign. That rational does not work when one block away on Aspen Square is exactly the same situation. So I don't buy that rational and we really need to get the parking supply back up there for the winter time. By doing this we must have lost at least 10 spaces. Jasmine: I am glad you brought that up because I walk by there a lot. I know a lot of people use that when the City Market lot is full. A lot of people who are shopping at city Market need to do this because they don't want to walk that far with 10 pounds of groceries. I think most people are very annoyed by it because they don't see a purpose behind it. MOTION Roger: I would move to ask the Planning Dept to pass our dissatisfaction with parallel parking on cooper between Spring and Original. The reason is the loss of the supply of parking at a very essential high turnover parking area necessary for City Market. When we went through city Market approvals we realized their shortage of spaces on-site and in effect though it is not legal or anything else we considered that street parking an essential part of their parking system. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor except Sara. STAFF COMMENTS Diane: Brought up the scheduled work session on the 26th of November at the Library. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. " MINUTES OCTOBER 22. 1991 After corrections: PZM11.19.91 MOTION Richard: I move to approve minutes of October 22, 1991. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES NOVEMBER S. 1991 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of November 5, 1991. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. WEST HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL PUD AND SPECIAL REVIEW Leslie: Presented affidavit of public notice. (attached in record) She then made presentation as attached in record. In my recommendation I would say that staff recommends approval of the subdivision. I would add subdivision, designation of PUD, consolidated PUD process, conceptual PUD approval and special review for parking open space with the following condition. The conditions--the first would say "Prior to final plat approval". And then A, B, C and D would all be prior to final plat approval. And letter c--it should be a final subdivision plat shall be reviewed or approved by the Engineering Dept and a subdivision agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Dept. That is part of C. And then we would have #2 where we would say "Prior to the issuance of a building permit. And then E, F and G are A, Band C. Penny Evans called me today and Penny Evans represented some people who bought a piece of property across the street from this parcel. And actually I got a call last week on this and told them to call the Housing Authority but they are proposing the people who just bought this property would like to make a proposal to the Housing Authority and the City that they swap land. They swap this West Hopkins parcel with the parcel that they just bought. Their thinking is that it would be more land. We could get more parking on site. We don't have to reduce setback requirements. Jasmine: Under this process as we are doing it now if we give conceptual PUD approval here, this is the last time we will see this. Leslie: Correct. Jasmine: And the PUD is merely to vary the placement of the 2 ",'" PZMll.19.91 -'-'-' various things on the site. It does not increase or decrease the density or increase or decrease the FAR. Leslie: Correct. They are asking for specific variance under the PUD overlay. And that is the front, one side yard and the rear yard. They would go to special review for open space because of the AH zoning with you all and the same with the parking. Roger: I have one major concern and that is the encroachment in the setback. We were still thinking of the possibility of a transit system going around this corner and having to cut fairly close to this property. And to have the buildings go into the setback--and I think it was stated in the conceptual that we would like to see that withdrawn from the corner a little bit in case that ever happened. Well obviously city council has indicated the Rio Grande ROW for the down valley rail. However, there is still the need to keep this available for the future for an alternative conveyance to Snowrnass as one possibility for some sort of a fixed guideway system going out and supporting the airport and Airport Business Center. So I have got real problems there. What has happened here is exactly the opposite of what was recommended in the conceptual. Sara: During the conceptual, we didn't talk with Yaw. Some of the ,_. things that were brought up in conceptual haven't come through on a couple of things at all. For instance less of a back yard because we felt people didn't use their back yards. So what happened to all of that, Bob? Bob: Right. That was after the re-zoning we discussed that and we have taken it back and have explored it and it was our opinion that it was important to provide that semi-public space in the back as well. Larry Yaw: We have organized these buildings in clusters. 4 townhouse units which are 2 level. And 3 carriage houses which are units above enclosed parking. One of the design premises which worked with internal space was to give these buildings a street presence characteristic of the west end particularly the victorian west end. So that in this cluster we brought them very close and one of the social reasons for that is try to re-create the porch society where people are really outside hanging out and talking and enjoying each other. Internally we wanted to provide a semi-private space--a court space. There are 11 parking spaces provided on site. 6 are covered. The internal court area was conceived as a semi-private space where kids could play where some of the social action could go on outside the house. ....".,"- 3 PZM11.19.91 Yaw continued his presentation using sketches, drawings and site plans. If we use the setbacks as prescribed it would result in about a 22ft space between these. This takes all the way to the top of the roof. There being gables starting here and here. But it really creates, we think, problems with sunlight coming into there. It creates privacy problems just being that far away. These units don't see out in this direction. And really you are under everybody's thumb in a quite small open space. By moving the setbacks to what we are proposing we are able to achieve something pretty special and a 12ft difference makes a lot of difference here. It does allow sun between these roofs to get into here. It allows enough room off the units to be considered somewhat private in between. And generally just a whole lot better in terms of the living environment. And at no expense to the community character. Roger: Didn't the pedestrian bikeway plan identify Hopkins as a pedestrian and bike corridor? And therefore I think we need to discuss potential sidewalks in this area. I think that is going to be a suggestion of the pedestrian bikeway plan that Hopkins over a period of time be designated as a pedestrian corridor and that usually means sidewalks. Jasmine: That also has to do with the setbacks and so these are all related. Richard: I notice people tend to use the south side of the street as is. People go to the south side where it is more open. There are fewer cars parked and a lot of the use is rollerbladers and runners and people on their bikes. The only people I can see using it as a straight commuting walking route would be people coming from the Marolt housing project. My concern would be to have more space on the street itself for rollerbladers and bikers rather than taking up space with sidewalks that might not be used. Hans Gramiger: I have served on the Neighborhood Advisory Committee and in connection with this project I think that the conventional sidewalk--pedestrian, bicycle trail will be on the south side of Hopkins Ave. I finally have educated myself that possibly I have to donate a strip of land on the south side of West Hopkins along with other neighbors that are working on it. I only interject this thought because I don't think we should be sidetracked. I think we are able on the south side of West Hopkins to take care of the needs of the community for the future and therefor I personally have no objections whether there is going to 4 PZMll. 19.91 be a sidewalk on the other side or not. The consultant with the study has come out and has declared West Hopkins Ave as the primary pedestrian bicycle commuter route going from east to west. Vann: The applicants really don't take issue with the pedestrian plan. Our concern at this point is location and timing. Our premise in asking that sidewalks be omitted at this time in addition to the design considerations of the architects was that sidewalk along this frontage is not necessary to accommodate circulation within this project and that there are no sidewalks anywhere else along here at this time. The issue on 7th st is somewhat different. There is a desire to create a link between the Marolt Bridge and traffic moving in this direction--pedestrian traffic down to the sidewalks that are on portions of Main st and down to the music tent. I believe we could accommodate a sidewalk in this location at this time because there is adequate ROWand width to place that sidewalk in this location. So we suggested as part of the application that the sidewalks be deferred until the Sidewalk Improvement District is formed. One of the concerns was if a Sidewalk Improvement District is formed in the future--these are primarily low income spectrum affordable housing units--who pays for the sidewalk? This can be resolved by earmarking either the amount of the sidewalks as part of the improvements agreement at this time and agreeing on behalf of the applicant to pay it which removes the individual low income affordable housing units from that obligation. Roger: I have no problem with not putting the sidewalks in immediately. I am looking at the future and maybe the need for sidewalks and if it happens to shift to the south side of the street that is one thing. My problem in this is going to be is there going to be sufficient space for sidewalk in the future and if a sidewalk does go into the future my concern is running into the setbacks in those areas where the sidewalks are going to be. Leslie: We were trying to figure out if we were to require a sidewalk on this parcel--did we have the room. And we do have the room to put a sidewalk and a buffer on West Hopkins and on 7th st without encroaching beyond the property line. "-.. The pedestrian plan identifies as guidelines that they would like to see a 5ft buffer and a 5ft sidewalk. However in my discussions with Roxanne those things can be modified given the constraints. For example we have the irrigation ditch and we have existing trees that we are not in any way recommending removal of so we could have 5 PZMll.19.91 our 5ft and 5ft. Tim: I like the 7th st idea and I think that is an important sidewalk. I am willing to put off putting the sidewalks in until we determine what is going to happen on both sides of the street. It is more obvious to me that on the south side there is a straighter line. There aren't a lot of houses over there. And there is more possibilities over there. I really like the ditch. I like the big Cottonwoods that are along that ditch and I think if we decide that we want to include but put off the sidewalks, we can maybe modify the width of the sidewalk. I know economics are a key in doing a project like this. But it dawns on me that there is an easy solution to let the light enter into this common area courtyard if you just drop the whole front building down 2ft. And then work within the setbacks. I really like the project and I like the ideas but I also like the scale that the community is designed on and for everybody who comes in with a unique project to say "Well we want to change the scale just for this one corner of this one block and we want a variance on that". I always wonder why the team just can't figure out how to work within the guidelines. Bob?: I would like to address playing by the rules within the -.. affordable housing regulations. For the 8 townhomes are 25ft which is the maximum allowable without special review within an affordable housing district. So those are played by the rules. What originally we had hoped for when we designate those rear units as carriage units was a mistake on my part. I was hoping we could use the Cottage Infill Program to gain the flexibility on that rear yard setback which would potentially allow 0 rear yard setback a gain of 10 or 15ft in that shift of the carriage houses back. But since those were new units they didn't meet by definition true carriage house. The spirit was there but the letter of the law was not there. So that is where we lost that flexibility on the rear yard setback. And that has required us to change the front and the side. Roger: I definitely favor the variance into the setbacks on the alleys for the carriage houses. I think that just makes sense. But it seems to me what an help this situation with the setback on West Hopkins--because this corner unit is a ground floor bedroom and if this whole unit, and we are not talking about the 7th st setback yet, but if this whole unit was slid to the north up to where the upper level bedroom hits the setback or actually possibly encroaches in the setback, then it cloves this first floor bedroom a lot less into the setback where--it looks like it is a bedroom above and I have little less problem with upper levels encroaching into the setback particularly on an alley than I do a first floor bedroom encroaching on a setback on a streets cape . So I am 6 PZM11.19.91 wondering about moving this as much as you can towards the north to minimize this encroachment down here maybe by half of what you have shown it. Yaw: That would simply mean no pedestrian access here because you would be slamming into it. The only solution to that problem--I have been through this so many times--is to talk the Housing Authority out of one more 3-bedroom unit. That is the only solution I think physically and really is available. I think this coming down to a low shed here really has the effect of changing the scale. Roger: But that puts that bedroom window 5ft within a potential sidewalk. That's my problem. The question comes down to are we trying to put too much into too small a parcel. Jasmine: One of the options we can consider would be to have that bedroom removed and whether it is worthwhile having the tradeoff of having one less bedroom in an affordable housing project which is designed to provide maximum amount of affordable housing and whether that is an acceptable tradeoff for setback. Roger: The setbacks are there for a reason and it, to me, needs a tremendous overpowering reason of community good to allow a tremendous encroachment into the setback. Jasmine opened the public portion of the hearing. Terry?: I live right here in the Scandia Townhouse. Larry, you have done a great job. This property is really important because it is a prototype. I am appalled at the density that there is so much there. But Larry has done a great job with the property. Is this higher than the other? Yaw: Yes, it is. It is 5ft higher here. Terry: This is great because the traffic coming around Main st is really awful so that will buffer it a bit. And there is a lot of traffic through here. We try to keep cars from going there, but we can't. A lot of traffic over from this office building. I spend a lot of time in my bedroom upstairs. My site views and everything and thinking how high are these buildings going to be? It really cuts out a lot from our building. How much lower is it than my building? Yaw: It is 10ft anyway. And then it tilts back with that gabled roof. Terry: In the last year the traffic has increased incredibly on 7 PZM11.19.91 7th st. Foot traffic and car traffic. whizzing through there. Penney Evans: I am here on behalf of Archer Bishop. They just purchased property and they are interested in spending some time with the Housing Authority--not taking away from any of the effort that has been done so far. It is a new development for them and consider trading a parcel for a larger parcel on the property. Some of the questions that you are talking about here would be a larger land parcel to work with. The automobiles come Hans Gramiger: The irrigation ditch, I just want to interject that our plan to vacate a 24ft wide pedestrian bicycle path along West Hopkins Ave would incorporate possibly relocating the ditch from the north side to the south side. There is 2 reasons for it. Namely the city has acquired water rights from the Meadows property and therefore they can irrigate more downtown property. That is a thought to consider in your plan. The affordable housing designation has bonuses for private family. I have no objection to that but I think it should be used more ingenious. Namely I would be more in favor of height variance because what you are looking at that you have a million dollar property--the housing Authority paid a million dollars--and everybody says you have got to squeeze 9 units out of it to justify that price. I go on the theory they could--the City can very easily say "Well, that is fine in private industry but so what? So we got to be accused of squandering your money. That is not the first time". The real problem in the neighborhood is going to be that you here in this room gave a variance to this white house that was built on Main st across from the Hickory House that victorian. You gave a variance on the parking. Then comes the improvement district and takes another space away with a transformer. And now if you look every day you will see 4 or 5 cars from that building parked on your property which is the affordable housing site you are talking about and another 4, 5 or 6 on the lot which is referred to as the Christmas Tree lot. Now what has been happening let's say--with this affordable housing--we must assume that everybody who has a unit there will have to park a regular car and a jeep. And I think that in the long range that you are putting into there another use that generates more parking on the street which is not available. I wish there was a way--whether you have to sacrifice a unit or whether you had to compel the applicant to build underground parking--to take care of your own off-street parking. You see if a private builder would build these units-multiply the bedrooms and each requires an off street parking. That is why the Scandia apartment which is all 5 units are 2 units require 2 off 8 PZMll.19.91 street parking. One where you park now and one under the building. And Terry is right. Only she forgot to say that out of the 3 people who still have a garage the 2 other ones illegally converted their garage to something else. So that already creates another problem. So we have all these infractions and the next building approved if you look at the condominium plat of that building called 700 West Hopkins Condominium it shows exactly where that parking was and somebody removed that by bringing that yard out further. So we have a problem there. When you really look at it you are going to create a tremendous mess with parking around there. That is what I am really concerned about. And I think we cannot sweep that under the carpet. There were no further public comments and Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. Bruce: One point about densities: Unless my map is wrong the Scandia has 5 units on 6,000sqft which is basically 1,200sqft per unit. 700 Hopkins has 15 units on roughly 9,000sqft which is only 600sqft per unit. This project has 11 units on 12,330sqft which is 1,021sqft--nearly the same density as the Scandia. So it's density is not out of line with the rest of the projects that are already on that block. So it is not as if we are somehow slapping a whole bunch of density on this site that is not already in the neighborhood. Richard: I do have a bit of discomfort with that category 3, 3 bedroom on the corner there being the furthest toward the street. I think visually and everywhere you want the building to pull back on the corner if possible. And on the other end of that block of 4 units they have the category 2 3-bedroom which when compared to the 2 bedrooms manage to squeeze a bath and a bedroom into 90 additional square feet. And I think that is really shoehorning things in in order to get that category 2 3-bedroom in the project. Sara: Regarding pulling it all back, I think you would really lose that late afternoon sun. I know the sun sets right at that angle. That would be too bad for everybody to pull it back because that thing sticking out is on the second level. I think it would interfere with that. Regarding parking: I appreciate very much what Hans is saying. Parking is always my issue. And this is going to be deed restricted housing. I would like to propose a suggestion that a restriction be that only 1 car per unit be on premises. I live at Midland Park and I can't have a dog. We are only permitted 1 car per bedroom. And it is really controlled there. I think you can control that by towing or the property manager. I think you can put that into the deed restriction so that the only parking on the 9 PZM11.19.91 street would be guest parking. Hans Gramiger asked about underground parking for this project. Yaw: You could not afford underground parking for this project under any circumstances. All the cost you put--$15,000 per space- -all that money goes into the construction cost of this which is then delineated into what income groups can afford this. Essentially it means that only the one level richer guy--higher income employee--can live here. It does not address the guys who we are trying to address who have less income. Tim: On Hopkins I think that the setbacks are inadequate and I think that I am in favor of making sure that there is a provision in the future for some kind of modified sidewalk. I concur that the corner unit could be modified so that it doesn't encroach even more than the rest of the units. I think that we ought to stay within the proposed setbacks. David: I like this project very much. I think that this piece in particular is a really great contextual piece and takes into consideration the house catiecorner over here with the hip roofs _. and brings the whole mass of the project at this corner down to a 1-story height. And I think that the massing in general from it's ~ original conception is very good. The 4 unit structures really break up what could otherwise be a centennial massing or even a Scandia massing on this site. I think this breaks it up and brings it down. As far as the setbacks go I think they are fine. I think they should be decreased in favor of building. I think it should be a requirement that the applicant builds the porches to encourage the porch society. I don't see porches on this yet--porches where you could put a chair or even 2 chairs per unit with a little rail around it and I think we are missing something here. So I would encourage the applicant to take those porches right up to the property line and build them now rather than waiting for the tenant over the next 40 years to actually build them themselves. Especially knowing that they will stretched from an income standpoint once they move in. It will probably never happen. So I think that setbacks on both sides are just fine. I think the porches should be added. And I think as far as the sidewalks go with due respect to the pedestrian plan and being sensitive to the pleasant pastoral character of this part of town and a part time participant of pedestrian pursuits of this parcel, I propose paved paths be preempted at this time. Roger: Generally I like the project very much. However, I do have a grave problem with the setback encroachment on that corner 3 10 PZM11.19.91 bedroom unit. I like Richard's option very much. Basically I would like it at a minimum to see the encroachment of that setback of the 3-bedroom unit plus or minus a foot in line with the remainder of the units on Hopkins. The other 4 units on Hopkins I can live with that sort of minimal encroachment. I have no problems with deferring the sidewalks. However I do want to know that there is space for a sidewalk in the future. Bruce: I agree completely with David. In fact I am prepared to either make a motion or vote in favor on a motion to approve the project based on the memo that we have got from staff. I am not going to hold the project up over setbacks on either street. Sara: I agree with David and Bruce too. I really like the porches. I would like to see the porches built now if it is in the budget. And I think there should be the variety of bedrooms to encourage the different kind of families that would be for the 3- bedroom. If you put everything down to 2 bedroom, you are going to get all one kind of society there. Richard: I find in general the encroachment into the setback on West Hopkins is all right. Ideally maybe bring the main front of those 4 units into line with the Scandia. It looks like about a 2ft difference at the most along that front property line. ';-- It seems to be the only thing that is forcing the west side--the 7th st units south is a pedestrian walkway between the parking spaces and the 3-bedroom unit that I would certainly be in favor of eliminating that walkway which is 15ft from the alley in order to move it all back 5ft so that the second story bedroom goes back to the 10ft rear yard setback and that would satisfy me completely. In general I like the project. Jasmine: I like the way the project looks on paper. And I know also that in the past I have liked a lot of drawings that didn't turn out to be the way I liked when they were actually built. Originally I was kind of in favor of Richard's re-design. I think we all have a desire to tinker with a project. It seems to me however that a lot of the workings of the project have been very carefully tied in together and that sometimes when you think you are making an improvement by moving something back a few feet it really causes a lot of problems and doesn't really accomplish what you thought it would accomplish. And so I am inclined to go along with Bruce's decision. I think this project works as a whole the way it is designed and when you start monkeying around with one little piece of it you really can ruin it without necessarily accomplishing what you wanted to accomplish. 11 PZM11.19.91 ",,^~ So I would be inclined to approve it as far as the Hopkins Ave setbacks as long as we are sure that we have enough room for the sidewalk if it should ever take place. I am not quite sure about what is going to happen on 7th st and I am kind of worried about that because I am really more concerned about that as pedestrian access than I am on Hopkins. Sara: There is a enough room on 7th isn't there? Jasmine: So we don't really need to worry about 7th st? General consensus was that there was enough room on 7th st. David: As far as the auto impact goes I am sensitive to the impact on the neighborhood. However going through here I don't see that there is a lot of parking on the street and I think even there were 1 car per unit parked on 7th and West Hopkins in this area I think the neighborhood streets can handle it at this location. So to me it is acceptable to do that for this parcel. At the first PPRG meetings we recommended the encroachment into the setbacks on this site and I think at our first review of this project we considered, especially on the alley side, that I think the applicant has done a good job responding to that request from ,-- the PPRG to encroach into the setbacks in order to make it a better proj ect. Another comment PPRG made was to recommend was to protect the internal sidewalks from snow. The dumpster and the passageway here and here instead of shedding off of this. From what I can tell that hasn't been responded to yet. So those are the only comments that I have that I think that other than my recommendation for including porches at this time and the snow protection for the internal walkways be included as condition to the final building permit. MOTION David: I would like to move that P&Z approve this project with the staff recommendations of approval of the subdivision (attached in record) conceptual PUD and Special Review for parking and open space with the following conditions as noted and as previously amended by Leslie with the following additional conditions: That internal sidewalks and walkways and dumpsters and recycling areas be protected from snow shed from the roof. That front porches be added to the project and built at it's initial construction and that those conditions be subject to review at the time of the building permit application. 12 PZM11. 19.91 Bruce seconded the motion. Jasmine: David has conditions which would seconded by Bruce. Roger: I would like to see an additional condition that the corner unit on the corner of 7th and West Hopkins have included as a disclosure item in it's lease agreement or sales agreement or whatever that the plans with the City could include a sidewalk within 5ft of it's bedroom and also the possibility of a fixed guideway system cutting that corner on 7th and West Hopkins coming fairly close to that unit so that those people know that those plans are in there and it is a disclosure item for that unit to know that that could happen some day to them. This would be a protection for us. made the motion with the 2 additional be numbered 8 and 9 and the motion has been Bruce: I don't think we have any legal or moral obligation to put those kinds of things in the notice. Any time there is a street you know certain things are maybe going to happen on that street. I don't see any point in adding that condition. Roger: The difference here is that they are encroaching into a setback which is supposed to give them some minimal protection from that type of thing that does occur on the street. Vann: We are not saying that sidewalks don't have to be installed. We are deferring the issue at least Hopkins street. And therefore we probably have to address it as part of the subdivision improvements agreement and we also have to note it on the filed plat that we submit and then we have to provide a budget for it in the financial guarantee that is provided along with the subdivision improvements agreement all of which will be available to perspective purchasers as conditions that govern this project. Roger: The problem is for example in the conceptual where we request that unit being pulled back from the corner for the reasons of possibly a transit system going by that corner that is going to be hidden from a potential occupant of that unit at this point. I just want disclosure, that is all. Bruce: Let's notice these guys that the highway is going to be coming a half block away from them too. David: I agree with Bruce. It is a matter of public record and we don't have to notify these guys. But at the same time I don't see it as an onerous part of the disclosure to let them know that there may be at some point in time a train system coming into the neighborhood. 13 PZM11.19.91 I would like to amend my previous proposal to adopt Roger's disclosure as condition #10. I would also like to amend my motion to state that there should be no sidewalk on the West Hopkins side and only defer the sidewalk on the 7th st side and so that if there is a sidewalk in the future along West Hopkins that this applicant not be required to pay for it nor should they be required to include it as part of their sidewalk plan at time of subdivision or pulling permit application. Jasmine: So your new motion will include the disclosure item and will include non sidewalk on West Hopkins. Bruce amended his second to include these amendments. Roger: I have a real problem with saying that we are not ever going to have a sidewalk there. That is improper planning. David: I will withdraw the sidewalk condition. Bruce agreed with this for the second to the motion. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. ORIENTATION Was discussed as far as date was concerned. Date for this orientation was decided on as the 10th of December. KAYAK COURSE AMENDMENT TO A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Leslie made presentation as attached in record. George Robinson, head of Parks Dept: Using drawings, maps and sketches showed member of the P&Z what was planned by Parks Dept for the kayak course. Roger: Asked location of this in relation to the rail system. Jasmine: Aren't we just talking about moving dirt? George: Yes. For right now. Jasmine: We are not approving a trail. moving dirt. We are just approving Leslie: Right now we need to put the dirt somewhere. We need this pathway. We need this pedestrian bike--and the 2 to 1 is our worst case scenario. Hopefully we will come back with some retaining wall or terracing and cut that back even further to give us more land than this. 14 ,,,"',<.---, PZM11.19.91 _v Sara asked about stabilizing this. Robinson: At this point in time what we are going to be doing as far as stabilizing the fill will just putting it in here and basically we are just going to be dumping the dirt and pushing it back over. We are not going to have any retaining walls or anything like this at this time. This 2 to 1 we will probably never even get this close. We wanted to show the worst case scenario. Sara: You are not going to have any mud slide into the river. Robinson: Oh, no. I don't need those problems. Tim: What kind of an attraction do you think we are gong to be creating for people to start improvising and using this as a beaten path? Robinson: This is the reason we chose this--it is pretty much the beaten path they are taking right now. Tim: Are we going to have a problem by not constructing something there that is safe or by just putting dirt someplace that then it creates an optical beaten path. Robinson: I hopefully would want to start this project in the Spring. And I am sure you are aware they have all kinds of paths there right now. And if anything, this is much more stable than anything they are going up around now. That is a good point. I will double check with our attorneys. We are making it better than what they are following. Roger: In England they post something like this as "This road is legally closed. Drive on it at your own risk". MOTION Roger: I move to approve the amendment to the Kayak Course Stream Margin Review with conditions 1 through 4 being the same as Planning Office memo dated November 19, 1991. (attached in record) Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine then adjourned the business portion of the meeting. Time was 6:45pm. The commission then continued with a work session on the Kraut Affordable Housing Zone. Clerk 15