Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19920204 j"" "...~. /".._---,.-->>, " "'- /-~.""..... ~ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4. 1992 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Tim Mooney was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Richard: Asked what had happened to Aspen villas PUD which had been tabled to date of January 21, 1992. Kim: They submitted their application for an encroachment license which we wanted them to do April ago. And that is being processed. It is ready to be approved. It has to officially go to Council. Planning & Engineering are both in favor of that particular request. So rather than to keep on bringing it back onto the table I wanted to see what would finally happen at that point. If we had to bring it back to the Commission we would require the applicant to provide new noticing. MOTION . Roger: I move to remove the Aspen Villas PUD amendment from the potential agenda and for them to come back would require a public notice. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. Sara: Several months ago I suggested that a mural might be painted on the back of the employee housing for the bank that is now in the new Library courtyard plaza. Kim: I forwarded that on to Amy at the time and never heard back and will bring that up again. STAFF COMMENTS Diane: Wednesday February 12th at 5:00 in the Council chambers we are having a meeting regarding Hwy 82. This Friday February 7th there is a meeting from 2:00 to 5:00 at the Gibbons Inst. The first draft of the community plan will be discussed. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. /" PZM2.4.92 MINUTES DECEMBER 3. 1991 JANUARY 21. 1992 MOTION Richard: I move to accept the minutes of December 3, 1991. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION After correction: Roger made a motion to approve minutes of January 21, 1992. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. CODE AMENDMENT FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT Diane: This was adopted as an emergency ordinance by Council on January 13, 1992. PHELPS/ MCFARLANE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Leslie made presentation as attached in record. "-- Roger: Any Roaring Fork Greenway issues at this property? Leslie: The only issue is that we are requesting Fisherman's Easement based upon the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan which recommends that access to the river be preserved for recreational use. Rick Lindner, representative for applicant: Ed Phelps and Linda McFarlane were here this last weekend. We discussed this with them and they have no problem with granting that. Leslie: That is an easement 5ft within the river and 5ft on the edge of the bank to allow someone to move around a rock. Rick: My clients wondered if that also meant somebody could come out of the river and walk up through their property? Leslie: No. It is just along the river. Richard: Is there any restriction on the number of bedrooms in this house? Leslie: We have no restrictions on bedrooms except the property owner has to provide one parking space per bedroom on site. So if they can only get 2 parking spaces on site, they can only have 2 bedrooms. '- 2 PZM2.4.92 Rick: According to the architect's calculations there, there are parking spaces for 3 bedrooms and I think that is what the present plans are calling for. Then on #4 where it says "A construction site drainage plan and procedure must be submitted for Engineering Dept approval prior to the issuance of a demolition, excavation or building permit." Is that just for temporary drainage? Leslie: We want to make sure that while you are excavating that no runnoff goes into the river. We also want to make sure that the re-development of the property does not dramatically alter the drainage pattern. As far as the drainage and any runnoff and any erosion the Engineering Dept will work with the applicant. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the stream Margin Review of the Phelps/McFarlane re-development at 163 Park Avenue subject to the conditions as on Planning Office memo dated February ll, 1992. (attached in record) David seconded the motion with all in favor. CITY MAINTENANCE SHOP CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR MAINTENANCE FACILITY IN A PUBLIC ZONE Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. New items which have come up with this review come from Engineering. They want to express their concern about the drainage issue at the site. The vehicles--there has been some concern about effluent from their washing the trucks and that going into the river. staff is adding a condition of approval to safeguard against that basically stating that "No effluent from vehicle washing shall be allowed by surface drainage into Castle Creek". This conditional use is going to legitimize those uses, number of employees, scope of operation that are already there now. David: What physical efforts are going to be made by the applicant to avoid to mitigate that--a pond, a drywell? Kim: The way their land form is now the bank near the river kind of raises up a little bit and we just want to make sure that all surface drainage is contained within that low spot which is in the center of the yard area. ,..,..-..,. - 3 PZM2.4.92 There have been observations that in some cases that trucks are too close to the river when they are washed. David: What if there is an accident? Kim: Any standard has met control and in the case of an emergency like that typically involves berming or some kind of quick fix situation. The fuel tanks themselves are contained in a solid concrete retaining structure. Sara: shop. I recall that they are looking for another site for the How is that going? Kim: He recognizes to do a first rate facility for the needs of our over a hundred vehicle fleet that he needs several acres. Whether or not that is available at this time I am not aware. Sara: Asked about a conditional yearly review. have this added as a condition. I would like to There was general agreement for this conditional review. Bruce: I don't think it is necessary. The EPA is going to be on us worse than anything we could do to ourselves. David: I am inclined to add as a condition that some kind of language that would work out with the City Engineer some sort of study that shows no runnoff be permitted to run into the river. I feel that that would be a reasonable measure to take for this. Kim: We could change #4 to read "No surface drainage shall be allowed to run into Castle Creek". Jasmine then opened the public portion of this hearing. John Foley: I am a resident on Sneaky Lane which is contiguous to this. I wrote a letter to you, Jasmine, on December 22nd which supported the conditions. I have 3 criteria here. I think it should be a condition that it is relocated 100ft from the stream instead of being right on the bank. The EPA mandated removal of the underground storage tanks which now exist. There are procedures for removing contaminated soil. We ask as a condition that the City commit that the entire site be sampled due to environmental assessment of it since the use of the facility since at least 1958 has been petroleum related. ,................. So at the time they take the tanks out if they could survey the entire site and remediate the areas where there has been spillage it would make all of us a lot more comfortable. I can support the -- 4 PZM2.4.92 change in zoning if the characteristics of the maintenance shop could be brought into more of rapport with the neighborhood since it is a residential area. We discussed a fence and landscaping. I note in Kim's memorandum discussion of a fence to go around the portion of the property down on Power Plant Rd and out along Castle Creek. We would like to see that section--that condition be a little more specific. A 6ft fence is not one to mitigate too much of the visual impact. So if we could have a little bit bigger--8 to 12ft fence. That would be a great benefit. And landscaping to include some non-deciduous trees to act as sound baffles. When they fire up those road graders at quarter of five in the morning and they idle for 45 minutes, you are aware of them. So trees would be a help. We recognize that Jack has a real problem. He has 27,000sqft. He needs a lot more room. I have been made aware that there has been discussion of expanding the maintenance facility to include storage for vehicles--to include construction of a mUlti-story building on the property. It would seem to me that the application that they have submitted restricts them in size and use and character of the property. We recognize his problem that he is going to have to refurbish some of the buildings particularly the shed which he uses as his garage. But if the City wants to build a big maintenance there we think that those plans ought to be before you before this zoning change would be allowed. After the fact wouldn't do some of us very much good because I can tell you at least my house would be dominated by a structure of that size. So I was going to suggest the addition of another condition and that is that they are restricted to the size of the current footprint. That doesn't mean they couldn't refurbish the garage shed as best they can. But at the same time it would preclude them unless they came back through the entire P&Z process from building some large structure there. I would like to have more specificity in the conditions. Kim: What they are proposing on this map is all that they are going to get approved for tonight. Any amendments to that are insubstantial or substantial would have to go through whatever review body is called for. The fact that there is a PUD overlay on the site means that that also includes coming back to the Planning commission and the City Council regarding the public hearing. ,r'- Foley: In general I do support the change to Public. I recognize that with more specificity in the conditions particularly the environmental concerns, the relocation of the tanks and sprucing '-- 5 PZM2.4.92 up the area literally. The pad for the above ground petroleum tanks. The genesis of all of this starts where they constructed the tank. The pad is right next to the river and it has been moved. I want the specifics to make sure it didn't slip between the cracks and that the pad is to be moved to that back corner. Kim: I think a fence more than 6 or 8ft would be a more visual impact. Foley: I went over and measured road graders. It is 12ft to the top and it sits within 30ft of my house. I don't know which I would rather look at--the wooden fence or a piece of yellow sculpture. Sara: The trees and the soil testing was all in our approval in the conditions for the fuel tank. Kim: It was discussed and Jack had committed at the meeting and with the neighbors. If you want to add that to specify that--the problem was at the time Jack didn't have a landscape plan. Jasmine asked if there were any other public comments. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. Roger: The location of the tank, to me, is a done deal with the site plan. Then about the site sampling--that was covered in the fuel tank memo and is it necessary to restate it here? I don't have a problem making that a condition with words saying that "Upon removal of the tanks there will be a general site sampling as committed previously by Jack Reid during the fuel tank discussions". David: How would everyone feel as part of Condition #4 where we said "No surface drainage shall be allowed" and we say "allowed into the creek or be allowed to get into the ground water". What that might call for and/or potential contamination. Kim: I think what John is talking about is an environmental survey to give us an as-built situation. What may have occurred in the past and how it is affected today. Remediation would require that to be cleaned up. Monitoring subsurface areas after that-- ?: I think you have eliminated that problem. That is a 24-hour- a-day monitoring thing so that is certainly not going to cause any problem. Bruce: I don't have a problem with us adding in some more ._ conditions but we have already approved as a conditional use the above ground fuel tanks. What we are conditionally approving here -~.,- 6 PZM2.4.92 is the maintenance shop. So if we left out some conditions that we should have had in on the previous approval I don't have a problem with them adding them in here. I think we need to understand this conditional use is for the maintenance shop. It has really nothing to do with the fuel tanks. Roger: About the fence. I am not terribly enthralled with a l2ft fence. I think a 6 or 8ft would be appropriate. My personal op~n~on is that when you get above 6ft then the fence becomes more of a building than what we are trying to screen. Jasmine: Condition situation. I don't think we need to address the fence other than #2. That was already discussed in the fuel tank Roger: Then the landscaping. Kim: The memo that I have lists the 3 conditions of approval that are the first 3 here. If you want to be more specific about landscape conditions--the reality is you have to have a wind row several hundred feet in order to significantly reduce any sound problem so one row of large Spruce isn't going to do it. I think if you put a screen fence up there what noise from the river will bounce back to the homes across the way and you would probably hear more noise from the river with the fence there. Richard: Along Int. 91 in Mass there are subdivisions that are right close to the freeway. They have built some huge fences there with overlapping sections of wood which I think act as effective sound screens. Perhaps if the fence here however it is built is built in a way that does reflect sound back into the maintenance yard rather than letting it pass through. Kim: It is going to be a split wood screen fence. Bruce: What about putting in a condition that our staff can submit a landscape plan that can be approved by the Planning Office. Kim: I was actually going to work with Jack to do that. So "Planning shall work with the Streets Dept to devise a reasonable landscaping plan". David: I want to emphasize to the neighbors that it is a great idea to put some more landscaping around the yard. But I hope you don't expect that that is really going to have any--it is not going to do anything for the acoustics. Jasmine: In my informal poll the majority of the commission did _'_ want to set up some sort of procedure for a review after a year or maybe a yearly review continuing after that. '- 7 PZM2.4.92 MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Conditional Use of the maintenance facility in the Public Zone at the Power Plant Property at l080 Power Plant Road subject to conditions #1 through #3 being iterated on the Planning Office memo dated February 4, 1992. Condition #4 shall read "No surface drainage shall be allowed into Castle Creek". Condition #5 "Upon removal of the subsurface tanks the general site sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the representation of the streets superintendent at a previous meeting". Condition #6 "Planning Office shall work with the Streets developing a landscape plan which includes fencing, materials, etc". Dept in fencing David seconded the motion. Sara: I agree to leave the yearly review off. If it has to meet EPA standards, we will hear about it from the EPA. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. UTE PARK SUBDIVISION FINAL PUD 8040 GREENLINE. REZONING. TEXT AMENDMENT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Tom stevens, representative for the applicant: Meers, engineer and consultant on avalanches. Introduced Art Art Mears: problems. Educated commission on snow avalanche engineering David: What would be the effect of a sheet collapse across the whole face of this particular slope that might take out all the trees above it? ,....."'''- We are looking at the phase development of this project for that upper left house. It may not be built initially. And one of the recommendations from the Planning Dept is that the re-enforced concrete structure be contained in the Public Housing portion--to the uphill side so that if the single family house on the upper left isn't built initially that the runnoff be mitigated in the meantime. Does that make sense from your standpoint. '-- 8 PZM2.4.92 .""..-~"'~~ Would you say that the situation we are looking at here is similar to building in Florida where you have potential hurricane? Down there you build on the second floor and let the water run in and you design your foundation to withstand a 10ft wall of water coming in. Is that an overstated analogy? Mears: What a sheet collapse would do initially is fracture in the open areas and extend into the--not real dense forrest--to give you a perspective for those of you who ski if you can ski through the woods and the trees are so close together that you are not comfortable making turns, then the trees are probably close enough together to stop an avalanche from releasing. If it is an open gladed area and there are trees there but they are not real close together you can get fractures going through trees. The worst conditions in this area would probably be a dry soft slab avalanche that built up on top of an extensive weak layer like we have out there right now. Where we put down a meter or so of new slab on top of it in a storm that persists for several days and snowpack builds up that much. Those are the conditions that I assume when I did the analysis. The avalanche would run through there, would remove some trees. It would knock down some of these small Aspen trees that we see down here. Some of those would be entrained into the flow. But the speed by the time it got to the upper building site would be on the order of 10 meters per second or 20 miles an hour or so. The reason it can extend out into the ute Ave area is because the slope remains relatively steep in there. And so it doesn't decelerate like it would on a flat surface or where it goes up the other way. What happens if that upper building isn't built? The first thing the avalanche would hit would be these buildings. Now if you knew this building wasn't going to be there, you need to plan for structural protection of those buildings. That makes sense. Re: The Keyes and floods and building from the second floor. What happens is if you create an open area like that and then it gets used for something. People use it for something that wasn't originally intended and suddenly you have got what was going to be an open area for mitigation that ends up being used for something else and so you have an exposure problem. I prefer to just essentially stop the slide at the top of the building in this case. I would not want to see the building up on top of stilts. .('0""-' Roger: Right now it appears that the upper building is almost set up as a dam for the avalanche. Do you prefer that as opposed to orienting it in such a way that it is a dam with a prow so to ,- 9 PZM2.4.92 speak. Mears: I have seen both. I have designed both. I like this kind better. Where it serves as a dam for the simple reason that it stops the runout. Whereas if you split something laterally then it goes somewhere else. And so even the frequency of avalanching is real low why not stop it if you can. I prefer to stop it. Both are feasible. Richard: What do you know about the historical forestation on this slope. Mears: I don't know if miners cut that down or if there was a fire in there that did it. When I looked at the Forest Service areal photos it looked like it was less grown in before the middle part of this century. So I assumed it was avalanches. It may not have been an avalanche that did that but it is steep enough to be an avalanche path. I assumed it was and took that into consideration when I computed out the design of the buildings. The normal sequence is this kind of a forest will grow--a deciduous forest will gradually create shade and it will create a slightly different environment because of what it is like and then--a conifer forest--given a long time period I don't think it is going to thin out. Kim: I think the de-forestation was a result of the miners totally taking every stick of wood off of Aspen Mountain. They wiped out everything from Shadow Mountain to Smuggler Mountain. Richard: Do you have any comments on the proposed cross country ski trail which goes above all the buildings there. Mears: I think it is a good idea. I don't have any problem with that because we are not talking about a frequent avalanche problem. That trail that goes up by the high point here is more frequent but it still only comes down about once a year on the average. I used to ski through trails like that all the time. I don't have any problems with that ski trail. Bruce: Apparently your concern is that you don't want to have to spend the money in the affordable housing units to mitigate against what Art has recommended. I am wondering if you have a problem with somehow the linkage existing between the development of Lots #1 and #4 so that we get the affordable housing at the earliest possible date. But if we don't get it prior to the development of the structure on Lot #1-- Tom: No we don't have a problem with that. That was one of the concerns at the last meeting. We have brought with us a proposed '-",- 10 PZM2.4.92 construction timing plan. Commission. He gave these out to members of the Essentially what it says is "The building permit on Lot #1 shall trigger the building permit on the deed restricted units". And so that they happen simultaneously. In the event that Lot #1 is not the trigger and we go out to a period of 2 years from now from the filing of the plat and the deed restricted housing is still not coming on line because Lot #1 has not been there to trigger them, then we will go ahead at that point in a 2 year time frame and build the deed restricted units and bring them into compliance with the avalanche mitigation knowing that the next year Lot #1 may get built and that would have been just wasted money. At some point in time we have to say Lot #1 is shadowing the deed restricted units and if it doesn't go in first then we need to make alternate plans. Sara: One thing we didn't discuss is once a hillside or mountain side has been excavated and disturbed and vegetation has been removed--of course this is at the bottom of it all--but what does that do? Now you have a slide surface. Mears: The excavation that is required for the construction that I see on that map would have no bearing on the avalanche hazard. It releases well above there on the steeper slopes. In terms of the friction of the avalanche moving, it would also have negligible impact because you have got 100 yards or more of trees above there. I couldn't calculate what the difference in avalanche performance at a given point would as a result of the excavation. What I can calculate is how much shorter the avalanche will go as a result of the building stopping it but the removal of vegetation behind it would be negligible because the avalanche path is too long. It has so much natural stuff to go through before it gets there anyway that it really doesn't make any difference. If there is a forest fire you are going to increase the magnitude and frequency of avalanches because you are not going to have the anchoring effect of the trees. ?: Of course if a forest fire takes out all of the vegetation around the house it is probably going to take out the house so you wouldn't have to worry about the avalanche. Bruce: As I understand it Lots #1 through #3 are going to be sold to private individuals. Then who is the owner/developer/builder of Lot #4? Tom: The applicant now and will remain so. 11 PZM2.4.92 Bruce: So that when the applicant sells Lot #1 and they take out a building permit then he has got to be geared up with financing or whatever in order to build on Lot #4. Tom: That is correct. All the development on Lot #4 will be the burden of the applicant. Kim: Earlier we talked about the timing in general regardless of the avalanche conditions that affordable housing needs to be commenced at the time when the free market components start. We originally talked about sale of any of the particular free market lots. But if Lot #2 or #3 get sold first and the guy is ready to go immediately, how will this timing change that? Tom: Since we don't know what is going to happen in terms of the sale of Lots #2 and #3 and they are not related to this in terms of geologic mitigation we have separated the 2. There is a potential under this plan that Lot #2 would sell and that home would get built prior to the deed restricted units getting constructed. What we have done though is in recognition of the fact that we don't want to go out a long period of time with units say only Lots #2 and #3 selling and #1 never sells. We don't want to go out a period of time without the deed restricted units having to kick in. That is why we put a 2 year limit on it. Kim: I think that staff would be more comfortable with we are going to stay with the proposal 2 buildings that if one of the Lots #2 or #3 gets sold and developed that that would initiate construction of the first western-most affordable housing building so that we have some kind of concurrent timing between the free market and a certain portion of affordable component. Sara: Then that means though that if Lot #l isn't sold they have a financial burden that they have to put in that engineering recommended by Art. Kim: That 3-plex on the right appears to be outside of the red zone maybe a portion of it in the powder blast area and that could be maybe inched over more to have better level of protection just by virtue of avoiding those areas prior to actually having to go with the structural mitigation for those 3 units on that side. Tom: What we have tried to do in this thing is try and balance out 2 different things. One is if we do those units first, are we putting those units at risk above and beyond what we can provide ,,".._ from architectural mitigation. There has always been concerns about people being outside. So we want to keep that to an absolute ...'"- 12 /' PZM2.4.92 minimum. That is why our real goal is to get Lot #1 built prior to the development of the deed restricted units. The second issue is just the simple economies of scale is we can put those units on the market at less cost if we build 7 than if we build 3 and then come back. If we can excavate the whole thing at one shot, pour all the concrete, do all the framing, the cost comes down. If we have to do 2 complete different exercises, the cost goes up. Tom: We have put a 2 year outside limit on the construction of those in any case. And to be honest projects like this are not eminently financable so that we had hoped to sell at least one of those lots in order to facilitate the construction of this other. It is our goal to build Lot #1 and the employee housing first. The employee housing is as much a detriment to the project as it is a benefit to the community. And we think that when it is in place and people can see what it is going to look like that it will be less detrimental than the threat of it. So we would like to get it there as quickly as possible because we think then that will defuse that concern that the marketplace has. Jasmine: I think it is incumbent upon us and our responsibilities to the community to make sure that we don't get a situation, no matter what happens, where we have 2 free market units and no employee housing. That would be a tremendous breach of faith. Roger: I like this concept. The one problem I have is the ~ssuance of a building permit doesn't guarantee the construction of a house particularly as it pertains to Lot #l. So how do we get around that? Is it a completion bond along with the issuance of a building permit for that structure on Lot #l? What happens if the building has been issued and the developer goes bankrupt? We have got to get the wording such that it relates to a completion of the building of Lot #1. Jasmine: It seems to me that all of these conditions or proposed wordings are based on the assumption that the members of the Commission are satisfied that the report that Art made about the presence of the house on Lot #1 would be adequate to address their concerns about the avalanche area in general and the advisability of building in this area to begin with. I would like to just make sure that the Commission is in agreement that if Lot #1 is developed as recommended that that would be adequate to address their concerns about the avalanche. David: I think the way the project is laid out is fine and the recommendations by Art will substantially mitigate any damage potential from avalanche. That is my feeling having heard all of ',-- 13 PZM2.4.92 the evidence. I still question as to whether or not the prudent way to develop this wouldn't be to try to avoid building anything within the avalanche area. It is still a concern of mine. Roger: I have really not too much of a problem with the project so long as unit #1 is built and in place prior to or simultaneous with the affordable housing units. I have to agree with Art's findings. I have no doubt but that this would work. My major problem is how are we going to get the building done and completed on Lot #1 before or simultaneously with the affordable housing. Richard: I am comfortable with Art's presentation. My own experience is that these are not major slide paths and that something can be constructed on Lot #1 to shield the affordable housing units. The question I have is that the building as represented there may not be what gets built. And the owner may decide to shove it all to the west and keep his building out of the slide path which means that you still have to build the 4-plex so that it will withstand any slide at that point. Bruce: I am satisfied with Art's findings. Sara: Yes. The engineering mitigation--who will check on that? Tom: The Building Dept. Sara: How do they have the expertise? Tom: What we will need to do is on the plat is put any language that would require a homeowner to address anything in specifics. In this particular case that language would be--especially in the case what we are calling conditional zones--that mitigation would have to be provided in the structure of the building. At that point the Building Dept sees that red flag on the plat and they immediately check the plans to see if that has been done. It will be their responsibility to obtain that expertise since it will be a specific review criteria on this project. Kim: The plat will reference design criteria as further described in the subdivision agreement and the PUD documents which are filed and will turn up in any title search. Mears: The structural engineering will be simple to resist the avalanche loads. The engineer has to be registered with the state in order to do the work. ,.<;" .-""- Jasmine: It seems that the majority of the Commission feels that if the project is built as proposed that the avalanche danger could '- 14 PZM2.4.92 be mitigated by the prior construction of the house on Lot #1 assuming it is in that place. Kim: The Fire Marshal is comfortable in waiting for each individual lot to be developed so that he can evaluate a turn- around. I think we have to make sure that we get an adequate trigger--a condition of approval would be in the resolution and resos typically follow construction on an 8040 lot. I also think it is just a matter of making buyers aware that plat note should be on there indicating that in this area a turn-around meeting the Fire Marshal's requirements must be provided--designed and built with whatever construction occurs on the site. Jasmine: Something we need to discuss further is ute Avenue possible development. You gave us an indication that the potential for development to the east on ute Avenue--obviously nobody knows exactly what could happen there. But you have given us a potential and how much of that potential would have to be accessed from ute Ave as opposed to Hwy 82. Roger: My concern would be the red lights but that is in County territory and we virtually have no control over the subdivision or anything else that happens there. So we are looking at 65 units as a bare minimum of what could happen out there. All they have to do is rezone and we could be looking at spread city out there. And that would be a tremendous impact on ute Avenue. Tom: Right now the code requires a 60ft ROW through there. And what we had proposed was a 40ft ROW based on some parking requirements with the deed restricted units. In the event that additional development is going to take place out there we don't necessarily feel comfortable asking the Engineering Dept to make a recommendation against the code. We do have a plan that we have worked out with Chuck that would allow us to maintain the 60ft ROW. So to the extent that we don't require a variance in that ROW hopefully would alleviate that problem. Roger: One of the problems too is if you put a 60ft ROW out there it is just a green light for more development because they say "The ROW is there and you can't keep us from developing". Tom: If a 60ft comply with it. need to make any ROW is a recommendation of this Board, we can If you prefer to bring it down to 40ft we don't changes to comply with that. ~ Richard: 40ft seems adequate to me. You can have 212ft driving lanes plus shoulders within 40ft. I don't think any sidewalks are planned for this area or bicycle paths extending beyond the Aspen 15 PZM2.4.92 Club there. Jasmine: We also had the affordable housing category restrictions. And that has been revised from the previous memo. Tom: We are fine with them. Jasmine then asked for comments from the public. Rob Thomson, City Engineer: We did some of the review on this for Mr. Mears and in Lot #1 you show in the conditional zone--it is just shown as per the building envelope. What happens to the left of the building envelope as far as slide zones? Mears: The avalanche is wider than the map shows--or could be. Rob: Where the building is actually located that is the part that shelters the employee housing. These are details that are worked out in the final design process. In the application they said that any avalanche mitigation or any reference to avalanche be written out of the deeds for the affordable housing units. I think it should be included in that. Effectively you are building a dam up above there and they need to be aware of it as they are buying the units for insurance or whatever. I think they need to know about it. There were no other public comments and Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. Bruce: I am concerned about what remedies the city really has if you should sell those 3 free market lots, take you money and say "Adios Amigos, I am in Mexico. I dare you to try to build on Lot #4". Or that you find yourself in a position where somehow, given the way financing is, that somehow you just couldn't get your construction financing together and it is time to build the affordable on Lot #4 and you don't have the money together. Or that you have flipped the project to somebody else and they are in those scenarios. I am concerned about what remedies the city really has to insure that the affordable housing gets built at some point in time and it is going to be protected from avalanche by the dam house. (Bruce went through all that just to be able to get that last line in. It was much appreciated by everyone.) Diane: In the past we have bonds such as the Ritz. It is something we need to explore further. Something along the lines that a recommendation that you put forth to Council and that you have time in between to give them an opportunity to-- -, 16 PZM2.4.92 Tom: One thing that can happen is we will have to file Subdivision Improvements Agreement that meets the approval of the City Attorney. Subdivision Improvements Agreement typically requires some satisfaction that certain items will be completed, typically the landscaping, public improvements, etc. within the AH Zone this is always going to come up and I would imagine that you will require within the Subdivision Improvements Agreement some assurance that the deed restricted units will get built. From a legal standpoint there has to be 100% assurance that it gets built. Roger: I would suggest that we have this as a threshold condition over and above the other conditions. But leave it to the developer and the City Attorney to come up with an agreement to satisfy these before the rest goes on. This would be the type of thing that I would really like to see the agreement come back to us before I approve the rest of it. r- If we can make a threshold condition on that basis I am willing to go forward. I just don't want to see it as one of twenty-four conditions. It is #1 and if that condition is met then everything else can go on. ~- Diane: I would prefer that you let it go forward. Staff is very much aware of the importance of it to the Commission and we work it out with the City Attorney so that they are not held up. You are going to see it again but I would like it to move forward. David: As part of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement along with sidewalks, driveways, the affordable housing component of this project is a public amenity which is directly tied to the whole concept of affordable housing. To make it a feasible project I think that to have some sort of a phase completion bond where portions of the bond were taken out with the sale of each of the lots might be a way to go. Just give recommendations to the City Attorney that perhaps a phase completion bond and/or if the developer or subsequent developers do fail, then perhaps dedicating the deed restricted lot--Lot #4 to the Housing Authority or the City to allow them to carry forward the development of the affordable housing component. Tom: The safeguard to all of this is that we cannot even get a clearing permit without a filed Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Nothing can be done until that is signed. ., .' Kim: Prior to Council approval of the project a completion bond or financial assurance package must be approved as part of the -- 17 PZM2.4.92 package and the details shall be listed in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Roger: To satisfy these points--that we want to make right now so it gives the Attorney some guidance as to what our problems are. The specific points are: I want to indicate that #l--Lot #1 and the affordable housing shall be accomplished either simultaneously or #1 slightly prior to the affordable housing. #2--that the Lot #1 is developed in such a way as to protect Lot #4 from avalanche. Jasmine: #3 would be that we need to have assurance that the employee housing will be completed and that it will be properly mitigated even if Lot #1 is not built and that provisions have to be made for what happens if Lots #2 and #3 get sold first before Lot #1 and the time frame for constructing employee housing. That is why I don't want to put that in here. I think we have to let this be worked out because we are going to get too tangled up in this. Richard: I see 2 conditions. of the affordable housing units by the applicant here. #l--guaranteeing the construction and #2--the mitigation as suggested Prior to the approval of a Subdivision Improvements Agreement the applicant shall guarantee to the satisfaction of the City Council, the City Attorney that the affordable housing component will be completed concurrently with the sale and development of the 3 free market lots. And then another condition to the effect of the geologic mitigation, what I suggest is B where it says "Construction of the house on Lot #1 shall occur prior to or simultaneously with the construction of the deed restricted units on Lot #4 and that that building will shield the buildings on Lot #4 or the buildings on Lot #4 will be constructed to withstand the predicted avalanche loads". Tom: We suggested the tying of building permits on Lots #l and #4. A really more appropriate yardstick would be certificates of occupancy for those 2 buildings. Jasmine: We need a condition #1 that is not specific. I think the point that we are trying to make has been very clearly understood by the Planning Office and I think these have to be worked out. ., Mears: What you want is to make sure that the affordable places are built. And you want to make sure they are protected. l8 PZM2.4.92 Jasmine: The other concern is that they are built in a certain timely manner and that the City is protected in case something happens to the applicant. Mears: That is all you need to say--that they will be built and that they will be protected against avalanches or satisfactorily mitigate the structures themselves. Roger: So I am saying prior to approval by city Council the applicant with the city Attorney approval shall come up with an agreement which will #1 assure affordable housing shall be built and #2 that avalanche danger shall be mitigated and the details of how that is going to be done will be in the prior agreement between the Attorney and the applicant. Tom: Is there a problem or reluctance to having those done in the context of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement? That is the typical tool for these assurances. Jasmine: stage. We want these done before the Subdivision Agreement "Prior to approval by city council the applicant and the City /".- Attorney shall develop a means to ensure that the affordable housing shall be built and #2 that the affordable housing shall be protected from avalanche danger." Bruce: Encompassing all concerns expressed by the Planning & Zoning commission at our meeting of February 4, 1992. Jasmine: That is the threshold condition. Bruce: The condition of approval is that these guys get with the Planning Office and the City Attorney and work out how they are going to answer our concerns about those things before they go to City Council. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of ute Park subdivision PUD and GMQS exemptions and approve 8040 Greenline and the Special Reviews for parking and open space contingent that prior approval by city council the applicant with the city Attorney shall develop a means of #1 assuring the affordable housing shall be built. #2 the avalanche danger shall be mitigated encompassing all the concerns expressed by the Planning & Zoning commission at this meeting of February 4, 1992. And further conditions 1 through 24 of Planning Office memo dated January 21, 1992 as modified in particular with condition #19 and #22 in the Planning Office memo dated February 4, 1992. We will add a condition #25 recommending ,..- '-.- 19 PZM2.4.92 that the deed restrictions be in accordance with the Housing Authority recommendation of 4 category 4 units and 3 category 3 units. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine then adjourned the business portion of the meeting. Time was 7:15pm. commission then continued with a work session on the Kraut Affordable Housing Project Text Amendment. k - -.;-~, 20