Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19920616 J,U ~ PZM6.16.92 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 16. 1992 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Tim Mooney arrived immediately after roll call. David Brown and Bruce Kerr were excused. STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: I am asking for a volunteer from P&Z to serve on the citizen's Committee for City Shop Master Plan. There were no immediate takers. Leslie: Next meeting I will provide an update on the Rio Grande Masterplan. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. ZALUBA 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL NON-COMPLIANCE Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record. He had to have his wall plans approved and finalized before we would grant foundation permit. So we let a foundation permit but he never acted on his foundation permit. He had an excavation permit for the road and that has expired. The foundation permit has expired. What he did though is he went and he cut the road. But he didn't go back in and stabilize the road. We are now going into our second summer. We gave him his approval January 2, 1990. We have had complaints on it for 2 years in a row from the Rappaports who are below complaining of the erosion that is happening off the road. There were 3 conditions of approval that he did not adhere to at all. The was a vertical tie-in wall and boulder wall "And shall be constructed by the applicant and reviewed by the Planning Dept." He has not even made an attempt to do anything with the vertical wall and the boulder wall, the tie-in walls. "The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of Chen & Assoc. 1 PZM6.16.92 regarding slope stability during excavation of the road and shall be reviewed by the Engineering Dept." We got a letter from Chen that they inspected where he is going to do the road and they had a list of recommendations to him on how he could stabilize the road. We reviewed the letter. We accepted it. To our knowledge Chen has not been back out there. And none of the recommendations out of Chen have been adhered to. "No spoils or fill shall be placed by the side of the road cut. All excavated material shall be removed from the site if not used in the construction of the road bed". He did remove all the excavating materials but it was very clear to Jim Gibbard and myself when we went out there right after he cut the road that all the stuff sluffed off the side and what they did is they probably took a backhoe and just raked it back. There were no barriers set up when he cut the road. The Rappaports also called and complained about that. That he cut the road and everything was down over onto the Nordic Trail easement which at the time wasn't a problem because it was in the winter time. But in my opinion it was clearly a violation of the conditions of approval. It was very, very sloppily done in my opinion. "The applicant shall revegetate the upper road cut beginning at the hairpin turn." You will recall that years ago they built that big road and that was going to be the access into the Zaluba property. Then when we made a new access we said "Now if you don't need this you need to start revegetating that. And nothing has been done. I checked with the Building Dept. He did try and get permitted and those have expired. His excavation permit has expired. I talked to Rob Thomson who has been talking to the Rappaports about this. We got a call last week from the Rappaports and again they are concerned about the erosion and nothing has been done. We have a whole file of letters where we have notified Marty Picket, Joe's attorney, that we are very concern. That there are problems and we have been told "We will take care of it". and nothing has happened. What we are recommending and what the P&Z needs to do is set a date to then call in Joe and review his application. Jed caswall, City Attorney: I characterize it as kind of a notice to show cause saying that "Here were the terms of your conditions of approvals. We believe that you are not complying with the following specified facts on which we base that". Then say "Come forward and defend yourself on this and if you can't, then the P&Z may revoke your 8040 Greenline approval or impose such new 2 PZM6.16.92 conditions upon you to get your compliance". We have tried. I have talked to his attorney. I have written letters. We have had lots of promises and nothing is done. I have heard from the Rappaports 2 or 3 times. I have heard from the Rappaports attorneys. I think they have been patient and we just haven't been able to get Mr. Zaluba to do anything. Jasmine: On 8040 Greenline approvals, do we have a certain time frame under which conditions have to be met? Sort of like a vested rights thing? When we give 8040 Greenline approval with say 8 conditions, does he have a finite amount of time to comply with those conditions? Jed: Normally, no. Normally once you grant approval and if it is vested and the approval can't change for 3 years. After the 3 years the approval is still good assuming you haven't put any time limit on it it still is good so long as the underlying zoning and code and everything else hasn't changed to somehow adversely impacted the original approval. As a general matter when a time limit hasn't been specified what the courts like to say is "There is an implied reasonable time in which to comply". I think he has had more than a reasonable period of time in which to comply. In my mind it is clear that he hasn't complied with the conditions under which you granted him his approval. So that may be one thing that you would consider if you were to revoke his approval. That is to say "You have a certain amount of time or your approval will be revoked". Leslie: We did not specify that he had to build his house within a certain time. The problem is he started and he cut the road. And there were certain conditions of approval that went with any beginning of activity. He has no permits right now from the Building Dept. But we had several conditions of approval with which he had to comply before any building permits were pulled and he did get an excavation permit to do the road and he cut the road but-- Roger: Perhaps we should think about bond completion in the future when we look at the type of thing where it ends up being an environmental problem. Jed: Other than HPC I can't recall in the Land Use Code whether there is authority for you to require a bond. This road that he has put in is not a public road. It is a private driveway so there might be some gray area on that. 3 PZM6.16.92 Roger: Maybe not a completion bond but a bond to restore it in it's natural character. Jasmine: Or a bond to protect the people in the house who are having rocks fall on their roof. Jed: They have a remedy right now if they want to. They could sue him. There is no doubt in my mind that they could sue Mr. Zaluba for trespass and nuisance and maybe some other theories and prevail. But obviously they don't want to spend the time or the money doing that and they feel the City is responsible because the City approved that. And we are to a certain extent. I told them and I told their attorney and he recognizes they could bring action but they want the City to do something. MOTION Roger: I move to put on the agenda of July 7, 1992 the review of the 8040 Greenline approval of Lot 3 of the Hoag subdivision. Specifically the non-compliance of 8040 Greenline conditions with respect to the access road. Jed: Also that you instruct the staff to provide written notice to Mr Zaluba of the hearing and setting forth the substance of what will be heard--what the alleged violations are. Roger: I will include that in my motion. Tim: I think we should also inform the Rappaports so that we can have them here. I also think we should have some alternatives to present to Mr. Zaluba as far as what we propose to enact on him if he doesn't comply. Leslie: I will prepare a whole packet for you. staff's recommendation and possible remedies. There will be Leslie: Do you want a site visit? Jasmine: It might not be a bad idea for us to go and take a look at this and see how awful it really is. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Roger made a motion to adjourn meeting. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5:00pm. Janice 4