Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19920721 f'" ~-\'u , , ,- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21. 1992 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Bruce Kerr and Tim Mooney were excused. David Brown arrived 4:50pm. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jasmine: I have a comment about the Galena Street shuttle. I have tried to take it for the second time to get to these meetings at the Library. I have yet to find it. When I get here there is usually one down here and one came up just as I was arriving at the Library. But there is no signage for the shuttle. Now I know people must be riding it. They keep saying in the paper that they do. There is no indication of where to get it or where it stops. And if I know about it and have been unable to find it the last 2 weeks, I have doubts that the tourists can find it. .,,-... -- I think something should be done to at least put up some signs on Galena Street that say "Go to this corner or go to that corner"- -something like that. There were none. STAFF COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES JULY 7. 1992 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of July 7, 1992. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. GARRISH REZONING TO R-1S Jasmine opened the pUblic hearing. Kim: Made presentation as attached in record. Paul Taddune, Attorney for Garrish: The only thing that was not r addressed at the last meeting was that we believe there was an inadvertent mistake in the zoning and we ask that fees be waived ''''- in this case. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend rezoning the western portion of the ,r.'..-...... '- PZM7. 21. 92 Garrish parcel from R-30 PUD to R-15 Moderate Density Residential because of an apparent mistake in the original zoning of the property. Richard seconded the motion. Sara: How much is the rezoning fee? Garrish: Nineteen hundred and seventy dollars and thirty cents. My wife and kids are in the basement. They haven't had anything to eat for two weeks and if I don't get my refund, they won't have anything for another two weeks. Jasmine: Roger's motion indicates to city council that our belief is that the rezoning is to correct a previous error and that I would think that you would then be able to make a good case to Council that a reduction in fees is in order. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Jasmine closed the public hearing. BRADEN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW '- Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Sara: I have a proposal to add to the #1 condition. I would like added to that "The applicant must submit annually to the Housing Authority a copy of the lease for the residence occupied unit to reafirm the deed restriction of the Housing Authority". It is import to me because we are not renting them out. We have approved FAR bonuses. We have approved all kinds of things. We have approved wonderful studio space. I want there to be some sort of accountability that the onus is on the owner of the ADU and not the Housing Authority to have to make an account of what is going on. Either a lease or reafirm that they realize it is deed restricted. John Bennett is even suggesting that somehow a letter be written. He doesn't want to see it taking up secretarial office time in the Planning Dept or the Housing Authority. But somehow it needs to be sent to the Housing Authority. If it is not and we overlook any kind of monitoring of it we have done a great disservice to the community. p.~>.,,,., -- Richard: We are doing ourselves a disservice because we are creating these units and counting them as housing inventory. And 2 PZM7. 21. 92 if they are not being used we are fooling ourselves. Braden: happens of them The problem will be to remember to do it. And what if you don't? My hunch on these units is probably half will be used by caretakers or something of that sort. Roger: What makes sense would be the Housing Authority having a list of these units and send out a form letter. Jasmine: The problem is--going back some time ago--one of the so- called employee units that was put into one of the duplexes over on East Hyman--well there was an employee unit in one of those that was never used as an employee unit. Then the new owner who was not the same person who had come through with the application said "I never knew this was supposed to be an employee unit". I think that having the owner of the property submit these will tend to avoid that kind of situation. Sara's point is that we want all of these property owners to be aware that we are keeping track of you and that this is not just an additional guest room. -- ,_ Roger: I really like the idea because the Housing Office is supposed to have an inventory. Sending out questionnaires specifically for these in effect reminding them that these are residential ADUs and all they have to do is fill out the occupancy record on this form letter. That would accomplish it very well. Yes, there is the cost of developing the form letter and questionnaire and the mailing of it. But I think you have a better chance of keeping people reminded that they are ADUs as opposed to hoping they will come in on their own. David: I think that staff's recommendation is reasonable and I would make one additional condition. (David spoke so very softly from here on) Jasmine1--This puts the owner on notice about the fact that the ADU has to be deed restricted and that if it is not rented the owner of the property still has to be aware that there is a deed restriction on the property. Roger's suggestion would accomplish the same thing. He thinks it might be better to have the Housing Authority send out a yearly form letter requesting the owners of all ADUs to supply either the rental history or their re-affirmation of the fact that they realize that it is deed restricted. - --- Roger: I think the latter. I like the direction. I am not sure it is reasonable at this point to require it of this applicant. 3 PZM7. 21. 92 But I think as a general mechanism that keep track of the inventory of all ADUs. to put the burden of the affirmation on the Housing Office should I would be more inclined the Housing Authority. Richard: I support Roger's approach for the reason that you can't make it retroactive. To make it meaningful we need to include all the units that have been approved to date which is several dozen. Roger: The questionnaire can be retroactive. All you are asking is the occupancy record of the unit. That informs them that the unit is a restricted unit. Kim: Which I believe is the same as spending money on a home that the title policy states this property has a deed restriction on it. That is not the kind of thing you are going to forget very readily. Jasmine: Well, it has happened in the past. -- Sara: This is not being brought just for you, the applicant here today. At the meeting last night I threw up my hands and said "I have had it. I can't stand approving these for 2 years now and we have no idea what has happened to them". This is really to get the Housing Authority and the Planning Office to get some sort of record on these ADUs. Jasmine: I think you are absolutely right. Roger: It is something we really need the Housing Authority once a year to on their mailing list they punch into their mailing list that comes up with this inventory that it sends out a blanket form to all ADU owners. David: I agree with that. Jasmine then asked for public comment. Braden: I feel that if you have to go and get a form and then fill it out--if it is precipitated by the Housing Authority I think then it serves the purpose. Kim: We have approved probably 50 units now. I would say only half of those have been restricted and then 3/4 of those restricted units are actually built so far. There is a point at which the requirement to be involved in that will come after you restrict it and then after you actually construct it. MOTION '- Roger: I move to approve the conditional use of 420sqft above- grade accessory dwelling unit for the Braden Residence at 973 Queen 4 PZM7. 21. 92 street with the conditions #1 through #5 on the Planning Office memo dated July 21, 1992. David seconded the motion. I would like to amend the motion to say that all of the UBC special attention paid to mumble-- ? Chapter spiral stairs Spiral stairs as such --mumble--whether or not it is considered an exit ----whether it is an acceptable exit --mumble-- Roger: Well, I will accept that as condition #6. I amend my motion. David: I amend my second. There was discussion over plans. ,.,....... Richard: I have a low level of comfort with this one. see that kitchen drawn in the first place. And the bedroom is bedroom #5 and there is no bedroom #4 except I didn't basement the ADU. ....- Braden: I am inconsistent with the labeling of my bedrooms. The ADU is #3 and bedroom #4--he did a rundown on the numbers. Richard: I have a hard time with an ADU being called a bedroom out of the numbers in the house. To me it indicates that it is part of the house and not a separate unit. Braden: The Building Dept asks you to label the bedrooms and on their permit application they call it an ADU and bedroom #3. Jasmine: That is a valid point which is that if the ADU is not in fact going to be occupied by somebody like a caretaker what in fact has happened is that you got an FAR bonus to construct a bigger house than you would have had otherwise. Kim: What we have discussed in the past is that Condition #3 says the ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on the building permit. I think to call it Accessory Dwelling unit (Bedroom #3) not only skirts this requirement but exploits the intent of the Ordinance by including it in the general building. You would have to list the house as a 4 bedroom house with a deed restricted accessory dwelling unit. To me that is the way the house should be presented, not as a 5 bedroom house. '- Richard: Approving situations like this we have no guarantee that it will be used for our purposes which is to house caretaker or 5 PZM7.21.92 other persons working in the community and not as a guest room. I want to make it a priority to re-visit Ord #1 and work this out. Jasmine: I agree and I think most of the Commission members do. However the applicant is following the rules of Ord #l as it is currently written and so we cannot thrust any further abuse upon this applicant. The applicant has followed the rules as indicated and is going to follow the rules as expressed by the conditions. And although we are all concerned about it, these are not necessarily in relation to this application. We have a motion on the floor and a second. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Richard. Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. DIRECTION TO PLANNING OFFICE I was thinking along the line of having the Planning Office develop a resolution recommending the Housing Authority set up a system of ',- inventorying the residential ADUs and once a year sending out a letter/questionnaire to determine the occupancy and also a reminder of the deed restriction. Kim: I would prefer to do it as an information item. Sara: When we had our meeting with City Council about their goals John specifically spoke to this. So I think he would like to be in on it. Jasmine: I think as another information item I think P&Z is getting pretty agitated about these ADUs. We just have to get somewhere with it. Kim: We are going to forward the information to council that P&Z is requesting if they also agree which we assume they do, to direct staff to write a Council resolution asking Housing Authority to put this on their front burner. MCPHERSON CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. ,"'~ Leslie made presentation as attached in record. ~ McPherson: The HPC wanted us to replace the shed which has already 6 PZM7. 21. 92 been demolished. It was falling down anyway. It had to be relocated just to the other side of the lot and their are the ones who wanted us to build this. We thought that if we have to build it, we would like it to have some use. Leslie: It is necessary for the applicant to go back to HPC with these plans. McPherson: Unlike the P&Z they don't have anyone-stop shopping. It is taking 8 or 9 months. I talked to Roxanne today and she indicated that she would not or could not do an administrative approval. And the shed as it stands while it is new and it has no bearing--it's present approved design has no bearing on anything historical or the main house. It may not if they don't approve this dormer need the minimum 300 net liveable which is the new deal. My house plans are not going to change one way or the other. They are already set in stone. So this isn't a way for me to enlarge my house. The footprint and the height of the shed does not change. What happens is in order to give that net livable, we dropped it into the ground a little bit because the grade drops away and we added a loft. And we need the dormer for egress from the loft. - Jasmine: From our point of view it looks to me that if you could get HPC approval that it would be a very nice dwelling unit. We would really like to see it built. If we were to send an information item to HPC to see the dormer approved because we think it would be a very nice dwelling unit, maybe that would help you. McPherson: I am not going to continue through all of this. I am going to do this thing on August 15th and if they approve it then I will go ahead with it. If not--I am in construction now--and I am already delaying the windows etc. Whatever you want to do. Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none. MOTION 1",.- Roger: I move to approve the conditional use for a 306sqft net liveable detached accessory dwelling unit at 700 West Francis with conditions #1 through #7 in the Planning Office memo dated July 21, 1992 finding that the proposal is consistent with the goals of the City of Aspen to integrate affordable housing within the neighborhoods. We would like to encourage HPC if at all possible to allow this to be a dwelling unit. '-- 7 PZM7.21.92 David seconded the motion with all in favor. OLD LIBRARY SPECIAL REVIEW MOTION Roger: I move to table this Special Review at the request of the Planning Office to date certain of August 4, 1992. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. ZALUBA 8040 GREENLINE NON-COMPLIANCE HEARING All members of the Board except David Brown participated in a site visit prior to this meeting. Leslie: Gave history of this case. (attached in record) ._.c-""'.... I failed to provide you with the all-encompassing alternative which is the posting of a bond with a time frame and that if that time frame is not met we could use the bond to stabilize the road. I would also add that we would be revoking the 8040 Greenline approval. -- I would add that onto alternative #3 where I say "Failure to complete the work by September 1st 1992 shall cause the city to utilize the bond to perform the work required and revocation of the 8040 Greenline approval. Susan Rappaport is one of the neighbors and she is the one most concerned about the erosion problem. I contacted her to let her know we were having this non-compliance hearing. Leslie then read into the record a letter from Susan Rappaport. (attached in record) jff"""""" Richard: There doesn't seem to be a problem with the hillside above the road at this time. I am concerned with the small amounts of rock which went down the hill because it does cover some of the vegetation and prevent new vegetation from establishing itself. I think that needs to be cleaned up and any drainage problems taken care of that would affect that bank or the Rappaport's property. Jasmine: I think note should be made of the hours and hours we spent on this application and the endless amount of detail when we first granted the application and the tremendous amount of discussion of each and every condition. I think that before we do anything else we either have to find that they are or are not in compliance with the conditions. "'- 8 PZM7. 21. 92 Marti Picket, Attorney for Za1uba: Joe is not at all in opposition with what you are trying to do here today. The one thing that we didn't do was put a time frame on this. Joe was itching to get up there and get it done and then when the permit didn't get done until after that building season everything was downhill for him. Zaluba: The building permit was granted January '90 and I want to preface this whole discussion with--it is not my intention to have up there what is up there. I think it is ugly and I think it needs to be fixed. OK. There is some history here which should be gone through I think. In '90 when I was granted this it was January 2nd. I applied for a building permit to build this house on March 7th in '90. The foundation permit was granted in September 11th which was almost 6 months later. I had my financing to build this house and do all of this stuff that we had agreed to do. And because of the delay in this, and I am not saying this is the only reason that it wasn't done, but this is one contributing factor is that I lost my financing I had in place. That was one problem that I had to deal with. - The reason the road was that we really went ahead and put the road in in lieu of waiting until this building permit was issued was because of the 1041 review going on in Smuggler/Durant. I don't know--there is a "V" shaped piece of land that was a contested piece that actually dissected my lot which in some books had been called Smuggler/Durant and in some books it was called Lot #3 in Hoag. By that definition it was either in the City or the County. So while Stan was going through his 1041 I had heard that the County had raised the question whether this triangular piece of land was in fact in the County and that they were going to bring me in for 1041 review after I had been approved by the city. So I went ahead and built the road on the basis of the City approval to the extent that it is today. It was my intention to go ahead with this project but I was kind of forced on the fact that I didn't want to get involved in a County dispute over whether that land was in the City or the county effecting my 8040 Review. So I went ahead based on what you guys had approved for me in January which we did. So I was in a position then of waiting for my building permit which didn't come out till september which didn't give me enough time to do the excavation for the house that winter. So I was like wait until Spring and then I lost my financing and that is where I am today. The situation today is that it is a bad situation. I am trying to at least get the road to the point where it is acceptable to you and to Rappaports and to all these parties concerned since we have --- 9 PZM7. 21. 92 worked so hard on this. We will propose to you a solution to this problem which is--A. to obtain a landscape/architectural drawing for the retainage within 30 days to submit to the city Engineer for approval, the Rappaports the Davises and stan Shappert. That is for the retaining part of the wall--the tie wall. I agreed and we all agreed that we would draw a plan--a landscape architect would go up there so it would look nice and then that plan would be engineered by my engineer and then we would submit it even to you--to the City Engineer to the people concerned with how that looks up there. That would be our first step in solving the problem. The second thing is we can pick up the rocks that are moved over the side if that's the desire of the Commission. We can clean that up immediately. We can re-surface the road so it looks like a road and not like a disaster the way it looks now. And get the drainage so that the drainage is coming all down to ute. That is stuff we can do immediately. - The plan for the retainage I don't know that it can be done this year because it is going to take a certain amount of time to get a design, it is going to take time for people to approve it. If it can be done we will start to actually do the retainage. My position is that I am not happy with what is up there. It wasn't my intention in January of '90 or any time since to have this situation continue. But for financial reasons I was not able to, after I lost my financin, get to the point where I could continue the project. But I want to rectify the things now that are in bad shape which I admit they are. Shappert's approval for the same driveway is different than mine. The County took the position that the Forest Service land which is the first 150ft of the drive up to the back of the green house was under their control. The city didn't take that position. They said "That is Forest Service. You deal with them on that". That is what we did. And I have an easement for that drive as well as Stan. But Stan's approval required the re-building of the entryway at ute Ave which really does need to be done. So we will have to do that based upon his approval. So you have to realize too that we are dealing with 2 approvals. One by the city, one by the County for the same road. Leslie: But the retaining wall that goes--the majority of the road is in the city. '- Zaluba: Yes. That is correct. That is my responsibility. Stan 10 PZM7. 21. 92 is my partner in that and we would work jointly because both of these houses serve that--those lots that that retainage wall has to be a joint effort between stan and I which we have total agreement on that and we are sharing the cost as well as the design. So we are prepared to go ahead with that design work immediately. Most of you were up on that back road which Jack Barker built under a separate approval 6 years ago. That road needs to be re- vegetated. My intention to revegetate that was to use the excavation material from my house to run right up there and back up the trucks and dump the dirt right up on the top to re-vegetate that road. That would eliminate the necessity of me driving 100 trucks down ute Ave to who knows where and just traffic wise just screwing up the town to haul the dirt away. So the reason I haven't done that was simply because we haven't excavated the house foundation. Leslie: I assume that when you talk about architectural renderings for our review within 30 days you also are including in there the recommendations of Chen. - Zaluba: We have a letter from Chen today. They were just up there yesterday. As far as the question of stability of erosion, of rocks falling down as addressed in this letter it really says that the road is stable. That the bank is stable. It is not perfect but it is stable. And to the point we have had this letter submitted in the Fall of 1990. In 1991 this was done. Unfortun- ately we didn't put anything in writing but the city Attorney had written us a letter about it in the Fall of 1991 which we responded to through Marti talking to Jed and Jim Gibbard. He did go up and look at the road and indicated to us through my attorney that the road was not in a condition that he felt anything was necessary to do to it. Notwithstanding the fact that it didn't look great. But as far as the danger of stability and erosion etc and drainage the city Engineer visited that site, which I am sure we can look up the records in the Fall of '91, and reported that back through Jed to us. So we didn't react to anything in stability or having Chen come in. us that they didn't feel anything anything. the Fall of '91 concerning the The city had reported back to was necessary. So we didn't do I don't want it to appear that we haven't--when we get a letter from the city that we just throw it away and say "Well the Hell with that". That is not true. We did respond to it. Unfortunately none of that was put in writing but Jed can attest to that and we could probably pull Gibbard's time records to show - 11 PZM7. 21. 92 that he as up there. So we have reacted to--in a situation that is not exactly what I would want. But we have reacted to any concern that was shown by Susan Rappaport or the city through the Attorney's Office or the Engineering Dept to go up and do what we had to do to satisfy a situation that was not my idea but is there and we got to deal with it. My proposal is if we can propose something to you folks that is a plan of action to get this resolved to an acceptable state by you, by Rappaports, by Davises, by everybody, that is what I think we need to do. I feel that we didn't have a time frame on this. But I am still feel that I am obligated to get this thing at least to the state that it looks like a driveway and make a plan of action. Leslie: It would seem to me that we still need to have some kind of time frame of when retainage would be completed. And it doesn't work to link it to prior issuance of building permits. ,,,""'''',, Zaluba: No. And in my opinion my proposal is that I think the first thing we need to do is get a plan which I am prepared to do immediately. If I can do that in 30 days and then have that plan submitted to you and to the Engineering Dept, Rappaports, the people that are concerned about this, that is the first step. Once we get everybody to approve the plan at least we are making the effort to say "Here is what the retainage wall is going to look like". Then as soon as everyone approves that, then we would go ahead. If that is this Fall, great. If it is in January then I think you have the right to say "You have to start this in April and have it completed during the next building season". I am not opposed to that. I think this needs to be done. - Leslie: Also within this first 30 days we will go in and fix the drainage. Zaluba: We will do that. I will commit to fix the surface of the road, pick up all the rocks on the side and generally clean it up. I think that can definitely be done this Fall. But the retainage part of it does require design and is going to take some time. Not to say that it shouldn't have been done 2 years ago and it was certainly my plan to do it in 1990. I am not blaming it on the Building Dept to say "Hey how come my building permit took 6 months". But that was a factor. And I couldn't move and I lost my financing. ,..,......... Jasmine: I think the Commission is very concerned about compliance. Unfortunately lots of times we get into situations where non-compliance is non-remediable. A lot of members of the Commission had serious doubts about the advisability of granting the 8040 Greenline in the first place. The fact that the -- 12 PZM7. 21. 92 conditions that we spent so much time on were not adhered to. We have a community responsibility and 8040 Greenline is one of our reviews that says that because 8040 Greenline is a very sensitive environmental area that there are a lot of conditions and considerations that have to be taken into account when we grant this review. The fact that the conditions were not adhered to is a very serious slap at the Commission in it's regard to the responsibility that it has to the community. "How can you approve this and then look what happened?" We are accountable to the public for this. We--not you--because we approved this. The fact that you then do not comply with the conditions of approval is not really and acceptable answer to the public. Therefore we are pretty much on the line for having approved this in the first place. I can tell you quite frankly that there are a number of people who would love nothing better than to see this revoked which we would have every right to do. And I want you to understand that this is the basis for what we are eventually going to decide. We are very much upset by this just as much as you are. Because we look like idiots for having approved it. Zaluba: My approval did not have a time frame on it. That is nit- picking. I understand that. But if you take the approval as it stands, it does not say anywhere there when I have to do this work. There is a reasonable point of time but I can take a position too and say "Well, I am working on it". Which I am. I am not trying not to do this. I am trying to do it with the help of stan and other people. I agree with what you said about your community responsibility. If it is taking me longer than ever anticipated, for whatever reason, it is not that I have not stopped working on ~. . Jasmine: That is not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that there are difficulties with the site which have to be taken into account. Perhaps they were not taken into account sufficiently in our original deliberations. Although it seems to those of us who were there at the time that those deliberations took at least a year right there at meetings. The conditions may not have been stringent enough and they were to protect the city. I think that we have to be very, very careful. This is the point I am trying to make. As a Commission we have to be very, very careful to make sure that the conditions are not so unreasonable that nobody could fulfil them in a reasonable time. Or we may have to make a determination that because of these problems the site is not, in fact, buildable. -~..,.~ This is something that we have to think about. And I just want to -- put this in that framework for your benefit and for the benefit of 13 PZM7. 21. 92 the members of the Commission. This is very serious. People's properties are being impacted. We are talking about a very sensitive area as far as building and development. It is a very visible area and the remedies that we terribly wanted to apply previously have not been done. We have to determine whether they can, in fact, ever be done to our satisfaction. Sara: I disagree. I think there is a time frame that you can apply. That is that every permit has an expiration date and you applied for a foundation permit and were granted that permit and there was an eventual expiration date on that. You applied for a building permit. It was approved. You never pulled it. So there is a time frame. I do want to see this resolved. I don't want to prevent you from building on a lot that you have a right to build on. But I want to imply some very strict conditions because in my mind you violated the spirit of co-operation between the city and you. You violated it in that--I find the road abominable. I find the situation down the slope hazardous and neglect. There is stewardship on that land that is horrifying to me and what is a very delicate situation. So I would recommend to the Board that we impose a performance bond. I find that a trust of co-operation was definitely eroded by Mr. Zaluba. He did not respond and the history that we have here-- '- Zaluba: That is not true. I responded in 1990 in writing with Chen. I responded today in writing with Chen. I have responded to every--not to say that that's a acceptable answer to this problem. But I have responded. Sara: Well, I feel that if you were not asked to appear here still nothing would be done. We have forced you to react. And you have not been co-operative. We are not responsible for your financial problems. We don't want to be responsible for any hazard happening, any accident happening there which I see is very possible. I also want to add to these conditions--to whatever we decide that the thing be roped off. For mountain bikers up there--it is horrible. The upper road especially. The public doesn't know that that is private property. We have got to have a "No trespassing" sign there. Whatever we resolve I definitely want to see a performance bond put on this. The spirit of co-operation has been eroded. Richard: I think that some remediation needs to take place. There needs to be some sort of penalty attached to it which can either be a performance bond or simply if it is not done by a certain date assuming that the plan can meet Engineering approval that the 8040 Greenline approval be revoked--out of date. I am concerned about '- 14 PZM7. 21. 92 the approval not sit there forever. I understand it is his intention to fill it from the house excavation but the house was never excavated. It is still there and needs to be taken care of. We have to put a date on that to re-vegetate at some date certain. I think that the clean-up and retention work should be done this year. And whether the cut-off be a revocation of permit or possible performance bond-- Jasmine: That is if #3 is not done then #4 would take it's place. Richard: Yes. Roger: First of all I have to say that I found the place--it is a mess! To put it politely. I was appalled by it--in that it has stayed in this condition for nearly 2 years. My position now is I want to get it cleaned up as soon as possible. 30 days for architectural for the retainage--well, that may be fine but I want that slough-off picked up within 45 days. Leslie: He proposed that within those 30 days the slough would be picked up and the surface of the road would be re-graded. And the drainage would be taken care of in that 30 days while they are working on architectural planning to be reviewed. - Zaluba: We would start on that immediately. Roger: So we are looking at getting the architectural drawings for drainage in 30 days, picking up the slough-off in 30 days and a satisfactory resurface and drainage in 30 days. One thing I just read in the Chen report and they say "maximum depths of cut". I assume that is horizontally into the mountain is 3 to 6 feet. There was a "small amount of fill along the outer edge of the driveway up to a few feet deep". Well, is that 3, 4 or 5 feet as a few feet? I don't know. That, to me, is a Hell of a lot of fill. And that is something I did not like about it. I don't know how to correct that. It was my anticipation that the cut would be insufficient so that in effect you had top soil nearly up to the road. Zaluba: The road would be below the edge of the-- Roger: There are spots there where I see at least 3ft of fill. You are never going to get anything growing up to the road edge without putting top soil on top of it. It is a mess and I am very upset about it. It is not what I felt to be represented to us. - Zaluba: The road is not at final grade. It has to come down about another foot or a foot and a half in some places. The intent was 15 .-, ,""""^"""" '- .~,""'- -- PZM7. 21. 92 to not show the road from the low side. Roger: If those can be addressed in 30 day--the performance bond with the conditions that if they are not accomplished including the architectural drawings within 30 days and then I don't know what a satisfactory time frame would be for the retainage. Rob Thomson, Engineering Dept: Given the fact that they have pretty much designed the wall already, I think it is just clean up and going back into it that it wouldn't take long. Actual construction of it, it is a pretty good structure of a road but it is all the type of stuff that can go on into winter months. Leslie: You need a permit for a fence. Rob: The Building Dept looks at anything over 5 feet. David: Given the fact that there is no deadline for the 8040 review does it make sense or be appropriate for us to discuss revocation? Jed Caswall, city Attorney: I think the point has been made that- -I don't think it would be inappropriate for the P&Z to find that there was deadlines with the issuance of permits. Those permits are good for a certain length of time to assume that the work will be completed during that time. It is not assumed. There is substantial requirements that is required under those permits. And I think the testimony you have before you today indicates and in fact there is admission from the applicant that they failed to complete the work as initially started and in fact did not even pick up the building debris. I think #1 it would not inappropriate for the Board to find that there were time limits expressly set forth by the issuance of the building permits. Absent that I think it is also--it would not be inappropriate for the Board to find that like a lot of documents where specific performance is not set to be completed by a date certain, what the courts do is they imply reasonable standards into that. And in light of the time that has passed I don't think it would be inappropriate for this Board to find that if you didn't accept the building permit rational you could make a determination as to whether or not you felt a reasonable period of time has passed in which the applicant should have complied in light of the fact that he did start. He did excavate the road--what is a reasonable period of time to address those conditions in light of the fact that the road work which implicated those conditions. David: Is it appropriate at this time given the fact there wasn't a bond required initially to now institute placement of the bond for the completion of--- 16 -....", PZM7. 21. 92 ""'- Jed: The requirement of a bond is to provide some insurance of performance. It was not required initially because evidently there was insufficient information before P&Z to warrant such a condition. Whether or not you require a bond now is dependent upon your view as to whether or not the history in performance of the applicant would warrant that additional condition. The fact that it wasn't required before, to me, does not present a barrier to you. If you feel in your discretion at this time to impose one, that decision is up to you. Leslie: The figure in the for the retaining wall, the cutting back and the-- memo includes an estimate that we did , and revegetation. It did include Zaluba: Our numbers that we show are $70,000. The $300,000 was based on a vertical steel tie-in wall. --'", John Kelly, Attorney: I represent both Rappaports and Jack Davis and the owner of the lot next to the little park there where you see some construction equipment. There are a couple of things. I think everybody sort of talked about the aesthetic aspects. We are very concerned about that. One of the things we are really concerned about is the safety--particularly the Rappaports because of the drainage situation. - I haven't seen this thing from Chen. I don't know--but I would like to see a condition in there that both the city Engineer and Chen or whoever is doing the work give us an opinion that both the Davis and Rappaports houses are safe from rock fall and drainage. And that enough is done this Fall to make sure that that is safe. If it goes into the winter--the dangerous time of the year is Spring. The Rappaports did go in and do their own little ditch. But they are obviously between a rock and a hard place because they don't want to go in and start messing with the road. Then if something goes wrong somebody can blame them. So I would like to see an engineering study done for at least those 2 items. We would like to see a short a fuse on this thing as is possible. I think the dynamics of what is happening here--Mr. Miller and Mr. Zaluba are going to have to get together and make some kind of agreement on how long this is going to take. I think that now is an opportunity to see that that gets done. I know they have been working together. I would like to see a little impetus given to that because that is another way we could be sure that this thing gets done. - .- I think the bond is an absolute necessity. They made very sure 17 - PZM7. 21. 92 that bond was posted with the Miller application with the County. I really want to make sure that there is no danger for what happens next Spring. I want to see that everything is done that can be done this Fall and then have a real short fuse on what can't be done this Fall. I don't want to see this to happen next Spring because it will be a disaster for everyone if it does. MOTION Roger: I move that since the Planning & Zoning Commission finds that the 8040 Greenline approval has not been complied with in spirit or time specifically finding that Resolution #4 of 1990, Condition #3, #4, #8 and #10 have not been complied with. Further for the 8040 Greenline not to be revoked at this time. Zaluba shall post a performance bond of $300,000 for stabilization of the new road cut, revegetation of the upper cut. Total work to be completed by October 15, 1992. Mr. the road ."'~""", In addition to that architectural drawings of the retainage shall be submitted within 30 days. Pick up of the slough-off, the rocks down the slope shall be completed within 30 days. A suitable road grade surface shall be accomplished within 30 days and drainage problems shall be accomplished within 30 days. - Change those 30 days to September 1, 1992. The plans for the tie-in and the boulder retaining wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments before the retaining wall work begins. Recommendations by Chen regarding stabilization shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and shall be adhered to during the stabilization and revegetation process. The applicant shall certify that the neighboring residents shall be safe from rock fall and drainage. Failure to complete the work required by October 15, 1992 shall cause the City to utilize the bond to perform the work required and shall also cause the City to revoke the 8040 Greenline approval pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution #4 of 1990. The dangerous portion of the road marked "Danger. No trespassing" people to stay off the road as it at this interim period shall be or satisfactory enough to warn exists. ~~....- Richard: The only question I have is on the revegetation of the upper road cut--the switchback. I am concerned that revegetation now--the cut remains revegetated and is not backfilled. - 18 PZM7. 21. 92 Leslie: How about revegetation of the upper road cut shall be completed by July 1, 1993. That time frame then gives Joe the ability to start working on his foundation and building permit ready for the next building season when he should have the foundation done. Roger: Add that as a condition. The dates are September 1, 1992 for the architectural drawings for the retainage. And at the same time everything else is supposed to be done other than that. Marti: Then just because the performance bond--I am wondering if we can say if that work is not completed perhaps by October 15th at that point we would have to '- Jed: The concern I would have about that is that perhaps the bond may not be posted at least until the design plan may not be posted at least until the design plans come in so maybe--$300,000 sounds awfully high. But it is up to the Commission to set the amount they feel is appropriate. It is not uncommon in front of Council that you wait until the date hold off until the plans come in, we get an amount from estimates. The City Engineer can make a determination within his expertise as whether or not he feels that is appropriate that we set that as the amount. Then that would have to be posted prior to the work beginning. Maybe you would wish to do that as opposed to set the amount now and have it posted-- Jasmine: Suppose they don't come in with plans. Jed: If they don't come in with the plans then they are going to lose their 8040 Greenline approval. Leslie: How about "A bond commensurate with the work that is required to be completed and we will list all the work shall be posted by September 1, 1992. So we will have the plans by September 1st 1992 and the bond-- Roger: I will change that wording "The performance bond up to $300,000--the exact amount to be determined by the Engineering and Legal Department of the City. Jed: And also saying the applicant shall be engaged in picking up the spoils and all that stuff so that if we get to September 1st and the bond doesn't come in then we progress to another--we are in a different ball game at that time. ., Zaluba: Stan is required to put a bond up for this work also. - Jasmine: Stan is not an applicant. You are the applicant. stan 19 , PZM7. 21. 92 - has nothing to do with this. This is your approval. Your review. Your arrangements with stan have nothing to do with this as far as this is concerned. Whatever financial arrangements you want to make with those people and the County, you are the applicant here. Whatever you want to work out with them is between you and them. We have no jurisdiction over them. Roger: Shall we put this in resolution form? Jed. Yes. Roger: I will modify my motion to have the Planning Office and Legal Department write the resolution along these guidelines. Richard seconded the motion. Jed: You have before you the packet supplied by the Planning Dept which is 33 pages which contains numerous documents which I understand the Board has reviewed. It also includes the certificate of mailing which was signed by the applicant showing he has notice of this hearing. He hasn't expressed any objection as to the holding of this hearing over the notice that he got. ..'-"'" - You also have in front of you that has been admitted into the record a letter dated July 21, 1992 on Chen/Northern letterhead which was submitted by the applicant which is also in the record. It is also my understanding that the record should reflect that all but one of the members of the Board today have been out on site and viewed the condition of the site and that has also been taken into consideration in coming to the decision of today. There was also the letter from Susan Rappaport which Leslie read. (attached in record) For the record that is what the evidence is before the Board today. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion except David Brown who abstained. David: I didn't feel that we have gotten all the questions answered. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:45pm. Clerk '''''-' 20