Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930119 tJ ~'l.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 19. 1993 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:37pm. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr and Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara asked about the Ronnie Marshal hot tub situation. Staff brought Commission up to date on this. Leslie reminded commission of joint work session with HPC on February 9 in the Library. And on March 4 there is an advanced planning commission training on zoning and transportation issues. This will probably be in Denver. Diane said there is money in the budget to pay for anyone who wants to go to this training. Kim informed commission that the item on the agenda 434 West Smuggler has been withdrawn by the applicant. Jasmine asked if there was public comment on the Conditional Use Review for a second dwelling at 434 West Smuggler. There was no public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. RIO GRANDE SUBDIVISION Jasmine opened the public hearing. MOTION Sara made a motion to continue this hearing to date certain of February 2, 1993. David seconded the motion with all in favor. COMMON GROUND HOUSING SUBDIVISION. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie submitted the proof of public notice. (attached in record) PZMl.19.93 She then made presentation as attached in record. I would add one additional condition. "Prior to the first reading at City Council and or January 26th, the applicant shall place story polls on the site to indicate building height and width and potential impacts to the view plain and some loss upon surrounding users. Richard stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. Peggy Roland: I am a neighbor of this and not very happy with it because of the congestion. Is this being city taxed? Is it a county tax? Is it both? Or is it private? ? The land owners when the units have been transferred over will basically get the same tax that anyone in the city does--a County and a City tax bill. They will be taxed units which a rental unit would not be. Roland: But you are giving them a lower standard. Is that it? Jasmine: We will continue with the hearing and then take public comment and questions. Marsha Goshorn did a history on the 2 year process of this project. John Weedum, architect for the applicant: Went into more detail of the process of this project. Richard De Campo, architect: I worked with Randy on the design of the units of this project. We were working under Employee Housing guidelines. We have got 3 unit types. A I-bedroom unit, a 2- bedroom unit and a 3-bedroom unit. Then using drawings and a model he described the units. The square footages for the I-bedroom 627sqft. For the 2-bedroom unit it is 997sqft. For the 3-bedroom unit it is 1,195sqft. Weedum: One of the things that was brought area being too close to the parking lot. fence here and a hedge for visual and sound to 5 feet above the parking lot. We have met with PPRG as well as the advisory board and have modifications on the area of entry. We built close to FAR. we have also allowed for each unit for expandability. with added to the FAR it will still be under the total. up was the kid's play We plan on putting a buffer. It is also 4 made But that 2 PZMl.19.93 In the recommendation, this area of town is being studied for lighting, sidewalks and curbs. This hasn't been addressed. There is probably going to be sidewalks and lighting in this general section of which we would be affected in this area. That is something that is being studied by the city Engineering. We will work with them when that comes to pass. Bruce: You have 8 I-bedroom units, 52-bedroom units and 8 3- bedroom units. I am not sure I understand #1 in this fact sheet. Goshorn: We need to go back to the Housing Authority again. We originally had come up with a price of $42,000 on the lowest level. We call it category 1 because of the income criteria. Then when the Housing Authority guidelines changed suddenly the price you could charge dropped to $32,000. But we didn't want to open it up to category 2 which is a much wider range of income. So if we called it category 2 but set a maximum income on it then no one with an income of over $26,000 which is actually above category 1, it is $22,000 right not but still lower than the very low end of category 2. It still hits the same group of people we wanted. We didn't want it opened up to a much wider range of people. Bruce: On your demographic sheet you have got a total of 17-- Goshorn: Actually we have more families than units. We are trying to make sure we have backups. Bruce: And the categories of these people don't necessarily match up with what you have got going? Goshorn: No. We actually have some people that are buying into higher categories. If we wanted to do this all category I and the County wanted to subsidize it we could fill it 100 times over. Weedum: That is an economic planning issue that we have struggled wi th since the beginning. We had to make a commitment to a certain mix. Bruce: You mentioned future expansions. will all of those have to occur within the existing footprint? Weedum: We have a I-bedroom expand of 150sqft. The 2-bedroom has X amount of room that you could expand and the 3-bedroom. They are physically designed for that purpose. The intent is that any expansion is not authorized other than within. Leslie: This is not a PUD because first it is not a PUD overlay on the property to begin with. Bruce: I am concerned about an individual property owner wanting 3 PZMl.19.93 to expand and change -- Goshorn: That will be handled in the covenants. They would actually have to come before the condominium association that will have review on those things. Weedum: Another layer on top of that is that we would have our own bylaws restricting to what we have designed. And if you have anything different than that it would have to go through us anyway. On top of that the Housing Authority would have to review it also. Leslie: If they make changes into the open space that would be a substantial amendment and would have to be reviewed. Bruce: The I-bedroom units have the bathroom upstairs off the bedroom. Is there any thought given to having a closet downstairs for guests without having to have the guest go upstairs to access the bathroom? De campo: It has been talked about. That was considered by the group not necessary for that size unit. Bruce: What is under the stairwell? Weedum: Under the stairwell we have area for TV and stereo built- in system. And then there is washer/dryer in the I-bedroom. All of them have a use for that space. There was then explanation of sweat/equity. Tim: What if the next generation doesn't have the organization and the philosophy? And what if this place starts to run down? And if there is no one to enact these levies for them not keeping their property up or doing their sweat equity--what happens? Goshorn: This will be like any other condominium association. Tim: Are there any commercial applications to the philosophy of the group? Are you going to in any way use this project to generate revenue through any commercial ventures? Weedum: I don't see how the group could have any economic advantage of anything to use it other than being a consultant on the projects across the country--and if some member like Richard wants to go around and lecture for other communities wanting to do the same thing. That is the only one I can think of. Goshorn: We have talked about if someone within the group happens to be a caterer and would like to rent out or use the common space to do something like that. What it might do is bring down the 4 PZMl.19.93 assessments for everyone else. Weedum: It would be very similar to any other homeowner's association that has a common element--like the Gant for example. The Gant would rent rooms to other people for revenue and that revenue would be applied to offset your expenses. Leslie: The AH Zone does not allow commercial within the zone. Jasmine: Would your bylaws be subject to review and approval by the Housing Authority? Tom Baker, Housing: review these. We take a look at all of those. We will Leslie: Which includes a 6 month rental restriction. There will be no short-terming of even the guest rooms. Bruce: What is the purpose of the guest rooms in the common house? Weedum: It is mainly a way to have guests come without having a 3-bedroom house if you only need a 2-bedroom house. It is going to be limited time stayed. And then we might not even build them depending on our budget. It is the wish list. Jasmine then opened the hearing for public comment. Patricia Hill: I am a neighbor of the project. And I am interested and concerned about the property value. What is the resale of this project based on? Is there room for appreciation or is it going to hold the property values down in this area? Baker: Based upon 15 years experience we have got a standard deed restriction that allows for a 3% appreciation per year or CPl. And then there are provisions for capital improvements that will also be added to the value of the property. And there is a fairly specific appendix to the deed restriction that identifies what constitutes a central improvement in terms of adding retail value of the units. It maintains it's affordability. And that is pretty standard on all the units that we have. Some may have a different percent appreciation based on the economics at the time that they were constructed. But currently we are looking at a restriction of 3% plus capital improvements. Hill: I am a little bit confused by the whole thing. I have a condominium at Hunter Creek which is in the non deed-restricted section. However we are totally surrounded with deed restricted property which does hold the values down. So I am concerned about 5 PZMl.19.93 that because I wasn't aware of that when I bought the unit that I would not have appreciation. Baker: I think even the free market units have a deed restriction on them in terms of minimum 6 month lease restriction. Hill: I mean as far as the price of the property is concerned. Peggy Roland: I am a neighbor to this. And it will increase the traffic down there. You all will have to admit that. I walk a great deal because I don't like to pollute the air. I have a problem with this for that reason also. I would like to know if we are subsidizing this as tax payers. How much as a tax payer am I paying for this to have it putting the value of my property down? Reid Haughey: When we looked at this project and the traffic impacts we took a comparative analysis between the former Health and Human Services and the proposed housing. Based on a national average which mayor may not be a good figure in Pitkin County or Aspen, you are looking at a difference between probably about 170 trips per day for a health and human services type activity. And you are looking at probably 130 trips per day for a residential unit. That number is a national average. When factored in an extremely strong transit side and effectively a free bus across the street which goes by Rubey and it's proximity to the post office and Clark's Market. From a residential use basis the traffic generation here the historical figures have proven they will be much lower. And it may be higher than it is today. But when you look at the 20 year historical use of the site until the recent opening of the human services out at the Hospital campus there will be a historical reduction in traffic. Roland: Now what about the taxes? Jasmine: Well, I am no tax expert. So I don't know what to tell you about that except that it is my understanding about the taxes that you pay are based upon the value of your property. And so whatever you pay is based on that. I don't know how you can actually take various things that your taxes go for and then apply them to a block-by-block analysis where that money goes. I just don't have the expertise for that. Haughey: Another question is "How much is the public investing into co-housing?" Roland: Besides--we paid for that building that you are tearing down. Haughey: That is true. The analysis that we have done on this 6 PZMl.19.93 project compared to other projects results in our belief that the subsidy into cO-housing is less for people to other projects. We don't believe that there is any additional investment by the public because of co-housing. So the question of how much money is going in there is really a debate on how much the community is subsidizing affordable housing. Our experience has been that to produce affordable housing within the city that the land has to be given and there is an additional cash subsidy often times ranges from between 20 to 40 thousand dollars a unit to be able to develop that. That is a lot of money. One of the problems is they can't pay that all in one year. The benefit from that unit comes over a 40 or 50 year period. But that basically is the cost of developing housing within a metro area. The subsidy to co-housing is under $20,000 plus the land. Roland: I am a native here and my taxes went up 88%. My income is going like this. (pointing down) So am I going to apply for one of these? Is that what I should do? I can sell my property for a nice price. Where do I go? You all think you are poor here and this is the problem. But we who have lived here are getting absolutely sacked! Hill: I would like to add that I have lived here for 22 years. I understand it is going to cost $250,000 to tear down the building. That is another expense to the tax payers. The existing old hospital building. It just seems to me that it is a great waste of money on a perfectly good building that could be used for some public purpose. Haughey: I don't think that figure of $250,000 is accurate. I think it is more in the range of $100,000. It has to be torn down. That is what has to be done for environmentally hazardous materials. Two years ago when there were studies as to whether this was the best use of the building, the Housing Authority hired an independent consultant which was Sutherland, Fallan architects who have done previous renovations on that building so they are most familiar with it. They issued a report back to the Housing Authority as far as what they thought was best for it in terms of developing that project for affordable housing and their recommendation was that with the exception of the newest wing of the building which does have a lot of the mechanical electrical infrastructure that is up to code that the building be torn down. Hill: And that is the only use for this property? Haughey: We went through a process a little over a year ago in which this land in conjunction with what the County's wishes were 7 PZMl.19.93 and it was re-zoned to Affordable Housing. currently that is the designated use for this property. Hill: Unless I am totally misunderstanding it I thought it was also available for public use for a community center type things still. Not just for affordable housing. Haughey: Not after a year ago when the zoning was changed. At one point in time it was for public. Then about a year ago it was re- zoned through a substantial process. And that is when public hearings were done and then it was designated for AH zone. Hill: So the only use for this whether the building is kept or torn down this is for employee housing. Haughey: That is correct. Goshorn: The community block grant which helped build the Health and Human Services building--one of the conditions of that particular grant with the state was that this site be used for employee housing. The minimum of 20 units. This site actually was named in the Aspen Area Community Plan. It was named in the Housing Production Plan in past years. This site has always been in every report the City and County has ever done named for employee housing once the use of the Health and Human Services building was moved to the other building. Weedum: Just to clarify the numbers for money for the building and saving the building. We have done reports and the budget was in excess of $250,000 to take the asbestos out and demo the building. At one point that figure was even higher because the asbestos-- the rules changed. That had to be done whether we keep the building or not. The actual demo of the building ranged from $60,000 to $100,000 to actually tear the building down. Essentially all that is there is a structure--a physical shell. If I was to go in there right now and open up the doors I would have to be improving the building more than 50%. If I improve the building more than 50% then I have to bring the whole building up to code. So I would be putting in a new electrical system, heating systems and probably have to redo the roof. So functionally it has reached functional obsolescence because of when it was built and what it was used for. Now it is cheaper to tear the building down and build one just exactly like it than to work around the existing structure in most cases. Jasmine asked if there were any more public comments. Haughey: Can I make just one quick comment. I intentionally tried to stay quiet and just can't do it. I want to make quick comments 8 PZMl.19.93 on what I see of the vitality of this project--the creativity and the public investment. In over 2 years that the County has worked with this group in bringing this project forward I think we have worked in a very positive way. with one notable exception we have stayed completely out of the way. What you see here tonight is not the product of bureaucrats sitting around trying to figure out what is best for putting a product on the market. This is a project that was put together by the individuals all of whom have their claim to residency in the community as well. To say what they think. So to me there has been a lot of vitality that we have all talked about and how to keep the public and citizens involved. And the process for us is a real good example and we are excited about it. And it has led to some creative solutions like the common house and the use of the building that is there. The majority of the hospital that is left is put into another use. The parts of the hospital that always troubled us from a business point of view, our maintenance budget for that building was running up around $100,000 a year because it was in horrible shape. And we were having a lot of problems with roof leaks. Some of the foundations in this area were from the original hospital put in in the 1890s. The building had always been kind of slapped together. The other part is that often times in planning activities you find that there is the street and parking and a variety of rectilinear engineering solutions to things. And these folks, left to their own, created this little community. So I think there was a lot of creativity in this. Finally, is the public investment. Because we have a concern about the public investment and this asset will be here hopefully for 50 or more years. I can't honestly say that co-housing will be here for 50 or more years. And so we have an obligation to assure that the pUblic's money does not go to waste. We feel that we have done that by the notable exception that we mentioned earlier which is that this project has to survive without co-housing. That was the limitation we put on it. And in a way it has to survive in spite of cO-housing in that it has to fit into the housing guidelines, has to be a product that can be sold on that open market--that deed restricted market in the future. We have to make sure the individuals who are involved in the cO-housing qualify with the guidelines so that we can protect our investment. So speaking on behalf of the County we feel that we have been over-intrusive, if you will, in this process in trying to protect the pUblic's investment and have managed to do it. The end result is that their activity may be a little bit limited but I don't think that that is bad because it has resulted in a product that is marketable if co-housinq decides toniqht that they have just had it and they all 9 PZM1.19.93 walk out. with the exception of the doors which I am sure we could negotiate and come in and complete the project. Jasmine then closed the public hearing. The matters before us tonight are subdivision. In order for the project to be developed they must receive subdivision approval or at least a recommendation from this body to City Council to approve the subdivision review. There are various criteria which are applicable. They are all mentioned in our memo. And I would suggest that we start with going through the subdivision approval and see if there are any problems with that. There are various conditions as part of the subdivision approval. Leslie: I have already added the one condition of approval with regard to the storage. And then I would add 2 other conditions of approval. #10 would be the story poles. #11. The following changes shall constitute a substantial change to the approved subdivision. Reduction of open space. Additional bedroom and conditional square footage added to the common house. Richard: Leslie: Jasmine: Leslie: Additional bedrooms being exterior or interior? Both. Because we will get mumble #11 is to define changes that would~rigger are-review. Right. Any other changes, any additional square footage we will require a building permit and require insubstantial subdivision or approval by the planning director. The last condition--the guest room in the common house shall not be used as lodge rooms or dormitory. Goshorn: Regarding the story poles. The way they had mentioned it it would mean staking every building. I went up to the site and took pictures. This part of Hunter Longhouse, there are no windows on this side of the building. So there is no one who is going to be looking over it. Lone pine is over here and from the pictures there are really no windows which would look over this project. The only one who would have any kind of possible visual impact is right back here. She is actually--this is a hill that goes up and she is like down in a gully right on the river. She might possibly see part of this. What I am asking is will we have to stake every building? 10 PZM1.19.93 Leslie: I thought if you had 12 poles--one on each end of each separate building that stake each end and the height for all 6 buildings then people would be able to see coming from Lone pine or Red Mountain and then the Cowee and the 0' Danes could be hopefully satisfied that their view will not be impacted. Weedum: I have always represented that we would put poles up for Mrs. Cowee just because she had concern and for her benefit because she is our neighbor. The view plain from the road system was brought up at a PPRG meeting. I don't think it was a heavy concern. Their interest was that maybe we need to landscape the berm which we want to have done anyway. So if there is a concern of vision impact from the 2 roads then that is one issue. If it is visual impact from the adjoining neighbors to the north, we already represented we would do it for them. The front one I think is overkill. Goshorn: The high point is 22 feet and the City code is 25 feet. It was decided by Commission not to require poles on all the building sites. DeCampo: #3--Language dedicating the ROW. I would ask that to read "Language dedicating the ROW which mav be 80 feet wide or a width agreed to and determined with the City Engineering Office and/or the city Attorney". Jasmine: What I would like to request is that if someone would make a motion to move we recommend to City Council approval of the subdivision GMQS exemption, etc. based on the revised condition and have a second it then we could discuss it. Sara: I so move. David seconded the motion. For the record this has been rezoned for affordable housing. I think it is appropriate that the community has additional employee housing that it be focused perhaps as an addition to the housing that is already there. That any raise in taxes is--the recent raise in taxes is due to a recent re-evaluation of property taxes due to state-wide laws that kicked in about 5 years ago. Those are conditions to life and any action this Board takes will have no effect on relieving those conditions. I think the impact of affordable housing and property values in recent history is that it has little or no effect on market conditions. 11 PZMl.19.93 Sara: I feel that creating a project like this for families and employees is more a community benefit than a half empty substandard community building. David: I also think that this is going to reduce the traffic impact of bringing workers up and down valley. Jasmine: I think it is very exciting that you people have put this kind of work into a project like this. I appreciate that we need employee housing as much as anyone as I am at the very low end of the scale. It is very easy to complain about employee housing. But when you have more than 200 people applying for 11 units over in the East Hopkins project it lets you know that this is not some kind of frivolous thing. This represents a very significant need in the community. And the extent to which people can take the initiative as you people have done to bring the project this far I think is tremendously praiseworthy. And I think you have done a great job. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, sara, yes, Bruce, yes, David, yes, Jasmine, yes. ZALUBA 8040 WALL AMENDMENT Leslie made presentation as attached in record. John Weedum, Architect: I had no participation in the original design concepts so I really don't know what they were other than from a verbal description. The way the wall was designed here after the excavation was complete over a year or so ago over the first cut of the road the soil was visibly stable due to the character of the stone in the area. It is basically a dry stack soils condition in that whole general area. So after looking at that and talking with the soils engineer who made the first reports in the original design of the retaining walls we looked at their soils report and said the soils conditions are that your soil is pretty stable in its own structural make up. And that it is not a clay wall and it is not a boulder wall so that you are not needing retainage because the wall is acting as its own retaining wall. What you need to do is control erosion, reflow and retainage on your road and any type of damage to the toe of the hill. So based on those comments I worked with the structural engineer on what would accomplish that the most efficiently. Taking each section into mind and using the recommendations of basically scraping the hill back using the hydromulch technique for controlling erosion 12 PZMl.19.93 that that would probably be the least disturbance to the area. The hydromulch and the structure at the base would basically not be used for retainage so much as to hold back any falling rocks and reflow also would take the drainage from the mountain before it hits the road and take it behind the wall and then by the way the road design is draining into the hill so all the water would drain on the inside of the wall to go down to a distribution point. So this concrete stemwall is what was the best solution. Then there is space behind it for the reflow of the water to congregate. And then the hydromulch plan would be done in accordance with the specs. Basically scrape it so it is an acceptable surface for pitch and for adherence and that there is some kind of come back next year and check on it and maybe touch up in places. But that would handle all of your drainage. All your debris from falling down the hill. And it would be visually very small impact. It is not very deep because it doesn't have to have this huge footer. By doing it this way I can cut a minimal amount of damage to the hill and accomplish my objective. If I went with a boulder wall- -same problem. I am stacking up a boulder wall--I need to start with boulders a certain dimension. So therefor I have got to cut the hill back in order to place the boulder there to get the same physical solution to the problem. If I went with a tie-crib wall the same principle applies. I would have to cut back X amount of feet in order to get my cribbing to hold my wall from falling over therefore I have more hillside that I have got to handle. So that was the rational for doing this approach. What we have used was a concrete stemwall system which can either be cast in place or can be pre-cast in modular units and brought in and set. It is not a question so much of visual. I can make it look the same with quality control on how you do your seams. But we do need seams in the wall for functional reasons that allow some water for overflow. It does serve a functional purpose to have expansion joints. What I am doing is exposed aggregate concrete. So whether it is precast or cast in place I will have that same aggregate finish. The colors of the aggregate and the concrete can be made to blend into the existing colors of the stone on the hill that are there. So I think it functions. Can solve the problem with the least amount of cutting the least disturbance and visually is the most compatible with what is there. Rob Thomson, city Engineer: This is an alternate solution. My only concern as far as the joints and they are trying to eliminate the seams in there but the more i got to look at it any normal precast wall would have to have expansion joints in it too. You 13 PZMl.19.93 may get a few more seams but the lower heights will definitely take away from that. Jasmine: But as far as safety standpoint and accomplishing-- Thomson: We had several letters from the soils engineer and he went out and looked at it and last Fall they were saying it is basically stable and can last through the winter and that is when his soil engineer came back and took another look at it physically from--it had been sitting there for 2 years like it was. So that is where I accepted the alternative. Jasmine: So as far as you are concerned this would be an acceptable alternative. Thomson: Yes. I do have one question. Where are you going to handle the drainage work? It originally had a couple of drywells. Weedum: I think we were doing this as somewhat of a drywell. That will still be maintained all the way down. So we have got built- in retention all the way down. Sara: Why won't the water if it builds up behind freeze and then start popping out the aggregate? Weedum: I am not a water engineer but I will give you what I can. The reason the material is here is crushed rock is like a drywell. It could freeze but you are going to ave water basically coming down below and it will seek it's lowest level. So in the winter time when this is frozen, this is frozen also. When this starts thawing, it will thaw too and the engineers feel that by doing this system that when it starts melting it will go into the rocks and act like a big drywell all the way down the road. Sara: Is it like a gutter where you have to get behind there and clean out the debris every spring. Weedum: I don't believe so. Thomson: I think you would have the same problems you have for a retaining wall. You still have backup behind there. You do holes for the water to get out from behind it. That is the idea of the seams so the water has a place to travel to get out. Weedum: So this is like a big sponge here. The water has a place to collect and then it will--you cut the wall out and backfill with all your gravel and all your drainage material and put your top soil in the very top and then you hydromulch the top so that it is a complete system. 14 PZMl.19.93 The water going down the other side of the road is traveling in a whole different drainage system. And it has got a drywell of gravel--it is a glorified gutter with gravel in it so that all the water that is flowing down that road will go into the drywell basically as it is going down the road. That is the concept. Richard: The idea is that it will go into the drywell and seep into the ground more than it will run off? Weedum: Historically--I have been up there every time of the year and there is no evidence over the last 2 years of any substantial amount of water going down and across the road except right behind the Rappaports where you have got a natural swell that is pushing it over. Bruce: This solution is less expensive than what was originally approved. Weedum: Just looking at X amount of concrete I would say yes you have got twice as much concrete than you had before. Bruce: We are Thomson: No. Bruce: ? not ?___ on our bond requirements. ___?=== are based on this type of system. Just checking it out. Tim: What is going to be the finish surface on the whole road? Weedum: I don't think it has ever been discussed. Tim: Is there any kind of consistent curb or rim or is it just going to be as it drops off. I am concerned about the other side of the road. Thomson: There is a little bit of a build up there. The road is sloping into-- Rob: This area down here there is some concern that going through the beginning the actual cut there right now is probably the only 12 to 15 feet or something like that. Mr. Zaluba's comment at the time were "The first 12 feet is mine and if there is anything left over that is the trail". Which means that at some point there wouldn't be a full 8 foot wide trail. So what I want to make sure is that we have full 20 feet through there of flat surface not part of the edge of the easement or the trail would have been 6 feet of flat and 2 feet of slope. Leslie: The actual easement compared to the road is ___mUmble___ 15 PZMl.19.93 Marti: The bigger concern came from when we first started the design having the barrier between which was going to take up some of the land and to where that came out. But now that we have taken that out ___mumble___ Weedum: Now we don't have the barrier. And then what we have done too is that I had the engineer shelve the thing further up the hill and more out so that we had a 20 foot bench. So we are addressing that and we agreed that it will be a 20 foot plus or minus bench on all sections of the road. Thomson: Item #5 in the recommendations. Leslie: I would add--we are not sure that the hydromulching includes both sides of the road. Thomson: The down side they were going to hydromulch wherever it needed to be or wherever it was disturbed. And the 30% was overall contract if the City has to take it over. That is why the 30% does need to be in there. Leslie: OK. And I would like to amend condition #7 to throw that one out and add "This approval is subject to all terms and conditions of the findings and order resolution of December 15, 1992". That way we don't have to ___mUmble___ And I would also add item #8 based upon David's comments--"The applicant shall adhere to all representations made during the conditional review." David: And #5 gets what language? Leslie: #5 we added that this is already included in the original letter of credit. I read into the record what #7 is and added #8. MOTION David: I will move to amend the 8040 Greenline approval with the following condition #1 through #6 as stated in the staff memo as previously modified by Leslie's language for #7 and #8 as also stated by Leslie. (attached in record) Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:05p.m. Janice 16