Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940621 ~u ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 21. 1994 SIDE #1 OF TAPE #1 IS TOTALLY INAUDIBLE. ANYTHING ANYONE CAN RECALL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AT THIS MEETING AND I WILL BE GLAD TO PUT IT IN THE MINUTES. FROM KRABACHER HEARING ON, MINUTES ARE COMPLETE. Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Steven Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, Robert Blaich, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger Hunt: I have been getting complaints from the public regarding the problem of unrelated people in single family residences. Leslie said she had talked with the City Attorney on this and he informed her that unless there were specific complaints to the City there really was nothing that could be done in this sort of situation. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES MAY 17. 1994 Roger made a motion to approve minutes of May 17, 1994. Bob seconded the motion with all in favor. . NORTON CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Bruce opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner did presentation as attached in record. Stuart Lusk, representative for applicant: Gave a description of the unit and project. Bruce asked if the applicant had any problems with the conditions from the Planning Office. Lusk said something here regarding Aspen trees. MOTION Roger: If you did anything different than the recommended motion below please let me know and I will put it in the minutes. PZM6.21.94 -~. Recommended motion--"I move to approve the conditional use for a 640 net livable sq.ft. attached accessory dwelling unit for 817 W. North Street with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated June 21, 1994." Jasmine seconded the motion. Bruce: You asked something here regarding #6d "commencing work" . Bruce asked if there was any public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. 132 WEST MAIN STREET LANDMARK DESIGNATION Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in record. Bruce opened the public portion of the hearing and asked if there was any public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION (recommended motion) Roger: I move to approve historic landmark designation of Lot M and the west four feet of Lot N, Block 58, City and Townsite of Aspen, finding that standards B, E and F are met. Robert seconded the motion with all in favor. RED HOUSE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR A DUPLEX Bruce opened the public portion of the hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Discussion-- Bruce asked if there was any public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION RECOMMENDED MOTION (THIS WAS CHANGED AND ADDED TO) PLEASE FILL ME IN. Roger: "I move to approve the conversion of the single family residence at 0002 Williams Way to a duplex and the provision of a '" 2 PZM6.21.94 ~ category 4 affordable dwelling unit. " Bob seconded the motion with all in favor. Krabacher hearing started at the end of tape #1 so minutes are complete from here on. KRABACHER GMQS EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL REVIEW Kim Johnson, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. The structure as it is today has--assuming it has 400 square feet of residential area is now going to a 3-bedroom apartment and a 1-bedroom free market unit. It is conceivable there could be 4 parking spaces for use of the residential portion of the building which leaves 1 space for the increased net leasable. We are having a hard time getting to where we feel we can be comfortable with the added impact of both residential unit and the commercial uses on site with the fact that there is only 5 spaces available. Joe presented some information to me on Friday that in 1990 he came back and sought an additional parking variance from HPC to go from 5 spaces down to 4 in the antique store. '~"""'--- So we started out with 4 going into this application. The increase was required to be 5 and 1/2. It got waived for 4 so that still leaves us with a 1. something deficit parking. One recommendation staff would present as an alternative to denial of this application is that the building be downsized to erase that overage that we are finding with both parking and employee housing. Parking requirements in the Office zone district is prefixed a thousand square feet of net leasable or 1 parking space for every 330 square feet of net leasable. So since we are deficient a little bit over 1 parking space we could advise the applicant or direct the applicant to reduce the building to get down to where he is not in a net deficiency. HPC granted, in addition to their parking variance for 4 spaces, granted an FAR bonus of 500 square feet to this parcel finding that the added square footage was in harmony with the historic resource. However the Planning staff feels that although the design of the structure may be able to accommodate that square footage the site itself and the constraints of parking and the mixed use makes it a very difficult proposition to talk about expansion of the building in a situation like this. And it is how we tie the whole building and it's footprint and it's relationship to the site. In the criteria #4 I hope we have described it in enough detail that it describes how we feel that this is a very difficult situation for us. 3 PZM6.21.94 -... The reason why HPC granted the FAR bonus of 500 square feet was because it was presented to them that there could be an option under the Office zone district requirements to put to the Planning Commission to consider an increase in floor area as a bonus situation for up to 1,250 square feet. In reaction to that potential that HPC felt it was more desireable for them to grant 500 square feet which would erase the possibility of going forward for 1,250 square feet. I think the Planning staff would not have ever recommended any sort of bonus to that affect. HPC did feel though that that was a potential judgement to the historic resource. The Stapleton property did get FAR bonus and they did accommodate affordable housing in th",ir pr::>ject but they also competed under Growth Management for the square footage that they got. The Commission right now is being asked to approve an exemption from Growth Management which is a very big deal not to be taken lightly. It doesn't go forward to the Council. It doesn't compete with those projects. So it is something that is definitely a benefit to the applicant. Krabacher: As you know it is a historic property. And under our Land Use Code historic properties are granted certain exemptions and benefits. I think that anybody who is in the market knows that the historic properties have significant downside in that people don't buy them because of historic restrictions. Nobody wants to go through HPC and those kinds of problems. So last year the Stapleton property--it is a 4,000 square foot lot- -came in to the HPC requested demolition of what I consider to be a historic building on that property and they got that demolition. And then they obtained an approval for a 4,000 square feet above grade, the 1 to 1 maximum that you can get in the Office zone district which this Commission granted that special review for that increase. Now Kim has mentioned that they competed and they went through the competition. But in my view the code doesn't apply a different standard just because they went through the competition. That was their downside. My downside is the fact that I have a historic house and my exactions are that I have to save that historic house which is basically a teardown. So I don't think there is a different standard that you can apply here to say they went through the process so they should be treated a little bit differently than mine that is not going through the process. The exemption is there as an incentive for people to restore these historic properties which we have done to the satisfaction of the HPC. The first issue that Kim brought is the change of use that occurred in 1989. When the application was submitted we submitted it on the basis that the approval that we received then was for the conversion of the entire property for commercial use. This is another incentive that is 4 PZM6.21.94 .........- provided for historic properties. It was fully disclosed at the time. We want to convert the existing residential into commercial use and then we are going to come right back with an application at some point in the future. And if we ask for 5% or 100% it wouldn't have made any difference. We cou'..d have gotten the approval. In the actual motion of approval from the meeting of November 21, 1989 it says they approve the change of use and GMQS exemption and they describe the property as having no limitation saying we are only approving part of a change of use and not a change of use for any additional portion. The Planning Office memo from that meeting-- "Staff recommends approval for a conditional use and GMQS exemption for the existing 1,699 square foot building. And then in this memo also they calculate the exactions for parking and the exactions for parking are based upon the 1,700 square feet. The application we made says that "The applicant wishes to change the use of the entire house to commercial. The applicant proposes to provide parking and trash service for the full commercial use of the house even though at this time the commercial use will be somewhat scaled back for the first few years". So I certainly didn't intend when I came in before, to say "Give me just part of it" when we could have asked for and that is what I intended to ask for and thought what I received was approval for the whole thing. So when we calculated the employee housing exactions for the application we came up with approximately 5 and 1/2 employees. So we did it for 3 employees. I was mitigating, in my opinion, based upon the facts and approvals I had for more employee housing than I was required to mitigate for. Staff has come back and said "Well, your application is inaccurate". And I guess I have the same view of the staff memo. And frankly I was a little frustrated by how the whole thing developed because the application was submitted 3 months ago. About 6 weeks ago I called Leslie who I had pre-apped it with several times. Finally got a call back from her to talk to Kim. I called Kim several times, left messages on her voice mail--"Is there any information I can get you? Do you have any questions?" Kim did return 1 phone call. And the next thing I knew was Friday before the meeting they are recommending denial based upon what I consider to be, at least on that issue, an interpretation question and not that I had submitted something that was inaccurate. So that is my view on the increase in net leasable that we have calculated the numbers right. We have exacted for more than we were required to exact for. As to this transportation parking issue I definitely disagree that we haven't provided enough spaces. The approval that we received in 1990 that gave us a parking variance for 1 space--we provided 5 at the time we did the special review. I came back in a year later and said "OK 5 PZM6.21.94 I am willing to take down the chain link fence and put up a nice picket fence if you vary one of my parking spaces". It is a problem being on Main Street being next to the Hickory House where you have guys sleeping in their cars right next to our back yard. My wife lives there and works there so we thought it was appropriate to do a fence. The concession was we will take down the chain link fence and build a nice picket fence but we want a parking variation for 1 space. So that was the proposal and what we were approved for. And that wasn't picked up in the staff's memo. They have assumed that the base number is 5 parking spaces we were required to have to start with. When in fact we are only required to have 4 spaces. So the 5 spaces associated with the increase have been taken care of completely. 1 has been added and 4 have been waived by the HPC. One of the problems with these historic properties is you want to move the development toward the back and you want to try and maintain this historic ambiance around the house that we have to restore. So under the language that is in the code and I think is in Kim's memo it says "If the spaces cannot be accommodated on the site of the historic property, they shall. be waived by the HPC". And the HPC agreed with this and said "Yes, we have to waive those if you can't put them on site". .......'. On the GMQS exemption I guess I would have a hard time swallowing "Reduce the size of your building" when that is basically the battle I went through with HPC. HPC said "We don't want you to do a Stapleton type project". And by the way I hired an attorney to fight the Stapleton project at the HPC and the Board of Adjustment when they came in and got a variance. My comments went unheeded. The Stapleton proj ect is setback to setback- -front yard setback to back yard setback--25 feet high--5 feet off my property line. It just ruins my property for anything. And so I came forward with this proposal which is I have a 5,000 square foot lot. The total buildout on this is approximately the same size as the Stapletons and they have a 4,000 square foot lot which also went through this process. So I felt I am taking 750 square feet off of this to help to bring the height of the addition down and helped make to make it smaller. We went through that battle with FAR with the HPC because the HPC's position is "If it is a historic property you are not entitled to your maximum FAR. You are entitled to whatever we tell you you are entitled to have". So I have to fight that battle again here and you say "Well you don't have a parking space. Take 400 feet off your building". This seems to be too much. Leslie: Point of clarification- -my understanding the battle fought at HPC and what and what we are requesting here is not to take what mumble 6 ,~'"~. PZM6.21.94 - Krabacher: That's correct. Of which about 200 feet is attributable to employee housing unit. I felt that I had exacted for more than I was required to exact for on the affordable housing. Arch: Staff brings up the issue of open space and sites 60% open space of site coverage. And actually that number is 57. And there is no requirement for this site anyway. I guess following that there are references made to window wells that in staff's opinion could be illegal and extending to the setback and may not function property in the design. It is a battle we fight with Bill Drueding all the 1:lme. We are to the letter of the law on those window wells. Staff also sites that the length of the building protrudes backwards across the parking area. That is a function of allowing the parking spaces to extend into the setback. So we are technically on a first floor not from setback to setback. We are in 4 feet from the setback in the rear. The second floor then protrudes back out to the setback. ,,~.. Kim: I have to eat some crow here. The reference to staff recognizing is not in the approval resolution but in the staff memo does recognize the 1,699 square feet for the GMQS exemption. I did have a problem that the parking spaces are designed so that the bumpers pretty much abut the back of the building. And the building official let me know that the egress in and out of the building for emergency purpose is at question here and that they would have to make a determination whether or not there is adequate egress. If the first floor of the building were moved back a couple of feet that would give a walkway between the bumpers and the wall of the building. Bruce: What is staff's present position with regard to this application? I am confused about the numbers--the 1,699, the 1,700- -how did we get from 1,699 to 1,726? Krabacher: When we brought it in and asked for the 1,699, that was based upon my architect at that time saying, "You have got 1,699". Since then I have changed architects and my architect now says "You have got 1,726". Frankly I don't care. I would go with the 1,699. It is not going to change the bottom line because based on either one I have exacted for more employee housing than I need to. Basically 1/2 of an employee more. Bruce: Under the present situation we have a total square footage FAR of 1,726 or 1,699. And we have 5 parking spaces on the site. And how much of that 1,726 do you consider to be net leasable? All of it? Krabacher: 1,699. /.,.~.-.. Bruce: But none of it that you consider to be residential. The 400 \, 7 PZM6.21.94 '.__..~- square feet is sort of out there somewhere. But you don't consider it residential. Krabacher: No. Bruce: Under the proposed addition, you are going to end up with how many square feet? Arch: FAR is 4,202. Bruce: And that represents 3,750 allowed by code plus the request for 452 extra. Right? Krabacher: Yes. Bruce: And parking spaces we are staying at 5. Right? Krabacher: Right. Bruce: And net leasable becomes-- Krabacher: 3,146. .- Bruce: So total FAR you are going from 1,726 to 4,202. Net leasable you are going from 1,726 to 3,146. The difference between the 4,202 and 3,146 represents the housing. Right? ~- Arch: Housing and circulation--commonareas. Tim: When the approval came to us to change the building to a mixed use to commercial and residential, it was because Joe and his wife lived there. And they wanted to be in this cottage-type antique industry where it was important for them to be on the premises. And so now we are getting, philosophically, this change. I didn't vote for it then. I was against the mixed use then. And I think now we were shown the stick, now we are getting hit with it. To use this mixed use and develop this kind of mass and this kind of density with all the other approvals that came along behind it and say we were given this and given this and now we are at this point and we have the right to do all of this. I think, philosophically, that we are not reading what was underlined in order to get to this spot. My opinion is that I am not in favor of a building this size--it is not compatible with the character of the historic application to this site. And I think that the commercial applications destroy and upset the character of the neighborhood. I think the density and the size of the development, whether it is mitigated for, is unfounded and unnecessary. I think that the parking is inadequate and I don't think that the process that has been used to get here has been clearly and fairly used to get to a building of this development size. Roger: My concern is along the east end of the building the window 8 PZM6.21.94 "'......... wells there virtually going almost to the property line. What is the Stapleton's setback from that same property line? Arch: 6 foot 8. Roger: Basically what sort of fence is going to be along there? I am looking at firemen having to run along that side of the building and falling down in the window wells which I don't like. Arch: Right now we are planning to leave the existing fence between the 2 properties. That will have to be moved during construction. I think that the building official and the way he interprets egress window wells, they are specifically structured for that concern. These meet the letter of the law as the building official interprets them. Kim: I talked to Bill and they have been in contact with Bill. Bill's last words to me were" In the final analysis is the building official's official determination was minimum egress from those rooms whichever they might be". Architect: No. These are to the letter of the law. It is clearly stated a 36 by 36 inch pad rising in 44 inch steps to ground level then can have adjacent to those areas window wells that are no deeper than 2 foot 6 below an existing grade. So these are to the letter of the law. Bill and I as long as I have been doing work in the City have been over that so many times I would never try to go around that. "..",,,,..~ '- Roger: Well, it may be to the letter of the law but I am interested in what is that fence going to do basically if there is a fire--is a fireman trapped with having to deal with these window wells? Or do they have the capability of using the adjacent property? Architect: Our firm designed the Stapleton project and I am almost positive there is a walkway the entire length of that side except at the forward area there is a handicapped ramp. Krabacher: If there is a concern we could take the fence out. Roger: Or lower the fence lower than 6 feet is what I am getting at. Bob: I agree that it is disturbing that this has gone on this far and come to us and :'.t seer.1S like there is not a clear picture between the applicant and the staff. And I just wish that that had been worked out. I fully accept your statements of verification but I--something is bothering me on this project and I just don't know what it is. And I guess I would feel more comfortable had I known this. I would feel comfortable if we could have a site visit and look at all of these things in terms of the kinds of things Tim has brought up in terms of scale, in terms of the safety factors. I think I would like to see this not come to a vote but postponed and give you a little more time to work with staff and come up with a clear analysis without having to 9 PZM6.21.94 -- react very quickly at this meeting. MOTION Sara: I move to deny the Krabacher Office Building GMQS Exemption for the commercial expansion, one bedroom free market unit, and the three bedroom Category 2 deed restricted unit for the following reasons: #1. The project does not satisfactorily comply with the Sections 24- 8 -104. B. 1 . c . 3 and 4. sper::if ic to transportation impacts and site design compatibility. #2. The application appears to be inaccurate regarding the amount of commercial square footage requested and the amount of commercial square footage historically present in the structure. This affects calculations for parking requirements and affordable housing mitigation. Tim seconded the motion. Roger: is some support I would prefer going along the line of Bob and seeing if there ground we can work out. So at this point I would not vote in of that motion. , '-~, Marta: I am bothered by the fact that somehow we have gotten this far and there is a lot of miscommunication. How did this get this far? A lot of money has been spent--a lot of time and effort. Bruce: I want to ask the applicant--assumingat some point in time that this application as you have presented it or some variation thereof, is approved. Are you done at that site? Or the fact that there is another 798 square feet potentially there, the difference between the 4,202 and the 5,000- -are we looking at 1998 another application coming in for this other 798 square feet? Krabacher: Do you want to make a condition that we can't file any other land use applications or whatever you think is appropriate-- that is fine. Before you deny it, at least table it. We have spent a lot of time on design compatibility, character and all these issues with the HPC which in my opinion has the best view of that kind of stuff. We have had 3 or 4 meetings with them one of which went till about 11:00 at night. At least give us an opportunity to address whatever concerns there are. Bruce: What I am getting at are some of the concerns that Tim raised in his comment a while ago. And also the fact that HPC granted this 452 to 500 square feet bonus. I am a little puzzled as to where we are now and how that fits in with the extra 25% that is available by special review by P&Z and how all of that fits together. So I am not 10 PZM6.21.94 ,,_.,... suggesting at all that we would want some kind of signoff from you that suggests you waive yot1r rights to file land use application. Krabacher: I would have no problem doing that. Bruce: My concern is that we understand that what we are getting is basically a finished project. Especially in light of the fact that there seem to be some concerns about the size of the box going in on this property. Krabacher: You have got to understand that a lot of that is dictated by the fact that you have a little historic house in the front that you can't build anything over it. You can't build anything close to it and you have to separate everything from that. And this is the typical conflict that we run into between HPC and Planning & Zoning. HPC wants to push everything to the back and to the side yards. We haven't asked any variances on the side and back. That is the site constraints and believe me we have spent untold hours grappling with it ourselves. Bob: I have seen a number of these little historic houses or shacks added onto in the west end and I think if a site visitation had been done on some of those maybe there would have been a different design to the site. " Tim: I am wondering how it really will help. We can see what the intent of the applicant is. We can see basically what he thinks is the highest and best use of his property. For us to have a site visit and walk through why he did this and then say to him "Well are you willing to change it because we want to re-design your building". He is going to say "No." And I think that is a strong position. Otherwise he wouldn't have come to this Board. He wouldn't have come in light of a denial from staff. He basically isn't going to change it for staff's recommendations. He is not going to change it for ours. It is not to me whether it is 752 feet. It is the philosophical intent of maximizing this double dip of taking an historic building from a residential space and making it a commercial space so he and his wife can have an antique shop and live on the premises. Now to me it is a mall. And that is not the intent of what I feel we discussed when we allowed him the variance. And I don't care how cleverly it is stated in the code. It is basically the intent of the philosophy of what we are dealing with here. Krabacher: First of all we never had an opportunity to respond to staff's memo because we didn't get it until Friday afternoon about 4: 30. So to say the applicant has refused to make any changes I think is inaccurate. We are certainly willing to consider the P&Z' s concerns and to attempt to address them. If you want me to take some square footage off certainly we will sit down and look at that. If we need to add some space so that you can get parking in the back we are willing to look at that. 11 PZM6.21.94 But just to say "I think we should deny it because the applicant is not going to change it" assumes something that is not the case. Bruce: We have a motion and a second for denial. discussion on that motion? Is there further Jasmine: One of the things that concerns me and has for a long time is exemptions from Growth Management. We have to balance the desire to preserve historic structures which we think is very important against the impacts that come from expansion or taking a landmark and developing it further. The reason for exempting historic landmark from GMQS is to preserve it's character. To me when you take a building and double it's size you aren't really preserving the character of the landmark. And I really feel that if you took a building like this and had to put it into competition that we would probably get a better designed than what we are seeing before us right now because other people would be having to wrestle with the same problems of small size, expensive land costs, needs for parking, need for housing mitigation. To me the crux of the issue is exemption from competition. I don't really see that this project is so outstanding that it should be exempted from competition. I would like to see it in competition with other projects. There was no further discussion. '''-~' Roll call vote: Marta, no, Robert, no, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, no, Jasmine, yes, Bruce, no. Motion failed 4 to 3. MOTION Bob: I make a motion that we table this application and set date of August 2 when this could be studied with a site visit and then come back with the issue and see what could be worked out in the interim. Roger seconded this motion. Bruce: I would proba.bly vote in favor of that motion if there were also some indication giving a directive to the applicant to try to respond to the concerns that were expressed at this table tonight and also the concerns raised by staff. Bob: I would accept that as an amendment to the motion. Roger accepted this as the seconder. Tim: It would be helpful to have more detailed plans also. Sara: I am with Tim. I have difficulty looking at a site that isn't 12 PZM6.21.94 ............. built on. A lot of our site visits are hazard implications or when we looked at that carport thing it was being built. So plans say much to me. Leslie: So 4:00 August 2nd for a site visit. Bruce: So we have a motion and a second to table to that date and also have the site visit on that date. Roll call vote: Marta, yes, Robert, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes Jasmine, yes, Bruce, yes. WINNERMAN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Kim Johnson, Planning, made presentation as attached in record. Late this afternoon I got a revised square footage from both the Nathanson and Winnerman parcels. The Winnerman parcel is located at the Ute Park Subdivision. It is a free market parcel of 1 acre located on Lot #2. It is 5,392 square feet. So it has shrunk down a bit. Bruce: Will wonders never cease! Kim: Avalanche is the big concern here. The applicant has met with staff and done some re-design and moving over of the parcel towards the east. I have also had some extensive conversation with Parks regarding the trees and there are some conditions that have to be changed based on their most recent discussion with Stan. Condition #14--14 inch Firs at the southeast corner of the house must remain. The applicant has brought to our attention that the trail alignment--this tree right here is the one we are talking about. We were concerned that because there were already quite a fair amount of substantial trees that were supposed to be removed already. This one was outside the envelope and approximately 10 feet away from the structure. And it should be saved. But there is a situation where the rail alignment for the Nordic Council did not follow it's proposed centerline and actually is down here that is kind of messing up the slope already plus the fact that their construction technique has been to demand without substantial manipulation a fairly large excavation which gets closer to _?_ than we and Parks staff would prefer. In other words the tree is probably going to die anyway. Kim: #14 can be deleted. And also at the request of Parks Dept--I was concerned about these trees in the patio area which I am also forwarded a recommendation #5 that this patio be eliminated in order to add additional protection to the residence from avalanche hazard. According to Art Mears there is a potential for snow to actually slide through the trees which may end up hurling into that excavated patio area plus it does remove several trees and Rebecca (Parks) says the 2 13 PZM6.21.94 -- closest 4 inch Aspens probably will be demolished because of construction anyway. But the farther away 4 inch Aspen and the 6 inch Aspen that were slated to be removed should remain assuming that you agree with staff regarding condition #5. We would like to express to Commission that the Nordic trail was not supposed to happen this way. I think that we should contact the Nordic Council and have them come in and address the issue of the re- vegetation and any kind of mitigation and see if this alignment is the one that needs to remain. Staff mentioned and created a condition of approval regarding the private access drive. This private access drive is going to require quite a bit of retaining wall to be added in the stretch midway through this lot around and almost down to the road. And it varies from 2 feet up to potentially 6 feet. Within the winnerman application it shows quite a big excavation and laying back of this slope. There was discussion between Kim and Mathis as to who was responsible for the development of the slope. Mathis: Where this wall comes around and meets the residence then we are going to change to a constructed wall. Bruce: What is happening to the 21 inch tree? "''''--' Kim: It no longer must remain because of the combination of factors of the construction technique was going to require an excavation somewhat larger than where the wall is shown on the drawing. And because of the problem with the trail alignment coming to within just a few feet on the uphill side of the tree. Bruce: Well, we really don't know where the trail alignment is. Kim: Except that it has already happened. Mathis: We can't protect that tree because it's dripline is 6 feet from the center line of the trunk. We go too far into the dripline and the tree is history. In discussion with the Parks Dept we agreed that we will mitigate whatever trees are removed based on the calculation the City has set forward. Sara: Is 5,770 square feet really allowed in the AH Zone? Arch: That is not actually the size of the building itself. Sara: OK. 5,392 feet? Kim: Yes. I checked that. The reason is because that parcel is an acre. 14 PZM6.21.94 ,,~.. Sara: But on that steep a slope? Kim: We do not have a floor area reduction for slope. Mathis: We moved the house completely out of the conditional zone. But Mears has said that we might expect to have some snow movement beneath the trees carrying branches. But not to any extent that we have to consider that an insert structural program. We don't have any doors that open out onto that patio. Marta: What is the purpose of the patio? Mathis: The patio is directly off of the living room and it is at the main level of the house. There is not much yard and we are going to have to do retention on the uphill side anyway and it is a natural to extend the foundation walls out and around to form some sort of space. It would be a summertime area. You couldn't use it in the winter. We can't extend any living area into the conditional zone. That is very specific in Art Mears recommendations. No decks. No patios. Bob: How do you access the patio? You say there are no doors from the living room. ".....- Mathis: Using drawings demonstrated egress onto the patio. '",--- Kim: The concern is the more you excavate to create yard area on a 40% slope- -this isn't the site to creating yard areas when it creates that much more impact to the hillside. It is a constrained site. You work with the site. You don't manipulate the site to the extent possible. And there is a cluster of Aspen trees there and staff is making the recommendation not to include the patio based on that aspect also-- not just the concern about snow coming through the trees and landing in the expanded window well. Mathis: The way we see it the Aspens that you are speaking of are going to be difficult to protect whether that patio is there or not. And we are willing to replace or re-locate, if we can, those trees. And Parks has agreed to that. Arch: What we are willing to do is that we will specifically--those trees in that area whatever size they are we will either transplant them or replace them at some other place on the site regardless of whether they are undersize or not. Mathis: The other thing I would like you to consider is that this modification of this landscape is on the uphill side from the house. The general public can't see what is going on with this work from any point, not even Smuggler Mountain. And once the trail is in it's-- conforming with what they are going to be able to do, you are not going to be able to see it from the trail. 15 PZM6.21.94 <'.,,-..-- Bruce asked for an encore of this for the record. Mathis: The general public is not going to be able to see--we have learned to define development in the City and County as any work that happens on the site. We have kind of come to terms with that. Now the development that we are talking about with this patio is on the uphill side of the house. It cannot be seen from Ute Avenue easily. It can't be seen from Hwy 82. You can't see it from Smuggler Mountain. And once the-- Bruce: The patio. Mathis: The patio. And once the trail is in it's correct location it is going to be some 60 to 80 feet above that patio. So you can't see it and we are willing to work with what we have and replace any vegetation that we decimate. I think that falls within the intent of the code? I think a lot of the intent of the code was to affect us as general public as we view our surroundings? (I would insert here that Mathis ends almost every statement he makes as a question as I typed the last 2 sentences here) And if you build 2 stories below grade who cares? The general public can't see it. And if you wish to live like that then I don't think that's harmful. And this patio simply adds to the experience of this house without adding a above-grade deck on the downhill side which I find more as being to the character of the site than an on-grade patio that no one can see on the uphill side on the sunny side when the sun does shine there. And I think in the winter time it is going to have a lot of snow on it. Marta: What size is the patio? Mathis: 15 feet away from it and then it kind of curves around and that is 24 feet. But in a triangular pretty much? In other words it is not a full rectangle and cut it in half. Roger: I see no purpose in eliminating the patio. As far as I am concerned 4 inch Aspens you can replace them and they grow like weeds. And as long as those trees are replaced I have no problems with them because there is at least 2 of those that would never survive that construction anyway. And I think that patio is an enhancement to a lower basically something at that point is really buried into the mountain and I think probably needs some light. I don't think that is a major factor that we have to deal with. Tim: The patio is not an issue for me. I think it enhances that space. But there is this one word that is like a red neon. It is the word "Zaluba". And it means to me that we had ongoing problems with- -that were never resolved with the road cut, with the re-vegetation, with the landscape plan, with the runnoff from the road cut, with the elements and components of the retaining wall. We never resolved what 16 PZM6.21.94 "'""~~- the exact wall was going to be and how the impacts behind the wall were going to affect the avalanche situation. Eliminating all these trees, cutting back in order to put a retaining wall that goes at a 5 to one grade, to me just opens up a whole new cleared area for avalanche. So again without the plans just to say that we are going to submit landscaping, we are going to submit the wall, we are going to submit the road cut, we are not sure where-- who is responsible for the trail and the zigzag part of the trail? These are all very important parts to an 8040 to me. And without the information in front of us for us to come back and have to re-visit these things after we have taken back the 8040, then we go in and try- -it is a nightmare 8040. Arch: The avalanche area is essentially over in here where we are not going to build. Tim: I realize that that is the red zone. But the blue zone is still critical. That is why we are having this review. If you just look at the relief of how radically these lines drop in on the house, you know how steep it is. Arch: We are disturbing only in this zone which is out of the avalanche area. The trail location which the County equipment came in and tore through here is going to be mitigated by the County who actually did that. .,........- Kim: It is the Nordic Council. I am not sure the County had anything to do with that. Arch: Well it was County equipment. It was unknown to us. We were surprised to see it in the first place. So that is going to be addressed and mitigated- -Kim and the people in Planning are going through and get that so that it is put back the way it was supposed to be in the first place which doesn't affect what we are doing. Tim: I understand you have theories for all of these things. But when it comes down to what we are really going to see, we don't know. And in order to make a decision about granting an 8040 Greenline Review, they are very important things for me to see even if it is a written memo that says "These things pertain to this and these people will mitigate it. These things pertain to that and these people will mitigate it". We are going on like "Well is this guy going to do this and this?" Without knowing what the road cut looks like, what the runnoff is going to be like, what the exact wall is going to be like, what the landscaping plan is going to be, to me they are the most important things that are going to have to happen in order to secure this house above 8040. 17 PZM6.21.94 ~ Mathis: You need to know that a permit has driveway built. And the retaining wall done. with this. been let to have this And they are underway Arch: It has already been approved and granted a building permi t . It is a done deal. Tim: It still is not completed. I am saying the information for me is very difficult to deal with because I really don't know what we are going to get. Mathis: You are putting us between a rock and a hard spot. Tim: I am there right now. I am trying to put you guys there so you understand the squeeze that I feel. Arch: We are going to do our best because what we want isn't any different than what you want. We want it to look as nice as we can get it to have the least amount of that kind of impact. Everybody is going to try their darndest to make that happen. Tim: What if it doesn't work? What if the boulders don't hold or the road doesn't handle the runnoff? And what if all these things without having specific things that we can hold him to--that you can hold him to--that we can hold you to? "".",...,," Arch: These were engineered by confident engineers who have built roads in this town and the County before. And they tend to build things that work. Obviously if they stop working at some point, they get repaired. These guys do it all the time and they make it work. So the best avalanche expert of the world looked at this stuff and said this is not going to cause us problems. Tim: I am here because I believe in the system. I am one who wants to make the system work. I want to vote on giving you this 8040. But I can tell you just up the road it didn't work. And it was a nightmare. And I am just asking for things that I feel like I let go- -on good arguments, on good faith in a previous application. And they are still not resolved. And it is a terrible scar. It is a road that can't be really repaired in my mind and the site is unbuildable. We didn't have landscape plans. We didn't have guarantees on the wall. We didn't have components of what the plan was going to be so that we could really see wh&t w&s going to happen. I am willing to bargain in good faith but I can tell you that these are very important things. And from your standpoint the road is absolutely crucial. And without knowing what the road-- Arch: there. It is out there. It has been dug. It has been there for over a year. It is a done road. It is Kim: It still needs to be widened to meet the standards. 18 PZM6.21.94 ~ Arch: Right. And it will meet the standards of the County and the City and the Building Dept. Tim: We are going to ask you to guarantee everything you say here to be able to guarantee us. Arch: Well, it is not for me to guarantee. I am not the one-- Tim: Well then you shouldn't be saying it. This is the point that I am trying to make. Do you get my point? Kim: The 3 lots of the Ute Park Subdivision are enjoined in a homeowner's association. The point is that there is an entity that I think that the Planning Commission could make responsible from here on out for maintenance and vegetative screening. Arch: That goes without saying. maintain the road. The homeowner's association will Kim: I don't mean maintain the road like plow the road. provide vegetation or whatever to address visual impact. I mean Arch: And we absolutely want to do that and we can stipulate something to that affect. The actual building of the road and the building of that wall is an issued building permit. And it is done. And there is nothing I could do about it and nothing I can guarantee. _,,_I Mathis: We have a certain degree of reliance. Tim: I think that your design is really going to work. But it is a very difficult site and without having the landscape plan here both for the house and the subdivision-- Mathis: We can only provide to you what has been called out in the subdivision agreement. We can but we don't need to provide anything greater than what you guys have already asked for when you approved the subdivision. Our discussion this morning with the Parks Dept involved a landscape plan and that landscape plan is prior to the building permit. Kim: The landscape plan that they are talking about is specific to the front part of the house. I have included a condition that there shall be only native vegetation replanting from the area immediately disturbed around the construction site. So as far as the Lilacs and the Tulips and whatever that is relegated to the very front of the house--I think that is something that can be addressed by Parks and Planning staff. They are not that far along. Tim: I am not worried about that. disturbing the site. I am more concerned about "'~. 19 .- PZM6.21.94 - Sara: Every time we go through this Stream Margin and 8040 we have asked that there must be an inspector on site to see that these conditions are adhered to. And then we wouldn't go through what we went through with Zaluba. So I would like to add that as a condition of approval. I do obj ect to the patio. I don't approve of an uphill into the envelope In a zone like this. I don't like any intrusion or disturbance of land in a high risk area like that. I also thought in former approvals we didn't allow any windows on an uphill side like that in a high risk zone. Kim: If this were in a blue zone there are specific preclusions. Tim: How far away is it? Kim: Well, that's debatable. .- Mathis: We went back and forth with Mr. Mears and in his discussions with us it is clear that he has put down through there the blue and the red. If we so much as put one foot--evena small corner of that house in the blue zone the entire uphill side of the house fell within the loading restrictions that he set forth. If we are into the unconditional zone he is a happy camper. And we are pretty much following what was presented to you folks. --- Roger: I look at it as the building envelope is out of the conditional zone- -out of the blue zone. I can see on that topo approximately where the red zone is. (he showed on map) Now let's not put the building envelope in a danger zone that doesn't exist. Sara: That is a steep slope. Roger: But it is not on an avalanche chute. The building envelope is outside of any potential avalanche chute according to the experts. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Winnerman 8040 Greenline Review with conditions #1 through #4, #6 through #13 and #15 on Planning Office memo dated June 21, 1994. (attached in record) Bob seconded the motion. Sara: I would like to add the condition that an enforcement officer be on site to enforce any of the earth moving-- Bruce: Sara, I think it is great for us to ask for that. don't know how we can make it a condition of approval applicant because they have no control over City staff. However I for this Mathis asked for #10 to be changed to read "compatible". 20 ",- PZM6.21.94 '~ Roger: I will change #10 to read "Color shall tend to earth tones to make the building less visible on the hillside". Bob agreed to this change for the second. Roll call vote: Marta, yes, Robert, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, no, Bruce, no. Bruce: The reason for my "no" vote is that I don't think condition #7 has been met to satisfaction. That is not condition #7 of the approval. It is standard 7 of the 8040 Greenline. I basically have a problem with houses being built above 8040 anyway. And as I was quoted in the paper just last week, if I were doing it 25 years ago I would have said there never would be a house on any of the hillsides around here and everything would be built on the valley floor. We are past that point obviously. But I just haven't been satisfied that this house is going to blend in with the mountainside to my satisfaction. Jasmine: I agree with Bruce on condition #7 and I also believe that #5 has not been met at least based on the information that is presented. The information presented is not adequate to make me feel that those have been met. MOTION ",",""'- - Sara: I move for staff to notify the Nordic Council that the trail cut on Lot #2 is a violation of the 8040 regulations. The Nordic Council must submit an application for 8040 review for the trail within 30 days notice. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Sara: I move to direct staff to have an enforcement officer present at the site to insure that conditions as far as on the site are met. Kim: How about regular inspection by appropriate staff? Sara: I move to direct staff appropriate dep~rtments be ongoing that these conditions are met. that appropriate site visits by in the development to make sure Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. NATHANSON 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Kim made presentation as attached in record. ,",""""'" Roger: I have a question about the deck. In the middle of it you have this terrace. Does that mean the 2 decks do not go over the terrace? - 21 PZM6.21.94 '"-' I notice the terrace is 10 feet below the deck. Mathis: The purpose of the deck is to take away from the 2-story aspect of the house. Parks agreed that we could re-locate the 6 inch Aspens downhill by use of one of the ballers. If it is the wish of this committee I can make those trees go right around in that deck and we can cut that deck back a wee bit. Roger: I don't mind sacrificing 4 to 6 inch Aspens if we get the replacement that in 10 years we have a nice growth of screening trees. Mathis: The Nathansons will be happy to replace those 4 inch caliper trees. Mathis: The only thing that is important to me here is that I have a little deck standing out from that corner. We can cut the corner of that deck back to approximately the line of those trees so that there is an obvious 4 foot wide width from the long deck down over to this other deck. I am willing to push the space of that deck back at that particular corner and replace these trees. They probably will die anyway because of construction. Kim: Condition #5 then--The deck outside the master bedroom shall be reduced in size to retain the mature Aspens at the northwest corner of the house. In addition--replacementof at-risk trees caliper inch for caliper inch. "-",~ MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Nathanson 8040 Greenline Review with conditions #1 through #4 in Planning Office memo dated July 21, 1994. Condition #5 as stated by Kim. Conditions #6 through #9 as in Planning Office memo dated July 21, 1994. Condition #10 changed to read "Color shall tend to be earth tones to make the building less visible on the hillside. And conditions #11 through #14 as stated in Planning Office memo dated July 21, 1994. (attached in record) Marta seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Marta, yes, Robert, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yesl Jasmine, no, Bruce, no. Bruce: For the same reasons previously stated. My concerns are a little less grave on this house because it is further down the hillside. Jasmine stated for the same reasons. MOTION ",",.<-., Sara: I move to direct staff to have the appropriate members of the appropriate departments on site in order to enforce conditions of 8040 22 PZM6.21.94 Greenline Review. I would now like this to be a standard condition of 8040 Stream Margin Review. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. HIRSCH STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Kim made presentation as attached in record. Wayne Stryker, representing applicant: The owner would like to not agree to expand the ROW but for the ROW to be as is currently recorded which is 6 and 1/2 feet wide--not to become 12 feet wide. Kim: only feet When the Parks Dept discovered that it was there and that it was 6 and 1/2 feet, they are requesting that that be extended to 12 to conform to the standard trail easement. Bruce: Condition #6 doesn't reference anything about the size of the easement. All it says is that the easements must be shown on the building site. It is not a condition of approval that it be 12 feet. ,,-, Tim: What will happen then--12 feet, down to 6 feet then back to 12? - Kim: Rebecca was going to continue research. This is a new discovery. The Parks Dept didn't even know that there was pedestrian easement on the river on this lot. She wasn't sure whether it is even attached to anything. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Hirsch Stream Margin Review with conditions #1 through #6 on Planning Office memo dated June 21, 1994. Jasmine seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Marta, yes, Robert, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Bruce, yes. Sara: I make a motion to add the condition that was added to the 8040 as part of Stream Margin and Greenline Review. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:55 P.M. ~,-, erk ',^- 23