You sent out an invite. You sent out an invite for the 19th. And then you canceled it. I took it back. I don't know. And the next thing I'm going to call in is you get the call. I think you sent it out of here. I think. Totally. I just thought you were doing us a favor, Mike. Yeah, I was really.. I guess I'm not for as tech savvy as I thought. I have no idea how I started tech. Well, I mentioned it to you, right? Because it's the opportunity since the town is still in its former. And if you vote, this is an opportunity for us as individuals to show that I mean you have concerns of issues, whatever be able, and I have issues so I'm sure that's good. But why, but if you guys do as well. Thank you, sir. I'm just interested to hear the conversation and all that. Let's go. Quite as if not in a official crowd. Hey, Stan. Oh, this is a good video. Oh, boy. Individuals. That's a good video. It's a lot. Shark. Where's your shoe? I'm here. I'm back. So the other one's cringed in here. Yeah, I'll be right back. It's good to see you guys. If this is very my project, I really couldn't say how long do you have a I you know I I'm speaking. I don't know. I just wanted to do it. I don't know if there's a problem with that. Yeah. Oh, there I'll see you go. We'll call you up and we'll usually let that be speak. Then we'll let people comment. It depends on many people. We usually don't. As long as it's not like 30 minute presentation. We've had that before. I'm not going to do anything. And you're not going to be out golfing. You're not going to be out golfing that day. I just couldn't do it. It was bad. I was just seeing it. Thank you. Don't forget to sign that. Thank you. Thank you. I've got that on my calendar. I'm not going to do anything. And you're not going to be out golfing. You're not going to be out golfing. You're not going to be out golfing that day. You guys ready? Sure. Brian, you ready? Ready. All right. It's four o'clock, actually a little bit after four. We're going to call this meeting to order. First item is roll call. You betcha. Vice Chair Marshaq. Here. Commissioner Clausson. Here. Commissioner Dubay. Is it absent? Commissioner Seglund. Here. Commissioner McMahon.on. Commissioner Dubay. Senator Sen. Commissioner Seglon. Here. Commissioner McMahon. Here. Commissioner Gustafason. Here. Commissioner Far. Here. All right, thank you. First item is approval of the meeting minutes from April 23, 2000. 25. Anybody have any comments? Well, I noticed I got a tardy slip here and I thought I had arrived at 401, not at 402. I'm just kidding. You're a good record keeper, Ashley. We're going to leave it at 402 just to keep you on your toes. No, anybody have anything? Motion to approve So move second all in favor. All right, okay All right second item is which one is this Ridge Run? Lot one Ridge one unit one lot five right are you gonna to be? Yeah, I'll be presenting that. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Brian McNullis, senior planner for the town of snowmass for the record. Before we get started, the applicant has provided the affidavit of mailing and posting for this public hearing. This is not a public meeting. This is in fact a public hearing because it is a variance. So pursuant to section 16A-5 240, which is the code section specific to variances. The planning commission is the final decision making body for the town of Snowmass on issues such as these. So that goes for the hearing that we're talking about here right now and also the following one that will be presented by senior planner Jim Wallstrom. So we haven't seen one of these in quite some time. Typically with the variance request the applicant must demonstrate a hardship, okay, which staff believes is the case in this particular situation for Ridge Run 1, Lot 61. The proposal is for a sale, I'm sorry, a soil nail retaining wall, I have a hard time sending that, soil nail retaining wall, which provides relief from the lateral pressure that is put on the foundation of the existing residence on the property. The proposal also offers stabilization of far-away road, which is an endeavor that is supported by our Public Works Department. They have provided a referral letter in your packet as exhibit C for your reference. As mentioned in the staff memo, community development does question approval to propose patio space projecting into the setback and encroaching to the property line adjacent to far away road and within a utility easement. So I wanted to kind of just go through the survey here just very quickly if I may. So the existing survey, the property is located on Maple Ridge Lane and that's where the property is accessed from. See if I can get this to work today. So this is the access, this is Maple Ridge Lane to the north, sandwiched in between Maple Lane and Far Away Road, which is up above. So the property climbs pretty steeply up from Maple Ridge up to Far Away. And the area of question for the variances to the south of the residence, I think the next, this pointer's already going out on me, but the next slide should show it So this again is the property you can see the vicinity map up in the left-hand corner The property the houses, you know, obviously it had been on the been on the property for quite some time The area in question is the hashed area to the south of the residence as you you can see, there's an excavation area as it encroaches towards Farway Road, and then there is a retaining wall associated with it. This is a picture of the property as taken from Farway Road, looking down Farway Road to the east, the existing residence there on the left side. You can see how it slopes off very steeply from far away road down towards the base of the residents. Another photo looking up far away road to the west, again taking note of the steepness of the hillside that is what is causing pressure on the foundation of this existing residence. This is just a floor plan that is forthcoming for building permit showing the lower level floor plan again showing the soil nail wall here to the backside of the residents to take some of that excavation take away some of that material and engineer it so that we're not having that pressure on the foundation of the house itself as well as I mentioned before the stabilization of far away road in the interim and in the future. I thought this was an important slide to include for the presentation. Just shows two sections through the residence, the front side of the house being to the left, the backside of the house of far away road on the right side. You can kind of see the excavation areas highlighted here. That's what the Appcamp and what has been recommended for engineering and stabilization of this hillside. Again, the area question that we really like planning commission to touch on is the proposed cap area that they have over this excavation area. So you see this cap that goes over the top of this area, which would provide extra utilized area for the residents, extra patio area that would go all the way up to the property line, which is typically something that we don't allow in a variance application. We certainly understand the need for the stabilization of the hillside. The question for staff is whether or not this is something that's appropriate for this particular variance request. So with that, I'll turn it back over to the Planning Commission. Fritz Carpenter, who is the representative for this application is online, and I'm sure he would probably appreciate an opportunity to comment on this. Before we do that, I do wanna remind the planning commission that this is a public hearing. So there may be members of the public, either online or here at town hall. I wanna comment on this particular application. We'd like to give them an opportunity to do so. Great. Thank you, Brian. At this point, let's just go ahead and turn it over to the applicant. If that's Fritz Carpenter, I'll let you go ahead and present. Hi. Yeah, thank you. This is Fritz speaking. Basically, what we're trying to achieve with the deck over the top of the excavated area is cleaner drainage system. We investigated doing a geofoam infill with the engineering team and they concluded just preliminarily that that would be quite expensive as well as not give us the drainage that we're seeking because one of the main problems with this hillside is the wedding of soils and I submitted the geologic report from Kumar Associates. It shows basically expansive clays in this area that's approximately 17 feet deep until you hit a harder layer and so by allowing us to have drainage off the surface, we basically feel that it would be a much easier way to make sure water doesn't become an issue farther down the road for this, you know, pre-expensive procedure of putting in a soil so that's sort of our hope and our goal with the expansive deck over the top, which would be outside the building envelope. And as far as the procedure of the soil nail wall, we'd be digging down five feet at a time and then activating the nails themselves and then putting shock read in to secure everything. So and as we talked about earlier this is going to help stabilize far away road and ultimately be a benefit to the town. So yeah that's all I got. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else on your on the applicant's side that wants to present? Walter or Adolfo? I don't know if you guys have comments. Yes, we're here, but you've covered it all very well for it. Nothing to add without hazard. Great. I'm going to turn it over to our fellow commissioners with some questions. Jim Gussison, go ahead. Looking at the photo that's up there right now, can you identify where the right of I assume that on the floor plan or the site plan, the soil nail wall and the patio area are going right up to the town road right of way and which is not often or even usually right on the edge of pavement. So where is in this photo as an example, where is the right of way line relative to edge of pavement? So it's a little tough to see. I don't know if we can switch back to the site plan, but I can say that it's probably in this cluster of trees. Okay, yeah, so the utility easement is about 11 feet from the actual property line. And then if you see that tree that's being cut in half by the turquoise line. So I don't know if we can switch back to the photo of the road to show you exactly. Yeah, I want to say it be where the shadow is hitting that Aspen tree down the slope. I don't know if that helps, but. You're able to see my cursor. Yeah, yeah, yeah, there you go. So down a little bit. I think it'd be a little bit further that other Aspen tree that has the shadow on it right there. I want to say. I think we can we can probably verify that and I have another question, but I also wanted to just make this disclosure, I guess, that we will eventually be reviewing this by the HOA Architecture Review Board, which I am on. So I will participate in this discussion, but I'm going to abstain from voting on this so that we still have a cleaned record to be able to review it at the Architecture Review Board standard as well. The second question that I had was, I assume, because I don't see it shown, that that area below the patio was not bad. Jim, can you pull the mic closer to you there? So, let's give you a raise. Is that area below the patio is not backfilled in any way? Is that correct? Sorry, the area below the backfield. The area below the patio. Is that backfilled? Currently it is backfilled, but with this proposed wall, all of that material would have to be taken off site. Well, that's what I mean. In the final construction, it's not backfilled. It's a void space. Correct. It's a void space. Yeah, correct. And I'm glad you brought that up because, you know, although, like I, as we mentioned in the staff memo, talking about the appropriateness of having a deck extend into this utility easement and setback. Looking at this photo, you can see with the excavations proposed without the patio, I mean, it would create quite a chasm there in that area. Quite a chasm. So we're talking about excavation beyond what you're seeing there, you know, to the extent of an additional 13 feet. So, you know, I imagine that the planning commission could take the standpoint from an aesthetic standpoint that, you know, maybe a deck is a more appropriate application to having just a retaining wall than a drop off. However, you know, staff was not able to come to any sort of determination from the standards ever in the code that using a variance to accomplish that is necessarily appropriate for an accommodation of a deck area for a residence. I think there's a number of issues here, one of which as you pointed out, Brian, is the prohibition of developing space between the setback and the property line. Usually, that is limited to 50% of the distance. So this goes 100% to the right of way, which is why the location, the right of ways has some significance. And then one other little comment is, although you've made the finding that this is a hardship, and I don't know the history of ownership of this house, but the road was there before the house. So the hardship was developed as a result of the construction of the house. It still seems like it's a problem now after the fact, but it might have been engineered differently back in the day when it was built. So those are just a couple of observations on this particular application. I see Anna's back there and I assume that the over dig on the over dig on the installation of that soil nail wall is probably going to be pretty significant in terms of its proximity to the edge of pavement. And I don't know exactly how they'll, I mean, you describe that you're going to go down in five foot lifts, which is typical and then put in the nails. Anyway anyway it's a concern that it's going to be basically holding up the road. Anybody else have any questions to that? I do but first I need to make a disclosure that I do have projects that involve its Terrell landscaping, but I don't have any direct financial relationship with Fitzgerald landscaping, so I leave I can move forward on this. My question is, if the yellow area is intended to be avoid, where is it intended to be filled? So that would in fact be avoid the way it's presented in this particular application. Which offers some concern also for staff moving forward in the future, not necessarily with this particular land owner, but any sort of future land owner with regard to does that allow the ability for that to become Louisable space in the future one way or another. Like I said, not specific to this landowner in any way, shape or form, but of course with regard to what that could potentially become. And the void would be accessible from the edges of the. Not as represented or shown. I mean, that's a foundation wall that they have represented there that would create that space or that separation to that void space that your referencing stand. And the alternative to having that was discussed briefly by the engineer, but I'm not entirely clear what the alternative is. Hi, can I speak to that? Sure. So the alternative is we do the soil now while we have the void, but instead of throwing a deck over the top and making sure it's waterproof for drainage, we would fill this cavity with geofoam. And then essentially we'd have a secondary foundation wall that is backing up the geofoam as well as the soil nail wall. Because you know, all this is in an effort to avoid any lateral earth pressure on the foundation wall itself. So the geofoaming would fill the space we'd have landscaping over the top but it would require a pretty extensive drainage plan and execution to get water to keep moving away from the area that we're trying to get water out of. So yeah that would be the way we would do this other than the deck over the top. So let me just add that you know this this is proposed within an existing utility easement touched on briefly by the referral from public works was the suggestion that should they have to do any work in this area in the future you know having a structure that's you know filled with geofoam or you know whatever the case may be certainly makes any sort of project in that area that would have to be undertaken by the town that much more difficult. I'm not sure if Anne's able to speak to whether or not this utility easement is utilized. I don't believe it is or whether or not there's any plans for its utilization in the future or reference to drainage in that area. Good afternoon. I wasn't aware. So I'm not familiar with this application. I probably might probably looked at it. Okay. I guess I'm off the flag because I haven't looked at this but I'm not aware of there's utilities in that area right now but if we were to do a project it would be responsible of the homeowner to remove all that infrastructure. It wouldn't be responsible to the town. So the homeowner needs to be aware that anything within that utility easement is not like a permanently allowed thing. The other thing that I'm concerned about is and I don don't see it on this drawing, is where that property line is. Any sew-in nailing that goes into the right away would require a license agreement, and that's not a guaranteed approval. So any structure within the right away needs to have approval, whether it's below grade or above grade, so that allows us to do what we need to do within the right way. Thank you. Which would be a good added condition of approval regardless of how the planning commission rules on this. We should probably have that. Thank you. Dan, anything? I do. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. David. Sorry.. It's to be clear then that this work is being initiated by ownership of the property and not by the village. That's correct. Okay. A couple of questions, Brian. I see on the drawings there is a floor area calculation which references the existing floor area, a total allowable floor area, the available floor area, but what is the final floor area that's being proposed? Because I do notice that there are, there is an expansion of some interior space, there's of some double-height space, their openings and some flooring. Is that calculation shared? So in all transparency, this project has not made it to building permit zoning review, which that's the point at which we actually look at it for compliance with a loud floor area associated with property. So we don't know what we're not told whether the proposed floor area expansion exceeds what's allowed or not at this point. Not at this time. Okay. That's one question that I had. The other is, I guess, based on what engineering has told us so far that whether or not the deck expansion happens, it's either going to be a flat surface of some landscaped element over geofoam, which is then available to the homeowners, whether they put a deck on it or not, I suppose. Is that a fair statement? Well, this evening is the first time I heard about any sort of landscape and alternative. The plans that we've seen have been decking material of some sort. You know, certainly, I think staff would have a greater level of comfort if it were a landscape application opposed to maybe a decking surface, but as proposed right now they are requesting that this structure and the structure of being a wall as an excess of 10 feet be allowed within the utility easement as well set back. Okay. I got the impression though looking at the documents that there's a trade off in decking it seems it's being proposed and that there's some decking at the front of the building that's shown as being removed. And I guess. And yeah, and if that's the case, that is nothing that we count towards floor area to begin with. So maybe this addresses your earlier question. Yeah, either way, does it qualify as floor area but anything like that that's over 30 inches qualifies the structure needs to be contained inside the building that will. Right I just thought maybe it might be some trade-off that they're willing to offer even though I realize it's not a floor area a floor area issue but what I was concerned about is that new excavation is covered it does appear that there is some new interior space that's being built with in a portion of that new excavation Right and and to be clear that new expansion area is contained within the established building envelope as it as it exists right now If you're referring to this right here I guess what I was referring to was a building section that appeared to show some new captured space. Excuse me, will have a thorough zoning plan review at the time they submit for building permits. So, you know, depending on whether or not this gets approved by planning commission, we will make sure that it meets the conditions of approval associated with the resolution. Otherwise we're making sure that every sort of expansion of this, this residents is contained within the building envelope as it exists. Okay. That's all. Thank you. Okay. I have just a few questions too. Thank you. I'm curious when this property was last purchased. Do you know that? I'm not sure. Maybe Fritz could answer that. So this property was purchased in 2021 by the owner, no, now. And yet I don't know if this helps for anybody, but we do, I did submit a structural engineering report from SK Pytle engineers and Basalt, who had observed the property in 2012. And they walked through and saw cracking of drywall door jams out by half an inch to an inch, and then garage door frames that were basically completely out of plumb. And then when we did a walk through with Glenwood Spring Structural Engineers in 2024, so last fall, we noticed beams, or sorry, columns in this lower wall, I don't know if you can point to that, Brian, in the section, in the family room, that wall is out of plumb by a good inch and a half and that's a steel column in there so there is pretty significant lateral earth pressure exerted on the entire structure so yeah. Thank you that's really helpful. The other question I had for staff is I heard from Fritz that there was concern about drainage and then I'm hearing about the utility access. And so I was wondering if staff had, if you have thoughts on the drainage first benefit versus reward of accessing utilities? Well, so again, the utility utilities meant to the best of my knowledge is not used for utilities currently. It doesn't mean that it wouldn't be used for utilities in the future, but speaking with Mike Horvath, who works for the Public Works Department, there are no immediate plans to actually utilize and free any sort of utilities of any sort. I can't necessarily speak to the drainage. We would expect that any sort of the plans that were submitted in accordance with the engineering report that was sent in would improve drainage, but of course that's something that we'd also look at closely during our building permit review. As public works, we continue to be a referral on any sort of building permit application that was submitted. So if the patio was not approved and just the retaining wall then new construction or new considerations would need to be made for drainage and the town would help with that? Well, not necessarily. I mean, I think the proposed design of the Soil Nail wall can be accomplished without the accompanying patio. I think the patio, probably first and foremost, was in this aesthetic consideration by the applicant. And probably secondarily, maybe an amenity to the residents. I can't speak to that. But I think the proposed design can be accomplished without the cap of the patio, proposed over the top of it. Understood. Thank you. Something that perked my ears up is what Gus said about the retaining wall basically holding up the road. And I was wondering if you could dig into that a little bit more in your concerns. It's simplification. But yes, it is in the base of the soil nail walls in the natural angle of repose there from the road. So I assume that not only the soil nails themselves, but even the shotcrete wall is within that angle of repose. And I don't know how Anne calculates it. I mean, engineering techniques change. But I was going to, as sort of a tangential question to what you just raised, which is if that, if the town or the HOA were to limit the extent of the patio to no greater than half the distance between the setback and the property line, would that, if... to no greater than half the distance between the setback and the property line, would that encourage you from an engineering standpoint for it to move the retaining wall further away from the road? You know, the shot creed, soil nail wall further away from the road, and then just landscape the... So to answer that directly, the reason that we're asking to go all the way to the utility easement and the property line is because we need to get machinery and equipment in all the way around, can you actually switch to the site plan, Brian? We basically need to get an excavator, pretty substantial excavator in behind the house, foundation existing foundation wall, and then as well we need to keep going all the way to the eastern end of the house. And so that presents a pretty tricky situation where we're up against a steep hillside, obviously. And we're up against an existing foundation and moving equipment, especially a soil nail machine that can run nails horizontally. It needs quite a bit of room to maneuver in this space. So that's the reason why we're asking to go all the way to the property line in this situation. And you know, we discussed this at length. The engineering team we have been on the site three times looking over everything and just making sure that it is in fact feasible to get equipment and operators and people working safely to stabilize the hillside. Yeah that's a good answer I mean I was thinking you might be able to excavate it from up above but just getting the equipment in there for the soil nailing would be problematic. And I guess I'm sort of leaning towards the notion that maybe the patio should be limited to the area that's inside the setback. And the rest of that eastern part of it might be re-sloped and vegetated in a more natural way so it doesn't steeply step down from the road there. But in any case you'd have to get back in there to accomplish the soil nail wall. I can see that. And also just to add to that, if we were down to the 50% or sorry to the edge of the utility easement, we would have to pour another wall essentially to trap the geofoam in place up against the soil now all. So. That's it from you. Thank you very much and thanks, Gus. Doug, anything? No, pretty much, I did have that same concern on drainage, the same question given that area. Doug, anything? No, pretty much. I did have that same concern on drainage, the same question given that area from far away down to the back of the house is typically snowloaded, all winter by town, town, ploughed and so you add that to the discussion as well but I think that's been addressed. This is one of the older lots in snowmasses, and you can see that it isn't a true setback where the setback is just setback from the property line, I guess. And as opposed to building envelopes, which is the more current configuration, I don't see a building envelope line there so I assume it's just a pure setback. Yeah, on the set on backside of the house the setback corresponds with utility use. And there is an encroachment that you can see here which was ratified by nature of a whole notice of decision from 1991 or something like that. Okay. I call my questions, I'm answered by all your questions. So before we discuss anybody from the public, have any comments on this online or in the room? Okay. I'll open it for a journal discussion amongst ourselves. What do you guys want to do? Well, I appreciate all of the information and answers to the questions that I had, especially the ones that weren't outlined. So I think I lean towards what the, or I am leaning towards what staff have proposed in approving the retaining wall, but not the request for the patio addition. I'm in line with that as well. Right. You're not going to vote, so. I'm going to be able to abstain as opposed to reviews. I think that the patio extending all the way to the property line is a bit harsh relative to the road. And there is a drainage solution. And my question to Brian is, do we have to see that alternative solution in order to prevent the variance? No, not this. No. I don't believe so. Because as you mentioned to Jamie, it would just be a matter of not incorporating the deck cover associated with the engineering solution that's been offered. But when you would like to eventually see what the geophone and the answer solution would be, and we'll see that on the next round, Is that? Well, so. With this solution, there would not be a landscaping component with it if you were to take away the cap here, like I said, and when I mention the chasm, I mean, this would just be a void space. Okay. So, but and this all, are you talking about for like down here, Stan, like at the bottom of this void space for landscaping? I'm just not clear in section what we're getting. Yeah. So the planning commission certainly has the ability to ask for, you know, clarification in that regard. I mean, if you guys are modifying what's being proposed here or what's being brought forward by the applicant and not allowing this component to occur, but making sure the drainage occurs. And if you guys are wanting to see landscaping down here below, there's two ways to go about it. If planning commission wants to weigh in on that, they could certainly ask for it to come back and take a look at that, or it could be to the discretion of staff myself on the person that typically looks at landscaping plans that come across the desk for building permit applications, Smithals. Brian, I'm confused. I thought that the alternative that Fritz mentioned was to fill the void with geofoam up to the level of the proposed deck. And then landscape that. Am I misunderstanding that? Maybe I misunderstood you Fritz. Could you provide a little bit of clarification that regard are you are are you suggesting and what's what's the proposed scenario should the should the deck not be approved? Okay yeah so if the deck doesn't get approved we can come up with a solution to fill the void with geofoam and do landscaping and drain it over the top. I don't think there's a scenario where we're happy with an open hole behind the house. And so yeah, I think that the GeoFone fill in fill with landscaping is the direction we would go. Okay, I appreciate that clarification. So could you consider putting in a secondary concrete retaining wall at the edge of the house there and then backfilling that so that you can bring that angle down from the road in a more gentle... So the reason we don't want to use backfill and we want to use geochome is because of that lateral earth pressure. Basically with the soil nail wall, we've essentially retained everything we need to to make sure that the foundation doesn't move at all. And then by adding geofoam to the void, we just ensure that there is no possibility of forces being exerted even on a secondary concrete wall. So even with the geofoam it appears that you could still bring a more natural slope down from the road and not have the flat area that would otherwise be the patio. Are you asking that this be a little more gradual right through here? Well, if the patio were to be denied then it just opens up other possibilities for how that slope could be a little less severe, whether it's geofoam or backfill. Not to sit here and design your project for you. Just I'm kind of thinking that the patio may be problematic in which case there are some other options, but not with the soil nail wall. That's probably a appropriate engineering solution. I don't think I can vote for this at this time without seeing we've heard that there might be an additional retaining wall. We've heard that there would be the possibility of some landscaping. There's been I think some very good suggestions from Gus to soften a little bit the slope as it goes away from far away. I think we have to see a design for what is being actually proposed if we don't approve the patio. It doesn't sound like we're in a position to approve the patio extending as far as shown on these plans. Yeah and I'm wondering if we shouldn't, if this shouldn't be pending based on the ability to get the license to under. There we go. Under mine, but to work within the town right away. All right. I'll see you on the other side. I'm not sure if a right away permit encroachment I'd have to deny it because they got approved by land use. I'd rather it be put in a position where a license agreement request comes in and I'd have to deny it because they got approved by land use. So I'd rather it be discussed in an earlier fashion than after the fashion. So it gots you're correct. Because it becomes the applicants confused. They think they got land use and then I'm denying. Whereas that should be in the earlier part of the decisions and conversation. And I apologize, I don't know this application well enough and I haven't talked to Mike about it. But I would question if I understand the constructability and I understand the issues of the groundwater in that area, I understand the slope, but looking at options is a good Conversation because utility easements are meant for utilities not slope stabilization Unfortunately the town Collectively shouldn't have to deal with issues of this sort when a building was decided to be built to the extent it was built to back when it was originally built. So the citizens, the towns, the maintenance shouldn't have to deal with adverse situation because of decisions that were made whenever this was first built. I think the consensus will do a straw vote, but just to move forward without the patio. And then come back with a detailed landscaping plan. And then, in case I'm point go to public works first. Are we in agreement on that? Yes. Okay. Okay. So that's the unanim on this agreement. So Brian, I guess we'll send it back. Does that make sense? Yeah. And we'll make adjustments to the draft resolution. We'll be in contact directly with the applicant and the representative to make sure that they're working with public works in order to be working towards that encroachment license and have that hopefully in place when we come back with a plan that shows some landscaping for you guys and what that potentially feathered landscape or a slow buried in the lake. Great. Okay, so can I just clarify one thing? Really, sure. So we are limited. The deck is limited to the existing utility easement. Is that correct? Yes. That's correct. OK. I just want to make clear. So at this point, we would just go a continuum, that's correct. Yeah, and unfortunately I don't, I'll have to, for it's I'm much, I mean typically, especially with the public hearing, we would need to continue to a date certain. I don't have that date in front of me nor do I know how much time it's going to take for the applicant to secure the necessary encroachment license with Public Works Department. My suggestion would be to continue this until the next meeting at which time I'd have enough time to communicate with the applicants team and public works to maybe put more solid date on when they would come back. And then on that continuation date, we could come back with a date certain. Okay, continue to the next meeting. Thank you, Brian. Thank you. Our next item is Ridge Run Unit 4.5. I believe we have a few crystals on that one. Brian, I'll have to acute myself. The applicant is up for client and outcome property. And I actually have already ruled on this. On page 53, I see that my signature is on the architecture review board. we were up at this site a couple of times and I'm quite familiar with the project. The architecture review board has already approved this so I certainly would recuse since I can't come up with a different opinion on that. Okay. Anybody else? No, great. Okay. Thank you. I'll see you next time. See you next. Have a good evening. Probably next two weeks, I believe. I'm gonna leave with Doug here, but can I make a quick announcement that is? Yes. On the 19th of May, there is gonna be May, there is going to be a meeting at the council where they will be considering the draw site from an owner's review standpoint. So it is an opportunity for members of the public as opposed to us as a group to be able to opine on some of the issues associated with that project. So anyway that is two weeks from whatever it is. 19. We'll see you there. We'll see you there. Thank you, Gus. Thank you, Doug. To me again. Mr. Walters, I'm good Have you been heavy back? Good to see you, Gus. Thank you, Doug. To meet again. Mr. Walters, I'm good to have you back. Good to see you all again. I'll turn the meeting over to you when you're ready. Okay. I think I was going to share part of the application packet with you on this particular item. If you could see. I may be I can't close out the sidebar. But this particular request is for variants involving a retaining wall within the front and a 20 foot setback for a lot five Ridge run for that property is owned beauty But it does reference a couple of the parameters in the S of 30 zone district So before I go forward I thought it would be important to go over the well first of all the public hearing notice requirements have been met for this this was published in the Aspen Times back on April 2nd to meet the 30-day notice requirement and the applicant did submit the affidavits for the mailing and posting of the public hearing notice. Before going through this application, I thought it would be pertinent to go over the purpose section of the code regarding variance applications. And I've highlighted that section at the top here in the staff report and it says purpose purpose for a variance is a deviation from the standards of the development code that is necessitated by special circumstances or conditions of the physical site. In other words, the site that's impacted, which would be lot five, which run four. They give a few examples such as exceptional topography, which might be the case in this particular instance, but it doesn't really qualify with the steep slope standards in the municipal code. So it goes on to say that the proposal would create, well, the physical site circumstances would create practical difficulties for an unusual hardship upon the owners of the land if the provisions of this code were to be strictly enforced. And then the second part that's highlighted here shows the affected code standard here. So basically in summary, typically this is applied through our building review quite a bit in construction plan reviews. But the code does provide some flexibility for these accessory type of structures to be placed within the front setback. So it does allow retaining wall structures to be encroached within 50% of a 20-foot setback, but the absolute setback is 10 feet. They've achieved that in this particular case. But they don't meet the qualifying maximum standards for the wall, which is measured from a four feet above existing or current grade, or a 30 inches above proposed finish grade. And I could also go down and reference. Let me see. So these are the cross sections provided by the applicant and their application. also as an exhibit to the Planning Commission resolution. So at, oh shoot. So at the, um, the left side cross section section basically shows the cross section where it tapers off at the ends, but then this cross section off to the right shows the worst case cross section. And when you measure the heights from existing grade, which is the dash line in this section and the 10 foot encroachment area, it measures up to approximately eight feet and height up to this top point here. And then the proposed finish grade is actually a bit higher than the existing grades. That point measures closer to 5 feet from that point up to the top of the wall. So we did receive quite a few supplemental neighborhood comments and many of those missed the packet when it was distributed on Friday. The applicant also responded to those comments after the packet distribution, but we tried to forward those to as best we could. We also received town engineer, public works comments just a couple days ago and Those are have been sent as well and all those items are assumed to be included as part of the packet materials for this particular case. As far as staff is concerned, we've read through the application and the applicant's reasons and justification for the proposed variance and we thought they've sufficiently addressed the code review standard. So as a result, staff is recommending approval with conditions, the Planning Commissioner Resolution 4, which is in your packet, is drafted in the affirmative, which outlines those conditions, if the Planning Commission agrees with those. So, in present we have Bram and Laura Hectcop, the owners of the property, represented by Catherine Fitzgerald, with Fitzgerald Landscaping. I think they're here to make a presentation of the proposal or to share some additional supplemental drawings with you. Okay, thank you Jim. I'll turn it over to the applicant. They want to commit and start your presentation. I'll just go through some additional letters. It's just going to stay up. This will stay up, but you could also share your presentation as well. Unless you want to just go by. I just need to, I'm going to talk more about the technical data, the area to talk more to the aesthetics. So I just hi everyone. I'm hi council. My name is Jeff. This is Kat. And this is Laura right here. So I have pleasure to see you all this evening. I just wanted to go over some more of the measurements that are part of this wall. It ranges from about 30 to 35 feet from the street. And it stands about 10 vertical feet above the street. That's where our proposed height starts at. And so it's 30 to 35 feet from the street, 14 to 25 feet from the property line. And it only encroaches into the setback, about six feet, six inches. So we've worked with the DRC for approval to get to that less than 50%. The current landscape is at a three to one slope of sandy silti clay with rocks. So it is very well drained. We've spoken with Mike Horevath at the town, or sorry, yes, Mike Horevath at the town about some of the concerns of the subsurface water. And he has illuminated us to the fact that there's been a lot of water main breaks in the area. That was probably the most attributable factors to this. And then Brian Kurtz and Dan Harden have tested to the surface runoff. They have a test that there is not going to be much of an issue with the wall that is going in. We've obviously worked with the town as well to show that there would be no impact on maintenance or any further infrastructure that you plan to put in. The current wall we want, the wall we would like to install, is going to be serpentine in shape. It ranges from about five feet in height all the way down to one at the western edge. Currently we're looking at using a dry stack retaining wall made out of farmers beam, two to three feet in length. And then we are going to do some landscaping that is going to use native vegetation and recede with their approved seed mix. And then you pretty much mentioned everything else that I had to say so I'll pass it on over to the ladies more about the aesthetics that they were trying to achieve. Can you state your name before you speak please for the record please thank you. I have had an audience. My former name was Fitzgerald but it's actually Adams. And one of our main goals is to help meet the municipal codification which we studied. We want to very much preserve the community's character and we want to make sure the development is an element of the natural environment. The guidelines are not intended to basically, the intended to make sure that we can bring creative solutions, imagination into it. I know our clients would like to use a very natural looking stone. And like Jeff said, we intend to either this or the farmer's beam. And we intend to bring a lot of landscape in front of the structure to soften it with both Knifers and deciduous plant material. And we've worked with the town to ensure an ADRC to make sure that we are installing the cracked materials which are acceptable to a natural landscape so that the wool really blends into hillside with the landscaping and isn't a glaring structure in the area. The idea is to screen the wall out as much as possible so it lessens the impact on the neighbours. Part of the municipal codification says that it should be natural in the parents with our man-made forms and we are obviously setting it into the slope. obviously they have very natural textures, the building materials, and the character doesn't change because it's actually predominantly a single family area. And then, yeah, I've just essentially the code isn't intended to prevent any creativity. So we're really wanting to make sure we accent the structure. It's a good and it's to be an improvement on that hillside versus something that's non-improvement. And we're hoping it increases the value of the properties and makes the whole entire street look better. We have had like Jeff said, three engineers look at this and verify there's not a possibility of any sort of flooding or how that won't affect the neighbours. We did a heavy amount of research. We made sure the structural engineer built in the drainage into the back of the wall and verified that it wasn't going to pose any sort of threats to the neighbours in terms of any water runoff. We also employed Kumar and associates, Dan Hardin, HPG O Tech, to come in and look at the hall where at the same depth as the footer to make sure there's no water collecting. And we have done a lot of post-holding on the property. We have gone out and done story polling as well to show the neighbours exactly where the wall is going to sit and relationship to the hillside. And we just put a lot of time and effort into making sure that we're very much limiting our impact on the neighbours. We're also installing a hydro wise irrigation system, which is a really quite good state of the art clock, and it actually has a flow meter on it on the irrigation system, and we can actually program it to detect any variance from the drip system, which we intend to install. So if we program it to a certain amount of variants, we'll be able to tell if there's any leaks at all in the pipes because I know the neighbors are sensitive to any sort of flooding in their basement. So anything of that nature we're gonna ensure that we monitor and mitigate anything with the irrigation system. The origin of that. I'll say a few words, so Lara Hitchcock, homeowner. So Kat and Jeff have addressed pretty much everything. But I do want to acknowledge that we understand that our neighbors, particularly the teenagers below us, have had some concerns. And we really have tried to go above and beyond to address every and any concern that they have had. Like I understand as a homeowner in the neighborhood and we're there full time, our kids are there. This is the, you know, why we're doing the project is because we intend to be here for the long term and have our family enjoy the property in the neighborhood and also be good neighbors., aesthetically we have worked with the DRC as well as subsequent to that to really try to make this visually appealing, you know, aesthetic, like blending into the mountainside. And right now it's really just dirt and some shrubbery. Many of our neighbors have like manicured lawns, et cetera, that are right on the street itself. And we're trying to make this natural to blend into the environment as well. Like we want that for us and for everyone else on the street. So just wanna convey that we understand the concerns and have really tried to address them with all of the experts that we brought in and then just material selection. Right so the from Brian Kurtz's letter he directly says that it would reduce surface water by more than 70% if we were to use a drain tile to drain directly into the drainage channel that is at the base of the wall. Thank you. I'm going to turn it over to the commission for questions. Stan? I can't add them, show to a picture of what to get well material like B. So this is apparently, this is the ready rocks. This is the one that asked us some. So this would be a crab ball. This is, this would be, this is very much exactly like a farmer's beam looks like. This is, somewhere, I don't know where it is, but it's on the ready rock website. That was the one I was doing the rest of the day. There was a regime in the Nazi other. It was in the packet. Is it? Oh, that was solid. Yeah. So yeah, these are, that's it. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you. That's all. Good. David? A couple of questions. Jim, thanks. Thanks for the presentation. I just have a quick question. Well, I have a couple of questions, but the first one's pretty quick. There are two issues at hand here. One is the height of the wall, and the other is building into the setback portion of the property. even though it's understood that they can go up to 50% of that setback. If the owner decided not to encroach on that setback and designed the wall to be no closer than 20 feet to the property line, would they have the ability to build that by right without any conversation about the height of the wall? Well, if it's higher than 30 inches within the building envelope or inside the setbacks, it was just before. They stay out of the setback entirely. Yeah, if it was under 30 inches, it wouldn't be considered a structure. So if it's over, be considered a structure and they have to engineer it as part of a building permit application. But they wouldn't be required to go through a land stream. You wouldn't be here doing this. Right. Right. Okay. I think that that's a significant point to make. I don't know if ownership was aware of that or not or if they went into this knowingful well that they they. I think this was submitted last fall and I think there were prior discussions and maybe there were some design drawings that showed up more of a terrorist effect that went into the 10 foot setback and I think we were considering doing that administratively. It was submitted but then we discovered through the cross sections that it was one stacked wall, and it didn't meet the height requirements within the 10 foot area. It's the cross section. It's the height of the wall that's giving you heartburn. And it just, yeah, we told them we discussed it at depth, including other options. But it was the opted to go converted to a variance request for planning commission consideration. I mean, I think it's understood that everything within a building novel open, this is a pretty generous building envelope with relatively shallow setbacks. Also, yeah, they had the option of redesigning it and proposing everything within the building envelope just for building permit and administrative consideration. Can applicant speak to that? Why they didn't stand the building envelope? So you would encourage more in their yard space though. Yeah, I mean, it wouldn't have been possible to do this at all staying within the building envelope. It would have not been worthwhile to, we wouldn't really have gotten any additional space or address the steepness of the hillside for like our children and the erosion that happens at this point in time. We did, as was mentioned, there was an original proposal that was two walls to make it more of a gradual the ticket to slaughter walls but we couldn't get it to within the 50% mark right so then we're encroaching more and so we we understood that we needed to go through this process if we wanted to try to achieve what was intended here. So that's why we're here today. And you know, also want to point out that it is basically like a corner of, like I think you had mentioned, it's only six feet of the entire wall that actually is at this higher height. It does slope down. It's maximum height. It does, so it starts out on the eastern edge at the 2626.2 and then at the western edge, it goes all the way down to 2623. So it does gradually decline in height. So from east to west, your eastern side is the highest portion, but then as you go west, it tapers out into, you know, I think that that edge is about one foot tall. And as Jim had mentioned because he was on the DRC, we did with them over a period of time to continue to modify this to reduce it to Make it less impactful overall David No, I'll wait until we have more conversation here. I I have a question. I think from the proposed resolution from staff it mentions previous structures on the property that may or may not be to code and that that would be considered in future requests. Do you mind going over that a little bit more for me? Yeah, we discovered that there in our completeness review and I kind of reviewed it with the director to kind of get some direction on that originally we thought. And those walls by the way, especially the ones on the east side here, these look like they were constructed with the original development or maybe thereafter so it looks like there might be 30 to 40 years old. And we were trying to find the old building permit drawings that might relate to it because they might have been approved than their previous building permit or may perhaps under different code rules at the time. And then there was also this, if I could scroll down. There were these walls here in the front yard area and the setback here, but we've interpreted these walls here which kind of provide access to the front door and to the garage as being exempt under the current code because that's allowed. just that these walls up here looks like they were encroaching well into the setback area and even the deck area up here looks like it's been there for several decades. We haven't received any complaint about it. And we also discussed the option with the applicant of doing a subdivision kind of like a lot line adjustment between two lot owners, but they kind of ran into difficulty and trying to get a hold of the owner representative of the property, which is under a residential trust, and they live back in the Midwest and perhaps other family members live at the house. We decided the opt for the draft condition that if the house, which it's been there for about 40 years or more, is ever redeveloped in the future, which could be in the short term versus long term, that we would address it at that time with a new building permit application to the satisfaction of the community development director. Thank you. That's helpful. And to know that the original walls are that old. It's also very helpful. I don't have any questions right now but I will turn this over to a public comment. At this point I see there's some people online. I don't know we have some people in the audience so I'm going to go with the online people first. Oh, y'all together? Okay. Okay. Then come on up. Do you want to? Okay. It's an extra gem to state your names. All of your names, and if you're representing and let's you go ahead. You're looking for online people to go first? I'm. No. Oh. Jill, Dolby, at 150-D.E.R.Rage lane I live down below Laura and Bram. Okay. Jay Chris Sarah. Oh, okay. I'm Jay Lamby. I am the husband of Anna Chafe and Lambeot who is a 50% owner of 172 dear Ridge Lane, immediately next to Jill's house and downhill in the cross the street from the applicant's house. Who else? I am Chris Chafan. I am a part- and 172 deer rich lane and grew up on the street at deer rich. And there, Chafon. Okay, thank you. All but do you want to put that? Actually, I'm going to have Jay start. Okay. And has the volume. I'm not one to usually speak into the microphone. Go ahead, Jack. To touch it sounds fine from here. Yeah, it does. It does sound good. Yeah, thank you guys for the opportunity to provide comments. As as we touched on, we've been long time owners in the neighborhood. You know, thank you to you guys as a commission and the town staff is the amazing job you guys do. Taken care of town of snow mass village. You know, our comments today are are you know going to be in opposition to this project. but are not personal in any way. I have not met Lauren Bram and don't know them well personally, but they have been helpful in sharing information about the project and, you know, so this is not any kind of kind of meant to be personal at all. But our real desire is the the beauty and vibrancy of this neighborhood and the fact that it needs to respect the natural landscape and really exemplify the goals and the values of the town. Our group, Jill and Chris and I became aware of the goals and the values of the town. Our group, you know, Jill and Chris and I, became aware of the project in mid-April and we've been meeting almost daily, in these last couple of weeks to try to understand this project and figure out how to react to it. And Jim in particular has been helpful getting us information and again Lauren Bram have been responsive to our questions. But you know we have concluded that this project is not at all in compliance with local standards and ordinances and I'm going to outline three general concerns. I think one of those three concerns is really the crux of the matter. So I'll start with that one. And first and really fundamentally, this project requires a variance. And the project does not meet the criteria for granting that variance. I know Jill plans to take you through that in detail, but I think categorically each criteria is not met. And you know, we know, the designers and design team have talked about this being a natural, you know, sort of a natural solution or, but it's really not that at all. And it is not in keeping with, you know, the town's planning documents that reference things like just big enough protecting the character of neighborhoods, creating no unnatural barriers and focusing on environmental stewardship and conservation, you know, sort of counter to all of those goals. This project proposes a very significant wall. It's only it's almost 120 feet long. It's eight feet above the current grade substantially changing that street skate. It's on a hillside that's naughty roading. That's not unsafe. that has, I don't know, maybe 25, 30 Aspen trees that will be removed as part of this project. And the goal of this project is to add usable square footage to an existing backyard that's already quite nice and expansive. It's interesting that you can see the image on the screen here and you can see the trampoline and go ahead and look at the relative size of the existing backyard that's already there. So you know know, what this wall is doing is creating a bigger backyard. And I can understand why they want that, but it does not at all sort of meet the requirements for a variance or fit within what the neighborhood's all about with its natural topography and the way it blends into the mountain environment. You know, I think we were, or I'll just speak for myself, I was very concerned about hydrology and, you know, there is active groundwater in this area, springs that run down under the basements of the homes. I think in a lot of ways that's been addressed and I know the engineer, my core bath has said that he believes there's no impact on groundwater. It seems like, you know, Kumar and associates, you know, stated that the irrigation would not introduce significant additional water. And that's all good. But the reality is the existing hillside is functioning quite well. And no matter what, when we introduce a substantial construction project that's basically going to rip up the entire hillside, there's just no debating the fact that that changes something that's working. And I would truly respect and take comfort in the findings from the town staff that the engineering will work here, but it is taking something that's working and changing it. So, you know, those are my high level comments and I'd like to sort of see the floor to Jill and, and, and then really go back to the fundamental point here. The applicant is requesting a variance and the project does not meet the requirements for granting that variance. So thank you very much for accepting these comments and if you all will allow it or if you have questions for me I guess guess, or whatever. I'm excited to do next, but we were hoping Jill might deal with those next. Is that okay? Yeah. I wish I was impromptu like Jay, but I have written comments. So I'll do my best to look up and read at the same time. Thanks, Jay. As he said, I am Jill Dolby. I've been part of Snowman since I was a little girl. For a long time, we were at Tamer Act 27 when you could look across and see Fannie Hill. And then we moved up the hill to Dear Ridge Lane in 1999. I have raised four kids here in the summers and part time in the winters. And I'm slowly making my way to becoming a full-time resident, but I'm not quite there yet. Chris Sarah, Anna J and I love this town. We've all been here for a very long time, and we've seen it change over the years. We all know that sound governance and public service and good stewardship is more important than ever. So thank you for doing what you do for this town. You often wear many hats. And those who wear quite a few hats have already left the room. But thank you. And preparing to come here today, you heard from Jay that we've gathered a lot of information very quickly. We talked to our neighbors, Bram and Lara, about their interest in plans. We engaged with the professionals, Kat and Jeff, on the projects designed and execution. We interacted with members of town staff who've made themselves available to us, Jim, and Mike, most notably. We spent time in Brahm and Lara's yard, walked the site and measured the proposed wall. I also examined the application in detail, looked at HOA and DRC guidelines, read town code, the comprehensive plan, and a lot, and I've gained a thorough understanding of the variance process and what Braham and Laura are seeking. And believe me, it was a lot to take in. You guys do this every day and I had to get up to speed quickly. So over the last few days, I learned that when applying for a variance to deviate from the code and applicant asserts special circumstances and necessity and then must prove this to the planning commission, they must also prove that their project won't adversely affect the neighborhood, is harmonious to the purpose and intent of the code and consistent with the comprehensive plan. You, the planning commission, then consider all the pertinent materials and testimony in relation to the seven review standards and the comprehensive plan and make a determination. Your job, it's clear to me, is to look for the evidence, review it, and determine if the applicant's proposal meets the burden of proof required for a variance. Your decision controls whether the project can proceed as planned. And your decision establishes a precedent for what is acceptable and not acceptable in our town. As I see it, you are the town's primary governing body with the power to decide whether or not to allow our adjacent uphill neighbors to construct in a setback area a new 120 foot long wall that rises more than seven feet above current grade for a bunch of the space and then attaches to a 50 foot long wall that already exists. A project that will reshape the hillside, raised grade by 30 inches in many areas, as Chris or Jay's already said, destroy existing mature trees, shrubs and grasses on the hillside, bringing, I don't know how many truckloads of fill for the spaces both above and below the wall, at irrigation, which means even more water to a very wet hill, and plant trees that will grow as high as 20 feet in maturity on a steep section of the hill, possibly casting shadows on my passive solar house that relies on sunlight for heat, all for the purposes of adding 1200 square feet to the large lawn, bram, and Lara, and their two children already have. I have some photographs I can show you. I'm sure you've all walked the site, but I brought some information. This means you have the power to literally shape this town and the views we have out of our front doors for many years to come. Given this daunting insight, I found some reassurance and the two statements from the comprehensive plan that I wanna share today. First, quote, to meet the standards and expectations of the community, every development proposal and strategic initiative must align with the standards and values identified in the framework created by the aspiration statement, the guiding principles, and the foundational concept of, quote, just big enough, end quote. Three simple words that have become more than an economic analysis tool around here. Everybody knows it. Everyone I talk to, just big enough. It's now both a vision and approach in a set of values, maybe even a mantra for all the stewards in this town. Second, quote, environmental conservation and stewardship shall be the overarching ethos that guide decision making and will reassure that development is controlled to protect the natural environment and maintain a unique small town atmosphere of the village. End quote. Being instructed to have the needs of the natural environment to inform and influence your decisions is a powerful statement about the kind of town we want to create and sustain. It's the kind of ideal that gives us hope, us hope, to believe that when you the planning commission are asked to do the right thing you will do it. By using the clarity of the review standards, the plan and the land use and development code, you've got a strong framework against which to interpret and measure the application in front of you. Thankfully, from where we sit and live, your job is to set a very high bar because variances by definition should be the exception and not the norm. What is to become a town of our town if people who simply want more lawn and are allowed to build imposing and permanent non-conforming walls outside of their building envelope, even if they are constructed with serpentine and undulating shapes as DRC has required in review of this application. To be clear, my characterization of the applicant's primary motivation is not supposition on my part. We recently heard from at least two people associated with the projects that its main focus is about getting a bigger yard. Which makes me want to ask in reference to the first and third review standards and having walked the yard and the property and also having Jay talk to you about it, and maybe you've all seen it too, what are the unique circumstances here? What is the undue hardship caused by the current yard? As Jay said, it's not personal, it is not personal. We like our neighbors, we like our neighborhood. We just have a hard time with the principle that it's at stake here and the fact that their application, as we interpret it, does not meet the burden of proof needed for a variance. And as I learned from section 16A, 5248 in Division 2 of Article 5 of the code, the burden of proof is on the applicant. As the code further states, quote, the applicant's proposal must satisfy all of the review standards, failure to meet even one criterion mandates the denial of the application. Please know we're not saying that the plan for the wall is technically unsound. Cat, it's not. OK, we're not saying that. We respect the work of all the professionals, DRC and town staff who've done the work they've done in reviewing the walls design and construction plan to show us that from each person's technical expertise and responsibility all is well. It's not the wall's technical details we question, it's the rationale. So to the point, where is the evidence that necessitates a variance enabling the construction of this imposing and permanent wall within the setback? Out of sight of the applicant's view, but front and center to ours. Where is the rationale for granting this highly unusual request? Regarding the review standards, you have their application and you've heard what they've said. We offer that when you analyze and interpret it against the standards, you will see that the application lacks the data-driven evidence to prove special circumstance, undue hardship, and necessity. It is not consistent with the town plan, and it is not in harmony with the development code. Regarding standards 1-3, as long-time residents of the neighborhood, we can tell you the conditions of the site which you have likely seen. A beautifully landscaped backyard, large side yards with decks and place bases, and a large level lawn with lots of border trees. Clearly, this yard does not represent on due hardship. I've got more photographs I can share. I'll pass them around when I'm done. That's okay. I think if you just want to the topography. I think we've seen this site. Yeah, you guys have seen this site. So if you wanted to just turn it on. Okay. So I think you made your point. The topography is an exceptional. They're relatively, the lot level it fades down the downhill as do all the houses built on the north side of that road. But unlike our houses and others in our area, a Brahman Lara already have a relatively level on in a play space in their backyard that's been demarcated by a large and definitive border of evergreens. A backyard made possible because the applicant's house is at the top of their lot. It's one with more usable level space than many of the houses in our neighborhood. And there is already a lot of safe play space. Again, where is the evidence of special circumstances erosion and undue hardship? Unlike the previous applicants, with numerous engineering reports, years of living with crack foundation walls and door jams of skew, we have seen no evidence of erosion or earth instability, and we find none submitted with the application. And in fact, the letter that we got from Kumar Associates this afternoon about the soil sample says, and I can pull it out. I didn't have time to add it to this, but it says that there's no evidence of erosion. There is stability. So even their experts have said the land is stable. We've reviewed all the app. Yeah, and you've reviewed it. Okay, so we haven't had that. So anyway, we know there's no, we think there's no evidence. So on to review standard four, as we see, if there's no evidence to prove practical difficulties, so there's no need to grant a variance to relieve something that doesn't exist. Now regarding standard five, even with the proposed plan and the approval of the professionals town staff in DRC, there is still risk. There are unknowns. We can do our best, but we can't know with certainty what happens when a wall, a hill, a bunch of new soil, and the forces of nature come together. There's a lot of water on this hillside. More so during spring runoff, as town engineer Mike said in his letter, there is a history of significant groundwater in this area. It's not about a water main break, it's about groundwater. And so here are some of the details, beyond what Jay shared. The chafens and I have a vernal spring that runs through our yard. And the uphill path of it is not known. We both have water seeping in crawl spaces, around our foundations. There's water weeping out of the hillside right now. I walked over and looked in their yard. It's just the way it is in the spring. And so I'm reassured by the recent reports on the irrigation that it's a weeping irrigation system that you're going to control. So we're not worried about breaks. We're just worried about more groundwater at the time. And also how is adding this large area of lawn consistent with any spirit of conservation and environmental stewardship in the plan? So I don't want to interrupt you about this point. I think we kind of... You got it. Yeah, no, I'm ready. I mean, I just like, I've got tables and charts, but before we go. We have a lot more we want to cover in this meeting. But let's just want to conclude. Six and seven. I can list all the codes of you, know it, because this is what you guys do. But we've reviewed all the submittals and. Yeah, and so we don't, I don't think we need to go into it, But we just feel strongly that, you know, one to seven, we don't think any of them have really been met because there's no hardship. There's no evidence of hardship. And, you know, just big enough, envision and approach your value. to seven, we don't think any of them have really been met because there's no hardship. There's no evidence of hardship. And just big enough, envision and approach your values, there's nothing about that that's small. And it can't be green screened all the time because its deciduous trees, we're all going to see it. So the idea that it's tucked away, it's hidden, on the one hand and on the other hand, we're talking about variation and plantings and all of that. So we respectively ask you to deny the variance based on the fact that it doesn't meet the standards. Okay. You understand, thank you. Thanks for your time. Appreciate it. And I do have a chart. I just, I think you guys know, but with the story pulls up up I will pass this around because it shows that where the top line is that's the finished height from current grade versus what they're building up to make it you know five feet because in some place it's it's almost seven and a half eight feet and and if you already have that data you don't need to share it but the story pulls it just went out it's all here, and you kind of get a sense of what it looks like over the 120 feet. So with this be useful or you don't need it. I think you're okay with that. So what? Thank you. Appreciate it. I thank you. Have you seen the photographs since the story polls went back in? So this is what it looks like from the street right now. Thank you. And just real quick, I know we have two more, but we're running sure on time. So if there's anything new, you want to add or, if not, we want to continue the meeting. Sarah. Yeah, this is Chris Chaffin. I will keep my comments very short and just want to make sure a couple of points aren't lost. So I grew up in this neighborhood since 1981 and so this has been, this ridge has been an instrumental part of my life. I think Mr. Wallstrom indicated it well when he spoke to the height of the wall. And while the face of the wall might only appear five feet from with stone, there would be another 18 inches at its highest point with a soil that would be feathered up at its base. So it would effectively from natural grade to the height of wall be in excess of eight feet at its highest point. And I'm not saying, or trying to indicate that the whole wall is that height, but in it tapers down, but even at five feet, it would be very impactful. Regarding special circumstances with the variance, the two issues being steepness and erosion, Mr. Wallstrom pointed out that this does not meet the steep slope criteria, so it would be hard for that to be an argument for a variance. And then as you all I think saw with Kumar and associates the letter they submitted today regarding erosion, they indicated that the slopes were stable and that there effectively was no erosion. So I'm not going to sort of relive all the other points. I do want to just say that if the Planning Commission does approve this variance, then please have the conditions of real stone be used and not concrete blocks, which I know have been at least considered at times, and to have significant plantings with 12 foot plus conifers to cover for winter conditions and a mixture of aspens and other shrubs to mitigate further in the summer. And we'd also like some assurance that this project would not be value engineered or done down so that it would not achieve that proper mitigation. And finally, I haven't had a chance to meet with Laura and Bram. And I do appreciate meeting with Jeff and Kat. And they did commit to mitigate the visual unsightliness of the gas utilities that have been placed on the north side of the turnaround. I mean, the switchback here. And so at the very least, we appreciate their commitment to mitigate that and would hope that they would follow through with that. And as was mentioned before, could this be set with outside of the setback and within the building envelope and have a wall below 30 inches? That is something I personally would feel a lot more comfortable with. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, I'd like to turn over and have a conversation with my fellow commissioners and see what you you guys would like to proceed. So I'll let you go. Thanks. Well, it would appear that there was a very nice landscape plan for the wall. And whatever material facts are presented would have to be carried out. So there couldn't be any subsequent value engineering, however. I think it's fairly clear that the criteria reverians are not met. And that the variance should not be granted. Certainly, as David suggested, some kind of wall that was conforming. Within the building envelope, the height requirements would be something to be considered, but there simply is not and I've dealt with many variances. Occasionally, we use fudge factors if no one objects. But in this particular instance, with people objecting, I think we need to understand the strict interpretation of the variance code, and it's not met. It's not like a number for this one. Thank you you stand, David. I'm generally in agreement with Stan. For me, the one criteria that overrides much of the narrative that's been presented is that I did not see any evidence that there was existing erosion previously or anticipated in the future that there was hardship based on that that needed to be rectified. I think the one item for me that was missing was a civil engineers report, a testing to that, and had that been included and had that been verified, then perhaps I would feel differently, but as it stands right now with the information that's been provided and what I'm able to discern from that information, I agree with Stan that I cannot support a I'm suggest that if that is a concern that we have the opportunity to get us out of a engineering report? Because we've done lots of other reports that are many concerns around the water. Like we've had many engineers out there to address the concerns that were raised. And if you feel like we have not sufficiently addressed this, I'd love the opportunity to do that. And if the engineering report indicates that there is in fact erosion, to be able to present that to satisfy their requirement, it's concerned about. Why hasn't that been done yet? I mean, that's the one critical engineer that should weigh in on projects such as this, where there's claims of unsafe, unstable. The main thing that we were asked to address this week since we met with the neighbours on this Saturday, we only learnt that they were disassisting with the project on Saturday, And since then we've got it hard to address the issues. The main reason Dan Hardin came out was to analyse the ground water conditions. He wasn't asked to evaluate the erosion issue, which I believe there is actually an erosion issue. He spoke to the stability of the slope just in terms of the water underneath it. He wasn't looking at it from the erosion perspective. So if we have an opportunity to get a civil out there and to get that evaluated, because it's a 30, they're saying it's not a dangerous slope, but it's a 35 degree angle. There's a fairly significant drop off from their yard and I don't agree that it's not, you know, it wouldn't be that safe for children to be like right on the side of the mountain like that from the side of the yard completely drops off. Laura, I mean. And the reason that we did put trees on the edge of where we do have current lawn is because it is unsafe and it, slope even of the grass there dips down as you go. But we would be happy to expedite having a civil engineer come out to confirm that there's erosion and to make sure that it satisfies the conditions. And you know, if it didn't then you would have your evidence there. But if it did, then it would also address concerns. Sorry, there is something else that I'm very concerned about. In that, you brought up that we were going to remove a lot of mature trees. Everything in the current plan is like one to two. Everything there is less than 1 inch caliper, and the proposal we're putting back is mostly conifer. There's a lot of coniferous species, so it wouldn't be such a visual impact to the neighbours because we are planning on putting a lot of coniferous coverage on the wall, and we spent a lot of time designing the aspect of it. The additional landscaping should, with the root system, help to actually keep that slope better, retained in the future. I understand that there's some logic to the design. Yeah. Anything on it, Amy? I think I'm, I know I'm in agreement with fellow commissioners with this as well. The process that has happens up to this point seems like this could have been a conversation between you all and staff before coming to the commission. I'm hoping that there's resolution that you can find alternatives, but that's where I stand is that want to put it there. Okay. Okay. We don't take variances lightly and we don't issue them very often. In this case, I do not see any. I've gone through the application. I read the materials to spend time on this. And I see no extending circumstances to grant a variance at this time. I think there's plentyion land to come up with creative solutions within your building envelope without a variance if you want to do some sort of pertaining well structure or whatever, increase your yard, but at this point I cannot support it in its current form. So, and you know you're welcome to come back and reapply if you want, but I don't think any more studies or any more designs are going to change anything. That's the rest down. Before you roll, we would request the continuance to have this little erosion report on and to be able to have the opportunity to present that if in fact it comes back to I think at this point we're we'll vote to just deny this and then if you want to resummit another application that would probably be appropriate but I'll just recommend that variances are very hard to get approved unless there's some imminent or exceeding circumstances. I can't recall. I mean, I recall the last one that I got very much approval maybe was six years ago. Maybe. I don't know. It's been a while. It's been a long time. Five. Well, as far as ones I've handled, it's been at least over five years. Yeah, so I mean, they're very rare. I mean, you have a big piece of. You have a lot of room to work with and to exceed. I just don't see it and I think it asked me if you guys feel the same or what. I agree. So, do you want to make motion? Well, just to the tonight. I have a move to the 9 of the very answer request. I'll see you guys in'll second. All in favor? I. Okay. Like I said, you guys are welcome to keep working with staff. I highly recommend it and come to solution. And if there is a designer compelling circumstances to come back with some sort of variance, you're free to do that. I mean, there's nothing to deny that. But, with what you have here, I would say work with staff and work with what you have to work with. And not go the variance route. So, thank you. Thank you for everybody. You want to re-written, you want a planning commission resolution for denial? That just basically rewrites the findings and the negative, I mean, the unfavorable language. Yeah. And it won't have any conditions. It will just be a denial. Yeah. Yeah, that would be fine. Okay. May I ask one question? We're done. We're done. No. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, guys. Good evening. Good evening. And then I think that's all we have on the agenda, right? I believe so. I hope so. Okay. Yeah, that was the final agenda item and Dave isn't here to give the commission an update. So. Actually, do I have another meeting next Next, please. We do have another meeting. It'll be our third Wednesday meeting. I want to say lighting code is up for discussion on that one. Okay. And there may be one other item that's alluding me right now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Motion to adjourn. It's the same. All in favor? Thank you. Thank you. Hi to adjourn All favor Thank you Keep trying to get out and they keep pulling you back