Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19800318 " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,ORM" C. F. HOECKEL B. 8. Ilt l. ~.). Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 18, 1980 The Aspen Plnaning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on March 18, 1980 at 5:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Lee Pardee, Roger Hunt, Perry Harvey, Nancy McDonnell and Welton Anderson. Also present were Karen Smith and Richard Grice of the Planning Office, Dan McArthur, City Engineer and Jim Reents, Housing Director. Approval of Minutes Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to table the minutes, due to none have been reviewed. Roger Hunt, so moved, Lee Pardee, seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Water Plant 8040 Greenline Review WATER PLANT REVIEW Richard Grice of the Planning Office introduced the Water Plant Greenline Review and stated as shown in his memoran- dum dated March 13, 1980, this item had been tabled to be reviewed. The reasons being, one to see possiblity of an alternative parking area and two, a requested landscaping plan. Lee Pardee commented that the commission also asked for information on storage, transportation and no dogs, were to be taken care of before we approve 8040 review. Richard Grice stated that no dogs, was settled on and part of the formal action taken, and transportation anaylsis was not of exceeding the design capacity of Castle Creek Road. This project will not cause the design capacity of Castle Creek Road to exceed the criteria. Lee Pardee commented that the concern was for the intersection to the hospital and at Hwy. 82. Roger Hunt stated the commission identifies this as a certain problem yet addressed. Jim Reents explained that the realignment question of Castle Creek Road is primarily around the Maroon Creek/Castle Creek intersection. With the approval of this project and pos- sible approval of the Marolt Project, it was felt that the realignment of Castle Creek Road to intersect with Cemetary Lane have two conflicting goals of the present realignment study of Hwy. 82, which the State is preparing, and the possible continuance of Main Street out to intersect with the existing highway, approximately at the Castle Creek/ Maroon Creek intersection. Roger Hunt commented that the main concern was with the intersection with this project adding on to the hospital traffic and water plant road itself and that is the inter- section that is to be coordinated with the County and re- designed and the traffic problems be taken care of. Lee Pardee agreed and stated that the concern of the congestion problem should be examined by the Engineering and a design eliminating this congestion. Roger Hunt commented that there is to be some coordination with the County. Perry Harvey commented that he would simply like to see some combination done with the County that would widen those turn off areas and bus loop that goes around a bunch of cottonwoods could be logically planned to restrict the traffic problems that are going to occur. Olof Hedstrom asked if anyone has specific instructions for what we want brought back to us on this traffic problem. Lee Pardee asked to see a rough diagram of the Cemetary Lane/Marolt cutoff and how that would effect this whole area. Roger Hunt stated that his concerns are that of a coordinate with the County on consolidating that road traffic with the hospital road to a single intersection FORM \' C.,.HOrcKElB. B.1l: L. Cl. -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves March 18, 1980 Rpgn] ar MEeEetin9 Housing Overlay FOllow-Up Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission with the Castle Creek Road. Welton Anderson commented that he would like to see a plan of coordination. Nancy McDonnell commented that there are three areas of concern ~ Cemetary Lane extention, the intersection through the Marolt Property at the ~ntersection with the hospital and the Castle Creek/Maroon Road intersection at Hwy. 82. The impact of this project on the traffic at these areas. Richard Grice commented that the transportation system is an appropriate part of the SPA Review and 8040 Greenline is enviromentally oriented and the only thing to be re- viewed at this point is the roads or the existence of ade- quet roads to insure fire protection, snow removal, road maintenance and in regards to their compatablity with the terrain. Olof Hedstrom commented that it is the concencus of this commission that we want more screening on the perimeter and perhaps more evergreens in the critical screening areas from the Castle Creek Road. The commission would like to continue this review until this is more complete and request this to be presented again at the next regu- lar meeting. Jim Reents explained that per an agreement with the Water Department we can use the pipe storage yard for long term storage however, we do not have formal use of this area and it is restricted in it's use and would allow only limited access of that site. The parking on site has a limit to 1 space per bedroom and felt the design cri- teria would have to meet all current codes for this and is 1 space per bedroom. Nancy McDonnell did not agree because of the horrendous mistakes that have been made in the past and this needs to be the time to correct this problem. Jim stated the ingress and egress is a 20' right- of-way and plus where there is parking on both sides then all of the parking is perpendicular with at least 18' and allows 40' without parking and 60' where park~ng exists. As far as the intersection conSOlidating the hospital and the Water Plant and Castle Creek Road has been studied by the Engineering Department and at the next meeting I will have an outline of an Engineering look at the intersec- tions in question and the bus turn around and how the Castle Creek cutoff will fit into the plan. Dan McArthur commented that the alignment of Castle Creek Road could go several ways and the intersection of Hwy.82 with Castle Creek/Maroon Creek Roads could all be tied in and solved with further study. Olof Hedstrom commented from his understanding that we've approved the landscaping with modifications, we have de- fined our requirements for satisfying our concerns about parking. I will entertain a motion to continue considera- tion of the Water Plant 8040 Greenline Review until the next regular meeting. Roger Hunt so moved, Perry Harvey seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Karen Smith of the Planning Office introduced the Housing Overlay Follow-up which consist of several ordinances, which have come out of the previous discussions. There have been five ordinances that have resulted from the -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!' C...HOtCKEla.B.Ill.C,J. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 18, 1980 discussions at this point. The fourth is a bandit unit proposal and the fifth is a proposal that would require employee housing production in conjunction with commercial development in particular and perhaps all development in general. Council's direction is to not pursue these two at this time. The bandit unit proposal, because they feel it would be ineffective in the absence of a Zoning Enforce- ment Officer and the Planning Office asked to hold off on the fifth one because of our anticipated work in reviewing the Growth Management quota system. We strongly believe with the commercial development will relate to the require- ment of employee housing in commercial areas. The three ordinances consist of the third, a dwelling unit bonus, and will be available on sites with at least the minimum size lot for the zoned district in the zoned districts that are listed, and will be available for residential projects only. The uses that would be allowed will be single family dup- lexes, multifamily townhouses, and dormatories, if 70% of the units are deed restricted and up to 70% is to be con- sistant with the 70%/30% exemption. Ordinance #3 will be utilized only in larger projects. Review criteria would be the same as Ordinance #78, the area and bulk can be varied as in Ordinance #78. Ordinances #1 and #2 should be considered together because that split really responds to the major concern of doubling the density is a scarey item in single-family neighborhoods. These two ordinances deal with single-family zoned districts, in two different ways. On sites where there is an acre or more of vacant land under Ordinance #2, would consider up to a 50% in- crease in density to numbers of units authorized by the underlying zone district, in the circumstance where 70% of the units were deed restricted. Ordinance #1 is the caretaker unit proposal and is applicable in the single family zoned districts on any minimum size lot. It is intended primarily for attached units, which can be no greater than 600 sq.ft. in size. We would amend the code to include studio units as small as 230 sq.ft. Among the unresolved issues were whether we would consider this for existing duplexes on minimum duplex size lots, and we recommended no, we think we will be able to motivate enough employee housing through technics without incurring the added wrath in the duplex areas. Welton Anderson commented that proposed Ordinance #4 should not be deleted at this time because, whether or not we have a Zoning Enforcement Officer, in the last month or so there have been several illegal bandit units where there is no kitchen sink, no windows in the bedrooms for fire egress, there is enough serious health and safety violations or where employer's are renting to employee's at $1.50 to $2.00 per sq.ft. a month. Karen Smith stated the City Council is aware of the problems and at this time there is no insentive to come in and no need to pass this ordinance at this time and besides Ordinance #1 can be used for bandit units as soon as we have a Zoning Enforce- ment Officer. Olof Hedstrom asked for any further comments and asked to move to the next subject. fORM" C.F.HOECKHB.B.e. L. C.J. .,.....J.._ -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves March 18, 1980 Regular Meeting Overall Economic Development Plan Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Karen Smith introduced the Overall Economic Development Plan concerning the policy portion of the recently com- pleted this plan. This is to be reviewed and commented upon and is not intended to be an amendment to the Aspen Area General Plan but want the commissions comments prior to adoption. The Plan consists of four basic goals, which could allow for Federal Funding assistance to economic stability in seasonal economy areas. These goals include 1) the environmental goal, 2) the social goal, 3) the economic goal and 4) the land use goal. Roger Hunt questioned the program ranking and what the economic objective means when everything is +2, when this indicates it shouldn't be considered because there is no difference. Olof Hedstrom commented that if it is all scored the same then it might as well be taken out because this is an economic program and the economic objective should be weighted correspondingly and not scored exactly the same. Roger Hunt continued, in this program ranking concerning public transportation is the most important because when we don't have the public transportation to handle people on anything besides the Saturday to Saturday bases, and should be ranked accordingly. Also, there is missing from the transportation portion is any development of a transportation center in this complex and the feeling is a strong need to solve this problem. Lee Pardee commented that this is a very admirable project and the use as obtaining Federal Funding is wonderful but, the use as a specific planning document is not in line with what City Council and County Commissioner's have done to this point. If this is just to get EDA Funds then it is sufficient but, if this is something to be bound by, then it should be reviewed and decided upon step by step. Olof Hedstrom commented that this depends on how this is going to function and if it is just a starting point and the questions raised by this commission will come up at a later time as programs are proposed and developed then it would be fine. If this is going to be more than that we need to look at this early and on step by step. Al Bloomquist commented that the sooner it is passed and approved and filed with EDA the better, because all it is is a general overall plan for the communities economic development. Then for each project, there must be filed a seperate justification, replan it, consistent with the general overall plan. Karen Smith stated that the Council and Commissioner's will act on a resolution to approve it. To restate your comments, first concern addressed is the program ranking and noted that the economic objective should be given far greater weight and varied as the most important objective. Public transportation issue is important because the sup- port system is inplace and the same thing as the DNRG pas- senger trains. The major point noted is there is no men- tion of the need for a local transportation center. The overall comments from this commission is that the effort is a good one for the purposes it is intended to serve and that is a general documentation for economic development for grant purposes egibility and would like to review the implications of each of these programs on a case by case -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C. F. HOECKE'L a. B. I> L. C.l. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning commission March 18, 1980 bases as they come up and feel that there maybe some incon- sistencies with adoptive plans. Olof Hedstrom this document the approval. All in favor, entertained a motion to recommend to approve with the comments made to be included with Lee Pardee so moved. Roger Hunt seconded. motion carried. Welton Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting, Perry Harvey seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourn- ed at 7:10 P.M. ~~ Sandi Meredith, Deputy City Clerk