Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19790810 ,." BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 10, 1979 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a continued meeting on August 10, 1979, at 12.; 30 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, Roger Hunt, Nancy McDonnell and Joan Klar. Also present were Richard Grice of the Planning Office, Housing Director Jim Reents, City Manager HJ Stalf, County Manager George Ochs and City Attorney Ron Stock. Water Plant Housing Grice distributed a memo from the Planning Office. He noted they must consider this application keeping in mind that it is on the boundary of City and County lands. The 8040 Green- line review is set up to address the transition of develop- ment from the City to the County. The proposal is to use 5 of 63 acres for clustered townhouses with the balance left for open space and other potential development by the County. The County Land Use Code requires a 100' setback off Castle Creek Road which this project is not subject to complying with. Grice felt these impacts were mitigated by the exten- sive landscaping and berming. He noted the excavated materials would be used for berming along the front of the property with the possibility of additional landscaping in the future. Colorado State University has mapped the County lands for environmental impacts such as visual vulnerability, wintering ranges of wild animals, etc. They have used these maps in planning the development for the least qrnount of impact. The City Engineering Department did a traffic count of the Castle Creek Road from the hospital to the Prince of Peace Chapel and showed approximately 3000 cars used this road during the spring on an average day. Grice estimated that 80 dwelling units could generate 560 trips per day. He also noted the possible realignment of the intersection of Castle Creek, Maroon Creek and Highway 82. Reents noted the site to be zoned on a map. He recommended zoning the site RMF and the remainder be zoned Public which would be appropriate for the existing uses at the Water Plant and the remaining open space. Klar asked if they would see any applications for further development if they zone it Public. Reents said any further development would require a special review. Stock recommended SPA zoning noting they could set the permitted and conditional uses by stating they are the same as some other appropriate zone. Pardee asked about the potential impacts if the County does develop its parcel. Reents said their main concern was the Castle Creek Road. The City has studied an alternative alignment that would run along the boundary of the Thomas property to an intersection with Cemetary Lane. Pardee wanted to see a landscaping plan. Reents said they are still developing the budget for the landscaping. He said he would bring the plan for their approval when the details were worked out. Pardee understood that this project would have to go through full subdivision procedures to be condominium- ized but he did not want to ever see it condominiumized. Reents said the City does not wish to condominiumize. Hunt felt they should state this intention up front. Stock said they could condition their exemption upon the fact that this property can never be condominiumized and deed restrict it to this. Pardee asked the housing price guidelines. Stock said they are as follows: 1979, Low .36/sqft, Moderate .47/sqft, Middle . 58/sqft; 1980 as proposed, Low . 57/sqft, Moderate .85/sqft, Middle 1.00/sqft. Stock noted that the 1979 figures were "very nice" but nothing was built because the lending institutions would not lend. These figures were raised because of the lending institution~ requirements. Stock noted the bond underwriter would not issue the bonds unless we raised the price guidelines. This raise also covers the maintenance of the property. Klar asked if they are considering the cost of living increase. Stock said these rates will go up, not at the rate of the cost of living since that rate is too great. They would prefer not to tie -2- Continued Meeting Aspen planning and Zoning commission August 10, 1979 this figure to a certain percent per year. Stock said the profit to the developer comes from the tax shelter it cre- ates. They anticipate a turnover in the number of owners because of this. Pardee said, based on the 1980 price guide- lines, the rents would be $275/studio, $376/one bedroom, $513/two bedroom and $580/three bedroom. Reents said the marketing survey dictated the need for certain housing. This was plugged into this project but required adjustment when the bids came in. Klar asked Ochs to comment on the project. Ochs felt the project looked good. He felt the main mistakes of Midland/ Park were a shortage of adequate parking and their problem with dogs. He felt they should be very specific with their policy on dogs and be strict in enforcement. Pardee asked what the parking ratio per room is at Midland/Park. Ochs said they allowed for one per unit with two for the three bedroom units. He said this ratio does not seem to be ade- quate. Reents said the ratio is one per bedroom for the Water Plant Housing. They assume this will cover guest parking. Another thing being considered is a security storage area for things that are not used on a regular basis such as campers, boats, etc. He showed the site being considered for this storage. This is not on the plan be- cause they have not finetuned the needs. Klar asked if they could use such things as not owning a vehicle as qualifications for this housing. She wishes to create an incentive for using public transportation. Reents did not feel this was a good idea as people may own a car to get them to places that buses do not gO such as into the mountains for camping, etc. Pardee asked Ochs, if he was to do Midland/Park over, what he would have done different- ly. Ochs noted there were differences between this project and the Midland/Park project but felt they could have saved money in areas like ordering kitchen and bathroom cabinets had they done their own shopping and not left it to the developer. Klar said her concerns were with the dog situ- ation, the landscape plan and the potential development of the balance. She felt they should have some guidance from the outcomes of the Midland/Park and Lone Pine projects. She did not feel it should ever be condominiumized. Anderson was concerned with the circulation problem. He did not feel they should prohibit this from ever being condominiumized as they may need this type of housing 10 years down the road. It would still need to gO through full subdivision procedures. Hedstrom agreed that they would have control through this review and did not feel they needed the restriction against condominiumization. McDonnell asked, if it were to go through full subdivision and they did not need or wish to condominiumize, could they deny the application. Reents said yes. Stalf supported the investigation of the realignment of this intersection. He felt the bus system would be util~ ized as it is at Silverking; in the winter, the parking lot is maxed and people are forced to use the bus system more than in the summer months. He noted that this would also step up the service to the hospital. He added that the realignment would be pursued even if this development does not occur. Reents noted that they considered straight through access to the project but this would put one en- trance on the blind curve of Castle Creek. Hunt asked the location of the elk winter range. Reents said it ran from the Maroon Creek Road, across Shadow Moun- tain and up Aspen Mountain. Hunt asked what the developer was doing to reduce the impact of the dogs in the area. Reents said he was hesitant to recommend that a restriction specific only to this development be placed on this pro- ject. ""-' >..I BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER ....'0...... -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS August 10, 1979 Continued Meeting SPA Plan Approval Motion Special Review for Employee Housing Motion 8040 Greenline Review Motion Subdivision Exemption / Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Reents did not feel it fair to place a restriction on em- ployees above and beyond what they require of the general public in the City. Hedstrom noted that this is not in the City. Pardee felt that, because of the concerns of Ochs in the Midland/Park dog problems and the surrounding wild- life, they should have a dog restriction. Hunt asked about the extra storage for boat trailers, etc. Reents said they do not have a plan as yet and it is not a requirement in the code. Ochs supported this provision. Hunt asked about extra storage in the units. Reents said there was extra storage in each unit, one unheated area off the balcony approximately 5'xlO' and one area inside the unit. ochs reiterated his concern for shopping around for reasonably priced cabinets, etc. McDonnell asked if they had addressed the problem of sewer access to the project. Reents said the same subcontractor that will do the utilities will also do the sewer trunkline. McDonnell asked if the City has the money to do this. Reents said they will get a short term loan budgeted in 1980. Hunt warned against the roof design which may dump snow on the entrances. Reents said they are enclosing the entryways and extending rooflines over the entries. Hunt moved to approve the precise plan as presented including three separate areas; the housing area, the water plant area and an open space(with potential future development), and establish the permitted and conditional uses of the housing location as RMF and of the remainder of the property as Public (PUB) and that the area and bulk regulations for the housing space be RMF and for the remainder of the area as Park, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Pardee moved that the P&Z finds that there is a need for this employee housing and therefore it should be exempt from the Growth Management Plan and that the price of the units as presented is acceptable, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hunt moved to approve the 8040 Greenline Review conditioned that a landscaping plan with escrow provisions be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit, that there be no dogs allowed in the project, conditioned upon recommendations made by the joint City and County Transportation Department and Engineering for the time table for improvements of alignment at the intersection of Dolittle Road and Castle Creek including the hospital road such to be presented prior to issuance of a building permit and that a storage plan for extra vehicles will be developed prior to issuance of a building permit, all these conditions to be approved by the P&Z, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hunt moved to approve the exemption from strict application of subdivision regulations for the Water Plant project subject to the following: 1) a landscaping plan with escrow provisions be approved by the P&Z prior to issuance of a building permit, 2) there be no dogs allowed in the project, 3) conditioned upon recommendations made by the joint City and County Transportation Department and Engineering for the time table for improvements of alignment at the intersection of Dolittle Road and Castel Creek including the hospital road such to be presented prior to issuance of a building permit and 4) that a storage plan for extra vehicles wil~.9~ developed prior to issuance of a building permit, all ~ conditions to be approved by the P&Z, and 5) if this project should ever be further subdivided it will go through the full subdivision process, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. -4- Continued Meeting August 10, 1979 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting, Hunt seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 2:10 PM. ...5b1Jiri/~ ~ Sheryl mmen, Deputy City' :Clerk - ~