Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandUseCase.CR.W/JRanch.0053.2004.ASLUPITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 920-5526 FAX (970) 920-5439 MEMORANDUM TO: `Engineer Zoning Aspen -Fire Protection District Woody Creek Caucus Housing Office W/J Homeowners Assoc. City of Aspen Community Development Environmental Health County Wildlife Biologist County Weed Management Town of Snowmass Village Brush Creek Metro District Pitkin County Airport Open Space and Trails FROM: Lance Clarke, Community Development Department RE: W/J Ranch Subdivision/PUD Detailed Submission and Final Plat (PID 2643-223-00-006; Case P126-04) DATE: August 24, 2004 Attached for your review and comments are materials for an application submitted by Lowe W/J, LLC. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission will review the application on Tuesday, October 5, 2004. Please return your comments to me by Friday, September 17, 2004. PLEASE RETURN APPLICATION MATERIALS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IF YOU HAVE NO FURTHER NEED OF THEM. Thank you. ATTACHMENT 2 MEMORANDUM ` TO: Lance Clarke, Pitkin County Deputy Director THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director -lAo FROM:. Fred Jarman, City of Aspen Planner ,?.. RE: W/J Ranch: PUD for Rezoning / GMQS Exemption, Conceptual Submission / PUD, 1041 Hazards Review and Major Plat Amendment DATE: May 31, 2001 Froiect 5ummarg The owner of the subject property, Lowe W/J, LLC, represented by Design Workshop, Inc., is requesting an approval from Pitkin County for a Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Conceptual Submission, PUD, 1041 Hazards Review, and Major Plat Amendment in order to develop the remaining undeveloped lands of the W/J Ranch located in. Woody Creek. Specifically, the Applicant proposes to rezone 210.44 acres of the W/J Ranch from RS-20 to AH3/PUD in order to develop 12 free market lots and 141 affordable housing units illustrated below: 12 Free Market Lots (averaging 7.8 acres each) 16 Townhome / Duplex Units (Deed Restricted to Category 3) 83 Single -Family Detached Lots (Deed Restricted to Category 4) 42 Single -Family Detached Lots (Resident Occupied) ------- - =-This --esults-in a total of 4-5-33--units -covering 21-0,44--acres in-a-7.-8%o Free -Market-./ 92 -7% --- __ - =- -- Affordable Housing mix. Stag Comments The following points shall apply to this proposal: 1. The Urban Growth Boundary The development would be located outside the proposed Aspen Community Growth Boundary. More than that, the development is proposed outside the Metro Area. The 2000 AACP clearly indicates that the Aspen Community Growth.Boundary is intended to help preserve open space, discourage urban sprawl and manage the transportation impacts of new developments. In order to make the boundary effective, the County may need to maintain and potentially lower acceptable density levels in areas outside of the boundary, and the City will need to pursue infill in existing neighborhoods. The Community Growth Boundary would also serve as the base of a future annexation agreement between the City and the County and would require intergovernmental coordination for any development approvals in the joint planning area. The Applicant wishes to rezone the property to allow for a much higher density than current zoning allows. The Applicant is proposing a density as high as 3.3 units per acre which is roughly one unit for 13,200 square feet which is more density than what is allowed in the City of Aspen in the R-15 Zone District (Moderate Density Residential) which areas consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. The average proposed density is 1.4 units per acre, which is a density that is directly in conflict with the philosophy of the AACP as stated above. Specifically, the 2000 AACP states: [The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was created] to conserve resources, an Aspen Community Growth Boundary has been identified. The City agrees to accept greater density within the boundary in exchange for the preservation of important open spaces in the outlying County and key parcels in the City, maintaining the separation between communities, and the prevention of sprawl. Staff finds that this proposed development directly conflicts with the very nature and intent of the AACP. Specifically, growth should be accommodated within the tightly delineated boundary, and the County should not approve or provide infrastructure to support development outside of it. Within the boundary, we encourage greater levels of density for affordable housing built with quality and attention to the character of the neighborhood. This Community Growth Boundary will focus and reduce infrastructure expenditures, reduce the spread of development into the countryside and maintain a rural character between. communities. At the same time, the boundary will promote concentrations of development supportive of transit and pecTestrian accessibility: Staff finds that this--_._ ----------- --- -- - - ---- proposed development directly conflicts with the very nature and. intent of the AACP. 2. Transportation As stated in the AACP: Local and regional land use and development patterns should enable and support travel by alternative modes of transportation. New development should take place only in areas that are. or can be served by transit. and only in compact. mixed --use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling: The amount of surface land area devoted to the automobile (particularly for parking) should decline from the 1998 level. 2 Staff finds that this proposal is contrary to good transportation / land use planning, in that it will create a large residential pocket of development similar to that of an "island neighborhood" that has no real connection to mass transit in a transit oriented type development, will generate close to 1,700 trips per day outlined in the trip generation study that will render McClain Flats Road to a LOS C or D during peak times. Further, even if McClain Flats Road is improved, it will remain operating at a LOS C. Finally, there is no conclusive information presented in the application that even suggests that McClain Flats Road can be improved to handle such an increase in trips. Essentially, this development will be major trip increaser for trips to the two major economic centers of Aspen and Glenwood Springs for commuters similar to the Blue Lake development since there is no commercial component. In effect this development is simply a. large addition to the already congested commuter problem on State Highway 82, which greatly contributes to increased PM-10, which the City is trying to reduce. Staff finds this development directly conflicts with this element of the AACP. 3. Affordable Housing The 2000 AACP Map D specifies future affordable housing sites. According to this map, the proposed location for the development is not indicated as being one of those future sites. Certainly, affordable housing units provided by the private sector are laudable when proposed in the right location. However, in this case, the current proposal seeks to develop an inappropriate location. Even though this project is primarily affordable housing, any development in an inappropriate location remains inappropriate. Housing Criteria in the AACP are derived from the Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan. Though used as a guideline, all affordable housing projects should, strive to meet as many of these criteria as is feasible: Criteria 1: Community Growth Boundary location _.Criteria-2: Proximity to_available public mass transit Criteria 3: "Containable Development" compatible w/ neighborhood & does not promote sprawl Criteria 4: Contiguous to existing public facilities and infrastructure Criteria 5:- Amenable to transit, bike and pedestrian oriented design (non -automotive) Criteria 6: Visual compatibility with surrounding area Lastly, the proposed development is contrary to one of the main policies of .the AACP regarding affordable housing which is to encourage development ofhousing.to occur within the city limits and emphasize "good city form" to protect our rural and open lands from development and to reinforce and enhance our social well-being, our economic viability, and our partnership with the environment. The production of units cannot be viewed as a means to an end. The people living in them should partake in and contribute to the "Aspen Experience." Staff finds that the proposal does not meet these criteria. 4. Open Space One of the main policies of the AACP regarding the preservation of open space is the following: Seek opportunities to discourage sprawl in- order to preserve open spaces between communities. Encourage infill projects that integrate more housing into the existing urban fabric. Ensure that development associated with the valley wide rail plan is compact in order to preserve open space. Incorporate trails and other recreational amenities into affordable housing development plans. The very intent of the UGB is to control the spread of random developments thereby eating up the green / open space between existing cities. Staff finds this development is in conflict with this policy. Summa _ In summary, Staff finds the density and location of this proposal to directly conflict with many of the essential policies of the AACP as stated above. Staff believes this development is not consistent with the AACP, in that, it does not allow for the efficient use of current infrastructure, is not consistent with transit oriented development patterns, will be a considerable trip generator due to its location far from employment and shopping centers adding to an already congested Highway 82, and will contribute to the depletion of green spaces separating the upper valley's already developed areas. Gtq of Aspen Community Development Department Recommendation c� v The City Planning Office reviewed W/J Ranch Application requesting an approval from Pitkin County for a Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Conceptual Submission, PUD, 1041 Hazards- Reviewv, .and-Maj or Plat -Am order- to develop the -remaining-- - - - ---- _ undeveloped lands of the W/J Ranch located in Woody Creek. The City of Aspen Community Development Department recommends denial of the application for the aforementioned reasons. Gl