HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19931130A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
November 30, 1993, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Moore Property Referral, Leslie Lamont
B. Benedict/Stillwater Referral, Mary Lackner
IV. WORK SESSION
A. 210 Midland/Snyder Pond, Kim Johnson & Mary Lackner
(Time Permitting)
V. ADJOURN
i
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas -
DATE: November 30, 1993
Regular Meeting - December 7
Hufty Conditional Use Review (KJ)
Transierra Stream Margin (KJ)
Gap Conditional Use - Satellite Dish (KJ)
BCS Properties Change in Use (LL)
Resolution - Kraut AH Subdivision (LL)
Regular Meeting - December 21
Office Zone District Commercial GMQS:
Cap's Auto (ML)�
Stapleton (LL)
Snyder Pond Worksession (KJ/ML)
Regular Meeting - January 4
Billings Property Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PUD & GMQS
Exemption (ML)
Aspen Club Lodge Rezoning to CL/CL Text Amendments (KJ)
Regular Meeting - January 18
R.O. Text Amendments (LL/CH)
a.nex
RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REQUESTING
THAT THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL TO APPOINTMENT TWO NEW MEMBERS TO THE
COMMISSION, ONE FULL MEMBER AND ONE ALTERNATE.
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has been
operating without a full board since July of 1993; and
WHEREAS, the alternate position of the Commission has been vacant
since February of 1991; and
WHEREAS, although City Council recently appointed a new member,
that member is unable to serve because the City Charter prevents
an appointed city official from serving on more than one board at
a time; and
WHEREAS, the Commission supports the City Charter preventing a
citizen from serving on two boards because of the time requirements
necessary to adequately do the job and to relieve potential
conflicts of interests; and
WHEREAS, without a full Commission, several meetings have been
canceled due to the lack of a quorum; and
WHEREAS, the Commission have been charged by City Council to
uphold Council's goals and policies in an expeditious and effective
fashion.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission respectfully and
urgently requests that the City Council complete the two
appointments to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to build
a full functioning Commission for the citizens of Aspen.
W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
>s '
d'
l
pgXEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
k
t FROM: Cindy Houben, Long Range Planning Director
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: November 30, 1993
RE: Referral - Moore Family Subdivision, PUD, and GMQS
SUMMARY: This is the first of two 'meetings scheduled for the
review of the Moore Family Subdivision development proposal. This
meeting will review the development's consistency with the
character basis of AACP and the Action Plan sections - Growth,
Housing, Commercial/Retail, and Open Space/Recreation/Environment.
Transportation will be scheduled when the review has been
completed. We anticipate that meeting in mid -December.
APPLICANT: James E. Moore Family Partnership, as represented by
Glenn Horn and Gideon Kaufman
LOCATION: .Maroon Creek Road, east of the Aspen public school
campus
ZONING: AF-1 (1 dwelling unit/10 acres) and AF-2 PUD (1 dwelling
unit/2 acres)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval for:
40 free-market single-family detached dwelling units;
31 deed restricted single-family detached dwelling units;
limited access chair lift link to Aspen Highlands; and
redevelopment of the school's traffic circulation system.
REVIEW PROCESS: The Commission is being asked to review this
application for two reasons.
First, pursuant to Section 6-3.4 B.2A of the County Land Use Code
and consistent with Colorado State Statutes, any proposal within
two miles of a municipality shall be referred to that jurisdiction
for review. The Moore property is 1/12 contiguous with the City
of Aspen boundary and the balance of the property is within 1.5
miles of downtown Aspen.
Secondly, the applicant has requested City water, the water policy
of 1993 requires Council approval and their review entails
consideration of the project's consistency with the AACP. Recently
0
Council has relied upon the Commission's recommendation of a
project's consistency with the AACP.
The application that has been submitted is for general submission,
subdivision and GMQS -allocation approval. The County review
process divides project review for significant developments into
two categories, --general submission and detailed submission.
General submission is designed to flush out threshold issues and
determine a project's compliance with policies and regulations of
the Land Use Code. Detailed submission would include information
regarding the number of sale verses rental affordable housing
units, proposed floor area and building footprints. This first
level of review is also intended to identify missing elements that
must be included in detailed submission. This type of review could
be compared to the City's conceptual verses final PUD development
review.
The GMQS scoring is a separate process. Scoring is based upon the
general submission application.
Staff believes that the most efficient way to review the proposal
is to consider the application based upon it's consistency with the
Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). We did this with the Aspen
Highlands referral. The AACP was adopted for the metro area and
was intended to make recommendations regarding growth and 'land use
issues that are metro in scope. It is also the policy document
that guides our land use reviews and legislation.
The Findings of the Commission will be passed onto the County
Planning and Zoning Commission at their December 7, 1993 meeting.
Transportation comments will be forwarded to them if they continue
their review or will be passed onto the Board.
In a similar fashion your Findings will be used by the City Council
in determining whether to serve the property with City water.
SITE DESCRIPTION: In 1952 the Moore's acquired 325 acres from the
Arlian family. Over the past years the Moore family has donated
land for the community pool and public schools. In 1992, Tom Moore
sold 65 acres to Pitkin County for open space. Alberta Moore,
James E. Moore's widow still lives on 45 acres.
The subject site is 215 acres and is unimproved except for the
nordic trail system which has been used with the Moore family's
consent for more than 30 years. The site is located adjacent to
the school. The other Moore parcel (45 acres) is across Maroon
Creek Road and is not included in this application.
According to the application, the site is bordered by the Meadowood
Subdivision and the Aspen Water Plant to the east, Maroon Creek
Road and Pitkin County open space to the north, Aspen Highlands Ski
Area, several metes and bounds single-family lots,, the Aspen
V0
2
Highlands Subdivision, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and the
Aspen public schools to the west, and the Castle Creek Valley to
the south.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE AACP
A. AACP Action Plan
1. Character The AACP is a character based plan. The Plan
includes Development Features designed by the community. to
"maintain and create places and opportunities for social
interaction and lifestyle diversity".
The applicant proposes to cluster the 71 residential dwelling units
around the nordic trail system that winds through the large central
open space on the property. This site design maintains the large
open space that links to the open space in the center of the
Meadowood Subdivision. The development preserves the open and
recreational "character" of the property that has provided 30. years
of winter enjoyment for nordic skiers.
2. Growth - The Growth Action Plan for the AACP recommends a
projected peak buildout of 30,000 persons (inclusive of permanent
and visitor population). The projected buildout of the individual
Neighborhood Planning Areas (NPA), based upon existing zoning, were
combined for the projected peak buildout for the entire metro area.
The AACP did not recommend downzoning to achieve peak buildout.
Instead, the AACP incorporates a combination of open space
preservation and density increases for affordable housing to
achieve the peak population goals. Annual growth quotas for
specific types of development are utilized to achieve ultimate
community balance which is a critical element of the AACP.
The Meadowwood NPA indicates that approximately 150-250 dwelling
units are likely to be developed in this NPA based upon existing
zoning. The NPA separated the Moore property into two parcels:
parcel 1 (on the northwest side of Maroon Creek Road) and parcel
2 (on the southeast side of Maroon Creek Road; the subject of this
application). Parcel 1 buildout is estimated to be 50-100 units
and parcel 2 buildout is estimated to be 20-50 units. Sixty-five
acres in parcel 1. were sold for open space, in 1992 which
eliminated 32 units from buildout on parcel 1. (The submitted
subdivision application proposes development for parcel 2).
The AACP recommends a significant open space purchase in this NPA.
In addition, the Housing section of the AACP recommends parcel 2
of the Moore property as a great location for a "micro community",
which means a strong mix of affordable dwelling units and free
market units.
The proposal for 71 dwelling units on parcel 2 represents an
increase in the number of units that were originally expected on
3
5
this parcel. The applicant proposes to upzone some of the land
area to increase the allowable density on the parcel. The open
space purchase eliminated 32 units from parcel 1. Thus the
increase in density on parcel 2 does not push the proposed
development over the projected buildout for the entire NPA. The
AACP does not "credit" the "transfer" of development off of
preserved open space to other areas within the same NPA. In this
case, it is coincidental that the purchase of open space and the
recommended increase in density for affordable housing are
occurring within the same NPA.
3. Housing - The intent of the Housing Action Plan is to create a
housing environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the
neighborhoods, and affordable.
The applicant proposes to provide 31 affordable housing units that
are single-family detached structures clustered around a central
useable open space. This is 100% consistent with the policy in
the Housing Action Plan that promotes a "micro community" on large
acreage to accommodate permanent residents and the recommendation
that future housing be family oriented.
The proposal is also consistent with number 15 of the Action Plan
that recommends working with the landowners to ensure that future
development of property along Maroon Creek Road and near the
schools emphasize a mix of free market and affordable family
oriented housing and recreational uses.
The Housing Action Plan land use map identifies the Moore property
as a "great location for a village concept with trails and open
space, "micro community" orientation with consideration for limited
neighborhood commercial aspects."
The AACP calls for the mitigation of affordable housing to be
increased from 33% of the number of residents of non -deed
restricted units to 60% of the number of residents of non -deed
restricted units. For example, a subdivision of 100 free market
residents must provide affordable housing for 60 employees, or
37.5% of all subdivision residents must be employees.
4. Commercial/Retail -'The intent of the commercial/retail action
plan is to provide incentives for managed strategic growth by
locally serving commercial and office uses and small lodges.
There is no commercial/retail space proposed for this development.
However, the Housing section of the AACP identifies the Moore
property as an ideal location for a "micro" community inclusive of
a small amount of commercial retail space. Staff is pointing this
out because the possibility of developing such commercial space in
the future should not be excluded. If commercial space were to be
developed in the future, a thorough review would be required at
that time.
4
x
S. Open Space/Recreation and Environment - The intent of the OSRE
action plan is to preserve and enhance the natural.beauty of the
area. The action plan recommends developing a stimulating, active
and supportive environment that -betters the lives of everyone,
preserves our natural resources and provides opportunities for all
to enjoy and to further the growth and development of outdoor
recreation.
The AACP maps the subject parcel as private open space. Although
the area has been used for cross country skiing for years, it has
been allowed only through the generosity of the owners. This
proposal creates a more permanent public open space agreement. The
AACP also maps a trails system from the Health and Human Services
area to the schools and parks. The Moore family proposal provides
a segment of that link on their property (the only remaining link
is through the Meadowood Subdivision). Finally, the AACP maps the
Moore property across Maroon Creek Road as open space. 65 acres
of the 125 acres has been purchased by the Open Space .Board for
open space purposes. The Open Space Board has expressed a desire
for this property to become public open space.
6. Transportation - Transportation and annexation issues will be
reviewed at the second meeting.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE MAROON AND CASTLE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING GROUP
The AACP included a specific planning process with the Maroon and
Castle Creek neighborhood (a separate group from the the Caucus,
although caucus members did attend the neighborhood planning
meetings). The Neighborhood planning group developed consensus
statements on Character, Community, Housing, Open Space/
Recreation/Environment and/or Transportation. These consensus
statements will be reviewed below relative to the Moore proposal
(except transportation which will be discussed at a later meeting).
It should be noted that the Moore family attended and participated
in almost every neighborhood meeting. The Moores have done an
excellent job at participating an the neighborhood planning level
which is clearly reflected in their proposal.
A. Character
1. Ensure design is compatible with the neighborhood.
Staff Response: The proposal uses a lotting plan and open
space configuration that is generally compatible with the
existing neighborhood. The affordable lots are considerable
smaller than those of the adjacent Meadowood and Highlands
Subdivisions. However, natural landforms and new landscaping
have been proposed to provide visual screening between the
5
6
B.
adjacent Meadowood lots and the affordable housing lots. The
upper lots on the Moore property are a bit larger than the
existing Meadowood lots; the lower lots are smaller but more
clustered, and offer a continuation of the open space found
in the Meadowood Subdivision. The design of the proposal also
attempts to correct existing problems with the schools
relative to parking, traffic, and needed additional
recreational spaces for basketball and ball field sports.
2. Promote neighborhood caucus review of projects for
compatibility.
Staff Response: The Moore family attended and listened to the
neighborhood planning meetings for over a year and a half.
Mr. Tommy Moore discussed his family's goals and issues with
the planning group. As a result, specific consensus
statements were developed relative to community, housing and
recreation and open space which will be discussed further in
this memo. It is the staff's opinion that the Moore family
proposal accurately reflects the consensus of the neighborhood
planning group.
The Caucus is a formal review body approved by the BOCC. The
formal Caucus statements are attached to this memo.
3. Promote pride of ownership.
Staff Response: The neighborhood was concerned about the
number of rental affordable housing units already located in
the Castle and Maroon Creek planning area. The Moore proposal
only includes free market and affordable SALE housing.
4. Encourage development in the neighborhood to be
pedestrian -friendly and compatible with surrounding uses.
Staff Response: The proposal includes the use of summer and
winter trail systems which interact and connect with the
existing pedestrian and bicycle systems. The proposal will
help alleviate a safety problem at the school/Iselin Park
crossing by installing a crosswalk signal. The proposal
offers a ski lift connection from the school to keep children
off of Maroon Creek Road when accessing the Highlands ski
area. The proposed pedestrian trail system provides the
access within the Moore property which was recommended by the
AACP: "Obtain bike and pedestrian easements through the
Meadowood Subdivision and other landowners for the purpose of
creating a trail connection between the Health and Human
Services property and the school campus and Iselin Park."
Community
1.1 Encourage neighborhoods as places for children.
C
Rot
Staff Response: The proposal integrates the use of the school
facilities with affordable housing and the use of the open
space for trails and cross country skiing. These are all
recreational uses that will encourage participation by
children and Yfamilies.. The children in the affordable
neighborhood portion of the proposal will be able to walk or
ride their bikes to school and to the park.
2. Expansions of existing public facilities, institutional
or commercial uses should be reviewed by the neighborhood
to ensure compatibility. No new public., institutional
or commercial uses should be accomodated by the
neighborhood.
Staff Response: The expansion of the recreational facilities
and improvements to the parking and.traff is circulation may
be viewed as an expansion of the institutional uses in the
neighborhood. However, it is a solution that is overdue. The
schools have justified the need to the Moore family who have
contributed the land area which otherwise could have been
dedicated to housing. The addition of a ski club building can
be viewed as an expansion of the existing school. It offers
a reduction in traffic on the roadway and a common sense
connection to the existing school facilities.
C. Housing
1. Allow for dispersed affordable housing which is small
scale and compatible with the neighborhood (i.e., no
projects) .
Staff Response: The largest cluster of affordable housing in
the proposal includes 16 units on approximately 2.5 acres of
land. No large scale,' Centennial -type development is
proposed on the Moore property.
2. Encourage developers to meet with the neighborhood and
the Caucus early in the planning process.
Staff Response: The Moore family met with the neighborhood
to develop consensus statements for the planning of the
neighborhood. The applicant has continued to meet with the
caucus to discuss the proposed development.
3. Develop Moore property adjacent to Meadowood at a lesser
or similar density.
Staff Response: Most of the proposed free-market lots are
equal or greater in size than the lots in the Meadowood
Subdivision. The affordable lots are significantly smaller
than those in Meadowood. The overall density of the project
7
n
is significantly less than that of Meadowood. The gross
density of Meadowood (including open space) is approximately
1.3 acres per unit; the density of the Moore property, as
proposed,* would be approximately 3 acres per unit. The
affordable housing lots are clustered to,ac6ommodate more use
of the open space rather than provide larger private lots.
This arrangement is also done for practical economic reasons.
4. No high density multi -family housing projects, except at
Aspen Highlands.
Staff Response: No multi -family housing is proposed.
5. Housing shall be small in scale and dispersed throughout
the neighborhood.
Staff Response: The housing proposed shall be 3,500 to 6,000
square feet for the free market lots and 1, 100 to 2, 000 square
feet for the affordable lots. The average house size in the
existing (Highlands) neighborhood is 3,800 square feet. The
housing proposed is dispersed around the 21.5 acre site in
large tracts and is clustered to maximize the useable open
space on the parcel complementing the existing Meadowood open
space and nordic trail system.
D. open Space/RecreationlEnvironment
1. Protect the natural environment.
Staff Response: The upper portion of the property is not
developed. This is the most visible portion of the property
(approximately 75-80 acres) and contains the most mature
native vegetation.
2. Explore ways to allow large landowners to maintain
development rights for their heirs while maintaining open
space.
Staff comments: This proposal preserves the most critical
useable open space on the site and provides development for
the owners.
3. Enhance the residential character of the neighborhood by
sensitive, flexible site planning designed to orient
development areas toward open areas and to link activity
centers via a system of trails and open space connectors.
Staff Response: This site plan links activity areas via a
system of trails for both summer and winter use. The AACP
encourages an additional link through the Meadowood
Subdivision, which is the key to linking the Moore Family
Subdivision trails with the public park and schools. Within
8
V
the site, the applicant provides a number of trails and the
opportunity for future links off -site.
4. Encourage clustering where -development does occur in.
order to maintain open space parcels.
Staff Response: This site plan clusters development in order
to maintain the existing open space parcels to the greatest
extent possible. The road system could be.revised adjacent
to the Meadowood'Subdivision to eliminate a roadway and
provide more continuous, undisturbed open space.
5. Maintain access trails to lakes.
Staff Response: This proposal maintains access to trails on
the Moore property, although several trails have been
realigned.
6. Create small neighborhood parks for families and
children.
Staff response: The proposal does not create formal park
areas, but allows the public (neighborhood included) -to enjoy
a network of trails and open space.
7. Maintain cross-country ski trails.
Staff Response: This proposal preserves the existing cross-
country ski trails of the Moore property.
STAFF FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission make the following findings:
1. The Moore Family general submission application is consistent
with the Character orientation of the AACP because the proposed
development preserves the recreational and open space nature of.
this parcel as .an opportunity for social interaction and lifestyle
diversity.
2. The Moore Family general submission application is consistent
with the AACP Growth Action Plan because the proposed development
does not exceed the projected buildout for the NPA and therefore
is consistent with the projected peak buildout of 30,000 persons
within the metro area.
3. 'The Moore Family general submission application is consistent
with the AACP dousing Action Plan because the proposed development
represents a "micro community" that has been designed for the
permanent resident. The development plan provides the desired mix
of .free market and affordable family oriented housing.
9
4. The Moore Family general submission application is consistent
with the AACP Open Space/Recreation/Environment Action Plan because
the proposed development maintains existing trail networks,
provides additional public open space, and furthers the safety of
the link between the trail system and Iselin Park.
5. The Moore Family proposal is generally consistent with the
neighborhood planning group's concensus statements because it
provides free market residential lots which are of similar size.
Homes to be built in the free market portion of the development
will be in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods (3,500 to 6,000
square feet). The proposal 'is also consistent with the
neighborhood planning group's concensus statements because the
affordable housing is dispersed and small scale. The Moore
proposal's overall density (one unit per 3 acres) is significantly
less than adjacent neighborhoods (one unit -per 1.3 acres). The
proposal provides the type of affordable housing which is most
similar in scale to the surrounding free market subdivisions. The
proposal offers trail connections which link activity areas for
both summer and winter. The proposal maintains valued open space
parcels adjacent to existing neighboring open space parcels.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt the findings in Planning memo
date November 30, 1993, as it pertains to the Moore Family
Subdivision, and forward this finding to the County Planning and
Zoning Commission."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Moore Property vicinity Map
B. Moore Property Site Plan
C. Moore Application
D. Meadowood Home Owners Association Letter
E. Maroon/Castle Caucus Letter
F. Open Space and Trails Board Letter
10
�ID
Meadowood Home Owners Association
P.O. Box 8774V
Aspen, Colorado 81612
pLMING is $ONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT D , APPROVED ► —
19 BY RESOLUTION •
November 59 1993
Mr, Tim Malloy
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Tim:
At the monthly meeting, October 26, 19939 of the Meadowood
Homeowners Association Board of Directors the Moore Family
PUD was discussed. Besides the board there were a number of
homeowners present. Below is a list of our immediate concerns
and suggestions.
CONCERNS:
1. The present and future traffic congestion at the intersection
of Maroon Creek Road, Castle Creek Road and Highway 82
is not -be addressed.
2. Total density is too high as proposed.
3. Density of affordable housing Lots 17 through 31 is too high.
4. Arlian Drive is too close to Meadowood property line.
5. The PUD submission does not address wildlife concerns.
6: On going maintenance of vegetation screening between.
Moore project and Meadowood subdivision.
SUGGESTIONS:
1: Disperse affordable housing throughout the project; not
clusteA%&s shown.
2. Arlian Drive could be relocated and/or shortened in length.
3. Increase property line setbacks. More of a buffer zone
between Meadowood lots and Moore lots.
The members of the Meadowood Homeowners Association will be
meeting with Tom Moore and Glen Horn on Tuesday, November 23rd
at 5:30PM at the Prince of Peace Chapel to discuss our concerns
and suggestions.
-page 2
Will you please pass on our concerns and suggestions to the
Planning and Zoning Commission,
Please get in touch with me if you have any questions. I may
be reached at 925-7772
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
S 1nC ly
King R. Woodward
Secretary
Meadowood Homeowners Association
\1/
Meadowood Home Owners Association
P.O. Box 8774
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Following are concerns and suggestions that were discussed at the
Meadowood Homeowners Association board meeting of October
regarding the Moore Family PUD submission.
Homeowners present: DRC and Ruth Brown, Doug Carlson, Bob and Judi
Francis, Dick and Sunny Meeker, Tage Pedersen, Perry Pollock an
Marius Sanger. Board members present: Becky Ayres, Chuck Frias,
Paul Patterson, David Schweppe, Nat Selikson, Steve Wickes, Ring
Woodward.
CONCERNS/SUGGESTIONS
1. Total density too high as proposed.
2. Density of affordable housing Lots 17 to 31 is too high.
3. Dis
perse erse affordable housing throughout project; not clustered
as shown.
4. Affordable housing could be moved into open space.
5. Arlian Drive too close to Meadowood property line. Should be
relocated and/or shortened in length.
6. Wildlife concerns. PUD does not address this matter.
7. Avalanche areas.
8. Increase property line setbacks. More of a buffer area between
Meadowood lots and Moore lots.
9. Maintenance of vegetation screening between Moore project and
Meadowood area.
0
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT —, APPROVED
�.._. 19 BY RESOLUTION
/ATTCW4NFYAT1AW
106 SOUTH MILL STREET, ASPEN, COLORAD0 81611
(303) 925-6150 FAX 925-6151
November 8, 1993
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
Attn. Tim Malloy
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Moore development
Dear Tim:
0
� � 1
1 (� j993 j' f
i'
The Maroon/Castle Caucus has met concerning the Moore
application, and the results of our discussion are as follows:
1. Perhaps the item of greatest concern was transportation.
Of course, you and the other planners have heard from the Caucus
many times on the transportation concerns. Primarily, of course,
we have repeatedly stressed that logic and common sense dictate
that the problems surrounding the Highway 82/Maroon Creek Road
intersection be solved before any further development take place in
the area. Obviously, the Moore project merely compounds the
problem. Thus, we would reiterate that development on the Moore
parcel be postponed until such time as the intersection situation
is resolved.
2. The area of next greatest concern is the clustering of
employee housing in the meadow. I_have previously written to you
expressing my personal position on this issue. The Caucus is in
total agreement with that position. As you may know, the Meadowood
Homeowner's Association has also begun reviewing the Moore
proposal. I enclose herewith a memo reflecting that organization's
objections to the proposal as well. You will note that the
Meadowood Homeowners take the same position on the employee housing
issue as the Caucus.
3. The Board also felt that Arlain Road was placed too close
to the Meadowood subdivision line. The feeling was that the access
to the Moore subdivision could be located along the high school and
limited to the single access road which is shown on the plat. The
feeling seemed to be that the meadow area should be preserved in a
state as nearly akin as its present state as possible.
��l
4. The Board also concluded that the overall density of the
project was excessive.
5. In general, the Caucus board felt that the Meadowood memo
encompassed all of the same objections and concerns which were felt
by the Caucus board.
me.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
Sincew,,61y,
Robert F a is
PLANNING & EONI, -,--..:.iSSrLON
:EXHIBIT , APPROVED___._______. r
19 EY RESOLUTION
WIL4VT(0.11
,VO: TIN MALLOY
FROM: MARK FULLER' 1'
1
M: MOORE PROPERTY APPLICATION
DATE : November 19 , 1993
The Open Space and Trails Board reviewed the Moore Family land use
application with you at their regular meeting yesterday. ;The Board
made the following comments on this application:
1. The Open Space and Trails Board would prefer that the proposed
open apace reserves within the subdivision be put under public
ownership and management, rather than remaining the private
property of the subdivision. The reasons for this are as follows:
The future may bring new needs for open space, trails and
recreational facilities in this neighborhood which may require that
the proposed uses of these properties be reconfigured. As an
example of how future plans might be hampered if these properties
are left under private control, the .Board cited the Meadowwood
subdivision, which is blocking a critical trail -link across their
open space parcel. The need for this trAil was not anticipated when
the Meadowwood subdivision -was approved and there is now no
mechanism, short of condemnation, to install this link.
- The subdivision will be responsible for maintaining an active
park, including playing fields, ski trails, nordic and pedestrian
trails, a ski club facility, a ski lift, and various associated
facilities. The application does not go into detail regarding how
these properties will be maintained, but it is reasonable to assume
that at some point the subdivision will require the active
assistance of the City of Aspen, the School District, the County,
or other agencies charged with parks and open space management'in
order to keep these facilities operational. Given the quasi -public
nature of some of these facilities, it, might make more sense to
incorporate them now into the inventory of public open space,
trails and parks facilities.
2. The Board :asked that the applicant consider the potential
advantages of providing a gift of some or all of the open space
parcels. There might be financial advantages to the applicant in
donating these parcels to the public and the Open Space and Trails
Program would be happy to assist in taking that determination or
facilitating such a transaction.
3.'he Board expressed the concern that the all --purpose trail
between lots 9/10/11/3 and lots 6/7/8/4 goes directly uphill. While
this may work as a ski -in access from Highlands, it will probably
not work very well for other purposes. we would recommend that the
year-round trail be.realigned in this area to follow contours.
1�
• . i
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: County Referral Benedict Stillwater Ranch GMQS.
DATE: November 30, 1993
SUMMARY: This meeting will review the proposed development's
consistency with the specific elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP). The AACP was adopted for the metro area and was
intended to make recommendations regarding growth and land use
issues. It is also the policy document that guides local land use
review and legislation. Staff anticipates this referral to be
completed in tonight's meeting.
APPLICANT: Mrs. Fabienne.Benedict, as represented by Sunny Vann,
Vann Associates.
LOCATION: The property is located immediately adjacent to the City
of Aspen's northeastern boundary next to the Aspen Club.
ZONING: The 51.8 acre site is zoned as follows:
3.3 acres R-15 (1 dwelling unit/15,000 sq.ft)
8.3 acres AF-1 (1 dwelling unit/10 acres)
40.2 acres AF-2 (1 dwelling unit/2 acres)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for:
o Four new free-market single family detached dwellings.
o Four low income one bedroom affordable housing units.
REVIEW PROCESS: The Commission is reviewing this request for two
reasons. First, pursuant to Section 6-3.4(b)(2)(A) of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code and with Colorado State Statutes, any proposal
within two miles of a municipality shall be referred to that
jurisdiction for review. The Benedict property is about 25%
contiguous with the City of Aspen boundary.
Secondly, the applicant has requested to tap onto an existing City
water main. The water policy of 1993.requires City Council to
approve water taps to parcels located outside of the City limits.
According to the City Attorney, that in exchange for utilizing City
water within the development the applicant shall agree to be
annexed into the City of Aspen, if requested by City Council.
The application that has been submitted is a general submission for
subdivision and GMQS allocation. The County review process, divides
project review for significant developments into two categories,
general submission and detailed submission. General submission is
designed to flush out threshold issues. Detailed submission would
include information regarding the number of sale versus rental
affordable housing units, proposed floor area and building
footprints. This first level of review is also intended to
identify missing elements that must be included in detailed
submission. General submission review can be compared to the
City's conceptual development review. The GMQS scoring is a
separate process. Scoring is based upon the general submission
application.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: The 51.8 acre parcel contains one single
family residence which is occupied by the applicant.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE AACP
1. Character- The development features of the character based
plan are recommended to "maintain and create places and
opportunities for social interaction and lifestyle diversity."
The applicant proposes,a total of eight residential dwelling units
to be located around an open space parcel. The open space parcel
preserves the on -site riparian, floodplain and meadow areas. In
an earlier development approval, the applicant dedicated two trail
easements to the County.
2. Growth- The Growth Action Plan for the AACP recommends a
projected peak buildout of 30,000 persons (inclusive of permanent
and visitor population). The intent of the Growth Action Plan is
to encourage land uses, businesses and events which serve both the
local community and tourist base.
The AACP has identified the Benedict parcel as an underbuilt parcel
with a projected development of 10 dwelling units. Existing zoning
of the property permits 30 free market residential dwelling units.
The applicant's proposal meets the recommendations of the AACP
Growth Element, as development is proposed significantly below
allowed density. Should the applicant's parcel be annexed and
rezoned to AH, staff would anticipate a much greater density from
an AH project than.whatis currently proposed. Such rezoning may
cause conflicts with environmental constraints on the property.
3. Transportation- The intent of the Transportation Action Plan
is to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for
residents, visitors and commuters that reduces congestion and
pollution.
The development is anticipated to generated approximately 48
additional traffic trips per day. However, potential road impacts
may be less due to the close proximity of a RFTA Mountain Valley
Kd
rd'o
The applicant's- past dedication for a portion of they Highway 82
trail corridor contributes to improving non -vehicular transit in
the -eastern area of Aspen. Staff believes that the application
meets the recommendations of the transportation element of the
AACP .
6. Housing- The intent of the Housing Action Plan is to create
a housing environment which is affordable, dispersed, appropriately
scaled to the neighborhood. The Plan also seeks to require new
residential subdivisions to provide a minimum of 60% affordable
housing. The AACP Housing map identifies the Benedict parcel as
a "great" location for low density, single family or duplex
housing.
The applicant's proposal achieves a 50/50 mix of units and an 83%
free market/17% deed restricted bedroom count. The proposal does
not meet the 60% affordable housing recommendation of.the Housing
Action Plan. However, the applicant's proposal exceeds the minimum
requirements for meeting the affordable housing requirements for
competition in Pitkin County's metro -area GMQS competition.
For this application to meet the recommendations of the AACP, staff
suggests that the applicant increase the bedroom mix of the
affordable housing units to reach the 60% deed restricted bedroom
and 40% free market bedroom split.
S. Commercial/Retail, Office and Lodging -'The intent of the
Commercial/Retail office and Lodging Action Plan is to provide
incentives for managed strategic growth by locally serving
commercial and office uses and small lodges.
This development does not propose any commercial' or retail
development, and the AACP does not identify this site for such
uses.
6. Open Space/Recreation and Environment- The intent of the Open
Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan is to preserve and
enhance the natural beauty of the area. The Action Plan recommends
developing a stimulating, active and supportive environment that
betters the lives. of everyone, preserves. our, natural resources and
provides opportunities for all to enjoy and to further the growth
and development of outdoor recreation.
In a previous land use application, the applicant dedicated two
trail easements to Pitkin County. A year-round trail was dedicated
to extend the existing Highway 82 trail corridor towards the
Northstar nature preserve and a winter trail from Ute Avenue to an
existing trail easement within the Preserve subdivision.
3
The applicant has created a 12.5 acre open space parcel to preserve
sensitive riparian areas, the floodplain of the Roaring Fork River
and open meadows. P6rtions of the applicant's property are
encumbered by avalanche hazard, proximity to a primary wildlife
migration corridor, 100-year f loodplain, riparian habitat and steep
slopes. The applicant has sited the proposed building envelopes
to avoid these sensitive areas.
The application meets the goals of the open space,
recreation/environment element of the AACP.
SUMMARY: The findings of the Planning Commission will be passed
onto the County Planning and Zoning Commission at their December
71 1993 meeting. To assist the Aspen Planning Commission in making
these findings staff offers the following:
1. The Benedict Stillwater Ranch application is consistent with
the Character orientation of the AACP because the proposed
development preserves sensitive open space and provides some
opportunity for social interaction and lifestyle diversity.
2. The Benedict Stillwater Ranch application is consistent with
the Growth Action Plan because the proposed development does
not exceed the projected buildout for the neighborhood
planning area and in fact is significantly below density
permitted under the existing zoning.
3. The Benedict Stillwater Ranch application is consistent with
the Transportation Action Plan because the applicant had
dedicated the Highway 82 trail corridor as it crosses the
property in a previous application and due to the close
proximity to an existing RFTA bus stop.
4. The Benedict Stillwater Ranch application is not consistent
with the Housing Action Plan because this site was identified
to be used for the development of affordable low density
single family or duplex housing. The applicant's bedroom mix
is inconsistent with the AACP because the bedroom count is
proposed at 83% free market and 17% deed restricted, whereby
the Housing Action Plan recommends a mix -of 60% affordable and
40% free market bedrooms.
5. The Benedict Stillwater Ranch application is consistent with
the Open Space /Recreation and Environment Action Plan because
the development has preserved sensitive areas as open space
and that the applicant had dedicated a winter trail connection
and a year-round trail connection to the County.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt the findings in the Planning
Office memorandum dated November 30, 1993, as it pertains to the
Benedict Stillwater Ranch subdivision, and forward these findings
to the County Planning and Zoning Commission."
4
I,\
�r...� �"Inuit c, ra*m'y, ♦ } ._ -r ... �_, nv .s �. i�{e.- �_: .rye .__�.... x�i�'Yf.4r'G43G1� - ax..�r_,r. �.___.....��.___ ... _ ,-
ATTACHMENTS: 1: :Benedict property vicinity map
2: Benedict property site plan
h
i
f
/
V)
�OM¢R
44* �Y�M'
�Fyy�K �
:-Attachment 2
_11