Loading...
10-26-09 Town Council Packet4 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 26, 2009 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE — ITEMS COULD START EARLIER OR LATER THAN THE STATED TIME CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS 5-minute time limit) Item No. 3: COUNCIL UPDATES Item No. 4: ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT HOUSING PROJECT — RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION Time 120 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and comment. John Dresser/Russ Forrest ... Page 1 Item No. 5: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Time:120 minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review red-lined version of all Chapters, final review. Comp Plan Team (Russ Forrest, Chris Conrad, Lesley Compagnone, David Peckler) I...................... Page 41 Item No. 6: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Total time estimated for meeting: Approximately 4 hours excluding items 1-3 and 6) ALL ITEMS AND TIMES ARE TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. PLEASE CALL THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK AT 923-3777 ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING FOR ANY AGENDA CHANGES. MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Planning Department MTG DATE: October 26, 2009 SUBJECT: Aspen School District Employee Housing (5131 Owl Creek Road) Item 1:Review and Comment on Aspen School District housing project located at 5131 Owl Creek Road, Snowmass Village, Colorado. This review and comment is conducted pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 22-32-124 1). Item 2:Review and Discussion on Aspen School District housing project located at 5131 Owl Creek Road, Snowmass Village, Colorado. This review and discussion is conducted pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Aspen School District and the Town of Snowmass Village. Planning Commission is to make findings and recommendations to the Town Council and may do this in summary form or adopt a Resolution. 1. AGENDA ITEM BACKGROUND Item1: The Town Council shall review and comment pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 22-32-124 (1), which reads as follows: CRS 22-32-124. Building codes - zoning - planning - fees - rules - definitions. 1) Prior to the acquisition of land or any contracting for the purchase thereof, the board of education shall consult with and advise in writing the planning commission, or governing body if no planning commission exists, that has jurisdiction over the territory in which the site is proposed to be located in order that the proposed site shall conform to the adopted plan of the community insofar as is feasible. In addition, the board shall submit a site development plan for review and comment to such planning commission or governing body prior to construction of any structure or building. The planning commission or governing body may request a public hearing before the board relating to the proposed site location or site development plan. The board shall thereafter promptly schedule the hearing, publish at least one notice in advance of the hearing, and provide written notice of the hearing to the requesting planning commission or governing body. Prior to the acquisition of land for school building sites or construction of any buildings thereon, the board also shall consult with the Colorado geological survey regarding potential swelling soil, mine subsidence, and other geologic hazards and to determine the geologic suitability of the site for its proposed use. All buildings and structures shall be constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division of oil and public safety in the department of labor and employment, referred to in this section as the division". Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of 1 a board to finally determine the location of public schools within the district and construct necessary buildings and structures. Item2: The Town Council shall review and discuss the ASD project pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Aspen School District and the Town of Snowmass Village. Planning Commission has made its findings and recommendations to the Town Council and has done this in summary form or by adopting a Resolution. The Planning Department has by this report transmitted a written summary of the Planning Commission's comments or a copy of any Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission to the Town Council for consideration by the Town Council during the October 26, 2009 Town Council meeting. See the attached Resolution No. 16, Series of 2009. 2. GENERAL BACKGROUND The Aspen School District ("ASD") acquired a 0.86 acre parcel located between the Fairway III Townhomes and Anderson Ranch and intends to construct a complex of three (3) buildings that contain a total of fifteen (15) units for use by school district employees. The type and number of units in each building vary, as more fully described in the "Chart of Proposed Land Uses" provided under Tab 6 of their application notebook. It is the district's intention to proceed with development of the property pursuant to C.R.S. § 22-32-110 and 124 rather than processing a land use application pursuant to Chapter 16A of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code. There will be an Inter-Governmental Agreement ("IGA') with the Town considered by the Town Council on October 5 that will, if approved, provide for an accelerated review process. 3. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF TOWN COUNCIL If the IGA is approved, the applicant will provide a presentation of the development proposal. The Planning Commission was called upon to review the School District's submittal package on October 21, 2009, hear testimony and provide comments and direction to Town staff regarding their recommendations and concerns. The IGA does provide for Town decision maker review to consider whether the development proposal is in compliance with the General Restrictions outlined in Section 16A-5-300(c) and the Review Standards listed in 16A-5-310, which also includes reference to Article IV, Development Evaluation Standards, of the Land Use and Development Code. 4. DISCUSION ITEMS: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS As stated in the memorandum prepared for the October 5 Joint Planning Commission/Town Council presentation, the development proposal is not consistent with the underlying zoning parameters set forth in the Snowmass Club PUD or Town Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes, however, that it would be more productive at this time to review the proposed housing project on its own merit. Relevant matters for consideration include: 2 Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. Is the proposed development compatible with surrounding land uses and neighborhood character? Does it result in a logical and orderly development pattern within the overall community? The project proposes the creation of 15 employee housing units to be rented to employees of the Aspen School District. The adjacent Fairway III townhomes are providing restricted employee housing owned by the residents of the project. Anderson Ranch has dormitory facilities proximate to the ASD parcel. One concern involves whether the project remains employee housing controlled by ASD. Certainly during the term of the bond issued to finance this project it most likely must remain for ASD employee use only but staff is unsure whether the units could be made available to others should they be unable to fill the units with their employees. The manner in which the project will be managed could impact surrounding properties and parking. The IGA expresses the Town's desire to ensure that the proposed housing remains as affordable housing for District employees and not be converted to another form of ownership or use in the future. A change to private ownership or different use could adversely affect surrounding uses. Unit Sizes and Density. Staff will discuss unit sizes and density of roughly comparable existing employee housing projects within the Town at the meeting. The project proposes: seven 1-bedroom units averaging 755 s.f. in size; six 2- bedroom units averaging 945 s.f.; and two 3-bedroom units averaging 1,337 s.f. in size. The density is 17.25 units per acre. Architecture. The project will be modular construction. Staff is waiting to receive current building elevation drawings that more accurately reflect the intended roof configuration. The applicant should provide more information during the meeting regarding materials and colors to be used. Landscaping. Existing vegetation and live trees needs to be preserved as much as possible and replacement trees planted to screen or soften the appearance of development and serve as a visual buffer. Further comments will need to be provided at the meeting following receipt of the amended sited plan. The location of Building C is not known at this time. Building Height. Staff could not confirm the building heights provided with the application drawings due to inconsistencies between the site plan and elevations provided. We will hopefully be able to finalize review upon receipt of new drawings on October 5. Regardless, there is no entitlement to the 38 foot height limitation that applies to the MF-Multi-family zone district as no application to amend the zoning on the property has been applied for. Traffic Impacts. Please see the enclosed memorandum from Lee Barger with Schmeuser Gordon Meyer ("SGM") — (see Exhibit 'C' of the attached Planning Commission resolution for the Town Departments and Referral Agency comments). Additional comments are to be received from Dean Gordon and will be provided at the meeting. Although the applicant states an intention to have a shuttle van available on site for teachers to use commuting to school and back 3 during the day. There is no way to estimate what the ridership will be as it may or may not reduce peak hour trips. Additionally, spouses and other occupants not commuting to ASD facilities will add vehicle trips during the day commuting to their jobs, shopping or checking mail. Those trips will directly impact the Brush Creek/Owl Creek Road intersection. As stated in the memorandum from Dave Peckler, there is an increasing concern regarding the inability of the community to deal with the incremental impacts of future development upon the Brush Creek/Owl Creek Road intersection as well as the Town's ability to provide acceptable transit services in the future (see Exhibit 'C' of the attached Planning Commission resolution for the Town Departments and Referral Agency comments). Transit Services. Please refer to the memorandum from Dave Peckler (see Exhibit 'C' of the attached Planning Commission resolution for the Town Departments and Referral Agency comments). While there is a shuttle stop facility immediately adjacent to the project entrance for west-bound Owl Creek Road riders, an adequate safe stop for east-bound riders is not available. Parking and Snow Storage. The Municipal Code requires 1.5 parking spaces per bedroom for restricted housing. The requirement for this project would be 36 spaces for the now proposed 24 bedrooms. The parking plan is being amended so further comments will need to be provided at the meeting. There needs to be a review a plan regarding snow storage to ensure that none of the proposed parking will be rendered unavailable due to snow storage consuming any of the parking area. In addition, there is concern about drainage impacts upon surrounding property and snow being pushed into the right-of-way. Over twenty (20) parking spaces partially extend into the Owl Creek Road right- of-way and none of the spaces are designated for the for the planned shuttle van1bus to be utilized by the ASD employees to commute to the various school district facilities. A License Agreement will need to be secured from the Town prior to allowing any improvements to encroach into the right-of-way. Drainage. The enclosed memorandum from Richard Goulding with SGM identifies concerns regarding the drainage plan proposed (see Exhibit!C' of the attached Planning Commission resolution for the Town Departments and Referral Agency comments). The on-site pond that was referenced in the report has not yet been shown and run-off leaving all basins appear to leave the site onto neighboring properties. The applicant needs to provide for structures and/or detention facilities necessary to ensure that run-off characteristics of a site after development are no more disruptive to natural streams, land uses or drainage systems than are the run-off characteristics calculated for the site's natural state. At this time, the drainage plan is deficient, not consistent with Town development evaluation standards and could impact surrounding property. Solid Waste. Evidently, the applicant is suggesting the intent to share a dumpster facility with Anderson Ranch within the Anderson Ranch parking area adjacent to the project. No information has been provided to evaluate the sufficiency of the off-site facility and Town PUD approval is required for the placement of the facility in Anderson Ranch. 4 Construction Management. Generally, the applicant has provided an adequate construction management plan. Further comments may be provided at the meeting. PROJECT OVERVIEW Legal Description: Generally described as Lot 1, Parcel 6, Filing No. 1, The Snowmass Club Subdivision, excluding a 0.155 acre portion platted as part of Anderson Ranch. Site area: 0.87 acre or 37,932 SF. Dwellings: 15 employee housing units. Bedrooms: 24 Parking: 32 provided Density: 17.24 DU/acre proposed; However, it is unclear whether there is future buildout density proposed? (See 'TBD' area on basement level with 10' clearance and separate entries in Building B); Reference geotechnical report which states that there are 17 units in the project. Per existing PUD, the existing density is 2.3 DU/acre. Floor Area: Per application, heated and storage spaces totals 16,891 SF and unheated space totals 3,076 SF, Total Calculable Floor Area (per Municipal Code): Building A: 4,677 SF total calculable flooir area including units, storage areas and the stairway on is'floor level; Exempt spaces are decks per 12% rule, mechanical rooms and stairs on upper levels. Building B: 6,889 SF total calculable floor area including units, storage areas and the stairway on 1s'floor level, plus the 'TBD' area of 1,611 SF with separate entries and over 5'-6" clearance in the basement level; Exempt spaces are decks, mechanical rooms and stairs on upper levels. Building C: 5,955 SF total calculable floor area including units, storage areas and the stairway on 1s'floor level; Exempt spaces are decks, mechanical rooms and stairs on upper levels, including crawl space on lower level if under 5'-6". Total: 17,521 SF (calculable floor area) 5 FAR:0.46:1 (per the calculable floor area); 0.39:1 per application; 0.75:1 if zoned MF Building Coverage: 8,712 SF or 0.2 acre per the existing PUD; Not accounted for in application Maximum Height: Maximum 32 feet per the existing PUD; Height variation not noted in application to exceed 32 feet; There would be a 38 feet maximum if property were zoned 'MF,' but it does not exist. Minimum Lot Area: Minimum of 30,500 SF required if zoned MF; The lot is 37,932 SF in size. CONSISTENCY WITH CURRENT ZONING The current underlying zoning for the parcel is "PUD" Planned Unit Development PUD"). It is actually a portion of Parcel 14 according to the Snowmass Club PUD Land Use Plan Map. The zoning parameters established for that parcel include: Permitted Use: Cultural Facilities/Professional Offices Permitted Building Square Footage: 13,000 sq. ft. Maximum Building Height: 32 feet above natural grade Maximum Building Coverage: 0.20 Acres Residential is not a use permitted by the existing PUD standards. The project exceeds the 32 foot height limit specified in the Snowmass Club PUD for this parcel. CONSISTENCY WITH MF, MULTI-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT AND LAND USE CODE The project is clearly not consistent with the underlying zoning. If the project is evaluated as if the underlying zoning was "MF' Multi-family: Parking Requirement: 1.5 spaces per bedroom (Restricted Units). Project has 25 bedrooms/providing 32 spaces. The Land Use Code would require 37.5 spaces rounded up to 38 spaces. NOTE: 10-11 spaces partially extend into the Owl Creek Road right-of-way and none of the spaces are designated for the for the planned shuttle van/bus to be utilized by the ASD employees to commute to the various school district facilities. 6 Minimum Lot Area Requirement: Minimum of 30,500 SF required if zoned MF. The lot is 37,932 SF in size and therefore would comply. Lot Size: 0.87 Acre 37,897.2 S.F. Minimum Lot Area: 3,000 S.F. 1st Bedroom: 22,500 S.F. 10 Additional Bedrooms: 5,000 S.F. TOTAL Min. Lot Area Required: 30,500 S.F. Meets Minimum Lot Area Requirement Maximum Building Height: 38 feet (Could not confirm consistency with the information currently provided — Staff will coordinate with ASD and verify prior to meeting). CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Future Land Use Map: Commercial Build-out Chart: No Future Land Use, Future Units or Commercial Square Footage Specified (Residential or Commercial). CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL RESTRICTIONS AND REVIEW STANDARDS Section 16A-5-300(c), General Restrictions. (Excerpt) Although one (1) of the purposes of these PUD regulations is to provide flexibility in the land development process, this Section is intended to define the limits of that flexibility. The following restrictions shall apply to all PUDs: 1) Minimum land area. There shall be no minimum land area qualification in order to be eligible to apply for a PUD, provided that PUD approval shall not be granted solely to permit variations to develop a single lot, building or use. 2) Location. A PUD may be developed on any land located within the Town. 3) Uses. The land uses permitted in a PUD shall be limited to those uses that are allowed, or are allowed by special review, in the underlying zone district. 4) Maximum buildout. The Comprehensive Plan contains an analysis of future buildout of single-family subdivisions and other developments within the Town limits. It identifies the maximum number of future lots/units and commercial/other space that may be developed within each subdivision, parcel or other development. 7 The application is not consistent with this General Restriction. No Future Land Use, Future Units or Commercial Square Footage Specified (Residential or Commercial). 5) Dimensional limitations. Certain dimensional limitations applicable to the property may be varied within a PUD. The limitations that may be varied are those of the underlying zone district; or, for properties for which a PUD or other development plan has previously been approved, the limitations set by that approval. For any property designated PUD or SPA without an underlying zone district, the applicant shall submit an application for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map to designate the underlying zone district for the property. Only the following dimensional limitations may be varied: a. Maximum allowable height of any structure within the PUD; b. Minimum open space requirement for the PUD; c. Maximum allowable floor area of the PUD; d. Minimum area of lots within the PUD; and e. Minimum setbacks for buildings within the PUD. A dimensional limitation may be varied when the Town Council finds that the PUD achieves one (1) or more of the applicable purposes listed in Subsection (c)(6), Community Purposes for PUDs, that granting of the variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved, and that the resulting development will be consistent with the provisions of Subsection (c)(7); Standards for Granting of Variations, and Section 16A-5-310, Review Standards. The subject parcel is located within Parcel 14 of the Snowmass Club PUD with a specified maximum building height of 32 feet above natural grade. This is the underlying zoning parameter that applies. According to the Roof Height Calculations (Sheet A1.1 of application drawings), all three (3) buildings exceed the underlying zoning height limit. Roof Point B2 manually calculates to being 38.08 feet above existing grade. 6) Community purposes for PUDs. The Comprehensive Plan identifies certain purposes the community intends to achieve as it develops. The following purposes shall be used in determining whether the buildout for a PUD may exceed sixty-five percent (65%) of that identified in the buildout analysis and whether any of the parcel's dimensional limitations should be varied... No application has been submitted to exceed the maximum buildout or allowable height limit. Therefore, this provision does not apply. 8 7) Standards for granting of variations. Any PUD dimensional limitation variation—authorized in Subsection (c)(5), Dimensional limitations, may be granted by the Town Council, provided that it complies with the following standards... No application has been submitted to exceed the maximum buildout or allowable height limit. Therefore, this provision does not apply. 8) Parking. The number of parking spaces in the PUD shall be that required for the underlying zone district, unless a reduction in that requirement is granted, pursuant to Section 16A-4-310(c), Reduction of Required Parking. The application does not meet the 1.5 spaces per bedroom (Restricted Units). The project has 25 bedrooms/providing 32 spaces. The Land Use Code would require 37.5 spaces rounded up to 38 spaces. NOTE: 21 spaces partially extend into the Owl Creek Road right-of-way and none of the spaces are designated for the for the planned shuttle van/bus to be utilized by the ASD employees to commute to the various school district facilities. The applicant needs to obtain a License Agreement from the Town to permit the parking, or any other improvements, to extend into the right-of-way. 9) Road standards. A PUD may be permitted to deviate from the Town's road standards, to enable the development to achieve greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or to achieve greater sensitivity to environmental features, when the following minimum design principles are followed: a. Safe, efficient access. The circulation system shall be designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. b. Internal pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. c. Emergency vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. d. Principal access points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall be prohibited when other reasonable access options are available. 9 e. Snow storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. Ord. 4-1998 §1; Ord. 13-1998 §i; Ord. 1-1999 §1; Ord. 6-1999 §1; Ord. 15- 2000 §1; Ord. 05-2004 §1; Ord. 08-2004 §1) There is a sight distance problem that currently exists for west- bound vehicles leaving the project. At least one evergreen and possibly two (2) Aspen within the right-of-way may need to be removed. It is recommended that this work be done by the applicant in coordination with the Town Public Works Department. The applicant needs to demonstrate that an adequate snow storage plan will be implemented that will not adversely impact surrounding properties, the Town right-of-way or drainage plan. Sec. 16A-5-310. Review standards. In addition to demonstrating compliance with the provisions of Section 16A-5- 300(c), General Restrictions, and with all other applicable provisions of this Code, a proposed PUD shall also comply with the following review standards. 1) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. The PUD shall be consistent with the intent of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The project is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the Future Land Use Map indicates that the property should be Commercial and the Build-out Chart does not provide for "Future Land Use", "Future Units" or "Commercial Square Footage" Residential or Commercial). 2) Preservation of community character. The development proposed for the PUD shall be consistent with the standards of Section 16A-4-340, Building Design Guidelines to Preserve Community Character, shall be compatible with, or an enhancement of, the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Comments to be provided at the meeting. 3) Creative approach. The development proposed for the PUD represents a creative approach to the development and use of land and related physical facilities to produce better developments and to provide amenities for residents of the PUD and the public in general. Comments to be provided at the meeting. 4) Landscaping. Proposed landscaping for the PUD shall provide sufficient buffering of uses from one another (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding lands) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, shall create attractive streetscapes and parking areas and shall be consistent with the character of the Town. 5) Comply with development evaluation standards. The PUD shall 10 comply with all applicable provisions of Article IV of this Development Code, Development Evaluation Standards. Comments to be provided at the meeting. 6) Suitability for development. The property proposed for the PUD shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental features and any natural or man-made hazards that affect its development potential. Comments to be provided at the meeting. 7) Adequate facilities. The applicant shall show that: a. Adequate facilities will be provided to the PUD for water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection, roads and pedestrian circulation; b. The PUD has been located so as to be reasonably convenient in relation to police and fire protection, emergency medical services and schools; and c. The PUD will accommodate the efficient provision of transit facilities and services. The applicant has not sufficiently addressed how solid waste will be dealt with. The only facility shown is located on Anderson Ranch property. Granted they currently use a shed located on the school district property (that will be removed) but no application has been submitted as to Anderson Ranch's plans to replace it. The school district has provided no information regarding any mutual use agreement and the new facility on Anderson Ranch property is not exempt from the Town's Land Use approval requirements. Please review Dave Peckler's memo regarding the impacts this project will have upon Town Transit services. Staff recommends that the applicant agree to cost share the placement of a shuttle stop along the south side of Owl Creek Road opposite the project. (See Exhibit 'C' to the Planning Commission resolution for the Town Departments and referral agency comments). 8) Spatial pattern shall be efficient. The PUD shall be located to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or that require duplication or premature extension of public facilities. a. Roads. Any new road developed to serve the PUD shall be continuous and in alignment with existing platted streets to which the street is to be connected. Where appropriate, new streets shall be planned so that they can create an interconnected Town road network, with provision for adequate road and utility easements. Where cul-de-sacs are used in the development, the applicant is encouraged to provide a trail or similar pedestrian link 11 between them. Not Applicable. b. Water and sewer lines. Any water or sewer line extension necessary to serve the PUD shall be consistent with the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District's service plan and the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Not Applicable. 9) Phasing. If the PUD is to be developed in phases, then each phase shall contain the required streets, utilities, landscaping and other improvements that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project. If the PUD incorporates any amenities for the benefit of the Town, such as trail connections, these shall be constructed within the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable Not Applicable. ATTACHMENTS: Letter dated October 7, 2009 from the Elk Mountains Planning Group, Inc. Planning Commission Resolution No. 16, Series of 2009, including: o Exhibit 'A' of land use, development parameters, and project summary; o Exhibit 'B' of latest site plan for ASD housing project; o Exhibit 'C' of the Town Departments and Referral Agency review comments. SEPARATE ENCLOSURES: Enlarged, scalable plans and drawing of the proposed housing project received October 6, 2009; 11" x 17' of updated Site Plan received October 6, 2009; Chart of proposed land uses revised October 21, 2009, provided by the Applicant at the Planning Commission review on October 21, 2009. 12 THE ELK MOUNTAINS PLANNING GROUP, INC. P.O.Box 11891 Specializing in Mountain and Resort Communities Aspen,CO 81612 T/Fax:970-923-9485 Snowmass Village Planning Commission Cell:970-948-0802 c/o Mr. Chris Conrad, Planning Director iulie2aelkmountainsolannine.com Town of Snowmass Village www.elkmountainsolannim.00m PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615-5010 October 7, 2009 Dear Chris and Snowmass Village Planning Commission: On behalf of the Aspen RE-1 School District, 1 am providing this letter confirming the submittal of the Site Development Plan and support information for the School District's Housing Project located at 5131 Owl Creek Rd. in Snowmass Village. This submittal is provided `for review and continent" by the Snowmass Village Planning Commission in accordance with CRS 22-32-124, language for which is provided in the attached Exhibit A. Though you have been provided with binders (dated and submitted August 19, 2009), an addendum dated and submitted September 10,2009), large format plans and drawings, and electronic versions of all of this information, we have most recently provided you with ten (10) sets of revised large format plans and drawings(the latter having been left with you last Monday evening,October 5th)that should be used for the Planning Commission's review. I am including with this letter the Site Development Plan(Exhibit B) in an I I x 17 format for your use. Please note that at this time there are fifteen (15) residential units in three(3)buildings with a total of 24 bedrooms and 32 parking spaces being proposed at this site. We had (toped that this project would he scheduled for review by the Planning Commission this evening at 4 PM, but Russ Forrest has stated that this meeting will not be allowed to take place if a revised IGA is not signed as re-drafted by John Dresser on 10-6-09. As per statute, if the Planning Commission has questions or issues, they may request a public hearing before the Board of Education relating to the proposed site location or site plan. Chris,you'll notice that many of the previous comments made by you and the Planning Staff have been incorporated into the submittal. If the TOSV has additional comments on the plans, please notify us as soon as possible so we may consider them for incorporation into the project. As always, please feel free to reach me at 970-948-0802 or elkmtnplannaaol.cont if you have any questions. Sincerely, Julie Ann Woods, AICP/ASLA Elk Mountains Planning Group, Inc. Cc: Laura Kornasiewicz, Aspen School Board Dr. Diana Sirko, Superintendent, Aspen RE-] School District Attachments PLANNING*HISTORIC PRESERVATION*LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE&COMMUNITY DECISION-MAKING CURRENT DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS PREVOUSW MCE BETWEEN BUILDWGS—_—\ PREVIOUS LOCATION 1t OFBUILOING0 6 FAIRWAY4:'I_ E TI S THREE PnGPEg Lw- -- TOWNHOM 11 1 V JJ 1 WLZES C is N ANDERSON RANCHY \ T 1I t 11 EA NO TREES Im Iy 11 1.j11 1 1 1 ?9p RTY LINE I I r PARKING LOT iuidwixN.Miuo.m I( I 1Vane I J IIMPSTERS ASD AFFORDABLE HOUSING 5131 OWL CREEK ROAD, SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO SITE PLAN 9.30.09 O 0 IS w N NORM SCML:1'_30'-0' 1 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 4 RESOLUTION No. 16 5 SERIES OF 2009 6 7 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN 8 COUNCIL CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ASPEN SCHOOL 9 DISTRICT EMPLOYEE HOUSING ON PARCEL 14 OF THE 10 SNOWMASS CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD). 11 12 WHEREAS, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was finalized 13 between the Town of Snowmass Village and the Aspen School District 14 ("ASD" or "Applicant') at a Town Council meeting on October 19, 2009 to 15 detail the submission requirements for an employee housing application, 16 the review process, and the scheduling before the Town decision makers; 17 and 18 19 WHEREAS, prior to or during the discussions or negotiations 20 involving the IGA, the Applicant submitted on September 10, 2009 an 21 application with plans and drawings describing or illustrating the proposal 22 for three (3) buildings with 15 dwelling units including 24 bedrooms and 32 23 parking spaces on a site containing 0.87 acre or 37,932 square feet within 24 Parcel 14 of the Snowmass Club PUD, also known as 5131 Owl Creek 25 Road, as further described or illustrated in attached Exhibits "A" and "B" 26 incorporated herein; and 27 28 WHEREAS, the application was referred to affected Town 29 Departments and outside referral agencies in advance for review and 30 comment during the month of September 2009; and 31 32 WHEREAS, on October 7, 2009 the Applicant submitted updated 33 plans and drawing in attempts to respond to some of the review comments 34 received; and 35 36 WHEREAS, on October 21, 2009, the Planning Commission heard 37 a presentation of the development proposal by the Applicant, reviewed the 381 submittal package, heard testimony and provided comments and direction 39 to Town staff regarding its recommendations and concerns; and 40 41 WHEREAS, the application was processed, reviewed and 42 commented on in accordance or consistent with the Colorado Revised 43 1 Statutes Section 22-32-124- and the IGA. 44 45 Section One. General Findings. The Planning Commission generally 46 finds that: PC Reso 09-16 Page 2 of 8 47 48 (1) The application sufficiently incorporates the submission items 49 outlined in the IGA. 50 51 (2) Meeting schedule notices and display ads were provided for the 52 general public, and the proposed plans were exhibited at the Town 53 Hall for public viewing. 54 55 (3) The IGA provides for Town review to make findings and make 56 recommendations regarding the development proposal's 57 compliance with Snowmass Village Municipal Code Sections 16A- 58 5-300(c) General Restrictions and 16A-5-310 Review Standards 59 insofar as feasible. 60 61 (4) The development proposal is not consistent with the underlying 62 zoning parameters set forth in Parcel 14 of the Snowmass Club 63 PUD or the Town's Comprehensive Plan. However, it appears to 64 be more productive at this time, considering the IGA between the 65 two entities, to review the proposed employee housing project on 66 its own merit and against the parameters of the Multi-family (MF) 67 zone district. 68 69 (5) Considering that the existing PUD standards established a density 70 of approximately 2.3 DU/acre, the proposed development with a 71 proposed density of 17.25 dwelling units per acre does not appear 72 compatible with the existing PUD standards. However, the proposal 73 results in a logical and orderly development pattern within the 74 overall community, as a result of the proposal being on the edge of 75 or adjacent to other multi-family developments to the south, 76 southeast and east with two to three story buildings and the 77 dormitory facilities on the adjacent Anderson Ranch property to the 78 west and therefore appears compatible with the neighborhood 79 character and surrounding uses. 80 81 (6) The Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the project would 82 remain employee housing controlled by ASD pursuant to the IGA. 83 It seems apparent that the Town's desire would be to ensure that 84 the proposed housing remains as affordable housing. 85 86 (7) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(1), Minimum land area, (2) 87 Location, and (3) Uses, of the Municipal Code, the proposal 88 appears to comply with these standards. 89 90 (8) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(4), Maximum buildout, of the 91 Municipal Code, the application is not consistent with this General 92 Restriction. No Future Land Use, Future Units or Commercial PC Reso 09-16 Page 3 of 8 93 Square Footage Specified (Residential or Commercial) are 94 allocated by the Comprehensive Plan's Buildout Chart. However, if 95 the project is designated for employee housing, the buildout 96 provisions have not necessarily applied on past development 97 proposals. 98 99 (9) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(5), Dimensional limitations, of the 100 Municipal Code, the subject parcel is located within Parcel 14 of the 101 Snowmass Club PUD with a specified maximum building height of 102 32 feet above natural grade. This is the underlying zoning 103 parameter and the height limitation under the MF zone district is 38 104 feet. . According to the Roof Height Calculations (Sheet A1.1 of 105 application drawings), all three (3) buildings exceed 32 feet, but 106 come very close to complying with the 'MF' zone height limitation of 107 38 feet. Roof Point B2 manually calculates to being approximately 108 38.08 feet above existing grade. 109 110 (10) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(6), Community purposes, of the 111 Municipal Code, the application does not include a proposed 112 variation to exceed the maximum buildout or allowable height limit. 113 Provision of restricted housing is a Community Purpose. 114 115 (11) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(7), Standards for granting 116 variations, of the Municipal Code, the application does not include a 117 proposed variation to exceed the maximum buildout or allowable 118 height limit. 119 (12) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(8), Parking, of the Municipal 120 Code, the application does not meet the 1.5 spaces per bedroom for 121 restricted units. The standard for the MF zone district is 1 space 122 per bedroom. The project has 24 bedrooms/providing 32 spaces. 123 The Land Use Code would require 36 spaces at 1.5 spaces per 124 bedroom and 24 spaces per bedroom. There are also 21 spaces 125 that partially extend into the Owl Creek Road right-of-way, and one 126 of those spaces are designated for the for the planned work shuttle 127 van/bus to be utilized by the ASD employees to commute to the 128 various school district facilities. 129 130 (13) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(9), Road standards, of the 131 Municipal Code, there appears to be a sight distance problem that 132 currently exists for west-bound vehicles leaving the project site. It 133 would appear that at least one evergreen and possibly two (2) Aspen 134 trees within the right-of-way may need to be removed. Also, there 135 appears to be minimal snow storage capability designed into the site. 136 137 (14) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(1), Consistency with Comprehensive 138 Plan, of the Municipal Code, the project does not appear consistent PC Reso 09-16 Page 4 of 6 139 with the Comprehensive Plan as the Future Land Use Map 140 indicates that the property should be Commercial and the Build-out 141 Chart does not provide for "Future Land Use', "Future Units" or 142 Commercial Square Footage' (Residential or Commercial). 143 However, if the project is designated for employee housing, the 144 buildout provisions have not necessarily applied on past 145 development proposals. 146 147 (15) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(2), Preservation of community 148 character, of the Municipal Code, the development proposed for the 149 PUD appears to not be inconsistent with the standards of Section 150 16A-4-340, Building Design Guidelines to Preserve Community 151 Character, and appears generally compatible with the character of 152 some of the existing land uses in the area and would not adversely 153 affect the future development of the surrounding area. 154 155 (16) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(3), Creative approach, of the 156 Municipal Code, the development proposed appears to represent 157 an acceptable approach to the development and use of land and 158 related physical facilities to produce better a development and to 159 provide benefits for residents of the PUD and the public in general. 160 161 (17) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(4), Landscaping, of the Municipal 162 Code, the proposed landscaping for the project appears to provide 163 sufficient buffering of uses between the project and the 164 neighboring properties to minimize noise, glare and other adverse 165 impacts, but not sufficient landscaping to buffer the project between 166 the project and Owl Creek Road. 167 168 (18) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(5), Comply with development 169 evaluation standards, of the Municipal Code, the proposal seems to 170 have complied with most of the applicable provisions of Article IV of 171 the Development Code's Development Evaluation Standards. 172 173 (19) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(6), Suitability for development, of 174 the Municipal Code, the proposal seems to be suitable for 175 development, considering its topography, environmental features 176 and any natural or man-made hazards that affect its development 177 potential. 178 PC Reso 09-16 Page 5 of 8 179 (20) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(7), Adequate facilities, of the 180 Municipal Code, the Applicant has not sufficiently addressed how 181 solid waste will be dealt with. The only facility shown is located 182 nearby on the Anderson Ranch property, and no application has 183 been submitted as to Anderson Ranch's plans to replace it. The 184 school district also has not provided information regarding any mutual 185 use agreement, and the new facility on Anderson Ranch property is 186 not exempt from the Town's Land Use approval requirements. 187 Further, the Town's Transportation Department has identified impacts 188 that this project will have upon Town Transit services. Also at this 189 time, the drainage plan and mitigation of runoff impacts appear 190 deficient, not consistent with Town development evaluation standards 191 and could impact surrounding property, as the on-site pond(s) that 192 was referenced in the Applicant's report has not yet been clearly 193 shown, and run-off leaving all basins appears to leave the site onto 194 neighboring properties. 195 196 (21) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(8), Spatial pattern shall be efficient 197 concerning roads and water and sewer lines, (9) Phasing, of the 198 Municipal Code, these standards do not appear applicable to this 199 infill development proposal. 200 201 (22) The applicant appears to have provided an adequate construction 202 management plan. 203 204 Section Two: Comments, Concerns and Recommendations. The 205 Planning Commission offers the following comments, concerns or 206 recommendations for Town Council consideration: 207 (1) The applicant should obtain a License Agreement from the Town to 208 permit the parking, or any other improvements, to extend into the 209 Owl Creek Road right-of-way prior to issuance of a Certificate of 210 Occupancy. 211 212 (2) The required parking standard for a restricted housing project is 213 not met and concerns identified and/or recommendations by the 214 Planning Commission include: 215 216 a. A minimum of one parking space should continue to be 217 reserved for the District's work van/bus/shuttle to permit 218 appropriate access and turn-around capability; 219 b. Creating additional parking spaces where feasible; PC Reso 09-16 Page 6 of 8 220 c. Consideration of a carport structure with an assigned carport 221 for each unit along the southern boundary and towards the 222 western corner of the site with individual storage units 223 included in each carport much like the adjacent Fairway 224 Three complex that would provide additional storage for 225 residents and minimize unsightly storage in more visible 226 areas of the project. 227 d. Additional landscape buffering and screening between Owl 228 Creek Road and either the carport structure or the parking 229 area; 230 e. An cooperative parking management plan with Anderson 231 Ranch that maximizes the use of the driveway for parking 232 either by daytime or nighttime uses when the driveway area 233 is not being utilized by Anderson Ranch for deliveries. 234 f. The provision of a work shuttle for residents of the project 235 and employees of the District. 236 g. The use of a permit system for residents to ensure 237 availability to residents and prevent unauthorized parking. 238 h. Prohibit recreational vehicle, snowmobile, recreational 239 motorcycles, trailers storage or parking. 240 i. 241 I. 242 243 (3) The Applicant should coordinate an adequate sight-distance triangle 244 off of Owl Creek road at the project exit to the satisfaction of the 245 Town's Public Works Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of 246 Occupancy. 247 248 (4) The applicant should demonstrate that an adequate snow storage 249 plan will be implemented that will not adversely impact surrounding 250 properties, the Town right-of-way or drainage plan. 251 252 (5) Concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the building 253 design of the modular construction proposed include; 254 255 a. The sloping roof forms are preferred to flat roofs as they 256 reflect the character of the surrounding property and 257 promote mountain architecture. Planning Commission would 258 be very concerned if the roof forms were flat. 259 b. While solar energy collection is encouraged, such collection 260 devices should be discreet, not excessively encroach 261 beyond the roof lines and should not increase the height of 262 the buildings. 263 c. Compatibility with the surrounding properties in terms of the 264 use of the materials, finishes and color palette to blend and 265 soften the visual effect of the buildings with the surrounding PC Reso 09-16 Page 7 of 8 266 buildings rather than materials, finishes and colors that make 267 a statement that attracts attention to the size and mass of 268 the buildings is preferable. 269 d. 270 e. If revisions are made to the architecture, the applicant should 271 strive to provide more articulation in the building design and 272 refrain from creating more monolithic structures. 273 (6) Concerning the extra floor area shown on the lower level of 274 Buildings B and C, with the changes as explained by the applicant 275 for the provision of one storage area per unit within the buildings 276 and the storage space planned on the lower basement levels of the 277 buildings appear acceptable, but additional storage space 278 elsewhere, such as within the recommended carport structure, 279 should be explored. 280 281 (7) Concerning the landscape plan design and mitigation of existing 282 trees, the proposed plan presented by the Applicant appears 283 acceptable among the proposed buildings and along adjacent 284 properties, but Planning Commission recommends increasing the 285 plant material buffering in particular near the southwest portion of 286 the site in the area between the recommended carport structure 287 and Owl Creek Road. 288 289 (8) The Applicant should sufficiently address how solid waste, and 290 especially recycling, will be dealt with on the site, and if off-site trash 291 facilities are proposed to be shared, then the applicant should detail 292 how such sharing of facilities will occur. Such proposed details should 293 be reviewed by the Town to ensure proper access, design and 294 capacity for the collection of solid waste prior to issuance of a 295 Certificate of Occupancy 296 (9) The Town staff should confirm through the Town Engineer's office if 297 the proper structures and/or detention facilities necessary, including a 298 possible sand and oil separator, are being provided to ensure that 299 run-off characteristics of a site after development are no more 300 disruptive to natural streams, land uses or drainage systems than are 301 the run-off characteristics calculated for the site's natural state.. 302 303 (10) The Applicant should agree to a cost share the placement of a shuttle 304 stop along the south side of Owl Creek Road opposite the project. 305 306 (11) The Town Council should be satisfied that the Applicant has 307 adequately responded to the review comments, as outlined in 308 attached Exhibit "C" incorporated herein, that should be confirmed 309 by the referral agencies. 310 PC Reso 09-16 Page B of 8 311 Section Three: Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or 312 application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the 313 invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this 314 Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or 315 application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are 316 severable. 317 318 INTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED, as amended, by the Planning 319 Commission of the Town of Snowmass Village on October 2151, 2009, 320 upon a motion by Planning Commission Member Gustafson, the second of 321 Planning Commission Member Aiken, and upon a vote of 6 in favor and 0 322 against (Planning Commission Chair Purvis was absent). 323 324 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 325 PLANNING COMMISSION 326 327 328 329 Vice Chairman, Don Crouch 330 331 332 ATTEST: 333 334 335 336 Kristi Bamford, Planning Commission Secretary 337 338 339 Referenced Exhibits attached: 340 Exhibit "A" — Land Use and Development Parameters 341 Exhibit "B" — Project information and selected drawings/plans 342 Exhibit "C" — Town Departments and Referral Agency review comments 343 344 Exhibit "A" Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-16 Page 1 of 4 Aspen School District Employee Housing Project Land Use and Development Parameters PROJECT OVERVIEW Legal Description: Generally described as Lot 1, Parcel 6, Filing No. 1, The Snowmass Club Subdivision, excluding a 0.155 acre portion platted as part of Anderson Ranch. Also part of Parcel 14 of the Snowmass Club PUD. Site area: 0.87 acre or 37,932 SF. Dwellings: 15 employee housing units. Unit Mix:Seven 1-bedroom units averaging 755 s.i. in size; six 2-bedroom units averaging 945 s.f.; and two 3-bedroom units averaging 1,337 s.f. in size. Bedrooms: 24 Parking:32 provided (36 required if zoned MF at 1.5 spaces per bedroom) Density: 17.25 DU/acre proposed; However, it is unclear whether there is future buildout density proposed in the basement levels of Buildings B and C. Per existing PUD, the existing density is 2.3 DU/acre. Floor Area: Per application, heated and storage spaces totals 16,891 SF and unheated space totals 3,076 SF. Total Calculable Floor Area (per Municipal Code—per plans dated 08-17-09): Building A. 4,677 SF total calculable floor area including units, storage areas and the stairway on 18' floor level; Exempt spaces are decks per 12% rule, mechanical rooms and stairs on upper levels. Building B: 6,889 SF total calculable floor area including units, storage areas and the stairway on 181 floor level, plus the 'TBD' area of 1,611 SF with separate entries and over 5'-6" clearance in the basement level; Exempt spaces are decks, mechanical rooms and stairs on upper levels. Building C: 5,955 SF total calculable floor area including units, storage areas and the stairway on 1" floor level; Exempt spaces are decks, mechanical rooms and stairs on upper levels, including crawl space on lower level if under 5'-6". Total: 17,521 SF (calculable floor area) Exhibit "A" Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-16 Page 2 of 4 FAR: 0.46:1 (per the calculable floor area); 0.39:1 per application; 0.75:1 if zoned MF Building Coverage: 8,712 SF or 0.2 acre per the existing PUD; Not accounted for in the application Maximum Height: Maximum 32 feet per the existing PUD; Height variation not noted in application to exceed 32 feet; There would be a 38 feet maximum if property were zoned 'MF,' but it does not exist. Minimum Lot Area: Minimum of 30,500 SF required R zoned MF; The lot is 37,932 SF in size. Minimum Lot Area Calculations: Lot Size: 0.87 Acre 37,897.2 S.F. Minimum Lot Area: 3,000 S.F. 1stBedroom: 22,500 S.F. 10 Additional Bedrooms: 5,000 S.F. TOTAL Mtn. Lot Area Required: 30.500 S.F. Meets Minimum Lot Area Requirement CURRENT'PUD' ZONING The current underlying zoning for the parcel is "PUD" Planned Unit Development ("PUD"). It is actually a portion of Parcel 14 according to the Snowmass Club PUD Land Use Plan Map. The zoning parameters established for that parcel include: Permitted Use: Cultural Facilities/Professional Offices Permitted Building Square Footage: 13,000 sq. ft. Maximum Building Height:32 feet above natural grade Maximum Building Coverage: 0.20 Acres Residential is not a use permitted by the existing PUD standards. The project exceeds the 32 foot height limit specified in the Snowmass Club PUD for this parcel. ChztofPropomd landtaes REVVED W/ 2UD9 Land Use: jAcrms, J% Land Coverage SF OP n Residential 0. 871 100% 1 37, 8971 321 Inc. 2ADA 31, 406 83% 1; 15, 386 41% Dam as Unit, i BulWirtg/ Het S.F. Stone, UOIb Bedrooms SF: 1 bed 8l4red SF: 2 bad • 2- bed SF: 3 bed F3- 0ed SF: Sub- Total SF: Unimated/ Heafed' Bulkg A: 34' 8" 4, 742 2+ walk- out 4 7 1, 596 2 921 1 1,] 39 1 3, 656 802/ 4, 410 Bulkling8z 37'- 10" 6, 758 3+ Basement 6 9 2172 3 2766 3 0 0 4, 938 1, 111/ 5, 770 BW( dingC: 369• 5, 569 3+ Basement 5 8 1, 443 2 2, 887 3 0 0 4, 330 1, 163/ 4, 988 Totals 17, 069 IS 24 5, 211 7 6574 7 1, 139 1 15, 924 3, 076/ 15, 168 FAR CakWatkm TOW SF TOSV MWUptkr FAR SF AccessOlo UnIts Unhs 12, 924 100% 12, 924 1 Type A Decks, Ext. Stabs 3, 075 12% 369 3 Type B Includes Storage and Mechanical Storage/ Mechanical 2, 2M 5% 112. 2 Total SF 18, 243 13, 405 H s 74nks8 And7a1•' 7 fAllawed. . Ptopubed Max Allowable SF 28, 4495F 13, 405 Basedonacom rlsonwith Lot Area Any 37, 897 MF rordn wMch seems to be FAR 0.75: 1 0. 35: 1 the most sdn0ar toot to use Max." eight 38' 37'- 10' as the framework for a PUD Required parking 36 32 MIn. Side Yard Setback TBD 7'- 4'• Min. Front Yard Setback TBD A rox. W MIn. Rear Yard Setback TBD S' Mln. lot Width 50' ox 95' Building foot riot is6, 491 s.l. Min. Open Span 2S% 83%•'• Max H! ht Access. Bldg. 18' 10' Reflects Arent setback of existing bullOingz G m a doaEzvomo X c —' ° W mma UNIT EQUIVALENCY JUE) ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICR E=U" MN SF: IBM UE • I-0 D SUB- TO1AL BED UE 624ED SUM rUT" 9: S OLD UE R3 6E0 SU& TOrr L TOTAL UE FOR I BED UE FOR 2- OED UEFOR3BED UE 3596 O. TS 2 L 921 OS DS 1. 139 OSS I 0.5 2.5 Z1T2 us 3 2,] 66 215 6.) 5 0 0 0 10. lµ 3 0.] 2 2,B/ l 2.5 T.5 D 0 0 L 5, 211 6. 6, 574 14.75 1, 139 1 22. 2 C 10 O O Re-7 E 0 . 0 rrJHDLeif K c a o d Exhibit "B" Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-16 SELECTED PLANS AND DRAWINGS ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE HOUSING I I es ww+amnww I WouLame FAIRWAY F'. . THREE TOWNHOM i ANDERSON RANCH g 4t7, wa 1 ii pWW16R! .Road Owl Creek —J ASD AFFORDABLE HOUSING 5131 OWL CREEK ROAD, SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO SITE PLAN 9.30.09 patty wur>rac I I r a I 1 + I 1 111111 1 i \ i / +• f/ 11111111111 I titi111111\ 111p1 111111. II\1 ,a III li fill III,)- , IIIxllll ' I (ll `- 1 III \ 1 0000000014I 0 O axl p p P c j Q EE y i 6 CEEE 9LL D i ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 EMPLOYEE HOUSING 5131 OWL CREEK ROAD SN0WMAWVa.1J110E,C0L0RU a1515 e.....---ice - . 1 ROOF HEIGHT CALCULATIONS MWABOVE HWABOVE eL,mm rROaos® PROMM MOM my SIW) MAW OPAM GP AW cep" Al 8188.10 ` 8153.50 34.80 8155.50 32.60 A2 8182.50 8158.00 24.60 8159.00 23.60 A3 8174.50 8162.13 12.37 8168.44 16.06 A4 8188.10 8184.00 24.10 8156.00 32.10 AS 818529 8153.50 31.78. 8153.70 31.59 61 8187.77 6168.00 28.77 8151.50 3827 B2 8189.83 8158:13 33.70 8153.00 38M 03 8189.83 815813 33.70 8152.00 37.83 04 8187.77 8153.33 3444 8150.89 38.88 B8 8184.77 8161 A8 33.11 8153.60 31.17 00 . 6184.16 8150.25 33.81 8152.61 31.65 _ B7 8189.83 8162,50 17.33 8153.40 36A1 86 8169.83 8152.00 37.83 8152.00 37.83 C1 819127" 8154.50 36.77 8156.06 3521 C2 .8188.89 8155.30 MA9 8152.70 34.19 C3 _ 8173.33 8152A2 20.81 8151.51 21.82 C4 8185:35 8162A2 32.93 8151..35 34.00 C5 8188.56_ 8158.92 31A,4 8154:10 34A8 . 08 8191.27 8167.17 34,10 8168.96 34.32 . C7 8185.35 8150.83 34.72 8154.00 3135 C8 1 8170.86 11 8150M 1 20.22 IL 8161,47 1 18.38 Exhibit "C" Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-16 TOWN DEPARTMENTS AND REFERRAL AGENCY REVIEW COMMENTS ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE HOUSING A MEMO To: Chris Conrad,Planning Director From: David Pec der,Transportation Director Date: September 21,2009 Re: Aspen School District Employee Housing As I have noted in the past the incremental development In this area gives me concern.My comments on previous applications express the same Issue. I wish that a comprehensive look at the potential development of the parcels In this area could be determined,so that the transit infrastructure could be planned corpprehensively. The expansion of the residential units (the school district application, the proposed expansion of the Fire Department employee housing,and the potential for Anderson ranch to expand housing or redevelop entirely)in the area will put pressure on the bus service to make stops on the opposite side of Owl Creek road,The demand will be from residents coming back for the Mall/Base Village, the pharmacy/grooery store, visiting friends In other employee housing units, and/or getting access to the ski sk>pes from Two Creeks portal. The problem is that the Base Village Bulld-W Traffic Projections, Flguae 10, projects the volume on Owl Creek road to reach 4,700 Daily Traffic Volume (DTV). It is a safety recontmendadon for transit stops to be made off the road once the DTV is greater than 4,000.We will be asked to make pick ups and drop offs on the south skis of Owl Creek road for the reasons noted above.We will be looking to consolidate a stop somewhere along the road across form the Fire House,or at Meadow Ranch across for Fairway Three. There are bus stops on the golf course side of this road In both locations today. There will be significant demand for stops at both locations because of the different aaxrea points and acivltles served. I would recommend titet some attempt to react agreement between the users on what would work hest for all parties concerned,and a cost sharing agreement be proposed to construction the stops that are deemed necessary. Below are quotes iron my previous memos on the parkinow6ift issues for this area. June 9,2009-Snowman Chapel Parking Amendment As I have said before, the three organizations collectively should share their future visions on re)development and programming to ensure that the infrastructure will be adequate to support all the final uses. Future demand for access Is a real concern. Just as a new proposed use for the overflow parking lot phe reason for this amendment to the parking plan)has charged the current parking plan, so to will growth in successful programming and the expanding of facilities will also create additional demands for parking in the future. if the Town had a better understanding of the future development around the parking lot,it would help the decision making tremendously.However,such a process may not be practical or an element of this land use review.As shown In the Final Planned Unit Development Plan and PUD Guide there are roughly 103 parking spaces proposed,with some 12 additional spaces available along the eastern boundary. I understand then that the total parking on the site will be 115 spaces. e page 1 December 16,1997-Addition of Employee Units at the Firehouse There has been incremental development in this area over the years. Anderson Ranch has constantly been adding class rooms and housing units. The commercial buildings adjacent to Anderson Ranch have recently been remodeled.The$nowmass Chapel was constructed in the early 1990's and is now expanding. The Fairway III employee housing project was constructed in the early 1990's. The firehouse expanded their building and housing in the mid 1980's.In addition to the development at this location,Fox Run subdivision was developed in the mid 1980's, the Two Creeks ski area portal opened in the early 1990's, and the Two Creeks/Pines subdivisions where approved in the early 1990's.All of these developments in and of themselves are not a significant impact to transit services, but I would suggest that collectively they are having an impact. Page 2 Housing Dept. Memo To:Chris Conrad From: Joe Coffey Date: September 22,2009 Re: Aspen School District Employee Housing Chris, I do have some ooriosms and recommendations for the Aspen School District Employee Housing.I have listed these below and please feel free to contact me If you need more Information. The parking ratio appears to be 124 par bedroom or 31 spaces for 25 bedrooms.This will leave six spots for visitors if each bedroom has a car.My experience with one bedroom units Is that most of the one bedroom units will have two cars because they are usually ocoupled by two people.Snow storage can aW take up a few spots unless there Is a snow storage area.To prevent overflow parking this parking lot may require additional management time. r The plans show 11 storage closets for 15 units.I suggest that the storage closets are reduced in eke or redesigned to create 15 storage closets or one for each unit. 1 am not sure If each unit has a washer and dryer hook-up.This will necessary since there is not a common laundry room. Is the dumpster shed sized appropriately for both trash and recycling Dine? Energy Efficiency I am sure the School Disblct Is probably considering some of the following Items but 1 wanted to make sure these items are discussed. Use Energy Star rated appliances Dual-flush toilets High efficiency boilers 92%or higher Programmable setback thermostats Energy afar rated light fixtures Solar panels to assist with the hot water heating or domestic hot water supply Photovotialc panels for reducing electric consumption Heat tapes regulated with time clocks Ioynene Foam insulation or a high R-value Insulation for walls,floors and ceilings Sustainabiiity Use of Cement board or composite board siding and trim Energy efficient doors and windows(Low—E glass) 40 year or greater We roofing materials Recycled carpet and pad Trox or a similar recycled product for decks and walkways Steel grates and stairs greatly reduce snow removal time Low—Voc paints and finishes A Page 2 MEMORANDUM SCHMUESER I OOROON I MEYER TO: Chris Conrad,Town of Snowmass Village Dean Gordon,SGM FROM: Lee Barger,SGM DATE:September 24,2009 SUBJ: Project#91004E-024 Traffic Review Aspen School District Phase Q I reviewed Section VI of the Engineering Report for the Aspen School District Phase II redevelopment on Owl Creek Road and have the following comments. 1. I am comfortable with the methodology used for the trip generation calculations. I would have preferred to see existing counts from the site rather than ITE computations for office space,but that will suffice. 2. Summary bullet#1 is a little misleading. The change in use reduces the traffic generated by the parucl by 56%; it does not reduce the traffic at the Brush Creek(Owl Creek intersection by 56%as the statement implies. The net reduction in trips at the intersection is 5 trips in the AM and PM peaks. 3. Summary bullets #2 and #3 discuss planned shuttle services to serve school district employees reducing trips, but there is no guarantee that the residents will be employees. Furthermore, each unit may have a roommatelspouse who works elsewhere. Can improvements be made to allow safer pedestrian access to the adjacent transit stops on Owl Creek? 4. The parking space requirement appears to be exceeded by 8 spaces with this project(33 spaces for 25 bedrooms). 5. Although this is an existing site, I would like to check the sight triangles at the access point to be sure that the evergreen and aspen trees lining the north side of Owl Creek Road,west of the site, do not obstruct the views to the west. The site driveway should provide at least 300 feet of clear sight lines to the east and west along Owl Creek Road. 118 W.6s'Street.Suite 200 Schmneser Cordon Meyer,Inc. 970)945-1004 Glenwood Springs,CC 81601 970)945-5948 FAX I MEMORANDUM DATE: September 21,2009 TO: Chris Conrad, Planner Director oconraclAtosy.com FROM: Dean Gordon, Town Engineer Richard Goulding RE: Aspen School District Employee Housing ( 5131 Owl Creek Road) Please find, herein, my comments on the above-referenced application. The comments are based on the submission,dated August 27,2009,as well as the supplemental information dated.September 11, 2009. At this point, SGM has the following comments with regard to the engineering report,civil sheets C1-C3 and the landscape drawings: C1: An existing 36'culvert that connects to the Owl Creek's roadside ditch is shown not to,hebe bend in it. From observations on a field visit this does appear to be the case. The applicant should confirm exactly what Is happening within the culvert as it would be used to collect onsite drainage if the current parking lot grading is to remain. C2: Basin 1 Is draining off the site towards a neighboring structure that has a depressed patio. This could be a flooding problem. The applicant should consider a way to mitigate this. C2: The contours In Basin 1 on the West side do appear to tie back to the existing terrain. A retaining wall Is shown on L-1 but the grading plan should contain all such Information. Spot elevation for all curbs and flatwork should be shown on later submission as well as horizontal control. C2: Is it the Intent of the design to maintain the grades already in the upper parking lot that splits runoff Into the road side ditch? C2: The existing offsite ditch along the Eastern property line is very shallow in sections. Since the project is Intending to use this as a conveyance for onsite runoff to Brush Creek, I think it would be good practice to calculate the upstream runoff and combine it with what the Aspen School District site will add in order to ensure the ditch in it present condition has sufficient capacity. A failure in this ditch could lead to flooding of the adjacent homes. The drainage report uses a value of 2.17 inches/hours and 4.35 inchesihours, respectively,for the rainfall Intensity of 5 and 100 year events. This seems to be quite low. Please confirm where these values where obtained or calculated from. This will Impact the amount of storage required to maintain historical rates of runoff. 1]1891t910DPiEPN•21-A,pn am•drnmmntdlt.wmuromWnuENa The drainage report showed the storage capacity required for each basin. Please Indicate, on the site plan,where the runoff Is to be stored. The way it is graded right now, runoff is leaving the site from all basins onto the neighboring properties. C3: Does the applicant have the ability to grant an easement for the new 8"sanitary sewer on the neighboring property? C3: There are no shallow utilities shown In this submission. Please show their location at the next submission. is a geotechnical report going to become available for review to define grading recommendation, ability of soil to percolate water, pavement design recommendations among other items? Please indicate, on the plans, where the applicant is Intending to store snow plowed from the parking lots. RBG_--_ 1:1f991WlOM1EVMm Ri-AtpM 9tliod ObtlIIX170.11.09memabmtt•GEx GENERAL NOTES f 1. PERTA61E310F ME TOYM OF SNOVAI$ 6. VRUOMIT& ROgL CODE M 14E SEONON IWIGW FM E0441RICTO1NFli610WL EPROION;' THE MAYINAWFONTFdtPNEIBX 6ULLlI1H0. 40N TI PROPO3EOBOE wmaN AfAFMFFVD' ZONE IBmFEET. E II 2 90MWOIOEM6IGNONI86NONM W' NA1. 1• NEY FUMBEtOW. f 1 \ \ 1 ARCI1fj_ Emwil BIOLOINO10` BaII2Uq' A• FFE= 61411 1 BUII2W08 FFE= 6156x0 aUI 1= VFFE. 91VAT 4. MME ARE NO Cd13VNEV3 OR ROOFNOOI EO NECHM+ I EOIIPMEFIr ONOIAMl N. B. ORV, FUIES, VENTS. OR OMEF1 SINIAR STRULTUAF2( SEC. 16AdZM NOT W . TBHOwNSHALL NOT E% iENO NOIRTHA610 iEETN303ETHE NAIOUUMNOM MEIGNTUNR. O V 6 LEGEND j Z O 3 jR 9 EM G aRwE R0 PROPOSEO co0xT OMDE w 2 0 W PROPOSED N_ TAInINO WALL J W If v O EwsnnO rRFa 0 L 3 To C1 M03TIIESiRiCtarE ANO OTHER 3MIPLE P03VT366ECT® J^ M Y FORFlOOF NEWHi C/ iCOUTION, StO: 9CHEOl6E6ELOW I. L Q V 1 \ Z W O i \ ROOF HEIGHT CALCULATIONS a y 3 tV 1 \ Q TF'z- I3mHOf PROP08® P iaovos® txlsm3o env Bic 1\ 1 \ t laer ( 6Ne) c11rnE 1730E oH63E 1. 11E Al 8+ 8130 B163m 3.1.10 e15530 II20 A3 818] x0 e+ bem 2610 81x6. 10 2]. 6p 6174b0 B18t16 1257 $ 168A4 16x6 1 AA 810. 10 e+ e1m u.1e e15e40 311 m J as / 18616 81Wm 31x6 8166x0 x121 f r / Nt BUT" ahem 1.73 6151. 10 369 1 M 8188. 113 8158. 13 MTE $ 163. 00 361 e e W 6188$ 3 8158. 13 33.T0 815240 3123 e 84 a1T. n 6153x3 UA4 8150] a 36.61 e 3 es 8+8.. 73 8151AB sui 615340 31.17 68 e1M4s a150] s 1341 81= 1 31M 1 `'\ Y 1 k. j._ I v_ ._ .. — — w amm $ 2x250 3123 8153, 40 36A4 616983 81621 3723 $ 15200 STS 1 f 61111 alum 3611 aswls 369 66 Jr \ C3 816x. 86 615s. 30 31x6 72 31.18 a 1 — O 1173. 33 8152. 12 181 115161 3123 8 U 81825 412, 12 3223 BIS1. 35 MAO F= elaam alMn 3+ 21 8154. 10 31As 3 FI i/ b eta117 $ 17. 17 34.16 415125 N22 r4, a 6115. 35 slum M:72 8154, 09 3126 I O 11170. 85 816083 2012 4t51A7 1928 BUWNOC f969 itI11lOW0A 11 C i'i ROOF HEIGHT CA IONS OC 1 0 6 2009 41 N 1 JOLT/ f u85- 2122895 SITE PLAN A\ KEY PLAN Community Development qq sate r• m Nrn 7o scue E Gy1Yz• Chart of Proposed Land Uses REVISED 10/ 21/ 09 Proposed Land Uses-- 5131 Owl Creek Rd. Land Use: Acres: 1% Land Coverage SF Parking Open Space Impervious Residential 0. 87 100% 1 37, 8971 321 inc. 2 ADA 31, 406 83% 1 15, 386 41% Dwelling Units Building/ Height S. F. Stories Units Bedrooms SF: 1 bed # 1- bed SF: 2 bed 2- bed SF: 3 bed 3- bed SF: Sub- Total SF: Unheated/ Heated* Building A: 34' 8" 4, 742 2 + walk- out 4 7 1, 596 2 921 1 1, 139 1 3, 656 802/ 4, 410 Building B: 37'- 30" 6, 758 3 + Basement 6 9 2, 172 3 2, 766 3 0 0 4, 938 1, 111/ 5, 770 Building C: 36'- 9" 5, 569 3 + Basement 5 8 1, 443 2 2, 887 3 0 0 4, 330 1, 163/ 4, 988 Totals 17, 069 15 24 5, 211 7 6574 7 1, 139 1 12, 924 3, 076/ 15, 168 FAR Calculations Total SF TOSV Multiplier FAR SF Accessible Units Units 12, 924 100% 12, 924 1 Type A Decks, Ext. Stairs 3, 075 12% 369 3 Type B includes Storage and Mechanical Storage/ Mechanical 2, 244 5% 112. 2 Total SF 18, 243 13, 405 Zoning Analysis** Allowed Proposed Max. Allowable SF 28, 449 SF 13, 405 Based on a comparison with Lot Area Any 37, 897 MF zoning which seems to be FAR 0. 75: 1 0. 35: 1 the most similar zoning to use Max. Height 38' 37' - 10" as the framework for a PUD Required parking 36 32 Min. Side Yard Setback TBD 7' - 4"* Min. Front Yard Setback TBD Approx. 80' Min. Rear Yard Setback TBD 5' Min. Lot Width 50' Approx. 95' Building footprint is 6, 491 s.f. Min. Open Space 25% 83%*** Max. Height Access. Bldg. 18' 10' Reflects current setback of existing buildings MEMO To: Town Council From: Russ Forrest, David Peckler, Susan Hamley, Lesley Compagnone,Chris Conrad Date: October 26, 2009 Re: Final Red Line Review of the Comprehensive Plan 1.PURPOSE Today Council needs to do a final red line review of the Comprehensive Plan, focusing only on the changes in red. These were the agreed upon edits made throughout the Spring and Winter review sessions. 2. FORMAT FOR FINAL The primary medium for the final version of the Comprehensive Plan Update will be digital. The goal is to have a user-friendly and interactive document that can be burned on to a disk and/or downloaded from the Web. Traditional hard copies will be available, but there will be fewer of them as we will rely on several new technologies to deliver this information. The economic and environmental savings of using this medium are unmatched. SNOWMASS ASPEN MOUNTAIN ASPEN HIGHLANDS BUTTERMILK A S P E N A'NI S N O W M A S S_ ASPEN SKIING COMPANY October 23, 2009 Russ Forrest,"town Manager own Council Members town of Snowmass Village Post Office Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO '1615 Dear Russ and Members of Town Council, We have been following the Comprehensive Plan update over the past couple of years and would like to ofter the following comments. The Council is reviewing the Plan during a time of severe hardship including the work stoppage on Base Village and significant business declines resulting in a decrease of sales tax revenues. Because of that we believe that certain components of the Plan are reactionary and in some cases Punitive to businesses operating in the community. Adopting such a plan now that will guide the next ten years or more in the Village may prove to be short sighted. fie aspiration statement in Chapter 2 states that "when successful, Snowmass Village will have achieved quality of life and economic viability that will assure our future as a sustainable resort community." Subsequent chapters identify many quality of life attributes, amenities and business levels desired by the Town, but seem to rely entirely on future land use applications as the primary source of funding. As examples of this premise please review the following policy excerpts from the Plan: F.vamine every development proposal for opportunities to create. enhance and/or ruairdain the Town's facilities. Evanrine each development proposal for inclusion ofproposed cultural elements during development review of all nee projects and propose comnunnews to support these elements. Ls'ucuurrrge new development to help(rind bridges and culverts necessary to pre-serve the 7own '.e watertvarvs located adjacent to or within the projects. Provide retrute parking and/or contribute to the n unit system-both locally and on a regional basis. Developers are to demonstrate how alternative methods of transportation will be encouraged through traffic mitigation such as: o Parking (on site and/or offs•ite)* o Funding or construction of intercept parking* o Lang term commitment to a lodging cotmnunity.shiatle service that complements the public system. Contributions to a mass transit system Find creative alternatives to transportation.fatding including, bill not limited to, transit mitigation impact fees that could be put into a trust possibly utilizing the interest to subsidize operating and maintenance costs. Require 'private"developers to provide housing for 70%of total full time employees generated by a new development and then at the discretion of the town for seasonal employees. P.O.Box 1248 Aspen,CO 81612-1248 970.925-1220 eett.aspensnowmass.com with no mention of reducing requued on site parking standards vmmem+ePw•. While other examples can be extracted from the Plan, we believe the above are representative. We agree that new development should mitigate impacts on a fair share basis however the approaches outlined above seem to be excessive and ignore any positive financial impacts to the town that might be realized. The Land Use Code now requires a fiscal impact analysis that addresses many of these items. Any deficiencies should be identified and addressed through that vehicle. As I have previously commented to Council, the implementation of these changes will bring unintended consequences. Once these polices are codified we expect that many of the quality of life initiatives outlined in the plan will never be realized. By requiring added levels of community attributes outlined in the Plan, you will prevent the redevelopment of the Mall and Center areas, as it will render many future development proposals economically unfeasible. One specific comment on the plan we would request council address is paragraph 10 of Chapter G. As written this requires that the Snowmass Ski Area Wildlife Enhancement and Management and the Snowmass Ski Area 1994 HIS Mitigation and Monitoring Plan be updated and adopted. These plans are initiated and regulated by or pursuant to federal agencies as they deem necessary. As such we would request the town remove these stipulations from the proposed comp plan. We also feel that while individual chapters of the Plan may capture the intention of Council regarding specific topics, the overall plan has not been fully integrated. Similar issues arose in the 1999 plan which became one of the major dialogues regarding Base Village. The desired economic outcome was not possible with the limits spelled out in other chapters. Another case in point was the 100% employee housing mitigation requirement in the 1999 plan which no one could accommodate and was subsequently amended by Council. Finally, during these difficult economic times we would encourage the Town to consider adding proactive measures to the proposed Comp Plan where the Town would actively seek out new affordable housing, revenue generation and business development opportunities. While the Plan contemplates adopting the Marketing Board's strategic plan, there are only a few mentions in the Plan where the town will become actively engaged in achieving the goals set out within the Plan. As always we are open to additional discussions and are happy to make the resources of our company available to the Town in achieving the aspirations we share for Snowmass Village. kectfully yours, Don Schuster Vice President mar~, ALI 9--9t 1 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 4 RESOLUTION No. 16 5 SERIES OF 2009 6 7 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN 8 COUNCIL CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ASPEN SCHOOL 9 DISTRICT EMPLOYEE HOUSING ON PARCEL 14 OF THE 10 SNOWMASS CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD). 11 12 WHEREAS, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was finalized 13 between the Town of Snowmass Village and the Aspen School District 14 ("ASD" or "Applicant') at a Town Council meeting on October 19, 2009 to 15 detail the submission requirements for an employee housing application, 16 the review process, and the scheduling before the Town decision makers; 17 and 18 19 WHEREAS, prior to or during the discussions or negotiations 20 involving the IGA, the Applicant submitted on September 10, 2009 an 21 application with plans and drawings describing or illustrating the proposal 22 for three (3) buildings with 15 dwelling units including 24 bedrooms and 32 23 parking spaces on a site containing 0.87 acre or 37,932 square feet within 24 Parcel 14 of the Snowmass Club PUD, also known as 5131 Owl Creek 25 Road, as further described or illustrated in attached Exhibits "A" and "B" 26 incorporated herein; and 27 28 WHEREAS, the application was referred to affected Town 29 Departments and outside referral agencies in advance for review and 30 comment during the month of September 2009; and 31 32 WHEREAS, on October 7, 2009 the Applicant submitted updated 33 plans and drawing in attempts to respond to some of the review comments 34 received; and 35 36 WHEREAS, on October 21, 2009, the Planning Commission heard 37 a presentation of the development proposal by the Applicant, reviewed the 38 submittal package, heard testimony and provided comments and direction 39 to Town staff regarding its recommendations and concerns; and 40 41 WHEREAS, the application was processed, reviewed and 42 commented on in accordance or consistent with the Colorado Revised 43 Statutes Section 22-32-124 and the IGA. 44 45 Section One. General Findings. The Planning Commission generally 46 finds that: PC Reso 09-16 , Page 2 of 8 47 48 (1) The application sufficiently incorporates the submission items 49 outlined in the IGA. 50 51 (2) Meeting schedule notices and display ads were provided for the 52 general public, and the proposed plans were exhibited at the Town 53 Hall for public viewing. 54 55 (3) The IGA provides for Town review to make findings and make 56 recommendations regarding the development proposal's 57 compliance with Snowmass Village Municipal Code Sections 16A- 58 5-300(c) General Restrictions and 16A-5-310 Review Standards 59 insofar as feasible. 60 61 (4) The development proposal is not consistent with the underlying 62 zoning parameters set forth in Parcel 14 of the Snowmass Club 63 PUD or the Town's Comprehensive Plan. However, it appears to 64 be more productive at this time, considering the IGA between the 65 two entities, to review the proposed employee housing project on 66 its own merit and against the parameters of the Multi-family (MF) 67 zone district. 68 69 (5) Considering that the existing PUD standards established a density 70 of approximately 2.3 DU/acre, the proposed development with a 71 proposed density of 17.25 dwelling units per acre does not appear 72 compatible with the existing PUD standards. However, the proposal 73 results in a logical and orderly development pattern within the 74 overall community, as a result of the proposal being on the edge of 75 or adjacent to other multi-family developments to the south, 76 southeast and east with two to three story buildings and the 77 dormitory facilities on the adjacent Anderson Ranch property to the 78 west and therefore appears compatible with the neighborhood 79 character and surrounding uses. 80 81 (6) The Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the project would 82 remain employee housing controlled by ASD pursuant to the IGA. 83 It seems apparent that the Town's desire would be to ensure that 84 the proposed housing remains as affordable housing. 85 86 (7) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(1), Minimum land area, (2) 87 Location, and (3) Uses, of the Municipal Code, the proposal 88 appears to comply with these standards. 89 90 (8) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(4), Maximum buildout, of the 91 Municipal Code, the application is not consistent with this General 92 Restriction. No Future Land Use, Future Units or Commercial PC Reso 09-16 Page 3 of 8 93 Square Footage Specified (Residential or Commercial) are 94 allocated by the Comprehensive Plan's Buildout Chart. However, if 95 the project is designated for employee housing, the buildout 96 provisions have not necessarily applied on past development 97 proposals. 98 99 (9) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(5), Dimensional limitations, of the 100 Municipal Code, the subject parcel is located within Parcel 14 of the 101 Snowmass Club PUD with a specified maximum building height of 102 32 feet above natural grade. This is the underlying zoning 103 parameter and the height limitation under the MF zone district is 38 104 feet. . According to the Roof Height Calculations (Sheet A1.1 of 105 application drawings), all three (3) buildings exceed 32 feet, but 106 come very close to complying with the 'MF' zone height limitation of 107 38 feet. Roof Point B2 manually calculates to being approximately 108 38.08 feet above existing grade. 109 110 (10) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(6), Community purposes, of the 111 Municipal Code, the application does not include a proposed 112 variation to exceed the maximum buildout or allowable height limit. 113 Provision of restricted housing is a Community Purpose. 114 115 (11) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(7), Standards for granting 116 variations, of the Municipal Code, the application does not include a 117 proposed variation to exceed the maximum buildout or allowable 118 height limit. 119 120 (12) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(8), Parking, of the Municipal 121 Code, the application does not meet the 1.5 spaces per bedroom for 122 restricted units. The standard for the MF zone district is 1 space 12 per bedroom. The project has 24 bedrooms/providing 32 spaces. 124 The Land Use Code would require 36 spaces at 1.5 spaces per 1 bedroom for deed restricted housing and 24 spaces at 1 space per 126 bedroom for the MF Zone District. There are also 21 spaces that 127 partially extend into the Owl Creek Road right-of-way, and one of 128 those spaces are designated for the for the planned work shuttle 129 van/bus to be utilized by the ASD employees to commute to the 130 various school district facilities. 131 132 (13) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(9), Road standards, of the 133 Municipal Code, there appears to be a sight distance problem that 134 currently exists for west-bound vehicles leaving the project site. It 135 would appear that at least one evergreen and possibly two (2) Aspen 136 trees within the right-of-way may need to be removed. Also, there 137 appears to be minimal snow storage capability designed into the site. 138 PC Reso 09-16 Page 4 of 6 139 (14) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(1), Consistency with Comprehensive 140 Plan, of the Municipal Code, the project does not appear consistent 141 with the Comprehensive Plan as the Future Land Use Map 142 indicates that the property should be Commercial and the Build-out 143 Chart does not provide for "Future Land Use", "Future Units" or 144 Commercial Square Footage" (Residential or Commercial). 145 However, if the project is designated for employee housing, the 146 buildout provisions have not necessarily applied on past 147 development proposals. 148 149 (15) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(2), Preservation of community 150 character, of the Municipal Code, the development proposed for the 151 PUD appears to not be inconsistent with the standards of Section 152 16A-4-340, Building Design Guidelines to Preserve Community 153 Character, and appears generally compatible with the character of 154 some of the existing land uses in the area and would not adversely 155 affect the future development of the surrounding area. 156 157 (16) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(3), Creative approach, of the 158 Municipal Code, the development proposed appears to represent 159 an acceptable approach to the development and use of land and 160 related physical facilities to produce better a development and to 161 provide benefits for residents of the PUD and the public in general. 162 163 (17) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(4), Landscaping, of the Municipal 164 Code, the proposed landscaping for the project appears to provide 165 sufficient buffering of uses between the project and the 166 neighboring properties to minimize noise, glare and other adverse 167 impacts, but not sufficient landscaping to buffer the project between 168 the project and Owl Creek Road. 169 170 (18) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(5), Comply with development 171 evaluation standards, of the Municipal Code, the proposal seems to 172 have complied with most of the applicable provisions of Article IV of 173 the Development Code's Development Evaluation Standards. 174 175 (19) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(6), Suitability for development, of 176 the Municipal Code, the proposal seems to be suitable for 177 development, considering its topography, environmental features 178 and any natural or man-made hazards that affect its development 179 potential. PC Reso 09-16 Page 5 of 8 180 181 (20) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(7), Adequate facilities, of the 182 Municipal Code, the Applicant has not sufficiently addressed how 183 solid waste will be dealt with. The only facility shown is located 184 nearby on the Anderson Ranch property, and no application has 185 been submitted as to Anderson Ranch's plans to replace it. The 186 school district also has not provided information regarding any mutual 187 use agreement, and the new facility on Anderson Ranch property is 188 not exempt from the Town's Land Use approval requirements. 189 Further, the Town's Transportation Department has identified impacts 190 that this project will have upon Town Transit services. Also at this 191 time, the drainage plan and mitigation of runoff impacts appear 192 deficient, not consistent with Town development evaluation standards 193 and could impact surrounding property, as the on-site pond(s) that 194 was referenced in the Applicant's report has not yet been clearly 195 shown, and run-off leaving all basins appears to leave the site onto 196 neighboring properties. 197 198 (21) Pursuant to Section 16A-5-310(8), Spatial pattern shall be efficient 199 concerning roads and water and sewer lines, (9) Phasing, of the 200 Municipal Code, these standards do not appear applicable to this 201 infill development proposal. 202 203 (22) The applicant appears to have provided an adequate construction 204 management plan. 205 206 Section Two: Comments, Concerns and Recommendations. The 207 Planning Commission offers the following comments, concerns or 208 recommendations for Town Council consideration: 209 (1) The applicant should obtain a License Agreement from the Town to 210 permit the parking, or any other improvements, to extend into the 211 Owl Creek Road right-of-way prior to issuance of a Certificate of 212 Occupancy. 213 214 (2) The required parking standard for a restricted housing project is 215 not met and concerns identified and/or recommendations by the 216 Planning Commission include: 217 218 a. A minimum of one parking space should continue to be 219 reserved for the District's work van/bus/shuttle to permit 220 appropriate access and turn-around capability; PC Reso 09-16 Page 6 of 8 221 b. Creating additional parking spaces where feasible; 222 c. Consideration of a carport structure with an assigned carport 223 for each unit along the southern boundary and towards the 224 western comer of the site with individual storage units 225 included in each carport much like the adjacent Fairway 226 Three complex that would provide additional storage for 227 residents and minimize unsightly storage in more visible 228 areas of the project. 229 d. Additional landscape buffering and screening between Owl 230 Creek Road and either the carport structure or the parking 231 area; 232 e. A cooperative parking management plan with Anderson 233 Ranch that maximizes the use of the driveway for parking 234 either by daytime or nighttime uses when the driveway area 235 is not being utilized by Anderson Ranch for deliveries. 236 f. The provision of a work shuttle for residents of the project 237 and employees of the District. 238 g. The use of a permit system for residents to ensure 239 availability to residents and prevent unauthorized parking. 240 h. Prohibit recreational vehicle, snowmobile, recreational 241 motorcycles, trailers storage or parking. 242 243 244 (3) The Applicant should coordinate an adequate sight-distance triangle 245 off of Owl Creek road at the project exit to the satisfaction of the 246 Town's Public Works Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of 247 Occupancy. 248 249 (4) The applicant should demonstrate that an adequate snow storage 250 plan will be implemented that will not adversely impact surrounding 251 properties, the Town right-of-way or drainage plan. 252 253 (5) Concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the building 254 design of the modular construction proposed include; 255 256 a. The sloping roof forms are preferred to flat roofs as they 257 reflect the character of the surrounding property and 258 promote mountain architecture. Planning Commission would 259 be very concerned if the roof forms were flat. 260 b. While solar energy collection is encouraged, such collection 261 devices should be discreet, not excessively encroach 262 beyond the roof lines and should not increase the height of 263 the buildings. 264 c. Compatibility with the surrounding properties in terms of the 265 use of the materials, finishes and color palette to blend and 266 soften the visual effect of the buildings with the surrounding PC Reso 09-16 Page 7 of 8 267 buildings rather than materials, finishes and colors that make 268 a statement that attracts attention to the size and mass of 269 the buildings is preferable. 270 d. If .revisions are made to the architecture, the applicant 271 should strive to provide more articulation in the building 272 design and refrain from creating more monolithic structures. 273 274 (6) Concerning the extra floor area shown on the lower level of 275 Buildings B and C, with the changes as explained by the applicant 276 for the provision of one storage area per unit within the buildings 277 and the storage space planned on the lower basement levels of the 278 buildings appear acceptable, but additional storage space 279 elsewhere, such as within the recommended carport structure, 280 should be explored. 281 282 (7) Concerning the landscape plan design and mitigation of existing 283 trees, the proposed plan presented by the Applicant appears 284 acceptable among the proposed buildings and along adjacent 285 properties, but Planning Commission recommends increasing the 286 plant material buffering in particular near the southwest portion of 287 the site in the area between the recommended carport structure 288 and Owl Creek Road. 289 290 (8) The Applicant should sufficiently address how solid waste, and 291 especially recycling, will be dealt with on the site, and if off-site trash 292 facilities are proposed to be shared, then the applicant should detail 293 how such sharing of facilities will occur. Such proposed details should 294 be reviewed by the Town to ensure proper access, design and 295 capacity for the collection of solid waste prior to issuance of a 296 Certificate of Occupancy. 297 298 (9) The Town staff should confirm through the Town Engineers office if 299 the proper structures and/or detention facilities necessary, including a 300 possible sand and oil separator, are being provided to ensure that 301 run-off characteristics of a site after development are no more 302 disruptive to natural streams, land uses or drainage systems than are 303 the run-off characteristics calculated for the site's natural state. 304 305 (10) The Applicant should agree to a cost share the placement of a shuttle 306 stop along the south side of Owl Creek Road opposite the project. 307 308 (11) The Town Council should be satisfied that the Applicant has 309 adequately responded to the review comments, as outlined in 310 attached Exhibit "C" incorporated herein, that should be confirmed 311 by the referral agencies. 312 PC Reso 09-16 Page 8 of 8 313 Section Three: Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or 314 application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the 315 invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this 316 Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or 317 application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are 318 severable. 319 320 INTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED, as amended, by the Planning 321 Commission of the Town of Snowmass Village on October 2151, 2009, 322 upon a motion by Planning Commission Member Gustafson, the second of 323 Planning Commission Member Aiken, and upon a vote of 6 in favor and 0 324 against (Planning Commission Chair Purvis was absent). 325 326 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 327 PLANNING COMMISSION 328 329 330 331 Don Crouch, Vice Chairman 332 333 334 ATTEST: 335 336 337 338 Kristi Holliday, Planning Commission Secretary 339 340 341 Referenced Exhibits attached: 342 Exhibit "A" — Land Use and Development Parameters 343 Exhibit "B" — Project information and selected drawings/plans 344 Exhibit "C" —Town Departments and Referral Agency review comments 345 346 1' 4, , il a s ,,