Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.regular.20100628
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 28, 2010 5:00 P.M. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Outstanding Employee Bonus Awards b) EPA Award IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Minutes —May 24, June 1,7, 8, 2010 b) Resolution #45, 2010-2010 Street Improvement Contract Grand Valley c) Resolution #46, 2010 — IGA Pitkin County East Aspen Trail d) Resolution #44, 2010— Contract PCS Mobile/Mobile Computing e) Board Appointment VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #14, 2010 —Silver Lining Ranch Conversion to Single Family P.H. 7/12 VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #12, 2010 —Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan Phase 11 b) Resolution #42, 2010 — Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design c) Ordinance #96, 2010 —Code Amendments —Temporary Outdoor Food Vending IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting July 12, 2010 COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES ✓ Stick to top priorities ✓ Foster a safe, supportive, innovative work environment that encourages creativity and acceptable risk -taking ✓ Create structure and allow adequate time & resources for citizen processes COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. MEMORANDUM W76Jt TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets THRU: Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager DATE: June 14, 2010 RE: Asphalt Improvement Project 2010 - 034 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of a contract with Grand River Construction in the amount of $367,790.16 to accomplish the 2010 Street Improvement Project. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Asset Management Plan includes this project for 2010 construction. City Council approved the 2010 Asset Management plan and appropriated $376,690.00 for this project as part of the 2010 Budget. BACKGROUND: This contract is a result of competitive bid process. One other bid for the work was received. Grand River Construction submitted the low bid for the asphalt overlay project. DISCUSSION: This contract is to do the 2010 Street Improvement Project as budgeted for this year. The work to be completed this year involves asphalt overlays to sections of the following residential streets: South Avenue from Gibson Street to Spruce Street; Gibson Avenue from Red Mountain Road to South Avenue; West View Drive from Northway Drive to Roaring Fork Drive; Alice lane from McSkimming Road to the end; Durant Avenue from Aspen Street to Galena Street; E. Hyman Avenue from Spring Street to Original Street; N. Mill Street from Main Street to the south side of the North Mill Street Bridge; S. Hunter Street from Main Street to Durant Avenue; S. Spring Street from Main Street to Durant Avenue. Work to be performed under the contract primarily consists of 1.5 inch pavement overlays. This will give the streets a greater structural stability for longevity and provide a longer wear factor. Full width and edge roto-milling will take 1 inch off the top layer of the existing street surface. A new 1.5 inch asphalt mat will be added back to complete the work. The funds remaining in the budget will be used to do asphalt patch work prior to the paving project to keep cracks from reflecting up through the new asphalt mat. Some of the remaining funds will also be used to do crack sealing on other streets in the city to prevent moisture from penetrating into the sub base and causing pothole conditions. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 2010 Asset Management Plan approved $376,690.00 for this work. The proposed scope of work to be awarded under the contract is below the budgeted amount. The funds remaining in the budget will be used to do pre -paving patching and crack sealing work. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approval of this contract with Grand River Construction to accomplish the 2010 Street Improvement Project to keep the structural integrity of the City Streets intact. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution # of 2010 on the consent calendar of June 28, 2010. CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION NO. Series of 2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND Grand River Construction AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Grand River Construction a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Grand River Construction a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held 1 , 2008. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on , by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, hereinafter called the "City", and Grand River Construction, hereinafter called the "Contractor". WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared, in accordance with the law, specifications and other Contract Documents for the work herein described, and has approved and adopted said documents, and has caused to be published, in the manner and for the time required by law, an advertisement, for the project: 2010 Street Improvements Project (Project # 2010-034). WHEREAS, the Contractor, in response to such advertisement, or in response to direct invitation, has submitted to the City, in the manner and at the time specified, a sealed Bid in accordance with the terms of said Invitation for Bids; and, WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined, and canvassed the Bids submitted in response to the published Invitation for Bids therefore, and as a result of such canvass has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest responsible and responsive bidder for the said Work and has duly awarded to the Contractor a Contract For Construction therefore, for the sum or sums set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payments and Contract for Construction herein mentioned: 1. The Contractor shall commence and complete the construction of the Work as fully described in the Contract Documents. 2. The Contractor shall furnish all of the materials, supplies, tools, equipment, labor and other services necessary for the construction and completion of the Work described herein. 3. The Contractor shall commence the work required by the Contract Documents within seven (7) consecutive calendar days after the date of "Notice To Proceed" and will complete the same by the date and time indicated in the Special Conditions unless the time is extended in accordance with appropriate provisions in the Contract Documents. 4. The Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work described in the Contract Documents and comply with the terms therein for a sum not to exceed Three Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Dollars and Sixteen Cents ($367.790.16) DOLLARS or as shown on the BID proposal. A= Page 1 -cci 5. The term "Contract Documents means and includes the documents listed in the City of Aspen General Conditions to Contracts for Construction (version GC97-2) and in the Special Conditions. The Contract Documents are included herein by this reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth here. 6. The City shall pay to the Contractor in the manner and at such time as set forth in the General Conditions, unless modified by the Special Conditions, such amounts as required by the Documents. 7. This Contract For Construction shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein or in the Contract Documents, this Contract For Construction shall be subject to the City of Aspen Procurement Code, Title 4 of the Municipal Code, including the approval requirements of Section 4-08-040. This agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the City Manager or the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his/her absence) following a resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor or City Manager (or a duly authorized official in his/her absence) to execute the same. 8. This agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Contractor respectively and their agents, representatives, employees. Successors, assigns, and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Contractor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet his or her interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 9. This agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom the Contractor or the City may assign this Contract For Construction in accordance with the specific written consent, any rights to claim damages or to bring suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or the Contractor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 10. No waiver of default by either party of any terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 11. The parties agree that this Contract For Construction was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be kept exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 12. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Contract for Construction, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 13. This Contract For Construction was reviewed and accepted through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto, and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either parry based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of this Contract For Construction. CC2-971.doc Page 2 "cc1 14. The undersigned representative of the Contractor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Contract For Construction, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of the Contractor for the purposes of executing this Contract For Construction and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Contract For Construction for the terms and conditions specified herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree hereto have executed this Contract For Construction on the date first above written. ATTESTED BY: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: City Street Department ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO M APPROVED AS TO FORM: M- City Attorney CONTRACTOR: GEC- J e'jej" CO"S/ , r � By: jn E e C . ors Title:��— Note: Certification of Incorporation shall be executed if Contractor is a Corporation. If a partnership, the Contract shall be signed by a Principal and indicate title. .doc Page 3 CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (To be completed if Contractor is a Corporation) RTATF r1F ( o /o✓ c-JO COUNTY OF (-A-O' ` ) On this 2/s� day of 20/0 , before me appeared ). � to me pers9nally known, who, bei 9 by me first my sworn did s y that s/he is , Je -, / of C v �- d pij c- �o s7 , and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors, and said deponent acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL the day and year in this certificate first above written. otary Public My commission expires: z - zT- - zo i3 ® NO .G �e�IC �tORAO� �C CC2-971.doc Page 4 I hereby acknowledge receipt of ADDENDUM(s) numbered - through_ 2010-034 ESTIMATED UANTITYLIST UNIT TOTAL BID ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE a� COST_ Mobilization & Demobilization LS 1 $w5o Mob & Demob, Sub Contractor Only LS 1 oU $ 74 0C 00 i $ -?�� 9V QC / QA Testing LS 1 $�`,�0 60 $_ 4 �� 20 Rotomill AC Pavement - Full Width Mill SY 15,956 $ Rotomill AC Pavement -Edge Mill SY 6,527 �S $ � v6 $..y. b�3 Milling Butt Joints, SY 711 L5 $ r S' $ ba Install Asphalt Pavement - PG 58 - 22 (3") SY 550 /0 co $ g��s 0 $— $--k— Install Asphalt Pavement - PG 70-28 (2") SY 6/ Install Asphalt Pavement - PG 70-28 (1.5") SY 30,989 $ gj yY $ ab 3 oy6 Leveling & Patching PG 58 - 22 TN 20 S!� $ g� 6 a $ �� 7.5 Sa Adjust Valve/Monument Box to finish grade. EA 50 $q'5 . $ 98 Adjust Manhole to finish grade EA 60 00 $ �S , r[ 00 $ ,6w Traffic control, barricading, & flagging LS 1 $13, 060 ' 0 0 $ 13, 060 Center Line Paint Stripping LF 4,089 bs $-/ -— $ �y /6 TOTAL BID IN NUMBERS. $ 367 t 7 U 1 / c I1 X ( 1) Total Bid in Words: Nree No„ red -Jf �FOrn ihora54aJ �erv� �{oaured rv,nes � �Zvow � I acknowledge that in submitting this bid it is understood that the right to reject any and all bids has been Aoll cLs reserved by the owner. Page 2 BPI-971.doc "BPI 2010 Street Improvement Bid Sheet BRANCH SECTION M WORK NAME STREET FROM: - TO: TO DO AL ALICE LANE MCSKIMMING RD, To END 3" DU E. DURANTAVE. S. ASPEN ST. To S. MONARCH ST. 1.5" DU E. DURANT AVE. S. MONARCH ST. To S. MILL ST. 1.5" DU E. DURANT AVE. S. MILL ST. To S. GALENA ST. 1.5" E-HY E. HYMAN AVE. 4-S. SPRING ST. To ORIGINAL ST. 1.5" SO SOUTH AVE. GIBSON ST. To SPRUCE ST. 1.5" N-ML N. MILL ST. 1- MAIN ST. Thru MILL ST. BRIDGE 1.5" S-HU S. HUNTER ST. I - E. MAIN ST. Thru E. HOPKINS AVE. 1.5" S-HU S. HUNTER ST. 2- E. HOPKINSAVE. To DURANTAVE. 1.5" GA GIBSON AVE. RED MTN RD. To SOUTH AVE. 1.5" S-SP S. SPRING ST. 1- MAIN ST. To DURANT ST. 1.5" WV WESTVIEWDR I- NORTHWAY DR To ROARING FORK DR 1.5" MEMORANDUM TO: Ma��yor and City Council FROM: 'PFScott Chism, Project Manager, Parks and Recreation Dept. Austin Weiss, Trails Coordinator, Parks and Recreation Dept. THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Director�j Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation DATE OF MEMO: June 21, 2010 MEETING DATE: June 28, 2010 RE: Resolution #2010- q%: Approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Pitkin County for the East of Aspen Trail II Project REQUEST OF COUNCIL: At this time we are requesting you to authorize an INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT with Pitkin County for financial reimbursement from the County to the City for an amount of $313,431.00. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City Open Space and Trails Board identified trail improvements along the Highway 82 corridor leading into the eastern side of town as a priority project for 2009. The design process was initiated in 2009 with Council approval of a Professional Services Contract for Engineering Design Services for this project on April 13, 2009. City Council approved a Contract for Construction on May 20, 2010. The Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board has reviewed the project and provided a recommendation to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners to approve this Intergovernmental Agreement authorizing $313,431 in funding for the project. DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board has identified this trail linkage as one of their highest trail connection priorities. The Scope of Work includes placement of an 8-foot wide paved pedestrian/bike trail along Highway 82 and a 6-foot wide crusher fines pedestrian/bike trail along Stillwater Drive that will connect Pitkin County's East of Aspen Trail along the Roaring Fork River to the City's sidewalk system in central Aspen just west of the Cooper Avenue highway bridge over the Roaring Fork River. The site is located along the south side of Highway 82 and along the east side of Stillwater Drive, north of the Roaring Fork River. The trail alignment is located within State of Colorado right-of-way and crosses into property owned by the Stillwater Affordable HOA into a trail easement that will be managed by Pitkin County. Page 1 of 3 The completed trail will create a safe pedestrian corridor where one does not currently exist. The trail will contribute to a connection for the `seamless' trail system the City of Aspen is striving to accomplish by connecting the residents of the east end neighborhoods and visitors to the James H. Smith and Northstar open space parcels into the central Aspen sidewalk network. A key link for the community trail system will result from the creation of this trail. VICINITY MAP FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: A comprehensive project budget of $1,099,813 has been established. The comprehensive project budget includes a financial contribution of $313,431 from Pitkin County. Roughly 1,000 If. of the proposed trail is outside of the City limits, in Pitkin County, including the entire 350 If. portion trail along Stillwater Drive. At a September 17th, 2009 Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board meeting, the Board indicated to City staff that they felt County funding for this project was appropriate and committed to funding the County portion of the trail. The Board then directed City staff to move forward with the planning of the project and to come back to the Board once a solid cost for the County's portion of trail had been established. Staff Page 2 of 3 presented the project to the Board on May 20 to confirm the County's financial commitment to the project for a value of $313,431.00, which is the bid price together with a contingency and a value for the City performed landscape restoration work. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The East of Aspen Trail II will provide a connection between the existing East of Aspen Trail located in Pitkin County and the city's eastern sidewalk infrastructure located just west of the Roaring Fork River at Cooper Avenue. This corridor is well used by pedestrians and bicyclists as a way to enter Aspen from the east, but is unsafe. Users are forced to utilize the highway shoulders as a travel route. This `trail' experience is poor, especially during the summer months when both community trail use and vehicular travel on Highway 82 east of Aspen is high. A better, safer trail connection will potentially encourage more trail use between the McSkimming, Mountain Valley and Riverside neighborhoods and central Aspen and reduce vehicular trips on the highway. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending Council approval of the Intergovemmental Agreement with Pitkin County for the East of Aspen Trail II Project in order to allow receipt of funding from Pitkin County for this trail project. ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose not to approve this Intergovemmental Agreement, which would delay the receipt of financial contribution from Pitkin County for this trail project. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County for the East of Aspen Trail II project. CITY MANAGER ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Intergovernmental Agreement Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. Series of 2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE EAST OF ASPEN TRAIL II PROJECT. RECITALS I. The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board is charged with the responsibility of acquiring trail properties and constructing trails, and; 2. The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board has identified trails which connect communities to the existing valley wide trail network as beneficial and important to the people of the City of Aspen, and; 3. The City of Aspen is undertaking the construction of a trail CBast of Aspen Trail II"), connecting the City's sidewalk system just west of the Cooper Avenue highway bridge to Pitkin County's East of Aspen Trail adjacent to the river at Stillwater Drive, and; 4. The East of Aspen Trail II extends beyond the Aspen town boundary into Pitkin County, is located within State of Colorado right-of-way and crosses into property owned by the Stillwater Affordable HOA into a trail easement managed by Pitkin County, and; 5. The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board recommended the expenditure of $1,099,813 towards the construction of the East of Aspen Trail II, and the City of Aspen, City Council approved this amount in the 2010 Parks Department budget and; 6. The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board recommends that the City of Aspen authorize the Intergovernmental Agreement attached hereto, outlining the funding and maintenance commitment for this East of Aspen Trail II project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado as follows: City Council approves the execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Pitkin County concerning the funding and maintenance of the East of Aspen Trail II, which: 1.) Authorizes the expenditure of up to $313,431 in County OST funds for the construction of the East of Aspen Trail II. 2.) Identifies the County as a funding partner in future structural repair or replacement projects for the trail, provided that the County has a dedicated Open Space and Trails fund or open space maintenance fund, and provided that the County has reviewed and approved the project. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Attachment A INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT For Pitkin County Funding of East of Aspen Trail II THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made this day of 2010 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County Colorado, whose address is 530 East Main St., Aspen Colorado 81611 (the "County") and the City of Aspen, whose address is 130 South Galena Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (the "City). RECITALS 1. The County has adopted an Open Space and Trails Program pursuant to Article 13 of the Home Rule Charter under which funds are available for the construction of trails. 2. The City of Aspen also constructs and maintains a trail system. 3. The City desires to construct a trail from the City's sidewalk system west of the Cooper Avenue highway bridge to Pitkin County's East of Aspen Trail adjacent to the Roaring Fork River at Stillwater Drive. The estimated total project is cost is $1,099,813. 4. The East of Aspen Trail II will lie partly in each jurisdiction. 5. The City sought the $313,431 in County assistance for funding of this trail construction, and this amount was appropriated by the County in the Open Space and Trails Budget. The total County expenditure for this project will be for project construction costs up to $313,431. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements of the parties and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: The City of Aspen will undertake all design and permitting for the East of Aspen Trail 11 project. Such design is subject to approval by the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Department. The County will reimburse the City for the total project construction costs for the scope of work located outside of city limits up to $313,431, after review of related invoices and project cost accounting. 2. The City agrees to perform all routine maintenance, including sweeping the trail, keeping it free of obstacles, seasonal painting, signing, etc., upon completion. Pitkin County will be responsible for all direct costs associated with capital replacement and long term maintenance of the portion of trail located outside of City limits, including repaving and structural repair or replacement, provided that the County has a dedicated open space or open space maintenance fund. The City of Aspen will be responsible for all direct costs associated with capital replacement and long term maintenance of the portion of trail located inside of City limits, including repaving and structural repair or replacement, provided the City has a dedicated open space or open space maintenance fund. Any future Pitkin County or City of Aspen payment towards maintenance of the project is expressly contingent upon Pitkin County or City of Aspen approval of the project and budget, and review of related invoices and project cost accounting. 4. Public use of the trail will be governed by applicable law for the portion of the trail within each jurisdiction. The foregoing Agreement is approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado at its regular meeting held on the day of 2010. The foregoing Agreement is approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of 2010. In witness whereof the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed as of the day and year first written. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY By: George Newman, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM By Hilary Fletcher Smith, County Manager John Ely, Pitkin County Attorney ASPEN CITY COUNCIL By: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor City of Aspen APPROVED AS TO FORM By: Steve Barwick, City Manager By: John Worcester, City Attorney ATTEST: By: Jeanette Jones, Deputy Clerk ATTEST TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Linn THRU: Steve Barwick DATE OF MEMO: June 22, 2010 MEETING DATE: June 28, 2010 RE: Police Mobile Computing REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo is a request for approval of contracts to purchase mobile computing equipment for police patrol vehicles. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: 2009, Council approved AMP project "Police Mobile Computing project" for 2010 budget cycle. BACKGROUND: The Police Department began planning for the installation of computers into patrol cars beginning in the mid-1990s, following national trends in best practices for policing. Technology was not present in our mountainous region to allow for practical application until recently. With the advent of faster cellular connectivity, and wide use of other wireless technology (G and N-band wireless), full connectivity and functionality for all police uses are now possible. This will allow officers to have effective access to data in the field, in real-time. DISCUSSION: As wireless installations have been developed in the City -County network, more users have gone from a traditional "desktop" computer situation to laptop deployments. The placement of desktop computers in the Pitkin County Courthouse has continued to limit the effective use of space in the police / sheriff's department patrol room. Issuing laptop computers to officers will allow the reallocation of the space currently used for traditional desks, desktop computers, and `paperwork' space, allowing a move to an environment that is largely paperless, mobile, and not fixed to any particular desk or location. This will create greater flexibility and efficiency, as officers will now be able to write their reports in the field, as opposed to having to Page 1 of 2 physically be present at a desktop computer in the courthouse merely to type a computer entry (or, for that matter, to check for the presence of a record of an arrest or local contact). With the deployment of laptop computers in place, we plan a redesign of the police / sheriff's patrol room for greater efficiency there, based on the flexibility of laptops. The contract (attached) is via a Western States Contracting Alliance bid, and thus not competitively bid. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The project was originally budgeted at $119,830. We anticipate spending approximately $74,307, via a Western States Contracting Alliance quote on the computers and periphery. Additional items will be purchased including software and small hardware pieces from other vendors. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: We anticipate that the ability for officers to conduct work in the field will reduce vehicle miles travelled, though it is difficult to predict what the reduction will be. Otherwise, we anticipate no other environmental impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Police Department staff recommends the adoption of this item on the consent agenda. ALTERNATIVES: Replace old desktop systems in the police patrol room with new desktop systems, and not deploy mobile computers. This would cost in the area of $10,000, and would prevent a significant redesign of the patrol room. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Procurement Contract for PCS Mobile. Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION #44 (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND PCS MOBILE SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and PCS Mobile, a copy of which agreement is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and PCS Mobile regarding the purchase of 26 Panasonic computers and associated peripheral equipment for the city of Aspen, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, June 28, 2010. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into, this 21 st day of June 2010, between the City of Aspen, Colorado, herein after referred to as the "City" and PCS Mobile, hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor". WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase twenty-six computers and associated peripherals, hereinafter called the UNIT(S) being more fully described and attached herewith as 'Exhibit A', in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Document and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred and Seven Dollars ($ 74,307). 2. Delivery. Via standard carrier to: Aspen Police Dept. 506 E Main #102, Aspen, CO 81611 Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Document are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. Panasonic Toughbook Protection Plus (4 years) hardware warranty. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any right to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attorney's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorneys fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11.Certification Regarding Debarment Suspension Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. in the event that Vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any partof a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City, 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or subcontractor under City contract; 3_ Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13_Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14.Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15.City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen_ 16. Non -Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17.Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18.Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. By: ATTEST: City Clerk VENDOR: By: Title FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: City Manager Quote QT-4295/1 for: Aspen Police Dept. \.� Page 1 of 3 pcs mobile Print Date 06/21/2010 Quote Valid Date 07/10/2010 5:05 am Corporate Headquarters Inside Sales Rep: Mandy Straight 1200 W Mississippi Ave Email: mandys@pcsmobile.com Denver, CO 80223 Phone: 303-552-3957 Email: sales®ocsmobile.com Fax: Customer: Salesperson: Mark Stefanowski Aspen Police Dept. Email: marks@pcsmobile.com 506 E Main St Aspen, CO 81611 Quote Created By: Mark Stefanowski Quotation Line Item Number Description/ Comments Quantity Unit Price Extended Price 1 CF- Processor - Intel Core 2 Duo P8400 26 2120 55120 52GUNBR2B 2.26GHz Vpro. Display - 13.3" XGA Touch screen display , RAM - 2GB. Hard Drive - 160GB. DVD Drive - multi -drive (read and write capable). OS - Windows 7 GOBI wireless modem built in. Bluetooth. Intel Wifi a/b/g/n. Panasonic Preferred Service 3 r Warranty. 2 CF- PANASONIC TOUGHBOOK PROTECTION 26 314.95 8188.7 SVCLTNF4Y PLUS 4 YEARS 3 DS-PAN-401 fully rugged docking for Panasonic CF-52 11 460 5060 Highlander Mounting 4 DS-LOWER-13 GAMBER JOHNSON - 13" LOWER POLE 11 26.1 287.1 5 QADJ-UPPER- QUICK AD] UPPER TUBE ASSY 8" 11 50.75 558.25 M 6 DS-ARM-90 GAMBER JOHNSON - DS-ARM & 0-90 11 91 1001 CLEVIS 7 C-ADP-101 Adapter Plate 11 28.41 312.51 Chevy Colorado Mounting 8 7160-0114 Base mount for Chevy Colorado 3 53.25 159.75 Standard Ext Crew cab no holes 9 DS-LOWER-9 GAMBER JOHNSON - 9" LOWER POLE 3 26.01 78.03 10 QADJ-UPPER- QUICK AD] UPPER TUBE ASSY 8" 3 50.75 152.25 M 11 DS-ARM-90 GAMBER JOHNSON - DS-ARM & 0-90 2 91 182 CLEVIS 12 C-ADP-101 Adapter Plate 3 28.41 85.23 13 APGP530-M- Mag Mount GPS Recviever 11 99 1089 511-9 14 CF-VEB522M CF-52 Desktop Port Re licator 8 254.15 2033.2 sv w.pcsmob fe.com Page 1 Quote QT-4295/1 for: Aspen Police Dept. Page 2 of 3 pics Lime Number mobile - Item Number Description/Comments Quantity Unit Price Extended Price ($) ($) Notes - 2GB RAM PROMO - 2GB of RAM will be provided at no cost for orders by 6/30/2010. www.pcsmo6i1e.Com Page 2 Quote QT-4295/ 1 for: Aspen Police Dept. Page 3 of 3 pcs mobiles Terms and Conditions Portable Computer Systems, Inc., dba: PCS Mobile Standard Reseller: Terms and Conditions 1. Contract Terms. These Terms and Conditions are attached to and made a part of a "Quote" for resale of products ("Products") provided by Portable Computer Systems, Inc., dba: PCS Mobile ("PCS") to the buyer named therein ("Buyer"); and all further references herein to "this Agreement" mean the Quote, including these Terms and Conditions. Upon acceptance of this Agreement by Buyer, the provisions of this Agreement constitute a binding contract between PCS and Buyer. This Agreement shall be accepted by Buyer upon either receipt from Buyer of any written communication confirming this Agreement or acceptance by Buyer of Products shipped by PCS pursuant to this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all prior communications relating to the Products covered by this Agreement, and any contrary or supplemental provisions in any Buyer purchase order or other communication from Buyer are specifically rejected. 2. Payment. Payment for the Products shall be in US dollars as stated in this Agreement. Unless stated otherwise, prices stated in this Agreement do not include any state or local sale, use or other taxes or assessments or freight charges (beyond delivery by PCS to common carrier), all of which shall be paid by Buyer. A service charge of 1.5% per month will be charged on all past due balances and will be due on demand. All PCS costs of collection, including reasonable attorney's fees, shall be paid by Buyer. Buyer grants PCS a security interest (and the right to file UCC financing statements) in the Products to secure payment of all amounts due. If Buyer fails to make any payment when due, PCS shall have the right to revoke any credit extended, regarding the Products or otherwise, to delay or cancel any or all future deliveries without liability to Buyer. The obligation of PCS to deliver Products shall terminate without notice upon filing of any bankruptcy proceeding by or against Buyer or appointment of any trustee for Buyer or any of its assets. Under no circumstances may Buyer set off against amounts due PCS pursuant to this Agreement any claim Buyer may have against PCS for any reason. 3. Shipment. Delivery of all Products shall be F.O.B. place of shipment by or for PCS, unless otherwise agreed in writing. PCS reserves the right to select the means of shipment, point of shipment and routing. Delivery will be deemed complete upon transfer of possession of Products to common tamer as described above, whereupon all risk of loss, damage or destruction to the Products shall pass to Buyer. 4. Acceptance of Products; Returns. All Products shall be deemed accepted by Buyer unless Buyer notifies PCS in writing within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of Products of any short shipment, wrong -product shipment, damaged Products or similar discrepancies. Once accepted by Buyer, Products may be returned only with authorization from PCS, in the sole discretion of PCS; and in no case will returns be considered more than thirty (30) days after delivery to Buyer. If accepted for return Products will be subject to a 20% restocking fee. 5. Warranties. PCS makes no representation with regard to Products of any kind or nature, express or implied, including any warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purposes, or usage of trade. Products are covered by manufacturer's warranty only. Copies of manufacturer's warranty will be provided to Buyer upon written request. PCS assigns to Buyer all warranties on the Products accepted by Buyer; and PCS shall have no obligation relating to processing claims there under, though PCS may assist Buyer therewith at the sole option of PCS. 6. Limitation on Liability. In no event shall PCS be liable for any claims for loss of use, revenue, profit or customer, or any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages of any kind or nature arising out of, or connected with the Products, the use thereof, or the sale thereof by PCS to Buyer. Further, Buyer agrees to indemnify and defend PCS from any such claims. 7. Force Maieure. PCS shall not be liable for any delay or failure to perform any obligation of PCS under this Agreement that is caused by events of force majeure, including without limitation strikes, riots, casualties, acts of God, war, governmental action or other cause beyond the reasonable control of PCS. 8. Miscellaneous. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between PCS and Buyer regarding the Products, and may not be modified except by written agreement signed by the party to be charged with the modification. Buyer's rights under this Agreement may not be assigned without the written consent of PCS. If any provision of this Agreement shall become invalid or illegal under any provision of applicable law, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. This Agreement shall be binding upon both PCS and Buyer, and their respective successors and assigns. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Colorado. www.pcsmobiie.com Page 3 �Pi MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk THRU: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk RE: Board Appointment Kids First Advisory Board I have attached Lynn Rumbaugh's application for the Kids First Advisory Board. Council generally makes these appointments without interviewing. If you would prefer to interview Lynn, let me know. By adopting the consent calendar, Council is appointing Lynn Rumbaugh to the Kids First Advisory Board. APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OR COMMISSIONS NAME: STREET ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS: Lynn Rumbaugh 083 Grouse Lane I' • : 6Y:E3SPA HOME PHONE / FAX: 925-6241 WORK PHONE / FAX: 920-5038 BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE: Child Care Advisory Committee — Kids First Advisory Board EMPLOYMENT PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: City of Aspen STREET ADDRESS PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: 834 Vine Street INVESTMENTS AND/OR LAND HOLDINGS IN PITKIN COUNTY: Deed restricted housing @ 083 Grouse Lane, Snowmass Village I DESIRE THE APPOINTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: As the mother of a young child who is in a child care program, I have a strong interest in quality options for working parents and their children. SIGNATURE: LeaKK A6rur6au# DATE: 06/07/2010 Please return to City of Aspen — Kids First Phone: 920-5363, Fax: 920-5407 215 North Garmisch, Suite 1, Aspen, CO 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Aspen International Mountain Foundation THRU: Sally Spaulding, Community Relations DATE OF MEMO: June 25, 2009 MEETING DATE: June 28, 2009 RE: Mountain Partnership Membership REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Support application for Aspen to officially join the Mountain Partnership, a voluntary alliance dedicated to improving the lives of mountain people and protecting mountain environments around the world. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None. BACKGROUND: The Aspen International Mountain Foundation (AIMF) along with Douglas Maguire, a coordinator of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), would like the City of Aspen to become the first American governmental entity to join as a member of the Mountain Partnership. (www.mountainpartnershin.org) The Mountain Partnership is a voluntary alliance of partners dedicated to improving the lives of mountain people and protecting mountain environments around the world. The application for membership is simple and requires no funding from the City. This issue is time sensitive because the application must be reviewed and approved by Mountain Partnership members around the globe in time to announce membership at the Wheeler during the Mountain Summit Film Festival, August 26-29. The Mountain Partnership has the direct involvement of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), is hosted by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and is partly funded by the governments of Italy and Switzerland. The Mountain Partnership membership is comprised of 50 countries (currently excluding the US), 16 intergovernmental organizations and over 100 major NGOs. The City of Aspen will make an ideal member because of its leadership in alpine environmental and sustainable programs and for setting a worldwide example for the economic viability of renewable energy. Page 1 of 2 This is a superb opportunity for the City to forge partnerships with member countries, cities and organizations around the world. Membership will stimulate sharing of diverse resources, knowledge and expertise and most importantly, help bring about positive change in our mountain environments. The AIMF has been working since 1995 to support and instigate local and international efforts to improve mountain environments, promote sustainability and public dialog. Karinjo DeVore from AIMF will be at the meeting on 6/28 to answer any additional questions you may have. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: None. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: No negative impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff to pursue application process in conjunction with AIMF. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO.�11' (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE GIVEN INSTITUTE WHEREAS, The City of Aspen has been informed that The Given Institute, located in Aspen and owned by the Regents of the University of Colorado, is proposed to be demolished in October 2010, and sold for residential development; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and other citizens have urged City Council to take action towards preventing the loss of the facility as a community asset; and WHEREAS, City Council recognizes that Aspen has an over 60 year long standing tradition, initiated by Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke, as a location for thinkers, leaders, artists, and musicians from all over the world to join together in a setting that feeds the "Mind, Body, and Spirit." Organizations like the Aspen Music Festival (1949), Aspen Institute (1950), Aspen Center for Physics (1962) and The Given Institute (1972) are strongly tied to the town's identity; and WHEREAS, The Given Institute building was designed by Harry Weese, a prominent modernist American architect. Weese practiced primarily in Chicago and the Midwest, but also lived part-time in Aspen. His commission to design The Given Institute fits in to a broader context of a "who's who" of modern architecture that began in Aspen in 1945; and WHEREAS, integration of non-profit and community facilities throughout the West End neighborhood adds enormous vitality to Aspen. The value of the property as a publically owned asset, with important cultural and natural significance, including the only remaining public overlook adjacent to the Hallam Lake Nature preserve, cannot be replaced. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council commits to take immediate action to establish an on -going dialogue with the University of Colorado with the intention to support them in achieving their goals for sale of the property, without damage to the community's history and interests. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on June 28, 2010. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor John Worcester, City Attorney MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council 0jW FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Silver Lining Ranch Conversion to Single -Family Residence o SPA Amendment o Rezoning to Rural Residential Zoning 1" Reading of Ordinance No. 1±, Series 2010. 2°d Reading scheduled for July 12th DATE: June 28, 2010 SUMMARY: The Silver Lining Ranch is currently a non- profit facility to help kids with cancer and similar afflictions. The operation is known as the Little Star Foundation or the Kids Stuff Foundation. The operation was relocated out of Aspen in 2006. The applicant proposes changing the use of the building to a single- family residence, with components of the non-profit allowed for up to 5 years. Minor physical changes are proposed to the 18,000 square foot building (14,000 FAR) to accommodate this new use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the proposal does not meet the standards of review. Staff recommends denial. P&Z COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Commission approved growth management reviews and a special review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The P&Z recommended, by a unanimous vote, City Council approve an amendment to the Specially Planned Area to accommodate this conversion and a rezoning of the property to the Rural Residential Zone District. The rezoning would be delayed to accommodate the five-year continued non-profit use. Aerial Photo: Silver Lining Ranch — the high water line separates the Academic zone at left and the Conservation zone at right. APPLICANT /OWNER: Owner — Little Star Foundation, Andrea Jaeger. Contract Purchaser — KAT Ranch, LLC. REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LOCATION: Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch, commonly known as the Silver Lining Ranch —1490 Ute Avenue. CURRENT ZONING: Academic and Conservation with a Specially Planned Area overlay — (A-C-SPA) 1 LAND USE REQUESTS' reviewing the following single-family residence: The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council will be land use actions for the conversion of the Silver Lining Ranch to a • Rezoning of the upper bench of the property from Academic to Rural Residential and removal of the SPA Overlay five years after approval by City Council. The application shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. • Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment to allow for the conversion to a single-family house with an allowable Floor Area of 14,000 square feet and the dimensions of the existing structure. The application shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. • Growth Management Review for the Demolition of Multi-Familv Housing for the demolition and replacement of three on -site affordable housing units. The application has been approved with conditions by the Planning and Zoning Commission. • Growth Management Review for a change -in -use for the conversion of an essential public facility to a single-family residence. The application has been approved with conditions by the Planning and Zoning Commission. • Special Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit attached to the main residence The application has been approved with conditions by the Planning and Zoning Commission. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to amend the Specially Planned Area approvals in order to convert the existing Silver Lining Ranch building into a single-family home. There would remain the potential for the Foundation to continue to use the property for up to five years in the same manner as currently permitted. The existing structure is approximately 18,000 gross square feet, with slightly less than 14,000 square feet as Floor Area (the remainder is exempt space). The conversion would involve some interior reworking, but the existing structure would be reused and exist more or less in the same configuration as today. Dimensions for this property are set through an SPA plan, but were set in light of the Foundation use. The SPA plan needs to be amended to allow the existing dimensions to continue for a single-family house. The building currently includes three affordable housing units. These units are rental units for employees of the Foundation and were not designed or expected to be occupied by others. The units have not been occupied since the Foundation moved its operation to southern Colorado. The application proposes to remove these units and provide a cash -in -lieu payment. 2 The applicant requested a Special Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be attached to the main house. ADUs which meet all the design standards are allowed by right. ADUs not meeting one or more of the design standards require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This review was approved by the Commission. The conversion also requires two Growth Management approvals. A change -in -use approval allows the use to convert from an essential public facility to a residence. The demolition of multi -family housing review ensures the community does not experience a loss of affordable housing through redevelopment. Both these reviews were approved by the Commission. BACKGROUND: The Silver Lining Ranch, located at 1490 Ute Avenue, is also known as Lot #5 of the Stillwater Subdivision. The Subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1994 and included 6 residential lots and 1 open space parcel. Lot 1 became the Stillwater affordable housing project. Lots 2, 3, 4 and 6 are free market residential lots. Lot 5, the subject property, was originally planned as a residential lot but was then given by Fabi Benedict to Andrea Jaeger to run a non-profit foundation to assist children with cancer. Lot 5 is the only development parcel accessed from Ute Avenue. All other parcels are on the other side of the Roaring Fork River and access from Highway 82. In 1996, the owner of Lot 5, the Little Star Foundation, submitted a petition to annex Lot 5 into the City of Aspen. The Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance 10 (1997) annexing the property to the City of Aspen, and Ordinance 11 (1997) zoning Lot 5 Academic/Conservation/SPA and granting final approvals for the development of the Silver Lining Ranch. The approvals allowed for the operation of a non-profit kids camp for children with cancer and similar afflictions to be directed by Andrea Jaeger. Lot 5 is the only lot of the subdivision lying within the City. The remaining lots are all in Pitkin County. The property was zoned a combination of Conservation, along the lower bench and the riparian areas, and Academic, along the upper bench and where the building is located. The property was also zoned with a Specially Planned Area overlay that proscribes the allowable dimensions and the types and intensities of allowed uses. The SPA approval anticipated approximately 20 children and their family members using the facility, along with approximately 12 staff and medical personnel. Usage was limited to no more than 14 week long sessions per year. In addition, the City permitted approximately 15 to 20 special events per year, ranging from celebrations to dinners, award ceremonies, meetings, fund raising activities and non-profit medical events that would be open to community members. The Little Star Foundation operated programs at the Silver Lining Ranch from 1999, when the building was completed, until 2006. The property has had limited occupancy since that time, and the Foundation has been trying to sell the property so that the proceeds can be used to fund its charitable mission. 3 In 2007, the Foundation applied to the City of Aspen to "de -annex" (disconnect) the property from the City. It was expected that the disconnection would permit the property to be converted to a single-family home in the County. Planning staff recommended against this request. The City Council denied the request after considering the non-profit/institutional use of the property an important community resource which would be sacrificed with a conversion to a single family residence. In 2008, the Jewish Chabad of Aspen entered into a contract to purchase the property for use as a Jewish Community Center. An application was filed to amend the approvals to allow for the JCC. The application was viewed favorably by the City, replicating (in very general terms) the use profile of the Little Star Foundation and fulfilling the desire for a non-profit or institutional use to remain at the site. The JCC application was controversial with neighbors concerned about traffic impacts and with owners in the Stillwater Subdivision. The JCC application eventually gained approval from City Council in 2009, but the Chabad encountered some legal obstacles with the Stillwater Subdivision Home Owners Association. Ultimately, the Chabad decided not to pursue purchase of the property and abandoned ideas for a JCC at this site. The property is now under a purchase contract with KAT Ranch, LLC. This new owner proposes to convert the property to a single-family residence with the Foundation's ability to continue programming on the property for the next five years. NOTE oNSPAs. An Specially Planned Area (SPA) is just like a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in that allowable dimensions for a property are set through a review process except that SPA includes the ability to specify the types and intensities of allowable uses. The Silver Lining Ranch SPA sets the dimensions for the building as well as very specific limitations on the number and types of activities that can occur. NOTE oN PROTECTIVE COVENANTS: Many properties in Aspen (and around the country) are encumbered by private covenants. These can range from simple agreements regarding a shared fence to very sophisticated agreements describing architectural style and review processes. Like zoning, covenants run with the land but are only enforceable by the parties within the agreement. Private covenants are not typically enforceable by local government. Disputes over the meaning, affect, or enforcement of a protective covenant are handled by the parties within the agreement and, if need be, resolved in civil court. The City of Aspen is not party to the Stillwater Protective Covenants and is not in a position to interpret, implement, change or enforce the terms and conditions of the agreement. As with any property, the City does have an obligation to interpret, implement, and enforce the Land Use Code. This describes allowances and limitations on the intensity and character of land use, building sizes and setbacks, mitigation of impacts, and proscribes certain processes for 0 reviewing proposed changes. On occasion, the City's rules and regulations on a property conflict with how the property is regulated through a private covenant. Neither the City nor the holders of the private covenant are expected or obligated to change their rules and regulations to accommodate the other. Yes, this can lead to a `stalemate' of sorts which could need to be resolved by a court. The City could choose to `fix' the stalemate by changing its zoning just as the holders of a private covenant could choose to provide a fix. But the City does not have an obli ation to change zoning in light of private covenants. The City Attorney's Office can delve further into this topic at the request of the Council. STAFF ANALYSIS: AMENDMENT TO THE SPA An amendment to the SPA is needed to allow the existing building and its dimensions to be permitted for a single-family residence. There are eight standards of review to consider for the amendment to the SPA. Standard one speaks to the proposals compatibility with the surrounding land uses. Staff does not believe that a single-family home here is more compatible or an enhancement to the neighborhood. However, a single-family home is not incompatible with the area. Staff finds that this criterion is met. The second standard concerns the capacity and availability of public facilities. This standard is met. Standards three and four deal with the developability of the parcel and the suitability of the proposed development with respect to view planes, environmental concerns, etc. Staff believes these standards are met. Standard five asks whether the development is compatible with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The AACP does not address, directly, the conversion of an essential public facility to a single-family residence. However, both the Economic Sustainability chapter and the Arts, Culture and Education chapter of the AACP speak to the importance of non-profit and cultural institutions as a cornerstone of the Aspen community, its vibrant international profile, and its future as a unique place to live, work and play. Excerpts of these sections of the AACP are attached as Exhibit C. Staff believes the conversion of existing community assets, essential public facilities, non-profit institutions, etc. to large single-family residences is in direct contravention to the philosophy section of the Arts, Culture and Education chapter and the intent section of the Economic Sustainability chapter of the AACP. Staff does not believe this proposal is in compliance with the AACP. Furthermore, Aspen is experiencing a period where various cultural and non-profit institutions are contemplating leveraging their assets to sustain their mission. This could mean an erosion of the foundational underpinning of the Aspen Idea to accommodate short-term economic conditions. This is not in the long-term best interests of the community. 0 Standard six addresses the expenditure of public funds to accommodate the proposal. No public funds are expected to be needed and staff believes this standard is met. Standard seven addresses development on slopes and this standard is met. Standard eight addresses growth management allotments for the use and this standard is met through compliance with the related reviews that are required for this conversion. STAFF ANALYSIS: REZONING An amendment to the Zoning Map is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission — it was not part of the original application. If the conversion to a single-family home is approved, this rezoning would significantly reduce future confusion over old SPA requirements. The proposal is to rezone the property to Rural Residential (RR) Zone and remove the SPA Overlay. This would be effective five years after City Council approval, allowing dual -use of the property (single-family and Foundation use) in the interim. There are nine standards of review to consider for the rezoning. Standard one asks if the rezoning would create any conflicts with other provisions of the Land Use Code. The existing building is larger than a house can be within the RR Zone and this would represent the creation of a non -conformity. The structure must either be resized to fit the zoning, the structure be officially recognized as a legally -created non -conforming structure, or the property be granted a Floor Area variance. Staff and the Commission recommend City Council recognize the structure as a legally -created non -conforming structure. This will allow the current structure to continue but will require a substantial redevelopment be brought into compliance. This differs from a variance which would allow the property to maintain the same Floor Area even through redevelopment. With specific language in the Ordinance recognizing the non -conformity, staff believes this standard is met. Standard two addresses the AACP. Staff believes that is if the Council approves the SPA Amendment and allows the conversion of this property that the rezoning should take place. This become largely a matter of clean-up, and provides clarity around the disposition of the old SPA. Staff believes that if City Council approves the conversion that this criterion is met. If City Council does not approve the conversion, then Staff finds no need for the rezoning and finds this criterion unmet. Standard three speaks to the proposal's compatibility with the surrounding land uses. Staff does not believe that a single-family home here is more compatible or an enhancement to the neighborhood. However, a single-family home is not incompatible with the area. Staff finds that this criterion is met. Standard four addresses the effects of the zoning change on traffic generation and road safety. Staff believes this change would reduce traffic demand on this road; however, the change may be negligible compared with the Foundation's use. Staff finds this standard met. 1.1 Standard five asks about the availability and sufficiency of public facilities and infrastructure. The property has fully developed public infrastructure and staff believes this standard is met. Standard six asks if the change would result in significant adverse effects on the natural environment. The property is already developed with modern infrastructure and is set -back significantly from the river. Staff believes the zoning change would have no effect on the natural environment. Standard seven asks if the change would be consistent and compatible with the community character. Staff believes this too hinges in the conversion discussion. There is nothing incompatible with a single-family home on this property — it was originally planned for a home and it would be in -line with the neighborhood. Staff believes that this standard is met if the conversion is approved. Standard eight asks if there have been circumstances that may support this change. Staff does agree, in part, with the Planning Commission that the Jewish Community Center application was a very good effort along the lines of the City's desire for the property to remain in non-profit or community use. That effort was thorough yet unsuccessful. The Aspen Club Living project was also approved recently after a long discussion about off -site impacts (among other issues). However, opportunities for non-profit uses in Aspen can be fleeting and staff does not believe that the JCC experience or the recent approval of the Aspen Club project necessitates a zoning change to this property. There have been changes in the immediate surroundings, but staff does not believe standard eight is met unless the conversion is approved. If City Council approves the conversion, staff believes the conversion itself is a changed circumstance that necessitates the rezoning. The last standard number nine asks if the change would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. While staff does not support the conversion, the rezoning of the property would not conflict or be inharmonious with the Land Use Code. Staff believes standard nine is met. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 in support of the application, approving the four P&Z reviews and recommending in favor of the fifth review Council is considering. The Commission also recommended that after the 5-year period of dual use (single-family and non- profit use) that the SPA be vacated and the property be rezoned to the Rural Residential Zone. The Commission felt that the Foundation use was a good -faith effort on everyone's behalf and that the failure of the use at this location should not hamstring the property and should not handicap the Foundation's efforts elsewhere. The property was originally planned as a single- family house. The Commission felt that the property was never intended to be a community asset like a library or a community pool — it was a non-profit facility built for a specific cause. The Commission felt as though a reversion mechanism should have been a part of the 7 Foundation's original approvals allowing for this conversion back to a single-family house in the event of today's circumstance. The Commission also felt that the City's desire to maintain a non-profit / community use at this site had been tried. The Jewish Community Center was approved by the City after a long series of meetings, but eventually the Center decided not to pursue the approval. The Commission believes the arduous process and the Stillwater HOA legal complexities combine to render the prospect for another community / non-profit use stepping forward next to nil. Lastly, the commission felt that if this property is to convert to a single-family house, the SPA Overlay should be terminated and the property rezoned to a single-family zone. This will "clean" the property and remove old references to shuttle services, special events, and the like. A delayed rezoning to the RR Zone would allow the property to be used as both a single-family house and as the Foundation has used the property for the next five years. Staff agrees. If the property is to revert to a single-family home, the property's entitlements should be corrected to reflect the actual use. Regarding the size of the existing structure, the Commission suggests the existing building be considered a legally -created non -conforming structure upon rezoning. This will allow the current structure to continue although technically larger than the RR zoning would allow. The non -conforming status would need to be corrected upon a substantial redevelopment of the property and any replacement house be brought into the size allowances for the RR Zone. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends the CiV Council adopt the proposed Ordinance on first reading and set the public hearing for July 12 , 2010. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 1 1, Series of 2010, on first reading." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — P&Z Minutes and Resolution Exhibit B — Review standards from Land Use Code • SPA Amendment • Rezoning Exhibit C — Excerpts from the Aspen Area Community Plan Exhibit D — Application ORDINANCE NO. � (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA APPROVALS AND REZONING TO THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE SILVER LINING RANCH, LOCATED ON LOT 5 OF THE STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION,1490 UTE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2735-184-06-805 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Little Star Foundation, LLC, owner of the property and KAT Ranch, LLC, contract purchaser of the property, both represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, to convert the existing Silver Lining Ranch to a single-family residence; and, WHEREAS, the property is the Silver Lining Ranch, located on Lot No. 5 of the Stillwater Subdivision and is more commonly known as 1490 Ute Avenue originally approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, as a non-profit facility to assist children with cancer and similar afflictions within a structure of approximately 18,000 square feet (roughly 14,000 of Floor Area) with three affordable housing units to serve employees of the operation; and, WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to convert the existing structure to a single-family residence with the ability for the Little Star Foundation to continue using the facility for up to five years in the same non-profit manner as currently allowed; and, WHEREAS, conversion of the property to a single-family residence requires an amendment to the Specially Planned Area approval, approval for the demolition of affordable housing, approval for a change -in -use, and approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be attached to the main residence; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the subject application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the application finding that the application did not meet the standards of review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the applicant of the past and current condition of the property and the non-profit organization, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the change -in -use, special review, and demolition of affordable housing, and recommended in favor of the amendment to the SPA approval by a five Ordinance No. _, Series of 2010 Page I to zero (5-0) vote with conditions and a recommendation for rezoning as outlined in P&Z Resolution Number 11, Series 2010; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Amendment to the SPA Approvals City Council hereby approves the amendment to the Specially Planned Area approvals for Lot No. 5, Stillwater Subdivision, as follows: 1. In addition to the uses permitted on this property approved through Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, (the "Foundation use") this property may also be used as a single-family residence including all necessary physical changes to affect and implement this change. The permitted dimensions for the property shall be those described in Ordinance 11, Series of 1997. 2. Foundation use may continue simultaneously with the single-family use for up to five (5) years after the effective date of the City Council ordinance allowing this change. After the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the City Council ordinance, the Foundation use shall no longer be permitted unless otherwise extended by the City. A conservation easement shall be placed on the lower bench of the property over the area currently zoned Conservation. The easement shall run to the benefit of an accredited land trust recognized by the State of Colorado. The easement shall be deemed acceptable as to form by the City Attorney prior to recording. The recorded easement shall be exhibited in the SPA Amendment Agreement. 4. An SPA Amendment Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of City Council approval and prior to acceptance of a building permit for the conversion. The agreement shall terminate the SPA plan on the day five years after the effective date if this ordinance, concurrent with the effective date of rezoning to the RR Zone District. A new plat is not required. Ordinance No. , Series of 2010 Page 2 Section 2: Rezoning of the Property to Rural Residential Upon five years after the effective date of this Ordinance, the Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be amended by the Community Development Director to reflect Lot No. 5 of the Stillwater Subdivision, commonly known as the Silver Lining Ranch, as included in the Rural Residential (RR) Zone District without the Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay. Section 3: Legally Established Nonconforming Structure Physically nonconforming aspects of the current structure compared with the RR Zone shall be considered legally -established and able to continue for the life of the structure. Subsequent redevelopment of the property shall be accomplished in conformance with the Rural Residential Zone District allowances and limitations and Chapter 26.312 — Nonconformities — of the Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. Section 4: Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: Existing Litigation This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site -specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site -specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice Ordinance No. , Series of 2010 Page 3 advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lot No. 5, Stillwater Subdivision. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 8: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 12s day of July, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28th day of June, 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor day of 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance No. —, Series of 2010 Page 4 City Plannine & Zonine Meetine — Minutes — May 18, 2010 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (05/04/10): Ir4cwb a Silver Linine Ranch 91490 Ute Ave, Chanee in Use a���� Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for the Silver Lining Ranch — Change in Use. Chris Bendon noted for the record that the notice, publication and mailing posted from the planner Mitch Haas. Jim True explained at the last meeting Jasmine had brought up the fact that Jasmine had worked in the past with Ed Zasacky who was the listing broker for this property and he didn't know if he was just being overly cautious but we have given this thought and as he explored this outside of what Jasmine's past relationship with Mr. Zasacky is and the fact that there is no present relationship and certainly no direct or indirect financial potential gain on this project with Jasmine. True said with further evaluation I don't think that there would be a conflict to our code; it's something we tend to defer to a member if he or she feels that there is such a relationship that there may be an appearance of impropriety but I don't think there's a direct conflict here that would mandate recusal on Jasmine's part. True said what we felt after discussion and he did discuss it with the attorneys for the applicant and attorney for the current owner, that are the co - applicants to this project that we felt it was best to defer to Jasmine as to whether what was best for the code. Cliff Weiss said that Ed Zasacky was his campaign manager in 2001. Jasmine said that she wanted to bring up during Commissioner Comments some things that were important to P&Z at that time. Jennifer Hall stated no comments. Rick Neiley said that he represents Andrea Jaeger was the current owner of the Little Star foundation and had no objection and the original land use application is worth consideration by this board and saw no reason for a conflict. Chris Bendon stated this is a public hearing for the specially planned area (SPA) for Silver Lining Ranch regarding the conversion of a property into a single family residence. Bendon reviewed the history of the property located at the end of Ute Avenue, described as Lot 5 of the Stillwater Subdivision. The subdivision was approved in the county by the BOCC and consists of 6 residential parcels and 1 open space parcel. This is the only lot that is located in the city the other 5 lots are located in the county. Lot 1 of the Stillwater became the affordable housing project; lots 2, 3, 4 & 6 are free market residential lots. This Lot 5 was given from Fabi Benedict to Andrea Jaeger for Andrea to run a non-profit organization to assist children with cancer. This is the only parcel in this subdivision that is accessed from Ute Avenue and is south of the river. 1996 Andrea Jaeger, the Little Star Foundation, requested annexation into the city of Aspen and Council approved the annexation along with development of the Silver Lining Ranch; approvals K City Plannine & Zonine Meeting —Minutes —May 18, 2010 allowed a non-profit kids camp for children with cancer run by Andrea Jaeger. The property is zoned a combination of Conservation along the lower bench of the property and the building is on the upper bench with an SPA overlay and this overlay prescribes the allowable dimensions and types of uses. Bendon said that an SPA is like a PUD except that you have the ability to tailor the uses and specific use to the property. The Little Star Foundation operated on the property from 1999 when the building was completed until 2006; since then the property has had little usage and they were trying to sell the property so the proceeds from the sale could be used to fund the charitable mission. The operation moved to Southern Colorado. In 2007 the Foundation applied to the City to de -annex or disconnect the property from the City; City Council denied that request considering the non- profit institutional use of the property as an important community resource. In 2008 the Chabad entered into a contract to purchase the property and use the property as a Jewish Community Center and there was an application to amend the JCC; the application was very controversial with the neighbors with traffic impacts and with owners in the Stillwater Subdivision. The application gained approval from City Council and the JCC encountered some legal obstacles with Stillwater Subdivision HOA and decided not to purchase the property. Bendon said the property is now under purchase contract with KAT Ranch LLC and the proposal is to convert the property to a single family residence with the Foundation's ability to continue to programming on the property for up to 5 years. Bendon described the property as having an upper bench and a lower bench; the upper bench is where the building is located and the lower bench is more riparian in nature probably within the 100 year flood plain and only used for outdoor programming and there weren't any structures of any substance on the lower bench. There was split zoning the upper bench was zoned academic and the lower bench was conservation with an SPA overlay. Bendon said that protective covenants were very common and were agreements that run with the property and enforceable only by the parties within the agreements. Bert Myrin asked if they approve tonight this would move forward to Council. Bendon replied there are 4 approvals requested and the SPA plan needs to be amended that is a recommendation to City Council. Bendon said the following conclude at P&Z the request to replace affordable housing on site; Special Review to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be attached to the main house and a Growth Management conversion for a Change in Use. Bendon said the proposal was to convert the structure into a single family and to remain the potential for the Foundation to continue to use the property for up to 5 years in the same manner as currently permitted. Bendon said the gross square footage of the N City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 existing structure was in the neighborhood of 18,000; roughly 14,000 is counted as floor area; there are certain exemptions to attributable floor area so there's an FAR of 14,000 and a gross square footage of 18,000. Bendon said there would be some interior reworking of the structure to accommodate a single family house use but the structure would remain as you see it today. Bendon said the SPA sets out the dimensions and accommodates this use within the zoning; that's the amendment that would happen. Multi -family replacement addresses the 3 affordable housing units on site that are requested to be removed from the property. The ADU is a Special Review; ADUs that meet all of the City design standards can be approved administratively; those that do not meet all of those standards can be approved by P&Z through this Special Review process; one of the design standards is that it is detached from the main residence so P&Z sees all ADUs that are attached. The last is a Change in Use Review in Growth Management for the allotments. Bendon stated that the standards of review were within multi -family replacement; the first standard sets out 2 options for compliance units being affected by affordable housing by demolition; this is not applicable. The second standard is specifically for the demolition of affordable housing and says that you can demolish affordable housing and the replacement housing can be in any form as long as you are housing the same number of employees. Bendon said the City didn't see the affordable housing as being categorically incompatible with the zoning or physical make up of this site; staff did not feel that this standard was met. The next standard deals with a cash -in -lieu timeframe for affordable housing; there are no actual units proposed for replacement so we don't find the application meets the standard. The next standard asks the City and the applicant to enter into an agreement regarding the replacement units while there is no draft agreement regarding the replacement units and the City doesn't see any hesitation from the applicant providing such an agreement. The redevelopment credits standard is compliant and they are not requesting any exemptions from the program. Bendon said the next review is the amendment to the SPA. Standard # 1 speaks to the proposal and the compatibility with surrounding land uses and this area is often characterized as a single type of land use. Bendon noted there were quite a variety of land uses in this area; single family, multi -family, free-market housing, affordable housing, commercial development, a recreation facility and a lodging property. Staff is not really of the position to say that a single family house is incompatible in the area; there are single family houses in the area. Standard #2 deals with the capacity of public facility; standards 43 and 44 deal with the develop 5 City Plannine & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 ability of the parcel and the suitability for proposed development and staff believes that these standards 3 & 4 are met. Standard #5 talks about the development and compatibility with the Aspen Area Community Plan and staff finds that the project is not in compliance with the AACP (attached as exhibit Q. Bendon said the big concern with non-compliance with the AACP is that they are in a period where institutions, for profit businesses are doing the same thing; their assets need to be leveraged to pursue their mission and at peripheral perspective and it sounds like a great thing but staff is concerned about how that translates to institutions within Aspen. Staff was concerned about setting a precedent for that being the way you leverage your assets to pursue your mission. Bendon said that eventually eroding some of the foundation of the Aspen Idea. Bendon said the Change in Use review Standard #1 deals with allotments, more of an accounting procedural and there wasn't an issue there. Standard #2 talks about the AACP and did not find the proposal in compliance with the AACP. Standard 43 asks that application conform to the zoning limitations that would be cured by the amendment to the SPA so staff finds if the SPA is approved then standard would be met. Standard #4 deals with the HPC approval and is not applicable. Standard #5 deals with housing mitigation and there is no additional housing or employees generated or housing that is necessary by this change in use. Standard #6 is the physical design on affordable housing and is not applicable. Standard #7 deals with public infrastructure and that is met. Bendon stated there is a requested approval for affordable housing because no affordable housing is being proposed either on site or off site and we don't feel that this review applies to this application. Bendon said the last review Special Review is for an accessory dwelling unit to be attached to the main unit. There are 3 criteria for this review; the 1" asks if the ADU promotes the overall purpose of the ADU program, the purposes of this zone district and general livability of the ADU itself; we don't have plans of the ADU itself so it's kind of tough to review its livability. Bendon said that staff doesn't categorically conflict with the purposes of the ADU program, it's a matter of design but an attached ADU can be very much in line with the purposes of the ADU program. Bendon said that the purpose of the Academic Zone District is to bolster education and academic activities in Aspen and permit housing; ADU doesn't necessarily fit within that purpose statement directly. Bendon said since the main residence was rather sizeable the ADU would be met fairly easily. Bendon noted the ADU be City Plannine & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 compatible with the neighborhood and staff believed it would be compatible with the neighborhood. Bendon said there were a number of reviews that the proposal was not in compliance with and emailed an amendment to the Commission. Bendon summarized the amendment asks P&Z to accept a credit for affordable housing based on the program that was most recently adopted that allows for a developer to build affordable housing unrelated to this application to receive a certificate from the City that is a transferrable credit and a developer who is required to provide affordable housing mitigation can use that credit to satisfy their housing mitigation. Cliff Weiss asked if that was Peter Fornell's . Bendon replied that he thought that the applicant was under contract to purchase those credits but he would let Mitch speak to that potential mitigation. Bendon said from the amendment the employee housing will be replaced with cash -in -lieu or with actual units through this housing credit program. Bendon said that he would imagine that the applicant is in a position where because Peter Fornell's project was just approved that in order for Peter to receive the certificate from the City he needs to build the project and have it fully Certificate of Occupancy and then someone could exchange the certificate to satisfy their housing mitigation; there was a timing question at a minimum. Bendon was concerned with the amendment because it doesn't necessarily provide for offsite housing; it provides either submission of a certificate or cash -in -lieu. Bendon said the housing replacement is provided with cash -in -lieu and not with actual housing so if the standards require actual housing then it's not satisfied with actual housing. Cliff Weiss asked about the calculation of cash -in -lieu on page 11 of the packet and so if there was a cash -in -lieu payment it would be $1,160,813.75, correct. Bendon replied mostly, the discussion with housing happened before the application came in for planning review so housing was looking at 6'/a FTEs and in a more generic format how would they treat someone who needs to mitigate 6.25 FTEs what would the cash -in -lieu be and would they accept cash -in -lieu on exchange for these units. Bendon said unfortunately they did not consider the standards of review that P&Z has. The housing standards of review are different than P&Z's but they weren't aware of that standard that it had to be with actual units. Mitch Haas said that $1,160,813.75 was a minimum; it wasn't going down. Weiss asked if there was a detached unit on this property. Bendon replied that Chabad had proposed a detached unit on this property. Haas said there was a 300 square foot pool house. 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 Jasmine Tygre asked about the Stillwater private covenants prohibits affordable housing and Lot 1 Stillwater is all affordable housing; is that considered a separate homeowners association. Rick Neiley explained that at the time Stillwater PUD there were 2 lots that were taken out of the strictly single family use category and those were Lot 1 and Lot 5. Neiley said Lot 5 was being considered tonight and Lot 1 was intended as affordable housing and approved in the county with subsequent litigation by some of the homeowners and to solve that they entered into an agreement which removed Lot 1 from the subdivision. Stan Gibbs asked the zoning before annexation. Bendon replied that it was zoned in the county. Haas said all of the other single family lots are built. Gibbs asked the zoning when Lot 5 wanted to de -annex. Bendon answered that it would have been a request that be forwarded to the county and he didn't know if they got that far; the City's role in the disconnection was to decide whether or not the property should be disconnected; they don't decide how the county should zone it. Weiss said that staff is not opposed to the ADU that it is no longer bolstering education and academic activities. Bendon responded one of the responsibilities is to have is to review the ADU for its livability and we are not able to do that at this time. Weiss asked if the ADU was by right, they can actually add this FAR. Bendon answered in residential zones where you are able to build single family house you can build an ADU by right as long as it meets the design standards one of which is detaching it from the main house. Weiss said there was an 18,000 square foot structure with FAR of 14,000 square feet sp where is the right to add to that. Bendon replied that it wouldn't necessarily be a right to add it and still has to comply with the zoning and the dimensions are set through the SPA; the ADU would have to be incorporated into the structure and not additional FAR. Gibbs said it was included in the structure. Haas said that it was included in the structure with no additional square footage. Myrin asked about the amendment to the SPA the first was that staff was not in a position to say that a single family house was incompatible and he guessed he understood that as neighborhood but as far as size is the size of this one compatible with the other single family homes in the neighborhood. Bendon replied no it was larger than the other single family homes in the neighborhood. Bendon said that in the city staff is used to house sizes much smaller than in the county and this property is accessed off of Ute Avenue. Myrin asked if P&Z was supposed to look at what the neighborhood is toward the city on the Ute Avenue approach or the physical boundary. Bendon answered as a P&Z member you have to set that balance point yourself; the way staff looked at it was not in terms of city/county EV City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 boundary as much as the logistics of the land but look at what is the neighborhood and how it is comprised. Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, representing the contract purchasers of the property as well as the current owners, Kids Stuff Foundation; he introduced Jennifer Hall, Rick Neiley and Andrea Jaeger. Haas said that they have asked to amend the SPA in order to permit the single family structure while having the ability to conduct non-profit programs; they will add the single family residential through a Change in Use approval; proposing off site replacement of the specialized multifamily housing units and discussing allowing an internal Accessory Dwelling Unit through Special Review. Haas said the operational cost associated with running the Silver Lining Ranch on this property have exceeded exceptional means for the Foundation; the Foundation is under a contract to sell the property upon sale of the property the Foundation contemplates being able to afford to run scaled back camps and use the property for less expensive ancillary functions such as fund raisers and special events. Haas said the contract allows for 14 weeks of camps each year for the next 5 years without any payment of rent required. The Foundation is proposing that the property will be used as a single family residence in order for this to occur the SPA needs to be amended to allow for the additional single family use. Haas said they were not requesting a rezoning nor are they asking for the SPA to be replaced by a PUD; upon converting this property to a single family use the property will become a voting member of the HOA subject to all of the applicable covenants and that HOA is fully supportive of this request. Haas said the history of the property is that it was originally approved as a single family residential lot in Pitkin County; the originally owner Fabi Benedict gifted this property to Andrea Jaeger's Kids Stuff Foundation in order for the Foundation to further its mission to assist children with cancer. A lot of time and effort went into working with the City of Aspen to enable the use of Lot 5 as something other than a single family lot, namely a retreat for educational and cultural activities, housing and dormitory uses, healthcare facilities, dining hall and recreational uses. The extraordinary operating costs in Aspen and the altitude was not ideal for children undergoing various medical treatments. There were no deals or assurances made to the City of Aspen that the property would continue in perpetuity as the Silver Lining Ranch furthermore the zoning of the property was not negotiated for the public's benefit; according the public is not being asked to relinquish benefits for which they bargained instead all involved parties, the City, the County, Andrea Jaeger and the Kids Stuff Foundation worked toward a mutual goal in a good faith effort to make Andrea's and Fabi's shared dream a reality. 01 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 Haas said the City did its part by granting the SPA approval and annexing the property; the Kids Stuff Foundation raised a lot of money and constructed the facility on the property. Haas said from 1999 to 2006 the Kids Stuff Foundation, now known as Little Star Foundation, ran weeklong camp sessions for 14 weeks at the Ranch and conducted conferences, meetings, retreats and special events. In 2006 it was determined that it was no longer economically feasible to operate in Aspen and moved their operation to a Ranch in Southern Colorado. Haas said that they tried to sell this property to another non-profit but it always failed; it is necessary that the property be allowed to be used in the original purpose for single family use. Haas said the surrounding lots contain large structures and the intense use of the Aspen Club, the Gant, offices, multi -family housing and heavily used recreational areas such as the Ute Trail. Haas said they feel that this parcel is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan with a single family lot; one of the goals for the AACP was to limit traffic and safety goals for cyclists and automobiles as well. Haas said the applicant is willing to put a conservation easement on the conservation zoned portion of the property. Haas said that there were areas in the building that were affordable housing units intended for occupancy by permanent and temporary staff of the Silver Lining Ranch and were not designed for rental not associated with the operation and were laid out with the intent for employees because you can only get to those units by walking through the building. Haas said the 3 existing units were deed restricted and will be eliminated as part of the conversion to single family use. These units were meant to house 6.25 employees therefore these 6.25 need to be mitigated under the multi -family housing replacement requirements. Haas said with the HOA covenants the AH units will not be allowed on site and therefore can't be implemented. The HOA made it clear that the maximum density permitted on this property once converted to single family residential use is the house itself and one affordable housing unit. Haas said that currently his client is under contact for the purchase 6'/4 FTEs to be delivered from a project at 301 W Hyman Ave; the developer of 301 Hyman is in the process of putting together his building permit application; he hopes to have the project built by February 2011. Haas said if that certification will be acceptable and the preferred mitigation or the applicant proposes paying the appropriate entity the $1,160,815.75 cash -in -lieu immediately. Jennifer Hall, attorney for KAT Ranch, stated they were the purchaser for the property. Hall noted that Mitch was the staff person in 1999 that took on the original review. Hall said the timing of the interior of the building will not be for the 5 years that they have agreed to allow the Foundation to continue its work there 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 in part; they can use those units for the 5 years. Hall said there were many large homes in the Stillwater HOA. Rick Neiley stated from the 1997 approvals several of the employees will be housed on site; the mitigation was specifically addressed to employees of the Foundation. Neiley said the employee mitigation wasn't required but you have to offer replacement to the community and the buyer is willing to ensure that the full amount of the units that were a part of the impacts of this specific use are being made available on a full time permanent basis to the community. Neiley shared the concern for the loss of cultural facility and educational facility in Aspen and they don't view this as a precedent setting property. Neiley said to make this land work in the context of a single family residence with this ancillary use by the Foundation is the only solution and encourage your approval. Andrea Jaeger said that when she started the Foundation in 1998 and they do not charge the families or the hospitals for these programs; the Foundation doesn't charge anything and fund raisers. Jaeger said the goal is still being reached for kids with cancer and their families that are in this community and the community at large. Jaeger said when they built the Ranch they built it to look like a home because they wanted these kids to not see a building that was like a hospital so the whole feel of this building was a home. Jaeger said they have to be there 24/7 with these kids and that was provided for. Weiss said that he was trying to understand the 5 years where you'll have use of the property, so you are potentially running your camp here at the property for kids of the valley or the state or the region. Weiss asked if Andrea would still run the Durango and Aspen Operations. Jaeger replied originally when they set up the Foundation it was to run programs here for kids that have cancer, with kids in the community and help kids who can't possibly get on a plane and they have scholarship programs for long term care. Jaeger said that they would continue on the exact basis of what we they have been approved for and they do not have the financial ability to do that here to maintain the building. Weiss said that they want to maintain some program here. Jaeger replied yes and what's happening is they will be able to use the facility but won't have those costs; they will be able to limit their expenses. Jaeger said they were asking to give these families a chance to go back to the initial goal was in the first place and they were asking to go back to single family. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 11 City Plannine & Zoning Meetin¢ — Minutes —May 18, 2010 1. Cheryl Malcolm Velasquez stated that she was the counsel for the Stillwater Open Space Homeowners Association and was in 100% support of this application and believes it will be a good fit for the neighborhood and fits within the parameters of the covenants. 2. Bill Crimmel said that he was here for the Chabad and worked with the local kids and Denver. Crimmel said some friendly advice is bringing these kids around Aspen is great and good for Aspen. Stan Gibbs closed the public comments portion of the public hearing. Commissioner Comments: Jasmine Tygre agreed with a lot of the points that Mitch and Rick have made in their presentation. Tygre said that she wanted to give her point of view of somebody who was on the commission at the time and particularly the ogress because she didn't think it was appropriate for the neighborhood and voiced concern about what she considered spot zoning. Tygre listened to all of the people who said wonderful things about this application and how much it would be controlled. Tygre said it was never really meant to be a community facility that members of the community would go there and if you look back to the original discussions a lot of them were centering on limiting the amount of public activity; only so many events; only so many sessions; to minimize the impacts to the residents on Ute Avenue. Tygre said that this was a good deed that they were doing; everybody that was involved in it was doing it for the best possible motive and no good deed goes unpunished and that's what P&Z is doing right now. Tygre said that if it wasn't for this particular use this property would have never changed, it would have remained a residential lot. And now after all these years the request is to basically have it revert to what it was originally zoned with the continuing use for 5 years. Tygre said that if P&Z had known they would have made the provision that Mitch brought out that the SPA was created for a very specific purpose and basically the only other than residential that is going to work on this property; why didn't we think ahead and say if anything that happens this reverts back to residential use. Tygre said that sometimes doing things according to the code is right; the reason she brought this up is because if P&Z approves something that is other than land use it will probably cause problems down the road. Tygre said all of these things that we do with good intentions can turn around and bite the P&Z eventually; here is a particularly good example of a project with the best possible motive that has turned out to be a nightmare for the current owner and this is something that nobody intended. Tygre said that what kind of uses can go on the property are contradicting ourselves by wanting this to be a community facility; it was made that for this particular use and now that this use cannot continue in its 12 City Plannin¢ & Zonine Meeting — Minutes — May 18 2010 current form she felt that there was a moral obligation to return it to its underlying zoning. Brian Speck stated that he had the same feeling; this looks like it had great intentions and it has a different outcome. Speck said that he was inclined to approve with conditions some kind of change. Bert Myrin said that this was one of the decisions that he regrets on P&Z from the March 5, 2002 when he asked on the Little Red Ski Haus where he asked about any guarantees to reverting back to single family and Jasmine said that sometimes you have to take a leap of faith and approve things may eventually become single family homes. Myrin voiced concern for this as a process for non -profits or hotels or whatever the business is to transition to single family homes. Myrin requested a process to address staffs concerns and his as well that creates some certainty to facilitate non -profits to make this transition so that there is not a multiple catch 22 that seems to be going on. Myrin said he did not know what that certainty of expectations is; whether it is returning it to the raw land and that was what he saw different with this application; we are not only asking the land to change but we are asking a building to continue and that is where he has the most difficulty. Myrin said that he supports staff concerns on a lot of issues but wants to see a process by which this can be done and not a dead end. Jennifer Hall asked a code process. Myrin said that there was not a clear process and as a community we need a process to create some certainty. Weiss stated that he was completely in support of this approval and add a recommendation that the city accept the cash -in -lieu rather than the complexity of the Fornell, 301 Hyman. Weiss said the $1,160815.75 for Housing was a windfall and he bought their argument that this was never to be part of APCHAs housing stock. Weiss said that applications come to P&Z where code doesn't quite cut it and the commissioners have to adjudicate these things; code certainly has trapped the applicant and the buyer; they tried everything they could with Chabad and he voted against it and a lot of the reasons had to do with traffic. Weiss said that he was in support of this. Stan Gibbs said that he had some concerns with this and he understands there is a lot of benefit for a lot of areas of the community and the Foundation to go forward with this. Gibbs agreed with the concept that there really wasn't any affordable housing per se committed to the community; the housing was done for staff so he agreed that it wasn't relevant to this issue. Gibbs said the difficulty was the SPA and the process bothers him and he would like to see the property revert to a single 13 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 family house and zoned properly for single family housing. Gibbs said this was an academic zoning and there were no uses for single family houses in academic so he was having a hard time approving a house in an academic zone and he wished the application came forward to zone this residential and somehow make the house conform or ask for a variance so there were issues for him that were unpalatable. Gibbs said he wasn't sure that he could dismiss this in this one instance and treat this in such a special way. Gibbs said he knows this is a Specially Planned Area but he now believes the SPA doesn't exist anymore; after 5 years essentially will be just a house and he is struggling with this issue. Gibbs said that maybe down the road we get another application that really addresses this issue head on so that's where he is coming from. Weiss said that they could make a recommendation that the SPA goes back to Council so his question to Stan was what zone do you believe this should be; what is the rest of Stillwater. Gibbs replied that Stillwater was County and it has to be City and the most generous from the perspective FAR, a rural character so Rural/Residential; if we were to go forward and make a recommendation that he would like to see that the zoning changed to make this conform. Gibbs said that he did not like creating non -conforming that have no rational basis in the code. Myrin supported what Stan said on the zoning and would like to know from staff if that's a viable option that would carry forward and succeed at Council. Bendon replied that he didn't know if he could answer all of that; there is a benefit of cleaning this property head to toe if the use is being expunged then the SPA should be expunged. Bendon said that was from a different perspective than the landowner might have; a lot of times we look at these as blank slates and the last 50 years of stuff is wiped away; there is certainly an upside of cleaning the property and probably have the applicant speak to the logistics of what it means to them currently here today going forward. Haas stated he wanted to explain what they didn't go that way; they looked at this property and the overall goal; how do we get there. Haas said that they looked at the zoning, academic underlying zoning in this case is real zoning is a dimensional standard set by the SPA and the uses allowed by the SPA. Haas said the proposal included keeping the non-profit for a while. Jennifer Hall said that she and her client spoke extensively on this issue and one of the things about the not continued use and they have the 5 years in there and that agreement has been entered into with her client and Andrea. Hall said that decision was important to him that there be the ability to have some non- profit use on this property so he has never proposed extinguishing it entirely. Hall said her client does recognize that he has a problem with the HOA next door as far as them saying the only use allowed is Andrea Jaeger and is hopeful in the future that he would be able to work that out and he thinks that he is in a position to do it. 14 City Plannine & Zoning Meeting —Minutes —May 18, 2010 Haas said that they are trying to amend the SPA to allow both uses; they are not getting rid of the approved uses. Hall stated that her client knows that he has to come back in for anything changed outside the 14 weeks or anything like that and realizes that he would have to come back and get P&Z approval and realizes that he would have to negotiate an agreement with the neighbors; there is a philanthropic element that is extremely important and one of the reasons that this was proposed with an extremely unique relationship and a decision between 2 parties and there was a lot more than just the technical rules. Haas said the structure was built to look residential, hide itself into a hillside and berm. Haas asked if it was really a good idea to tear it down to build something smaller or use what was already there by remodeling it on the inside. Hall said that when the structure becomes unusable her client would agree to a lesser square footage; the use is an important issue. Hall said that her client felt a need for a philanthropic element and he is comfortable with 5 years with Andrea and was something that he would like to explore. Jaeger stated that they don't charge for their programs, they have to fund raise for it. Jaeger said they went through Council with a signed contract in 2006 for a non-profit but what this is a single family with the ability for the non-profit to exist. Jaeger said the reason they built the Silver Lining Ranch was because they were staying in hotels with all of the kids and in the event of snowstorms by the time they got back to the hotels from the closed airport because of snow the rooms were already booked to someone else; so they were stranded and putting kids in private homes. Jaeger said that they didn't foresee that kids with cancer that are too sick to go to college they go off of their parent's insurance and they have no more insurance and now the Foundation provides a college scholarship program. Jaeger said the person that is in this application has helped these kids and is very community orientated. Gibbs said that they were looking at all the angles. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting to 7:15 pm, seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor, Approved. Weiss asked if this was going to be a single family home or is this going to be 5 years or maybe beyond a non-profit. Hall responded that it will be a single family home in 5 years; the owner intends to remodel so that it can be occupied as a single family home. Weiss said his fellow commissioners were concerned with the underlying zoning and they could convert the underlying zoning in 5 years and make this recommendation to Council. Weiss said that Lot 5 should become RR Zoning. 15 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 Myrin said what was bothering him was the exit strategy and there should be a process for a non-profit to close using ACES as an example. Weiss said that right now he wanted to deal with this application. Speck agreed to deal with this application; in the future we can take steps to change the process in the future. Gibbs asked if they could make a recommendation to City Council that this go forward with a zoning change. Bendon replied that P&Z has the jurisdiction to say that but if that recommendation is made it must be noticed for the potential rezone; it could be something that could be cured at Council since there is another step at Council. Bendon said it could be rezoned with a delayed effective date; rezone the property in 2015. Jaeger said that they were not interested after 5 years. Gibbs said that he keeps hearing both sides; we can't afford to operate in Aspen but we want to maintain an operation and he wanted to see clarity on this; the clarity is that they offered to extend for 5 years and he didn't have a problem with that but when it becomes a single family home it should be zoned accordingly so that in the future any decisions that come down are based on the zoning of single family house and not some SPA that doesn't exist anymore because that function is completely gone. Gibbs said that he would not vote for this if there was not some route to take this into a zoning change and he didn't know what that was and he was willing to defer it to Council if the Commission feels that is the right thing to do. Cliff Weiss said he understands the underlying, keeping things clean in terms of zoning and understands the applicant's interest in having the potential of running their program for 5 more years and once it is over it dissolves the SPA and converts to an RR Zone and that is our recommendation to Council. Bert Myrin asked Chris if this were brought back to P&Z with the direction that Stan was heading down as an unwinding process would there be more staff support but he wanted to send something to Council that looks like they have done their homework and we have a plan together. Bendon said there would be more staff support because it is cleaner and the Commission should only worry about your position as a Commission; don't forecast your position as someone else's; don't worry about where staff s coming from or Council might go. Discussion of the motion prior to voting: Myrin voiced concern for the existing structure that doesn't conform with the zoning. Bendon responded there were 3 routes to go there: in 5 years you can require that the structure be amended to fit within the zoning, so they would be taking off so many square feet or that it becomes legally established non -conforming use so that if it is redeveloped it has to conform with the then current zoning or that you grant a variance. Gibbs stated that the 2nd was probably the most reasonable. Jim True said that if you do a 16 City Planning & Zoning Meeting —Minutes —May 18, 2010 variance theory if it is redeveloped it can stay at that size; if you do the legally established non -conforming version if it is redeveloped it has to go back and conform. Bendon stated that the applicant had mentioned a conservation easement on the lower bench. Jasmine Tygre said that she would not discourage the applicant from pursuing the Fornell option and the way it is written now is the cash -in -lieu only. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the meeting until 7:30pm seconded by Brain Speck, All in Favor, Approved. Return to discussion of the motion prior to the vote. Weiss said the only reason that he wanted to separate this out was to clean this up and make it as simple for Council and he feels if they buy into the Fornell deal it precludes someone else from buying it later. Weiss said what he was getting at was that Housing will not get an opportunity for a windfall of cash the way they have right here as easily in the future whereas getting a buyer for Fornell's property they are going to be much more likely than someone dropping $1,1 million plus in housing. Tygre said that she thought that was an option for the applicant, not for P&Z; there is a certain advantage in timeliness for getting a time that's closer to whatever impacts maybe. Tygre said that it would also help Peter Fornell out; she didn't see that it was a bad provision and it was pretty straightforward. True asked Cliff if his motion was the cash -in -lieu. Weiss replied yes. True suggested taking a vote. Discussion continued prior to the vote: Myrin shared a concern that was raised earlier that this being a precedent for other non -profits to leave town and we are providing a path to follow for other non- profits and he questioned whether this is the right path that we want to send everyone on. True said from a legal precedential value it is such a discretionary action; from a political or a personal precedential value that may exist to the extent that people can certainly raise the issue that you did it for them. True said it does exist but from a legal precedential value. Weiss said even if it did set a precedent any other non-profit trying to take this path would be here in front of P&Z and Council in order to take this route. Myrin said and asking the same thing. Weiss said that he did not want to make an example of this application in order to stop. Myrin stated P&Z was doing the opposite they were using this to encourage others. Gibbs asked if it was a matter of making changes to the code that we would like staff to consider that would help us deal with this in the future that would actually put such a process in place. Myrin replied yes. Speck said there's no cookie cutter and that's why we are here; we want a cookie cutter too. Gibbs said to Bert he heard where he was coming from but this situation maybe we are trying to do the very best we can to unwind 17 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 this rationally because this is a situation that we already have dealt with; the city has been dealing with this for 5 years or more. Gibbs said if we look at the future and say that how we will deal with the situations that come up in front of us and try to do it rationally and make some sense out of it; if we have changes to the code maybe we can do it that way. Myrin said there is nothing to rely on but trust and it is the institutional memory that he would like to have Council put on notice to have them give P&Z direction on and he didn't know if we can ask for that in this application or not. Bendon said by the virtue of the topic coming up; another appropriate venue is the AACP and speak to it fairly directly in fact there are provisions that talk about the sustainability of these institutions that we have and insuring their sustainability. Bendon said that this sub -discussion in the minutes. Myrin asked if the rezoning would take effect now. Bendon replied that it would be effective when they passed the ordinance but the rezoning would take effect in 5 years. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution #Hwith conditions and approve the SPA for 5 years, dissolve the SPA at the end of 5 years and convert Lot 5 to a Rural Residential Zone; this is a recommendation to Council that accepts the cash -in -lieu, the applicant can develop an ADU as part of the structure, and there will be a conservation easement on the lower bench; seconded by Brian Speck. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to amend the motion to restore the option of the Fornell Property Affordable Housing Credits Process (as written in the proposal with June 11 2011 date); seconded by Stan Gibbs. Approved 4-1 (Weiss, no). Roll call of Motion and Amendment: Tygre, yes; Weiss, yes; Speck, yes; Myrin, yes; Gibbs, yes. Approved 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (05/04/10): Code Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on the Code Amendment. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to continue the Code Amendment to June I", seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, Approved. Adjourned at 7:45pm Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 11 �k (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AND GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVALS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND A CHANGE IN USE APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE SILVER LINING RANCH TO BE CONVERTED INTO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, LOCATED ON LOT 5 OF THE STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION,1490 UTE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2735-184-06-805 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Little Star Foundation, LLC, owner of the property and KAT Ranch, LLC, contract purchaser of the property, both represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, to convert the existing Silver Lining Ranch to a single-family residence; and, WHEREAS, the property is the Silver Lining Ranch, located on Lot No. 5 of the Stillwater Subdivision and is more commonly known as 1490 Ute Avenue originally approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, as a non-profit facility to assist children with cancer and similar afflictions within a structure of approximately 18,000 square feet (roughly 14,000 of Floor Area) with three affordable housing units to serve employees of the operation; and, WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to convert the existing structure to a single-family residence with the ability for the Little Star Foundation to continue using the facility for up to five years in the same non-profit manner as currently allowed; and, WHEREAS, conversion of the property to a single-family residence requires an amendment to the Specially Planned Area approval, approval for the demolition of affordable housing, approval for a change -in -use, and approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be attached to the main residence; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the subject application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the application finding that the application did not meet the standards of review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the applicant of the past and current condition of the property and the non-profit P&Z Reso No. 11, Series of 2010 Page 1 organization, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the change -in -use, special review, and demolition of affordable housing, and recommended in favor of the amendment to the SPA approval by a five to zero (5-0) vote with conditions and a recommendation for rezoning as outlined in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Recommendation to Amend the SPA The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the amendment to the Specially Planned Area approvals for Lot No. 5, Stillwater Subdivision, as follows: 1. In addition to the uses permitted on this property approved through Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, (the "Foundation use") this property may also be used as a single-family residence including all necessary physical changes to affect and implement this change. The permitted dimensions for the property shall be those described in Ordinance 11, Series of 1997. 2. Foundation use may continue simultaneously with the single-family use for up to five (5) years after the effective date of the City Council ordinance allowing this change. After the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the City Council ordinance, the Foundation use shall no longer be permitted unless otherwise extended by the City. A conservation easement shall be placed on the lower bench of the property over the area currently zoned Conservation. The easement shall run to the benefit of an accredited land trust recognized by the State of Colorado. The easement shall be deemed acceptable as to form by the City Attorney prior to recording. 4. An SPA Amendment Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of City Council approval and prior to acceptance of a building permit for the conversion. A new plat is not required. Section 2: Approval to Develop an ADU Attached to the Main Residence The Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Special Review to permit an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be developed within the existing structure attached to the main residence, with one condition: Prior to issuance of a building permit, Community Development staff shall review the design of the ADU for conformance with the remaining design standards for an ADU. P&Z Reso No. 11, Series of 2010 Page 2 Section 3: Approval to Remove Three Affordable Housing Units The Planning and Zoning Commission approves the removal of three affordable housing units currently incorporated in the existing building, with one condition: 1. Within one (1) calendar week of the effective date of an ordinance granting City Council approval, the applicant shall deposit with the City a cash -in -lieu payment of $1,160,813.75, which payment and any interest accrued shall be immediately available for the City's use in any manner related to the development of affordable housing. If, prior to payment of the fee, the City amends the cash -in -lieu payment schedule the amount due shall be recalculated based on the following calculation: Unit No. Unit Type Category FTEs Housed Payment per FTE (may be amended) 1 2-bedroom Cat 4 2.25 X $134,079 = $301,677.75 1 1-bedroom Cat 3 1.75 X $214,784 = $375,872.00 1 2-bedroom Cat 3 2.25 X $214,784 = $483,264.00 Total Due: $1,160,813.75 The cash -in -lieu money shall be held by the City in a separate account. The City shall return the full sum to the applicant, minus any interest accrued, if a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit in the amount of 6.25 FTEs is provided to the City prior to the close of business on June 2, 2011. If a Certificate is not provided by the close of business on June 2, 2011, the applicant's Certificate option shall expire and the funds shall no longer be refundable to the applicant. The funds may then continue to be used by the City for the development of affordable housing without limitation. Section 4: Approval for a Chance -in -Use The Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Growth Management Review for a Change - in -Use for the conversion of the property from an Essential Public Facility to a Free -Market Residence. The accounting for annual growth allotments shall reflect this change -in -use. Section 5: Recommendation to Rezone the Property The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the City Council consider rezoning this property to the Rural Residential Zone District and terminating the SPA approvals. This should be done concurrent with the expiration of the five-year timeframe of the dual use (single-family and Foundation use) by approving a rezoning of the property with a delayed effective date. This will "clean" the property and enable the property's zoning and its use to be in alignment. The Commission recommends that any non -conforming aspects of the current structure compared with the RR Zone be considered legally -established and able to continue for the life of the structure. This would allow the current structure to continue but require any subsequent redevelopment of the property to be accomplished in conformance with the parameters of the RR Zone. P&Z Reso No. 11, Series of 2010 Page 3 II Section 6• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 7• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 18t' day of May, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: 'Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: ckie Lothian, Deputy City PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Stan Gibbs, Chairman P&Z Reso No. 11, Series of 2010 Page 4 J�- b. Notice re ' ements: Publication, posting and mailing. (See Z26.3O4.06(3)(a),(b), and (c).) review: Section 26.440.0 A) for SPA designation, Section review of developZd in SPA. d. P&Z action: Resolution reco the City Council approval proval with conditions, or disapproval of e SPA. 4. Step Four - Public Hearii Oefore the City Council. a. Purpose: To re 'ew recommendations by PlannX and Zoning Commission and to determine i pplication for final developme Ian meets the standards for PA. /Notirequirements: Requisite notic equirements for adoption of dinance by uncil and publication, ting ZSPA. 0 60(E)(3)(a),(b), ) c.anards of review: ction 26.440esignation, Section 26.440.050 for review: development wi d. City CounX-diriance approving, appr, or disapprov' the SPA. D. Limitad s. A development applicati for a final development plap4all be submitted wZtwo years of the date of ap al of a conceptualdevel ent plan. Unless eanted by the City Co prior to expiration, fail o file such an appl' ion we period shall rend null and void the approv of a conceptual de optpl of a concept development plan shal of constitute final proval for development in a Speciall armed Area (SPA), or p ission to proceed development. Such approval shall onl onstitute authorization to oceed with a develop ent application for a final development an. (Ord. No. 27-2002 §§ 12-15, 2002) 26.440.050 Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). A. General. In the review of a development application fora conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 400, Page 90 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040(B)(2). 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the general reasonableness and suitability of the proposed development, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and Section; provided, however, that in the review of the conceptual development plan, consideration will be given only to the genefal concept for the development, while during the review of the final development plan, detailed evaluation of the specific aspects of the development will be accomplished. B. Variations permitted. The final development plan shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zone district; provided, however, that variations from those requirements may be allowed based on the standards of this Section. Variations may be allowed for the following requirements: open space, minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area ratio, number of off-street parking spaces and uses, and design standards of Chapter 26.410 for streets and related improvements. Any variations allowed shall be specified in the SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan. 26.440.060 A. 1. Contents 0S45plication. The 11 of the develo plan shall includ@`fhe following: a. The general �aplication information required i Proced set forth at Chapter 26.304.030. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 400, Page 91 O, %6' k t 3. An accurate survey map of the real property proposed for amendment. • 26.310.040 Standards of review.UZP%T� In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result insignificantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. 26.310.050 26. 060 Notation of Planning Zoning Commission resolution official zone district ap. Within ten (10) days of whe a Planning and Zoning Commiss' adopts a resolution recommend' approval of a develo nt application for an amendm to the official zone district the Community Deve ment Director shall make a nota ' on the official zone district m o show the pending ame ent. 26.3A070 Recordation of i 16'pf�on the effective date of an a y the City Council approvi a development application for an amendment to the official e district map, the Comm evelopment Director shall notify th City Clerk of the desi ton, who shall record amon real estate records of the Clerk and_ nd rder of Pitkin Coun olorado, a certified copy o e ordinance. The ordinance shall ' ude a legal description e property whose zone dis designation is changed by the dment. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 300, Page 23 G Arts, Culture and Education Intent *Recognize the contribution of the arts, culture and education to the quality of life in Aspen. Support the arts and the cultural community in its efforts to increase awareness of its significance to the future and quality of life in Aspen. ' 04 Philosophy Walter Paepcke helped found Aspen as a unique community where the life-long improvement of mind, body, and spirit became more than a dream. His vision created an enlightened community in which arts, culture, and education provide essential cornerstones of our lifestyle, character, and economy. Today, these cornerstones are increasingly vital to the uniqueness of our community and to our economic and spiritual well being. Therefore, arts, culture, and education are acknowledged as essential to Aspen's thriving year-round economy, its vibrant international profile, and its future as a unique place to live, work, and learn. The City of Aspen will continue to be an innovative leader in arts, culture, and education. It will foster artistic creativity and excellence, promote cultural diversity, and provide continuing learning opportunities. Our city is dedicated to increasing community awareness and dialogue about arts, culture, and education, and to providing access to all residents and visitors of the Roaring Fork Valley. Our philosophy includes the desire to do the following: • Inspire our community to embrace arts, culture, and education as a part of our daily lives where citizens of all ages can think, learn, care, and achieve. • Nurture intellectual and spiritual growth that enriches our lives while challenging our imaginations. • Preserve and build upon our heritage. • Celebrate social and ethnic diversity through arts, culture, and education. • Increase community support for all facets of quality education. • Make educational, cultural, and artistic experiences more accessible for all valley residents. • Develop and cultivate local artists. • Foster artistic, cultural, and educational experiences where artists and audiences interact. • Recognize the extent to which arts, culture, and education strengthen and stabilize our year-round economy. Policies • Support the continued vibrancy of the arts in our community. • Support activities and education for youth. 40 45 r ra Economic Sustainability Intent *Maintain a healthy, vibrant and diversified year-round economy that supports the Aspen area community; to maintain and enhance existing business and cultural entities; and, to support and promote the "Aspen Idea" of "mind, body and spirit." *Enhance the wealth-generating2 capacity of the local economy while minimizing the rate at which cash flows through the local economy ("throughput") and limiting the expansion of the physical size of the community. Philosophy The Aspen community includes full- and part-time citizens. We share our community with a large number of guests. Our economic and business decisions should support and sustain the environment and future generations. They should ensure balance and integration between "Aspen the Resort" and "Aspen the Community." Aspen's economic base is real estate, tourism, arts, and recreation, especially skiing. Retail, lodges, services, professionals, and nonprofit organizations also support and are supported by the resort economy. Essential to long-term viability is the unique, varied, high quality, and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor population. They demand a lively, small-scale downtown with diverse and unique shops and varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges. - Generating wealth involves increasing profits, wages, and savings. 00 Local ownership of business helps maintain our community's unusual character, tends to return more money to the local economy, and provides additional opportunities for upward mobility of working people. Externally -owned businesses can positively affect the community too. For example, some are locally -serving businesses, which should be supported because they make commerce more convenient and strengthen the local economy by causing transactions to take place in the community that otherwise would take place elsewhere (import replacement). Another example: some externally -owned businesses are locally -involved. They contribute volunteers, cash, and in -kind support to community and nonprofit activities. The community and its governments should support local ownership as well as externally - owned businesses that are locally -serving and locally -involved. A vibrant economy requires positive working relationships between people and institutions, especially between the private and public sectors. Therefore, we must foster mutual respect, civility, and friendship, and continually improve our capacity to work together for the common good. A sustainable community's economy can get better without getting bigger. The economy and local businesses strengthen their positions, not by continually increasing throughput but by maximizing benefit and profit with existing throughput. 31 MEMORANDUM G j TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Aspen Valley Hospital — Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road) Final Planned Unit Development, Phase II 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 12 (Series 2010) — Public Hearing MEETING DATE: June 28, 2010 GENERAL BACKGROUND: The hospital received conceptual approval for their master plan in 2009. This approval included their overall program, massing, and their phasing plan. The phasing plan anticipated four phases of redevelopment and requires each phase to receive final approval. The Applicant is requesting Final PUD approval and associated land use approvals for Phase II of the subject application, consistent with the conceptual approval. SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report addresses the questions raised at the June 7t" second reading. It contains the following: • A summary of the issues raised from the second reading with additional information provided by Staff and the Applicant; • Staff recommendation & motion; • A revised ordinance; and • The bulk of the memo from May 10f" for reference. Reminder: During first reading, certain issues were raised that are outside the scope of the City Council's adopted standards of review within the Land Use Code. Although these issues may deserve some public vetting, a more appropriate forum to discuss these matters would be through public meetings conducted by the Hospital Board. Please be aware that by broaching these topics, City Council could potentially exceed its jurisdiction and meet the definition of an abuse of authority by debating these issues. Even if the final decision references the review standards, the discussion will create a record that implies the decision was based on factors other than the standards of review and will significantly impair the City's position if the matter is ever subjected to legal scrutiny. Staff recommends City Council limit their review of the Hospital's land use application to the standards of review to which the application is subject and not focus upon issues outside of their purview. RESPONSE TO SECOND READING QUESTIONS: At the June 71h second reading on Phase II of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan, the City Council raised a number of issues that they asked be addressed in further detail at the continued public hearing on June 281h. Page 1 of 14 1. Lighting. Staff Response: At the last meeting on the hospital application, part of the discussion focused on lighting issues. The hospital discussed strategies that it proposes to mitigate the impacts of lighting inclusive of automated shades on hospital windows, using opaque glass in some areas of the hospital and screening exterior decks as well as adding elements above windows on the affordable housing component to limit the impacts of interior lighting. With regard to lighting standards, the city has adopted regulations that limit outdoor lighting, not interior lighting so the Applicant is currently exceeding the city's adopted lighting standards by addressing interior lighting impacts. Essentially the city's standards focus on full -cut-off light fixtures, parking area standards, and less restrictive lighting for light fixtures that are less than twelve feet in height. 2. Noise. Staff Response: The Applicant will be discussing the noise analysis that it has undertaken as well as provide a list of mechanicals at the hearing. The city has a noise ordinance in place that is administered by the Environmental Health department. The hospital is required not to exceed maximum noise levels adopted for residential zone districts as the hospital campus is adjacent to residential uses. From 7.00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. generated sound may not exceed 60 dBA and drops to 55 dBA at all other hours. 3. Parking. Staff Response: The Applicant has provided a table as part of Exhibit O of this memo. Essentially, a traffic study conducted by consultants for the Applicant determined that the hospital/medical office space, not including affordable housing or Whitcomb Terrace, needs approximately 422 parking spaces to support these functions. However, the consultant also took into account multi -modal transportation opportunities and reduced this projection. The Applicant is currently proposing a total of 362 parking spaces at the end of Phase IV, inclusive of parking for Whitcomb Terrace and the affordable housing. At the end of Phase 11, the campus will be over parked with a total of 425 spaces but this number will be reduced at the completion of each subsequent phase of development. 4) Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). Staff Response: There has been some discussion and assessment as to whether there is an opportunity to locate a CCRC in the valley. According to Frank Mandy of New Life Management and Development, Inc., a 10-12 acre site is ideal. With regard to using the existing Whitcomb Terrace facility, Mr. Mandy does not believe that it is suitable for redevelopment. Even with demolition of the existing facility, he does not believe there is enough buildable ground for a CCRC. 5. Affordable Housing. Staff Response: The Applicant will be discussing mass and scale issues and any changes to the affordable housing component since the June 7`h hearing at the June 28`h hearing. With regard to rental requirements, most of the affordable housing units are required to be rented under Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority's (APCHA) guidelines: six month minimum leases and if a unit is vacant for 45 days, the unit shall be opened up to the general public. APCHA has granted the hospital an exemption from these requirements for six of the units, recognizing that the hospital often hires employees for a thirteen week rotation. Page 2 of 14 6. Medical Office. Staff Response: The Applicant will go into greater detail on the medical office at the June 28`h hearing. 7. Landscaping. Staff Response: The Applicant has included an updated landscape plan as part of Exhibit O and will go into greater detail on these proposed features at the June 281h hearing. Waiver of Impact Fees. The Applicant has requested waiver of certain impact fees associated with the project. Based on the 22 units of affordable housing that was originally proposed the fees that should be assessed are outlined in the following table with the bold numbers being the requested waiver: Parks Development Impact Fee TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee Medical office space 49,200.00 Waived per Conceptual approval Affordable housing 90,351.60 10,159.20 Total $139,551.60 $10,159.20 Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that a Parks Development Impact Fee and a TDM/Air Qualityfee be paid. Unless the Applicant is paying for trail/park improvements that are not associated with the redevelopment of the site Staff does not believe the fee should be waived. Staff does not believe the TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee should be waived. Both of the impact fees represent the Applicant's proportionate share of impacts to maintain city infrastructure at its current level of service. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP in providing an essential public facility within the city near transit and trails and provides affordable housing. The refined design of the project uses a palette of materials and provides a good design for the institutional use. The overall size and design of the hospital is consistent with the conceptual approval granted. Staff recommends approval of the Final PUD application for Phase II although the waiver of the impact fees will need to be resolved. Council may use the following motion to approve Phase II, "I move to approve Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2010, with conditions, Final PUD and related land use reviews associated with Phase 1I of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS' (ANY EXHIBITS INCLUDED WITH THIS MEMO ARE IN BOLD FONT) EXHIBIT A — Planned Unit Development Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10, 6/7/10 & 6/28/10) EXHIBIT B— Growth Management Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10, 6/7/10 & 6/28/10) Page 3 of 14 EXHIBIT C—Amendment to the Official Zone District Map Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10, 6/7/10 & 6/28/10) EXHIBIT D—Subdivision Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10, 6/7/10 & 6/28/10) EXHIBIT E— Referral Agency Comments (provided 5/10/10) EXHIBIT F — P&Z Resolution No. 8 (Series of 2010) (provided 5110110) EXHIBIT G—P&Z minutes (3/2/10, 3/16/10 and 4/6/10) (provided 5/10/10) EXHIBIT H — Letter from Resource Engineering Group dated April 6, 2010 (provided 5110110) EXHIBIT I— Updated Transportation Demand Management plan (April 2010) (provided 5/10/10) EXHIBIT J -Public comment from: Peter Yang (4/5/10), Nancy Hall (3/31/10), John Goodwyne (3/31/10), Dorothy and Harold Thau (3/31/10), and David Ducote (4/4/10) (provided 5/10/10) EXHIBIT K—Application (provided 5/10/10) EXHIBIT L— Public comment from Bob Purvis (5/26/10), Aspen Orthopaedic Associates (5/26/10) (provided 6/7/10) EXHIBIT M —Supplemental letter from Applicant's representative: Leslie Lamont (5/25/10) (provided 6/7/10) EXHIBIT - Public comment from: Bobbie Burkley (6/3/10); Mark Lewis (6/4/10); Pete Yang (6/4/10); Jordan Rodgers (6/4/10); Gibby & B.J. Forster (6/7/10); J. Stevens Ayers D.O., Gregory Balko, MD, Catherine Bernard, MD, Scott Gallagher, MD, John Glismann, MD, J. Christopher Martinez, MD (6/3/10); Bill Rodman, MD, John Schultz, MD, Mindy Nagle, MD, Tosha Knight, MD, Gail King, MD, Jason Martin, MD (5/26/10) (provided 6/7/10) EXHIBIT O - Supplemental letter from Applicant's representative: Leslie Lamont (6/15/10) EXHIBIT P - Memo from Cindy Christensen, APCHA (6/2/10) EXHIBIT Q - Public Comment from Nancy Tate Hall Body of the May 10, 2010 staff memo: GENERAL BACKGROUND: Aspen Valley Hospital received Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for the redevelopment of the hospital campus via Resolution No. 3 (Series of 2009) in May of 2009. Conceptually, the approval provided for the redevelopment and expansion of the hospital, the addition of medical office space, site improvements including a parking garage and, at the urging of Council, on -site affordable housing. The master facilities plan anticipated four phases of redevelopment and each phase is required to receive final PUD approval prior to commencement of the subject phase. The first phase was completed under previous approvals and encompassed the remodel and expansion of the birthing center while Phase II includes: an expansion of the hospital, development of medical office space, construction of a parking garage, building of affordable housing and extensive site work. For the review of Phase II, staff is recommending the following meeting schedule and discussion: May 10, 2010: Approve ordinance on first reading and schedule second reading (the public hearing) for June 7, 2010 June 7, 2010: Project Overview: Recap of operational needs, program, industry trends, phasing, conceptual approval granted, provide opportunity for council to ask questions or for additional information Page 4 of 14 June 28, 2010: Phase II Detail: site improvements, hospital expansion, medical office space, employee housing, housekeeping items, conditions of approval July 12, 2010: Additional meeting if necessary LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals of City Council to undertake Phase II of the redevelopment and expansion of the hospital site: • Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility with the development of the hospital pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470,090 (4). (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the development of a site specific development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). Amendment to the Official Zone District Mau for the designation of a PUD overlay on the parcel, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). The Planni%and Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed the application on March 2nd, March 14`h and April 6` . The minutes from these meetings are attached as Exhibit G. The Applicant received the following approvals from the Commission: Growth Management Review approval for Affordable Housing, Growth Management Review approval for Expansion or New Commercial Development, Conditional Use Review approval for the development of affordable housing on the site, pursuant to Resolution 8, Series 2010 (Exhibit F). Additionally, the Commission made recommendations on the Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, Subdivision, and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD). Final PUD review before the City Council is the fourth step in a four step review process. Conceptual PUD review for the entire proposal, steps one and two, was granted via Resolution No. 3 (series of 2009) by City Council. Once Final PUD review is undertaken by the Planning Commission (step 3), the City Council conducts a final review of the application at a public hearing. As noted in the application, the Applicant is proposing redevelopment in four (4) phases to maintain existing operations throughout the redevelopment and will be requesting Final PUD approval for each phase prior to the start of the subject phase. The Applicant is taking into account a twenty year program life cycle with an anticipated 2016 build -out timeline. Page 5of14 PHASE II PROJECT SUMMARY: The focus of the proposal is on Parcel C of the campus, where the hospital, senior center/assisted living (Whitcomb Terrace), ambulance barn, heli-pad and the hospital CEO's residence is located. Parcel A of the campus includes the Schultz building and Mountain Oaks employee housing. Parcel C contains approximately 19.1 acres or 832,085 square feet. The Applicant is requesting approval for Phase II of the master facilities plan in which specific improvements are proposed on the site. Phase II includes a two story addition to the existing hospital, development of the on -site affordable housing, a three level parking garage, partial construction of the loop service road as well as access improvements to the site, drainage and utility improvements, trail realignment, and RFTA bus stop improvements. Specific programming improvements are also itemized below: Basement programming — a second loading and receiving area as well as food service receiving. First floor programming — 27 patient care rooms, nuclear medicine, relocated food service (including dining area), reception area, central plant additions, gift shop, 4 intensive care unit rooms, cardiopulmonary, and same day surgery. Second floor programming — cardiac rehabilitation and physical therapy, specialty clinics, oncology, administration offices, and medical offices. Phase II also includes — construction of 22 affordable housing units, a preliminary consideration for the expansion of Whitcomb Terrace, a three level parking garage (capacity 210 spaces), partial construction of the loop service road, water line expansion, access improvements to the site, meadow/drainage improvements, realignment of the Nordic trail, partial reconfiguration of the visitor parking lot and RFTA bus stop improvements. 1 ri I \ m�o , Figure 1: Subject Site, Existing Conditions Figure 2: Subject Site, Phase II Conditions Page 6 of 14 The following table compares the conceptual approval and the proposed development for the site and the buildings on the campus. Table 1: Conceptual Approval and Gross Square Feet of Development w/New Square Foota e as Pro ose in Phase II Conceptual Phase I Phase TI - Phase Phase IV New Total at Approval (proposed in III build out (sq. ft.) Final PUD) Existing 75,700 75,700 75,700 Sq. Ft. Sub -basement 1,489 1,489 Basement 24,558 0 10,094 10,671 3,813 24,578 Level(Hospital) Level One 63,194 5,721 18,856 32,715 6,128 63,420 (Hospital) Level Two 28,043 0 20,977 4,724 0 25,701 (Hospital) Level Two 22,600 0 12,000 15,000 0 27,000 (Medical Office Sub -Total 214,5 81,421 63,416 63,110 9,941 217,888 Affordable 18-22 Units 0 22 units 0 0 22 Units Housing (no sq. ft., 20,500 sq. ft. 20,500 sq. ft. defined) Whitcomb 10 units 0 8,000 8,000 Terrace (no sq. ft. defined) Total 214,095 81,421 91,916 63,110 9,941 246,388 Notes: 1) According to Conceptual PUD approval, Full Build -out Building Footprint Approximate Area 130,750 sq. ft. 2) According to Conceptual PUD approval, Proposed Parking Structure Approximate Area of Footprint 26,233 sq. ft. 3) The net increase to gross square footage due to final Phase II = 3,793 square feet. Which includes the following areas of increase (in square feet): • 1,489 - sub -basement was missed in conceptual review 2,058 - level two increase 226 - level one increase in Phase II • 20 - basement in Phase II CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL: Following are conditions of approval within the Conceptual PUD approval that involve requested revision and consideration. How the Applicant is incorporating the request into Phase Page 7 of 14 II is outlined after the condition. Certain topics are covered in greater detail under subsequent sections of the memo that discuss the land use reviews applicable to the proposal. Overall Building Size Uses, Architecture and Site Design. The Conceptual PUD approval requested that the aesthetic of the parking garage be further evaluated and that the affordable housing design be less auto -centric. Staff Comment: The overall building size, uses, architecture and site design are similar to those conceptually approved. To minimize the visual impact of the parking garage it is sunk into the topography and the precast concrete that is exposed is wrapped with a wood composite screen to soften its visual impact. The garage will be fierther screened from Castle Creek Road by the affordable housing. The original affordable housing conceptually showed the units facing a parking lot. To move away from an auto -centric design, the 22 affordable housing units now face an open green area with vehicular access proposed along the perimeter of the housing and some parking provided in the parking garage and adjacent to the green. Both the lattice work on the garage and additional landscaping will assist in screening the structure. The amended design of the affordable housing presented to the Commission is a significant improvement from the initial conceptual renderings and meet the expectations of the conceptual approval. Green Technologies. The Conceptual PUD approval requested continued collaboration to explore ways to incorporate "green technologies" into the project and to encourage transit usage by employees of the facility. Staff Comment. The Applicant is intending to seek LEED certification and has hired Resource Engineering Group (REG) to work with city departments on ways to incorporate "green" technologies into the project. AVH team members, including REG, met with city staff to discuss what utility and mechanical techniques are being proposed. The energy measures discussed thus far are included as Exhibit H. Overall, the hospital anticipates meeting adopted development codes and improving the efficiency of the building, resulting in a slight decrease in overall energy use. It is important to note that the hospital's requirement is to work in collaboration with the city and is not to achieve a specific energy usage. AVH has met this condition. Employee Generation and Mitigation. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined the employee generation rate to be used for the medical office space and also permitted the use of employee credits for voluntary housing that the hospital owns. It also required each application for a phase of development to include actual generation rates from the completion of the previous phase. Staff Comment: As outlined in the application, existing affordable housing (Beaumont, Mountain Oaks, and CEO residence) provide housing for 57 employees. This number was confirmed at conceptual approval. The twenty-two new on -site affordable housing units house thirty-four (34.5) employees with a mix of studio and one bedroom units. According to the Applicant Phase 1 did not generate any new employees. The Applicant has provided the required information for Phase 11. Nordic Trail Location. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that any final realignment needed to be in conjunction with adjacent neighbors and the Parks department. Page 8 of 14 Staff Comment: The Applicant has been working with the Parks Department, as well as close neighbors to minimize any rerouting of the existing Nordic Trail and is meeting this condition. Drainage and Snow Storage. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that continued work on resolving drainage and snow storage issues should be worked out with city departments to minimize operational conflicts with trail users. Staff Comment: Since Conceptual PUD approval, the Applicant has been working with the Parks and Engineering Departments to design a snow and drainage retention system that meets city standards and minimizes any conflicts between snow moving vehicles and trail users. The Applicant is meeting this condition. RFTA Bus Stop Refinements. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that certain improvements with regard to bus queuing and turning radiuses be refined as well as improvements occur during Phase II. Staff Comment: Phase H will include improvements to the RFTA bus stop. The Applicant has been working with representatives from RFTA, the Transportation department, and Engineering department to develop an improvement plan that addresses bus and pedestrian needs/safety. Recently, the groups met and agreed on certain improvements for the bus stop outlined under Planned Unit DevelopmMt. The improvements will occur during Phase II. The Applicant is meeting this condition. Trail Improvements. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that trail improvements should be proposed during Phase 11 to minimize multi -modal conflicts and that the Parks department be involved. Staff Comment: The Applicant has been working with the Parks Department on minimizing pedestrian/auto conflict on the Castle Creek trail. Some rerouting has been proposed to minimize crossing conflicts. The Applicant is meeting this condition. Castle Creek Road Trail Crossing Improvements. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that the Applicant work with city departments on trail crossing improvements and be responsible for a proportionate share of the improvements. Staff Comment: The Applicant is proposing speed tables on either side of the crossing with a slight change in alignment of the crossing. Enhanced lighting and signage will be installed. With the realignment of the street crossing, some realignment of the trail from Castle Creek Road to the bus stop is necessary. Additionally, an easement from the property owner of Castle Ridge is necessary to accommodate the proposed realignment. If an easement is not acquired, the crossing will not be realigned; however, speed tables and a hand operated crossing signal will be installed. The Applicant is meeting this condition. Hiahway82/Roundabout and Cemetery Lane Intersections. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that the Applicant provide a proportionate financial contribution to any projects at these two intersections. Page 9 of 14 Staff Comment: Staff and the Applicant are currently discussing resolution of this requirement and intend to have a proposal for council to consider during their review of the project. Currently, there are no capital improvements proposed for either the Cemetery Lane intersection or the roundabout, so language will be included in the approving ordinance with regard to a future financial contribution. Castle Creek Road Elevation. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that the Applicant research less impactful measures compared to raising the elevation of Castle Creek Road. Staff Comment: With additional study and refinement, the Applicant has designed the site so that the raising the elevation of Castle Creek is no longer necessary. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that the Applicant develop a TDM program. Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided a detailed Transportation Demand Management plan that has been reviewed by the Transportation department and deemed acceptable. The plan is included as Exhibit I The Applicant currently has a number of existing programs in place but commits to expand the TDM plan in Phase II by adding an additional van, providing a Car To Go parking space, adding bicycle racks, as well as other infrastructure improvements. The Applicant is meeting this condition. Subdivision Platting and PUD Documents. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that the Applicant will remove some outdated easements and placeholders on the original subdivision plat with the recordation of a new plat. Staff Comment: During the plat recordation process for Phase II the plats will remove the 100 foot wide pedestrian, bicycle and road easement along Castle Creek. Appropriately sized snow storage/drainage and trail easements will be recorded. Also, the placeholder for the affordable housing will be removed and replaced with an accurate footprint of the proposed affordable housing. In the same vein, a conceptual placeholder for the Whitcomb Terrace expansion will be recorded on the plat. Finally, a discrepancy in the boundary survey will be resolved to the benefit of adjacent neighbors in the Meadowood subdivision. The Applicant will meet this condition. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Development within the Public zone district requires approval of a conceptual and final PUD through the PUD process. The Applicant is requesting final PUD approval for Phase II of the hospital's master facilities plan. Phase II is proposed with certain specific improvements and reflects additional refinement in the site planning and programming of the lot. As noted previously in the memo, Phase 11 includes: expansion and remodel of the hospital function, development of medical office space, development of affordable housing as well as site improvements such the a parking garage, trail improvements, bus stop improvements, drainage improvements and partial construction of the loop service road. PUD Review covers a broad spectrum of criteria that are used in considering the application including consistency with the AACP, consistency with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area, site design, landscape design, architectural character, etcetera. Page 10 of 14 Staff Comment: Overall the massing, expansion and site improvements of the hospital facility proposed for Phase H are similar to the Conceptual PUD approval. Minor changes have occurred in some of the numbers that have been granted from Conceptual PUD approval. Specifically, a gross increase of 3,793 sq. ft. is proposed or an approximate. 06 increase in size. Approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of this is sub -grade space. Additionally, the hospital was approved for 22,600 sq. ft. of net leasable space in the Conceptual approval, however, upon further refinement of the design the Applicant is requesting 27, 000 sq. ft. or an increase of 4,400 square feet. The hospital facility's architecture and design fits within the neighborhood characteristics and overall, the site plan focuses the redevelopment on the southerly portion of the parcel. The following comments, as they relate site planning are provided. RFTA bus stop: The Applicant has proposed certain improvements to the bus stop to improve circulation for both the busses and pedestrians. Additional direction for these improvements has been agreed upon by the Applicant and a number of referral agencies. These refinements include: • Change the angle of the taper coming into the bus stop to accommodate the 18 "-24" overhang so that buses are not encroaching on the sidewalk. • Have the traffic engineer review the reduced length of the deceleration lane along Castle Creek at the entry to AVH to make sure that this is acceptable from a vehicle safety perspective. • Soften the radius from Castle Creek into the hospital to reduce vehicular conflict at this intersection — consider removing additional trees to ensure that site lines are adequate and safe. • Add a shoulder on the south side of the AVH road between Doolittle Drive and Castle Creek — hold all planting in this area back to provide for site distances. • Evaluate impacts to the existing detention basin between Doolittle Drive and Castle Creek and redesign as required to accommodate drainage/snow storage in this area. As noted earlier, certain improvements are proposed for the actual crossing within Castle Creek Road. There are two design options proposed: one design anticipates an easement being granted by the property owner of Castle Ridge while the other does not. Work is ongoing in trying to secure an easement. On -site affordable housing units: The Applicant is proposing twenty-two affordable housing units that are studio and one bedroom units These buildings are clustered around an open green with a service drive around the housing to accommodate parking (12 spaces) and access to the garages. Additional parking is comprised of 8 parking garage stalls as well as some surface short term parking. The cluster of buildings appear as two story or three story elements as viewed from Castle Creek Road or from the interior of the lot and the heights range from 24 to 36 feet depending on the location of the measurement. To minimize potential visual impacts, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the exterior siding and trim of the affordable housing units be finished in a color palette dominated by neutral and/or natural tones. Additionally, the P&Z recommended that the hospital install landscape screening of the Affordable Housing (AH) buildings from Castle Creek Road. With regard to design, the Commission stated that the building orientation is appropriate for the site. Garage location along the "rear" of the units meets the intent of the residential design Page 11 of 14 standards. The covered porch elements and entryways facing the "greenspace " are appropriate and meet the residential design standards with regard to providing a street oriented entrance, principal window and first story element. The Commission did request that the ceiling and window heights of the living area of the upper units be designed for high volume space allowing for multiple non -orthogonal windows resulting in nicer views and livability. Parkinggarage: Conceptual PUD approval provided parking for 339 spaces, this included a mix of garage and surface parking; however it did not consider any future expansion of Whitcomb Terrace or the affordable housing units. The current proposal includes a parking garage capacity of 210 spaces. This is less than originally proposed but with additional on -site parking for the housing component the overall number of parking spaces on the site has increased to an expected total of 361 at the end of Phase IV. The parking garage takes advantage of the natural sloping topography and is mostly sunken into the site. Screening of the concrete by a lattice material and landscaping is proposed. In reviewing the PUD portion of the application, Staff finds that the proposal meets the applicable PUD review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.445.050, Review Standards, Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD. Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan as outlined in Exhibit A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS: The Applicant is requesting of City Council one Growth Management approval for the Development of an Essential Public Facility. City Council approves this review based upon a recommendation of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Community Development Director. The hospital function on the campus meets the definition of an Essential Public Facility, which is "a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by or benefit of the general public and serves the needs of the community." City Council has the authority to "assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation" of the Essential Public Facility; however, the hospital is not requesting a waiver of affordable housing mitigation. During Conceptual PUD approval, City Council granted an affordable housing credit of 57 Full -Time Equivalents (FTEs) by assessing the actual people housed in affordable housing the hospital owns and operates (Mountain Oaks, Beaumont, CEO residence). The proposed on -site affordable housing will house 34.5 employees for a total number of employees housed equaling 91.5. As noted in the Application, Phase I of the hospital redevelopment did not generate any employees. It is estimated that with Phase II, 19.7 new employees will be generated. The 12,000 sq. ft. of new medical office space in Phase II is calculated to generate 19.98 employees. As the largest amount of required mitigation of either the new commercial development or essential public facility is required to be met if on -site housing is provided, the greater employees to be mitigated for is 19.98 employees. The on -site housing exceeds this requirement. Staff Comment: In reviewing the Growth Management portion of the application, Stafffinds that the proposal does meet the applicable standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.470.090 (4), Essential Public Facilities. Page 12 of 14 SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council approve the request for subdivision. Subdivision review is triggered with the development of multiple dwelling units, in this case the proposed affordable housing units. Staff Comment: In reviewing the request, staff finds the Applicant meets the review criteria (Exhibit D) for Subdivision and recommends approval. AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP: Development within the Public zone district is required to be memorialized through the adoption of a final PUD. To designate the parcel with a PUD overlay, an amendment to the Official Zone District Map is required. Staff Comment: In reviewing the request, staff finds the Map Amendment request meets the review standards outlined in Exhibit C and meets the requirements of the Public zone district by memorializing a Final PUD plan for the expansion and redevelopment of the hospital district. SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATION: Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for school function or pay a cash -in -lieu payment. The Applicant has proposed to pay a cash -in -lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.620 for the on - site affordable housing but is interested in a waiver for any future development of Whitcomb Terrace. The School Lands Dedication is essentially a pass -through fee that the city collects on behalf of the school district. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that the Applicant pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development unless a waiver is granted by the school district. IMPACT FEES: The Applicant is required to pay a Parks Development Impact Fee and a Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site and additional net leasable created, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees. The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee for the development of the affordable housing and the Park Development Impact Fee for the medical office space. T.klP 7• rmnart FPP AQQPCCm Pnt Parks Development Impact Fee TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee Medical office space 49,200.00 Waived per Conceptual approval Affordable housing 90,351.60 10,159.20 Total $139,551.60 $10,159.20 Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that a Parks Development Impact Fee and a TDWAir Qualityfee be paid. Unless the Applicant is paying for trail/park improvements that are not associated with the redevelopment of the site Staff does not believe the fee should be waived. Staff does not believe the TDMIAir Quality Impact Fee should Page 13 of 14 be waived. Both of the impact fees represent the Applicant's proportionate share of impacts to maintain city infrastructure at its current level ofservice. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Utilities Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Canary Initiative, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. Page 14 of 14 ORDINANCENO. 12 (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A GOWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, SUBDIVISION, AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PHASE II OF THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN, LOCATED ON PARCEL C, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 401 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-121-29-809 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Valley Hospital District (Applicant), represented by Leslie Lamont of Lamont Planning Services, requesting approval of a Final Development Plan and associated land use reviews for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Phase II the Aspen Valley Hospital District Facilities Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Conceptual PUD approval (via Resolution No. 3, Series of 2009) conceptually approved a redeveloped and expanded multi -story hospital building and parking garage, affordable housing and site improvements on Parcel C of the Aspen Valley Hospital Subdivision, to be developed in four phases; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Fire Protection District, Pitkin County Commissioners, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, the Transportation Department, and the City Utilities Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Final PUD and associated land use reviews for Phase II and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Final PUD approval and associated reviews may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, prior to City Council approval, Final PUD and associated land use reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at multiple public hearings where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 16, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to March 2, 2010 for further discussion. At the March 2, 2010 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the hearing until March 16, 2010 for further discussion. At the March 16, 2010 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 1 of 12 consider the project and continued the public hearing to April 6, 2010 for further discussion. At the April 6, 2010 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and approved certain growth management quota system reviews, a conditional use review and recommended City Council approve the Final Planned Unit Development application and associated reviews for Phase II by a five to two (5-2) vote, with the findings and conditions listed within the resolution; and, WHEREAS, once the land use approvals and recommendation of approval were granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requested Subdivision approval, Growth Management approval, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map approval and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed Final PUD request and associated land use reviews; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 7, 2010, the City Council opened the hearing and after an initial review of the application continued the hearing to June 28t'; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application at the June 28 h continuance, the City Council took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, referral agencies and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein adopted Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2010, approving with conditions, Final PUD and associated land use reviews; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, Subdivision, Final Planned Unit Development, and Amendment to the Zone District Map for Phase II of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan. Specifically, these approvals and recommendations of approval permit the Applicant to develop Phase II of a four phase master facilities plan inclusive of 12,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial and office space for the development of medical offices, twenty-two affordable housing units, an expansion and redevelopment of the existing hospital facility to 63,416 gross square feet (including the medical office space but excluding the parking garage) and site improvements as shown in the site plans of Exhibit A of this ordinance. The exterior design of the hospital building and affordable housing units shall be constructed as represented to the City Council and shown in Exhibit A of this ordinance. City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 2 of 12 Section 2: Rezoning The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the subdivision plat and Final PUD plans, amended by the Community Development Director to reflect a Planned Unit Development Overlay on all portions of land described as: Parcel C, Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision. Section 3: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision/PUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, and Section 26.445.070, Recording a Final PUD Development Plan, within 180 days of approval by City Council. Prior to recording of the plat and agreement, the Applicant may submit a building permit application to the city for review; however, a permit shall not be issued prior to recording of the plat and agreement. As a result of minor and non material discrepancies in survey boundaries for the area in and around the property of Applicant, there appears to be overlap between the Applicant's property boundary and the adjacent property boundary for Meadowood Subdivision. The Applicant agrees with the Meadowood plat. The final plat recorded pursuant to this development shall reflect the boundaries set forth in the Meadowood plat. A plat note shall reflect the basis of the change. Section 4: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which meets adopted city standards. e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. 1) As part of the construction management plan for Phase II improvements, provisions shall be made to ensure that parking for Aspen Valley Hospital visitors, staff and construction workers will be accommodated to prevent overflow in the Health and Human Services lot. f A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. A detailed excavation plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. h. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 3 of 12 Section 5: Dimensional Requirements of Phase II The following approved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD plans for Phase II: Minimum Lot Size As represented on the Final PUD plans Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Minimum Side Yard Minimum Rear Yard Maximum Site Coverage Minimum Distance between Buildings Maximum Height a. Hospital/Medical Office Space a. As noted by the spot elevations depicted above grade on the "Overall Roof Plan" detail numbered AS-103 b. Affordable Housing b. 33'6" c. Other c. Antennas, chimneys, flues, vents or similar structures may project a maximum of ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet above the roof location the structure protrudes from as noted by Exhibit C and water towers, solar panels, and mechanical equipment may project a maximum of five (5) feet above the roof location the structure is laced upon. Minimum off-street spaces allocated by use: a. Hospital/medical office space use a. 105 surface and 202 parking garage b. Whitcomb Terrace spaces* c. Affordable Housing b. 32 surface parking spaces c. 12 tuck under and 8 parking garage spaces d. 2 short term parking surface parking spaces to be shared between Whitcomb Terrace and the affordable housing Total Gross enclosed hospital/medical office 63,416 square feet space Maximum Net Leasable Commercial and 12,000 square feet Offices ace (medical office) Total gross affordable housing space 20,500 square feet Note: * See section 8 for further requirements. Based upon recommendations of the Planning Commission, City Council requires the following recommendations be incorporated into the Final PUD approval. a. The exterior siding and trim of the affordable housing units will be finished in a color palette dominated by neutral and/or natural tones. City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 4 of 12 b. The proposed building orientation is appropriate for the site. Garage location along the "rear" of the units meets the intent of the residential design standards. The covered porch elements and entryways facing the greenspace are appropriate and meet the residential design standards with regard to providing a street oriented entrance, principal window and first story element. The ceiling and window heights of the living area of the upper units will be designed for high volume space allowing for multiple non -orthogonal windows. c. The loop service road will only be used for service traffic related to the function of the hospital and signs installed along that route will state that condition. d. The hospital will install landscape screening of the Affordable Housing (AH) buildings from Castle Creek Road pursuant to the intent depicted on Sheets L-104 and L-105 (Landscape Plans) of Appendix A of the Final PUD submittal. It is the applicant's intent to preserve views of Highlands ski area from Castle Creek Road while screening the AH buildings with landscape that is installed close to the buildings as well as along the Castle Creek Road. However, it will be necessary to field locate the landscape due to the utility easements, drainage swale, and traffic sight lines required along this corridor as well as adhere to the Parks Department comments that have been received throughout the review process. Final landscaping shall be approved by the Parks Department. e. Incorporate landscaping along Castle Creek Road, the loop service road, and the affordable housing component to screen the improvements and minimize visual impacts to neighbors and the community. Section 7: Growth Management Annual Allotments The Applicant requested of the Planning and Zoning Commision 27,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial and office space from the 2010 annual allotment allowance for commercial development, which was granted by the Commission. This allotment represents the total net leasable square feet necessary to construct the entire master facilities plan over the course of the proposed four phases of development. For Phase II, only 12,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial and office space is proposed leaving a balance of 15,000 sq. ft. to be used in subsequent phases in subsequent years. Required affordable housing mitigation shall be based on the amount of net leasable commercial and office space proposed and entitled in each phase of development. Section 8: Excess Parking With the completion of Phase II, the number of parking spaces on the site will exceed the amount required to support Phase II. In the event that the Applicant does not withdraw the conceptual application for the master facilities, does not seek an amendment to the conceptual approval for the master facilities plan or does not complete Phase III within 10 years of city council approval of Phase II, the hospital will be required to remove the 71 parking spaces located along the western side of the hospital and detailed in Exhibit B of the ordinance. Any existing paving in this area that is not necessary to use as a connection for the service loop road shall be removed. Section 9: Engineering The conceptual drainage design anticipates shows that the proposed design can meet city drainage standards. Final design and analysis shall be compliant with all sections of the City of City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 5 of 12 Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department prior to recordation of the final plat. If the conceptual drainage design cannot meet city standards, the design will need to be amended and may require review and approval by city council. Adequate handling of snow storage and drainage capacity along Castle Creek Road is required. Pedestrian/bicycle access though the site must be maintained during construction via the construction management plan. Additional detailed comments are included in the Development Review Committee minutes of February 8, 2010 and shall be incorporated into the final drainage plan. Section 10-: Affordable Housin¢ a. The affordable housing provided in Phase II of the project shall be eight (8) studios and fourteen (14) one -bedroom dwelling units meeting the size and rental rates of Category 3 and 4 affordable housing units of the APCHA guidelines. b. Rental units area allowed with the following conditions: 1) The deed restriction shall state that the hospital has a priority to rent the units for hospital employees; however, if a unit is unoccupied for forty-five (45) days, the hospital shall rent the unit to another qualified employee of Pitkin County; however, recownizina the rotating emrolovment opportunities of the hospital six of the units shall be exemrot from this requirement Additionally, these six units shall be exempt from APCHA's six month minimum lease requirements. 2) All tenants shall be approved through APCHA prior to occupancy. 3) The owner shall convey an undivided 1/10a' of 1% ownership interest in the deed restricted units to APCHA. The APCHA ownership interest shall be in perpetuity or until such time as the units are converted to ownership units. 4) If the owner elects to sell the units, the hospital shall condominiumize the units by forming a condominium association for the deed restricted units only. All documents associated with creating an HOA shall be approved by APCHA 5) A deed restriction shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. All units require a lease for a minimum of six months. c. Affordable Housing Credit Balance : As required by City Council Resolution No.3 (Series of 2009), each final application for a phase of development shall verify the number of employees generated in the previous phase of development as well as project the anticipated number of employees generated in the current phase of development proposed. City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 6 of 12 Employees Housed Employees Generated Balance Available Beaumont, Mountain Oaks & CEO House Credit (council Resolution No. 3, 2009 57 0 Phase 0 0 Phase II 34.5 19.98 Total 91.5 19.98 71.52 Section 11: Fire Mitigation NFPA 13 needs to be applied to the residential component of the project. Final configuration of the fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems needs to be approved prior to installation. Adequate turning radii need to be provided at the main entrance of the hospital and the grade level parking. Fire hydrant locations must be approved prior to installation. The top level of the parking structure must accept the superimposed weight of fire department apparatus. Section 12: Utilities Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Additional detailed comments are included in the Development Review Committee minutes of February 2, 2010 and shall be incorporated or addressed in the construction documents associated with Phase II. Section 13: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. b. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. d. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor. e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. f. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 7 of 12 h. Any glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. i. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. j. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. k. Easements for the main sanitary sewer line as well as access easements, dedicated to the district, will be required. 1. Applicant will be required to deposit funds with the district for construction costs, engineering fees, construction observation fees, and fees to clean and televise the new main sewer line extension into the project. m. The sewer service line from the ambulance barn shall be connected to the proposed new sanitary sewer service line in the access road loop. n. Both the sewer service line from the hospital and the ambulance barn shall be excavated and capped off adjacent to Meadowood Road in the Meadowood subdivision, and the corresponding easements shall be properly and legally abandoned. o. The applicant shall provide the district with proper representation that will show all means and methods to preclude any and all pathological, radioactive, heavy metals, and any other hazardous material on the list of EPA prohibited toxic discharges. Section 14: Environmental Health This development will increase vehicular trips resulting in a negative effect on air quality if mitigation measures are not implemented. To provide such mitigation, the Applicant may pay the City of Aspen's Air Quality Impact Fee. The Applicant should design the parking garage to ensure ventilation is adequate to prevent carbon monoxide from reaching high levels and exhaust ventilation should not be placed near any windows or doors. Adequate recycling space needs to be provided as well as wildlife proof trash containers. Section 15: Exterior LiEhtine All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 16: Parks A. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. The overall mitigation for removals during this phase of improvements already has a carry-over from the construction of the Obstetrics Unit. B. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees on site. The vegetation fence shall be installed at the edge of the construction impact as depicted on page P101, Master Site Phasing Diagram. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 8 of 12 backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. C. General Landscaping notes: 1) New landscape along the paved trail should be no closer than 2-feet when the species reaches maturity. A 2-foot fall zone should be maintained along both sides of the paved trail. Locations will be reviewed approved during building permit submission and field verified. 2) The drip lines of the new landscaping along the proposed Nordic alignment should not encroach over the edge of the trail easement. Mature landscaping should not grow into the trail easement requiring maintenance or interfere with the grooming equipment. Locations will be reviewed approved during building permit submission and field verified. 3) New landscaping at the trail intersections for the Terrace and the Hospital entrance, pages L-105 and L-106, needs to be reconsidered. Site lines are required to be maintained. D. Parks reserves the right to field locate the Nordic trail in an effort to decrease some of the proposed slopes. Once a final alignment for the Nordic trail is determined and approved by the Parks Department the alignment and use shall be memorialized with a trail easement granted by the Hospital to the City of Aspen for use as a trail easement. This should be identified (called out) on the site plans and in a signed easement document. Support of the proposed Master Plan Facility is contingent on acquiring an easement. E. Staff will review in more detail the proposed culvert crossing for the summer trail and the proposed Grasscrete access the paved trail for snow removal with the construction drawings. Warning signs will need to be installed at the snow dump entry, "driveway crossing" F. The current proposed Nordic alignment should align with the connection to the existing trail located across Castle Creek Road. The connections and turns have to be able to allow for the operation of a snow cat based on the machines specifications and capabilities to properly groom. G. It is critical that that the construction of the detention ponds and the trail alignments are completed prior to the start of the winter seasons. No construction activities of any kind shall take place within the Nordic alignments, or around the Nordic alignments. Construction impacts to these areas will greatly reduce the skiers experience and more importantly viability of the snowpack. H. A trail detour plan shall be developed as part of the construction management plan during the construction project in order to allow for the continued public access along the south side of Castle Creek Road. Section 17: Transportation City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 9 of 12 A transportation demand management (tdm) plan has been submitted with the Final PUD application for Phase II of the AVH master facilities plan. The Applicant shall be required to meet the standards of the tdm plan. As part of the Conceptual PUD approval, AVH agreed to financially contribute to improvements to the roundabout and Cemetery Lane intersections to improve capacity. The proportionate financial contribution for capacity improvements to either of these two intersections is .3% (.003) of funds the City of Aspen spends on the project(s.) As no projects have been identified, the Applicant will be required to outline in the subdivision improvements agreement its ability to contribute to any projects that occur to the two intersections within seven years of approval of this ordinance. Section 18: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance unless a waiver is granted by the school district. If a waiver is not granted, the City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 19: Impact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development impact fee and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality impact fee assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 20: Vested Riahts The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 8, Series of 2010 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 201 N Mill Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No. 25 Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council. Section 21: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 10 of 12 development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 22• This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 23: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 24: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 7a' day of June, 2010, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the l00' day of May, 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _TH day of , 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 11 of 12 City Attorney List of Exhibits Exhibit AVHMaster Facility Plan, Phase II Exhibit B - Proposed parking to be removed Exhibit C - Rooftop mechanical City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 12 of 12 LAI PAR C, AS E A PARCEL OF LAND SITUAI TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RF COUNTY OF PITKI� SHEET ' I 4-4 `n%�_ MATCHLINE SHEET 4 //°� " ATCHDNE SHEET 4 u' YHr \ I oe r�yyoorw�imul / pe ia asrtMa osulsa -. - - li \ a 1. II I I � � � aeeh StEf��i11 M .W IPA p? � • �C I ! •1 NV I � v P s ray i f yte � I I � yy1 i (111.) pyNFD .M � � i I P ♦ au rr — l'. . 14 Ille SOPRIS ENGI MAL CO 5M MAIN ST v�0w .�,. ee�"00aris a:r m.i,n CARBONDALE. i:wi�ri.r o iiw i m.o�:miz wwia Yah S. 9e . Li 02! (970) C, z:>Q 11 ®� ��= i 1 � 3�S d�0� �'e� ,gi psi �'` d I � � i�� I Jill AM III. I qD PP (M q) q 1; lot R a ------------ C------------- V- AM / . 4 Al I a w m EXHIBIT A Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding. The redevelopment and expansion of the hospital campus implements goals and policies of the AACP. • By providing affordable housing, it contributes towards a critical mass of permanent local residents with the Aspen Community Boundary — Managing Growth, Goal B, pg 18. • The redevelopment of the campus contains development within the urban growth boundary to contain and limit sprawl— Managing Growth, Goal D, pg 19. • The site has multi modal transportation options through the trail system and bus service, promoting transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles — Managing Growth, Goal E, pg 19. • The Applicant is proposing a Transportation Demand Management plan to reduce the impacts of automobiles and promote alternative modes of transportation —Transportation, Goals E and G, pg 23. • By making improvements to the trail and bus stop the Applicant is able to "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking... by adding sidewalk connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where appropriate... " (Goal C, pg 22) • By using a palette of materials and range of building forms the design "Makes every public project a model of good development, on all levels, from quality design to positive contributions to the communityfabric. " (Goal B, pg 43) • The provision of affordable housing on the site helps "Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods... " (Intent, pg 25) 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is on a large tract of land that acts as a campus setting for the hospital, senior housing, ambulance barn, and health and human services building. The property is close to open space and some dense residential neighborhoods. The development is an expansion of an existing use with the addition of affordable housing. The site is adjacent to other residential and affordable housing developments as well as institutional uses. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: The Applicant has made a Growth Management Application as part of the Final PUD application of Phase II. Under the current proposal, the application will be reviewed as an essential public facility (for the hospital operation) which has no cap on the square footage granted in a calendar year, require growth management approval for the development of new commercial space/medical clinics (net leasable) where the 2 7, 000 sq. ft. requested (for all phases of development) is available from the 2010 growth management year and the development of affordable housing is not capped. The planning and Zoning Commission has granted growth management approvals for the medical office space and the and affordable housing units. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The dimensional requirements allow for the expansion of the hospital while minimizing the footprint of the hospital and maintaining open space. At a final review level, the proposed building expansion and its location on the site, as well as the affordable housing location, is compatible with the character of the area. b. Natural or man-made hazards. Staff Finding: No known natural hazards exist on the lot. The relocation of the hell pad will reduce a potential man-made hazard. c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. Staff Finding: Most of the development proposed is within areas of the site that have already been impacted by development. The applicant is proposing to maintain a large percentage of open space and natural vegetation on the site. d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing a service loop road with certain improvements to separate circulation by use. Improvements with regard to vehicular circulation are appropriate as well as pedestrian improvements. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing to concentrate the redevelopment to an area that is already developed with both the hospital and Whitcomb Terrace, minimizing the impact of the new development and maintaining a large amount of undeveloped land on the site. As noted earlier, a large portion of the site is undeveloped and the proposal will maintain that feeling of openness. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding: The current on -site parking totals 201 spaces. The Applicant provided a summary of the parking needs analysis in the Conceptual PUD application. The analysis considered alternative modes of transportation that can be used to get to the hospital and reduced the estimated number of off-street parking spaces needed for the redevelopment by approximately 20% from the originally estimated need of 350-400. For Whitcomb Terrace, the hospital and the medical office space. The conceptual PUD application approved 339 spaces without considering the impacts of an expansion of Whitcomb terrace or new affordable housing units. Twenty-four additional parking spaces are proposed currently for a total of 363 361 spaces. Staff finds the minor expansion in parking a reasonable accommodation to the additional development on the site approved by council. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: Sufficient infrastructure exists to service the development although some upgrading is required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing to mitigate for stormwater impacts as well as incorporate Transportation Demand Management techniques to mitigate potential impacts. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing housing on -site as approved by council and not requesting an increase in density. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: A large portion of the site is undeveloped and in a natural state. The redevelopment is proposed to maintain that feel and limit the developed area of the 19 acre site. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: As mentioned previously, a large portion of the site is undeveloped and in a natural state. The redevelopment is proposed so as to maintain that feel and limit the developed area of the 19 acre site. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: The proposed building is generally oriented towards the public street but is set back from the street which contributes to the more open feel of Castle Creek Road. Existing vegetation currently screens the hospital. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: The City of Aspen Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal, and has noted that final details on the service loop road will be necessary in the future. The Fire department has also discussed necessary turning radius for the ground level parking. S. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding: According to the Application, the project will comply with all applicable requirements. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be handled with retention ponds in the more natural, undeveloped area of the site. Additional work and information is currently being handled with the City Engineer. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: The Application has developed the master plan to accommodate the multiple functions at the site: helicopter access, ambulance and service access, as well as patient access. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided landscaping on the site plan in the application and has developed the landscaping to correspond with the two development zones of the project: developed and natural. A number of new plantings are proposed with a more intensive/traditional landscaping near the hospital and natural grasses, serviceberry and gambel oak in the natural areas. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: The undeveloped area of the site provides a natural open setting. Enhancements in this area preserve these features. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan in with the Final PUD. This will ensure existing landscaping is preserved or mitigated for if it is to be removed. Parks has reviewed the plan and has some minor comments. E. Architectural Character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: A variety of materials are being proposed for the redevelopment of the hospital: glass, masonry, and stone. As an institutional type of use, the conceptual design reflects the use of the building with a palette of materials that fat well on the site. With regard to the affordable housing, a simple palette of materials is proposed. Since the submission of the application, additional massing and articulation options to vary the massing of the affordable housing have been considered and incorporated into the current design before city council. The current design provides appropriate massing and architecture for the site. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non - or less -intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding: The Applicant has noted that the building is expected to be designed to achieve LEED certification and that it is anticipated that the building is designed and constructed in an environmentally sustainable way. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: Snow storage is anticipated to be handled by removal and relocation in the drainage basin. F. Lighting. 1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: The Applicant will comply with all lighting regulations in place. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding: There is no specific common open space for the benefit of the development; however, two trails on the site are for the benefit of the public and will be provided appropriate easements. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: The Water, Sanitation, and Electric Departments reviewed this application and determined there is adequate service for this development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding: At this time no adverse impacts on the public infrastructure are anticipated. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: The Applicant has been working with a number of city departments to ensure that adequate utilities/facilities are provided on -site. I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding: Staff believes that all structures and uses will have appropriate access to a public street. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: Staff believes the adding a service access road, improvements the access drives for both the hospital and Whitcomb Terrace will improve circulation on the site. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding: The Applicant will provide specific easements for both the Nordic trail and the Castle Creek trail. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: The Parks department has reviewed the application and found that the proposed improvements are adequate. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding: There are no internal streets proposed as part of this PUD. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: There are no gates or guard posts proposed as part of this PUD. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. Staff Finding: As required by the Conceptual PUD each phase of development is required to be memorialized and mitigated for prior to development of the subject phase. EXHIBIT B Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System 26.470.090 (4), Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. Staff Finding: In Phase 11, the applicant is requesting 51,416 47-,568 of new in gross square footage to develop and expand the hospital function of the parcel. The director has found the hospital function of the property to be considered an Essential Public Facility. City council is allowing a credit for affordable housing to be used and the applicant is building additional on - site affordable housing. No waiver is requested Exhibit C See. 26.310.040.Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code and simply memorializes the site specific development plan proposed by the hospital and required by the Public zone district by designating it with a PUD overlay. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The redevelopment and expansion of the hospital campus implements goals and policies of the AACP. • By providing affordable housing, it contributes towards a critical mass of permanent local residents with the Aspen Community Boundary — Managing Growth, Goal B, pg 18. • The redevelopment of the campus contains development within the urban growth boundary to contain and limit sprawl— Managing Growth, Goal D, pg 19. • The site has multi modal transportation options through the trail system and bus service, promoting transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles — Managing Growth, Goal E, pg 19. • The Applicant is proposing a Transportation Demand Management plan to reduce the impacts of automobiles and promote alternative modes of transportation — Transportation, Goals E and G, pg 23. • By making improvements to the trail and bus stop the Applicant is able to "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking... by adding sidewalk connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where appropriate... " (Goal C, pg 22) • By using a palette of materials and range of building forms the design "Makes every public project a model of good development, on all levels, from quality design to positive contributions to the communityfabric. " (Goal B, pg 43) • The provision of affordable housing on the site helps "Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods... " (Intent, pg 25) C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment memorializes the proposed expansion and redevelopment of the hospital campus including affordable housing units and the essential public facility. Both uses are compatible with surrounding land uses that include other residential and essential publicfacility uses. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The proposed PUD overlay will not affect traffic generation; however, the expansion of the existing hospital facility and addition of affordable housing will increase traffic generation. The applicant is responsible for a proportionate share of the impacts (as outlined in the Conceptual PUD approval) and is proposing other measures to mitigate traffic impacts. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: Demands on public facilities can be met, for example water supply and sewage service, and additional mitigation measures are proposed to limit the impacts the redevelopment will cause. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The application proposes to structure the expansion and redevelopment on the southerly portion of the property, where development currently exists. The northerly portion is proposed to remain in essentially a natural state. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The hospital use of the property and proposed affordable housing is consistent with the existing use of the property and surrounding uses that include residential and public services. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The proposed PUD overlay is consistent with the existing uses of the parcel (hospital) and adds residential housing which surrounds much of the hospital campus. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment of the campus is not in conflict with the public interest and meets the purpose and intent of the land use code. Exhibit D See. 26.480.050.Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment and expansion of the hospital is consistent with the character of the neighborhood that includes a mix of housing types as well as social services, is consistent with policies of the AACP, will not impact future development of surrounding areas and will meet required adopted standards. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment and expansion of the hospital is located on land suitable for development and the redevelopment is proposed on an area of the site that already contains development minimizing the impact of development of the meadow area on the northerly end of the parcel. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment and expansion of the hospital site are proposed to meet adopted subdivision design standards. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment and expansion of the hospital site provides for on - site affordable housing and is in compliance with Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment and expansion of the hospital site provides affordable housing and a placeholder for the future development of senior housing. The application notes that the school land dedication fee -in -lieu shall be paid for the affordable housing units but requests that the future development of senior housing not be subject to the fee - in -lieu. The applicant will need to be granted an exemption, in the future, from the school district. F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH- PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §§29, 30) Staff finding. The proposed redevelopment has requested and received growth management allotments as required. Memo To: Jennifer Phelan, Assistant Director, Aspen Community Development Department From: Leslie Lamont Date: June 21, 2010 Re: Aspen Valley Hospital MFP - Supplemental Memo for June 28 City Council Meeting The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information to the Council based upon the review and comments from City Council at the June 7" meeting. Attached to this memo are a revised parking count chart and a landscape plan with notations that clarify the landscape additions as well as berming for Phase II. The following items will be presented at the June 28t' City Council meeting: • Revisions to AH related to mass/scale and lighting impacts • Further detail of the MOS space: what physicians will be moving into the MOS in Phase II, a sampling of the sizes of current physician office space • Greater detail related to the noise analysis and a list of mechanicals • Additional Phase II perspectives Parking: The attached parking chart outlines the amount of parking proposed for the site per phase. It also includes changes to the parking for the residents of the affordable housing based upon proposed revisions to the AH structures. Attachment A. The chart also includes a column indicating the number of on -site parking spaces as recommended and updated by LSC Transportation Consultants. Alex Ariniello of LSC will attend the June 28" Council meeting to answer any questions related to parking or traffic. It is the intent to provide at least one parking space per affordable housing unit and based upon the recent revisions they are located as follows: • 6 tuck under parking spaces, 2 surface spaces • 10 dedicated spaces in the garage p:970-963-8434 e:llamont@sopris.net c:970-948-1357 With regard to the Whitcomb Terrace assisted living and community senior center, the number of parking spaces provided will remain at existing levels with an additional two spaces provided as flex spaces for visitors of either the AH units or Whitcomb Terrace. When Phase II is complete it appears that the total number of parking spaces on site exceeds what is recommended because of the parking garage. However, the garage must be constructed in Phase II because of its location in relation to Phase II improvements. In addition, when Phase III is built the large surface parking lot behind the Hospital becomes the footprint of Phase III and construction staging; therefore the parking garage becomes critical in supporting Hospital functions during Phase III and Phase IV construction. Whether the Hospital has bonus parking spaces or available parking is deficient, it is important to discourage daily vehicular traffic to the campus. The Hospital's design/development team has worked hard with the City's Transportation Department to develop a Transportation Demand Management plan that creates transit incentives that support alternative modes of travel. The TDM plan also includes bench marks in order to gauge the plan's effectiveness. This will be important as Phases III and IV are developed and the number of parking spaces is diminished. Illustrative Landscape Plan: The landscape plan for Phase II has been clarified with notes so the new plantings, transplant locations, and new landforms (as relate to the screening of off -site views) are more clearly identified. Attachment B. Attachments: A. Parking Count B. Illustrative Landscape Plan p:970-963-8434 e:llamonl@sopris.net c:970-948-1357 Parking Counts Per Phase Existing Parking Phase I Phase II Parking Phase III Parking Phase IV Total @ Build -Out Proposed Changes to AH LSC Parking Count Range w/out AH or Whitcomb Terrace EXISTING PARKING Hospital 173 Whitcomb Terrace 28 Total 201 PARKING COUNT PHASE II New Parking Structure 210 210 New Phase II Surface Parking 78 78 Existing Surface Parking @ Heli ad 24 24 Existing Surface Parking @ Staff Parking 69 69 New Surface Parking @ Whitcomb 32 32 New Tuck -Under at Employee Hsg 12 6 *10 spaces in the parking garage will be devoted to AH and 2 spaces in the Whitcomb surface parking area will be devoted to AH Total 425 419 **246-277 PARKING COUNT PHASE III Existing Parking Structure 210 210 Existing Surface Parking @ Helipad (remaining) 14 14 Existing Surface Parkin (Phase ll) 78 78 Existing Surface Parking @ Whitcomb 1 32 32 Existing Tuck -Under at Employee Hsg 12 6 *10 spaces in the parking garage will be devoted to AH and 2 spaces in the Whitcomb surface parking area will be devoted to AH Total 346 340 *`317-358 PARKING COUNT PHASE IV - BUILD OUT Existing Parking Structure 210 210 Existing Surface Parking 78 78 New West Side Employee Parking 13 13 New Main Entry Parking 23 23 Existing Surface Parking @ Whitcomb 321 32 Existing Tuck -Under at Employee Hsg 12 6 *10 spaces in the parking garage will be devoted to AH and 2 spaces in the Whitcomb surface parking area will be devoted to AH Total Parking at Project Build -Out 368 362 "330-372 ** Updated, recommended parking counts per LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc: includes MOS but not Whitcomb or Emp Hsg The range reflects an agressive TDM program & current auto disincentive programs. Changes from Final PUD Submittal reflect the evolution of the TDM plan & the vehicular reduction methods prescribed in the plan. b I NATIVE PLANTINGS IN / DETENTION BASIN AND , SURROUNDING MEADOW AREA / f SCREENING LANDF WITH ADDITIONAL PLANT MATERIAL DENSELY Pl. SCREENING EMPLOYEE SPRUCE TRANSPLAN RECEIVER SITE TO 1 I ' HASE II FINAL PUD SITE PLAN HEERY - L MONT PLANNING DHM DESIGN SOPRIS ENGINEERING a. t ;, yin of P 1 / i I� 1p WHIT- 4 I COMB DDIT j i 1 ri 1 I SUPPLEMENT EXISTING COTTONWOOD GROVE )LANTINGS kLONG CASTLE REEK ROAD Et 5ED TRAIL ill 1 11 II 1 1 1 GROUPED I LANTINGS LONG CASTLE REEK ROAD 8 ED TRAIL �> ly Im Ip IF i A 1 10 II 1 1 I 1 I 1 ' Ak 0512010 ASPEN, AND EVERGREEN PLANTINGS AT PARKING STRUCTURE e ♦; MEMORANDUM TO: Jennifer Phelan FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing DATE: June 2, 2010 RE: ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL MASTER FACILITIES PLAN Parcel ID No. 2735-123-07-801 ISSUE: The Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH) is requesting flexibility in renting six of the new units that will be created in the Phase II additional at AVH. BACKGROUND: The Board reviewed AVH's Master Facilities Plan in February of 2010. The proposal was to construct 22 deed restricted units to be used as mitigation for the expansion, plus the utilization of credits that AVH has. AVH would like flexibility in renting out these 22 units to Hospital employees. One of the requirements of the deed restriction is that if a unit is left vacant for 45 days, that unit must be opened to the general public. The second request from AVH is the ability to have 6 of the 22 units available for rotating hospital employees. AVH has employment practices that result in 13-week rotating employment opportunities. The units are all studios or one -bedroom units. The request is being made due to the fact that the units are located so close to the hospital. The 45-day vacancy restriction and the six-month lease restriction are being asked to be waived for 6 out of the 22 units. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed this request at their regular meeting on May 19, 2010. The Board approved this request with the stipulation that each class of rental rooms be identified as to the nature of their rental type, by a permanent placard affixed to the entry door for each unit. APCHA realizes that there will be little or no policing of the number of rooms dedicated to each purpose and the placards will help remind everyone of the approved use and avoid mistakes. The wording of the placards could be the responsibility of the APCHA or the Community Development Department. All other conditions stated in the Housing memo dated February 18, 2010 should still apply for the remaining 16 units. 1 EX�Jj?�V- <D'� Jennifer Phelan From: Nancy Tate Hall Inthall23@msn.com] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:37 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: Fw: AVH Expansion/How about a win -win compromise Hi, may be too late, but I caught a couple of typos and added a few lines. If possible, make the switch Thanks, N ----- Original Message ----- From: Nancy Tate Hall To: jennifero(5ci.aspen.co.us Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:49 AM Subject: AVH Expansion/How about win -win compromise? Dear Mayor and City Councilmen: At the recent hearing on June 7, several Meadowood homeowners expressed their concerns about the impact of this enormous project, notably light pollution from a modern design that incorporates lots of vertical glass, and noise pollution, especially from boiler/generator rooms and a multitude of roof top mechanicals. We continue to be concerned also about the potential negative impact of the loading docks behind the facility along Meadowood Drive and the loop service road shown on the plans to be running in very close proximity and in the opposite direction from our road --again bringing up the issues of vehicular lights and motorized noise for area residents. We also cannot help but feel greatly concerned about 6 - 10 years of construction, the urbanized views from Hwy 82, the loss of a great deal of old -growth vegetation, increased traffic on the round about, and the loss of the lovely, rural character of Castle Creek Road as the bicycle path is relocated and a 220- space parking garage is erected right in the middle of a forest of beautiful trees. Also, something else that should be heavily considered is the quality of life for the seniors in Whitcomb Terrace with construction literally all around them and very close to their dwellings for years. Their monthly rents are what, $3 - $4 thousand a month? I stayed until the very end of the June 7 meeting, hoping that the slide show which I had requested as part of the AVH presentation would dramatically demonstrate to everyone there, the mass and scale of the new design superimposed over the existing facility from several different view plans. I had seen it once before, and there was an audible gasp in the room at that time. But, unfortunately, we ran out of time, and we never got past the employee housing slides which, on a positive note, launched a much -needed discussion. We were encouraged that perhaps we saw a glimmer of hope that the 3-level housing in the beautiful, natural landscape below the hospital could be traded for another more suitable location. I am sincerely hoping that this next hearing on June 28th, will give everyone more opportunity to address the issues we barely touched upon on June 7, and, surely, it will not be the last one. More hearings are definitely in order if we are to properly address all the possible problems and mitigations. Inasmuch as everyone is in agreement that the hospital needs to renovate in order to address privacy, health and safety issues, and office space challenges, these are not the real issues for area residents. The height of the medical office space is what makes the project untenable as planned (no story poles as requested by the P & Z), and it drives the stated need for a huge parking garage. Many in the community are seeking a compromise and a new design that addresses the needs of AVH and eliminates the medical office space which requires the parking garage, and the employee housing. Then AVH gets what it needs as an up-to-date rural, emergency care facility with a brand new birthing center, and area residents, Meadowood, Twin Ridge, Castle Ridge, and Whitcomb Terrace seniors, will be able to maintain their quality of life with greatly reduced negative impact. With regard to the medical office space and the argument that the doctors will be more readily available, my two sons were born at AVH, at 1:30 am and 4:20 am. There were not any problems with the timing of those events, as I recall. Also, I suffered a compound fracture three years ago on a Sunday afternoon -- Dr. St. John was on call, and I went into surgery that day. As far as I know, there was no issue with the logistics of getting the doctors involved either time to the hospital. Unless, they live there 24/7, I do not think availability should be the driving force in this decision. This may be the business model of other hospitals in other cities, but we are not a typical community in any way, and, last I checked, we were not striving to feel like a typical city. I believe it is normal for people seeking elective medical care to shop around for their doctors and the best price. Since there are several other large, state-of-the-art facilities easily accessible from Aspen within an hour or two, I question the need for such a grandiose and expensive expansion of AVH. It was brought up at the last meeting that the general public is still very unaware of the magnitude of this project and may be unwilling to support it with tax dollars in the future. The recent ballot vote was confusing because it was supposedly not related to the expansion, but after the vote, CEO Dave Ressler said they are related because "the tax allows AVH to save other revenues that it can put toward the expansion". Please review the two NO votes by the P & Z on April 6. They recognized the miscalculations of the 3X expansion plan for AVH which is before you now. Thank your for your consideration, Nancy Tate Hall 222 Larkspur Lane 925-7679 Email secured by Check Point MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council n I FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directory I * RE: Burlingame Ranch Phase II — Design Direction — Public Hearing Resolution No. 42, Series of 2010. DATE: June 28, 2010 SUMMARY: This public hearing is a continuation from June 7s' at which the Burlingame Design Team presented information on the progress of Phase Two. The purpose of this a resolution is to summarize Council's direction on a few key design parameters for Phase Two of Burlingame Ranch. Gaining Council direction on these important parameters will allow the design team to transition from the listening phase to the designing phase of the project. Clarity at this stage of the project can minimize costly design changes later down the road. Tonight's meeting is intended to provide more details on each key decision point, an opportunity to respond to comments and questions from the June 7s' meeting, an opportunity for the public to comment, and opportunity for Council to provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council receive the presentation, take public comment, provide staff with direction, and consider the proposed resolution. If needed, staff has reserved time on the July 12a' Council agenda. APPLICANT: The City of Aspen. REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Everson, Project Manager. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. 42, Series of 2010, regarding Burlingame Ranch Phase Two." ALTERNATE MOTION: "I move to continue Resolution No. 42, Series of 2010, regarding Burlingame Ranch Phase Two to July 12s'." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RESOLUTION NO. 42 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ENDORSING THE DESIGN DIRECTION FOR PHASE TWO OF THE BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 120, Series of 2000, determined the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Project eligible for the process of the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) for the purpose of developing deed restricted affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the Aspen City Council, to conduct an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest; and, WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, the City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 120, Series of 2004, conceptual approval with conditions to a three-phase development plan as proposed by the applicants in the "Conceptual Master Plan Submittal", dated after September 7, 2004, after finding that the Project met with the development standards as required by the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, the City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, Final approval with conditions for Phase One as proposed by the applicants according to the final development plan application entitled, `Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing", dated February 14, 2005. Such application addressed the application requirements and applicable review standards of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, approval Ordinance 24, Series of 2005, did not complete the review process, but constituted another step of the COWOP review process; and, WHEREAS, the City Council is currently contemplating Phase Two of the development and is holding public hearings as well as other public feedback sessions to gain community input regarding various design elements that may be incorporated into Phase Two; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP review process and focused public input process has enabled the planning and design of Phase Two to reflect essential community goals and values, taking into consideration various opinions and expressed points -of -view from neighbors, residents of Phase One, potential financial partners, citizens, referral agencies, design professionals, and city staff; and, WHEREAS, future steps may include applications for subdivision and Final PUD Plans for Phase Two and land use entitlement by the Aspen City Council, pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code, including Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed and considered the physical planning for Phase Two, as more fully described in Exhibit A of this Resolution, and has recommended City Council endorse this described direction; and, Reso No. 42, Series 2010 Page 1 WHEREAS, providing input on the planning for these lands, through adoption of this Resolution, shall only be considered advisory in nature and shall not constitute entitlement of the property or approval of a site specific development plan. Approval of a final development plan shall require adoption of an Ordinance after a public hearing and upon consideration of a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the progress of the planning for Phase Two, as described herein, has taken and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, has taken and considered public comments at a public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: The design direction for Phase Two of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project, as described in Exhibit A, is hereby endorsed by the City Council. Section 1• This Resolution is advisory in nature only and does not constitute entitlement of the property or approval of a site specific development plan. The physical planning concepts and direction provided herein be reconsidered, changed, or otherwise altered upon further review and public hearings on an application for subdivision and final PUD approval for Phase Two. Section 2: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the City Council at a regular meeting on Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Exhibit A — Summary of Design Direction for Phase Two Burlingame Ranch 2010. Reso No. 42, Series 2010 Page 2 Attachment June 28, 20100 THE On of ASPFN Resolution #42, 2010: Attachment A Burlingame Ranch Phase II: Request for Conceptual Master Plan Approval The Burlingame Phase II IPD design team has gathered extensive input from the public and is applying feedback from outreach efforts to the designs of Burlingame Phase 1I. Based on the community input to date, the team has developed the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan, and the team's goal is to provide a detailed design for what Burlingame Phase II should look like, as well as a guaranteed maximum price, by September, 2010. The design team would like to formalize the Council's conceptual approval of the newly conceived 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan on June 28, 2010. The purpose of the June 28, 2010 hearing is to consider adoption of a resolution describing direction for the project design regarding six points. This will enable the project to proceed to the next level of design. This resolution will not grant final entitlement or otherwise be a final decision about the entire project. The six points being considered are described in detail below: 1) Number and types of residential units Density: In 2008, the Construction Experts Group estimated that it would save the housing development fund approximately $150,000 per unit to place additional units at Burlingame Ranch rather than placing equivalent additional units on other City parcels. As was recommended by both the Citizens' Budget Task Force and Construction Experts Group in 2008, staff engaged the Burlingame Phase I homeowners association in 2009 in a request to increase the total number of units allowed at Burlingame from 236 to include up to perhaps 293 total units. Staff spent all of 2009 working extensively with the Burlingame Phase I HOA board and HOA members, and was able to negotiate an increase of 22 units for a maximum of 258 total units. During the negotiation, staff worked extensively with City Council to develop reasonable trade- offs. In return for the increased density, the City agreed to increase the parking ratio at Burlingame Phase I and II to two spaces for every multifamily unit (2.0 parking ratio) as well as the elimination of the $60 per month mobility fee and a number of other concessions. The 91 homeowners at Burlingame approved the agreement at a 94% approval rate. The table below provides a comparison of the proposed Burlingame Ranch density which includes 91 units in Phase I and 167 Units in Phase II for a total of 258 units at Burlingame Ranch: Page 1 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 HousingDensity Comparison to Other •• Development Twin Ridge Aff ordabi per Acrej 5.5 Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 6.7 Mountain Oaks 7.2 Snyder 7.5 Burlingame Ranch Phases I + II 8.6 Maroon Creek 9.6 Castle Ridge 9.6 Burlingame Ranch Phase II 10.2 Common Ground 10.4 Centennial 14.1 Annie Mitchell 16.9 Hunter Longhouse 18.9 Hunter Creek 20.7 Burlingame Seasonal 25.6 Truscott 33.1 Unit Mix: 0 Tnr Cyr. I+r AIr! I Burlingame Phase I was built with 46.4% three bedroom units, 35.7% two bedroom units and 17.9% one bedroom units. The original plans for Burlingame Phase II contemplated over 50% three bedroom units. Although Burlingame was conceived as family -oriented housing, there have been some concerns about demand for three bedroom units so the 2010 IPD design team proposed to Council in a work session on May 4, 2010 to keep the unit mix ratios similar to the levels that were built in Phase I rather than proposing over 50% three bedroom units. City Council provided additional direction indicating that a unit mix closer to 40% three bedrooms, 30% two bedrooms and 30% one bedrooms would be acceptable. Community feedback has suggested that there is more demand for studio and one bedroom units, but the City is planning many additional studio and one bedroom units at other properties to meet the excess demand for studio and one bedroom units not addressed at Burlingame. The table below summarizes the unit mix proposed in the 2010 Burlingame Ranch Phase II Concept Master Plan: Page 2 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 THE CRY of ASPtx Unit Type I MULTIFAMILY Total Qty % of Tota 3 BR Unit Flat 1280 sq ft 65 40.4% Townhome 1402 sq ft 2 BR Unit Flat 1030 sq ft 49 30.4% Townhome 1088 sq ft 1 BR Unit Flat 722 sq ft 47 29.2% kL.TOTAL 161 100.0% Plus six single family units for a total of 167 Phase 11 units. 2) Building Configurations During the density negotiation with the homeowners at Burlingame in 2009, the City created a 3D model of the site and buildings which was based on the City's conceptual plans from the 2008 Construction Experts Group effort. The mass and scale of the buildings proposed in the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan are similar in footprint, mass and scale to the City's density plan conceptual model and are similar in footprint, mass and scale to the buildings that were built in Phase I. The majority of buildings proposed in the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan are generally composed of two building `pods'. In each case, the two pods act like separate buildings joined by a covered stairway between the two pods. The covered stairway between pods allows for pedestrian connection from the uphill side through the building to the downhill side without having to go around the building. The buildings are design to maximize both construction efficiency and livability with one, two and three bedroom flats as well as two and three bedroom townhome units — all of generous, standardized sizes, but with varying interior layouts. The table below summarizes a comparison of the discussed building footprint sizes: Page 3 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 THE CITY OF Asn%, SMALL BUILDINGS MEDIUM BUILDINGS LARGE BUILDINGS PHASE 1 MMOINGO IW+I..1'•IdT IILLW(, 1VM.]f.tb �1KdNr.. ��'M 1�'.IIb ►NAME I DEMSITr AGREEMENT 04 N*ft od" su.� su,,.s..sI .aPw sl.w,.r.It1 PHASE S r PROPOSED xux o:aa�_.e.���,..a, si�nnmsr au..nn.iu Construction Methodology: W # 11 LLa 11.MR Because the future is uncertain, the IPD design team is recommending that the designs proceed with the intention of using a stick -framed construction methodology, but the design team proposes to work within a set of constraints that would potentially allow for the conversion back to modular construction if the modular market in the future can demonstrate a considerably greater cost savings in the future as opposed to today's market. The intent of this recommendation is to remain as flexible as possible while still incorporating the principles of the Construction Experts Group recommendations. At the May 4, 2010 Aspen City Council work session, Council was in general agreement with this approach. Environmental Sustainability: At the May 4, 2010 Aspen City Council work session, the design team recommended that the City continue with the success of the Building America program and seek to procure grants that will fund participation in that program which will allow us to focus on energy savings and durability through the creation of highly -efficient building enclosures and the careful selection of durable materials. Community feedback has been overwhelmingly in favor of simplifying the mechanical systems as compared to Phase I, and the design team is currently researching a number of mechanical systems options that will provide high -efficiency performance. ADA Visitability: In a work session with City Council on May 4, 2010, the Council generally agreed that a 68% level of ADA Visitability would be acceptable if a contingency plan would allow for the potential future retrofitting of buildings with elevators to allow ADA Visitability to upper -level units if needed in the future. The challenging grades on the site have provided the design team with the Page 4 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 7Lj THE Cm nr Awe; , opportunity to increase this level of ADA Visitability to 71%. As the design and engineering progresses, this may continue to move slightly, but the team will not go below the 68% level without requesting further approval from Aspen City Council. Livability Features: • Covered parking available to every unit • Outdoor lockable storage integrated with carports • More in -unit storage & usable utility closets • Floor plans "live big" since flats have no stairs inside • Outdoor living patios and decks adjacent to central open space • Sod near living areas; native landscape further out • Hose bib at each building • Finish level quality like Phase I • Aggressive mitigation of sound and vibration transmission • Potential basketball court / skate park / winter skating • Consolidated sodded areas for easy maintenance • Mail, trash, transit facilities conveniently located with carports • Energy -saving sustainability initiatives like Phase 1 3) Site planning and land utilization The process for designing the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan began with the City's 2009 conceptual plan that was the basis for the density agreement with the Burlingame HOA. The design team considered some concepts that could improve on the City's 2009 conceptual plan, presented those ideas to the community and received feedback on those improvement concepts. Where appropriate, feedback on those improvement concepts was carefully incorporated into the creation of the new 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan which is attached separately. The road alignment was placed adjacent to Deer Hill which helps to open up the interior of the site and creates usable open space, new parking opportunities and separates cars from people and living areas. The building locations and orientations generally follow the site contours which creates excavation and construction efficiencies. Public parks have been integrated with the community and help to provide a gentle knitting of the Phase II site adjacent to the existing Phase I area with the use of two and three story buildings and pedestrian connections where appropriate. Site retainage along Deer Hill creates an opportunity to support carports with integrated lockable storage which help to provide convenience and more covered parking to more families than was available in Phase I. The integration of parks and open space into the plan provide an opportunity for outdoor living areas, patios and decks to directly interact with the common green space. These improvements also help to improve the project budget by removing parking and storage from under buildings thus decreasing the intensity of the overall gross building area. The standardization of buildings creates construction and operational efficiencies that will improve the budget as well. The design team has worked diligently to make sure that these improvements are simultaneously consistent with the principles of the Construction Experts Group recommendations while also creating a highly desirable level of livability and character. Page 6 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 70 H . The table below provides a summary of some of the land utilization characteristics proposed: Multifamily Comparison (only multifamily buildings/units included) 0r• Concept Master Plan DensityPhase I As -built # of Units 161 161 84 # of Buildings 14 20 15 Avg Units per Building 11.5 8.1 5.6 Gross Building Area (sq ft) 202,351 288,960 141,388 Avg Gross Building Area per Unit (sq ft) 1,2s7 1,795 1,683 Total BuildingFootprint (s ft 70,376 96,320 73,697 Avg Footprint per Building (sq ft) 5,027 4,816 4,913 Avg Footprint per Unit (sq ft) 437 598 877 Site Area (acres) 16.2 16.2 13.8 Multifamily Units per Acre 9.9 9.9 6.1 On -site Open Space (acres) 14.6 14.0 12.1 LAND UTILIZATION & EFFICIENCY ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4) Parking and storage strategy Many of the residents at Burlingame Phase I have suggested that the design team make efforts to make parking and storage more convenient. The 2010 Burlingame Phase I1 Concept Master Plan proposes the use of covered carport parking with integrated lockable storage. Carport parking with integrated lockable storage is a proven concept at other affordable housing developments in the Aspen area and has received a great deal of support during public outreach efforts. The proposed plan includes 161 covered carport parking spaces and an additional 161 surface parking spaces to achieve the required 2.0 parking ratio. Lockable storage at the carports is approximately 50 square feet, and residents will enjoy additional interior utility closet storage in their units of approximately 50 square feet, creating a total of at least 100 square feet of storage per unit - with more provided as unit size increases from one to two to three bedroom units. This parking and storage strategy exemplifies the thoughtful work of the design team during this process. While the previous plan contemplated the use of under -building parking and storage, the design team proposes to remove parking and storage from under buildings and to replace it with the much less intensive construction of carports for a net savings of millions of dollars while providing a highly -livable, convenient, proven solution that many residents see as a great improvement over Burlingame Phase I, especially since covered parking will be available to each unit. Below are some concept sketches of the proposed covered carport parking and storage solution: Page 6 of 9 Attachment June 28, 2010 THE Cm Or ASPEN OI © © C ]r.P y V-P Y. - Y'-P PP • P + P-P + P-P + P-P STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE ` 0 0 0© 6 o� F 50 53 SF 53 SF SF 53 SF i _, I� Imo' LI e I I 0 i I onca 5) Relationships and connections to Phase 1 The 2010 Burlingame Phase II concept Master Plan proposes the use of two and three story buildings where appropriate. Adjacent to the west of the existing Phase I buildings along Mining stock Parkway, the plan proposes three two-story structures. These two-story masses help to ease the transition from the existing Phase I buildings up to the three-story buildings that are proposed further up the hill to the west. Pedestrian connections, landscaping and sodded areas will be integrated in order to gently mesh the Phase II portion of the site to fit nicely with the Phase I area of the site. Page 7 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 The sketches below further illustrate the proposed Phase I / Phase II connection: Phase-2 Courtyard Phase 21 o - y ®pro 0055 1 ase l� v Phase 2 x;vv Phase 1 Mining Stock Parkway 6) Architectural massing, height, scale and general character C� THE On „r A,ri "I The general architectural character proposed for the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan is designed to exist in harmony with both Phase I and the surrounding environment. The Ranch Vernacular style that was established in Phase I is carefully recreated in Phase II - which utilizes a mix of two and three story structures where appropriate. The proposed architectural character, mass and scale of the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan was initially presented to City Council at the May 17, 2010 work session. Some concern was expressed in the May 17 work session about the massing of the proposed buildings, and as a direct result of those City Council concerns, the design team made modifications to the proposed massing and presented those modifications at the June 7, 2010 regular meeting of the Aspen City Council. The drawings and sketches provided in Attachment C (PowerPoint Presentation) further illustrate the architectural character, mass and scale proposed in the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan. Conclusion: The design team believes that, while there may be some outstanding questions regarding the building and unit design details, these details can be worked out during the detailed design phase of the design effort and will be further vetted with City Council during detailed design. Since the June 7, 2010 City Council meeting, the design team has held two additional public outreach events that were well -attended (there have been a total of seven outreach events to date). At the two events since June 7, community members expressed a high level of support for the proposed 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan, and on June 15, 2010 the Housing Board echoed that support. Page 8 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 0 THE CITI OF AR't\ Without City Council's conceptual approval of the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan, it will be difficult for the design team to move forward with detailed design since detailed design requires a significant investment of design and engineering effort which would be at risk if these fundamental characteristics of the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan were to he changed subsequent to that significant investment of effort and could result in delays and/or additional design expenses. The design team recommends City Council's conceptual approval of the 2010 Burlingame Phase II Concept Master Plan at this time so that detailed design may begin. Page 9 of 9 i 0 N N } ! > O � L � Q U ca a O d. v OL cn Q cn cU O N Q N E cn = p (n C .0 ca cm ma V N m cn cu cc O O N cn � L O V = 0 C C CD }, � = C� c Ocr +� Cl N o o N :h d• :ri co Od N o M o ■cn L a� N N A J V � i LL O U E L (0 •ML ■� W W _>10 rU Q Q LIT cn Y N N y W cn Q L _ i Q M O m O'M'M i'E m �''m u- — N LL .P LL a v- a� C p X O D _O J. _ co r CN (n Wcoti C4 t OOP N = > > t > > p > > H 'D N d M a a F- •o O CL O OONM%% ryryry�r le 3 1 p t a • "I,�,��JJlI��``. Ln Y cn w cn c O m V +r N O O L O N o A u P N cn i O y ++ v 1. O i v CD M -0 cm Q i O O Q CD E = i Q � N C N cn r- 0 Q E Q. Q +O_.+ O cn V A R o O Q Q ca i cn cl) V ''=' .c � -� +.+ O O Q •� m s Q .3 0 +L.+ n. N m .� .— � +r Q Q cn Q c o E m 0 U �cn a Ch cn � a = .2 to 0)• a-+ i m O , 00 *O' +O+ L O v E > cn m 4-1N 3 -0 ' �UUcnO to EOLLU2. 26 O� O > v wQ m > > > > > > > CO a. H C) co ON Y Ep G r V V 0<< W Y U t W Y c Al 9 N l7 0 z m Y � M m J Q C j N Z C � m N r z c N T � N yWj W W~ W W O a <zz <o =a as a a c Q c .« » �\ $ / 3 ® \ '$ m = % m / % 9 - ® / a \ - � 4 - - .� / / / 00 / E / \ cc. / / a 2 -i . . \ :. 'S - � .. � . . 'A .. / G 2 2 � G E/ - » ® ® 7 . . 0 ... e � 0 % e ¥ � � m 7 § t \ ® < / LU 'E _ < \ 5 \ t « e \ 2 % 9 z / % 5 3 \ , _ & t \ 2 g o @ \ [ 7 | ƒ c .J &CL g -._ / § ® 50 } \ \ \ 2/ § CZ3 2 < 2/ 2 4 \ 5« o_ 2 m_}%^ z a # < ± < / \ k 7 \ 5 a � \Lu CL 2— 2 ■ - 0 X \ . 2 m w % . 2 M E \ \ /�—CD ix �2° \ < g®E$ $ M M 2 00- ° — ® a 0a)o 0 a L \ . t �' 2 G22�& 50#Z @ 0 2 �k2oc q ■ @ 2 � 0'ar o t r @—�_ 0 2 § 0 0 ZM 7 p :0, _ 2 @ ■ m e \\ CD 0 0) > c 2 (D k M tEuo § 0 ƒ k ( cn 0 a z .z Y m d �a E c m m .o m d R r w 0 v d C C 0 _a L R d d W t m 0 ch 0 L. a a 0 R a m n c 0 +, c Q) W N t M 4+ 4) Q O i�+ L CD VI L a -a J p � +; R C V O d v N �I d N C 'C p _ C r p �+ p C N a yr, 3 L w+ i 0 r ME . L, , ."Will - W ig ell k"',, W-All f op �11 � • jam.; �\i �►:€itt� Im i Now ok Ir tl IN 1 CAME � � � S d a c L i v F � L � V � m � V N aCK5 ^ N CU V � Y � c d L U � m Y W ■ I n ) C) (/a) Hy a) U) 000mft% CD 4 _ 'a?: , *1 'wa • � LL W J w 0 M m Z O CL 0 u :33 MEMORANDUM la CJ TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Drew Alexander, Interim Zoning Officer THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director L RE: Land Use Code Amendments — Ordinance No. 911, Series 2010 — Second Readine Temporary Outdoor Food Vending MEETING DATE: June 28, 2010 SUMMARY: At the June 8`s City Council meeting, Staff received direction to make further changes to the Code amendments regarding Temporary Outdoor Food Vending. Council suggested the following changes: 1) Place a limit on the total number of carts allowed outdoors; 2) Create a clear process for Applicants that outlines all of their requirements; 3) Allow for food carts in interior arcade spaces in the Commercial Core (CC) and; Commercial Lodge (CL) zone districts; 4) Allow for outdoor food carts only in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district; 5) Define what an Operation Plan should include and that it be incorporate in all letters that the Applicant releases for property owner and adjacent business approval; and 6) Define penalties for violating the Operation Plan. The draft language ("Exhibit B") includes these Council recommendations. Staff feels that this language offers a superior effort in controlling a potential proliferation of food carts within the City. Also, this draft language has several provisions that address those concerns that were voiced from established restaurant owners in the Aspen. Staff recommends the Council adopt the proposed code amendments. APPLICANT: City of Aspen PREVIOUs ACTION: Work sessions were held with CCLC and City Council in addition to a survey that was distributed by ACRA to local retailers. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. City Council is the final review authority. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the City -initiated amendments to Temporary Food Vending as described in Ordinance 913, Series of 2010. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 9B, Series of 2010." ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 913, 2010, for Temporary Outdoor Food Vending Exhibit A — Existing text for Outdoor Vending Exhibit B — Proposed text for Outdoor Vending Exhibit C — Temporary Food Vending Applicant Handout Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO.9B (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING SECTION FO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE: 26.470.060(7) WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of Aspen initiated an application proposing amendments to the Land Use Code, pursuant to Chapter 26.210; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Section 26.470.060(7), Temporary Outdoor Food Vending, of the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Director recommended approval of amendments to the above listed Sections as further described herein; and, WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on December 15, 2009, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued a hearing to consider the proposed amendments as described herein to January 5, 2010. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendments described herein on January 5, 2010, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Director and recommended, by a 7 - 0 vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 24 h, the City Council took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, referral agencies, Planning and Zoning Commission, and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued to June 7a', June 8th, and again to June 28', 2010. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 913, Series of 2010 Page 1 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1• Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City of Aspen City Council hereby approves the amendments to Section 26.470.060.7, Temporary Outdoor Food Vending, which section defines, describes, authorizes, and regulates the process for establishing a food vending cart within the City of Aspen to read as follows: 7. Temporary Food Vending. Temporary Food Vending on private property or public property that is subject to a mall lease for food vending or outdoor restaurant seating in the Commercial Core (CC) or Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone Districts shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria: a) Location: All outdoor food vending shall be located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Temporary food vending may operate in interior arcades of buildings within the Commercial Core and Commercial Lodge zone districts only if the approval of the property owner and of all businesses that have access in the arcade has been granted. The temporary operation shall under no circumstance be located in the public right-of-way. The normal operation of the food cart, including line queues, shall not inhibit the movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic along the public right-of-way. Other criteria that all applications must be in compliance with: 1. Multiple vending sites shall not be allowed for any single owner or entity. 2. The food cart shall be in a consistent location as is practically reasonable and not intended to move on a daily basis throughout the duration of the permit. 3. The food vending cart shall be placed in a location that does not interfere with required emergency egress or pose a threat to public health, safety and welfare. A minimum of six (6) foot ingress/egress shall be maintained for building entrances and exits. 4. Before a food vending cart can begin operating, it must receive approval from the property owner and all adjacent businesses. City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 9B, Series of 2010 Page 2 b) Operation Plan: The Applicant shall create an operation plan to include in all letters that seek approval from the property owner or adjacent businesses. The operation plan shall contain the following information, at a minimum: 1. Months of intended operation 2. Hours of operation 3. Location 4. Comprehensive list of all food and beverage being served If any element of the operation plan is altered after a Temporary Outdoor Food Vending permit has been issued, the Community Development Director has the ability to revoke the issued permit. c) Duration: The temporary food vending operation shall be permitted to operate for a period of six (6) months. The application shall state the desired months of operation. The six (6) month period may be used in a non-consecutive manner. For example, a food cart may operate from January I" through March 3 1 " and then again from June I" through August 31". At the end of this period, the operation shall be subject to an additional review and permit process. The Community Development Director shall consider a returning vendor's past performance in considering a permit renewal. This shall include, but shall not be limited to, input from the Environmental Health Department, Chief of Police, special event staff, and feedback from adjacent businesses. The Community Development Director may require a temporary cancelation of operations to accommodate special events, holidays, or similar large public gatherings. Such action will be taken if it is determined that the food cart will create a public safety issue or create an excessive burden on the event activities. The Community Development Director may revoke the permit and cause removal of the vending operation if the vendor fails to accommodate such a request. d) Fee: The permit fee for a food vending cart shall be the current fee listed in Land Use Code Section 26.104.070, Land use application fees. e) Size: The area of outdoor food vending activities does not exceed fifty (50) square feet. The area of outdoor food vending activities shall be defined as a counter area, equipment needed for the food vending activities (e.g. cooler with drinks, snow cone machine, popcorn machine, etc.), and the space needed by employees to work the food vending activity. City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 913, Series of 2010 Page 3 f) Number: The number of Temporary Outdoor Food Vending carts allowed within the City of Aspen at any given time shall be limited to four (4). This number shall be based upon valid Land Use Applications approved by the Community Development Director. Food vending locations within interior arcades are exempt from this limitation. g) SiQnaQe: Signage for temporary food vending carts shall be exempt from those requirements found within Land Use Code Section 26.510, Signs, but not excluding Prohibited Signs. The total amount of signage shall be the lesser of fifty percent (50%) of the surface area of the front of the cart, or six (6) square feet. Sign(s) shall be painted on or affixed to the cart. Any logos, lettering, or signage on umbrellas or canopies counts towards this calculation. Food carts may have a sandwich board sign in accordance with the regulations found within Chapter 26.510. h) Abandonment: The City of Aspen may remove an abandoned food vending operation, or components thereof, in order protect public health, safety, and welfare. Costs of such remediation shall be the sole burden of the property owner. i) Environmental Health: An application to the Community Development Director for temporary outdoor food vending shall only be submitted and approved subsequent to submitting and obtaining approval of a food service plan from the Environmental Health Department. The area of outdoor food vending activities shall include recycling bins and a waste disposal container that shall be emptied daily and stored inside at night and when the outdoor food vending activities are not in operation. Additionally, no outdoor, open -flame char -broiling shall be permitted pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13.08.100, Restaurant Grills. j) Affordable Housing Waiver: The Community Development Director shall waive affordable housing mitigation fees associated with the temporary new net leasable square footage being created by outdoor food vending activities. k) Year-round Operation: The outdoor food vending activities may occur year-round. An application for an approval of temporary outdoor vending activities shall not constitute nor be interpreted by any property owner, developer, vendor, or court as a site specific development plan entitled to vesting under Article 68 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes or Chapter 26.308 of this Title. Approvals granted in this subsection are subject to revocation by the City Manager or Community Development Director without requiring prior notice. City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 913, Series of 2010 Page 4 1) Maintenance and public safety: An application for temporary outdoor food vending activities shall not diminish the general public health, safety or welfare and shall abide by applicable City regulations, including but not limited to building codes, health safety codes, fire codes, liquor laws, sign and lighting codes, and sales tax license regulations. Section 2: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 24 h day of May, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 3• This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. {Signatures on following page) City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 9B, Series of 2010 Page 5 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of April, 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 9B, Series of 2010 Page 6 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor day of Michael C. Ireland, Mayor 2010. Exhibit A Existing Language 7. Temporary outdoor food vending. A temporary use of outdoor food vending by a restaurant or retailer on private property, private open space or public property that is subject to a mall lease for food vending or outdoor restaurant seating in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria: a) The temporary operation shall be permitted for a specified period not to exceed six (6) months in durations or as otherwise limited by a mall lease. b) The area of outdoor food vending activities does not exceed fifty (50) square feet. The area of outdoor food vending activities shall be defined as a counter area, equipment needed for the food vending activities (e.g. cooler with drinks, snow cone machine, popcorn machine, etc.), and the space needed by employees to work the food vending activity. c) Temporary outdoor food vending may only occur by or in association with restaurant or retail uses and with the approval of the restaurant or retail establishment's owner in which the outdoor food vending is associated and located adjacent to. d) An application to the Community Development Director for temporary outdoor food vending shall only be submitted and approved subsequent to submitting and obtaining approval of a food service plan from the Environmental Health Department. The area of outdoor food vending activities shall include a waste disposal container that shall be emptied daily and stored inside at night and when the outdoor food vending activities are not in operation. Additionally, no outdoor, open -flame char -broiling shall be permitted pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13.08.100, Restaurant Grills. e) The Community Development Director shall waive affordable housing mitigation fees associated with the temporary new net leasable square footage being created by outdoor food vending activities. f) The outdoor food vending activities may occur year-round. An application for an an approval of temporary outdoor vending activities shall not constitute nor be interpreted by any property owner, developer, vendor, or court as a site specific development plan entitled to vesting under Article 68 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes or Chapter 26.308 of this Title. Approvals granted in this subsection are subject to revocation by the City Manager or Community Development Director without requiring prior notice. g) An application for temporary outdoor food vending activities shall not diminish the general public health, safety or welfare and shall abide by applicable City regulations, including but not limited to building codes, health safety codes, fire codes, liquor laws, sign and lighting codes, and sales tax license regulations. Ex H i f3 rr B Draft Language 7. Temporary Food Vending. Temporary Food Vending on private property or public property that is subject to a mall lease for food vending or outdoor restaurant seating in the Commercial Core (CC) or Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone Districts shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria: a) Location: All outdoor food vending shall be located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Temporary food vending may operate in interior arcades of buildings within the Commercial Core and Commercial Lodge zone districts only if the approval of the property owner and of all businesses that have access in the arcade has been granted. The temporary operation shall under no circumstance be located in the public right-of-way. The normal operation of the food cart, including line queues, shall not inhibit the movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic along the public right-of-way. Other criteria that all applications must be in compliance with: 1. Multiple vending sites shall not be allowed for any single owner or entity. 2. The food cart shall be in a consistent location as is practically reasonable and not intended to move on a daily basis throughout the duration of the permit. 3. The food vending cart shall be placed in a location that does not interfere with required emergency egress or pose a threat to public health, safety and welfare. A minimum of six (6) foot ingress/egress shall be maintained for building entrances and exits. 4. Before a food vending cart can begin operating, it must receive approval from the property owner and all adjacent businesses. b) Operation Plan: The Applicant shall create an operation plan to include from the property owner or adjacent businesses. The following information, at a minimum: 1. Months of intended operation 2. Hours of operation 3. Location in all letters that seek approval operation plan shall contain the 4. Comprehensive list of all food and beverage being served. If any element of the operation plan is altered after a Temporary Outdoor Food Vending permit has been issued, the Community Development Director has the ability to revoke the issued permit. c) Duration: The temporary food vending operation shall be permitted to operate for a period of six (6) months. The application shall state the desired months of operation. The six (6) month period may be used in a non-consecutive manner. For example, a food cart may operate from January 1" through March 3 1 " and then again from June 1"through August 31". At the end of this period, the operation shall be subject to an additional review and permit process. The Community Development Director shall consider a returning vendor's past performance in considering a permit renewal. This shall include, but shall not be limited to, input from the Environmental Health Department, Chief of Police, special event staff, and feedback from adjacent businesses. The Community Development Director may require a temporary cancelation of operations to accommodate special events, holidays, or similar large public gatherings. Such action will be taken if it is determined that the food cart will create a public safety issue or create an excessive burden on the event activities. The Community Development Director may revoke the permit and cause removal of the vending operation if the vendor fails to accommodate such a request. d) Fee: The permit fee for a food vending cart shall be the current fee listed in Land Use Code Section 26.104.070, Land use application fees. e) Size: The area of outdoor food vending activities does not exceed fifty (50) square feet. The area of outdoor food vending activities shall be defined as a counter area, equipment needed for the food vending activities (e.g. cooler with drinks, snow cone machine, popcorn machine, etc.), and the space needed by employees to work the food vending activity. f) Number: The number of Temporary Outdoor Food Vending carts allowed within the City of Aspen at any given time shall be limited to four (4). This number shall be based upon valid Land Use Applications approved by the Community Development Director. Food vending locations within interior arcades are exempt from this limitation. g) Si$age: Signage for temporary food vending carts shall be exempt from those requirements found within Land Use Code Section 26.510, Signs, but not excluding Prohibited Signs. The total amount of signage shall be the lesser of fifty percent (50%) of the surface area of the front of the cart, or six (6) square feet. Sign(s) shall be painted on or affixed to the cart. Any logos, lettering, or signage on umbrellas or canopies counts towards this calculation. Food carts may have a sandwich board sign in accordance with the regulations found within Chapter 26.510. h) Abandonment: The City of Aspen may remove an abandoned food vending operation, or components thereof, in order protect public health, safety, and welfare. Costs of such remediation shall be the sole burden of the property owner. i) Environmental Health: An application to the Community Development Director for temporary outdoor food vending shall only be submitted and approved subsequent to submitting and obtaining approval of a food service plan from the Environmental Health Department. The area of outdoor food vending activities shall include recycling bins and a waste disposal container that shall be emptied daily and stored inside at night and when the outdoor food vending activities are not in operation. Additionally, no outdoor, open -flame char - broiling shall be permitted pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13.08.100, Restaurant Grills. j) Affordable Housing Waiver: The Community Development Director shall waive affordable housing mitigation fees associated with the temporary new net leasable square footage being created by outdoor food vending activities. k) Year-round Operation: The outdoor food vending activities may occur year-round. An application for an approval of temporary outdoor vending activities shall not constitute nor be interpreted by any property owner, developer, vendor, or court as a site specific development plan entitled to vesting under Article 68 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes or Chapter 26.308 of this Title. Approvals granted in this subsection are subject to revocation by the City Manager or Community Development Director without requiring prior notice. 1) Maintenance and public safety: An application for temporary outdoor food vending activities shall not diminish the general public health, safety or welfare and shall abide by applicable City regulations, including but not limited to building codes, health safety codes, fire codes, liquor laws, sign and lighting codes, and sales tax license regulations. f-x it 1 r3 1 T C. Temporary Food Vending —Application Guidelines: • Purpose This document shall serve as a guide for potential temporary food cart operators. This document should assist in the Land Use Application process, but is not an officially recorded document. For the full list of rules and regulations, see Section 26.470.060(7) of the City of Aspen's Land Use Code. Application Requirements The following list of requirements must be satisfied by all food cart applicants: ❑ A complete business plan that describes the hours of operation, desired months of operation, types of food and beverage being offered, and location. ❑ Letters of approval from the property owner and adjacent businesses. It should be clear in the approval letters that all parties were aware of ALL aspects of the business plan. ❑ A dimensioned drawing of the food cart or a photo ❑ A dimensioned site plan showing the location of the food cart ❑ A written explanation of how the proposal meets the applicable criteria in the Land Use Code. ❑ Completed Land Use Application and payment of all necessary fees. • General Comments and Penalties: o The Community Development Director shall consider a returning vendor's past performance in considering a permit renewal. This shall include but shall not be limited to input from the Environmental Health Department, the Chief of Police, special event staff, and feedback from adjacent businesses o The Community Development Director may revoke the permit and cause removal of the vending operation based on input from the Environmental Health Department or the Chief of Police in order to protect public safety and welfare. o The Community Development Director may require a temporary cancelation of operations to accommodate special events, holidays, or similar large public gatherings. Such action will be taken if it is determined that the food cart will create a public safety issue or create an excessive burden on the event's activities. The Community Development Director may revoke the permit and cause removal of the vending operation if the vendor fails to accommodate such a request. o A substantial change in the business plan (i.e. hours of operation, food and beverage being sold, location) may be cause for revocation of the permit.