Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20100712I• Call to Order 11. Roll Call CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 12, 2010 5:00 P.M. III• Scheduled Public Appearances a) Janice Vos Caudill — Election information IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) NOT 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 b together a) Radon Grant Addenda g Y a single motion) b) Resolution #49, 2010 - IGA Pitkin County and City of As Floodplain mapping c) Minutes — pp g VI I,. Vill. I01 X. First Reading of Ordinances f� GgOrdin;�ce #15, 2010 — Aspen Energy ente Hydro lant P. , � I �b S �j i� Public_U .:lti�i'�'�y5��..._�.I►� 9ac.�9'--iSEGt.�a.�'%li`=+�/�n Hearings ;2450 Sys 10-5� �gvlm'j S, a) Ordinance #28, 2009 — Mountain Plaza/Bidwell 434 E. Coop 9/27) er Subdivision '(cont to b) Resolution #48, 2010 — Extending HPC Conceptual Approval for 434 E. Cooper c) Ordinance #12, 2010 — Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan Phase II d) Resolution #42, 2010 — Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design e) Ordinance #14, 2010 — Silver Lining Conversion to Single Family Executive Session Adjournment � Next Regular Meeting July 26 2010 J COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES ✓ Stick to top priorities ✓ Foster safe, supportive, innovative work environment that encourages creativity and acceptable risk -taking ✓ Create structure and allow adequate time & resources for citizen orocescPQ COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 12, 2010 Call to Order 5:00 P.M. II. Roll Call III• Scheduled Public Appearances a) Janice Vos Caudill — Election information 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) Radon Grant Addendum b) Resolution #49, 2010 - IGA Pitkin County and City of Aspen Floodplain mapping c) Minutes — VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #15, 2010 —Aspen Energy Center Hydroplant P.H. VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #28, 2009 — Mountain Plaza/Bidwell 434 E. Cooper Subdivision (cont to 9/27) b) Resolution #48, 2010 — Extending HPC Conceptual Approval for 434 E. Cooper c) Ordinance #12, 2010 —Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan Phase II d) Resolution #42, 2010 — Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design e) Ordinance #14, 2010 — Silver Lining Conversion to Single Family IX. Executive Session X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting July 26 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 Drocescac COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jannette Whitcomb, Sr. Environmental Health Program Coordinator THRU: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director DATE OF MEMO: July 2, 2010 DATE OF MEETING: July 12, 2010 RE: 2010 Supplemental Budget Request — Radon Grant Addendum REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Environmental Health is seeking approval to spend an additional $1900 awarded by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to add to an existing radon grant. BACKGROUND: In the fall of 2009, the Environmental Health Department received $1950 radon grant money from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to purchase 500 radon test kits. The focus of this project was to educate and provide radon test kits to owners in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's owned -housing inventory and other citizens of Aspen. Results for those test kits used show that over 47% of the homes tested have high radon (above 4 pCi/L). These results demonstrate that Aspen, like much of the country, has a significant risk of high radon. DISCUSSION: In early June, 2010, staff was contacted by CDPHE staff and told that additional money was available under our current radon grant. Staff submitted a request and was approved for an extra $1150 to purchase 250 radon test kits and $750 for 15 hours of our GIS department's staff time to input all of our radon results and produce maps that show high radon area locations. The GIS work will help us in communicating radon risk to our public. We will be able to have a local map outlining levels of radon in Aspen on our website. This tool will also assist staff in encouraging people to test their home by visually demonstrating the high risk of radon in Aspen. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The $1900 for test kits and GIS staff time will be 100% reimbursed by CDPHE such that this request is for spending approval. Staff will include this in the 2010 fall supplemental request for revenue and expenditure budget authority. Page 1 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers, estimated to cause 25,000 lung cancer deaths each year in the United States. EPA's recommended "action level" to fix a home is 4 pCi/L and EPA encourages action when results are between 2 to 4 pCi/L. EPA believes that any radon exposure carries some risk. Radon is a significant risk that can be eliminated with simple, low cost measures. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve the additional spending of $1900 for radon testing and GIS mapping of the results, with the expenses fully reimbursed by the state. ALTERNATIVES: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Page 2 of 2 TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council pril Barker, Stormwater Manager, Engineering Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer July 6, 2010 July 12, 2010 IGA with Pitkin County for FEMA Floodplain Mapping REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests authorization of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Pitkin County that provides $25,000 from the City's stormwater fund to assist with a FEMA floodplain mapping project. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None. DISCUSSION: The County has been offered a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the digitization and update of floodplain maps. The majority of the County's floodplain maps were last updated in 1987 and are only available in hardcopy form. This project would involve digitizing all existing County floodplain maps, making them more accessible and useful to staff and the public. More importantly, this project involves new surveys and hydraulic studies for areas that have experienced significant development and changes since 1987, including all of the floodplains within the City's boundaries. Accurate floodplain information is important not only for flood insurance, but also for understanding river flows. This information is useful for establishing a baseline from which we can create master plans, policies, and structural improvements that work to preserve the natural characteristics of our rivers and improve the function and quality of our drainage system. Specifically the City will receive updated 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floodplain analysis, including the 1-ft floodway, and digital floodplain maps based on surveying and field reconnaissance and detailed HEC-RAS modeling for: 4 miles of the Roaring Fork River — approximate cost $38,800 2.5 miles of Maroon Creek — approximate cost $25,750 1.5 miles of Castle Creek — approximate cost $14,550 Page 1 of 2 The project is estimated to cost $517,220 (total cost in City boundaries is approximately $80,000). • FEMA has committed to provide 75% of the cost, $387,915. • The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) is providing $20,000. • Our GIS department is providing $33,150 in -kind contribution. • The County Open Space and Trails Board is providing $10,000. • The Healthy Rivers and Stream Board is providing $41,155. Staff is requesting to provide $25,000 through IGA to assist with the 25% match to FEMA. This amount would be funded from the Stormwater Capital Budget for Master Planning, currently budgeted for $200,000 in 2010. Work on this project would begin the summer of 2010, with new maps produced by the summer of 2011. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Staff is requesting to provide $25,000 through IGA. This amount would be funded from the Stormwater Capital Budget for Master Planning, currently budgeted for $200,000 in 2010. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Accurate floodplain information will assist in establishing a baseline from which we can create master plans, policies, and structural improvements that work to preserve the natural characteristics of our rivers and improve the function and quality of our drainage system. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council authorize the attached IGA and the commitment of $25,000 from the City's Stormwater fund. Attachments: Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County for the floodplain mapping project. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION #49 (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADOA SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Pitkin County, Colorado, 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 Pitkin County, Colorado regarding funding assistance toward the FEMA Floodplain Mapping Project for Pitkin County, 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, 2010 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT For City of Aspen Funding of FEMA Floodplain Mapping THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), is entered into this day of 2010 by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado (the "City") and PITKIN COUNTY, Colorado (the "County"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the County has been offered a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant towards the update and digitization of the Pitkin County floodplain maps; and WHEREAS, approximately 3.8 miles of the Roaring Fork River, 1.5 miles of Castle Creek, and 2.5 miles of Maroon Creek, lie within or adjacent to the City's boundaries and are planned to be updated as part of this project; and WHEREAS, the City desires to update our floodplain mapping to support master planning efforts for the City's stormwater program; and WHEREAS, the total project cost is $517,220, of which FEMA has committed to provide 75% ($387,915), the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) has committed to provide $20,000, the Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Stream Board has committed to provide $41,155, and the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board has committed to provide $10,000; and of which the County has sought $25,000 from the City's Stormwater fund. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the objectives and policies herein expressed, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. The parties hereto agree that the $25,000 funding assistance from the City to the County shall be used solely and directly for funding of the FEMA floodplain mapping project. 2. Floodplains on the sections of the Roaring Fork River, Castle Creek, and Maroon Creek that are located within or adjacent to City boundaries will be reanalyzed and updated as part of the FEMA floodplain mapping project. 3. Deliverables of the FEMA floodplain mapping project will be provided to the .City Floodplain Administrator and the City and County GIS department and will be made available to the public. The foregoing Agreement is approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on the day of 2010. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement which shall be in force and effect the day and year first above written. ASPEN CITY COUNCIL M. Mayor, City of Aspen Lo U\0.41►K4[G1 NYII'1 By: Pitkin County Commissioner Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM IC C ATTEST: City of Aspen Clerk ATTEST: IC MEMOR ANDUM lloff~ TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: Aspen Energy Center, Power Plant Road: Subdivision, Rezoning, Consolidated PUD Review, Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility, First Reading, Ordinance No.IS, Series of 2010. Second Reading is scheduled for August 9, 2010. 1V1LLI IiN1i LAIL: July IL, LUIU APPLICANT /OWNER: City of Aspen. REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC. LOCATION: Lot 3 and Open Space 2A of the Marolt Ranch Open Space, along Power Plant Road beneath the Castle Creek bridge. CURRENT ZONING: R-30, Low Density Residential. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests approval to construct a hydroelectric plant, aka the Aspen Energy Center, on Power Plant Road adjacent to the City Shop building. The application includes the following reviews: subdivision to create a new lot and to remove the area from the open space inventory, rezoning from R-30 to the Public Zone, consolidated PUD review to determine dimensional requirements, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public. The project is exempt from Stream Margin Review because it is a utility and is essential for public health and indicates proposed location of the new building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council grant approval for Subdivision, Rezoning, PUD and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility for the Aspen Energy Center with conditions. 1 Aspen Energy Center, Power Plant Road First Reading of Ordinance lT Series of 2010 07.12.10 BACKGROUND: In 1887, Aspen became the first city west of the Mississippi to use hydroelectric power for all of its municipal electricity. The hydroelectric plant was taken off line in the 1950s and was replaced by cheaper non -local electricity options. In 1993, City Council adopted a policy regarding the use of the City's water rights and related assets and to "promote recreational and environmental interests such as maintaining clean streams, water conservation, maintaining minimum stream flows and aquatic habitat, and developing hydroelectric power" (Resolution No. 5 Series of 1993.) Five years later the City entered into an agreement with the Colorado Water Conservation Board to implement the stream flow portion of the 1993 policy, part of which included investing in stream measurement improvements to ensure adequate flow levels in Castle Creek that protect stream flows and aquatic habitat. In 2007 the electorate of the City of Aspen voted in favor of two questions regarding the proposed Aspen Energy Center: 1.) "seeking authority for the issuance of...bonds for the purpose of constructing and equipping a new hydroelectric facility on Castle Creek" was passed by a vote of 582 to 230 or 72% (Resolution No. 69 Series of 2007); and 2.) "seeking authority to change the use of city owned property acquired for open space purposes for the construction of hydroelectric plant on Castle Creek" was passed by a vote of 622 to 183 or 77 %. (Resolution 70 of 2007.) About sixty years after the hydroelectric plant was taken off line, Aspen is proposing a new hydroelectric plant that, if approved by Federal agencies, will generate about 8.5 percent of the annual energy requirements of Aspen's electric customers. The Aspen Energy Center (AEC) is proposed to be located along Power Plant Road by the existing City Shop building adjacent to Castle Creek. Currently there are intake pipes upstream for Castle Creek and Maroon Creek, one intake each. These pipes divert water into the Thomas Reservoir located at the Water Department headquarters on Doolittle Drive. The water will travel through a penstock (pipe) down a 325' drop to the proposed AEC where it will power the hydroelectric plant and be discharged back into Castle Creek. 2 Aspen Energy Center, Power Plant Road First Reading of Ordinance iSSeries of 2010 07.12.10 Fieure 1: Pipeline and Diversion Points �L16t,Rp Castle Creek DNmsim Maroon CroeN wvmslon l�y,e Tnonas Resery 23 cis � EL 8175 _..v.ar� Aspen 9n� Trvatnmt Mt°'�/ Moro R Voter LLv ce H,rdo rY GERC p:0a4:-CO H r tlki Approx. 4,000 Uneor Ft. Munkipol Vogr 320 Ct. drop O 3/s Na ya Hybo/ �6Y U 7855 c g WN TO rekc Proposes Curter ds0torRI pain L �ltY aE(�X-W:P, CHfNtlro/Enter There are specific state and federal regulations that dictate the amount of water or cfs (cubic feet per square inch) required to remain in each Creek; therefore only a specific amount of water may be diverted during certain seasons. The state and federal regulations take natural wildlife habitat and natural vegetative niches into consideration. In addition to a stream flow analysis conducted by Grand River Consulting Corporation included in the application, the Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW) requested supplementary studies on flow levels necessary to support healthy aquatic environment. Miller Ecological Consultants were hired by the City to conduct extensive stream, fish and boreal toad studies. The Miller Study recommends a minimum of 13.3 cfs in the upper section of Castle Creek, 17.2 cfs in the lower section of Castle Creek and 14 cfs in Maroon Creek below the diversion point to maintain healthy streams. As part of their longtime commitment to maintaining healthy streams, the City commits to undertaking a stream health assessment after the hydroplant begins operations. There is no criterion requiring this type of follow up, so the City is working with CDOW, United States Forest Service and City Engineering to formulate a stream health monitoring plan. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the CDOW, City Engineering and City Utilities and recorded with the PUD agreement. Details of the plan will include: type of data gathered, submittal dates, annual recommendations from CDOW and a process for corrections should new recommendations arise from the assessments. A noise assessment analysis was conducted to determine sound impacts generated by the AEC. The building has been designed specifically to absorb and mitigate sound levels. The project goal is to attain a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 60 decibels at the building. Sound readings are measured from the property line. The required adopted maximum decibel level for this neighborhood is 50 decibels at night and 55 decibels during the day, as stated in Title 18 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The City commits to compliance with local, state and federal sound `guidelines and agrees to measure sound levels at the time of project completion to confirm that the facility is in conformity. Sound readings will be taken periodically after the Certificate of Occupancy by the Environmental Health Department to confirm that the facility meet sound requirements. Aspen Energy Center, Power Plant Road First Reading of Ordinance /,T Series of 2010 07.12.10 PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The proposed site is located within 100 feet of Castle Creek and requires Stream Margin Review to ensure that the development is sensitive to existing watercourses and natural vegetation. The hydroelectric plant proposal is exempt from Stream Margin Review pursuant to Section 26.435.040.B.2 of the Land Use Code which exempts the following types of development: "construction of improvements essential for public health and safety which cannot be reasonably accommodated outside of the no development area prescribed by this Section including, but not limited to, utilities, provided the Community Development Director determines the development complies, to the extent practical, with the Stream Margin Review Standards." Adopted City standards require a decibel level of 50 dB at night and 55 dB during the day for this project. The project proposes to meet these requirements and conduct a sound test once the project has received the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to measure the decibel of the facility and confirm compliance with City standards. The City commits to meeting the adopted standards if the project is found out of compliance. Staff finds that the criteria for Stream Margin Review are met to the extent practical with the condition that the applicant meet the requirements of the Colorado Department of Wildlife and comply with the minimum stream flow recommendations provided by the Miller Consulting Group to protect aquatic life and vegetative habitat in Castle Creek. The applicant is voluntarily committing to a stream health monitoring plan to ensure that the streams are healthy after the hydroplant begins operations. On April 20, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a 3 — 2 vote, an employee generation rate of 0 employees with the condition that an employee audit be conducted by the Housing Authority 2 years after the Certificate of Occupancy is granted. The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concern regarding minimum stream flows and recommended that Council carefully review the report generated by Miller Ecological Consultants. The resolution and meeting minutes are attached as Exhibits F and G. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from City Council to construct the hydroelectric plant: • Subdivision approval to remove part of Lot 3 and Open Space 2A of the Marolt Subdivision pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); • Rezoning to the Public Zone District pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); • Consolidated PUD approval for the construction of the hydroelectric plant pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development. (City Council is the final 4 Aspen Energy Center, Power Plant Road First Reading of Ordinance )L Series of 2010 07.12.10 review authority after considering a recommendation) from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility (Chapter 26.470.090.4) to approve employee mitigation requirements for the Essential Public Facility. Cit Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.) PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed hydroelectric plant is a one story 2,025 gross square foot Essential Public Facility that includes four rooms: Turbine Room (approx. 1,046 sq. ft.), Shop and Staging Room (approx. 355 sq. ft.), Visitor Room (approx. 178 sq. ft.) and Control Room (approx. 301 sq. ft.) A covered carport that facilitates 5 parking spaces is proposed to be located on CDOT property directly adjacent to the subject lot. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: The Public Zone District requires adoption of a PUD to establish dimensional requirements. The applicant requests a rezoning from the R-30 Zone District, which does not permit a hydroelectric plant, to the Public Zone District. Staff provided the approved PUD requirements for the adjacent City Shop building that has a similar public utility use for reference. Approved PUD Dimensional Proposed Dimensional Staff Notes requirements for Requirement adjacent City Requirements Shop building Proposed AEC parcel 1 acre or 43,560 Minimum Lot Size 23,000 sq. ft. is 23,689 sq. ft. sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area per n/a No residential n/a dwelling unit component. Maximum Allowable n/a No residential n/a Density component. Minimum Lot Width 220 ft. 160 ft. Minimum Front Yard 30 ft. 55 ft. Setback Minimum Side Yard 5 ft. north side yard; 0 ft. and 185 ft. on south Setback side yard Staff proposes that retaining walls located Minimum Rear Yard 45 ft. in the setbacks be 0 ft. Setback approved as part of the PUD plat. Measured pursuant to Maximum Height 27 ft. Land Use Code 33 ft. Section 26.575.020.13 Minimum Distance n1a Only one building 0 ft Between Buildings ro osed. 5 Aspen Energy Center, Power Plant Road First Reading of Ordinance [,! ' Series of 2010 07.12.10 Proposed Approved PUD Dimensional Dimensional Staff Notes requirements for Requirement Requirements adjacent City Shop buildin Applicant proposes no open space Minimum % Open No requirement requirement due to the 14% Space 3:1 open space exchange and the surrounding open space.* Applicant does not anticipate that the plant will regularly Trash Access Area No requirement generate trash. The n/a loading dock area is proposed for trash storage as needed. Please reference Allowable Gross Square 2,025 gross square Exhibit B, PUD Review Criteria, for an 0.35:1 Footage feet explanation of proposed floor area. The applicant proposes 5 covered parking spaces on the adjacent CDOT right of to be used for the Minimum Off -Street 0 spaces p AEC. The Code does n/a Parking not permit off-street parking to be located on an adjacent lot that is in different ownership than the subject parcel. *Please reference Exhibit A, Subdivision for a detailed explanation about the land trade. Parkin : The applicant proposes 5 covered parking spaces to be located on CDOT Right of Way adjacent to the subject lot. The City is currently working on a Lease Agreement with CDOT to use the Right of Way for AEC parking. The Land Use Code requires that off-street parking spaces be located on the subject parcel or an adjacent parcel that is in the same ownership. As such, the 5 proposed parking spaces do not count as off-street parking; however they are proposed to be used as parking for the AEC. The parking spaces are not anticipated to be used regularly. An employee will not be permanently stationed at the AEC. The plant will be operated remotely from the Water Department headquarters and routine maintenance and readings will be performed as needed. Visitors to the AEC are by Aspen Energy Center, Power Plant Road First Reading of Ordinance 4g Series of 2010 07.12.10 appointment only to ensure that an employee is present to open and supervise visitation. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends a requirement of 0 parking spaces to City Council as part of the PUD plan. Public Outreach: To date, the applicant has held 6 public meetings to discuss the proposal. The most recent meeting on June 16, 2010 presented the Miller Ecological Consultant's draft report; meeting notes are attached in Exhibit I. An informative webpage explaining the proposal and answering frequently asked questions is accessed off of the www.aspenpitkin.com homepage under "city spotlight." A technical workshop was held on May 28, 2010 to discuss the draft report with interested stakeholders to gain their feedback and expertise participants included: Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Ruedi Water & Power Authority, United States Forest Service, Colorado River District, Stream Health Initiative, and Trout Unlimited. The Colorado Department of Wildlife and Roaring Fork Conservancy provided comments directly to Dr. Miller. STAFF COMMENTS: AREA PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED FROM OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION: The proposed location of the AEC is adjacent to Castle Creek along Power Plant Road on land that is currently part of Marolt Open Space.' The voters approved removal of a small section of open space for this project in exchange for newly designated open space along lower Aspen Mountain (Millionaire Claim) and trail easements around the Water Plant that add up to about three times the size of the AEC proposed lot for a 3:1 land exchange.2 Subdivision of the proposed lot from the Marolt Open Space is required for the hydroplant project. � COL[. 574,E HIWWCr -W i. 7. Z= o ,A i{ "LOT ,t 2 Staff finds that the AACP is met with the proposed application and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to City Council. ' City Special Counsel James True determined that the CDOT ROW is 60' in width, and therefore the proposed AEC building is located on land owned by the City of Aspen. To clarify the matter, the City submitted a quit claim to CDOT for the area in question. CDOT is surveying the area before responding to the City's request. The proposed carports are located on CDOT property. COOT drafted a Lease Agreement that the City Attorney reviewed and submitted minor changes. The City is currently awaiting CDOT's response to the proposed changes. The Lease Agreement and any property boundary questions must be resolved prior to submitting for a building permit. The City Charter requires a 1:1 open space land exchange. 7 Aspen Energy Center, Power Plant Road First Reading of Ordinance Lf Series of 2010 07.12.10 REZONING: Rezoning from the R-30 Low Residential Zone District to Public Zone District with a PUD overlay is required to permit the operation of a hydroelectric plant. The Public Zone District permits "essential governmental and public utility uses, facilities, services and buildings (excluding maintenance shops)," and requires a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to establish dimensional requirements. Staff finds that the criteria to rezone the parcel to Public Zone District is met and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to City Council. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The Community Development Department determined that a consolidated PUD review for the approximately 2,025 square foot (approx. 1,895 sq. ft. of floor area) building is appropriate. The proposed building is one story and includes a large room for the turbine and generator, a shop and staging room, a small control room, and a small visitor room and bathroom. The proposed floor area accounts only for the proposed building. Staff finds that is appropriate to approve only the specific project included in the application rather than anticipate a future potential addition that will require a Land Use review to amend the PUD. There is no open space requirement provided in the application. The proposed setbacks will contain any development to the area on the north side of Power Plant Road. In addition to hydroelectric power, the City envisions this building to have an educational component with a renewable energy display and a pictorial history of electric production in the visitor room. Large internal windows will allow visitors to watch the turbine in action. The AEC design intends to be carbon neutral with a zero carbon footprint by using solar panels to power any lights on the exterior and interior of the building. Energy efficient building materials and mechanical systems, and water efficient landscaping contribute to the City's environmental stewardship goals. Staff finds that the review criteria are met and recommends City Council approve the consolidated PUD plan. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW — ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY: The proposed AEC qualifies as an Essential Public Facility as it 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," and as such requires approval for employee generation and requires employee mitigation through Growth Management Review. The Water Department plans to utilize existing employees to monitor the hydroelectric equipment remotely from the Water Department offices located on Doolittle Drive with daily visits to the actual AEC site. Currently, hydroelectric specialists conduct daily readings and maintenance of existing City facilities including the Maroon Creek hydroelectric plant and the Castle Creek and Maroon Creek headgates. The AEC will be added to the scheduled monitoring of these properties on an as needed basis. Any visitors or tour groups are by appointment only to guarantee that an employee is present. The Housing Board recommends that an audit of Water Department employees is conducted 2 years after the Certificate of Occupancy to confirm that no increase of employees resulted from the AEC. The Planning and Zoning Commission established an employee generation rate of 0 employees for the AEC. 8 Aspen Energy Center, Power Plant Road First Reading of Ordinance a Series of 2010 07.12.10 Staff finds that the criteria are met and recommends that City Council grant Growth Management approval for an Essential Public Facility with the condition that an employee audit specific to the hydroelectric plant is conducted, upon request by APCHA, 2 years after the Certificate of Occupancy is granted. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Building Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, Fire Marshall, Attorney's Office, Environmental Health Department, Transportation Department, Utilities, the Parks Department and Pitkin County Community Development have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. Parks requests that the Memorandum of Agreement for the land exchange between Parks/ Open Space and the City occur at the time of recordation of the proposed project. Staff has included this as a condition of approval. The Engineering Department raised concerns about the proposed drainage plan and requests more information about the impact of the hydroelectric plant on stream life. The drainage plan shall be approved by Engineering prior to recordation of the final PUD plat. The applicant hired a consultant to perform more extensive analysis on stream life and potential impacts, and is working With the Engineering Department, CDOW and the Forest Service to compose a stream health monitoring plan that will assess the health of the stream after the hydroplant begins operations. This has been included as a condition of approval. APCHA recommends an employee audit of the Water Department 2 years after a certificate of occupancy is granted to ensure that no new employees are generated with the construction of the hydroelectric plant. This has been included as a condition of approval. The County Community Development Department is monitoring the proposed hydroelectric plant proceeding in Water Court regarding impacts on Maroon Creek and has no comment at this time. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of the AACP as well as the applicable review standards in the City Land Use Code. Staff finds that this project will further the community goal to reduce Aspen's carbon footprint. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No._, Series of 2010, approving with conditions Subdivision, Rezoning to the Public Zone District, Consolidated PUD approval and Growth Management approval for an Essential Public Facility on first reading." CITY MANAGER 9 Aspen Energy Center, Power Plant Road First Reading of Ordinance j<- Series of 2010 07.12.10 Attachments: EXHIBIT A — Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff Findings EXHIBIT B — Rezoning Review Criteria, Staff Findings EXHIBIT C — PUD Review Criteria, Staff Findings EXHIBIT D — Growth Management Review Criteria, Staff Findings EXHIBIT E — DRC Comments EXHIBIT F — Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 9, Series of 2010 EXHIBIT G — Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes from April 20, 2010 EXHIBIT H — Application (bound copy) EXHIBIT I — Supplemental information to Application dated April 8, 2010 EXHIBIT J — Supplemental information to Application dated July 2, 2010 EXHIBIT K — Letter from Roaring Fork Conservancy, dated January 14, 2010 10 Aspen Energy Center, Power Plant Road First Reading of Ordinance lr Series of 2010 07.12.10 Ordinance N451 (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS SUBDIVISION, REZONING TO PUBLIC ZONE DISTRICT, CONSOLIDATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR LOT 3 AND OPEN SPACE 2A OF THE MAROLT RANCH OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION, AKA THE CASTLE CREEK ENERGY CENTER AND HYDROELECTRIC PLANT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2735-123-63-852 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen, requesting approval to construct the Castle Creek Energy Center and Hydroelectric Plant, which included requests for Subdivision, Amendment to the Zone District Map, Planned Unit Development plan, and Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Castle Creek Energy Center will serve an essential public purpose by providing clean hydroelectric power to City facilities thus serving the general public and Aspen community and complying with the voters' directive to reduce carbon emissions, and therefore is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and, WHERAS, the Community Development Director determined that the proposed development is exempt from Stream Margin Review, pursuant to Section 26.435.040.B.2, in that the proposed facility complies to the extent practical with the Stream Margin Review Standards, and concluded that it was appropriate to discuss the stream margin review criteria with the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to identify and address issues associated with the development and Stream Margin area; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is currently zoned R-30 Low Density Residential with a PUD overlay and is part of the dedicated Marolt Ranch Open Space; and, WHEREAS, the electorate voted in 2007 to remove the subject parcel from the March Open Space as stated in City Council Resolution No. 70 Series of 2007; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed land use requests with conditions; and, WHEREAS, following a duly noticed public hearing on April 20, 2010, the City of Aspen received a recommendation of approval for Subdivision, Rezoning from R-30 to Public Zone District, Consolidated PUD plan, and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility from the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Ordinance No. N , Series of 2010 First Reading, July 12, 2010 Page 1 of 7 Resolution No. 9, Series of 2010, for a 2,025 gross square foot hydroelectric plant located on the property at Lot 3 and Open Space 2A of the Marolt Ranch Open Space Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on July 12, 2010 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. _ Series 2010, on First Reading, approving with conditions Subdivision, Rezoning from R-30 to Public Zone District, Consolidated PUD plan, and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility for the property located at Lot 3 and Open Space 2A of the Marolt Ranch Open Space Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with the conditions set forth herein, 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 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Dimensional Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended and the City Council hereby grants approval of Subdivision, a Consolidated Planned Unit Development, Rezoning, and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for the property located at Lot 3 and Open Space 2A of the Marolt Ranch Open Space Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado the following dimensional standards for the Castle Creek Energy Center and Hydroelectric Plant: Table 1: Approved Dimensional Standards: Proposed Dimensional Dimensional Requirement Re uirements Minimum Lot Size 23,000 s . ft. Minimum Lot Area per n/a dwelling unit Maximum Allowable n/a Density Ordinance No. L, Series of 2010 First Reading, July 12, 2010 Page 2 of 7 Proposed Dimensional Dimensional Requirement Requirements Minimum Lot Width 220 ft. Minimum Front Yard 30 ft. Setback 5 ft. north side yard; Minimum Side Yard and 185 ft. on south Setback side yard Minimum Rear Yard 45 ft. Setback Maximum Height 27 ft. Minimum Distance n/a Between Buildings Minimum % Open No requirement. Space Trash Access Area No requirement. 2,025 gross sq. ft., as Allowable Gross Square indicated on the PUD Footage lat. Minimum Off -Street 0 spaces Parking Section 2• Subdivision from Marolt Ranch Open Space: Lot 3 and part of Lot 2A of the Marolt Ranch Open Space are hereby removed from the Open Space inventory. The newly created lot is 23, 689 square feet as depicted on the survey. A Memorandum of Agreement approving the removal of the subject lot and the approved Open Space land exchange shall be recorded simultaneously with the recordation of the Subdivision plat, and Planned Unit Development plat and agreement. Concurrent with the recordation of the Castle Creek Energy Center Subdivision and PUD plats and agreement, the Marolt Open Space PUD and SIA shall be amended and recorded to reflect the Subdivision approval. The aforementioned recordations shall be made with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to submitting an application for a Building Permit. Section 3: Amendment to the Zone District Map Upon the effective date of an act by City Council approving a development application for an amendment to the Zone District map, rezoning the subject lot from R-30 Low Density Residential Zone District with a PUD overlay to the Public Zone District with a PUD overlay, the Community Development Director shall place the amendment on the City's official zone district map. Section 4: Parking Parking is not required on site; however if a Lease Agreement is entered into between the City and CDOT to use the Right of Way for 5 parking spaces, then the parking may be used for the Castle Creek Energy Center. Ordinance No. IS , Series of 2010 First Reading, July 12, 2010 Page 3 of 7 Section 5: Environmental Assessment The City shall operate the Castle Creek hydroelectric plant in accordance with the terms of a license or exemption from licensing which is issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"). The City shall operate its hydroelectric water rights on Castle Creek to divert water to the Castle Creek hydroelectric pant in a manner that will allow maintenance of a minimum stream flow in Castle Creek in the amount of 13.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) immediately downstream of the point of diversion of the Castle Creek municipal intake, and a minimum stream flow of 17.2 cfs in Castle Creek immediately downstream of the point at which return flows from the Castle Creek hydroelectric plant return to Castle Creek, in order to continue to maintain a healthy stream environment on Castle Creek In addition, the City shall continue to operate its hydroelectric water rights on Maroon Creek to divert water to the Maroon Creek hydroelectric plant in a manner that will allow maintenance of a minimum stream flow in Maroon Creek in the amount of 14 cfs immediately downstream of the point of diversion of the Maroon Creek municipal intake, in order to continue to maintain a healthy stream environment on Maroon Creek. The foregoing minimum stream flows are recommended by the findings in the Miller Ecological Consultants report to provide habitat to protect the aquatic biota during baseflow periods and refuge habitat in the winter. The City, in collaboration with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the United States Forest Service, shall develop a stream health monitoring plan that shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder with the PUD agreement prior to submitting its application for building permit. The City shall conduct assessments of stream health conditions as directed by the stream health monitoring plan, and shall submit such assessments to the Colorado Division of Wildlife and other agencies as required by the stream health monitoring plan. If such assessments demonstrate that minimum stream flows at the specified locations on Castle Creek or Maroon Creek should be increased, the City shall operate its hydroelectric water rights on Castle Creek to provide such increased minimum flows at the specified locations. If such minimum stream flows are inconsistent with the City's commitments and objectives for the Castle Creek hydroelectric plant, including Ordinance 23, Series of 2008, then the City will seek resolution from City Council. The City Council recognizes that while the City may operate its hydroelectric water rights on Castle Creek and Maroon Creek in order to maintain the stream flows recommended by Miller Ecological Consultants, or greater stream flows, at the specified locations described above, only the Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB") is legally authorized to appropriate and hold decrees for instream flow water rights. Section 6: Noise Assessment The Castle Creek Energy Center shall comply with the City of Aspen noise ordinance, Title 18 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The City shall conduct a noise analysis upon completion of the Castle Creek hydroelectric plant to confirm compliance with City noise standards. The City shall submit a baseline sound level report to the Environmental Health Department at the time of building permit application in order to permit Ordinance No. L, Series of 2010 First Reading, July 12, 2010 Page 4 of 7 comparison with the sound impact of the hydroelectric plant after it is operating. After the hydroelectric plant is operational, the City shall provide sound readings, as reasonably requested by the Environmental Health Department, to confirm compliance with City standards. Section 7: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. e. An excavation -stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and soils report pursuant to the Building and Engineering Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. Staging areas will be identified in the plan. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Stormwater run-off and management must meet the requirements of the Urban Runoff Management Plan. f. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design. g. Accessibility requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved landscape plan. Section 8: Engineering Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, including but not limited to Title 21 Streets, Sidewalks and other Public Places, Title 8.50 Flood Damage Prevention and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. A final grading and drainage plan meeting all requirements of the City Engineer shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department prior to Engineering Department sign -off on the Final Plat. Section 9: Water Department Requirements The City 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. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the ACSD office, and shall obtain ACSD approval of the City -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. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2010 First Reading, July 12, 2010 Page 5 of 7 c. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public rights of way, ACSD easements, or easements that will be dedicated to ACSD in connection with this project. d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. The glycol heating and snow melt system for the Castle Creek Energy Center project must be designed to prohibit the discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. f. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public right of way above ASCD main sewer lines. g. The City's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 11: Exterior LiEhtin2 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 12• All material representations and commitments made by the City 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 development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 13: 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 any ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 14: 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. Ordinance No. IS, Series of 2010 First Reading, July 12, 2010 Page 6 of 7 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12'h day of July, 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Exhibit A: Site Plan Exhibit B: Elevations Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance No. 1 S> Series of 2010 First Reading, July 12, 2010 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT A SUBDIVISION Chapter 26.480, SUBDIVISION Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The AACP stresses environmental stewardship and economic sustainability by encouraging new developments to meet different community goals. Staff finds that the proposed hydroelectric plant is consistent with the applicable sections of the AACP. After receiving a federal license, the hydroelectric plant will replace some of the coal-fired energy that is purchased from Nebraska which will reduce the City's carbon footprint. The Energy Center will be a hydroelectric facility, renewable energy model and education center, producing approximately 8.5% of the annual energy for Aspen's electric customers and reducing CO2 emissions by about 5,000 tons. The actual building is projected to be carbon neutral. Solar panels are proposed on the roof to offset any lighting needs within the building. Energy efficient building materials and mechanical systems, and water efficient landscaping contribute to the City's environmental stewardship goals. Staff finds that the applicant could go further to meet the Transportation section of the AACP by encouraging alternative transportation modes for visitors. Specifically, the application is consistent with the following goals of the AACP: Parks, Open Space & the Environment "No open space or trail interest acquired with Open Space/Trails Funds should be sold or conveyed, nor should any interest be converted unless such open space or trail interest is replaced with another open space or trail interest of equivalent value. Such sale or conversion should be approved by a majority of the electorate at a general or special elevation for this purpose. " In 2007, 77 % of the electorate voted in favor of removing the subject lot from the Marolt Open Space to construct the proposed hydroelectric plant in exchange for the Millionaire Claim located along lower Aspen Mountain and trail easements around the Water Treatment plant off of Doolittle Drive. The exchange amounts to a 3:1 replacement of open space. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. "Recognize the important natural features that define the character of Aspen. Such features... include the preservation of and access to the river corridor... " and "Elected and appointed Boards and Commissions should consider environmental and wildlife issues in all land use deliberations, discussions and decisions. " The applicant worked with CDOW and private consultants to study the aquatic habitat and stream flows of Castle and Maroon Creeks to ensure preservation of wildlife and river habitats. There are specific state and federal regulations that dictate the amount of water or cfs (cubic feet per square inch) required to remain in each Creek; therefore only a specific amount of water may be diverted during certain seasons. State and federal regulations take natural wildlife habitat and natural vegetative niches into consideration. In addition to a stream flow analysis conducted by Exhibit A — Subdivision Review Criteria Page 1 of 5 Grand River Consulting Corporation, the Colorado Department of Wildlife requested supplementary studies on flow levels necessary to support healthy aquatic environment. Miller Ecological Consultants was hired by the City to conduct extensive stream, fish and boreal toad studies. The Miller report recommends an instream cfs of 13.3 be maintained for a healthy stream, which the City agrees to sustain. It is unknown as to whether there already is a fisherman's easement for access to Castle Creek. The applicant intends to add an easement to the recorded plat if one does not already exist. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. Economic Sustainability "Encourage resource efficiency, environmental responsibility, and cultural and community sensitivity in local organizations and in construction. " The proposed hydroelectric plant is proposed to save the City over $300,000 annually (based on 2007 numbers.) In addition to actual fiscal benefits, the plant will reduce the City's carbon footprint. Staff finds that the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. Design Quality "Make every public project a model of good development, on all levels, from quality design to positive contributions to the community fabric. " The applicant projects that the proposed building will be carbon neutral. The proposed design references the National Register listed historic City Shop building located adjacent, but is clearly a product of its own time with contemporary fenestration and materials. Solar panels are proposed on the roof to offset any lighting needs within the building. Energy efficient building materials and mechanical systems, and water efficient landscaping are proposed. Noise mitigation and insulation to reduce the sound impacts of the turbine on the neighborhood and environment was an important factor driving the material choices, and the required hydroelectric equipment dictated the overall form and height of the building. Staff finds that the proposed design fits into the context of the subject area. Staff finds that the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. Transportation "Require all employment, school, social, recreation or other activities that generate demand for travel to mitigate traffic impacts through support of alternative transportation modes in proportion to trips generated " The number of trips generated by the proposed project is below the city threshold used to determine impact on PM-10 levels. The traffic from this facility is expected to have an insignificant effect on PM-10 levels. The applicant is not proposing any measures to encourage employee or visitor travel by alternative methods, but the trip generation rate is so small that the impact on PM-10 levels would be insignificant. Currently two hydrologist specialists travel in one work truck to perform daily readings of similar Water Department facilities. The hydroelectric plant will be added to the list of facilities if approved. The location of the facilities deems it unreasonable for the employees to use alternate modes of transportation. Staff recommends that the City encourage visitors to the hydroelectric plant to use alternate modes of transportation or carpool to meet this goal of the AACP. Staff finds that this criterion to be met. Exhibit A — Subdivision Review Criteria Page 2 of 5 Z The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding The proposed subdivision is located adjacent to the City Shop facility that houses the City Streets Department and is Aspen's original hydroelectric plant. The proposed location for the building is currently a high impacted dirt area where random pieces of equipment are parked and stored. Residences are located along Castle Creek across from the proposed hydroelectric plant. Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will clean up the existing condition of the subject area and is consistent with the existing land uses in the area, specifically the adjacent City Shop building. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding: The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff finds that the proposed subdivision does not create any physical, legal or other impediments to the development of surrounding lands. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the applicable requirements of Title 26. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision a. 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. Staff Finding: The proposed subdivision will not support any residential units. The applicant assessed the topography of the land for the development of a hydroelectric plant and is working closely with the Engineering Department to create an appropriate drainage plan and soil retention plan for the site. The proposed new lot is largely flat, however there are very steep slopes located to the west. The hydroelectric plant is required to meet federal and state standards before the facility can receive a license and operate. The standards assess streamflow, natural habitats and aquatic life and vegetation before granting a license. The City has hired Miller Consulting Group, a private consultant, to study the Creeks to ensure that the hydroelectric plant will not have any adverse impact on the different life forms that they both support. The report has been submitted to the CDOW and the US Forest Service for review and comment. A technical workshop was held on May 28, 2010 to present the draft report to the technical community and to gain feedback on the report. On June 16, 2010 a public meeting was held to present the final finding in Dr. Miller's report. Meeting notes for both meetings are included in the Exhibit A — Subdivision Review Criteria Page 3 of 5 application. A follow up meeting with CDOW, the US Forest Service and City Engineering to discuss a long term monitoring plan took place on June 30, 2010 to ensure that the City is protecting stream health over time. A plan to monitor stream health after the hydroelectric plant is operating will be included in your packet for second reading on August 9`h. Noise pollution is being addressed largely with the construction materials of the building. A sound engineering firm has been hired to analyze a similar plant and to provide noise reading projections for the proposed hydroelectric plant. The decibel levels are required to meet city standards, which are 50 decibels at night and 55 decibels at day. According to the application, the highest decibel will be emitted from the roof. it will be equivalent to a person screaming on one side of a wall that you can barely understand on the other side of the wall. Sound readings are taken from the property line, and distance from the building will decrease the level of sound. A sound reading will be taken prior to the operation of the hydroelectric plant to confirm conformance with city standards. Periodic sound readings, as requested by the Environmental Health Department, shall occur after the Certificate of Occupancy. Staff finds that this criterion is met. b. 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 subdivision will not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. The proposed hydroelectric plant will increase energy efficiency. In addition to actual fiscal benefits, the plant will reduce the City's carbon footprint. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and provided comments, attached in Exhibit E. The applicant represents that no design standard variations are necessary for the proposed subdivision. The subdivision includes creating one lot for an Essential Public Facility, which will be processed as a PUD. Staff finds that this criterion is met. Exhibit A — Subdivision Review Criteria Page 4 of 5 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 subdivision does not include any residential dwellings and it is projected to not generate any new employees. The application is required to comply with Growth Management review for an Essential Public Facility. Please refer to Exhibit D for a comprehensive analysis. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding: Not applicable because there are no residential units proposed. 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 parcels) 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) Staff Finding: The project is required to receive Growth Management approval for an Essential Public Facility, as explained in Exhibit D. Staff finds that this criterion is met. Exhibit A — Subdivision Review Criteria Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT B Amendments to the Official Zone District Map Chapter 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 proposed amendment is not in conflict with applicable portions of the Land Use Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: As outlined in Exhibit A, Staff finds that the proposed hydroelectric project and rezoning meets the goals of the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: The existing zone district for the subject parcel is R-30, Low Density Residential; however the parcel is incorporated in the March Open Space. The applicant proposes to rezone the parcel to the Public Zone District, which permits a hydroelectric plant pursuant to the adoption of a Planned Unit Development plan. The existing land use and neighborhood characteristics are mixed. The map to the right illustrates the different zone districts; the yellow star indicates the proposed project. Directly adjacent to the proposed parcel is the Streets Department which is zoned Public (highlighted with green shading). Across Castle Creek (running north/south through the center) are two residential zone districts, R-30 and R-15A. The Marolt Open Space, from which the subject parcel requests subdivision, is zoned R-30. Staff finds that the proposed Public Zone is appropri "an essential governmental and public utility use, ate for the intended use of the parcel as facility, service and building," and is Exhibit B — Rezoning Review Criteria Page 1 of 3 congruent with the zoning for the adjacent City Shop building that houses the Streets Department. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning does not project to have an adverse impact on traffic generation and road safety. The applicant represents that the hydroelectric plant will generate a negligible number of trips. Road safety will be increased with the hydroelectric plant in that the current haphazard entrance and exit of trucks in this area will be organized. 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: The proposed amendment will not increase demands on public facilities. The hydroelectric plant intends to decrease demands on public facilities. A comprehensive drainage plan is required to be approved by the Engineering Department during the building permit process to mitigate new drainage issues resulting from the new building and proposed hardscape. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result insignificantly adverse impacts on the natural environment Staff Finding: According to scientific analysis provided by Miller Consulting Group, the proposed hydroelectric plant will not have significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The hydroelectric plant is required to meet federal and state standards before the facility can receive a license and operate. The standards assess streamflow, natural habitats and aquatic life and vegetation before granting a license. The applicant is working with CDOW and hired a private consultant to analyze aquatic habitats and stream flows to ensure that the hydroplant supports a healthy natural environment. A commitment to reassess the stream health agreement represented in consultant Dr. Miller's report 5 years after operations begin is under discussion with CDOW and US Forest Service. It is. important to note that hydropower will have a positive impact on the overall natural environment by replacing coal -burning energy. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed Public Zone is consistent and compatible with the community character in Aspen: the adjacent parcel is zoned Public and supports a similar utility facility. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Exhibit B — Rezoning Review Criteria Page 2 of 3 Staff Finding: The subject parcel is currently part of the Marolt Open Space; however the state of the parcel does not represent itself as open space. The dirt covered area is used as storage for equipment and a parking area for large trucks. The voters elected to remove the lot from the Open Space inventory in exchange for more appropriate land at the base of Aspen Mountain. In addition to the parcel being part of the Open Space land, it is zoned R- 30 which supports low density residential uses. Staff finds that the current condition and use of the parcel support the rezoning to Public and the requisite adoption of a Planned Unit Development plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. L 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: Staff finds that the proposed amendment is aligned to the public direction provided in the 2007 election for the City to pursue a hydroelectric facility and renewable energy. The proposed amendment is in agreement with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code as outlined in the Staff memo and exhibits. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit B — Rezoning Review Criteria Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT C Planned Unit Development Consolidated Review Criteria Chapter 26.445.050 Review Standards: Consolidated PUD A development application for Consolidated PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding 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 Findin,-s: As stated in Exhibit A, Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff finds that the proposed Aspen Energy Center meets the criteria listed above. 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. Staff Finding: There is no underlying zone district to compare to the proposed dimensional requirements. The approved PUD requirements for the adjacent City Shop building are provided for general guidance. The Public Zone District requires the adoption of a PUD to establish these requirements. The chart below represents the proposal: Exhibit C — PUD Review Criteria Page 1 of 10 Proposed Approved PUD Dimensional Dimensional Staff Notes requirements for Requirement Requirements adjacent Q Shop building Minimum Lot Size 23,000 sq. ft. Proposed AEC parcel 1 acre or 43,560 is 23,689 sq. ft. sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area per n/a No residential n/a dwellingunit component. Maximum Allowable No residential Density°�a component. n/a Minimum Lot Width 220 ft. 160 ft. Minimum Front Yard 30 ft. 55 ft. Setback Minimum Side Yard 5 ft. north side yard; 0 ft. Setback and 185 ft. on south side yard Staff proposes that Minimum Rear Yard retaining walls located Setback 45 ft. in the setbacks be 0 ft. approved as part of the PUD plat. Measured pursuant to Maximum Height 27 ft. Land Use Code 33 ft. Section 26.575.020.13 Minimum Distance °/a Only one building 0 ft. Between Buildings proposed. Applicant proposes no open space Minimum % Open requirement due to the Space No requirement 3:1 open space o 14 /o exchange and the surrounding open space. Applicant does not anticipate that the plant will regularly Trash Access Area No requirement generate trash. The n/a loading dock area is proposed for trash storage as needed. The PUD only approves the gross square footage for Approx. 18,895 Allowable Gross Square 2,025 gross sq. ft. the proposed AEC sq. ft. floor area or Footage building. Any future additions will require a 0.35:1 FAR PUD amendment. Exhibit C — PUD Review Criteria Page 2 of 10 Dimensional Requirement Proposed Dimensional Staff Notes Approved PUD requirements for adjacent Lit:Requirements Shop building The applicant proposes 5 covered parking spaces on the adjacent CDOT right of to be used for the Minimum Off -Street 0 spaces p AEC. The Code does n/a Parking not permit off-street parking to be located on an adjacent lot that is in different ownership than the subject parcel. 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. b. Natural or man-made hazards. c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. 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 Findings: Staff finds that the proposed dimensional requirements, listed in the Staff memo, are generally appropriate for the intended and future use of the parcel but there are a few concerns. Initially, the applicant proposed a floor area ratio of 0.13:1 leaves a minimal amount of available floor area for an addition onto the proposed building. Consistent with the Staff recommendation, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve only the required amount of floor area needed to build the proposed plan. Since the April Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant decided to omit the additional floor area request from the proposal. Any changes to the approved PUD plan will require an amendment at which time any floor area changes will be reviewed. Steep slopes and waterways are prevalent in the subject area, but do not directly affect the development of the subject lot. Retaining walls, an extensive drainage plan, landscaping and preservation of existing vegetation in the area are incorporated into the proposal to protect the natural characteristics of the property. Carports are proposed to protect the 5 proposed parking spaces from debris falling off the Castle Creek Bridge above. The proposed project will clean up and organize the existing condition of Exhibit C — PUD Review Criteria Page 3 of 10 the area, further enhancing the adjacent historic resource. It is important to note that paving on the adjacent lot is included in the landscape plan; however City Shop will require separate PUD and HPC reviews to add paving in that area. Noise generated from the turbine will be largely absorbed by the building as represented by the Noise Assessment Analysis included in the application. The applicant commits to meeting City decibel standards. Staff finds that the criteria listed above are met. 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 Findings: The proposed dimensional requirements, specifically the setbacks, essentially define a building envelope for development that provides an ample south yard abutting the Marolt Open Space and locates the proposed building adjacent to other development. Staff finds that concentrating development to the northern section of the already disturbed lot is appropriate to the character of the area. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a. The probably 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 Findings: The application proposes 5 off-street parking spaces; however the spaces are located on CDOT property that the City intends to lease and do not count as off-street parking spaces according to Land Use Code Section 26.515.020.B. The plant will be remotely operated from the Water Department. The parking spaces will only be used on the occasion when visitors schedule a tour or an employee needs to do maintenance or take readings. Staff finds that the proposed spaces satisfy the criteria. 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. Exhibit C — PUD Review Criteria Page 4 of 10 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD maybe 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 mudJlow, rockfalls 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. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD maybe 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 sites' physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased it: a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan 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 S, 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. Staff Findings: Criteria 4, 5 and 6 above are not applicable as the project does not propose any allowable density in the PUD. The Essential Public Facility includes only a turbine room, control room and shop, and visitor center and bathroom. No residential component is proposed. C. Site Design 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: As part of the Aspen Energy Center, the City envisions this building to have an educational component with a renewable energy display and a pictorial history of electric production in the visitor room that highlights Aspen's history of hydroelectricity starting in 1887 in the adjacent City Shop building. Staff finds this criterion is met. Exhibit C — PUD Review Criteria Page 5 of 10 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: There is only one structure proposed for the project and it is clustered with other similar use buildings on the adjacent lot. All of the development is proposed for the north side of Power Plant Road, an area that is already heavily disturbed. An existing shed building located to the south of Power Plant Road is proposed to be removed and the area re -vegetated as part of the PUD plan to improve the open space. The applicant proposes asphalt for the parking area beneath Highway 82. It is important to note that asphalt is also proposed for the adjacent City Shop property, which will require an HPC approval and an amendment to the approved PUD. Improvements to the City Shop property are not included for review in this application. Staff finds this criterion is 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 structure is oriented to Power Plant Road. A landscape plan, walkways and covered parking are incorporated into the proposal to provide visual interest and reduce adverse visual impacts to neighbors. The design of the building references the adjacent historic City Shop, but has contemporary elements (fenestration and metal details) that distinguish the building as new. Staff finds that the building and the site plan contribute to the context of the site and meet the criterion above. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: Emergency and service vehicle access is accommodated on this property via Power Plant Road. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access if provided. Staff Finding: The walkways, visitor center and associated bathroom meet accessibility requirements. An ADA accessible parking space is required and should be accommodated on the site plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met with the condition that an accessible space is added. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: A conceptual drainage plan is included in the application. The drainage plan indicates the construction of an underground detention facility located on the City Shop property that will collect all storm water from the hydroelectric plant site in order to meet City requirements. The applicant commits to meeting City drainage requirements prior to recordation of the PUD plat. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit C — PUD Review Criteria Page 6 of 10 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: This criterion does not apply as there is only one building proposed for the site. 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: Staff finds that the proposed landscape plan, designed by the Parks Department, is sensitive to the context of the site. A bench is proposed along the east elevation which provides a little outdoor area to rest and enjoy the creek. Native vegetation, including service berry bushes, wildflowers, native Chokecherries and Aspen trees to name a few, is proposed. Re -vegetation of any disturbed areas south of Power Plant Road is proposed. A few of the proposed Aspen trees may need to be moved in order to provide ample sunlight to the proposed solar panels. The applicant is proposing perennials to soften the fence proposed along the east elevation. Staff finds this criteria is met. Z 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 applicant represents that existing natural site features (this is applicable to the south of Power Plant Road) will either be retained or re -vegetated where necessary. Staff finds this criterion is met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: Due to the topography of the area, there are extensive retaining walls along the western portion of Power Plant Road. The applicant proposes to build boulder retaining walls (rather than the existing metal MOT walls) where necessary to ensure slope stabilization and positive drainage. Staff finds this criterion is met. 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. Exhibit C — PUD Review Criteria Page 7 of 10 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. 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: The proposed building is one story and includes a large room for the turbine and generator, a shop and staging room, a small control room, and a small visitor room and bathroom. Essentially, it was designed from the inside out to accommodate the turbine and associated hydroelectric equipment. The proposed design references the historic City Shop (lefthand building in photograph) and appropriately incorporates contemporary fenestration and materials to distinguish the new building from the historic building. The small scale and gable roof form respect the scale of the historic resource and surrounding residences. The design intends to be carbon neutral with a zero carbon footprint by using solar panels to power any lights on the exterior and interior of the building. Energy efficient building materials and mechanical systems, and water efficient landscaping contribute to the City's environmental stewardship goals. Staff finds that this criterinn is met 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 Findings: The applicant submitted proposed light fixtures and intends to meet the Lighting Standards of the Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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, Exhibit C — PUD Review Criteria Page 8 of 10 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 Findings: The review criteria are not applicable to the proposed hydroelectric plant as no park, common or recreation space is proposed. The subject lot requests removal from the Marolt Open Space as explained in the subdivision review, Exhibit A. 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. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Findings: The proposed project is an Essential Public Facility that will contribute to existing public utilities if approved. Staff finds that the criteria above are met. L Access and Circulation. 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: 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: The proposed lot has access from Power Plant Road. Only one lot comprises the proposed PUD. Exhibit C — PUD Review Criteria Page 9 of 10 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: The proposed development will only have one point of access off of Power Plant Road. The existing curb cut already accesses the gas pumps on the City Shop property. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 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: This criterion is not really applicable, but the proposed development does not propose any dedicated trail easements on the subject property. However, as part of the open space exchange, the Water Department is creating trail easements around their facility. 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: It is unknown as to whether there already is a fisherman's easement for access to Castle Creek. The applicant intends to add an easement to the recorded plat if one does not already exist. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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: No new streets are proposed in the 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: Not applicable. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criterion 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: Not applicable: phasing is not proposed. Exhibit C — PUD Review Criteria Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT D GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW STANDARDS 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. Staff Finding: An Essential Public Facility is defined as "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." As such, it is determined that the proposed hydroelectric plant is an Essential Public Facility. 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 generated 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: The employee generation rate table for Public Uses establishes that 3.9 employees are generated for every 1,000 square feet of net leasable space. This number is based on an analysis of office -type public uses. The proposed hydroelectric plant includes four areas: a turbine room, shop and staging room, visitor room and a control room. There is no office proposed in the building and there will not be any permanent employees at the site. The plant will be remotely operated from the Water Department headquarters on Doolittle Drive. Hydroelectric specialists that already monitor other similar facilities will perform daily readings, which typically take about 15 minutes. The new hydroelectric plant is proposed to be added to their daily agenda. Visitors to the plant will be by appointment only. Based on other renewable facility visits, the applicant expects only a few tours a year. The applicant proposes that the hydroelectric plant generates no new employees. The Housing Board reviewed the application on February 17, 2010 and recommends that an employee audit be conducted two years after the certificate of occupancy is granted to confirm that no new employees were added to the Department. The Planning and Zoning Commission determined an employee generation rate of 0 employees for the new hydroelectric plant with the condition that an audit be conducted two years after the certificate of occupancy and that the audit concentrate only on employees associated with the hydroelectric plant and not the entire Water Department. The determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission that 0 employees are generated renders a mitigation requirement by City Council fruitless. Staff recommends Exhibit D — GMQS Review Criteria Page I of 2 that City Council approve growth management for affordable housing with the condition that an employee audit is conducted by the Housing Authority 2 years after certificate of occupancy to confirm that no new employees are generated. Any new employees will be required to be approved through Growth Management review. Exhibit D — GMQS Review Criteria Page 2 of 2 Exhibit E ASPEN ENERGY CENTER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENTS DATE OF MEETING: JAN. 27, 2010 UTILITIES: Water and Electric Department comments are as follows: 1. All water distribution system standards should be adhered to. 2. All Electric Distribution system Standards shall be adhered to. Contact: Andy Rossello, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Utilities Engineer Direct (970) 429-1999 Fax (970) 920-5117 PARKS/ OPEN SPACE: We need to keep the unsigned MOA in the packet, the signed copy that the attorney's office had on file has gone missing, I think having had a year to sit in a file was the culprit. So we will redo the signatures as we get approvals for everything else. Please note, that signing the MOA should now be part of the scope of work for completing this task. Contact: Brian Flynn, Open Space and Special Projects Manager (P)970-429-2035 (F)970-920-5128 FIRE: I think a major concern of ours is emergency procedures for first responders. I believe that it would be best to work with Phil and the design team as they get closer to construction. I don't think the emergency response procedures should have an impact on construction. Contact: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Aspen Fire Protection District 0043 Sage Way Aspen, CO 81611 970-927-6538 Office 970-379-1378 Cellular ENGINEERING' The Engineering Department would like to record a few additional DRC comments regarding the Castle Creek Energy Center. After additional conversations with the Water Department and continuing design iterations we would like to more formally submit additional comments on the project. Exhibit E- DRC comments Page 1 of 7 Exhibit E Below are the DRC comments from the first meeting (January 27`h) with new comments added in italics: Guide Rail This project will be required to install Guide Rail on the inside (north-western) radius of Power Plant road to protect vehicular traffic from the steep embankment and earth retaining structure installed as part of this project. Stormwater System Development Fee Due to increase of impervious area on site the Stormwater System Development fee will be triggered during plan review. The Stormwater system development fee is applied to projects that create or disturb more than 500 square feet of impervious area. The fee is $2.88 per square foot of total impervious area on the site and is calculated and applied during building permit review. A comprehensive drainage plan is required upon submittal of Building permit. Stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be detained on site and best management practices must be used to treat the water quality capture volume. The drainage plan currently does not address the water quality capture volume, only the IOyr and IOOyr volumes are shown. Design storm event should be 10year and 100year events shown in the drainage report of the project. Flows from the new installation of Curb and Gutter installation must be shown as both pre and post development and analysis of the current inlet must be presented showing sizing to be adequate for additional flows. We need confirmation that current inlet sizing is adequate. The project will increase streamwater volumes to their inlet. We also need to address the location of basin #3 discharge point. Is it the current inlet? Stormwater Percolation/Discharge Structure Underground detention is similar to a drywell. City requirements state these installations must occur at least 10' from a foundation and 10' from a property line. Approval from CDOT must occur to place such a system (infiltration) close to a bridge foundation pier. The system looks to be placed within the angle of repose from the bottom of the bridge footer. We are concerned with the dry well's proximity to groundwater and the Street's shop fueling station. The drywell in its current configuration looks to be a few feet below Castle Creek (potentially the water table) and lower than the diesel and gas fueling station. As an injection well, we would like to see both of these issues addressed. Some sort of fuel spill capture containment maybe a potential solution? We would like to address and protect Castle Creek and our stormwater system from any fuel spill scenarios. A geotech report confirming the percolation rates and water table would be helpful as well. We believe this design may work in its current configuration but as an owner this may have long term maintenance issues. Exhibit E- DRC comments Page 2 of 7 Exhibit E Earth Retaining Structures If any earth retainage structures are used, such as soil nails vertical and horizontal mapping of existing utilities will need to be provided upon submittal of building permit. A $2.64 cu. Ft/month fee is associated with such installation within the City Right of Way. Stream Health Monitoring Plan A stream and riparian area health assessment should be conducted prior to development of the hydroplant that includes an impact analysis of the operation of the hydroplant on stream and riparian area health between the intake and outfall. This report should include a monitoring plan to monitor flow levels between the intake and outfall weekly, temperature upstream and downstream of the outfall weekly, and stream and riparian health annually. A plan for mitigating any negative impacts during construction or operation should also be included. This plan/report should be provided upon submittal of building permit. We have not seen any stream health monitoring plan as apart of the application. This will need to be submitted prior of the projects council meeting. Construction Management Plan A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. Detailed plans are required prior to council — please see engineering department for specific details. Contact: Tyler A. Christoff, Project Manager Engineering/Asset Management Department (970)544-3143 BUILDING: The AEC will be required to obtain building permits. Fees will be due. The project will most likely be reviewed under the 2009 edition of the I codes. The plans appear to be code compliant. If there is or has been a study in regards to the minimum stream flow for Castle Creek. How many CFS will be left in the creek? Are the wet lands downstream of the inlet to be monitored? Contact: Denis Murray Building Department (970) 429-2761 ACSD: (please specifically note the items in bold) Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Exhibit E- DRC comments Page 3 of 7 Exhibit E 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 including the drainage plans for the tennis courts. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. The applicant may want to look into connecting the sanitary sewer service for this building into the pump facility for the COA city shop if capacity allows. A shared service agreement will be required. If not, a new sanitary sewer service line will have to be run to the other side of Castle Creek to Harbor Lane. This development may require installation of a pumping system One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. The 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. Once the proposed utility plans have been submitted to the district for approval, the district will be able to comment in greater detail. Contact: Tom Bracewell, ACSD tomr ,aspensan.com ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The City of Aspen's Environmental Health Department has reviewed the referenced land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments. This application for an additional 1.05 megawatts of renewable hydropower for the Aspen Municipal Electric Utility includes 1800 sq. ft. of facility and 5 parking spaces. Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition. This does not provide trip generation rates for hydroelectric or other power plants. The most similar facility is the general light industrial category of 4 trips per occupied space, based on two studies. If 80% of the spaces were Exhibit E- DRC comments Page 4 of 7 Exhibit E occupied, the result would be 16 trips/day. This is below the de minimus level of trip generation considered significant in evaluating land use applications. The actual trip generation will depend on the number of visitors to the facility (encouraged by the application) and the number of employee trips between this facility and the water plant. Trip numbers can be significantly limited by operational policies, which we would recommend be implemented. The most important would be a policy of traveling to and from the site by bus, bicycle or foot whenever weather allows. This could be made easier by provision of a small bike fleet for use in traveling between this facility and the water plant. Use of solar panels to provide lighting is a significant environmental benefit, a showcase for community members interested in solar power, and an important way for the city to "walk the talk". This application meets the requirement for consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan due in part to the very significant reduction in air pollution it will bring about (reducing particulate and gaseous pollution by replacing coal-fired power with hydropower and eliminating greenhouse gas emissions). The magnitude of this environmental benefit is much greater than most other measures the community could take to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The Aspen Area Community Plan states that "Elected ...Boards ... should consider environmental ... issues in all land use deliberations, discussions, and decisions." Environmental benefits of this project, besides the main benefit of providing carbon -free, air pollution -free electric power, include several efficient building features, accessibility by walking, biking or use of the bus system, use of solar photovoltaics for lighting, small size and scale which result in minimal traffic generation, and the educational component which will inform visitors about alternative energy systems. For these reasons, this development will not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities. Not only does adequate public infrastructure exist to accommodate this facility, but it will provide additional renewable energy infrastructure. The facility must comply with the City of Aspen noise ordinance, which sets a standard of 50 dB at night at each property line, after subtracting background noise. The law does not require that the facility not be audible. The applicant has hired a renowned sound engineering firm to analyze a similar plant, take background noise readings, and determine sound dampening measures necessary to ensure that the facility meets the city noise law requirements and reduces noise levels inside the facility. We are confident that using this firm's recommendations will allow the facility to comply with the limits. Contact: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director (970)920-5075 HOUSING: ISSUE. The applicant is requesting approval for the creation of the Aspen Energy Center (AEC) on the property located at the bottom of Power Plan Road. BACKGROUND: The AEC is proposed to provide a renewable energy source to Aspen's electric customers. It is being designed as a "green" multi -use facility as a renewable energy model, educational center, museum and eventually a hydroelectric plant. Proposed are four rooms: Exhibit E- DRC comments Page 5 of 7 Exhibit E • Turbine Room • Shop and Staging 355 square feet • Visitor Room 178 square feet • Control Room 301 square feet MITIGATION: The Water Department will be in charge of this facility and states that they will be utilizing existing employees. Section 26.470.090 (paragraph 4) states that upon recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements. This section also states that the Employee Generation Rates may be used as a guideline to analyze employee mitigation requirements. The employee generation table states that for a Public use, 3.9 FTE's are generated per each 1,000 square feet of net leasable space. However, the 3.9 number is for an office use. This number is not typical for other non -office public facilities. If the 3.9 number were utilized for the visitor room, .7 FTE's would be required. The applicant states that there will not be any permanent employees at this location; an existing employee from the Water Department will go to the property on an as needed basis. Because the property is being development as an essential public facility, the City Council has the option to waive employee mitigation; therefore, staff would request that an employee audit be done prior to development of the property and then two years after Certificate of Occupancy. If the employee base has increased, mitigation of that increase should be required at that time. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting on February 17, 2010 and recommended approval of the application with the following conditions: 1. The current employee base of the Water Department shall be provided to APCHA prior to building permit approval. 2. Two years after Certificate of Occupancy, an employee audit shall be conducted and that audit provided to APCHA. If the employee numbers have increased, mitigation shall be required by the City of Aspen. Contact: Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 970-920-5455 PLANNING: • Need a better maps that overlay the proposed Lot 3 on top of an existing aerial map or something like that because it is really hard to see where the highway/bridge above is located, etc. • Need a better explanation about the size and configuration of Lot 3. • The maps and visuals provided are hard to read and need to be simplified in some instances. (i.e. where is the open space replacement area located, newly proposed lot, access to the carports.....) • There is a concern that the proposed architecture of the building mimics too closely the adjacent designated landmark. Maybe look into changing the fenestration to reflect a more contemporary time period. Would the project team be willing to meet with HPC for referral comments about the architecture? It would only be an advisory review, so you Exhibit E- DRC comments Page 6 of 7 Exhibit E can do what you want with the comments from HPC. It is really just a courtesy since the new parcel is so close to the national register property. There is concern about the noise. We need a better explanation about the impacts of the noise and if the building is going to be designed with noise abatement in mind. We need more information about the water flows and the impacts up and down stream. Phil, thanks for the powerpoint. It is somewhat helpful, but I don't really know what it means without someone walking me through it. It will be really helpful for com dev and for the project to give us a pdf or a handout that explains the project and the impacts, etc. for us to hand out to the public. AH- we need a better explanation about employee generation. Be realistic about the amount of time it will take for an existing employee to monitor the system from the water department. TRANSPORTATION' • The CDOT ROW needs to be resolved for the project to be able to move forward. • The underground penstock from the City water department will run through/under the Entrance to Aspen ROW on the Marolt property and possible tunnel area. Close coordination with CDOT will need to occur to avoid conflicts if the ETA is built. • Has CDOT been referred on the Hydro Plant for comments? • The carport is right next to one of the Castle Creek bridge piers. Is that a problem? Does CDOT know this? • Will there be any excavation in the vicinity of the bridge piers? • The drawing from Sopris Engineering for the Horizontal Control Plan labels Power Plant Road as "Power House road"?? • Is there a construction management plan and with a traffic control plan for rerouting traffic during construction? • How much additional traffic will the project generate? There are five new parking spaces. That must mean that new trips will be generated. • There is a visitor center -how many new trips will be generated by it? • How many new trips will be created by the project? • Site traffic should be required to use Cemetery Lane as the access to the project and not Smuggler. • Is there any protection to the bridge piers/columns during construction? • Is there any permanent protection for the bridge piers? Contact: John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation 970-920-5042 Exhibit E- DRC comments Page 7 of 7 RECEPTION#: 569172, 05/11/2010 at 10:14:18 AM, 1 OF 14, R $71.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION NO.09, SERIES O RESOLUTION c / n Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND LV1V1\V VIflO1JJl V1 APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS ESTABLISHMENT OF EMPLOYEE GENERATION FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS SUBDIVISION, REZONING TO PUBLIC ZONE DISTRICT, CONSOLIDATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR LOT 3 AND OPEN SPACE 2A OF THE MAROLT RANCH OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2735-123-63-852 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen, requesting approval to construct a hydroelectric plant which includes Subdivision, Amendment to the Zone District Map, Planned Unit Development plan, Growth Management allotments for an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, a hydroelectric plant, serves an essential public purpose by providing hydroelectricity to City facility thus serving the general public and Aspen community, and therefore is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and, WHERAS, the Community Development Director determined that the proposed development is exempt from Stream Margin Review, pursuant to Section 26.435.040.B.2, in that the proposed utility complies to the extent practical with the Stream Margin Review Standards, and finds that it is appropriate to discuss the review criteria with the Planning and Zoning Commission to maintain transparency in the process by bringing issues associated with the development and Stream Margin area to the forefront; and, WHEREAS, the subject currently property is zoned R-30 Low Density Residential with a PUD overlay and is part of the dedicated Marolt Ranch Open Space; and, WHEREAS, the electorate voted in 2007 to remove the subject parcel from the Marolt Open Space as stated in City Council Resolution No. 70 Series of 2007; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the proposed land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 20, 2010 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 09, Series of 2010, by a three to two (3 - 2) vote, Growth Management Review to determine employee generation for an Essential Public Facility and a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Subdivision, P& Z Resolution #09, Series of 2010 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT F Rezoning, Consolidated Planned Unit Development, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility located on the property at Lot 3 and Open Space 2A of the Marolt Ranch Open Space Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all 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 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that it is expected that the Miller Consulting Group Studies be available to Aspen City Council prior to the City Council hearings on this project, and has a concern regarding minimum stream flows and recommends that City Council carefully review this issue. Section 1: Affordable Housine The Planning and Zoning Commission approves a generation rate of 0 employees for the Aspen Energy Center. The Water Department will provide APCHA with the current employees that will be associated with the hydroelectric plant, prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. Two years after the Certificate of Occupancy is granted, upon a request from APCHA, the Water Department will provide APCHA with the current number of employees associated with the hydroelectric plant. New Employees generated specific to the hydroelectric plant will require a new Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. Section 2: Dimensional Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to City Council for the approval of Subdivision, a Consolidated Planned Unit Development, Rezoning, and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for the property located at Lot 3 and Open Space 2A of the Marolt Ranch Open Space Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado the following dimensional standards: P& Z Resolution #09, Series of 2010 Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT F Table 1: Approved Dimensional Standards: Proposed Dimensional Dimensional Requirement Requirements Minimum Lot Size 23,000 s . ft. Minimum Lot Area per n/a dwelling unit Maximum Allowable n/a Density Minimum Lot Width 220 ft. Minimum Front Yard 30 ft, Setback 5 ft. north side yard; Minimum Side Yard and 185 ft. on south Setback side yard Minimum Rear Yard 45 fl. Setback Maximum Height 27 ft. Minimum Distance n/a Between Buildin s Minimum % Open No requirement. Space Trash Access Area No requirement. 2,025 gross sq. ft., as Allowable Gross Square indicated on the PUD Footage lat. Minimum Off -Street 0 spaces Parking Section 3• Subdivision from Marolt Ranch Open Space: Lot 3 and part of Lot 2A of the Marolt Ranch Open Space is to be removed from the Open Space inventory. The newly created lot is 23, 689 square feet as depicted on the survey. A Memorandum of Agreement approving the removal of the subject lot and the approved Open Space land exchange is required to be recorded simultaneously with the recordation of the Subdivision plat, and Planned Unit Development plat and agreement. Concurrent with the recordation of the Aspen Energy Center Subdivision and PUD plats and agreement, the Marolt Open Space PUD and SIA are required to be amended and recorded to reflect the Subdivision approval. The aforementioned recordation shall occur at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to submitting for a Building Permit. Section 4• Amendment to the Zone District Map Upon the effective date of an act by City Council approving a development application for an amendment to the Zone District map, rezoning the subject lot from R-30 Low Density Residential Zone District with a PUD overlay to the Public Zone District with a PUD overlay, the Community Development Director shall place the amendment on the city's official zone district map. P& Z Resolution #09, Series of 2010 Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT F Section 5• Parking Parking is not required on site; however if a Lease Agreement with CDOT to use the Right of Way for 5 parking spaces is granted, then the parking may be used for the Aspen Energy Center. Section 6: Environmental Assessment The City agrees to maintain the highest level of in stream protection recommended by the findings in the Miller Ecological Consultants report, the Colorado Department of Wildlife and adopted local, state and federal standards. Section 7: Noise Assessment The Aspen Energy Center shall comply with the City of Aspen noise ordinance, Title IS of the Aspen Municipal Code. A noise analysis shall occur upon completion of the hydroelectric plant to confirm compliance with City noise standards. A baseline sound level shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Department at the time of building permit submittal to compare to the sound impact of the hydroelectric plant after it is operating. Subsequent sound readings, as requested by the Environmental Health Department, shall occur to confirm compliance with City standards. Section 8: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. d.Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. e. An excavation -stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm run off must be addressed. f. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design needs to be par of the permit submittal plan. g. Accessibility requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. h. An approved landscape plan. Section 9• Engineering Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. A final grading and drainage plan meeting all requirements of the City P& Z Resolution #09, Series of 2010 Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT F Engineer shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department prior to Engineering Department sign -off on the Final Plat. Section 10: Water 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. Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) 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. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. e. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit the discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. f. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. g. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 12: Exterior Lighting 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 13: 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 development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14: 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. P& Z Resolution #09, Series of 2010 Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT F Section 1S: 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 20w day of April, 2010. Stan Gibbs, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: ames R. True, Special Counsel ATTEST: ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A: Site Plan Exhibit B: Elevations Exhibit C: Miller Ecological Consultants Memorandum P& Z Resolution #09, Series of 2010 Page 6 of 6 I EXHIBIT Oava070J'N3d5Y GVOB.LNV'If U3MOd Ti3,LN3J RJiI3N3 M3"a 3'1.LStlJ x NallanubOi.WN O�2 NI+W I3aa i° .I R T 4� i i � 11. ...-:J I I � i I EXHIBIT • oavao70J'N8d8V (IFYOU DMd IfaMOd I aINU A`JUU3 )MID nlSVJ ( z VOwByy�No7 2NOtltON i i i i i 1 I j i �Ei G ii MILLER ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. u1ilu'(a) XWIs]t0\%I Date: February 15, 2010 L IT 2111 S. College Ave., Unit D Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970)224-4505 To: Phil Overeynder, City of Aspen From: William J. Miller, Ph.D. CC: Karl Kumlt, Cynthia Covell Subject: Proposal for additional studies on Castle and Maroon Creek to support the license application for the Castle Creek hydro plant. The city of Aspen is in the process of completing the application for a conduit exemption for the Castle Creek hydro electric plant. A public meeting was held on November 12, 2009 to solicit comments from the resource agencies and public. Two set of comments, one from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and one from the Aspen Wilderness Workshop, requested additional studies to evaluate potential impacts to aquatic resources. The CDOW has requested several additional studies to evaluate the impacts. These are: 1) additional R2Cross data at two locations on Castle Creek, 2) fish population and winter habitat data on Castle and Maroon creeks, and 3) surveys for Boreal toads. The CROW based the request on the fact that that the original R2Cross data was collected over thirty years ago and is located upstream of the points of diversion on Maroon and Castle Creeks and may not accurately reflect existing stream conditions. The existing fish data is several years old (data was collected in 1977 and 1979 for Castle Creek and 1993 for Maroon Creek). Additional and more current fish and habitat data would allow the CDOW to more accurately evaluate future project operations on existing fish populations and winter habitat conditions. Populations of boreal toads bave existed on Castle Creek (adults observed most recently in 1998), Conundrum Crock, a tributary to Castle Creek (adults last observed in 2002) and currently a robust breeding population of boreal toads exists on East Maroon Creek. The boreal toad is presently listed as a State Designated Endangered Species in Colorado. Miller Ecologlcst Consultants, Inc. Page 1 EXHIBIT F The Wilderness Workshop asserted that the R2Cross data from Maroon Creek collected in 2000 would be applicable to Castle Creek. The hydrology data for each stream suggests that the Maroon Creek data would not be directly applicable to Castle Creek and we recommend that new R2Cross data should be collected on Castle Creek. The Wilderness Workshop also suggested that additional studies be conducted to determine an ecologically sustainable flow Mime for both Maroon and Castle creeks. A full year flow regime can be determined using the hydrology data and the additional data collection recommended by CDOW. The scope of work contained herin was developed to respond to those comments. We propose the following studies to acquire the data requested by CDOW. Task 1 - Collection of additional R2Cross Data at two additional points on Castle Creek: a. At a point downstream of the city of Aspen Castle Creek diversion sud upstream of the point of discharge from the proposed Castle Creek hydro plant, and b. At a point downstream of their point of discharge and upstream of the confluence with the Roaring Fork River. We propose to collect this data prior to spring runoff if possible and would be collected using standard methods described in the publication "Development of Instteam Flow Recommendations in Colorado using R2Cross". CDOW also requested Aspen incorporate the additional R2Cress data the CDOW has recently collected on Maroon Creek into the environmental report. This data was collected downstream of the Maroon Creek diversion point and upstream of the confluence with the Roaring Fork River. We propose to obtain the new CDOW R2Cross information and incorporate this new R2Cross data collected on Maroon and Castle Creeks into the environmental report. As part of this study, we plan to meet with the city and CDOW after the additional 112Cross Data has been collected and analyzed. This meeting will allow both parties to discuss how project operations and future diversions from Maroon and Castle Creeks can be optimized to minimize impacts to the natural environment of Maroon and Castle Creeks. Miller Ecelogleal consultants, Inc. Page 2 EXHIBIT F Task 2 — Fish Population Data. We propose to collect additional fish population data and provide additional information regarding existing winter stream habitat conditions for Maroon and Castle Creeks. The preferred time to collect this data is in the fall (September through October). However, to complete these studies as soon as possible to continue progress on this project, we propose to collect the date in the spring prior to runoff, The electrofishing data prior to spring runoff will result in lower densities and biomass totals due to cold water effects on fish response to electricity, Any comparison of future sampling efforts would specifically note the season of sampling. Fishery sampling is proposed to be conducted on a representative 500 foot reach of stream using standard fishery sampling techniques according to stipulations cited in the Scientific Collection license. Data fur the analysis of winter habitat would be obtained by collecting additional cross section data in several stream habitat adjacent to the R2Cross locations. The collection of additional cross section data, and specifically, water surface elevations at two or more discharges, will allow the simulation of habitat at winter flow levels. These data would be collected concurrently during R2Cross studies, fish population surveys end boreal toad surveys. Task 3 — Boreal Toad Surveys. We propose to collect additional information relating to possible boreal toad populations and habitat on Maroon and Castle Creeks. We propose to conduct at least 2 or 3 daytime surveys and one night time survey be conducted at each site during the breeding season (mid -May through June). In addition, Maroon and Castle Creeks would be surveyed in August, preferably during a warm sunny day, below the existing diversions to determine if juvenile boreal toads are present (see attached map). The surveys would be conducted using standard procedures described in The Boreal Toad Conservation Plan and Agreement (Loeffler, 2001) and the attached amphibian survey form instructions. We will use the updated disinfection protocols that now require Sparquat prior to any surveys. Sites to be surveyed include upstream and downstream in the vicinity of the city diversion structures and around Thomas Reservoir. Task 4 — Data analysis. The above data will be analyzed using standard protocols for R2Cross and fish populations. In addition, the measurements taken at several stream flows will allow the analysis of habitat during low flow conditions and during mnoft These additional Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. Page 3 EXHIBIT F measurements can be used to simulate winter habitat conditions. The surveys in May and June would allow analysis of conditions needed for the stream riparian area. This new data combined with the stream hydrology allows that evaluation of ecologically sustainable flows as recommended by the Wilderness Workshop. The analysis will include the evaluation of impacts from the proposed Castle Creek hydro plant. Task 5 — Technical Memorandum. A Technical Memorandum will be prepared the documents the methods, data analysis, results and conclusions from the above studies. The Technical Memorandum would be completed one month after the final data collection effort. Task 6 — Meetings. We estimate the at least three meetings will be required for the above tasks. Those meeting will be a combination of face to face meetings and conference calls. Schedule The following schedule is estimated for the above work. • R2Cross measurements— late Match —early April 2010 • Boreal toad surveys—May/June, August 2010 • Fish Population surveys — early April 2010 or September/October 2010 • Winter habitat cross sections— Concurrent with R2Cross, Boreal Toad surveys, Fish populations • Data Analysis —Start after first R2Cross mcasurment, complete 3 weeks after final data collection (estimated September/October 2010) • Technical Memorandum — September/October 2010 This schedule assumes that a scientific collecting permit would be issued by CROW by March 3In, 2010. Further, the stream conditions in late March or early April would allow collection of R2Cross measurements and fish populations. The schedule will be adjusted if field conditions do not allow for collection of data in the spring. Muter Eeological Consultanh, Inc. pogo 4 EXHIBIT F Cost The estimated coat for the above work is $48,400,00 (Table 1). This estimate is based on our usual costs for studies similar to this effort. The following assumptions were used for the cost estimate: • The city of Aspen would assist in acquiring access for the requested studies on Castle and Maroon creeks. • Each field effort (R2Cross, Fish population data, Boreal toad surveys) would require a separate trip. • Winter habitat information would be collected concurrently with other efforts. Any changes to the scope of work as described or the cost assumptions would require a review and possible revision to the cost estimate, �.wt. t F..H....•..t —+ t.., te•4 ihr wdAitinnAl ahuties nn Castle and Maroon creeks. To Labor Dire -at Total RMross held /,Inter hebtlal $7250.00 $920.00 $6 170.00 Fish Population data $8000.00 $1,640.00g$48,400.0 Boreal toed sane 8 800.00 20.00 Data analysis $8 000.00 $- Technloal Memorandum $8 000.00 $• Mealln s 600.00 $370.00 Total Estimated Cost $44,660.00 $3,760.00 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. rage 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes —April 20,201 XHIBIT G Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Aspen Enerey Center 2 Code Amendments — Siens 20 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 20, 2010 EXHIBIT G Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at 4:30pm. Brian Speck, Bert Myrin and LJ Erspamer were excused. Commissioners present were Jasmine Tygre, Cliff Weiss, Jim DeFrancia, and Stan Gibbs. Staff present were Jim True, Special Counsel; Sara Adams, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jasmine Tygre commented that two recently -approved free market projects were supposed to provide two employee units each (4 total). Only one is currently occupied by a qualified renter (who submitted the necessary documentation to APCHA).One other unit is occupied but has not provided any documentation; the other two are unoccupied and one is being offered for sale along with the free- market unit. Julie, the APCHA enforcement officer, has been following up, but has no real power to compel compliance. It is outrageous that conditions of approval/mitigation are ineffective. I plan to do some more research and come up with some suggestions. MINUTES MOTION: Mike Wampler moved to approve the minutes from April 6, 2010, seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Enerey Center Power Plant Rd: Consolidated PUD Review, Growth _Management for Essential Public Facility Rezonine and Subdivision Stan Gibbs opened the Public Hearing for the Aspen Energy Center. Sara Adams said the proposal was to develop a hydroelectric plant and was determined by the Community Development Director to be an essential public facility and has been requested along with the rezoning from R-30 to Public, a consolidated PUD review and growth management for an essential public facility. Adams said that P&Z is the final review to determine generation rates for this project and review criteria will be discussed during her presentation. There have been about 5 public meetings to date and there will be more meetings about this project continuing on. Sara Adams stated that at noon today Planning and Zoning Commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and Cliff Weiss did a site visit to the hydroelectric site. and members of the public also attended. Adams stated that the applicant was going to provide information on how the hydroelectric plant works and where it will be located and then Sara will present the staff findings and discuss the stream Cit Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 20, 2010EXHIBIT G margin exemptions and then the applicant will follow up and address some of the background on how this plant will work. Andy Rossello introduced the design team with Mitch Haas, Phil Overyender, Scott Smith, Steven Dunn, Dave Hombacher, Rob Covington and Bill Miller. Rossello said that this project came about in the overflow of the water plant and currently the Thomas Reservoir fills up and overflows and runs down the side of Castle Creek Road. Rossello said that the city was looking at this to find out what they could do with this to generate some energy; dating back to 2007 the Aspen Area Community Plan was asked if you had the funds to improve on one of the following. Rossello said 47% of the people in the town were for developing new renewable energy and from those renewable energies they determined these were the 3 vision statements for this project, Castle Creek; the increased use of renewable energies in the public and private sectors has reduced our carbon footprint and reduced our dependence on foreign oil, energy use is reduced as we supply primarily clean renewable and reliable sources of energy and carbon emissions and green house gases will be greatly reduced. Rossello said if we look at the historic energy production of the City of Aspen we looked from 1885 to 1958 we survived solely on hydroelectric power; in 1958 federal power came through and we said that we will be able to supply you with clean free renewable energy and we determined that was not the case. In 2004 they did an energy audit of their site and found out that 64% of the energy was generated from coal; hydroelectric and wind operated at about 36% and in 2007 after the 2004 and 2006 canary initiatives we have reduced our rate to 25%; after the construction of the Castle Creek Energy Center we will further reduce our coal to 17% having 49% of our city's energy coming from hydroelectric power. This gets us towards our goal of 0% or 100% carbon neutrality by 2015. City policies are dictated by the Canary Initiative and Action Plan were formed as a result of the 2006 meetings; in 2007 the City proposed a public vote and 77% of the public was in favor of the Castle Creek Energy Center. Rossello said the benefits of the public power system through $500,000.00 a year returned to the community, so the direct return of funds. The street light program in the City of Aspen is completely free; the Ice Garden is supplied with completely free power, we supply Food and Wine with entirely free power. Rossello said that $800,000.00 of what we have talked about in total community benefit is greater than 10% of all of our electrical revenue; compared to a national average of 4.6% that's pretty darn good. The benefits of clean energy heritage to our clean power in Aspen; we have a 120 year history of clean renewable energy. Carbon emissions reduction will be 5`/z tons of CO2 that we remove from the atmosphere by installing this new plant; our customers will 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 20, 2010 EXHIBIT G pay less than typical Colorado scale and they will be addressing the last 20 tons of carbon emissions to achieve that 2015 goal of the Canary Imitative. Rossello utilized power point to show the Colorado utilities area of municipal residential survey of customers. The City of Aspen currently spends about $17.44 per 700 kilowatt hours of generated than the City of Denver. Some of customers in the City do use Holy Cross Energy; we pay $9.03 less currently than Holy Cross customers do for energy for an equivalent amount. Rossello said we will see more savings from the inception of the Castle Creek Energy Plant. So what are some of the project alternatives; do we continue to use coal fired power; do we go away from the Aspen Plan and Canary Initiatives, do we lose our goals and continue to use coal energy. Then we can also look at conservation; in 1992 you can see a spike in that power point graph that was the highest consumptive use for water in that year and we have reduced use of the water by two-thirds since then; what do we do with this excess water; let it continue flowing into the river or do we use it to generate hydroelectric. Similar what we want to do with this is take our energy consumption over the next 10 to 15 years have a graph that is similar to this and continue to use energy conservation so that not only do we achieve our Canary Initiative goals but we produce less energy because the customer needs less. Rossello said the history of the hydroelectric power was in 1885 and 1892 water rights were acquired on Castle and Maroon Creeks; in 1892 the original plant was constructed (the initial Castle Creek Plant) and in 1892 the plant came on line with the same capacities as today's plant; the engineers who designed it then were brilliant; they are following their alignment that they had even with our superior technology. It served the City of Aspen's entire power until 1958; in 1958 federal power came through and said our coal will be able to supply you with free power. In 1961 Castle Creek Power Plant opened and Holy Cross came in and we are an end user so if their lines go down we cannot provide our customers with service so this will provide a secondary circuit to provide energy in the case of future power outages. In 1976 the Castle Creek Power Plant had its existing site added to the Colorado Historical Society site and in 2007 the state historic preservation officer determined that he Castle Creek Power Plant would be eligible for the national registry. Rossello utilized power point to show the projected operation of the plant, which showed the power production from 1970 to 1994 with both Ruedi and Castle Creek plants as you can see that in May it starts peaking again and this will also ensure that we are keeping water in the stream during that part of the year. There is a peak that comes through the stream from April through June when the river is 0 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 20, 2010-XHIBIT G flowing at its high peak they can produce energy until November. The hydroelectric plant operates with a reservoir at the top of the hill and there is a supply tower to a turbine with 5 jets that come into a pelton wheel that spins the generator that is connected to the grid to supply energy back to the grid. The existing elements are the paddle wheel, Castle Creek and Maroon Creek pipelines, the Thomas Reservoir and the rights of way for the proposed project, the Midland and the Maroon Creek flume water rights; the related sites are the Maroon Creek Hydro plant, potable water system, which has the potential to supply 20,000,000 gallons a day. When the potable water system went in we assumed that we would be supplying water up and down the valley so we have 17,000,000 gallons of additional water a day to produce clean energy. The newly reconstructed energies include a 4,042 inch multipurpose drain as well as a penstock. The berm for the Thomas Reservoir could fail since it was built in the 1960s and at that time there was no development below there; if there were a breach there would be millions of dollars in property damage. There will be the associated infrastructure necessary to connect to the actual existing system. They have had 5 meetings with the public that started as early as 2007 and they are committed to public responses; the biggest concerns that we have heard thus far are sound and noise generated at the site, traffic generation and the stream. Rossello said the threshold of hearing is around 0 decibels, the threshold of pain when hearing is about 120 decibels; the internal of the building structure there will be about 88 decibels generated as they determined from Manitou Springs, which is very similar to the hydro system here. The goal with the City of Aspen is about 50 decibels achieved and they will use sound mitigation with interior sound dampening panels and thicker than standard walls to increase the sound transmittal on the inside and keep the sound transmittal from going to the external walls. They have dual role; garage doors and all the windows will be fixed, none will open. They will have 2 hydro specialists which will go to the plant in the morning and do their basic maintenance with only I vehicle that equipment can be transferred to and from the site for these daily reads. Rossello said that as far as stream flows they are 12 CFS in Castle Creek and 14 CFS in Maroon Creek. Bill Miller is currently updating studies and ecological services. Sara Adams said that exhibit 1 was the public notice and the applicant within 24 hours will give affidavit showing that poster (this was done). Adams said that the applicant requests subdivision approval Lot 3 and Open Space 2A of the Marolt Ranch along Power Plant Road and beneath Castle Creek bridge in order to create a hydroelectric plant on the newly created 23,689 square foot lot. Adams noted in the resolution that the open space is removed from the Open Space in a 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting —Minutes — April 20, 2010 EXHIBIT G memorandum of agreement and will be recorded with the subdivision plat and the PUD plat. Adams said that the subdivision criteria and the AACP were met; and recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to City Council. The property is currently zoned R-30 and there was a request to rezone to the public zone district which is essentially required to in order to permit the construction and operation of the hydroelectric plant; the public zone district requires a PUD overlay to establish dimensional requirements. Adams said the criteria to rezone the parcel to public have been met and P&Z recommend approval to City Council and the rezoning. Adams said the PUD review includes the size and scope of this project which qualifies for consolidated PUD; so conceptual and final are being done together. The city shop PUD is included in the packet for a comparison since it was a similar use and it is also in the public zone district. The applicant proposes a floor area ratio of. 13 to 1 which will leave some un-built floor area on the property; any changes to the property will require a PUD Amendment and the resolution just approves the floor area that's proposed tonight. Adams stated that it was important to note that the parking requirement was 5 spaces however those are located on the CDOT right-of-way so they don't count as spaces according to our land use code; if CDOT leases the spaces to the City then the spaces will be used for the hydro plant and there will be no employees regularly present. There is an existing building located to the south, which is going to be removed as part of this project so once the open space is subdivided that building will be removed. Adams noted that when they were on the site visit Cliff wanted to know the distance between the proposed building and Power Plant Road; the setback will be established by the distance between the building and the property line. Adams said that on the southeast corner closest to Castle Creek; the setback from Power Plant Road to the building will be about 15 feet; on the southwest corner of the building, the closest to Cemetery Lane that measurement will be about 8 feet and there will be a significant grade change. Staff finds that the proposed building does fit into the context of the site and a great improvement to the site and the PUD criteria are met and recommend that P&Z recommend approval to City Council. Adams stated the Growth Management Request was for Growth Management for essential public facility and P&Z was the final review for employee generation. 101 City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes — April 20, 2010EXHIBIT G And P&Z was asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding employee mitigation; so P&Z says these are the number of employees generated for this essential pubic facility and then you recommend to Council the number of those employees that should be mitigated for. The applicant is requesting a generation rate of zero employees if approved by P&Z; they are stating that the water department employees will operate the plant and visitors will be by appointment only and as Andy mentioned there will be 2 hydroelectric specialists that will add this to their list if it is built. The housing department did provide a recommendation of an employee audit after 2 years after a C.O. was granted and that was included in the resolution; the employee audit will be specific to the hydroelectric plant. Adams recommended P&Z establish an employee generation rate of zero employees and recommend to City Council zero mitigation. Adams said that the Stream Margin Review was Exhibit E; the proximity of the proposed site to Castle Creek is sensitive to the waterways, natural vegetation and the wildlife. The code does allow for an exemption for development that is required for public health and safety specially related to utilities from stream margin review as long as the development meets the criteria to the extent practical. Adams thought it was important to discuss stream margin review criteria with the Planning & Zoning Commission and with the public for this project even though the application is exempt. There were two main issues discussed in the stream margin review and those are the potential impacts on aquatic and vegetative life in changes in stream levels and the noise levels. Adams stated the applicant hired a private consultant to conduct these extensive studies and they are working closely with the Colorado Department of Wildlife to satisfy all of the licensing requirements for the hydroelectric facility; in Section 6 of the resolution that the City commits to maintain the highest level of in -stream protection by the consultants and by the GOW; she included the timeline and estimated reports of the Miller Consulting Group as Exhibit C just so that everybody is clear on what report she is talking about because it was not proposed to come out until September or October of 2010. Adams said that they were conducting all of the studies now on the boreal toad and the fish population. Adams noted the applicant hired a sound engineer to mitigate noise impacts and also to confirm that this hydro plant is going to meet the required sound level. Today Community Development received a summary letter from the consultant, EDI. Section 7 of the resolution states that a noise analysis is going to occur upon completion of the hydro plant to confirm that the noise levels will comply with the local requirement and staff suggested that Environmental Health confirm compliance with the noise regulations and they will go out and take sound tests to 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 20, 2010 EXHIBIT G make sure that the hydro plant is operating under our current code. Rossello said that would be EDI going out and not the City. Adams said staff found that the applicant met the stream margin to the best extent possible. Adams included the DRC comments as Exhibit F and will be in the resolution as seen fit. Staff found the AACP criteria have been met. Staff recommends that P&Z recommend approval of Subdivision, Rezoning, Consolidated PUD and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility requiring mitigation for zero employees. Phil Overeynder, Utilities Director for the City, summarized and reiterated some of the commitments for follow up on the project. The benefits of the project will fulfill a 30 year plus commitment to renewable energy that started with Ruedi, Castle Creek and Maroon Creek power plants; it will implement parts of a vision statement from the AACP. Renewable power dividend will be available from this project and these projects outlast. Ruedi facility is fully amortized now and is the cheapest facility; we hope that this facility will do the same thing. Overeynder said that's how they are able to commit to powering this facility at no cost, keeping the lights on here for the Ice Garden. The project utilizes primarily saved water rather than new water and addresses some of the use it or lose it aspects of the Colorado Water Law; if we don't use our water rights they are subject to ultimately abandonment. So by demonstrating the use of this water we are using it. Greening of the Aspen Utilities are a success in reducing carbon emissions; we saw in Andy's presentation the progress in renewable energy. Overeynder emphasized that Aspen was one of the few communities in the country that actually demonstrate the reduction of carbon emissions over time. They started the program in 2006 and the primary reason they can point to that success is renewable energy from an electric utility; this project will enable them to continue that success and address about one -quarter of the remaining carbon emissions and get to that goal by 2015 of being a carbon free utility. Overeynder thanked Sara for addressing the public comments and have concerns about adequate flows for a healthy aquatic habitat; there were 5 public meetings to solicit input on design that established follow up study programs and follow up studies. Overeynder said in the aquatic habitat area hired Dr. Miller to do the aquatic studies and Dr. Miller was in the audience and will field questions. Overeynder said basically they were committed to study and get scientific data on how much water is necessary to support a healthy aquatic environment and our commitment to this project is the City will adjust its release during critical low periods if necessary to provide for that. Overeynder said that when they did the survey of 0 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 20, 2010EXHIBIT G this facility they found an extra 20 feet that they didn't believe that they had from the reservoir down to the plant site; that translates to between 8% and 12 % more power. Overeynder said that they can fully commit to meeting the health and safety requirement. Overeynder said on sound transmission engineering (McGregor) determined the sounds suppression features incorporated in the project will more than meet the regulatory requirements for the ordinance and they are committed to do a follow up study that would demonstrate during operations how this facility operates and are committed to following up with corrective measures as necessary to ensure that we do that. Overeynder stated that the permitting and licensing with the penstock and drain line going forth regardless of the outcome of the permitting activities that they are engaged in here with Planning & Zoning and the Federal Licensing that is required and the need to protect public facilities like the hospital, Thomas Reservoir, and we have had similar circumstances like on Aspen Mountain and the need to bring a facility to the Aspen Mountain Tank; in the case of Aspen Mountain to bring water safely down from the tank to the storm drains. The same thing applies here; we have to these kinds of things here to insure that we are operating in compliance with what current engineering practices are and without liability to the utility. So in summary the project has substantial benefits across the community to advance our progress towards renewable energy goals; it has substantial measures that have been incorporated with each of those concerns they are committed to following up with each of those elements in both the design and project operations and have reviewed the draft ordinance and have committed to meeting all of requirements as recommended by staff and request the Commission approve this important community asset. Commissioners Questions: Jasmine Tygre if despite your precautions the noise levels exceed 50 decibels what kind of additional mitigation would be available. Andy Rossello replied there were additional flappers that they could put into the towers as the highest potential for sound mitigation in the structure but they don't suspect that anything will get through the walls; they will bring back EDI and do whatever is necessary. Tygre asked if there were plans in place to address this. Rossello replied yes and they will know that after the follow up EDI study. Mike Wampler said that he had the feeling that a lot of people in the audience were here about the noise and about the build out. Wampler asked if there was a way to OJ City Planning & Zoning_Meeting— Minutes— April 20, 2010EXHIBIT G get the noise below 50 down to 30%. Rossello asked if it were the decibels. Wampler replied yes and asked if it was a cost issue. Rossello replied no because the stream produces that much noise currently and the background noise exceeds what the energy center will produce; if there were no walls on this building it would produce 88 decibels. Phil Overeynder read from Howard McGregor's letter: Using the data from the Manitou plant and noise level emissions would be less than 35 to 14 decibels at nearby residences. Overeynder said that the background noise level would be higher at times. Wampler asked how long this was going to take to build and asked what was going to happen. Rob Covington replied that it wasn't that large of a building and the concrete floor to top of slab and after that it was a lot of concrete product after the walls are poured. Wampler asked about the disruptions to the neighborhood. Covington replied that it would be standard construction traffic. Wampler asked if they have met with the neighborhood. Overeynder said there were 5 community meetings and all the mailings went to community members; they kept a list of people that were interested in this and notifications of subsequent meetings prior to the election; they held a required public meeting during the licensing requirements. Overeynder said there were 2 other public meetings; one of the specifics was discussed regarding specifically construction impact on the relocation of a water line. Adams noted that the project is required to meet the construction management plan. Cliff Weiss said the two major concepts were how this related to coal in this state and you showed a reduction in coal from 60 to 40%; how did that work. Overeynder said that from the 2004 to 2007 we show reduction in the coal purchase and that was due to a wind energy purchase from wind farms in Nebraska and not only from hydroelectric improvements but also during 2004 and 2007 we did better with our hydroelectric plants. Overeynder said the 8% is what we will get from this particular project. Rossello said that from the diagram it shows coal at 25%; wind 44%; hydro at 41 % as of the 2007 survey; when we go to post Castle Creek construction we are at 17%. Overeynder summed it up by saying that we have a contract that basically says that we buy energy from Nebraska and what we can produce here locally we don't buy through their resources and that's primarily coal. Overeynder said that they were developing their own resources, basically they back off on their production, its energy we have already bought. Weiss said the next thing he wanted to understand was the CFS and if there was no diversion of any kind in Castle Creek; he said he saw that it would come down to 12 CFS but wasn't that a small section or was that where it would be put back in. Rossello replied that was for a one mile section. Weiss asked what Castle Creek flowed at without any messing around with it. Rossello answered that was the top 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes —April 20, 2010EXHIBIT G black line shows how variably Castle Creek was ranging from the 12 CFS. Weiss asked if naturally on its own it drops. Rossello answered that was in 2002 and the 12 CFS will be between December and May. Rossello said the stream typically flows between 30 and 40 CFS and we are having Bill Miller re -analyze this because of the anchor ice effects that occur; essentially it is what the top line is what it has historically flowed at; the bottom line is what we are proposing the flow at. Weiss said he sees April to May which looks like the lowest flow so is that when the generating capacity has dropped. Rossello replied yes. Weiss said he saw 25 CFS being removed from the Castle Creek diversion to the Midland flume so you will take less in that April/May period. Rossello answered yes; they do take that water currently and produce water from it; when we get a low flow situation we turn the wells on to supply public water, drinking water at that point. Rossello said when they are approaching that 12 CFS level they will back off water production when necessary and turn our wells back on. Overeynder stated that Bill Miller did not do a specific measurement today for those of you at the site visit. Overeynder believed this was a pretty typical year and typically you would see between 30 and 50 Cubic Feet per Second; now it's difficult for an untrained eye, on the graph the purple line versus the blue line; you really need to go out with instruments to measure the flow differences. Overeynder said that without measuring it he wanted to give a reference point between 30 Cubic Feet per Second and 50 Cubic Feet per Second, which is typically what you would see this time of the year. If we were in full operation of this plant today 12 Cubic Feet per Second unless Dr. Miller's study shows that it meets a different value like 20 CFS in which case we would raise it up to that level. Dr. Miller said that it was at about 38 CFS measured on Friday. Weiss asked about Thomas Reservoir issues of overflow yet nothing has been said in this project about any work taking place in this new hydroelectric plant solving these overflow problems. Rossello responded that the penstock drain line that they are installing will address all of those overflow issues. Overeynder said the project will bring it into current engineering practice, safety considerations that you would have with a new reservoir, which we didn't do when it was constructed in the 1960s. Weiss said that there was a question in one of the letters in the packet asking if this was the best location for the plant based upon the distance of the penstock; he hadn't heard the placement addressed, why you were putting it where you are. Overeynder answered in 2006, which they started with the Canary Imitative requested by City Council to evaluate hydroelectric potentials at a number of different city facilities; they hired an engineering firm in 2006 to look at how we could generate hydroelectric power from this overflow. Overeynder said they looked at number of different sites in that study; they looked at a site on the Wachs City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 20, 2010 EXHIBIT G property, which is immediately below this out flow that Andy showed; that location was eliminated because it was on private property and the property owner asking if they were interested in allowing a hydroelectric plant and penstock across their property and they were not interested. Overeynder said there were constructability issues with that location in terms of really steep slopes; the team that looked at that site in 2006 felt that site wasn't feasible for standard kind of construction methods, everything would have to be lowered into the site by crane off of Castle Creek Road and we didn't have a right-of-way; they did not have support from the property owner or City Council. Weiss asked if that was the best site or were there other sites. Overeynder replied that was the only other alternative site beside the historic site and on the historic site there were three places to site the facility; within the historic city shop, within the new city shop and a new building. Overeynder said this placement was the best for this project. Weiss asked how taking the water out and putting it right back was a lose it or use it. Overeynder replied the water law was basically a state law where it was first come first serve basis and to develop a water right you have to show a beneficial use for that water right; so using it for potable water consumption to distribute to our customers was a beneficial use. Overeynder said that using it for hydroelectric power was also a beneficial use; in the 1960s it took the original facilities from 1850s to the 1958 facility and convert those into what was anticipated to be potable water facilities. Overeynder said in the 1990s they found they didn't need all that water because they were so good at conserving water and didn't need all that water for potable water consumption. Overeynder noted the use it or lose it comes into play is you don't use it for hydroelectric power and you don't use it for potable water supply then you run the risk if you don't have a use for it then it goes back into the pool and somebody else can get that water. Overeynder said that was a simplistic view of how Colorado Water Law works. Weiss asked about the comment in one of the letters about a museum; he asked if there was any kind of information about that and he thought that the neighbors had concerns about that traffic to the museum. Overeynder explained that they would by an arrangement or prior appointment to bring down groups of people to see how hydro energy works; probably the schools, probably very similar to what the historic society operates in terms of bringing people but focusing only on hydroelectric and renewable energy. Mitch Haas said it was more of a visitor's center than a museum and the space available to it had to shrink so there will be interpretative elements like photographs and in the courtyard area and old equipment. Haas said it was meant to be by appointment only; some of these 12 City Planning & Zoninp- Meeting — Minutes —April 20, 2010ExHIBIT G plants are visited by other communities. Haas said that on the plans the room for visiting is quite small so you can't fit 50 people in there at a time; maybe 5 or 6. Stan Gibbs asked if they did an analysis and had percentages of the total energy that you produced based on a change in the level at which you took water only when there was 50 CFS in the creek; what percentage of the power would you still be able to generate. Overeynder replied they did that analysis up to the threshold level of about 20 Cubic Feet per Seconds by raising the threshold from 12 to 20 Cubic Feet per Second and it is in the range of 10% reduction of overall power. Overeynder said that they have additional power available because of what they found in the detailed survey the proposed elevation from that location. Gibbs asked if they could get up to 80% of the power if you went up to 30 CFS. Overeynder replied that they didn't do the analysis beyond 20. Gibbs asked what do you have rights for and what do you take today. Rossello replied that in Castle Creek they have rights to take it all and in 1974 they agreed with the CWB and currently they get 25 CFS; 27 CFS from Maroon. Rossello said that they have 60 in Castle and only take 20. Gibbs asked how much power was currently from other plants; was that the Maroon plant that produces the rest. Overeynder replied that Maroon Creek produces about 2,000,000 kilowatt hours per year, that's about a third of this power and the Ruedi facility is about 20,000,000 kilowatt hours per year so that was a 5 megawatt facility. Gibbs asked what the arrangement with Ruedi was, can we just buy more power from them or is it just a certain percentage. Overeynder replied that we own the Ruedi facility and it's basically operated to its capacity. Weiss asked what 12 CFS looked like. Rossello replied 3 feet by 4 feet of water passing every second and it looks different in every stream section because some stream sections are very narrow; CFS is difficult to understand. Weiss said so fly fishing isn't going to end in Castle Creek and this again is only in the diversion area. Rossello said you can see the Castle Creek intake at the water plant. Overeynder said it was listed as 2.4 miles but the actual segment was broken into two parts the actual head gate and the overflow is already affected by water diversions and that was about a mile; and another '/, of a mile below that was affected by that with the penstock pipeline link. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 1. Yasmine DePagter, public, showed pictures of Castle Creek and she said that it would help with the CFS. DePagter asked Dr. Miller if she was correct in her estimate of about 40 CFS from these pictures that she took this morning. 13 City Planning, & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 20, 2010EXHIBIT G Dr. Miller replied somewhere in that range, DePagter was concerned about 12 CFS; the reduction of water in the river. 2. Paul Noto, attorney represents several people in the audience as well as others, stated that he wanted to clear up several things brought up in the presentations; we heard that there was going to be excess water. Noto said that it really wasn't excess water because it appears that the city is going to have to divert more water from Castle Creek. Noto said that we also heard that this is free energy and nothing is free when it comes to producing energy and there are environmental costs in terms of production and we are looking 3 to 4 times less stream flow in a 2 %z mile reach. Noto said the biggest decision was the approval of this rezoning of this parcel and perhaps this was premature because the city has to go through a federal licensing process to get either an exemption in licensing or a license in order to start the project and the city has applied for the licensing. 3. Carl Bergman said the length was 1 mile and'/o of a mile and asked what the diameter of the pipe was. Overeynder replied that the pipe itself was 4,000 feet and the diameter was 42 inches. Bergman asked about a right-of-way of 100 feet in the original application. 4. Michael Lipkin said that he and his wife were present and his wife, Julie, saw a blue heron in the Creek and there would not be a pool there that exists. Lipkin said that people are horrified that flow in Castle Creek will be low and 17% that actually voted of the 77% that approved was the actual figure and 90% of the community has not approved this project. Lipkin applauded staff for the job that they have done and sometimes we get a little over zealous and he said that he was more interested in what the state of the art plan was than the historical. Lipkin said that there should be some peer review. Lipkin stated major concerns for the river. Adams noted that Michael's letter was included in the packet. 5. Tom Starodoj said that the hydroelectric package that the city presented to the city of Aspen is painted green however when you open it up it is not green; it contains several serious aspects; foremost is minimum stream flow at 12 CFS and that is for approximately one mile upstream from the hydro plant. Starodoj said that Maroon Creek has 14 CFS for several miles and that commences from the Roaring Fork River. On November 13, 2009 Phil Overeynder and John Hines held a public meeting and the benchmark for this project was 12 CFS there wasn't very much water in there. Castle Creek and Maroon Creek will see its aquatic life, fish spawning habitat and riparian area being severely damaged. Starodoj stated that presently 14 homes on Sneaky Lane and Harbor Lane are on private wells; if Castle Creek is reduced upstream from these homes it could negatively impact the aquifer 14 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — A2ri120, 2010EXHIBIT G that supplies water to the wells at this homes. Starodoj asked if they are using the same acoustical measuring equipment as they did in Manitou Springs. Starodoj said that the city should be held to the same standards in this process and asked the commission to turn down this project. 6. Maureen Hirsch said that the city has plans because they have looked at storing the hydroelectric power and hydrogen on site and a hydrogen fuel cell will be created from the electrolyzer. Hirsch said that they will be taking out more water than they are right now. 7. Donna Stewart said how can we rezone at this time when we don't have permission from the federal energy commission so why would we rezone now and would that zoning be appropriate. Stewart felt that they should wait until the full environmental impact study and wondered if the city explored flood mitigation with Thomas Reservoir. 8. Tom Hirsch stated that since we were little kids we are taught about cause and effect; in this case he asked the applicant to consider and think about the impacts however you haven't measured the impacts yet. Hirsch said there were a lot of things that are not known about because they are not measured yet. Hirsh asked Andy what he meant by excess water. Rossello replied it was the overflow and have been endeavoring to conserve since1992 and are leaving in the stream now two-thirds of the water. Hirsch said the whole wildlife that we are here to preserve and yet we are talking about excess and preservation doesn't correlate. Hirsch said this project was setting in motion something that can't be taken back. 9. Curt Gregory said the city does espouse itself to being green and it is inappropriate to circumvent things getting around the necessary; this is a big deal ... that stretch of river and suggested everyone walk that creek. Gregory said that this was not publicized well and finally got someone from the city (John Hines) to talk to him and then he was let go. Since that time he hasn't had any contact. 10. Gabbie Rafelson stated that she lived on Castle Creek Road with little kids and her big concern was the flow of the river. Rafelson said that she was questioning because she didn't have a clear sense of what was happening. 11. Betsy Starodoj asked about the sound readings done at their houses and she thought that they would have peaks and valleys but the sound from this turbine would be steady all day and all night long and the quality of the sound was very different to her. Ms. Starodoj asked why don't you have a stream margin review. Stan Gibbs closed the public comments of the public hearing. 15 City Planning & Zoniniz Meeting — Minutes — April 20, 2010EXHIBIT G -am Sara Adams addressed the question of why this project was exempt from Stream Margin Review. Adams stated that there was criteria in our land use code that exempts construction of improvements that are essential for public health and safety that are located within the stream margin area and it does include utilities and staff found that the hydroelectric plant does qualify for this exemption. Adams said that it is important to note even though it's exempt it has to meet the review criteria that the Planning & Zoning Commission would be reviewing to the best extent possible and staff found that it does meet the review criteria included in the staff memo. Adams said that stream margin review is essentially for properties or developments that are happening within 100 feet of either the Roaring Fork River or its tributaries and Castle Creek is one of the tributaries of the Roaring Fork River so there will be no development within that 15 foot setback. Jennifer Phelan stated that Stream Margin Review focuses on location of a building in relation to the river but also to natural vegetation and not changing that on the bank with some construction mitigation so that you don't have silt running into the river. Phelan said it really doesn't talk about measuring the flow. Stan Gibbs explained to the public that this will definitely go to City Council so that you will have more input at that time. Gibbs said that P&Z made recommendations to City Council. Phelan said there were some comments about this project being premature, the cart before the horse, asking for a rezoning and as a Planned Unit Development it is a site specific approval so if this does get approved it is very specific to what can occur on this site, where it can be located, what can happen on that site and if the required State and Federal approvals aren't granted this can't occur; they wouldn't be able to put the power plant on the site. Mitch Haas said with regard to the rezoning to Public; they feel that the existing zoning is inappropriate and the new zoning would be appropriate. If nothing happens here this parcel is open space but it is zoned for residential use; if you change that zoning to public that's an appropriate zoning for open space. It's also appropriate for this proposal only if it gets approved as a PUD. Haas said that it is standard to deal with local approvals before you move on to State and Federal approvals. Haas said that if there are wetlands on a property the stream margin review is subject to the Army Core of Engineer approval; that would be the same here. Weiss said that he was curious about the hydrogen fuel production potential on this site and if it was possible or plausible. Overeynder said as part of the renewable 16 City Planning_& Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 20, 2010EXHIBIT G energy portfolio and it is part of a carbon neutral facility; they have an appropriation to look at, study hydrogen fuel. Overeynder said that an electrolyzer doesn't have to happen at a hydroelectric facility it can be where ever there is power. Overeynder said for the production of hydrogen fuel would be at the water plant; as part of this project they are running the power lines so that they can generate the power at this site and run it up to the water plant and look at whether they can potentially site it there. Overeynder said that they are not proposing any space here that would be convertible to that; if they were to move forward with the with the hydrogen fuel cell proposal it would likely be at the water plant where they have the space to do it and there aren't neighborhood issue. Mitch Haas said that the floor area was built in here and to expand or to add to this facility they would have this entire review process occurring again. Gibbs asked if the PUD does not include any of the other buildings on the site. Adams replied that it was specific to the lot that's requested to be subdivided in the open space and it would be its own lot with its own site specific development. Gibbs said the only thing that this approval would provide is a use on this particular lot. Adams replied the rezoning would facilitate the use of a hydroelectric plant and rezoning to public tequires a PUD overlay. Gibbs asked if there was any way for this to creep into the other buildings. Adams responded not without a PUD Amendment; any external changes will require a public hearing for a PUD Amendment. Mike Wampler said he wasn't sure he understands the water flow and how deep the water was going to be and he would like an explanation when it gets down to 12 CFS as to what affect will this will have on fly fishing and the blue heron standing in the water. Wampler said that he would like a little better explanation. Dr. Bill Miller replied that the city hired him to conduct additional studies on stream flows, winter habitat and fish populations by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Miller said that they were looking at what does the stream channel look like at 12 CFS and they were in the middle of those studies right now and we know from the old studies what it looks like going from 25 CFS to 12 CFS. Miller said the processes that they are going through right now are what those base flow minimums should be and they will look at other habitats and what those pools should be at. Miller said they are trying to address those concerns and the purpose of the study is to maintain conditions so that you can have fly fishing, the riparian areas and wildlife. Wampler asked for a best guess if the fly fishing would go away. Miller said that the stream flow that they are probably going to find downstream of the diversion was based on other diversions will be somewhat 17 City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes —April 20, 2010 EXHIBIT G higher than the 12 CFS; this wasn't based on any data right now. Miller said there usually was not a linear relationship proportional to the change in CFS unless you are already in the inner margin, the inner stream channel, it's not a one to one relationship. Miller said at 12 CFS it will look different because it will be narrower and we don't know and how much it affects pools we don't know; the pools are maintained by other characteristics down near the ripple itself so there's not a proportional change in stream depth also. Overeynder said that they have been operating the Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant at 14 Cubic Feet per Second release under a Federal license between the Maroon Creek head gate and the Maroon Creek Hydro Plant which is about a mile and a half. Overeynder said there was a very similar stream with similar hydrologic conditions existing; he has never received a complaint of sections of that stream being unhealthy or anything from the division of wildlife. Overeynder said that this was in the same context in a local environment and we changed the stream to about the same extent. Wampler asked if the division of wildlife will have say so in this also if they think that it gets too low. Miller replied that they requested the studies that they were conducting so then they can write conditions for what they want to see. Jasmine Tygre said that one of the things that was bothering her was a matter of process because our code allows the community development director to exempt certain things from stream margin review and this one is an essential public facility; she said that she has always objected to that because if you are doing an essential public facility all the more reason for every possible review to be in place and have it discussed in great detail. Tygre disagreed that it was only about construction when you look at the criteria for stream margin review in particular; item 4 says the proposed developer does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or tributary. Tygre said that stream margin review was not just about construction but it was also about the maintenance of the stream itself and the kind of detail that we expect from a stream margin review that is part of this application and was part of the overall review process we could address a lot of the issues that the members of the public have brought forth because she shared their perception to a certain extent that in the impetus to get a valuable public facility built that there is a stream lining rather than a stream margin review. Tygre said that this could be addressed and accounted for but we need that kind of information before we can make this kind of decision. Tygre said that the process has tripped P&Z up in getting support from the public for this. Jim DeFrancia appreciated to the extent that the code now says that it is exempt so it is exempt. IU City Planning & Zoning- Meeting=Minutes — April 20, 2010EXHIBIT G Cliff Weiss said the underlying issue that he has is the stream margin was the 12 CFS and what was 14 CFS; he asked if they knew what the stream looked like at 20 CFS. Weiss asked if there was an EIS required. Overeynder replied under the FERC licensing statute they have to satisfy the National Environmental Policy and look to us to gauge the input of the public, what kinds of concerns there are and to scope out what kinds of concerns need to be addressed. Overeynder said that the EIS looked at it from their standpoint and said they were looking at the impact that was likely to occur; the level of study that they are doing is the same kind of process that they are satisfying all the requirements for the Division of Wildlife without doing a formal EIS. DeFrancia said that there were lots of issues out there about stream flow, wildlife and other concerns but this body is charged with the land use questions and we are being asked to grant growth management, rezoning, subdivision and none of those actions in themselves are going to cause this facility to be built. DeFrancia said lots of other things have to happen and a lot of subsequent review by other departments and other bodies of government that will reach that determination. DeFrancia said focusing on the land use questions it seems that the staff recommendation and what P&Z is being asked to address is what we need. Weiss asked the timing of these studies and would they be available before you are in front of Council. Overeynder said that Dr. Miller indicated that his draft report would be out by the end of May. Dr. Miller replied the boreal toad is seasonal that will be completed in June and late August; the stream flow and fish population will be out in May. DeFrancia said that P&Z was a recommending body and supports this and was prepared to make a motion. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve resolution #009, series 2010 with conditions to the recommendations to City Council that the Miller studies be considered in detail at City Council and P&Z has concerns regarding the stream flows and wants Council to carefully review; seconded by Mike Wampler. Roll call vote: Weiss, yes; Tygre, no; Wampler, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, no. APPROVED 3-2 Discussion of motion prior to the vote: Jasmine Tygre asked if Jim if he would be willing to add a condition that it is expected that the studies will be available to City Council before they make their decision. DeFrancia stated yes absolutely, Wampler agreed. Gibbs said that he would like to see that science before he could 19 City Planning & Zoning Meeting —Minutes — April 20, 2010 EXHIBIT G make a decision. Gibbs said there were enough questions and he would like to see the fish and the stream flow science before making his decision. Weiss said that if they made a recommendation that the CFS be raised that 12 was too low even without the science; he felt that you only get the reduction of CFS and they are concerned about the CFS and maybe bring it to 20 CFS. Weiss asked to add the minimum of 20 CFS as a condition to the resolution. Rossello answered that whatever Mr. Miller's study finds as the minimum stream flow is what the city will maintain. Rossello said that having a hydrologist make that decision was prudent. DeFrancia agreed with Andy. Gibbs said that he was thinking of something more of how much stream flow there is and that if he had the science he could get a sense of given what the historical flows have been; how about recommending 100% margin if the hydrologist comes back at 12 CFS and we say it has to be 24. Gibbs asked if the commission wanted to make that a recommendation to Council. DeFrancia said that if the applicant said that number is forthcoming that could be the condition but not by just putting a number out there. Weiss said that he has a concern about minimum stream flows. DeFrancia said P&Z expresses to City Council that they have concern about minimum stream flows as an added condition. PUBLIC HEARING: Miscellaneous Code Amendments Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia move to continue the Code Amendments to May 4, 2010, seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor, APPROVED. Adjourned at 7:00 pm. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 20 F�Ivfi y- R ARING F R CONSERVANCY ndeging P-PkTwrb- mpwwo.,R , BOARDOF DIRECTORS Diane Schwener President Stephen Ellsperman VieePrendent Ramsey Kropf Secretary Gail Orrick Treasurer Andrew Light Riven Council Liaison Carter Bruoksher Jim Light RickLofaro Executive Director Louis Meyer Rick Neiley Chris Seldin LarryYaw PROGRAM STAFF Rick Lofaro Executive Director Sharon Clarke Land d Water Conservation Specialist Sarah Johnson Education Coordinator Carlyle Kyzer Major GIc' Director Tim O'Keefe Education Director Ed Perregaux Development Director Chad Rudow Water Quality Coordinator Lynn Ruoff OfficeManager January 14, 2010 Phil Overeynder City of Aspen Department of Public Works 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project — Small Conduit Exemption Dear Phil, The following comments are submitted by Roaring Fork Conservancy in response to "Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project — Preliminary Project Information" (City of Aspen, October 13, 2009) (hereafter, the "City's Report"). Roaring Fork Conservancy recognizes that the City of Aspen is a leader for many water- and energy -related issues (such as watershed planning, water and energy conservation, stormwater, aquatic resource protection, and education). Balancing water and.energy needs is a difficult challenge. As a partner to the City of Aspen, Roaring Fork Conservancy offers the following comments and recommendations for including data from existing and suggested studies to provide adequate safeguards to protect fish and the other aquatic resources of Castle and Maroon creeks, as well as the proximate section of the Roaring Fork River. Roaring Fork Conservancy supports the concept of using hydropower to help meet the energy needs of the City of Aspen. However, ensuring that this project does not impact the fish and other aquatic resources of Maroon and Castle creeks is critical to our support. The City's Report does not provide adequate assurance that fish and other aquatic resources will be protected in two areas: (i) instream flows, and (ii) fish passage. Instream Flows The City's Report does not include or address important data and conclusions from an instream flow assessment of Maroon Creek conducted by W.A. Walsh several years ago? This assessment identified the importance of lower Maroon Creek for fish and determined that the existing Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB") instream flow rights ("ISFs") are not adequate for the lower creek. Walsh recommended a flow of at least 20 cfs. Tlf�qty's Report states, "There will be no impacts to the fish community of either Ion or Castle creeks since minimum instream flows will be maintained," See Walsh, W.A. 2000. Draft report: Instream flow assessment of Maroon Creek, Aspen, Colorado. Prepared for Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. P.O. Box 3349 Basalt, Colorado 81621 1 970.927.1290 1 www.roaringfork.org Although the City of Aspen has adopted a commendable policy to ensure that CWCB's ISFs are maintained downstream of its diversion facilities, these ISFs may be inadequate. The ISFs for Castle and Maroon creeks are often substantially lower than both the modeled pre -developed and developed median monthly flows (see Attachment). We also question whether these minimum instream flow amounts are adequate to protect other aquatic resources. In a CWCB report, the Instream Flow Subcommittee concluded that instream flow amounts do not directly consider the importance of other aquatic organisms or in -channel and over -bank indicators? Walsh also concluded that the type of aquatic habitat loss shown in Figure 1 will have significant effects on the macroinvertebrate communities in these stream reaches'. Figure 1. Reduced wetted perimeter for transect number 6 at 24 cfs.' Further reductions can be inferred with a reduction in flow to the CWCB's ISF of 14 cis. The City's Report simulated water surface levels at various discharges for both Maroon and Castle creeks (see Figure 2), and provides data on changes in discharge, width, depth, and wetted perimeter from before construction to after construction of the proposed hydropower plant. The accompanying table in the City's Report documents large decreases in discharge (see Table 1 below). The reported decreases in wetted perimeter are comparatively low, which could lead to the conclusion that the impact on fish habitat is less than the significant decreases in discharge would imply. For a constrained channel shape (used for the City's assessment) this may be true; however, the impact on fish habitat would increase in a more unconstrained channel. The transects used in the City's Report are from the 1975 CWCB instream flow assessments and were not selected to represent conditions in the reaches affected by this project. ' See Espegren, G.D. 1998. Evaluation of the standards and methods for quantifying instream flgyvs in Colorado CWCB. ' W.A. Walsh, supra n. 1, at p. 30. Id at p. 31. s The CWCB Maroon Creek ttansect is located near the T Lazy 7 Ranch. Figure % simalanons of miter surface levels at valioos discharges, Maroon and Castle Cmelc5. Discharges are representative of the months In parentheses. Discharges for June and July were too high to be modele(L h4arona Creek an -as -IA �_ •LS �4A o,QQ -3S E -3!) 5553 -3.5 -4.0 -s 0 s t0 is Mt N 30 i'. an Dhtaam fmin SWte 160t) -�ICNUbuwmRw3W1 _._ 1IMD.~ ___3Uft1N,4 -----4s sa lssaoul ......... nsat4im3 --»a. tl4v. 0owmodaed -oe.m3ima.l tM n [aak -as -I.0 y -I5 d .2A •25 -3.0 iS •4.0 a 5 to is MI 75 in 35 4n 45 Diafaltmitaea Stake(feet) -12c oatrttmfb WeO _._ 13Welvi+10r1 --MI6 rh ISeo0al ----- -MiAma ...... •.. 0ae103al _ -6704F .lbwmaOaeEl -9aam0am Figure 2. Simulations of Water Surface Levels in City's Report. Table 1 Changes in Discharge and Wetted Perimeter from the City's Report Maroon Creek* I Oct Nov I Dec I Jan I Feb I March j Aril Ma Change in Discharge 48.4 -63.2 -36.7 -33.3 1 -31.0 -35.5 -28.6 55.6 Change in Wetted Perimeter -25.3 -15.0 7.1 6.5 -5.6 -7.0 -4.8 11.8 *Near confluence with Roaring Fork Laver Castle Creek * Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March Aril Ma Change in Discharge -41.7 -54.3 -53.8 -40.0 -40.0 40.0 20.0 -57.1 Change in Wetted Perimeter -19.3 -12.9 -8.0 5.6 -5.6 5.6 -2.5 8.9 *below City intake Comparison of the City's data to data from the Walsh report leads us to question whether the transect used in the City's simulation of Maroon Creek surface water levels is representative of all the channel types and stream locations that would be affected by the hydropower, plant operation. We also question the transect used for Castle Creek. Seven transects, located downstream of the CWCB transect, were used in the Maroon Creek instream flow analysis conducted by Walsh (see Figure 3). These transects extend from the Stapleton Ditch intake structure downstream to the confluence with the Roaring Fork River. Using data from these transects, Walsh concluded: [T]he upstream reachee of Maroon Creek are currently being protected by the CWCB ISF of 14 cfs; however, the middle reach and more importantly, the lower teach, are not being protected by an ISF of 14 cfs. Our data show, that an appropriate instream flow in this lower section should be greater than 20 cfs. Due to the importance of this lower reach for spawning trout, we suggest that.... to preserve the environment to a reasonable degree, the ISF should be increased to reflect these data.' Figures 1 (above) and 4 below illustrate how spawning and run habitat could be impacted by reduced Figure 3. Walsh's Maroon Creek instream flow sampling locations! ' Transect 6 is considered the upper reach; Transects 4 and S the middle reach; and Taansects 2 and 3 the lower reach of Maroon Creek. ' Id. at p. 2. 8 W.A. Walsh, supra n. 1, at p. 18. i 8.5 .. 8 e 7.5 en 7 x 6.5 6 S 5.5 5 4.5 4 Transect 2: 33 cfs 0 3 5 7 9 11 14 17 19 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 48 52 Distance (4) Figure 4. Water surface for transect number 2 (lower end of Maroon Creek) at 33 ch. 9 Loss of spawning area can be inferred with a reduction in flow to the CWCB's ISF of 14 ch. Fish Passage Fish passage, linking Maroon and Castle creeks to the Roaring Fork River, is another issue that has not been addressed by the City's Report. Data from Walsh's study indicates the importance of Maroon Creek as a spawning and incubation area for the Roaring Fork River fishery. Most likely the lower reaches of Castle Creek are of similar importance. Fish passage needs to be evaluated to make sure that fish from the Roaring Fork River have access to spawning and rearing habitat in Castle and Maroon creeks. The section of the Roaring Fork River from Aspen (McFarlane Creek), downstream to Upper Woody Creek Bridge, is designated "Wild Trout Water" by the Colorado Department of Wildlife. "Wild Trout Waters" are defined as waters that contain self- sustaining populations of trout and are not stocked with hatchery fish. Streams that qualify have naturally - reproducing trout that average 40 pounds per acre. This designation is typically used to designate desirable fishing waters for anglers to target "wild trout "'o Recommendations In light of the above deficiencies, we recommend that the City of Aspen: (i) review the study conducted by Walsh with respect to both instream flgws and the importance of fish passage; (ii) undertake a similar comprehensive study of Castle Creek; and (iii) address the recommendations made by the Walsh report and the results of a Castle Creek study in the City's application for exemption from licensing - in a manner that provides adequate safeguards to protect fish and the other aquatic resources of Castle and Maroon creeks, as well as the proximate section of the Roaring Fork River. By copy of this letter we are also encouraging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Department of Wildlife to include terms and conditions reflecting these recommendations in their Id at p. 39. 0 Kendal Ross, Colorado Department of Wildlife aquatic biologist, personal communication, Feb 2, 2008. comments, and in the establishment of requirements for construction, operation and maintenance of this project, as contemplated by 18 CFR §4.94(b).° i rel�TL Rick Lofaro, Executive Director Cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Division of Wildlife n We also recognize that, in granting a small conduit exemption, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may prescribe additional terms and conditions for avoiding or mitigating adverse environmental impact. See 18 CFR §4.93(cx3). Attachment MAROON CREEK Maroon Ditch (380854) Pre- developed Medians (1975-2005) Developed Medians (1975-2005) Comparison of Pre -Developed Flows to Developed Flows Change) Comparison of Pre -Developed Flows to ISF (14 cfs) (% Change) Comparison of Developed Flows to ISF (14 cfs) (% Change) October 38.4 34.5 -10.2 -63.5 -59.4 November 27.2 22 -19 -48.5 -36.4 December 25 21.4 -14.5 44.0 -34.6 January 22.1 16.5 -25.4 -36.7 -15.2 February 18.5 14.7 -20.5 -24.3 4.8 March 17.8 12.8 -28 .21.3 9.4 April 20.1 14.4 -28.6 30.3 2.8 May 68.1 61.8 -9.3 -79.4 -77.3 Jane 236.4 232.4 -1.7 -94.1 -94.0 July 146.2 139.8 -4.4 40.4 -90.0 August 78.9 73.5 -6.8 -82.3 -81.0 September 49.5 44.5 -10.2 -71.7 -68.5 " Clarke, S., K. Crandall, J. Emerick, M. Fuller, J. Katzenberger, D. Malone, A. Slap, and J. Thomas. 2009. State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report 2008. Ruedi Water & Power Authority. CASTLE CREEK Midland Flume Ditch (3800869) Pre- Developed Medians (1975-2605) Developed Medians (1975-2005) Comparison of Pre- Developed Flows to Developed Flows % Change) Comparison of Pre- Developed Flows to ISF (12 cfs) (% Change) Comparison of Developed Flows to ISF (12 cfs) (% Change) October 36.2 32.5 -10.1 -66.9 -63.1 November 19.9 15.9 -19.8 -39.7 -24.5 December 20.9 15.6 -25.6 42.6 -23.1 January 18.9 13.1 -30.9 -36.5 -8.4 February 17.5 12.4 -28.9 -31.4 -3.2 March 20.9 16.3 -22.1 42.6 -26.4 April 27.5 23 -162 -56.4 -47.8 May 94.9 86.9 -8.4 -87.4 -86.2 June 222.4 212.9 -4.3 -94.6 -94.4 July 126.7 120 -5.3 -90.5 -90.0 August 61.6 54 -12.4 -80.5 -77.8 September 46.4 41.1 -11.5 -74.1 -70.8 lu u1;:►1 ul TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: Mountain Plaza Building (AKA Bidwell Building - 434 E. Cooper Ave.) — Subdivision Review, Second Reading, Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2009. (continued public hearing from January 11, 2010, January 25, 2010 and April 26, 2010.) MEETING DATE: July 12, 2010 DISCUSSION: City Council and the public provided the Applicant with comments about the proposal during the January 11`h and 251h hearings. The Subdivision Review was continued to April 26`h for further discussion. On April 26`h, Council gave the Applicant feedback on 6 points before the Applicant embarked on a third redesign of the project. The Applicant requests continuation of the public hearing to September 27`h to allow more time for community outreach and redesign. On August 12, 2009, HPC granted Conceptual approval for the project including Commercial Design approval and Viewplane Exemption. The Land Use Code requires that an application for Final HPC review be submitted within a year of the Conceptual approval date. HPC is authorized to grant a one-time 6 month extension to apply for Final HPC review. This requirement serves to keep HPC project approvals progressing because vested rights are not granted until Final HPC approval is granted. In this specific case, the project is still at City Council for Subdivision review and the Applicant is actively working on a redesign of the project to meet Council and citizen concern. Staff is concerned that an additional 6 month extension to February 12, 2011 may not be adequate. To keep the HPC Conceptual approval valid, Staff recommends that in the event that Subdivision review is granted, Council extend the HPC Conceptual approval to six months from the date that Council grants Subdivision approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council continue the public hearing to September 27, 2010 and adopt Resolution #40 Series of 2010 extending the HPC Conceptual approval to six months from the date that Council grants Subdivision approval for the project, in the event that Subdivision approval is granted. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION 18, SERIES OF 2009 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 434 EAST COOPER STREET, LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Resolution No. 48, Series of 2010 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bidwell Investment Corporation, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, LLC; Klein, Cote & Edwards, P.C., and Rowland + Broughton Architecture and Urban Design requested that Aspen City Council reconsider the subdivision application for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Aspen City Council approved reconsideration of the application for subdivision for the subject property and remanded Commercial Design Standard Review, Historic Preservation Major Development Conceptual Review and Viewplane Exemption Review back to the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined that the application is governed under the Aspen Land Use Code in effect in March 2006; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission adopted Resolution 18, Series of 2009 on August 12, 2009 granting Major Development (Conceptual), View Plane Review, and Commercial Design Review for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lot Q, R & S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code requires that a development application for a Final HPC Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual HPC Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is actively pursuing Subdivision review at City Council and requests an extension of HPC Resolution 18, Series of 2009. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: 434 East Cooper Street Page 1 of 2 In the event that Subdivision approval is granted by City Council, HPC Resolution 18, Series of 2009, granting Conceptual HPC approval for 434 East Cooper Avenue, is hereby extended to six months after the date Subdivision approval is granted by City Council. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on July 12, 2010. Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Attest: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Mayor: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor 434 East Cooper Street Page 2 of 2 Sara Adams From: Mitch Haas [mhaas@sopris.net] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:58 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: Bidwell Dear Sara: On behalf of the Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation and as their authorized representative, I am formally and respectfully requesting that our City Council public hearing be continued to September 27th while we work to further our community outreach and redesign efforts. Please let me know if this request can be accommodated. Regards, Mitch Mkch Naas Naas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, fake 108 Aspen, CO 81611 Phones (970) 925-7819 Pass (970) 925-7393 11sualh mhaas0»pris.net Email secured by Check Point HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC June 28, 2010 !JU/V Ms. Sara Adamsi��Aspen Historic Preservation Planner 28 O 20 130 South Galena Street C�7), OF 10 Aspen, CO 81611 S�p,eY& RE: Extension Request of HPC Resolution No. 18, Series of 2009 "' ^ � Dear Sara: As you are aware, HPC Resolution No. 18, Series of 2009 granted Major Development Conceptual Approval, View Plane Review Approval and Commercial Design Review Approval for 434 East Cooper Avenue. The resolution was approved on August 12, 2009 and provided that a development application for a Final Development Plan must be submitted within one (1) year of the date of the approval, and that failure to file such an application within this time period would render the Conceptual Development Plan approval null and void. The resolution further stated that the Historic Preservation Commission may at its sole discretion and for good cause shown grant a one time extension of the expiration date for the Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. We have been diligently working with the City Council to receive Subdivision approval for the development. The next meeting with City Council is not scheduled until September 27, 2010, over one month past the date required in the resolution for a Final Development Plan. Notwithstanding the consistent and diligent work of all involved, the applicant cannot propose a Final Development Plan before HPC for their approval prior to receiving the necessary approvals from Council. Thus, we hereby respectfully request that an extension of six (6) months to February 12, 2011 be granted before the Conceptual Development Plan approval is deemed null and void. If I can be of further assistance in any way, or if you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. You can reach me at the phone number provided, or by email at mhaas@sopris.net. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mit aas Owner/Manager • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 106 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 8161 1 • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 • FAX: (970) 925-7395 C. MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Directoa� RE: Aspen Valley Hospital — Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road) Final Planned Unit Development, Phase II 2"d Reading of Ordinance No. 12 (Series 2010) — Public Hearing MEETING DATE: July 12, 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 28`h hearing. 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 10`h 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 28`h public hearing 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 July 12`h. 1. Condominumization of the Medical Office Space. Page 1 of 14 Staff Response: At the last meeting on the hospital application, part of the discussion focused on whether the medical office space could be condominiumized in the future. The ability to condominiumize a property is established through Colorado Revised Statutes and cannot be prohibited by City Council. Although the Applicant has the ability to condomiumize (or change the form of ownership) of the MOS, the use of the space is granted via council approval and can only be amended with a future land use application. 2. Need for Medical Office Space (MOS). Staff Response: The Applicant will continue their discussion on the need for campus located medical office space. 3. History on the Castle Creek Campus. Staff Response: The Applicant has provided some newspaper articles (Exhibit T) that provides a history on the development of the hospital campus. Following is a briefsynopsis provided by the Applicant: In a March 1975 election, the voters of Pitkin County approved the formation of a hospital district by a vote of 714 — 224. Two months later, officials went back to the polls and got the voters' permission to sell bonds to pay for much of the construction of a new hospital. The Aspen Valley Medical Foundation was formed to raise the rest of the money needed to build and equip the facility. According to the hospital history book — The Hospitals of Aspen, 1891 — 2002 — a ten -acre site on Castle Creek Road (part of the Thomas property) with plenty of room for expansion was selected for the new hospital. In March 1979, less than two years after the new facility opened, the Aspen Valley Medical Foundation announced plans for another fund-raising campaign to purchase nine acres adjacent to the hospital that would be saved for future expansion. The land belonged to Pitkin County and could be purchased by the Foundation for hospital expansion at a price close to what the county had paid for it. In a September 5, 1979 interview, Eve Homeyer told the Snowmass Village Sun that "the land would provide "a good buffer," assuring that the hospital "would never have to move again." In the same article, Homeyer "pointed out that zoning for this particular parcel is designated for "hospital uses." 4. Lot Coverage Staff Response: The Applicant has provided the following information on pervious vs. impervious surfaces on the campus. Existing Phase II Build Out Conditions (Phase IV) (18.8 ACRES) Pervious Surface* 504,993 SQ-FT 470,549 SQ-FT 436,937 SQ-FT ( 11.59 ACRES) (10.8 ACRES) (10.0 ACRES) Impervious Surface** 313,390 SQ-FT 347,834 SQ-FT 381,446 SQ-FT (7.195 ACRES) (8.75 ACRES) (8 ACRES) * Includes Bike Paths/Trails/Sidewalks ** Includes Building Footprints/Parking Lots/Roadways Page 2 of 14 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 Quality fee 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. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): 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 I1 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 5110110, 6/7/10, 6/28/10 & 7/12/10) EXHIBIT B—Growth Management Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10, 6/7/10, 6/28/10 & 7/12/10) EXHIBIT C — Amendment to the Official Zone District Map Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10, 6/7/10, 6/28/10 & 7/12/10) EXHIBIT D—Subdivision Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10, 6/7/10, 6/28/10& 7/12/10) EXHIBIT E— Referral Agency Comments (provided 5/10/10) EXHIBIT F — P&Z Resolution No. 8 (Series of 2010) (provided 5110/10) EXHIBIT G—P&Z minutes (3/2/10, 3/16/10 and 4/6/10) (provided 5/10/10) Page 3 of 14 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 Than (3/31/10), and David Ducote (4/4/10) (provided 5110/10) EXHIBITK— Application (provided 5110/10) 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 N - 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) (provided 6/28/10) EXHIBIT P - Memo from Cindy Christensen, APCHA (6/2/10) (provided 6/28/10) EXHIBIT Q - Public Comment from Nancy Tate Hall (provided 6/28/10) EXHIBIT R - Public Comment from Eva Shurman (via Nancy Tate Hall, 6/24/10); William R. Thomas (6/24/10); Greg Geib (6/25/10); Junee Kirk (6/28/10); and Jeanette Damauer (6/28/10) (provided 6/28/10) EXHIBIT S - Public Comment from Sidney and Ann Smock via Nancy Tate Hall (7/5/10) and Barry Mink (7/7/10) EXHIBIT T - Supplemental newspaper articles from the Applicant with regard to hospital location 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 Page 4 of 14 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 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 Map 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 Plamiland Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed the application on March 2"d, 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 Page 5 of 14 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. 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 11 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. Figure 1: Subject Site, Existing 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 Footaee as Propose in Phase II Conceptual Phase I Phase II - Phase Phase IV New Total at Approval (proposed in III build out (sq ft.) Final PUD) Existing 75700 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 61,04 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 1200 0 12,000 15,000 0 27,000 (Medical Office Sub -Total 1 214,095 81,421 1 63,416 63,110 9,941 217,888 Affordable 18-22:Units-: 0 22 units 0 0 22 Units Housing (my 9,q. 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 63,1101 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 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. Page 7 of 14 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 further 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 II 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 Development. The improvements will occur during Phase IL The Applicant is meeting this condition. Trail Improvements. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that trail improvements should be proposed during Phase II 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. Highway 82/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 L 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 11, 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 II 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 II 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 I 1 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. Parking garage: 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, Staff finds 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.1,IP')• I.,not FPP ACCPCCmdnt 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 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 of service. 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 28n`; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application at the June 28"' continuance, the City Council opened the hearing and after an initial review of the application continued the hearing to July 12'h; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application at the July 12`s 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 which are considered accessory to, and part of the hospital function, eighteen txre�affordable housing units, an expansion and redevelopment of the existing hospital facility to 63,416 gross square feet City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 2 of 12 (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. These site improvements include the construction of a three level parking garage that accommodates parking for 210 vehicles. 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. 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. City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 3 of 12 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. Section 5: Dimensional Requirements of Phase U 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. 64-2 tuck under and 109 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 15,500 24,400 square feet Note: * See section 8 for further requirements. Section 6: Design elements to be incorporated into Phase II City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 4 of 12 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. 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 City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 5 of 12 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: Eneineerine 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 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 six eight (_69) studios and twelve feuAeen (1214) 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, recognizing the rotating employment opportunities of the hospital six of the units shall be exempt 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 1/10t' 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 I 0 0 Phase II 28.5 34.5 19.98 Total 85.5 943 19.98 65.52 qI-.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 Lightin>r 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 Rights 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 7c' 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. The June 7th hearing was conducted and continued to June 28', and July 12". INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 10d' 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 A AVH Master Facility Plan, Phase H Exhibit B - Proposed parking to be removed Exhibit C - Rooftop mechanical City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 12 of 12 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. Stafffnds 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 11. 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 27, 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 30 361 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. Staff finds 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. Staff finds 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. 5. 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 fit 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 architecturefor 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 II, the applicant is requesting 51,416 47,868 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 Sec. 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 project a model of good development, contributions to the communityfabric. " • The provision of affordable housing o environment that is appropriately scat neighborhoods... " (Intent, pg 25) of building forms the design "Makes every public on all levels, from quality design to positive (Goal B, pg 43) n the site helps ed and distributed ,reate an affordable housing throughout existing and new 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 public facility 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) Stafffinding: The proposed redevelopment has requested and received growth management allotments as required. Jennifer Phelan From: Nancy Tate Hall [ntha1123@msn.com] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 6:08 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: AVH Expansion/story poles, etc. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi, Jennifer, Wanted to make sure Council had the letter below from Dr. Smock. It has been updated for the Aspen Times this week and asks for a referendum at the end. What is the protocol on that procedure? Also, any timing set yet for our on -site meeting with Council to see the story poles for medical office space? I am hopeful it will be a few days before the next hearing on July 12. Seems like there should be some additional time for processing the information gathered at that meeting. We have recently learned that the whole staging area for proposed construction will be in the area adjacent to Meadowood Road! Hope you had a great holiday weekend. Thanks, Nancy 925-7679 -----Original Message ----- From: chersmock <chersmock ccbaol.com> To: rcarroll <rcarroII(@aspentimes.com> Sent: Mon, Jul 5, 2010 4:22 pm Subject: letter to the editor July 5, 2010 Re: Phase II AVH Expansion Dear Editor: We have owned our home in Pitkin County for 28 years, the last six years of which we have been permanent residents -- and are taxpayers in the AVH District. We are very concerned about the proposed Phases II and III Expansion of the Aspen Valley Hospital. The current expansion plans were conceived prior to the recent economic downturn and prior to the passage of the recent Health Care Reform Act. The economic downturn has altered the demographics of our area and has greatly reduced the potential for revenue to pay for a hospital expansion project. Additionally, the Health Care Reform Act is still in the transition phase and may well evolve into some directives which would change the regional requirements for health care delivery facilities and therefore render the current AVH expansion plans irrelevant, possibly offering services for which government/insurance carriers would not reimburse payment. Both of us have background/experience in the health care field . Prior to my retirement I practiced medicine in Michigan and in Phoenix/Scottsdale, Arizona. In Michigan I was Director of Emergency Services for the State as well as for the University of Michigan Medical Center. I routinely evaluated medical centers in both Michigan and Arizona for Medicare. My wife, Ann, received her Master of Public Health in Medical Care Organization at the University of Michigan, after which her firstjob in that capacity was in U.S. Regional Health Planning in the Phoenix, Arizona office. As a consultant, she introduced the ACCESS program, Arizona's version of Medicaid, to the Arizona Senate Health Committee. Our experience gives us concern that the AVH Expansion might commit our taxpayers to build a costly "Field of Dreams' -- with an agenda to compete with other facilities in the area that are better located to serve a broader cachement area of patients. We believe that, in the current economic climate, onsite employee housing is less cost effective than taking advantage of other existing or approved affordable housing. We think that the Health Care Reform Act will include regional planning and have a direct impact upon the services which insurance will pay for --and at which facilities, in order to minimize duplication of services, a major contributor to the high cost of health care. While it may be prudent to bring existing facilities up to state of the art standards, at this time it seems unwise for AVH to proceed with anything beyond that. The public needs to have more time to be educated fully as to the extent and cost (and financing) of the Phase II AVH Expansion proposal. Perhaps this could be part of a campaign involved in a Referendum on the subject? Regards, Sidney N. Smock, M.D. Ann E. Smock, M.P.H. Holland Hills, Basalt Email secured by Check Point Jennifer Phelan From: Virginia Dyche [GDyche@aspenhospital.orgj Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 9:54 AM To: Mick Ireland forward; Steve Skadron forward; Dwayne Romero; 'djohnson@aspensnowmass.com'; Torre, rcarroll@aspentimes.com; 'sack@aspe nd a i lynews. com' Cc: Jennifer Phelan Subject: Hospital master facilities plan Following is a request 1 received from Dr. Barry Mink (via AVH CEO Dave Ressler) asking me to get this letter to both City Council and the newspapers. Hope this is acceptable. If not, please let me know. Ginny Dyche Aspen Valley Hospital Qdyche(a aspenhospital. org Dave, this is a letter I was planning to give to the paper and City Council. If you could have Ginny facilitate its publication I would appreciate it. Dear City Council, Editors, and People of Aspen Valley: This month, on July 12, you will be making a decision that will impact the medical care of this community for the next 30 years. The Master Facilities Plan for Aspen Valley Hospital that has been diligently planned, pursued, and extremely contemplated by our community's health care professionals is before you for approval. The plan as you have seen is well thought out and presented to you with the best efforts of our medical staff and administration who have worked on this for many years. The proposal includes a medical office building on campus that will improve patient care dramatically by having critical care physicians close to the hospital. Obstetrics, pediatrics, trauma and general surgeons, and intensive care physicians can deliver their services in much more efficient and timely ways. This truly means matters of mortality and morbidity will be negatively impacted if this plan is not approved. This is a heavy burden for you to consider if this proposal is denied for reasons of personal convenience to a few homeowners. The greater good for many over the next decades is the issue that compels me to write this public letter. Barry Mink, M.D. Email secured by Check Point y m W �b�':ury -$�i _y.�..��id��;�j{°"'4:l.�[•��'.);�x:R'`;:..o';p:�:'; ,.,:�` .��.�fiv'� �'i� a'R Y ,� ' :w':... t si � =pc„ `� - F• i .A 3, 4� .z. & vFAI A ' N (, ra .. �� ..�:>:':7:i't?IP; ' .•. J: �� � ...: m�F+ n:v }e �.. .y��r:a yFs • '.1: cp>U.'g': r>.., •fir, ,-s:M�:'�i�y'c';a`m dam; �` ••. t iF��'� rSe���s�-d• ����:��a '�jl�;F�.�Nj •'?:: R> J7';W.iS'•':� . :. a �+.;- L •'Ve6:.'.. oi•: c '�p9g:yp f �YAI 1 q' pyrl.' r1 +4• M.ay 1:�..�...: " ;+v ygibl,y„, :.: 'JQ' .r rp;1Y:Fi; -�. • p �"::'Y�c4-y..LL A�?»M.`Q. Q;.i.�•o'K''.`'1,j�,api'i%P,'.`'i`'.`t�'''�ri �']b7'�, Im 0 EX 'dD:) 1 IFIA ,'':, w-. Yo'�:, it .. im>,.• 1,+i i 777 -':IEdib4r Tbis is�the first in"d . R and SpItal Will Of the fj)tbjcjr PRN goals in'1979 ii;'Wii6rchasi� a , 9- tlif acre. parcel (A; WidqTickii Pilkin. CvT . County; located dir&dy ndrth6f adi . . ... thii hdital 'site. . .. I * **-Ad.Orj.6g :. t� Eve : Homeye'r' the Director bf Develop-meyil hl Aspen: the V6110 HospiW,; the-lari :0601d. atii il';aW e " a .'q ond bubk - ir, I., assuring its thmAhe hospital ".would never FCC hayjtomove aqaWi.'. .1 . . .. an, :X 6ifof fiisii ry- ihe 'Citi:z'erts An HospiMl was built M 'qpem m, COT 1891; fluxing the famous mining InU Aft'e*i a seC-D'11.4 ()CUM"'i.Of ' h0l Wers; in . the . 19 50 , s, the'hospital was torn down an4ebUt.At this tii46! the iWne WA-*chaTged to IWO Aspen Valley Hn,apitat. 95,.1976. Abig again', inadequate. 0[1� �jv' 1973 .the ikpQpValley, Medical F.9111odbit I w , esiaL on 10i6dtoraise ct* tributiontif the proNsed. new facility: sting that "not a dinlebfisiafe Orfederal money went tmard the buad6j the.hos-pliall was, dl&ed on. CO I j�jobeF 22; 1977'�'uWWbid and 6n time," z ov&to H.orneyer. Theilacil - was b0liwith, futyrg groWth A isable fosmypoirttwicethi "49 beds; ffow in Lim- Titkin County offered the 9 acres af 1972 prices—rougmy $13,000/imireL.-'a real . bargm said HoTneyer. The payment schedule called far $11,323: on Match 20 and $2,6,SW do August IS.- An addlifimal $47,&% will be due an' Adgilst and W,593 on August 15. 1981 will complete. the ptothimme- ("i. Value . of the land - has been MEMORANDUM M'd- TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council n I FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director � f IAAA. RE: Burlingame Ranch Phase II — Design Direction — Public Hearing Resolution No. 42, Series of 2010. DATE: July 12, 2010 SUMMARY: This public hearing is a continuation from June 28 h at which the Burlingame Design Team presented the information on the design direction. The three members of City Council present on the 28ffi appeared ready to adopt the resolution, but wanted the full Council to consider the direction of Burlingame Phase II before proceeding. Gaining Council direction on the design direction will allow the team to transition from the listening phase to the designing phase of the project. Attached to the resolution is a detailed summary on each of the six key decision points. Clarity at this stage of the project can minimize costly design changes later down the road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council receive the presentation, take public comment, provide staff with direction, and consider the proposed resolution. 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." 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 2010. 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 Reso No. 42, Series 2010 Page 2 Attachment June 28, 20100 i I11 ( .I "! .Vd 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 II. 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 Density• • • to Other Housing- - Developmentper Twin Ridge 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: THE Cm or Aspen 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 On of Aw; C MULTIFAMILY Unit Type Style UNIT MIX Livable Area Total Qty % of Total 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% TOTAL 161 00.0% * Plus six single family units for a total of 167 Phase II units. 21 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 June 28, 20100 THE Gry or AsPE9 SMALL BUILDINGS MEDIUM BUILDINGS LARGE BUILDINGS PHASE I PEAS[ 1 DENSITY AGREEMENT 04 INft MdOM SY4L �W,Ir.4 u1WW 9We4ellY 4AIIfE. NWM 1}e MO PPHASE I ROPOSED` .111 pe:.: n.np I.i M A t YW,n.111 .—"N.. I: u_. 11.l. Construction Methodology: 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 PEAS[ 1 DENSITY AGREEMENT 04 INft MdOM SY4L �W,Ir.4 u1WW 9We4ellY 4AIIfE. NWM 1}e MO PPHASE I ROPOSED` .111 pe:.: n.np I.i M A t YW,n.111 .—"N.. I: u_. 11.l. Construction Methodology: 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 WW LJ I I I E t 71 S or APEN 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 5 of 9 Attachment A June 28, 2010 C.] Tree Cm or ASPEN The table below provides a summary of some of the land utilization characteristics proposed: Multifamily Comparison (only multifamily buildings/units included) r r Phase112009 Concept Master Plan Density Agreement Phase 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) 288,960 141,388 Avg Gross Building Area per Unit (sci ft) nit 1,257 1,795 1,683 TotalBUlldin Footprint(sc ft) 70,376 96,320 73,697 Avg Footprint per Building (sci ft) 5,027 4,816 4,913 Avg Footprint per Unit (scl 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 II 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 O c STOR;jp E STO--RAG�ELSTORAGEI STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE50 S SF53 S SF 53 SF 53 SF - L �; Ll L: ] � GRC U 5) Relationships and connections to Phase 1 The 2010 Burlingame Phase I1 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 CnY of AsnN The sketches below further illustrate the proposed Phase I / Phase II connection: Phase.2 Courtyard Phase 210 • • ' 'v Phase 2 �M ep55 Phase 1 ase 1 S °°99 r 19 Mining Stock Parkway 6) Architectural massing, height, scale and general character 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 June 28, 20100 UE On or Asvty 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 be 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 m s F , / 1 om 1 ok %I h a Z .CY' a MOMMEN �o o� LLJ � V m CD Z � � V 0 U U a Q 0 N N O a_ V O U x .E C N r r N J M .•z ui El Q m a /—uOI•, � o N Cd N CL i J L^; O E U l9 Q ■ ■ C � ■V/ m �y W Q .Q m L 0 Q �+ Ja 4a El O C' 0 0 0 H •L m Q E 0 u cn co r- > >+ Q i r •C O O M M r E M cC LL = U) E LL N U LL C m o 0 CL CD � s _ = —�•� N�(n a'�� �_� r N•O ca CO 0000 M N t d p to t> > t> > o> > F— a. cv Cx G a�oID U Cl Q to = CL 0 i V O O O Q K EL Q a)i im cCD -0 cm O V C C E aim O�c CD 3: E (n 06 L Y ma w O }i O QQ a. -"•� a v O o O `� cn cn � t ci o o a sz CD O O Q _ s O 4- a ■� yM sZ M O O ca 0 Q' •O = O 4-1 _ N L. O e�) z �N _O �'Cl) >0Oa�Uv wamUO I >>Q n U) ^ Q04 .;..;..;..;..;. r M 6' s c a O O i V< C 0 C< .T 0 Z C 0< Y 1 �` r r� I ti• ti r r W Z � N N u F 1 1 T Ty S 7 W u Q r— — U u o z C ti J a m J m. 2 � � o � a � f m N H 2 C W' W H W W 0 v� V1 to W V d < azix a0 i a o a CL 9L m m ca E Z d W s r 0 N W _ N N 0 CL 0 L. Q. d (A a) m L O cm 0 0 0 0 Q. Q cC f6 7 r Q. d 0 _ O [i, U ff •N m4 7 N V' iL CD N � Q w • � .� a f0 �. } • wCA a LLyJ •� �_ � v Q � •J � -J liCl L C O i f rr LL Q O_ y .r.. �+ F— •I. L� 'O �_ Y Q co • V tn a--+ — _ O G O L _ -n m G O LL Q lid Co J v� _ LL z Q J J Oq O DA +� w dA ~% aL J Z > " > rJ > �-n2o ` -a :Da t-a¢ u » E Q / 2 ƒ R 2 O ƒ < Q 3�7 ' 2 X d C o x 2 Co % o E & / M M cr . Cn 0 c � 2 • 2 = �20 m Q-Z m 0 § cu d o u 0 E # / § @ m m o § o \ 0— 4 m k tq' n @ o-lid= \ / E # 2 0 2 ° / & § 2 2k2o: U r 2 2 .� •- � f U m Q = ._ o 0 k 2 % E / c \ mƒ020 c �c CL CL k ƒ U k k Q I I)om C m d V V C1 m d .a r m S a+ O N N C <.i d C C O N O. t N C O d L d N d ram+ L w .r+ t cm O N m 0 a c. m m Q d e,> C O U, c A c z, l s�a:1f� ;.i EF i w "All a U � tm Q i W • Cl U) OOIM%% a -7 s'l 1 r6 To] MEM ram: pa-- - 7 0 a CL R a v c 0 El 16 0 0 E�: T c c J 494 CL 0 0 -i Ln Ul Ld u u of LLJ r4 Vs MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 6 RE: Silver Lining Ranch Conversion to Single -Family Residence o SPA Amendment o Rezoning to Rural Residential Zoning 2"d Reading of Ordinance No.14, Series 2010. DATE: July 12, 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 FIRST READING QUESTIONS: What is a legally -created non -conforming structure and what does it mean for this property? The City allows structures that were originally constructed in conformance with the zoning code (legally created) to continue for the life of the structure even after changes to the zoning code. Upon demolition of the structure (which is a technical measurement) the structure must come in to conformance with the current zoning limitations. For example, if the City were to lower the allowable Floor Area in the West End neighborhood, the existing houses could stay with no limitation. If a house were torn -down, the replacement house would need to comply with the new Floor Area standards. The existing Silver Lining Ranch building is roughly 14,000 square feet of Floor Area (18,000 gross), which is larger than a house can be for this property. Calling the existing building a "legally -created non -conforming structure" will allow the building to be converted to a house without forcing the structure to be reduced in size to conform to zoning limitations. If the building is ever torn -down, the replacement house would then need to comply with zoning limitations. If the property must come into conformance with the zoning prior to its conversion to a single- family home, substantial changes would need to be made to the existing building. How large can a house be on this property? If the entire property were zoned Rural Residential, the allowable Floor Area for a single-family would be roughly 11,250 square feet. If only the area currently zoned Academic is rezoned to RR, the Floor Area would be roughly 8,540 square feet. These estimates do not take into consideration steep slopes or areas of the property under water, both of which reduce a property's Floor Area. What is the process for the Foundation to gain access to the property during the 5-year dual use period? Answer to be provided at the hearing. What is the relevance behind the timeframe of 5 years? Answer to be provided at the hearing. Is the 5-year dual use being done as a community benefit? Is there a more effective way to provide that benefit? Answer to be provided at the hearing. 2 LAND USE REQUESTS: The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council will be reviewing the following land use actions for the conversion of the Silver Lining Ranch to a single-family residence: • 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 -Family 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. 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. 0 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-profitlinstitutional 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 ON SPAS: 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 ONPROTECTIVE 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 5 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 ag tion 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. 1 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. 7 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 sic 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 ask 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 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 Foundation's original approvals allowing for this conversion back to a single-family house in the event of today's circumstance. 3 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 does not believe the request meets the standards of review. Staff recommends denial. RECOMMENDED MOTION• "I move to approve Ordinance No.14, Series of 2010. " 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 (Provided at first reading) Exhibit E — Public comment letters received by staff 0 ORDINANCE NO. 14 (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. 14, Series of 2010 Page 1 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. 3. 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. 14, 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. 14, 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 was 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 was 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 28 h 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. 14, Series of 2010 Page 4 City Plannin¢ & Zoning Meetin¢ — Minutes — May 18, 2010 IiFe LA A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (05/04/10):� Silver Lining Ranch 91490 Ute Ave, Change in Use 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 0 City Planning & Zoning Meetina — 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 rd 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 42 deals with the capacity of public facility; standards #3 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 #3 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 BPC 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 I't 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 R$ City Plannine & Zonine 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'/4 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 Meetin-a — 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 0 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. 0 City Planning & Zoninz Meetin¢ — 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 '/a 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 & Zonine Meeting — 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 Planning & Zoning 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 staff s 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 Planning & 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 2"d 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 #11 with 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 ADUas 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 1, 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 1 s: seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, Approved. Adjourned at 7:45pm Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk IN RESOLUTION NO. 11 �x (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: 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. 3. 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: 1. 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 Housine 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 I 2-bedroom Cat 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 Change -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 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 18c' 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 lwr*L� t i. I. b. Notice re ' ements: Publication, posting and mailing. (See 26.304.06 (3)(a),(b), and (c).) c. St ands of review: Section 26.440.0" A) for SPA designation, Section 440.050 for review of development in SPA. d. P&Z action: Resolution reco ding to the City Council approval proval with conditions, or disapproval of e SPA. 4. Step Four - Public Hearin efore 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. b. Notipe requirements: Requisite noti equirements for adoption of dinance by Council and publication, ting and mailing. (See 26.30 060fl(3)(a),(b), and (c).) c. Standards of review: ction 26.440.030(A) for S designation, Section 26.440.050 for revie f development within SPA. d. City CounX-dinance approving, approvi ith conditions, or disapprod the SPA. D. Limitat' s. A development applicati for a final development plap4hall be submitted within two ) years of the date of app al of a conceptual devel ent plan. Unless extensio is granted by the City Co prior to expiration, fail o file such an appl' ton with' this time period shall rend null and void the approv of a conceptual de opment p Approval of a concept development plan shal of constitute final proval for development in a Speciall armed Area (SPA), or p fission 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) _.,O' ......,� 26.440.050 Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). A. General. In the review of a development application for a 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 general 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 Application. A. ceptua;develop plan.1. Contentsplication. The con�ntS of the development application for a eptual deve ent plan shall includeAe following: The general ication information required in Comm ' evelopment Review Proced set forth at Chapter 26.304.030. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 400, Page 91 3. An accurate survey map of the real property proposed for amendment. • 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. 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 e Planning and Zoning Commiss' adopts a resolution recommendi approval of a develo nt application for an :in 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.W.070 Recordation of i lepf�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 notifyft City Clerk of the desi ion, who shall record amon real estate records of the Clerk and 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 IR i71Co FEW Arts, Culture and Education 1-01 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. �W* 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. 0 45 Mak 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. 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. i 31 Aspen Alps�ra June 26, 2010 Aspen City Council City of Aspen 130 Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Mr. Mayor and Members of City Council, This letter is to express support for the current proposal in front of you regarding the Silver Lining Ranch. The Aspen Alps would be supportive of its conversion to a single family residence. Given the difficulties that have existed in attempting to find a use that interested parties can all agree upon, this proposal would seem to be compatible with the neighborhood on Ute Avenue, while still allowing some non-profit use in the near future. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 700 Cite Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (800) 2Y-78010 Fax (970) 920-2528 Info.'J'ospenlips cons R"Cipi'NO ot Ole '0()ejl'i 006 ( ;1("");110! Aqnwj ior ;R1_1 N Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: ROSS [with_a_tail@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 5:57 PM To: Chris Bandon Subject: Silver Lining Ranch Dear Aspen City Council, I sincerely hope that you approve Andrea Jaeger's current application. I really want to see Andrea be able to collect that money and be able to move it towards her future projects. It is unfortunate that the original operation moved. They were excellent neighbors. Unfortunately, just about any other type of use at that property would generate serious traffic volume and noise. I'm surprised that more people don't realize that they can't run a significantly sized business without ample parking. One of the worst possible uses of that property would have been a day care center. My son went the Early Learning Center for years. I walked or rode my bike whenever possible but my first hand experience tells me that 99% of all drop offs and pick ups are made in a car. One person getting a slightly larger than usual house shouldn't be that big of a setback to the community. If anyone is 50/50 on this please come and look at the Ute Ave Cul De Sac. There used to be bushes where there is now pounded down dirt from all the trucks that have trouble getting around. Two or Three of the Aspen trees just about got cut in half last year when a stuck truck hit the gas and ripped out of there. At any given moment you can come down here and say it is a quite neighborhood but when there is a problem it tends to be serious. When there is traffic it is all at once. Please pass this application. Sincerely, Andrew Ross Munves President Ute Park Townhomes 6/14/2010 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: forrest barnett [forrest_barnett@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 6:33 AM To: Chris Bandon Subject: Silver Lining Property I'm writing in support of Andrea Jaeger and the Silver Lining/ Little Star Foundation's efforts to gain City Councel approval on July 12th. My name is Forrest Barnett and I am employed as a Police Officer for the City of Aspen. I am not speaking for the PD, but as an individual who worked/volunteered for the Silver Lining Foundation for many years. I have a personal attachment to the property in question as I spent some of the most rewarding times of my life entertaining and caring for children at The Silver Lining Ranch. It's my understanding that Andrea must sell the property in light of the astronomical costs of running a foundation in Aspen. The proceeds of the sale would allow Andrea to continue to provide help to affected children and their families. It seems that the sale of the property as a single family residence would benefit the neiborhood overall and make for a quiet, less intrusive situation on Ute Ave. I also believe that a family residence would serve to keep traffic down on Ute Ave which is always a consideration with the Aspen Club and Ute Trail being popular destinations. I know that the funds generated from the sale would be used to help many of the children that I knew and became very fond of, as well as many others that need assistance from The Little Star Foundation. It seems as though the City stands to acquire a substantial amount of revenue toward the employee housing fund if the current application is approved as well as the stipulation which allows the property to be used for possible SLR functions for the first five years. I don't pretend to know all of the variables. I simply wanted to voice my support and point of view. I hope this ends up in a good outcome for Andrea and her foundation as it would be a good outcome for many children and their families as well. Thanks for your time, Forrest Barnett Email secured by Check Point 6/18/2010 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: sussistrid@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:13 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: please forward to Mayor Ireland and the City Council as well. To whom it may concern I am writing to you to show my support for the Silver Lining approval and closing. My name is Susanne Strid and I have lived in Aspen for the last 16 years. I have known Maja Muric, with the Little Star Foundation, almost as long. I have seen what the Little Star Foundation has done for those kids. The joy it has brought and I am sad to hear that they can't move on and continue this great Foundation without the sale of this property. I am definitely supporting the requested change in use to a single family residence. I understand that it was originally approved for that anyway. Please feel free to contact me, if you need additional information from me Best, Susanne Strid 6/22/2010 Page 1 of 2 Chris Bendon From: Peter Gerson [pgerson@gersoncompany.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 7:18 AM To: Chris Bandon Subject: FW: Email to be sent with your approval To The Aspen City Council. This message refers to THE SILVER LINING CONVERSION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE I, Peter Gerson and my wife, Julie have been residences and voted in Aspen for 16 years. We have owned first at the Aspen Club Condos and for the last 10 years have owned the old Fritz Benedict home on Stillwater Ranch, of which the Silver Lining Ranch is a lot owner. Julie and I would welcome the zoning change to a single family residence. We understand, If the zoning is approved the Silver Lining Ranch/Kids Foundation would still be able to use the facilities for quite some time. We believe this is a "win -win" situation for all participants. Aspen would benefit by having a new taxable property on the roll call. The impact on the neighborhood would be significantly reduced: parking, traffic and especially now that the Aspen Club project has been passed. The Benedicts gave the lot to The Silver Lining Foundation only for a single use: to provide comfort to terminally ill Children. Since the Foundation has moved to another City, finding a foundation with exactly the same interests is almost impossible to find. So, the building has been empty for many years. By allowing the Silver Lining Ranch/Kids Stuff to sell the property to a single family would allow the Foundation to continue in their very worthwhile effort. Julie and I hope you will allow the Zoning change to the single family residence. Thank You, Very truly yours Peter and Julie Gerson Describe who they are -Describe that they are writing regarding the pending application of Silver Lining Ranch for Conversion to a Single -Family Residence -Describe their connection to the property and Aspen (i.e., live in the neighborhood, etc.) -It should say that they support the requested change to a single family residence and it would be good if they can describe the reasons: -lessened parking and traffic impacts -lessened impacts on the rural nature of the neighborhood -it is consistent with the original intent for use of the lot which was originally only deemed appropriate 6/28/2010 Page 2 of 2 for use as a single family residence -this lot was never intended to be a "community' facility and the public never bargained for a community facility on this lot -the change helps support Silver Lining/Kids' Stufrs Mission Peter Gerson The Gerson Companies 1450 S. Lone Elm Rd. P.O. Box 1209 Olathe, KS 66061 pgerson �,gersoncompany com Phone:913-262-7400 Fax:913-262-3568 6/28/2010 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Chuck Bellock [chuck@communitydevelopmentgroup.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 12:08 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Stillwater June 28, 2010 Aspen City Council c/o Chris Banded 130 S. Galena St Aspen Co,81611 Re: Silver Lining Ranch conversion Dear City Council Members I am writing in support of the application submitted for Lot 5 Stillwater Ranch to change the use back to a single family residence. As long time Aspenites, we supported the Silver Lining Ranch over the years and were familiar with its use. As a facility approved for no more than 20 seriously ill children operating up to 14 weeks a year, its limited use worked for the neighborhood. The SLR was a good neighbor, with minimal traffic, use or disturbance. The SLR was gifted by the Benedicts for this limited use and was a wonderful facility for the children it served. The Stillwater Ranch Covenants were drafted by the Benedicts for a single family home on Lot 4 and then allowed for the donation, while maintaining restrictions on future use to one compatible with the surrounding single family homes. While concerns have been raised over the amendment to the covenants (which support restoring the original single family use), the Benedicts created the covenants that protect and restrict any other uses. Following the covenants, the Town's approval of the Silver Lining Ranch was also very restrictive. For staff to make the argument today that the intention of the original approval was to create a community facility is not supported by the transcripts from any of the hearings, and the final approval was extremely limiting and was incorporated into the covenants as planned by the Benedicts. The public use suggested by staff will also prevent the mission of the Silver Lining Ranch from vital support. To preserve the intention and legacy of the Benedicts, to support the mission of the Silver Lining Foundation and to protect the residential character of the neighborhood I urge you to allow lot 5 to return to residential use. Thank you, Chuck Bellock 540 Red Butte Dr Aspen 81611 crbellock@cdgcolorado.com 6/28/2010 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Petra Rihtaric [petradhtaric@hotmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:25 PM To: Chris Bendon Cc: mhaas@sopris.net Subject: Support letter for change in use of Silver Lining Ranch To Aspen City Council and Mayor Mick Ireland, this letter is my support of Silver Lining Ranch for change in use to a single family residence. ['we been long time friend and supporter of the foundation and I would like to see them continue to do the great job of helping children in need. I don't see any reason against it and lot of reasons for it. Please do the right thing. Petra Crimmel, Aspen resident The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. Get busy. 7/5/2010 Chris Bendon From: Tremols Lucy [Itremols1@me.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:27 PM To: Chris Bandon Cc: mhaas@sopris.net; Muric Maja Subject: Silver Lining Ranch Property Dear Chris Bandon I am writing this letter in hopes that you will present it to City Council in the July 12, 2010 meeting regarding the rezoning of the Silver Lining Ranch Property to single family residential use. It seems to me that this approval is a wintwin situation for all involved. Certainly rezoning this property as a single family residence is the least impactive to the surrounding community. A single family residence is definitely compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and now, especially in light of the approval of the expansion of the Aspen Club, rezoning this property will help ameliorate traffic use. I am a long time Aspen local and spend a lot of time along Ute Ave and beyond walking to the Ute Trail and biking along the path towards the preserve. Any decision that will help maintain the current nature of the area and help keep traffic to a minimum seems to be compatible to the precedence the current City Council wishes to establish, and the kind of precedence many of us locals support. I would also like to add that I have worked as a volunteer in the past with the children of the Silver Lining Ranch and have experienced first hand the amazing benefits these children receive from this organization. Rezoning this area to a single family residence will certainly help the now, Little Star Foundation, continue its charitable work with children in desperate need. I thank you for your time and consideration and I trust that you will all make the right decision concerning this very important matter. Sincerely, Lucy Tremols Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Bill Fabrocini [fabrocini.bill@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 2:59 PM To: Chris Bandon Subject: Fw: Little Star / Andrea Jeagar Hello Chris, Bill Fabrocini on this end from the Aspen Club. Please kindly submit this letter to the Mayor and City Council. I have been employed at the Aspen Club for approximately 21 years and therefore a long time neighbor of Andrea Jeagar and the Little Star Foundation. The point of this email is quite simply to voice my support for the Little Star Foundation and all of the wonderful work they do to help kids with cancer. Allowing the current property on Ute Avenue to be sold as a single family residential unit will not only help with the long term mission of the Little Star Foundation but will also help to minimize traffic on Ute Avenue ( a concern to all). The Little Star Foundation Property has stood vacate for some time while Andrea has continued with her mission outside of Durango, continuing to help all types of cancer struck kids. I realize there are many considerations well beyond my understanding when it comes to zoning and council administrative matters. Nevertheless, I ask that the council move forward on this matter and allow Andrea to sale this property under the current contract being discussed pertaining to a single family residential unit. In the end, the funds will all go back to the kids which is what matters most. Thankyou for your consideration, Bill Fabrocini Email secured by Check Point z/Snni 0 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Susan Rappaport [susieshards@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 7:34 AM To: Chris Bandon Subject: RE: Silver Lining Ranch Thank you! From: Chris Bendon[mailto:Chris.Bendon@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 5:48 PM To: Susan Rappaport Subject: RE: Silver Lining Ranch Susan: Thanks. I'll make sure City Council gets this. Cheers, Chris From: Susan Rappaport [mailto:susieshards@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 4:06 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Silver Lining Ranch Dear Chris, Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council, We would like you to know that we are in favor of the single family residential use for the Silver Lining Ranch. As Ute Avenue neighbors, we are pleased that this property will not increase the traffic on Ute and will fit in with the residential nature of the neighborhood. We hope you will approve the project. Thank you, ' Gary and Susan Rappaport Susan H. Rappaport 952.473-306S(Deephaven) 612.839-1874 (cell) 970.925-4155(Aspen) 7/5/2010 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Petra Rihtaric [petrarihtaric@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:25 PM To: Chris Bandon Cc: mhaas@sopris.net Subject: Support letter for change in use of Silver Lining Ranch To Aspen City Council and Mayor Mick Ireland, this letter is my support of Silver Lining Ranch for change in use to a single family residence. I' we been long time friend and supporter of the foundation and I would like to see them continue to do the great job of helping children in need. I don't see any reason against it and lot of reasons for it. Please do the right thing. Petra Crimmel, Aspen resident The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. Get busy. 7/5/2010 P HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC July 12, 2010 Mr. Chris Bendon Aspen Community Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 1490 Ute Avenue, City Council 2°d Reading Dear Chris: During the June 28, 2010, first reading of Ordinance No. 14 (Series of 2010) for the proposed amendment of the Silver Lining Ranch SPA to allow conversion to single- family residential use, several questions were raised by the Mayor and the City Council. This letter attempts to address their questions and provide the requested information. First, we were asked to explain why we had proposed to continue the Little Star Foundation (the Foundation) non-profit uses for a period of five (5) years, and how this period of shared use will actually work. During the previous City review for de - annexation of the subject parcel, the City Council expressed a desire for continued nonprofit use. In an attempt to proactively address this desire and complete the conversion to purely residential use gradually, the Foundation and the purchaser agreed to propose their shared use of the property for a period of 5 years, with the continued non- profit use subject to the exact parameters and limitations established in the City's SPA approvals (as described below). The proposed 5-year period was a reasonable period of time for the Foundation to plan use, while trying to plan anything longer was impractical. Additionally, the purchaser's principal currently resides overseas and does not plan to use the property as his primary residence until the end of the five year period. These factors made five years agreeable to purchaser and seller, and it provided the extra benefit of offering this "hybrid" time as a good will gesture for City Council's interest in benefitting the community. It is proposed that the shared use will occur in accordance with a rent-free lease and allow the Foundation to continue use within the exact parameters of the original approval for another 5 years. By doing so, there is no variation from existing approvals. The following comes from the 1997 staff memo to the P&Z for the original SPA review of the SLR, and it outlines the totality of uses approved for the Foundation. The final approval allowed for the uses and limitations described below and the current proposal envisions these exact parameters continuing for another five years: • 201 N, MILL STREET, SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORADO • 8161 1 • PHONE: (970) 925-7819 FAX: (970) 925-7395 Kids Stuff Foundation may run sessions for children for one (1) week each in March, June, July, August, September, November and December, for a total of seven (7) such sessions per year. After the property has been in operation for a few years, sessions will be permitted to run for two (2) weeks in each of these months, for a total of fourteen (14) such sessions per year. This is the maximum planned use of the facility for children's sessions. There will be a maximum of twenty (20) children in attendance at any session. All children in attendance will stay in the building on the property. Children will be carpooled to and from the Ranch in vans. Meals will be served on the premises and many activities (i.e., arts and crafts, outdoor recreation, talent shows, etc.) will occur there as well. Staff can be housed at the facility during the sessions. In addition to the regular use of the property for children's sessions, the Foundation may make the facility available to other groups whose mission is related to that of the Foundation. The intent is to permit small conferences, meetings or retreats by other medically -related children's groups, cancer groups, pediatric doctors and similar groups. Such use of the facilities is limited to just one (1) such session, lasting one (1) week per month, and only during the months that the Foundation does not use the facility. These sessions may involve twenty (20) to forty (40) people, and all attendees at these sessions are required to travel to and from the facility in vans, to minimize traffic impacts on Ute Avenue. There may also be up to fifteen (15) or twenty (20) special evening or full -day events held at the Ranch during the year. These events can include celebrations, dinners, award ceremonies, meetings and fund raising activities. The ranch will not open for rental to the general public for special events, although the Ranch may be made available to the community for non-profit medical events. Once again, all attendees at these events are required to travel to and from the facility in vans. With regard to the "process for the Foundation to gain access to the property during the 5-year period," neither seller nor purchaser has felt the need to formalize this process beyond a lease allowing the use permitted in the approvals for a five year, rent- free period. The purchaser's principal is a longstanding supporter of the Foundation, and seller and purchaser have a good, friendly working relationship. The Foundation contemplates that, in the event the Foundation wants to bring a family or some children to the property, or hold some kind of allowed function, Ms. Jaeger will simply call or email the purchaser and discuss the timing. If no timing conflicts exist, the Foundation will be permitted to go ahead with their plans. 1490 Ute Avenue Page 2 We were also asked to provide an explanation of the implications for creating a legally nonconforming structure. To start, re -zoning was not part of the applicant's proposal. Instead, the applicant proposed amending the existing SPA approvals to add single-family residential as another allowed use (in addition to the Foundation use). This was intended to allow the conversion, the five-year hybrid period, and the possibility of further non-profit uses in the future while leaving the existing approvals intact. The recommendation to rezone the property to the Rural Residential (RR) designation effective five years from the date of approval came unsolicited from the Planning and Zoning Commission (the P&Z) due largely to a technical concern that the residential use would be inconsistent in intent with the underlying zoning designations of the SPA. Along with this, the P&Z further recommended that, upon the zoning change to RR, the building be deemed a legally established nonconforming structure. That said, the applicants have no objection to the recommendations of the P&Z. If the property is not rezoned but, instead, the SPA is amended in the manner proposed by the applicant, no nonconformities will result. If the property is rezoned to RR, the residential use of the subject property will be in conformance with the permitted uses of the RR zone; it will also conform with regard to allowable density. Given the dimensional requirements of the RR zone district, however, the existing, legally established structure would be rendered a "nonconforming structure." As a nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the zone district in which it is located, the structure may be continued to exist in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 26.312 of the Aspen Land Use Code. However, a nonconforming structure is not permitted to be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity, unless a variance is granted by a Board or Commission with the expressed authority to do so. For instance, if a structure is nonconforming with regard to the minimum side yard setback, it cannot be expanded or enlarged in any way that would result in a smaller side yard setback than currently existing, nor can it be expanded or enlarged (i.e., increased in height or along the regulated plane) in the area of nonconformity. Variances from these requirements can be granted at a public hearing by the Board of Adjustment. Any nonconforming structure which is purposefully demolished or destroyed may be replaced with a different structure only if the replacement structure complies with the applicable dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. Section 26.312.030(F)(2) of the Code addresses the ability to restore a nonconforming structure after it is purposefully demolished. Said Section explains that any nonconforming structure which is purposefully demolished may be replaced with a new/different structure only if the replacement structure is in conformance with the current provisions of the Code unless replacement of the specific nonconformity is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission by Special Review. 1490 Ute Avenue Page 3 Thirdly, the applicant team has done its best to determine the allowable single- family residential Floor Area for the subject parcel under RR zoning; however, the best answer available at this time is a range due to a lack of available survey information necessary to complete the accurate and correct computations. For instance, it is not known how much land area is below the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, how much land area is sloped between 20-30%, or how much land area has a slope of greater than 30%; all of this information is needed to determine the effective Lot Area from which the allowable Floor Area is then calculated. However, the Code provides that the maximum potential reduction to the allowable Floor Area resulting from Lot Area reductions is capped at 25%. Therefore, the allowable Floor Area without any Lot Area reductions has been calculates as has the maximum (25%) reduction to provide the range within which the real answer falls. The allowable single-family residential Floor Area (FAR) on the subject parcel under RR zoning falls somewhere between 8,419sf and 11,224sf Using a basic and accepted local industry standard, one would expect this range of allowable FAR to produce a residence with a gross floor area (including "exempt" spaces) of between 14,310sf and 19,100sf. The existing structure falls well within this parameter. Another concern voiced at first reading revolved around the perception of applicants who pursue change in use approvals to single-family residential use (or otherwise) as an exit strategy; that is, there is a concern that applicants seek incremental approvals just to finish at single-family residential. While there are certainly instances of this occurring, it is not even slightly the case with the current applicant. At least part of this concern is derived from a feeling that an applicant should not be able to move from "A—B— C" when simply going from "A—C" never would have been allowed/approved in the first place. With regard to the concern of gaining approvals in an incremental manner to achieve an unspoken ultimate outcome, clearly this was never planned or intended in the subject case. The original approvals were sought and obtained in earnest so as to realize a dream and provide a respite for terminally ill children. Indeed, those approvals were carried out at great effort and expense as the facility was fully built and used for many years before budgetary and practical considerations forced its relocation. Attempts to replace the use in -kind have been made but failed for various reasons. Clearly, all of these efforts were not made with any kind of hidden agenda to later enable use as a single-family residence as such use was already enabled before the property was even annexed into the City. Moreover, this applicant is not proposing an "A— B— C" scenario at all. This property was originally approved in Pitkin County for single-family residential use (at 6,500sf, plus 4,000sf subgrade, plus 750sf of garage, for a total of up to 11,250sf), then it was annexed into the City and given SPA approvals for the SLR, and now, out of necessity, the applicant is proposing reverting back to single-family use. This is an "A—B—A" scenario and step three never would have been necessary had there been 1490 Ute Avenue Page 4 enough forethought in 1997 to include single-family residential as an allowed use in the SPA should the Foundation use have failed or otherwise ceased to exist. Finally, a concern was voiced with regard to the loss of any community benefit being derived from the subject property. To the extent that the City ever derived any direct community benefit from this property (which is debatable), such was, for the most part, lost more than 4 years ago when the Foundation moved its operations to southwestern Colorado in order to reduce costs and keep up with increasing demand from around the world. The community has already absorbed any such loss. Moreover, the applicants are offering substantial and significant community benefits in the form of five "bonus" years of Foundation operations here in Aspen, at least $1,160,813.75 as a windfall to the housing program, placement of a conservation easement over the lower portion of the property, reduced traffic impacts, and a substantial first-time addition to the property taxes pool in the City of Aspen. In addition, the purchaser is considering continuing the lease to the local horse carriage company that uses the property allowing the company to remain on the property and continue providing authentic western rides to tourists who make this an integral part of their Aspen experience. It is hoped that the provided information and responses prove helpful in the review of this request. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mi ` Haas Owner/Manager Omy docume Wcity applica ions/SLR/CC 2i° Rdng LOW 7-12-10 1490 Ute Avenue Page 5 Chris Bendon From: Forrest barnett [forrest_barnett@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:29 PM To: Chris Bendon Cc: mmuric@aol.com Subject: FW: Silver Lining Property Attachments: ATT1942357.htm `J NTT1942357.htm (3 KB) I was told that this message may not have reached you. ----Forwarded Message ---- From: forrest_barnett@yahoo.com To: Chris.Bendon@ci.aspen.co.us Sent: Fri Jun 18th, 2010 6:33 AM MDT Subject: Silver Lining Property I'm writing in support of Andrea Jaeger and the Silver Lining/ Little Star Foundation's efforts to gain City Councel approval on July 12th. My name is Forrest Barnett and I am employed as a Police Officer for the City of Aspen. I am not speaking for the PD. but as an individual who worked/volunteered for the Silver Lining Foundation for many years. I have a personal attachment to the property in question as I spent some of the most rewarding times of my life entertaining and caring for children at The Silver Lining Ranch. It's my understanding that Andrea must sell the property in light of the astronomical costs of running a foundation in Aspen. The proceeds of the sale would allow Andrea to continue to provide help to affected children and their families. It seems that the sale of the property as a single family residence would benefit the neiborhood overall and make for a quiet, less intrusive situation on Ute Ave. I also believe that a family residence would serve to keep traffic down on Ute Ave which is always a consideration with the Aspen Club and Ute Trail being popular destinations. I know that the funds generated from the sale would be used to help many of the children that 1 knew and became very fond of, as well as many others that need assistance from The Little Star Foundation. It seems as though the City stands to acquire a substantial amount of revenue toward the employee housing fund if the current application is approved as well as the stipulation which allows the property to be used for possible SLR functions for the first five years. I don't pretend to know all of the variables. I simply wanted to voice my support and point of view. I hope this ends up in a good outcome for Andrea and her foundation as it would be a good outcome for many children and their families as well. Thanks for your time, Forrest Barnett Email secured by Check Point SPECIAL MEETING CALLED FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION Date July 12, 2010 C uncilmembers present: Mick Ireland Steve Skadron Dwayne Romero ❑ Torre M Derek Johnson Call to order atA d in. Councilmembers not present: ❑ Mick Ireland ❑ Steve Skadron bDwayne Romero 'Torre ❑ Derek Johnson II. Motion to go into executive session by ; seconded by Other persons present: AGAINST: FOR: © Mick Ireland ❑ Mick Ireland ® Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron ® Dwayne Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero ❑ Torre AySoft4' ❑ Torre ®,Derek Johnson C ( �1 ❑ Derek Johnson III. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF D CUSSION OF: C.R.S. 24-6-402(4) (.9 b z > (a he purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. (c) Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations. (d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law; (e Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and nstructing negotiators; (i) (I) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting. IV. ATTESTATION: � p,�1kr��d r S: l2A w vw>`r � ( S6- The undersigned attorney, representing the Council and being present at the executive session, atIpsis that the subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted eonfid"eal�attomey-clie 0z The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the discussions in this executive session we a limited to the topic(s) described in Section III, above. N�a (Z� 4,vdT- ,7P� Adjourned at: