Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.sp.1490 Ute Ave.0004.2010
THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0004.2010.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2737 18 406 805 PROJECTS ADDRESS 1490 UTE AVE PLANNER CHRIS BENDON CASE DESCRIPTION SPA AMENDMENT, GROWTH MGT REPRESENTATIVE LITTLE STAR FOUNDATION DATE OF FINAL ACTION 08.6.10 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 12.03.10 2 1 3 'I tg tf 0 c, s 6 5 0 6 0 4- 2_ 0 ( 0 AS LiA t2( I flJJ1t.., inomigto File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help . 1 ) ' OXo V 2 ,A . f• 0 : ,. il 19 iAdy I: 1 n il A lump 1 : 4 g : j CO g ..L'I tJ A i 21 J itill,_11.19—:3 ,:,, t g. Main I valuation 'Custom Fields I Actions 'Fees IParcets l Fee Summary Sub Permits , Attachments Routing Status Routing History ' Permit Type lasiu 2jAspen Lend Use Permit *10004.2010.ASLU __, Address 11490 LITE AVE A AgiSute 1 - -T o g Oty IASIN state ICO 2-i zip FET g —A x Permit Information ---. Master Permit i i: Routing Queue asiur0T Applied 102105/2010 J Project 1 A Status pending Approved Description 1 SPA AMENDMENT, GROWTH MANAGEMENT Issued Find [ ' Submitted MITCH 925-7819 Clod( Running Days 1 Expires 01/31/2011 I. Owner Last Name !LITTLE STAR FOUNDATION 1 First Name I 1256 MILAGRO WAY — HESPERUS CO 81326 Phone 4 Owner Is Applicant? l 1 Applicant — I Last Name I LITTLE STAR FOUNDATION j First Name r 256 MILAGRO WAY HESPERUS CO 81326 Phone 1 cust #127572 1 tender . i Last Name I A ftst Nene I l I Phone I IL - l lll _ - I AspenGoldlbl Record: 1 of 1 _....,...._ CV, it V 0 6 i . cArN Ck- a. - 2- 7 1 30 (. ( S\,-.4 \ % • eb U-4j\r&P- DEVELOPMENT ORDER City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order ", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders ", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights ", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site - specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of' a three (3) -year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site - specific development plan as described below. Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number: Little Star Foundation, LLC; Andrea Jaeger, Director; 256 Rancho Milagro Way; Hesperus, CO 81326. (970) 948 -6056. Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property: Lot No. 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision; 1490 Ute Avenue; Aspen, CO 81611. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and /or Attachment Describing Plan: The City Council amended the Specially Planned Area approval and rezoned the property, effective in five years, to allow the property to be converted into a single - family home. Land Use Approval Received and Dates: City Council Ordinance No. 14, Series 2010, adopted July 12, 2010. Planning and Zoning Commission resolution No. 11, Series 2010. Adopted May 18, 2010. Attached. Effective Date of Development Order: August 8, 2010. (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) Expiration Date of Development Order: August 8, 2013. (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued t ' 3 ` day of August 0, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Chris Bendon, A Community Development Director City of Aspen AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: N I (\ , Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, A \ lA S,04-Q14 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled ed before me this /0 day of 1kw rtifvl' , 200 0 , by 4,a... Asir • ! WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL I My commi : io expi -s: 3) c l } ), 1 E d t Notary Public a he iii �� � Oqs, °S 1 et ; €Q� t s, e . F °0 Y Pt, ,`\, n " SQ �me��P a � ,a s ATTACHMENTS: k . :n i . COR J. ; i� ao °n eye F° a / �° ° Je°68'l °��°Se��a�'pcpeF tat, e t GAR SKE m ` o w e c• �r° e e e r a,,\iPoc P s et s 0 5 CO PY OF THE PUBLICATION ' ; e. S .G At Ge es\ t `me s ,. e 0 eo My COmmhlbn Expires 0510912012 r e psP 5 soy PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL 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 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 #5 Stillwater Ranch Subdivision and is known as the Silver Lining Ranch; 1490 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 by order of the City Council on July 12, 2010. The Applicant received approval to convert the structure from a non - profit institution into a single - family residence with the ability to continue limited non - profit programs at the property for up to five years. The conversion requires an amendment to the Special Planned Area approvals and rezoning the property to the Rural Residential Zone District. For further information contact Chris Bendon, at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920 -5090. s/ City of Aspen Publish in The Aspen Times on August 8, 2010 RECEPTION #: 572114, 07/22/2010 at 10:01:20 AM, 1 OF 5, R $31.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO 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 4 � 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. During this five (5) year period, the Foundation shall use this property in a manner consistent with the SPA Plan as described in the Development Application for Annexation, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Conditional Review, SPA and Special Review approved by City Council as Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 and the Foundation and the owner of the property shall comply with the following minimum parameters, which shall be included within the required SPA agreement: Either the Foundation or the owner of the property shall use the facility for a minimum of seven (7) sessions for children per year consistent with the above - referenced SPA Plan. The Foundation or the owner of the property shall use the Ranch for a minimum of eight (8) special evening or full -day events during the year which shall be conducted by or for the benefit of the Foundation or other non - profit organizations and which may include small conferences, meetings or retreats by other medical children's groups, cancer groups, pediatric doctors and similar groups, and special events such as celebrations, dinners, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 2 awards ceremonies, meetings and fundraising activities or other non -profit medical events consistent with the above - referenced SPA Plan. During the five (5) year period, the Foundation and/or the property owner shall maintain records that evidence compliance with the foregoing conditions and, at the request of City Staff, the Foundation or the property owner shall provide such documentation to the City to establish compliance with the foregoing conditions of approval. 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. 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. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 3 Section 6: Severabilitv 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 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 12 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. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 4 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28 day of June, 2010. Attest: .. / �� ice L.--- Kathryn S. Ko "1, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this `Z day of i , 2010. A e �" / r Kathryn S. City Clerk Michael . lrelan., Mayor Approved as to form: orney Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 5 A -. RESOLUTION N0. 11 (SERIES OF 2010) - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AND GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVALS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND A CHANGE IN USE APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE SILVER LINING RANCH TO BE CONVERTED INTO A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE, LOCATED ON LOT 5 OF THE STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION, 1490 UTE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2735 - 184 -06 -805 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Little Star Foundation, LLC, owner of the property and KAT Ranch, LLC, contract purchaser of the property, both represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, to convert the existing Silver Lining Ranch to a single - family residence; and, WHEREAS, the property is the Silver Lining Ranch, located on Lot No. 5 of the Stillwater Subdivision and is more commonly known as 1490 Ute Avenue originally approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, as a non - profit facility to assist children with cancer and similar afflictions within a structure of approximately 18,000 square feet (roughly 14,000 of Floor Area) with three affordable housing units to serve employees of the operation; and, WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to convert the existing structure to a single - family residence with the ability for the Little Star Foundation to continue using the facility for up to five years in the same non -profit manner as currently allowed; and, WHEREAS, conversion of the property to a single - family residence requires an amendment to the Specially Planned Area approval, approval for the demolition of affordable housing, approval for a change -in -use, and approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be attached to the main residence; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the subject application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the application finding that the application did not meet the standards of review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the applicant of the past and current condition of the property and the non -profit P &Z Reso No. 11, Series of 2010 Page 1 • organization, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the change -in -use, special review, and demolition of affordable housing, and recommended in favor of the amendment to the SPA approval by a five to zero (5 -0) vote with conditions and a recommendation for rezoning as outlined in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Recommendation to Amend the SPA The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the amendment to the Specially Planned Area approvals for Lot No. 5, Stillwater Subdivision, as follows: 1. In addition to the uses permitted on this property approved through Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, (the "Foundation use ") this property may also be used as a single - family residence including all necessary physical changes to affect and implement this change. The permitted dimensions for the property shall be those described in Ordinance 11, Series of 1997. 2. Foundation use may continue simultaneously with the single - family use for up to five (5) years after the effective date of the City Council ordinance allowing this change. After the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the City Council ordinance, the Foundation use shall no longer be permitted unless otherwise extended by the City. 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 Housing Units The Planning and Zoning Commission approves the removal of three affordable housing units currently incorporated in the existing building, with one condition: 1. Within one (1) calendar week of the effective date of an ordinance granting City Council approval, the applicant shall deposit with the City a cash -in -lieu payment of $1,160,813.75, which payment and any interest accrued shall be immediately available for the City's use in any manner related to the development of affordable housing. If, prior to payment of the fee, the City amends the cash -in -lieu payment schedule the amount due shall be recalculated based on the following calculation: Unit Unit Type Category FTEs Payment per FTE No. Housed (may be amended) 1 2- bedroom Cat4 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 18 day of May, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: J im True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chairman ATTEST: a5 ckie Lothian, Deputy City P &Z Reso No. 11, Series of 2010 Page 4 CEPTION #: 574936, 11/05/2010 at Q :19:41 PM, 1 OF 11, R $61.00 Doc Code AGREEMENT Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) AMENDMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SILVER LINING RANCH (LOT 5, STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION) THIS SPA AMENDMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement ") is made this te day of / o ✓ , 2010, between John and Elizabeth Burgess, assignees of KAT RANCH LLC for certain contract interests (collectively, "Owner ") and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation (the "City "). RECITALS: WHEREAS, Owner owns that certain real property (the "Property ") located at 1490 Ute Avenue, (Parcel Identification Number 2735 - 184 -06 -805), and commonly known as the Silver Lining Ranch, or Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, City & Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, a portion of the approximately 6.5 acre subject property is zoned Academic with a Specially Planned Area ( "SPA ") Overlay, and the remainder is zoned Conservation with an SPA Overlay; and, WHEREAS, the property originally obtained SPA and associated approvals 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 square feet of floor area) with three affordable housing units to serve employees of the operation; and, WHEREAS, Owner submitted an application to the Community Development Department seeking approval to convert the existing Silver Lining Ranch to a single - family residence with the ability for the previous owner (the Little Star Foundation) to continue using the facility for up to five (5) years in the same non -profit manner as already allowed; and, WHEREAS, conversion of the property to a single - family residence requires an amendment to the SPA approval, as well as approvals for the demolition of affordable housing, for a change in use, and for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be attached to the main residence; and, WHEREAS, on May 18, 2010, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ( "P &Z ") approved the change -in -use from an Essential Public Facility to a free - market residence, granted Special Review approval to develop an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) attached to the residence, approved the demolition of affordable housing, and recommended approval of the SPA Amendment and a delayed Rezoning by a vote of five to zero (5 -0), with conditions and recommendations as outlined in P &Z Resolution No. 11, Series of 2010 (the "Resolution "); and, SPA Amendment Agreement Silver Lining Ranch Page 2 of l0 WHEREAS, on July 12, 2010, the Aspen City Council granted approval of the proposed SPA Amendment and a delayed rezoning of the Property to Rural Residential (RR) pursuant to Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2010 (the "Ordinance "), with conditions, including that Owner enter into an SPA Agreement for the Property and that the residence thereon be considered legally established non - conforming structure subject to all applicable regulations upon the effective date of the rezoning; and, WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, which matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and the Owner is prepared to enter into a SPA Amendment Agreement incorporating such conditions and requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and the approval, execution, and acceptance of this Agreement for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: ARTICLE I. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF SPA AMENDMENT AGREEMENT 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this SPA Amendment Agreement is to set forth the complete and comprehensive understanding and agreement of the parties with the respect to the future use of the property and to enumerate all terms and conditions under which such development may occur. 1.2 Effect. It is the intent of the parties that this SPA Amendment Agreement shall effectively supersede and replace in their entirety the previously recorded and unrecorded SPA approvals and related declarations, and other documents and agreements encumbering the Property, except that the recorded SPA Plan shall remain valid. ARTICLE II. ZONING AND REGULATORY APPROVALS 2.1 Pursuant to Resolution No. 11, Series 2010, P &Z granted the requested change -in -use from an Essential Public Facility to a free - market residence, granted Special Review approval to develop an ADU attached to the residence, and approved the demolition of multi- family resident housing. Also pursuant to the Resolution, the P &Z recommended that City Council approve the SPA Amendment and the Rezoning with conditions. 2.2 Pursuant to Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2010, City Council granted approval of the SPA Amendment and Rezoning, subject to conditions and requirements set forth in the Ordinance in connection with its approval, which matters the City determined are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare. 2 .�• - "N SPA Amendment Agreement Silver Lining Ranch Page 3 of 10 In the event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of both the Ordinance and the Resolution, described above, and the provisions of this SPA Amendment Agreement, the terms and provisions of the Ordinance shall govern and control. ARTICLE III. DEVELOPMENT AND USE REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS 3.1 Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 97 - 04. The conditions and requirements of the 1997 Ordinance and 1997 Resolution have already been met as evidenced by the fact that a building permit and Certificate of Occupancy were previously granted for the Property. Furthermore, the 1997 Resolution granted 8040 Greenline Review and Stream Margin Review for the property; as such, any maintenance, repair and/or remodeling of existing improvements accomplished in compliance with the 1997 Resolution shall not require further Stream Margin or 8040 Greenline Review. The following dimensional requirements that were recommended in Resolution 97 -04 and approved by Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 shall remain a part of the Property's current approvals: 1. Minimum Lot Size: 6 acres. 2. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: 1.5 acre per unit. 3. Minimum Lot Width: 200 feet. 4. Minimum Front Yard: 30 feet. 5. Minimum Side Yard; 20 feet. 6. Minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet. 7. Maximum Height: 28' to the mid -point of the roof, as measured on all sides of the building, except for the east elevation, which shall not exceed 32.5' to the mid - point. 8. Minimum Distance Between Principal and Accessory Buildings: No requirement, except for that required by building code. 9. Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site: 30 percent. 10. External Floor Area Ratio: Floor area shall not exceed 14,000 square feet. 11. Internal Floor Area Ratio: No requirement. 3.2 Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 11, Series 2010. In addition to the conditions set forth in the Ordinance, all of the conditions required by the Resolution shall be satisfied except to the extent any such conditions are inconsistent with the Ordinance, in which case, the Ordinance shall govern and control. 3.3 Recording. Owner shall record this Agreement in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days (on or before January 7, 2011) of the effective date of the Ordinance (July 12, 2010) and prior to acceptance of a building permit for the conversion. This agreement shall terminate the SPA plan on July 12, 2015, which date is one (1) day after the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the Ordinance and is concurrent with the effective date of rezoning to the RR Zone District. A new plat is not 3 SPA Amendment Agreement Silver Lining Ranch Page 4 of 10 required. Upon the rezoning to RR, the SPA and SPA Plan shall be null, void and of no further effect. 3.4 Amendment to the SPA Approvals. City Council approves the amendment to the SPA approvals for Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision as follows: 1. In addition to the uses permitted on the Property as approved through Ordinance 11, Series of 1997 ( "Foundation use "), the Property may also be used for single - family residential purposes including all necessary physical changes to affect and implement this change. The permitted dimensions for the Property shall be those described above and in Ordinance No. 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 City Council Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2010, allowing this change. After July 12, 2015 (the fifth anniversary of the effective date of said Ordinance), the Foundation Use shall no longer be permitted unless extended by the City upon request by the Owner. During this five (5) year period, the Foundation may use the Property in a manner consistent with the SPA Plan provided that the Foundation and the Owner shall comply with the following minimum parameters: a. Either the Foundation or the Owner shall use the facility for a minimum of seven (7) sessions for children per calendar year and in a manner consistent with the original SPA Plan; b. The Foundation or the Owner shall use the Ranch for a minimum of eight (8) special evening or full -day events during each calendar year, which events shall be conducted by or for the benefit of the Foundation or other non - profit organizations and which may include small conferences, meetings or retreats by other medical children's groups, cancer groups, pediatric doctors and similar groups, and special events such as celebrations, dinners, awards ceremonies, meetings and fundraising activities or other non - profit medical events consistent with the originally approved SPA Plan. c. During the five (5) year period in which the SPA remains effective, the Foundation and/or the Owner shall maintain records that evidence compliance with the foregoing conditions and, at the request of the City Staff, the Foundation or Owner shall provide such documentation to the City to establish compliance with the conditions of approval. 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 4 SPA Amendment Agreement Silver Lining Ranch Page 5 of 10 Colorado. The easement shall be deemed acceptable as to form by the City Attorney prior to recording. 3.5 Rezoning of the Property to Rural Residential. Upon five (5) years after the effective date of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2010, the Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be amended by the Community Development Director to reflect Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, commonly known as the Silver Lining Ranch, as included in the RR Zone District without the SPA Overlay. 3.6 Legally Established Nonconforming Structure. At the time when the rezoning to RR becomes effective, any physically nonconforming aspects of the then existing structures compared with the RR Zone District shall be considered legally established and able to continue for the life of the structure(s). Subsequent changes to the structure(s) on the Property shall be accomplished in conformance with the RR zoning and Chapter 26.312, Nonconformities, of the Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. 3.7 Approval to Develop a Voluntary Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Attached to the Main Residence. The P &Z granted Special Review approval to permit an ADU to be developed within the existing structure, attached to the main residence, with the condition that 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. 3.8 Approval to Remove Three Affordable Housing Units. The P &Z approved the removal of the three (3) affordable housing units currently incorporated into the building with the condition that a cash -in -lieu payment of $1,160,813.75 would be made by the Owner. The owner has made this payment to the City as of July 30, 2010, satisfying Section 3 of Resolution No. 11, Series of 2010. (See the letter from Chris Bendon attached as Exhibit A.) The City shall return the full sum to the applicant, minus any interest accrued, if the Owner provides to the City a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit in the amount of 6.25 FTE prior to the close of business on June 2, 2011. If a Certificate is not provided by said date, Owner's Certificate option shall expire and the funds shall no longer be refundable to Owner. The funds are immediately available for and may continue to be used by the City for the development of affordable housing without limitation. 3.9 Approval for a Change - in - Use. The P &Z approved 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 Community Development Department's accounting for annual growth management allotments shall reflect this change -in -use. 3.10 Landscape and Public Facilities Guarantees. Although Section 26.440.070 of the Code states that an SPA Agreement shall provide landscape and public 5 SPA Amendment Agreement Silver Lining Ranch Page 6 of 10 facilities guarantees as specified in the Section 26.480.070 (Subdivision Agreement) in order to ensure implementation and maintenance of the landscape plan and installation of necessary public facilities, the subject property is already developed and, as such, all necessary public facilities have already been installed and the landscape plan has already been implemented. There are no new public facilities or landscape plan requirements associated with the approvals granted in the Resolution and the Ordinance. 3.11 Vested Rights. The Resolution, the Ordinance, and this Agreement between the parties, collectively granting and defining the fmal approvals for the Project ( "Approvals ") constitute an approved "site- specific development plan" pursuant to §24 -68- 101, et seq., C.R.S. ( "the Vested Rights Statute "), and shall establish and extend vested property rights to use and develop the Property in the manner contemplated by the Approvals pursuant to the Vested Rights Statute until three (3) years from the issuance of the development order for the Project (the "Vesting Period Expiration Date "). The Development Order was issued by the City of Aspen Community Development Department on August 8, 2010 and shall expire on August 8, 2013 unless duly extended by the parties. This SPA Amendment Agreement shall be considered a "development agreement" as that term is used in §24 -68 -104, C.R.S., and shall include the right to develop and use the Property in the manner permitted under the Approvals. 3.12 Material Rearesentations. All material representations made by the Owner on record, whether in public hearings or in documentation presented before City Council or the P &Z, shall be binding upon the Owner, unless amended by an authorized entity. ARTICLE IV. NON - COMPLIANCE AND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS OR EXTENSIONS In the event that the City Council determines that Owner is not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of this SPA Amendment Agreement, the City Council shall notify Owner in writing specifying the alleged non - compliance and ask that owner remedy the alleged non - compliance within such reasonable time as the City Council may determine, but not less than thirty (30) days. If the City Council determines that owner has not complied within such time, the City Council may issue and serve upon Owner a written order specifying the alleged non - compliance and requiring Owner to remedy the same within thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the receipt of such order, Owner may file with the City Council either a notice advising the City Council that it is in compliance or a written petition requesting a hearing to determine any one or both of the following matters: A. Whether the alleged non - compliance exists or did exist, or B. Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment to this SPA Amendment Agreement should be granted with respect to any such non - compliance which is determined to exist. 6 SPA Amendment Agreement Silver Lining Ranch Page 7 of 10 Upon the receipt of such petition, the City Council shall promptly schedule a hearing to consider the matters set forth in the order of non - compliance and in the petition. The hearing shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the City Council for other hearings. If the City Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a non - compliance exists and has not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be appropriate, including the imposition of daily fines until such non - compliance has been remedied, the withholding of permits and/or certificate of occupancy as applicable; provided, however, no order shall be in conflict with the provisions of the Municipal Code in effect at the time of the non - complaince. The City Council may also grant such variances, extensions of time, or amendments to this SPA Amendment Agreement as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to extend the time periods for performance hereunder if Owner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay(s) which necessitate said extension(s) result from acts of nature or other events beyond the reasonable control of Owner, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner. ARTICLE V. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.1 Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent in writing by U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, Such notices shall be deemed received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of the mailing of the same. To the Owner: John and Elizabeth Burgess PO Box 11711 Aspen, CO 81612 With Copy to: Haas Land Planning 201 N. Mill St., Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 To the City: City Attorney, City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 The parties hereto shall have the right from time to time to change their respective addresses, and each shall have the right to specify as its address any other address within the United States of America by at least five (5) days' written notice. 7 SPA Amendment Agreement Silver Lining Ranch Page 8 of 10 5.2 Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Owners, their successors and assigns, and to the City and its successors and assigns. 5.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by all parties hereto, with the same formality as this Agreement was executed. 5.4 Severabilitv. If any provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section of this SPA Amendment Agreement is determined to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof. 5.5 Existing Litigation. This SPA Amendment Agreement 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. 5.6 Headings. Numerical and title headings contained in this SPA Amendment Agreement are for convenience only, and shall not be deemed determinative of the substance contained herein. 5.7 Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 5.8 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 8 SPA Amendment Agreement Silver Lining Ranch Page 9 of 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first written above. OWNER: < NC��� John Burgess Elizabeth Burgess STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing was sworn and subscribed to before me this 2.8 day of Q , 2010, by John Burgess and Elizabeth Burgess. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires E NA n1A/ w n/eCu✓7 =��ir Notary Public f-c PtCo< $-c ccoi nv 7M- Z7 ✓ 7c ,vo7 [remainder of page intentionally left blank] 9 J SPA Amendment Agreement Silver Lining Ranch Page 10 of 10 APPROVED: John W& ster, City Attorney THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ATTEST: a municipal corporation / By: By: �� ✓.�_ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Kathryn Koc [ ity Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) e �jo,,regomg was sworn and subscribed to before me this 5 day of H V� V , 2010, by Michael C. Ireland and Kathryn Koch, as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Aspen, a Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official ea1. My commis t 5 2 013 � �� , r , iv- ge • Notary Public • • r • ? I l l s ; 2.. Ala . i•Z OF Op6�P ` heion Expire 10 '`-' EXHIBIT A . • . SPA Amendment Agrmt • Silver Lining Ranch July 30, 2010 Mitch Haas • - • • AI . Haa Land Planning, LLC 201 North Mill Street #108 ' Aspen; CO 81611 THE Cm OF ASPEN ' Re: Silver Lining Ranch Payment -in -Lieu Fee Dear Mr.. Haas: . ._ , i' The City has received a payment of $1,160,813.75 for the conversion of the Silver Lining . Ranch property to a single - family residence. This payment satisfies Section 3 of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 11, 2010, which states: • "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- . Unit Type Category FTEs Payment per FTE No. • - Housed (may be amended) • 1 2- bedroom Cat4 • 2.25 X ' $134,079 = $301,677.75 1 1- bedroom Cat3 1.75 , X $214,784 = $375,872.00 • . • 1 2- bedroom Cat 3 ' . 2.25 i X $214,784 = $483,264.00 . .Total Due: $1460,813.75 • 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 of . Affordable Housing Credit 3n 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. Sincerely / . Chris Bendop, AICP • . Community Development Director . City of Aspen , • Copy: . Don Taylor, Finance Director Planning file 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5000 • Ea 970.920.5197 www. aspengov.com .. Printed on'Recfclea Paper - • ...., wl ,,,, ..... togro b , - July 30, 2010 • Mitch Haas Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 North Mill Street #108 ' Aspen, CO 81611 THE CITY or ASPEN Re: Silver Lining Ranch Payment -in -Lieu Fee Dear Mr. Haas: The City has received a payment of $1,160,813.75 for the conversion of the Silver Lining Ranch property to a single - family residence. This payment satisfies Section 3 of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 11, 2010, which states: "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 Unit Type Category FTEs Payment per FTE No. - Housed (may be amended) 1 2- bedroom Cat4 2.25 X - $134,079 = $301,677.75 1 1- bedroom Cat3 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. Sincerely / Chris Bendon, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen Copy: Don Taylor, Finance Director - _ Planning file _ 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5000' FAX 970.920.5197 www. aspengov.com Printed on Recycled Paper Page 1 of 3 Chris Bendon From: Mitch Haas [mhaas @sopris.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 2:11 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: FW: Silver Lining Ranch Payment in Lieu Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Hey Chris. Welcome back. After you've had a chance to settle back in and get relatively caught up, we'd greatly appreciate if you could generate a brief letter confirming that the payment has been made and that the associated requirement from the P &Z approval is therefore satisfied /released. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need me to do anything to help with this. (By the way, I'm out of town August 2 -18, back at work on the 1 gth.) - Mitch Mitch Haas Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 925 -7819 Pax: (970) 925 -7395 Email: mhaasPseprlls.net Confidentiality note: The above email and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and /or privileged. The information is for the use of the individual or entity originally intended. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure. copying, distribution or use of this information is prohibited. If this transmission is received in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments, if any. From: Don Taylor [ mailto :Don.Taylor ©ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:21 PM To: Mitch Haas Cc: Ashley Ernemann; Don Pergande Subject: RE: Silver Lining Ranch Payment in Lieu Mitch, This is to confirm that City of Aspen received $$1,160,813.75 from Silver lining ranch for payment of cash -in -lieu of affordable housing. Thank you. dt From: Mitch Haas [mailto: mhaas ©sopris.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:07 PM To: Don Taylor Subject: RE: Silver Lining Ranch Payment in Lieu Thank you Don. Payment is being arranged tomorrow and should arrive either tomorrow or Thursday at the latest. Please forward a receipt to me after the payment is received (I'll get it to the applicant/client who's making the payment) and I'II follow -up with Chris Bendon about a 7/30/2010 - � Page 2 of 3 release letter. Regards, Mitch Mitch Naas Naas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 Phones (970) 925 -7819 Fasts (970) 925 -7595 Email mhaas@sepris.net Confidentiality note: The above email and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and /or privileged. The information is for the use of the individual or entity originally intended. if you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information is prohibited. If this transmission is received in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments, if any. From: Don Taylor [ mailto :Don.Taylor @ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:37 PM To: Steve Barwick; Mitch Haas; Chris Bendon; Cindy Christensen; Tom McCabe; John Worcester Cc: Jennifer Hall Subject: RE: Silver Lining Ranch Payment in Lieu Mitch, Here is a copy of wiring instructions to the City Account. I can acknowledge receipt of the money but if you want acknowledgement that the requirement for housing has been met that would need to come from Chris Bendon. Chris, Can you provide after payment has been received? dt From: Steve Barwick Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:16 AM To: Mitch Haas; Chris Bendon; Cindy Christensen; Tom McCabe; John Worcester Cc: 'Jennifer Hall'; Don Taylor Subject: RE: Silver Lining Ranch Payment in Lieu Mitch, I have forwarded your request to Don Taylor. He will give you specific instructions. Thanks, Steve From: Mitch Haas [mailto:mhaas @sopris.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:56 AM To: Chris Bendon; Cindy Christensen; Tom McCabe; John Worcester; Steve Barwick Cc: 'Jennifer Hall' Subject: Silver Lining Ranch Payment in Lieu Importance: High I really wasn't sure who best to put this question to, so I've copied pretty much everyone who I 7/30/2010 0 Page 3 of 3 thought might have a say (except that I have not copied anyone from the Finance Department). As you are all aware, the Silver Lining Ranch application was approved by City Council via adoption of Ordinance No. 14 (Series of 2010), which was signed late last week. Pursuant to the P &Z Resolution that was approved en route to the City Council action, my client must make a payment of cash -in -lieu of affordable housing in the amount of $1,160,813.75 within one week of the effective date of the Ordinance. I am still not certain as to the precise effective date of the ordinance, but I believe it is the date on which it gets published in the newspaper (whenever that might be). At any rate, my client would like to go ahead and now get this taken care of so as to assure no deadlines are missed. As such, can anyone give me clear and specific direction as to where the funds can be wired (with wiring instructions) and how we then go about getting an official receipt/release demonstrating that the requirement has been satisfied? Best regards, Mitch Mitch Haas Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 Phones (970) 925 -7819 Faxs (970) 925-7395 Emails mhaas @seprh.net Confidentiality note: The above email and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and /or privileged. The information is for the use of the individual or entity originally intended. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information is prohibited. If this transmission is received in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments, if any. Email secured by Check Point Email secured by Check Point 7/'10/2010 r 1 t}�i4YU4A ahcbnTi , Vw S.J(7 2 e t l'4411 t2k C't A^ eGt�.Mvc� (Div 5.,ret.✓ ; 0+ 4 f1 1S`{u.1 o -propearik c. N pervwsres ktfe - -s 40 kip P 7 i Thrtak { ' du (A,S4 0 po ¢.( Wis df t - ..nFe. — t?0.Cw 't 1 w Cw�W Vw'F r GIISGevet,Ae{ w-• 1E - 110 ;mac gw., (.. (fa a�(Oh et- '` WSOL C- . , n (I be tw-tbLe 4o C_tA —i 'w4'e' V Innn.SSl n.-. 4 (4, lx?9 1/l ascS u^ V'te Cvn_ -. A-6. Ni._, x.141 l S WA- CL[Ll us *U+.n. -hie.. t�rk N Ka+ el • i�w144.› uic4s v i ce,._ -f- b Ave A-VA44 ut ^4 citeerf lrts i.- PIP Notts- . b0( Mar - tie Use. Cook f'r • l Cn • • u- `` 't9 --( . s Lib L...» ss. d. '1 weal t 4 o0• 1 r'.i 4 i\ cc, wrrv� 4-= ( 4 - - . c ve - Imo a f {tm, lc. • _ 04ti c LAAil% .7R-311 _ • 'p. e It - -1 '5d l la a' train cpwe +- rt;>A �,.. pr, c,(p . 1 ( _ ,mot * tb.:. t7r4 ,4, urns coatnicu . (91_}- a spa- 7,0k, neA►-.r / 4.v l it _ vitt ?tank L,..�.....►ui f7.G,�� 4,sr of t rica tt Aca bSf lib \/�NR�/•l3 , 4 4LNCJh . Prtr,,/ 4 c k hurt E x 5F AAAAck fay.. 1Pt oh6tk 0.014 tJ -i Wt.4Ko1 (/ *J [N 1 L .1 Calla - Pti (7teM w �Il jai 4— � Mt - c;v10/6 cifvviiiut. re ja f LAU. . a A-Pik 4d ' 'AWJ G S w ____ . 'Riga tAbt Ir- � (elc a► • T iiccli ui SPA — °6's yol ,o.. ?Ana-. a ;. . • k 1 1 0 ' 1 _ La si I W 'I• i. ✓ . lbsomaililli 1 a1 .l ,rani •1 _lr.p, s- 11 do4Ve SPA _..u.. 0 11 ok it ....: Au% •1 - - 11 S✓ . Pr 6 .10 acs - a-. ` . _ co - rte . C - I. 1 fig L I Alit - s "III ►. _ -t .... - It....s +�.. ..i ,L ;� s A ✓ • „ -Ls .0 .... ...__ - +P.i... '/ I Al.a ` atA Le r 1 R .._ Ft2 I Sfrfg. On �,l4 csk ,,s.ca.. . . (AA L ehmi G - Peal' 7) Ala Nal 11uLI► ' X1 1'1!/ i►1 %Iil .. 1 r .L� lip ......% W , A I • -- a L . . /_ .. .I • i. . __'o;-•- l a w O. a r . oars ile . .u_ 0 1 •. t Ile; - .. ( ✓ �. A . _ V 4 l .. mi . i.a..r / n •• r i O (04,A 51wr 4 ofAlc-±1A✓V • - eiew awl' _, olatiessel - risv,twief �(uw Ci f iana, C t,a1., res. Iq�o ufe. Aft - rat. `}, 4•!: osit Gana 4-- NostAtec- 1 Nn.vvi carotk&an L 0 Ica sf•iff- 'ch (c. inn; - )411O8-41 Fuca-4 "'ta Co0L s Pnie e idAitut 4etkoth 4 consenthit D Ts STee-tak 1>tanmed Arco Sk s ,'a Sits( use efi ui Jenw- t vices av s»ay.ta- of 'A4. citti 01- 1440647 ( um° cam r (Ana I TdvS W624 t O 'Vo M%n co l ► t too kA crAt pfttfai. • 4 fE rem l3 "' " . k4 64- y Cole CNA 4j4 ` v, N 474tat At Atc ce—f pripeet NES � I r e , i f Ala . S[e ii n[, Ide,+ - „ tniz.:„4(t5, - 741Mat 2z3 h AtA i lt t el A afrtate.l 64 a ort f 4,144/;. c wig<KO p' G Cr. fliv wl u qak - owl as a Sui r.ozo. see, Cpeiviu, `.'".°c User Beta pw - <ri ;;01 tic, r ed. uF t ws. SUg4 k tnck,,t_ leer c r icil.., clause . S - 'fa Salo a Nti,- pwf Css,►uta„t, p` r po t e Ines . Guavl — scuAM lot Peamarl SPA reveleveci ordina gwatAea tL prTe'-e, a c-treir 4e-1 perionk l Cc,..` 6 - i f adatcceet 4 .t bike "ack44 jP 037 ciieet4- 7--` r 6(6 `� Piz rem r✓f 70142 yr mod a6/ Use. 114 4L Th . S'-r-7 212 ?eft ?- t;ZZf 7'7 2 / 3/t /7ivo IBS Rs-go 13oa Nom' FATz 7;7 £ a 74re_ c-,67, /4, y et--.e., /l1244 { /_ �/� Use „/ f . 77iA I-�ii- i6�c�z�: -1 vse Mmir7 ("Os{ oi Sign fvtEe, rid no vca. far io v_ /acv of ..e_, J,- /(• en< datita. . kid Adie,L ( IA 14 *teen /./ 7 4nei - sr4. I ' e,y,I AL. r 73/7/ nvir f Pik, Nu4 bkikdeiwk ae :16A !u--- Ceti 7 4,4, het- 4A 44 i/ 44 Gv «,/ nel4t ue - ne Tovit — /to5 - nH 4 _1// � 4,% H. re. ag .,/ h , o/ , ,.,...4 of leak 1411 - l s( p' a rA`/ °t �k - asc ,4 d� ` sv ' 0 ✓ c ail f eytykolo A. 7174 t v - _ as-, //ti p 64-7d5 of 9 (/ A IWA 4 4/ 14 4 -( o t' • 1/43•. t ♦ t A \A. s 41_ - _.'`V\ 1 II ° A /h i \ PC 4 A_ .A...1_. b 'A1a_Is 0 1 is A .» • A _ 2- ralrAnnra C. 1. i t r ii. ? its. 1.r LA. `5 • R AVM Igo _ A • : s M " Ira Al C T Ac • -- li a - C.G . Ca -.- , ;-c 113 atm ttAL\V'a C 6wk. $ AN nrraw .I - d cc-, 1.' ( .►L SD \ _ Il e IMIEraga r s t O !,U 4 _., _ ,rte - W4, 11,' T _ .-T - \ i c A/V9 Torre -- vo � r97xJ - - e-- _Arj)- — u ■^ b rill 1 -') – , \ 1,NA — Ike 1 9 ■ s r 7 -.X3 r j ■ - G--3)-79 y23------ a ?- 7k r i ri7vri r - T\ Act NAAVVV 14 71 SQL (1 k ti' 2 v)day - -- " c) a ` - \ nCtl. ,) ____ v �7 Y l 1 Q � I '�1/l ■ r \ \ ---t-71— Vff-ne `y rAe'71IN -- — 1 biL „ Ov s - fLc c tLv-A /C(<.% t k1C c = h Le,C) s. rft f- tryd(t acconua H Cain/C.(1, ttewv t-C Ctr' +3r$ - lit- Ci-cQ ` € ° ^x s• L d \ — s 9 -y / C'1Y w VJ frYti 7 1 tCL\ )AA --,��- )emu M lia a■ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 0 RE: Silver Lining Ranch Conversion to Single - Family Residence o SPA Amendment o Rezoning to Rural Residential Zoning 2 " 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 -- 4' 8 Foundation. The operation was relocated out c_.;. , �y L ' of Aspen in 2006. The applicant proposes 'i changing the use of the building to a single- ; - . , family residence, with components of the M, 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: Aerial Photo: Silver Lining Ranch — the high water line separates Staff believes the proposal does not meet the the Academic zone at left and the Conservation zone at right. standards of review. Staff recommends denial. APPLICANT /OWNER: Owner — Little Star Foundation, Andrea Jaeger. P &Z COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Contract Purchaser — KAT Ranch, LLC. The Commission approved growth management reviews and a special review for REPRESENTATIVE: an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The P &Z Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning recommended, by a unanimous vote, City Council approve an amendment to the LOCATION: Specially Planned Area to accommodate this Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch, commonly known as the Silver conversion and a rezoning of the property to Lining Ranch — 1490 Ute Avenue. the Rural Residential Zone District. The rezoning would be delayed to accommodate CURRENT ZONING: the five -year continued non - profit use. 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: • R 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 (SPAT 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. 3 4✓ , 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. 4 1. s In 2007, the Foundation applied to the City of Aspen to "de- annex" (disconnect) the property from the City. It was expected that the disconnection would permit the property to be converted to a single - family home in the County. Planning staff recommended against this request. The City Council denied the request after considering the non - profit/institutional use of the property an important community resource which would be sacrificed with a conversion to a single family residence. In 2008, the Jewish Chabad of Aspen entered into a contract to purchase the property for use as a Jewish Community Center. An application was filed to amend the approvals to allow for the JCC. The application was viewed favorably by the City, replicating (in very general terms) the use profile of the Little Star Foundation and fulfilling the desire for a non - profit or institutional use to remain at the site. The JCC application was controversial with neighbors concerned about traffic impacts and with owners in the Stillwater Subdivision. The JCC application eventually gained approval from City Council in 2009, but the Chabad encountered some legal obstacles with the Stillwater Subdivision Home Owners Association. Ultimately, the Chabad decided not to pursue purchase of the property and abandoned ideas for a JCC at this site. The property is now under a purchase contract with KAT Ranch, LLC. This new owner proposes to convert the property to a single - family residence with the Foundation's ability to continue programming on the property for the next five years. NOTE 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 ON PROTECTIVE COVENANTS: Many properties in Aspen (and around the country) are encumbered by private covenants. These can range from simple agreements regarding a shared fence to very sophisticated agreements describing architectural style and review processes. Like zoning, covenants run with the land but are only enforceable by the parties within the agreement. Private covenants are not typically enforceable by local government. Disputes over the meaning, affect, or enforcement of a protective covenant are handled by the parties within the agreement and, if need be, resolved in civil court. The City of Aspen is not party to the Stillwater Protective Covenants and is not in a position to interpret, implement, change or enforce the terms and conditions of the agreement. As with any property, the City does have an obligation to interpret, implement, and enforce the Land Use Code. This describes allowances and limitations on the intensity and character of land use, building sizes and setbacks, mitigation of impacts, and proscribes certain processes for 5 l 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 obligation 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 concems, 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. 6 ..r 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 r• Standard five asks about the availability and sufficiency of public facilities and infrastructure. The property has fully developed public infrastructure and staff believes this standard is met. Standard six asks if the change would result in significant adverse effects on the natural environment. The property is already developed with modern infrastructure and is set -back significantly from the river. Staff believes the zoning change would have no effect on the natural environment. Standard seven asks if the change would be consistent and compatible with the community character. Staff believes this too hinges in the conversion discussion. There is nothing incompatible with a single - family home on this property — it was originally planned for a home and it would be in -line with the neighborhood. Staff believes that this standard is met if the conversion is approved. Standard eight asks if there have been circumstances that may support this change. Staff does agree, in part, with the Planning Commission that the Jewish Community Center application was a very good effort along the lines of the City's desire for the property to remain in non -profit or community use. That effort was thorough yet unsuccessful. The Aspen Club Living project was also approved recently after a long discussion about off -site impacts (among other issues). However, opportunities for non - profit uses in Aspen can be fleeting and staff does not believe that the JCC experience or the recent approval of the Aspen Club project necessitates a zoning change to this property. There have been changes in the immediate surroundings, but staff does not believe standard eight is met unless the conversion is approved. If City Council approves the conversion, staff believes the conversion itself is a changed circumstance that necessitates the rezoning. The last standard number nine 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. 8 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 9 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 e y t I to zero (5 -0) vote with conditions and a recommendation for rezoning as outlined in P &Z Resolution Number 11, Series 2010; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Amendment to the SPA Approvals City Council hereby approves the amendment to the Specially Planned Area approvals for Lot No. 5, Stillwater Subdivision, as follows: 1. In addition to the uses permitted on this property approved through Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, (the "Foundation use ") this property may also be used as a single - family residence including all necessary physical changes to affect and implement this change. The permitted dimensions for the property shall be those described in Ordinance 11, Series of 1997. 2. Foundation use may continue simultaneously with the single - family use for up to five (5) years after the effective date of the City Council ordinance allowing this change. After the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the City Council ordinance, the Foundation use shall no longer be permitted unless otherwise extended by the City. 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 f 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 f 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 12 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 day of June, 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 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2010 Page 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (05/04/10): Ctm a Silver Lining Ranch 91490 Ute Ave, Change in Use aale, 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 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes May 18, 2010 allowed a non - profit kids camp for children with cancer run by Andrea Jaeger. The property is zoned a combination of Conservation along the lower bench of the property and the building is on the upper bench with an SPA overlay and this overlay prescribes the allowable dimensions and types of uses. Bendon said that an SPA is like a PUD except that you have the ability to tailor the uses and specific use to the property. The Little Star Foundation operated on the property from 1999 when the building was completed until 2006; since then the property has had little usage and they were trying to sell the property so the proceeds from the sale could be used to fund the charitable mission. The operation moved to Southern Colorado. In 2007 the Foundation applied to the City to de -annex or disconnect the property from the City; City Council denied that request considering the non- profit institutional use of the property as an important community resource. In 2008 the Chabad entered into a contract to purchase the property and use the property as a Jewish Community Center and there was an application to amend the JCC; the application was very controversial with the neighbors with traffic impacts and with owners in the Stillwater Subdivision. The application gained approval from City Council and the JCC encountered some legal obstacles with Stillwater Subdivision HOA and decided not to purchase the property. Bendon said the property is now under purchase contract with KAT Ranch LLC and the proposal is to convert the property to a single family residence with the Foundation's ability to continue to programming on the property for up to 5 years. Bendon described the property as having an upper bench and a lower bench; the upper bench is where the building is located and the lower bench is more riparian in nature probably within the 100 year flood plain and only used for outdoor programming and there weren't any structures of any substance on the lower bench. There was split zoning the upper bench was zoned academic and the lower bench was conservation with an SPA overlay. Bendon said that protective covenants were very common and were agreements that run with the property and enforceable only by the parties within the agreements. Bert Myrin asked if they approve tonight this would move forward to Council. Bendon replied there are 4 approvals requested and the SPA plan needs to be amended that is a recommendation to City Council. Bendon said the following conclude at P &Z the request to replace affordable housing on site; Special Review to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be attached to the main house and a Growth Management conversion for a Change in Use. Bendon said the proposal was to convert the structure into a single family and to remain the potential for the Foundation to continue to use the property for up to 5 years in the same manner as currently permitted. Bendon said the gross square footage of the 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 existing structure was in the neighborhood of 18,000; roughly 14,000 is counted as floor area; there are certain exemptions to attributable floor area so there's an FAR of 14,000 and a gross square footage of 18,000. Bendon said there would be some interior reworking of the structure to accommodate a single family house use but the structure would remain as you see it today. Bendon said the SPA sets out the dimensions and accommodates this use within the zoning; that's the amendment that would happen. Multi - family replacement addresses the 3 affordable housing units on site that are requested to be removed from the property. The ADU is a Special Review; ADUs that meet all of the City design standards can be approved administratively; those that do not meet all of those standards can be approved by P &Z through this Special Review process; one of the design standards is that it is detached from the main residence so P &Z sees all ADUs that are attached. The last is a Change in Use Review in Growth Management for the allotments. Bendon stated that the standards of review were within multi - family replacement; the first standard sets out 2 options for compliance units being affected by affordable housing by demolition; this is not applicable. The second standard is specifically for the demolition of affordable housing and says that you can demolish affordable housing and the replacement housing can be in any form as long as you are housing the same number of employees. Bendon said the City didn't see the affordable housing as being categorically incompatible with the zoning or physical make up of this site; staff did not feel that this standard was met. The next standard deals with a cash -in -lieu timeframe for affordable housing; there are no actual units proposed for replacement so we don't find the application meets the standard. The next standard asks the City and the applicant to enter into an agreement regarding the replacement units while there is no draft agreement regarding the replacement units and the City doesn't see any hesitation from the applicant providing such an agreement. The redevelopment credits standard is compliant and they are not requesting any exemptions from the program. Bendon said the next review is the amendment to the SPA. Standard #1 speaks to the proposal and the compatibility with surrounding land uses and this area is often characterized as a single type of land use. Bendon noted there were quite a variety of land uses in this area; single family, multi - family, free - market housing, affordable housing, commercial development, a recreation facility and a lodging property. Staff is not really of the position to say that a single family house is incompatible in the area; there are single family houses in the area. Standard #2 deals with the capacity of public facility; standards #3 and #4 deal with the develop 5 C •✓ City Planning & 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 C). 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 HPC approval and is not applicable. Standard #5 deals with housing mitigation and there is no additional housing or employees generated or housing that is necessary by this change in use. Standard #6 is the physical design on affordable housing and is not applicable. Standard #7 deals with public infrastructure and that is met. Bendon stated there is a requested approval for affordable housing because no affordable housing is being proposed either on site or off site and we don't feel that this review applies to this application. Bendon said the last review Special Review is for an accessory dwelling unit to be attached to the main unit. There are 3 criteria for this review; the l' 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 6 e^ J City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 compatible with the neighborhood and staff believed it would be compatible with the neighborhood. Bendon said there were a number of reviews that the proposal was not in compliance with and emailed an amendment to the Commission. Bendon summarized the amendment asks P &Z to accept a credit for affordable housing based on the program that was most recently adopted that allows for a developer to build affordable housing unrelated to this application to receive a certificate from the City that is a transferrable credit and a developer who is required to provide affordable housing mitigation can use that credit to satisfy their housing mitigation. Cliff Weiss asked if that was Peter Fornell's . Bendon replied that he thought that the applicant was under contract to purchase those credits but he would let Mitch speak to that potential mitigation. Bendon said from the amendment the employee housing will be replaced with cash -in -lieu or with actual units through this housing credit program. Bendon said that he would imagine that the applicant is in a position where because Peter Fornell's project was just approved that in order for Peter to receive the certificate from the City he needs to build the project and have it fully Certificate of Occupancy and then someone could exchange the certificate to satisfy their housing mitigation; there was a timing question at a minimum. Bendon was concerned with the amendment because it doesn't necessarily provide for offsite housing; it provides either submission of a certificate or cash -in -lieu. Bendon said the housing replacement is provided with cash -in -lieu and not with actual housing so if the standards require actual housing then it's not satisfied with actual housing. Cliff Weiss asked about the calculation of cash -in -lieu on page l lof 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 61/4 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 Planni & Zoning Meeting — Minutes M ay 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 8 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. 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes M av 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 the Trail. Haas said they feel that this parcel is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan with a single family lot; one of the goals for the AACP was to limit traffic and safety goals for cyclists and automobiles as well. Haas said the applicant is willing to put a conservation easement on the conservation zoned portion of the property. Haas said that there were areas in the building that were affordable housing units intended for occupancy by permanent and temporary staff of the Silver Lining Ranch and were not designed for rental not associated with the operation and were laid out with the intent for employees because you can only get to those units by walking through the building. Haas said the 3 existing units were deed restricted and will be eliminated as part of the conversion to single family use. These units were meant to house 6.25 employees therefore these 6.25 need to be mitigated under the multi - family housing replacement requirements. Haas said with the HOA covenants the AH units will not be allowed on site and therefore can't be implemented. The HOA made it clear that the maximum density permitted on this property once converted to single family residential use is the house itself and one affordable housing unit. Haas said that currently his client is under contact for the purchase 6 '/4 FTEs to be delivered from a project at 301 W Hyman Ave; the developer of 301 Hyman is in the process of putting together his building permit application; he hopes to have the project built by February 2011. Haas said if that certification will be acceptable and the preferred mitigation or the applicant proposes paying the appropriate entity the $1,160,815.75 cash -in -lieu immediately. Jennifer Hall, attorney for KAT Ranch, stated they were the purchaser for the property. Hall noted that Mitch was the staff person in 1999 that took on the original review. Hall said the timing of the interior of the building will not be for the 5 years that they have agreed to allow the Foundation to continue its work there 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 in part; they can use those units for the 5 years. Hall said there were many large homes in the Stillwater HOA. Rick Neiley stated from the 1997 approvals several of the employees will be housed on site; the mitigation was specifically addressed to employees of the Foundation. Neiley said the employee mitigation wasn't required but you have to offer replacement to the community and the buyer is willing to ensure that the full amount of the units that were a part of the impacts of this specific use are being made available on a full time permanent basis to the community. Neiley shared the concern for the loss of cultural facility and educational facility in Aspen and they don't view this as a precedent setting property. Neiley said to make this land work in the context of a single family residence with this ancillary use by the Foundation is the only solution and encourage your approval. Andrea Jaeger said that when she started the Foundation in 1998 and they do not charge the families or the hospitals for these programs; the Foundation doesn't charge anything and fund raisers. Jaeger said the goal is still being reached for kids with cancer and their families that are in this community and the community at large. Jaeger said when they built the Ranch they built it to look like a home because they wanted these kids to not see a building that was like a hospital so the whole feel of this building was a home. Jaeger said they have to be there 24/7 with these kids and that was provided for. Weiss said that he was trying to understand the 5 years where you'll have use of the property, so you are potentially running your camp here at the property for kids of the valley or the state or the region. Weiss asked if Andrea would still run the Durango and Aspen Operations. Jaeger replied originally when they set up the Foundation it was to run programs here for kids that have cancer, with kids in the community and help kids who can't possibly get on a plane and they have scholarship programs for long term care. Jaeger said that they would continue on the exact basis of what we they have been approved for and they do not have the financial ability to do that here to maintain the building. Weiss said that they want to maintain some program here. Jaeger replied yes and what's happening is they will be able to use the facility but won't have those costs; they will be able to limit their expenses. Jaeger said they were asking to give these families a chance to go back to the initial goal was in the first place and they were asking to go back to single family. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 11 City Planning & Zoning 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 staffs concerns and his as well that creates some certainty to facilitate non - profits to make this transition so that there is not a multiple catch 22 that seems to be going on. Myrin said he did not know what that certainty of expectations is; whether it is returning it to the raw land and that was what he saw different with this application; we are not only asking the land to change but we are asking a building to continue and that is where he has the most difficulty. Myrin said that he supports staff concerns on a lot of issues but wants to see a process by which this can be done and not a dead end. Jennifer Hall asked a code process. Myrin said that there was not a clear process and as a community we need a process to create some certainty. Weiss stated that he was completely in support of this approval and add a recommendation that the city accept the cash -in -lieu rather than the complexity of the Fornell, 301 Hyman. Weiss said the $1,160815.75 for Housing was a windfall and he bought their argument that this was never to be part of APCHAs housing stock. Weiss said that applications come to P &Z where code doesn't quite cut it and the commissioners have to adjudicate these things; code certainly has trapped the applicant and the buyer; they tried everything they could with Chabad and he voted against it and a lot of the reasons had to do with traffic. Weiss said that he was in support of this. Stan Gibbs said that he had some concerns with this and he understands there is a lot of benefit for a lot of areas of the community and the Foundation to go forward with this. Gibbs agreed with the concept that there really wasn't any affordable housing per se committed to the community; the housing was done for staff so he agreed that it wasn't relevant to this issue. Gibbs said the difficulty was the SPA and the process bothers him and he would like to see the property revert to a single 13 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 18, 2010 family house and zoned properly for single family housing. Gibbs said this was an academic zoning and there were no uses for single family houses in academic so he was having a hard time approving a house in an academic zone and he wished the application came forward to zone this residential and somehow make the house conform or ask for a variance so there were issues for him that were unpalatable. Gibbs said he wasn't sure that he could dismiss this in this one instance and treat this in such a special way. Gibbs said he knows this is a Specially Planned Area but he now believes the SPA doesn't exist anymore; after 5 years essentially will be just a house and he is struggling with this issue. Gibbs said that maybe down the road we get another application that really addresses this issue head on so that's where he is coming from. Weiss said that they could make a recommendation that the SPA goes back to Council so his question to Stan was what zone do you believe this should be; what is the rest of Stillwater. Gibbs replied that Stillwater was County and it has to be City and the most generous from the perspective FAR, a rural character so Rural/Residential; if we were to go forward and make a recommendation that he would like to see that the zoning changed to make this conform. Gibbs said that he did not like creating non - conforming that have no rational basis in the code. Myrin supported what Stan said on the zoning and would like to know from staff if that's a viable option that would carry forward and succeed at Council. Bendon replied that he didn't know if he could answer all of that; there is a benefit of cleaning this property head to toe if the use is being expunged then the SPA should be expunged. Bendon said that was from a different perspective than the landowner might have; a lot of times we look at these as blank slates and the last 50 years of stuff is wiped away; there is certainly an upside of cleaning the property and probably have the applicant speak to the logistics of what it means to them currently here today going forward. Haas stated he wanted to explain what they didn't go that way; they looked at this property and the overall goal; how do we get there. Haas said that they looked at the zoning, academic underlying zoning in this case is real zoning is a dimensional standard set by the SPA and the uses allowed by the SPA. Haas said the proposal included keeping the non - profit for a while. Jennifer Hall said that she and her client spoke extensively on this issue and one of the things about the not continued use and they have the 5 years in there and that agreement has been entered into with her client and Andrea. Hall said that decision was important to him that there be the ability to have some non- profit use on this property so he has never proposed extinguishing it entirely. Hall said her client does recognize that he has a problem with the HOA next door as far as them saying the only use allowed is Andrea Jaeger and is hopeful in the future that he would be able to work that out and he thinks that he is in a position to do it. 14 City 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 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 ADU as part of the structure, and there will be a conservation easement on the lower bench; seconded by Brian Speck. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to amend the motion to restore the option of the Fornell Property Affordable Housing Credits Process (as written in the proposal with June 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 I seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, Approved. Adjourned at 7:45pm Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 18 4 .f RESOLUTION N0. 11 � 6/47A, (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 '.1 organization, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the change -in -use, special review, and demolition of affordable housing, and recommended in favor of the amendment to the SPA approval by a five to zero (5 -0) vote with conditions and a recommendation for rezoning as outlined in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Recommendation to Amend the SPA The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the amendment to the Specially Planned Area approvals for Lot No. 5, Stillwater Subdivision, as follows: 1. In addition to the uses permitted on this property approved through Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, (the "Foundation use ") this property may also be used as a single - family residence including all necessary physical changes to affect and implement this change. The permitted dimensions for the property shall be those described in Ordinance I1, 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 Housing Units The Planning and Zoning Commission approves the removal of three affordable housing units currently incorporated in the existing building, with one condition: 1. Within one (1) calendar week of the effective date of an ordinance granting City Council approval, the applicant shall deposit with the City a cash -in -lieu payment of $1,160,813.75, which payment and any interest accrued shall be immediately available for the City's use in any manner related to the development of affordable housing. If, prior to payment of the fee, the City amends the cash -in -lieu payment schedule the amount due shall be recalculated based on the following calculation: Unit Unit Type Category FTEs Payment per FTE No. Housed (may be amended) 1 2- bedroom Cat 4 2.25 X $134,079 = $301,677.75 1 1- bedroom Cat 3 1.75 X $214,784 = $375,872.00 1 2- bedroom Cat 3 2.25 X $214,784 = $483,264.00 Total Due: $1,160,813.75 The cash -in -lieu money shall be held by the City in a separate account. The City shall return the full sum to the applicant, minus any interest accrued, if a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit in the amount of 6.25 FTEs is provided to the City prior to the close of business on June 2, 2011. If a Certificate is not provided by the close of business on June 2, 2011, the applicant's Certificate option shall expire and the funds shall no longer be refundable to the applicant. The funds may then continue to be used by the City for the development of affordable housing without limitation. Section 4: Approval for a 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 ,a, rs e,, . I 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 18 day of May, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ditle P h 'Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chairman / ATTEST: k ie Lothian, Deputy City P &Z Reso No. 11, Series of 2010 Page 4 li rriAlbh I f ill a lk_ b. Notice re. ' ements: Publication, posting and mailing. (See 26.304.061 (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 / 'n 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 Plann' • • and Zoning Commission and to determine i .pplication for final developme • • elan meets the standards for . PA. b. Noti requirements: Requisite noti .: equirements for adoption of . . dinance by • Council and publication, .. ting and mailing. (See 26.30' 160(E)(3)(a),(b), and (c).) c. Standards of review: - ction 26.440.030(A) for SP' designation, Section 26.440.050 for revie . development within SPA. d. City Council: t dinance approving, approvi • ith conditions, or disapprov' - : the SPA. D. Limitat'. s. A development applicati s. for a final development pl..' all be submitted within two ) years of the date of ape . al of a conceptual devel ent plan. Unless extensio• is granted by the City Co • prior to expiration, fail = o file such an appl' ion with this time period shall rend; null and void the approv- of a conceptual de opment pl. . Approval of a concept development plan shal of constitute final proval for development in a Speciall ' anned Area (SPA), or p-. ission to proceed ' development. Such approval shall onl onstitute authorization to oceed with a develop ent application for a final development _ an. (Ord. No. 27 -2002 §§ 12 -15, 2002) 26.440.050 Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). A. General. In the review of a development application 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. ceptual develop plan. 1 . Contents pplication. The contents of the development application fora eptual deve ent plan shall include- following: The general application information required in Comm evelopment Review Proceduipe4t 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. Ve 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 in significantly 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 erved. 26. .060 Notation of Planning • . • Zoning Commission resolution : official zone district ap. Within ten (10) days of whe • . e Planning and Zoning Commissi • adopts a resolution recommendi . approval of a develop • -nt application for an amendm- • to the official zone district . ., the Community Deve :.ment Director shall make a nota • s on the official zone district m. - o show the pending ame • ent. 26. 1 .070 Recordation of design . ' i n. + pon the effective date of an a By the City Council approvi • a development application for an amendment to the official s e district map, the Comm • evelopment Director shall notify - City Clerk of the desi: .. ion, who shall record amon: - real estate records of the Clerk and ' = order 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 . i• dment. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 300, Page 23 Arts, Culture and Education 00 0 Intent culture, and education as a part of our daily lives where citizens of all ages can think, learn, care, and achieve. •Recognize the contribution of the arts, • Nurture intellectual and spiritual growth culture and education to the quality of life that enriches our lives while challenging in Aspen. Support the arts and the cultural our imaginations. community in its efforts to increase • Preserve and build upon our heritage. awareness of its significance to the future • Celebrate social and ethnic diversity and quality of life in Aspen. through arts, culture, and education. mi*es> • Increase community support for all facets Philosophy of quality education. • Make educational, cultural, and artistic Walter Paepcke helped found Aspen as a experiences more accessible for all valley unique community where the life -long residents. improvement of mind, body, and spirit became • Develop and cultivate local artists. more than a dream. His vision created an • Foster artistic, cultural, and educational enlightened community in which arts, culture, experiences where artists and audiences and education provide essential cornerstones of interact. our lifestyle, character, and economy. Today, • Recognize the extent to which arts, culture, these cornerstones are increasingly vital to the and education strengthen and stabilize our uniqueness of our community and to our year -round economy. economic and spiritual well being. Therefore, sots arts, culture, and education are acknowledged Policies as essential to Aspen's thriving year -round economy, its vibrant international profile, and its future as a unique place to live, work, and • Support the continued vibrancy of the arts learn. in our community. The City of Aspen will continue to be an • Support activities and education for youth. 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, 45 o • Economic Sustainability 10001 Intent Local ownership of business helps maintain our community's unusual character, tends to • Maintain a healthy, vibrant and return more money to the local economy, and diversified year -round economy that provides additional opportunities for upward supports the Aspen area community; to mobility of working people. maintain and enhance existing business and cultural entities; and, to support and Externally -owned businesses can positively promote the "Aspen Idea" of "mind, body affect the community too. For example, some and spirit." are locally serving businesses, which should be •Enhance the wealth- generating2 supported because they make commerce more capacity of the local economy while convenient and strengthen the local economy minimizing the rate at which cash flows by causing transactions to take place in the through the local economy ( "throughput ") community that otherwise would take place and limiting the expansion of the physical elsewhere (import replacement). Another S size of the community. example: some externally -owned businesses are locally - involved. They contribute ` Philosophy volunteers, cash, and in -kind support to community and nonprofit activities. The Aspen community includes full- and part-time citizens. We share our community The community and its governments should with a large number of guests. Our economic support local ownership as well as externally- and business decisions should support and owned businesses that are locally- serving and sustain the environment and future generations. locally - involved. They should ensure balance and integration between "Aspen the Resort" and "Aspen the A vibrant economy requires positive Community." working relationships between people and .o+ institutions, especially between the private and Aspen's economic base is real estate, public sectors. Therefore, we must foster tourism, arts, and recreation, especially skiing. mutual respect, civility, and friendship, and Retail, lodges, services, professionals, and continually improve our capacity to work nonprofit organizations also support and are together for the common good. supported by the resort economy. Essential to long -term viability is the unique, varied, high A sustainable community's economy can quality, and welcoming experience Aspen get better without getting bigger. The offers to both residents and a diverse visitor economy and local businesses strengthen their population. They demand a lively, small -scale positions, not by continually increasing rs downtown with diverse and unique shops and throughput but by maximizing benefit and varied choices of accommodations, including profit with existing throughput. small lodges. r Generating wealth involves increasing profits, wages, and savings. 31 „,-4410)\_, 1 TJ ger Aspen Alps � (Jw Lot- ( p A ,,,d, 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 Utc Avenue, while still allowing some non -profit use in the near future. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. :mere J a n J ' orcoran ,1' en al Manager 700 De Avemie, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (800) 728-2820 Fax (070) 920 -2528 hifuaa;penatpscom www.dvenalps.com 005 ion/ 0(IC GI'v .I II, *wait/ ;. i Iship, ;1:•r n ZGRL.} \ r ,,, • —. Page 1 of 1 t, Chris Bendon Y From: ROSS [with_a_tail @hotmail.comj • -- Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 5:57 PM To: Chris Bendon 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 Leaming 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 @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 6:33 AM To: Chris Bendon 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 I 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 Bendon 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' Stuff's 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 Bended 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 [petrarihtaric @hotmail.com] 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. 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 ‘w«1 Chris Bendon From: Tremols Lucy [Itremolsl @me.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:27 PM To: Chris Bendon Cc: mhaas @sopris.net; Muric Maja Subject: Silver Lining Ranch Property Dear Chris Bendon: 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 win /win 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 1 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Bill Fabrocini [fabrocini.bill @comcast.net] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 2:59 PM To: Chris Bendon 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 concem 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 7/5/901n William E. Hunt 1500 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado July 9, 2010 By email chris.bendon @ci.aspen.co.us and regular mail Aspen City Council c/o Chris Bendon 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Silver Lining Conversion to a Single Family Residence Dear Members of City Council: My name is Bill Hunt and I am an owner of the property at 1500 Ute Avenue. I am writing this letter in support of the application submitted by Haas Land Planning for a change in use to a single - family residence. I support this change because a single - family home is the most compatible use of the property with the surrounding neighborhood and will have lessened traffic impacts on Ute Avenue, especially considering that the Aspen Club expansion was recently approved. It will also help to protect and preserve the rural characteristics of the neighborhood. Approving the change to single family will allow the Kids Stuff Foundation to continue its mission, and is consistent with the intent of the original approval and the overall neighborhood. For all of these reasons I request that you approve the change to single family. Sincerely, /--Ar William E. Hunt WEH:jaf Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Susan Rappaport [susieshards @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 7:34 AM To: Chris Bendon Subject: RE: Silver Lining Ranch Thank youl 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 952.473-3065 (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 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. 1' 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 cal HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC July 12, 2010 Mr. Chris Bendon Aspen Community Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 1490 the Avenue, City Council 2 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 • 81 61 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 southwestem 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 1, . Mil, Haas Owner/Manager c : /my documents/city applications/SLR/CC 2 Rdng Letter_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 4) \TT1942357.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 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 1 V:CON MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Silver Lining Ranch Conversion to Single - Family Residence o SPA Amendment o Rezoning to Rural Residential Zoning 1 Reading of Ordinance No. i f , Series 2010. 2" Reading scheduled for July 12 DATE: June 28, 2010 SUMMARY: The Silver Lining Ranch is currently a non- profit facility to help kids with cancer and similar afflictions. The operation is known as ` the Little Star Foundation or the Kids Stuff A . Foundation. The operation was relocated out of Aspen in 2006. The applicant proposes , y . changing the use of the building to a single - family residence, with components of the °' y " r .. ` . 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: Aerial Photo: Silver Lining Ranch — the high water line separates Staff believes the proposal does not meet the the Academic zone at left and the Conservation zone at right. standards of review. Staff recommends denial. APPLICANT /OWNER: Owner — Little Star Foundation, Andrea Jaeger. P &Z COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Contract Purchaser — KAT Ranch, LLC. The Commission approved growth management reviews and a special review for REPRESENTATIVE: an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The P &Z Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning recommended, by a unanimous vote, City Council approve an amendment to the LOCATION: Specially Planned Area to accommodate this Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch, commonly known as the Silver conversion and a rezoning of the property to Lining Ranch — 1490 Ute Avenue. the Rural Residential Zone District. The rezoning would be delayed to accommodate CURRENT ZONING: the five -year continued non - profit use. Academic and Conservation with a Specially Planned Area overlay — (A -C -SPA) 1 oast 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. 2 d 3 The applicant requested a Special Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be attached to the main house. ADUs which meet all the design standards are allowed by right. ADUs not meeting one or more of the design standards require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This review was approved by the Commission. The conversion also requires two Growth Management approvals. A change -in -use approval allows the use to convert from an essential public facility to a residence. The demolition of multi - family housing review ensures the community does not experience a loss of affordable housing through redevelopment . Both these reviews were approved by the Commission. BACKGROUND: The Silver Lining Ranch, located at 1490 Ute Avenue, is also known as Lot #5 of the Stillwater Subdivision. The Subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1994 and included 6 residential lots and 1 open space parcel. Lot 1 became the Stillwater affordable housing project. Lots 2, 3, 4 and 6 are free market residential lots. Lot 5, the subject property, was originally planned as a residential lot but was then given by Fabi Benedict to Andrea Jaeger to run a non -profit foundation to assist children with cancer. Lot 5 is the only development parcel accessed from Ute Avenue. All other parcels are on the other side of the Roaring Fork River and access from Highway 82. In 1996, the owner of Lot 5, the Little Star Foundation, submitted a petition to annex Lot 5 into the City of Aspen. The Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance 10 (1997) annexing the property to the City of Aspen, and Ordinance 11 (1997) zoning Lot 5 Academic /Conservation/SPA and granting final approvals for the development of the Silver Lining Ranch. The approvals allowed for the operation of a non - profit kids camp for children with cancer and similar afflictions to be directed by Andrea Jaeger. Lot 5 is the only lot of the subdivision lying within the City. The remaining lots are all in Pitkin County. The property was zoned a combination of Conservation, along the lower bench and the riparian areas, and Academic, along the upper bench and where the building is located. The property was also zoned with a Specially Planned Area overlay that proscribes the allowable dimensions and the types and intensities of allowed uses. The SPA approval anticipated approximately 20 children and their family members using the facility, along with approximately 12 staff and medical personnel. Usage was limited to no more than 14 week long sessions per year. In addition, the City permitted approximately 15 to 20 special events per year, ranging from celebrations to dinners, award ceremonies, meetings, fund raising activities and non - profit medical events that would be open to community members. The Little Star Foundation operated programs at the Silver Lining Ranch from 1999, when the building was completed, until 2006. The property has had limited occupancy since that time, and the Foundation has been trying to sell the property so that the proceeds can be used to fund its charitable mission. 3 3 In 2007, the Foundation applied to the City of Aspen to "de- annex" (disconnect) the property from the City. It was expected that the disconnection would permit the property to be converted to a single - family home in the County. Planning staff recommended against this request. The City Council denied the request after considering the non - profit/institutional use of the property an important community resource which would be sacrificed with a conversion to a single family residence. In 2008, the Jewish Chabad of Aspen entered into a contract to purchase the property for use as a Jewish Community Center. An application was filed to amend the approvals to allow for the JCC. The application was viewed favorably by the City, replicating (in very general terms) the use profile of the Little Star Foundation and fulfilling the desire for a non - profit or institutional use to remain at the site. The JCC application was controversial with neighbors concerned about traffic impacts and with owners in the Stillwater Subdivision. The JCC application eventually gained approval from City Council in 2009, but the Chabad encountered some legal obstacles with the Stillwater Subdivision Home Owners Association. Ultimately, the Chabad decided not to pursue purchase of the property and abandoned ideas for a JCC at this site. The property is now under a purchase contract with KAT Ranch, LLC. This new owner proposes to convert the property to a single - family residence with the Foundation's ability to continue programming on the property for the next five years. NOTE 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 ON PROTECTIVE COVENANTS: Many properties in Aspen (and around the country) are encumbered by private covenants. These can range from simple agreements regarding a shared fence to very sophisticated agreements describing architectural style and review processes. Like zoning, covenants run with the land but are only enforceable by the parties within the agreement. Private covenants are not typically enforceable by local government. Disputes over the meaning, affect, or enforcement of a protective covenant are handled by the parties within the agreement and, if need be, resolved in civil court. The City of Aspen is not party to the Stillwater Protective Covenants and is not in a position to interpret, implement, change or enforce the terms and conditions of the agreement. As with any property, the City does have an obligation to interpret, implement, and enforce the Land Use Code. This describes allowances and limitations on the intensity and character of land use, building sizes and setbacks, mitigation of impacts, and proscribes certain processes for 4 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 obligation 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. 5 ,,,d 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. 6 Standard five asks about the availability and sufficiency of public facilities and infrastructure. The property has fully developed public infrastructure and staff believes this standard is met. Standard six asks if the change would result in significant adverse effects on the natural environment. The property is already developed with modern infrastructure and is set -back significantly from the river. Staff believes the zoning change would have no effect on the natural environment. Standard seven asks if the change would be consistent and compatible with the community character. Staff believes this too hinges in the conversion discussion. There is nothing incompatible with a single - family home on this property — it was originally planned for a home and it would be in -line with the neighborhood. Staff believes that this standard is met if the conversion is approved. Standard eight asks if there have been circumstances that may support this change. Staff does agree, in part, with the Planning Commission that the Jewish Community Center application was a very good effort along the lines of the City's desire for the property to remain in non -profit or community use. That effort was thorough yet unsuccessful. The Aspen Club Living project was also approved recently after a long discussion about off -site impacts (among other issues). However, opportunities for non - profit uses in Aspen can be fleeting and staff does not believe that the JCC experience or the recent approval of the Aspen Club project necessitates a zoning change to this property. There have been changes in the immediate surroundings, but staff does not believe standard eight is met unless the conversion is approved. If City Council approves the conversion, staff believes the conversion itself is a changed circumstance that necessitates the rezoning. The last standard number nine asksif the change would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. While staff does not support the conversion, the rezoning of the property would not conflict or be inharmonious with the Land Use Code. Staff believes standard nine is met. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -0 in support of the application, approving the four P &Z reviews and recommending in favor of the fifth review Council is considering. The Commission also recommended that after the 5 -year period of dual use (single - family and non- profit use) that the SPA be vacated and the property be rezoned to the Rural Residential Zone. The Commission felt that the Foundation use was a good -faith effort on everyone's behalf and that the failure of the use at this location should not hamstring the property and should not handicap the Foundation's efforts elsewhere. The property was originally planned as a single - family house. The Commission felt that the property was never intended to be a community asset like a library or a community pool — it was a non - profit facility built for a specific cause. The Commission felt as though a reversion mechanism should have been a part of the 7 Foundation's original approvals allowing for this conversion back to a single - family house in the event of today's circumstance. The Commission also felt that the City's desire to maintain a non - profit / community use at this site had been tried. The Jewish Community Center was approved by the City after a long series of meetings, but eventually the Center decided not to pursue the approval. The Commission believes the arduous process and the Stillwater HOA legal complexities combine to render the prospect for another community / non -profit use stepping forward next to nil. Lastly, the commission felt that if this property is to convert to a single - family house, the SPA Overlay should be terminated and the property rezoned to a single - family zone. This will "clean" the property and remove old references to shuttle services, special events, and the like. A delayed rezoning to the RR Zone would allow the property to be used as both a single - family house and as the Foundation has used the property for the next five years. Staff agrees. If the property is to revert to a single - family home, the property's entitlements should be corrected to reflect the actual use. Regarding the size of the existing structure, the Commission suggests the existing building be considered a legally- created non - conforming structure upon rezoning. This will allow the current structure to continue although technically larger than the RR zoning would allow. The non - conforming status would need to be corrected upon a substantial redevelopment of the property and any replacement house be brought into the size allowances for the RR Zone. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance on first reading and set the public hearing for July 12 2010. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I d "I move to approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2010, on first reading." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — P &Z Minutes and Resolution Exhibit B — Review standards from Land Use Code • SPA Amendment • Rezoning Exhibit C — Excerpts from the Aspen Area Community Plan Exhibit D — Application 8 vase' ORDINANCE NO. (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA APPROVALS AND REZONING TO THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE SILVER LINING RANCH, LOCATED ON LOT 5 OF THE STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION, 1490 UTE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2735 - 184 -06 -805 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Little Star Foundation, LLC, owner of the property and KAT Ranch, LLC, contract purchaser of the property, both represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, to convert the existing Silver Lining Ranch to a single - family residence; and, WHEREAS, the property is the Silver Lining Ranch, located on Lot No. 5 of the Stillwater Subdivision and is more commonly known as 1490 Ute Avenue originally approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, as a non -profit facility to assist children with cancer and similar afflictions within a structure of approximately 18,000 square feet (roughly 14,000 of Floor Area) with three affordable housing units to serve employees of the operation; and, WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to convert the existing structure to a single - family residence with the ability for the Little Star Foundation to continue using the facility for up to five years in the same non -profit manner as currently allowed; and, WHEREAS, conversion of the property to a single - family residence requires an amendment to the Specially Planned Area approval, approval for the demolition of affordable housing, approval for a change -in -use, and approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be attached to the main residence; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the subject application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the application finding that the application did not meet the standards of review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the applicant of the past and current condition of the property and the non -profit organization, public testimony, and discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the change -in -use, special review, and demolition of affordable housing, and recommended in favor of the amendment to the SPA approval by a five Ordinance No. , Series of 2010 Page 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. , Series of 2010 Page 2 Section 2: Rezoning of the Property to Rural Residential Upon five years after the effective date of this Ordinance, the Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be amended by the Community Development Director to reflect Lot No. 5 of the Stillwater Subdivision, commonly known as the Silver Lining Ranch, as included in the Rural Residential (RR) Zone District without the Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay. Section 3: Legally Established Nonconforming Structure Physically nonconforming aspects of the current structure compared with the RR Zone shall be considered legally - established and able to continue for the life of the structure. Subsequent redevelopment of the property shall be accomplished in conformance with the Rural Residential Zone District allowances and limitations and Chapter 26.312 — Nonconformities — of the Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. Section 4: Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: Existing Litigation This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site- specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site - specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice Ordinance No. Series of 2010 Page 3 r° advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lot No. 5, Stillwater Subdivision. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 8: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 12 day of July, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28 day of June, 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 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Ordinance No. , Series of 2010 Page 4 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 16'7o (.a wtec, , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: A C. ✓ .. _ _, t aiu , 20 QD_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, .. v-t ,p Ccr7 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the�of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 1/ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof., materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15).days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled. ed before me this 449 day of_ 206 >bY -' a Arts/ • P E RE: 1490 UTE A NUE - IC SILVER LINING RANCH CONVER ON TO RESIDENCE .5 CIALLY PLANNED AREA _. - - -' WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL AMENDMENT AN REZONING TO THE RURAL - YP �' 1, RESIDENRAL t t a sTRlcr - .... ( / @' NOTICE Is HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing u 4 fo t i n will be hela on Monday July 12,2010, at a meeting S rI My commission expires: �j12� to begin et 5.00 p.m. before me Aspen Cl Coun- I cil. Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 1305 Gal na sL LINDA M. Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the s Little Star Foundation; Andrea Jaeger Director, • MANNING • A� t� 256 Rancho Milagro Way; Hesperus, CO 81326. (970) 948 -6056. The properly is legally described 91/44' as Lot #5 Stillwater Ranch nch; 1 ision add is 9j. i otary Public known as the Silver Lining Rancid; 1°90 Ute Ave- • Q nue, Aspen, CO 81611. The owner woultl like to 1 structure from a non - profit institution \ \ \ \\" into a s ' into a singlngl e- family residence with the ability to �1y2y9,12 continue limited non - profit programs at the p ro p er - omission Expires 03/2912014 ty for up to five years. The conversion requires an amendment to the Special Planned Area a p als and rezo the propert to the Rural Resi- dent D isbicl. Forfurtherinformation,con- tact Chris Bendon at the City of Aspen Community Development Dep a r tment, 130 S. Galena SL As- P e , CC OO e i .a a q � �o n s . ° 2 9 . 2' 6 5 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: s/Michael Ireland, Mayor rHE PUBLICATION Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times We en June 2T, - 'APH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 2010. fs2D1956) ___ _ _ _ NE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: N 90 (A1 AvErl + , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: . IA 1.Y n. , 201C) STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin , 1 ) I, ^� tTC% 5 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colora , hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ✓ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. ✓ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said noticp was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 2q%'ay of c ki,46 , 201 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. / Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(EX2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) ys prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. b 7 a Y / t o i f Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fift)41161v ys prior to the public hearing on such amendments. te Ai Si ti The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this /2 day V ? $ BC/ ��1 of A L A I..., 20 by A/.- L -4CGL Haas t :' ei 0/ c WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Zi p ,� o Q � , o , My c. ,. ission e . ire : 5J i / /c3O/ ` J Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: _ O COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1490 UTE AVENUE — SILVER LINING RANCH CONVERSION TO SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE — SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday July 12, 2010, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Little Star Foundation; Andrea Jaeger, Director; 256 Rancho Milagro Way; Hesperus, CO 81326. (970) 948 -6056. The property is legally described as Lot #5 Stillwater Ranch Subdivision and is known as the Silver Lining Ranch; 1490 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611. The owner would like to convert the structure from a non -profit institution into a single - family residence with the ability to continue limited non -profit programs at the property for up to five years. The conversion requires an amendment to the Special Planned Area approvals and rezoning the property to the Rural Residential Zone District. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2765, chris.bendon @ci.aspen.co.us. s/Michael Ireland, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on June 27, 2010 City of Aspen Account PUBLIC NOTICE - DATE IMotuAt km TIME .5: Pr1. „km arms Nam PLACE BO S CA1.00 St , Aqui PURPQSEI rtc ev+natvCwncnrc 40,KkA hitu ta-tiRa(4:u.}ctc iautui rKbrxr tEauY. 'lmanvim p lava! nRrrxc&amFick Kos irazi k• . t •, • 10TH MTN DIVISION HUT ASSOC INC 1280 UTE LLC ABRAHAM EDWARD A & LISE L 1280 UTE AVE 1280 UTE AVE #16 2500 BAYSHORE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ASPEN CLUB SPA LLC BASS EDWARD P BEHRHORST DAVID G 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE RD C/O DORSEY GROUSE 1280 UTE AVE STE 32 ASPEN, CO 81611 201 MAIN ST #2700 ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT WORTH, TX 76102 CLINE LEONARD J COTE RICHARD CRICENTI- MUNVES PALMIRA 634 CARONDELET ST 1280 UTE AVE PO BOX 24 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 -3504 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CROWN RENEE TRUSTEE EDDY DAVID M FALLIN RICHARD ALDEN RC COLORADO TRST 1426 CRYSTAL LAKE RD PO BOX 6819 222 N LA SALLE ST #800 /JXC ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 -6819 CHICAGO, IL 60601 FARVER JOAN LIVING TRUST FLECK BARBARA FRETZ BRUCE R & BARBARA B 617 FRANKLIN PL #200 1449 CRYSTAL LAKE RD 1432 CRYSTAL LAKE RD #2B PELLA, IA 50219 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2254 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2250 GANZ MURIEL F GERSON PETER REV TRST 32.5% GIBSON DYLAN J WHITCOMB TERRACE GERSON PETER QPRT 17.5% INT 1280 UTE AVE 0275 CASTLE CREEK ROAD 2401 ARNO RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208 GOODMAN HERBERT 1 & MARY K GOODMAN LEONARD C GORDON JOHN CHARLES 5710 TECUMSCH CIR 222 N LASALLE ST #800 PO BOX 69 HOUSTON, TX 77057 CHICAGO, IL 60601 TWIN LAKES, CO 81251 -0069 HART H RODES & PATRICIA 1 HEAD FREDERICK F HOFFMAN ALLAN R REV TRUST 50% 3001 HILLSBORO RD 1451 UTE AVE HOFFMAN EVELINE REV TRUST 50% 150 LOUIS, M 63105-3452 5-3 APT 1004 BRENTWOOD, TN 37027 ASPEN, CO 81611 ST LOUIS, MO 63105 -3452 HUNT SUSAN M & HELEN M JONES WARREN D & KATHLEEN K LUTTRELL MARTHA 15700 S PARK BLVD 2105 LEE SHORE PL C/0 FRANCIS & FREEDMAN SHAKER HEIGHTS, OH 44120 -1670 WILMINGTON, NC 28405 501 BEVERS LY BEVERLY DR 3RD FL ERLY HILLS, CA 90212 MANAGING SPACES LLC MCCLAIN PETER K MITCHELL TODD PO BOX 4362 1461 UTE AVE 0786 MIDNIGHT MINE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 • MITCHELL TODD MORRIS CLIFTON H JR 1/2 MORRIS SHERIDAN C 1/2 PO BOX 1569 1409 INDIAN CREEK 801 CHERRY ST #3900 ASPEN, CO 81611 WESTOVER HILLS, TX 76107 FORT WORTH, TX 76102 MRKASPEN INVESTMENTS LLC MUNVES ANDREW NATHANSON FAMILY TRUST 34 W DILIDO DR PO BOX 24 101 OCEAN AVE #C -600 MIAMI, FL 33139 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 NORTH CLOVE N V NOVAK JEFFERY T & KATHERINE PIKE OTTE PATRICIA K PAAST 1463 UTE AVE 1280 UTE AVE STE 16 2121 PONCE DE LEON BLVD STE 650 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 PANTHERA LLP POGLIANO GINA POLGRAVE INVESTMENTS LTD 140 FOUNTAIN PKY STE 420 1467 UTE AVE PAAST ST PETERSBURG, FL 33716 ASPEN, CO 81611 2121 PONCE DE LEON BLVD STE 650 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 POWDER HOUSE CONDO ASSOC PUBLIC COUNSEL OF THE ROCKIES RABINOW RICHARD A & KATHRYN L E 1280 UTE AVE #16 1280 UTE AVE STE 4 3711 SAN FELIPE #12 -I ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77027 REESE JOHN W ROESER ELLEN QPRT ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 1280 UTE AVE STE 32 1900 HIGHLAND PARK CIR 11444 W OLYMPIC BLVD STE 10 ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT WORTH, TX 76107 LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 -1534 SALVADORE TERESA SEBASTIAN SEAN D S & AMY P S SHARPE NORTON & VIRGINIA TRSTEES ARMSTRONG JOHN B 321 GRANT ST 10490 WILSHIRE BLVD #1603 0129 FREE SILVER CT SEWICKLEY, PA 15143 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHELDON ROBERT & BARBARA SHUMAN RUTH L SMITH BRADLEY & DOLECKI SMITH 11 BROOKSIDE DR 1120 PARK AVE JENNIFER WESTPORT, CT 06880 NEW YORK, NY 10128 1455 UTE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 STACEY ARLENE D STILLWATER RANCH OPEN SPACE UHALT HUGH C 999 N LAKE SHORE DR ASSOC CLINE LEONARD J CHICAGO, IL 60611 PO BOX 11597 634 CARONDELET ST ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 -3504 WAYNE WILLIAM & MARSHA TRUSTEES WILSON THOMAS H WISE HUGH D III 1483 BONNYMEDE DR 250 CAMINO ALTO #110 0252 HEATHER LN SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 -1450 ASPEN, CO 81611 • WISE MARY 1280 UTE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 UNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 nd za a , - --- COMM 20)3," 130 S N GAL N 81 ST i EDDY DAVID M 1426 CRYSTAL LAKE RD ASPEN, CO 81611 X SO2 NFE 1 0090 00 08, FORWARD TIME FXF RTN TO FENS? EDDY D.4V1D .-.OS MISSION ST STE 2900 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105- -Jose RETURN TO SENDER 8 t c' ll „1 , 1r, :, li;:; 11;,,11i,!n m ,,1;1,r11,11.1 rifllf / � m P M `� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN : , ,n '' 24 nia 130 S. GALENA STREET ` ,7, ASPEN, CO 81611 I/ GERSON PETER REV TRST GERSON PETER nPRT 17.5% % NT T 5 % 2401 ARNO RD SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 6620 X 641 N S 1 1095 b0 OE FORWARD TIME EXP R7N TO SEND GERSON PO BOX 1205 OLATHE KS 58051 -1209 RETURN TO SENDER 66207 Lgre 11nli 01h111n u16,I11u)IIIIInlluu COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 130 S. GALENA N, CO 8161E MITCHELL TODD 0786 MIDNIGHT MINE ASPEN, CO 81611 RSA. t. t■L' 4C 1 1J4 4l4 • RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD ` BC: 91E11190230 *1479-13171 - 8 i 6i t#ldagi$$0 11, J,,, JWi „n,IL„lL „ II LL ,11,,,,,i, L ,1 L iL „I 4 • age 04,..4. l A I. INTRODUCTION M* q fr butted k 172 IN-- K - a -tv This amendment ( "Amendment ") is to that application submitted February 5, 2010, Permit # 0004.2010.ASLU for Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch, commonly known as the Silver Lining Ranch, 1490 Ute Avenue, Tax Parcel ID # 2737 - 184 -06 -805. The original application requests: 1) an Amendment to the Approved SPA (Specially Planned Area) for the Silver Lining Ranch in order to permit use of the existing structure as a single - family residence while maintaining the ability to conduct non - profit programs, 2) the additional use of single - family residential through a change -in -use approval, 3) approval the off -site replacement of the existing specialized internal multi- family housing units, and 4) permitted conversion of existing internal space to an "attached" Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) through Special Review. This Amendment is submitted pursuant to Section 6.470.070 of the Aspen Land Use Code (the Code) by Haas Land Planning, LLC, on behalf of the property owner, Little Star Foundation, Inc., and the contract purchaser of the property, KAT Ranch, LLC (hereinafter jointly and collectively referred to as "applicant "). For the reviewer's convenience, the following referenced supporting document is attached hereto as Exhibit 1: • City of Aspen Ordinance #6, Series of 2010. II. PROPOSAL The applicant originally proposed to mitigate the removal of three affordable housing united located within the existing structure on the property. The applicant originally proposed paying a cash -in -lieu fee to meet the multi- family replacement requirements associated with the removal of the three affordable housing units. The APCHA Housing Board reviewed and recommended approval of said proposal. The applicant proposes an amendment to the original application as follows. In the alternative to its original proposal to pay a cash -in -lieu fee for the mitigation of the employee housing units, the applicant proposes to replace the units, in -kind, through the Ordinance #6, Series of 2010 Employee Housing Credit program ( "Affordable Housing Credit Program "). Specifically, the contract buyer, KAT Ranch, LLC, has contracted with Ajax Apartments, LLC ( "Seller ") for the purchase of 6.25 FTE Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, to be derived from a project located on real property described as the Silver Lining Ranch Application Page 1 North 60 feet of Lots H and I, Block 47, City and Townsite of Aspen, commonly known as 301 West Hyman Avenue, Aspen ( "301 West Hyman"). Seller's approval of the 301 West Hyman project is pending and, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Credit Program, certificates are not issued until completion of the units. Accordingly, Seller's delivery to KAT Ranch, LLC of the 6.25 FTE Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is conditional upon Seller receiving approval of the project and constructing the units. KAT Ranch, LLC's contract provides that Seller is obligated to seek in good faith, approval of the project and, thereafter, to diligently pursue construction of the units and delivery of title to the certificates to KAT Ranch, LLC. The contract also provides for termination if title to the certificates is not delivered by June 1, 2011. Accordingly, the applicant proposes providing in -kind replacement housing, with the conveyance to the appropriate party, City or APCHA, of 6.25 FTE Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit to be derived from 301 West Hyman, so long as Seller delivers to KAT Ranch, LLC said certificates pursuant to the contract by June 1, 2011. If the Affordable Housing Certificates are the acceptable and preferred mitigation, the applicant proposes paying to the appropriate entity the $1,161,149.50 cash -in -lieu amount immediately upon approval of the land use entitlements requested in the application, and issuance of any certificates of occupancy necessary to allow immediate single - family occupancy and use of the Silver Lining Ranch. If Seller delivers title to the Affordable Housing Certificates to KAT Ranch, LLC in accordance with the contract on or before June 1, 2011, on behalf of the applicant, KAT Ranch, LLC shall convey the certificates to the appropriate entity in exchange for reimbursement of $1,161,149.50. In the event Seller does not deliver title to the certificates by June 1, 2011, the applicant proposes the appropriate entity retain the cash -in -lieu fee is a final settlement of the mitigation. III. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The applicable review standards of the Code for the amendment are found at §26.470.070.5, GMQS for Demolition of Multi- Family Housing. CMOS for Multi- Family Housing Replacement There are three (3) deed - restricted affordable housing (AH) units designed as an integral part of the Silver Lining Ranch main structure, which units can only be accessed from within the building, through other open, functioning rooms of the building. There are no separate exterior entrances to any of the units and they cannot be locked -off from the building without completely eliminating any ingress and egress to them. The applicant proposes to remove the deed restriction from these units, thereby eliminating their legal existence as separate units. Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 2 1 4r111 A. The three existing deed - restricted affordable housing units are considered to house a total of 6.25 employees (two, 2- bedroom units and one, 1-bedroom unit). The ADU that the applicant is proposing to keep within the existing structure will not satisfy any mitigation requirements of the Code. Therefore, 6.25 employees are being mitigated under the multi- family replacement requirements. Section 26.470.070.5(1)(c) of the Code, adopted March 22, 2010 in Ordinance #6, Series of 2010, states that, Requirements for combinin • demolishen ! convertin ! or redeveloping free market multi family housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) [sic] options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a free- market multi family residential project. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. (c) One - hundred percent affordable housing replacement. When one - hundred percent of the free- market multi family housing units are demolished and are solely replaced with deed- restricted affordable housing units on a site that are not required for mitigation purposes, including any net additional dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing; all of the units in the redevelopment are eligible for a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. The applicant is proposing to replace 100% of the affordable housing with a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 6.25 FTE. B. Section 26.470.070.5(3) of the Code involves allowing cash -in -lieu payment when replacing a fraction of a unit. Although the applicant must replace a fraction of a unit, the Affordable Housing Credit Program allows for replacement of fractions with Affordable Housing Credit. Accordingly, the applicant proposes replacing the fraction of a unit with a credit through the Affordable Housing Credit Program, but is also offering immediate payment of cash -in -lieu as further assurance should Seller not deliver the credit certificates. C. Section 26.470.070.5(4) of the Code states that, Multi family replacement units, both free- market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 3 1 1 When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. The applicant believes that application of this Section of the Code is significantly impacted by the adoption of the Affordable Housing Credit Program. One of the two purposes of new Section 26.540, is to create a new option for housing mitigation and this is achieved by opening up off -site mitigation options. In addition, the Program was adopted to encourage employee housing development that is not related to specific properties and specific land use proposals. Developers of affordable housing for credits need a market to be encouraged to develop and housing credit buyers need an incentive to consider buying. If a developer is forced through the same on -site analysis currently required under Code Sections 26.470.070.5(1)(a) or (b), there is no new market, no new option, and no incentive to participate in the Program. Because the very nature of the entire Affordable Housing Credit Program relates to off -site mitigation under Section 26.470.070.5(1)(c), Section 26.470.070.5(4) is not a relevant standard of review for any proposal to mitigate under Section 26.470.070.5(1)(c). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the applicant's earlier statements in the original submittal regarding compliance with this section remain applicable. D. Section 26.470.070.5(5) of the Code discusses the timing of the replacement of the units. The applicant proposes replacing the housing with the credits as soon as the project can be approved and constructed. Recognizing this may be a lengthy process, the applicant proposes providing the cash -in -lieu value of the replacement housing immediately, pending the approval and construction of the units and credits. This proposal provides the community the most immediate availability of funds and or replacement housing as possible. E. Section 26.470.070.5(6) requires a development agreement for the replacement units. As with 26.470.070.5(4), due to the creation of the Affordable Housing Credit Program, this standard is not completely relevant. That said, because the current proposal relates to the conveyance of certificates for credits rather than the actual units, there is necessarily a middle -man, the Seller. The proposal provides financial assurances that in the event the Seller fails to deliver the certificates, the applicant will have already provided the cash -in -lieu value of the units. F. Section 26.470.070.5(7) addresses the treatment of redevelopment credits and the City's Growth Management System. The proposal is in compliance with this standard. Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 4 IV. CONCLUSION By utilizing an affordable housing credit program in its infancy, this amendment ensures the application is fully compliant with the Land Use Code. The applicant is guaranteeing that the employee housing will be replaced with cash -in -lieu or with actual units approved thought the Affordable Housing Credit Program process after thorough review and consideration. Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 5 .W Public Hearing Amendment to SPA for Lot 5 Stillwater Ranch — Conversion of the property into a single - family residence. Public Hearing Notice — Sufficient and will be in the Planning File. BACKGROUND: • The Silver Lining Ranch, located at 1490 Ute Avenue • Lot #5 of the Stillwater Subdivision. • The Subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners • 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, annexed Lot 5 into the City of Aspen. The Aspen City Council approved 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. 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 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. In 2007, the Foundation applied to the City of Aspen to "de- annex" (disconnect) the property from the City. City Council denied the request after considering the non - profit/institutional use of the property an important community resource. In 2008, the Jewish Chabad of Aspen entered into a contract to purchase the property for use as a Jewish Community Center and an application was filed to amend the approvals to allow for the JCC. 1 The JCC application was controversial with neighbors concerned about traffic impacts and with owners in the Stillwater Subdivision. The JCC application eventually gained approval. The JCC encountered some legal obstacles with the Stillwater Subdivision Home Owners Association and decided not to pursue this property. 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. Physical description of property — upper and lower bench Property Zoning Academic - upper Conservation - lower SPA Overlay WHAT'S AN SPA? 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 but adds 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. Protective Covenants: Private Agreement, Enforceable by parties within agreement, Very common QUESTIONS? - BACKGROUND 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. Covenants typically 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 the covenant are handled by the private 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 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 the courts. The City could choose to 'fix' the stalemate by changing its zoning just as the holders of a private 2 r •• covenant could choose to provide a fix. But the City does not have an obligation to change zoning in light of private covenants. The City Attorney's Office can delve further into this topic at the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission. PROPOSAL: Convert the existing 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. 18,000 gross square feet, 14,000 square feet as Floor Area. 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. Removal requires review for Multi - Family Replacement. The applicant is requesting approval 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. The applicant expects to achieve all of the design standards for an ADU except the requirement to be physically detached from the main residence. The conversion also requires three Growth Management approvals. A change -in -use approval allows the use to convert from an essential public facility to a residence. Questions so far? Review Standards Amendment to application - AH Credits — Summary Mitch Haas Planner — Representing application — Allow him to introduce team 3 A lm Imire MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Silver Lining Ranch Conversion to Single - Family Residence o SPA Amendment o GMQS — Change -in -Use o GMQS — Demolition of Affordable Housing o Special Review for an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit. Resolution No. , Series 2010. MEETING DATE: May 4, 2010 FB '?�►o cam• 4 4` t APPLICANT /OWNER: SUMMARY: The Silver Lining Ranch is currently anon- pro Owner — Little Star Foundation, Andrea Jaeger. non-profit facility to help kids with cancer and similar Contract Purchaser — KAT Ranch, John Burgess. afflictions. The operation is known as the Little Star Foundation or the Kids Stuff Foundation. The REPRESENTATIVE• operation was relocated out of Aspen in 2006. The Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning applicant proposes changing the use of the building to a single - family residence, with components of the LOCATION: non - profit allowed for up to 5 years. Minor physical Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch, commonly known as the changes are proposed to the 18,000 square foot Silver Lining Ranch — 1490 Ute Avenue — Parcel building (14,000 FAR) to accommodate this new use. ID # 2737 - 184 -06 -805 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CURRENT ZONING• Staff believes the proposal does not meet the Academic and Conservation with a Specially standards of review. Staff recommends denial. Planned Area overlay — (A -C -SPA) Aerial Photo: The Silver Lining Ranch — r.' Academic zone district shown at left / i, ; Conservation zone district shown at right 1 ' 1 1 — separated by the high water line. s,. ,e 1 LAND USE REQUESTS: The City will be reviewing the following land use actions for the conversion of the Silver Lining Ranch to a single - family residence: • 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 shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. • Growth Management Review for the Replacement Housinp. The application shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied 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 shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. • Special Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit attached to the main residence. The application shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning 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. 2 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. In 2007, the Foundation applied to the City of Aspen to "de- annex" (disconnect) the property from the City. It was expected that the disconnection would permit the property to be converted to a single - family home in the County. Planning staff recommended against this request. The City Council denied the request after considering the non - profit/institutional use of the property an important community resource which would be sacrificed with a conversion to a single family residence. In 2008, the Jewish Chabad of Aspen entered into a contract to purchase the property for use as a Jewish Community Center. An application was filed to amend the approvals to allow for the JCC. The application was viewed favorably by the City, replicating (in very general terms) the use profile of the Little Star Foundation and fulfilling the desire for a non - profit or institutional use to remain at the site. The JCC application was controversial with neighbors concerned about traffic impacts and with owners in the Stillwater Subdivision. The JCC application eventually gained approval from City Council in 2009, but the Chabad encountered some legal obstacles with the Stillwater Subdivision Home Owners Association. Ultimately, the Chabad decided not to pursue purchase of the property and abandoned ideas for a JCC at this site. The property is now under a purchase contract with KAT Ranch, LLC. This new owner proposes to convert the property to a single - family residence with the Foundation's ability to continue programming on the property for the next five years. NOTE ON SPAS: 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 but adds the ability to specify the types and intensities of allowable uses. The Silver Lining Ranch SPA sets the dimensions for the building as well as very specific limitations on the number and types of activities that can occur. NOTE ON PROTECTIVE COVENANTS: Many properties in Aspen (and around the country) are encumbered by private covenants. These can range from simple agreements regarding a shared fence to very sophisticated agreements describing architectural style and review processes. Covenants typically run with the land but are only enforceable by the parties within the agreement. Private covenants are not typically 3 enforceable by local government. Disputes over the meaning, affect, or enforcement of the covenant are handled by the private 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 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 the courts. 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 obligation to change zoning in light of private covenants. The City Attorney's Office can delve further into this topic at the request of 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. Apparently, 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 is requesting approval 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. The applicant expects to achieve all of the design standards for an ADU except the requirement to be physically detached from the main residence. The conversion also requires three Growth Management approvals. A change -in -use approval allows the use to convert from an essential public facility to a residence. This review monitors 4 and accounts for the annual and overall growth allotments for the City by the various types of land use. Growth Management approvals are also needed for the affordable housing units developed to meet the replacement requirement. There are no actual replacement units proposed at this time. STAFF ANALYSIS: MULTI - FAMILY REPLACEMENT This is a P &Z review required for the removal of the three affordable housing units. The proposal is to remove these three units and provide a cash -in -lieu payment. Exhibit A contains the code section and the standards of review for this element of the proposal. There are eight standards of review and an application must be determined in compliance with all eight. Standard number one addresses free - market multi - family housing and sets forth two options for compliance. This standard does not apply as the units being affected are affordable housing units. Staff believes this standard is met. The second standard is written specifically for the demolition of affordable housing units. The effective requirement is to house the same number of employees while the method (number and types of units) may change. A referral from the Housing Authority is required to be reviewed. The text does not explicitly allow for a cash -in -lieu payment to satisfy the requirement. Staff reads this standard as to require replacement units — actual units, not cash -in -lieu. Staff does not believe the proposal meets standard number two. The third standard addresses cash -in -lieu payments but only allows those payments for a fraction of a unit and only with City Council approval. This standard does not allow for the replacement requirement to be met with cash if the requirement is for more than one unit. The proposal seeks to provide cash -in -lieu for 6.25 employees. Staff does not believe the proposal meets standard number three. The fourth standard addresses the location of the replacement unit(s). Replacement units are required to be on the same site unless the Commission finds that replacement on site conflicts with zoning or with the site's physical constraints. Apparently, the Stillwater HOA private covenants prohibit affordable housing. However, the City review standard does not cite reasons of private covenants, only the City's zoning and the physicality of the property. Staff does not believe that on -site affordable housing is categorically incompatible with City zoning or the physical make -up of the site. The language of standard number four goes on to enable the Commission to strike a balance between on -site and off -site replacement units, considering the parameters of the site and a recommendation from the Housing Board. Again, staff reads this standard as to require replacement units — actual units, not cash -in -lieu. Staff does not believe the proposal meets standard number four. Standard five addresses the timing of the replacement units. The application proposes to provide the cash -in -lieu in a timeframe that meets this timing requirement. However, the timing requirement requires the provision of actual units, not a payment. Because actual replacement units are not proposed, staff fords the proposal does not meet standard number five. 5 Standard six addresses the need for the City and the applicant to enter into an agreement regarding the replacement units. The application does not really address this requirement and staff does not know if the applicant is resistant to an agreement. Staff believes this standard can be met with a condition of approval requiring a redevelopment agreement. Staff does point out that the text around a financial assurance assumes that there will be development of actual replacement units, not cash -in -lieu. Standard seven address the treatment of redevelopment credits and the City's Growth Management System. The proposal is in compliance with this standard. The last standard, number eight, allows the Community Development Director to exempt development from the requirements of this section. The standard speaks to issues of fairness related to "acts of God" or other issues of practical necessity. Staff has not been asked to evaluate this project for an exemption, but staff does not believe the proposal qualifies for any of the exemptions, as outlined. 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, standard number five. Furthermore, we are in a period where various cultural and non - profit institutions are contemplating "leveraging their assets to sustain their mission." If this means an erosion of the 6 foundational underpinning of the Aspen Idea to accommodate short-term economic conditions then we are faced with a very foreboding precedent which is not in the long -term best interests of the community. 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: GMQS — CHANGE -IN -USE Change -in -use is a growth management review and allows for the creation of one free - market residence. The review is needed to convert the structure from an essential public facility to a single - family home. There are seven standards of review for this approval. Standard one addresses the sufficiency of growth management allotments to accommodate the change. Staff finds this criterion met. Standard two asks if the proposal is in compliance with the AACP. Staff does not believe standard number two is met. Please see above for staff comments on this issue. Standard three asks if the proposal conforms to the zoning limitations. There is a proposed amendment to the SPA approvals for this property, which if approved will demonstrate compliance with this provision. Standard four addresses compliance with Historic Preservation approvals. Standard five addresses housing mitigation for the generation of additional employees. The property is not historic and no additional employees are necessary for the conversion. Staff finds these criteria met. Standard six deals with the physical design of affordable housing units, requiring that each unit be at least 50% above grade. No affordable housing is proposed, so staff considers this standard met. The last standard, number seven, requires sufficient public infrastructure with no or minimal additional demand on the public. This project does not require additional public infrastructure and staff believes this criterion is met. STAFF ANALYSIS: GMQS — AFFORDABLE HOUSING The application addresses this section of the code that provides standards for the development of affordable housing. Staff cited this section in the event that the applicant pursued replacement housing on site or off -site. Staff does not believe this section applies to the proposal. 7 STAFF ANALYSIS: SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Accessory Dwelling Units are a use by right if they are proposed in a manner that meets the design standards for ADUs. A physical detachment from the main residence is a design standard. Variances from those design standards can be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. There are three standards of review for the Commission to consider. Standard number one asks if the proposed ADU promotes the overall purpose of the ADU program, promotes the purposes of the zone district, and promotes the livability of the ADU itself. The purpose of the ADU program, in part, is to encourage integration of working employees in neighborhoods and permit residents to provide housing for caretakers. (The full purpose statement is provided in Exhibit D.) Staff does not believe that an attached ADU necessarily contradicts this purpose. The purpose of the Academic Zone (also in Exhibit D) is to bolster education and academic activities in Aspen and to permit attendant facilities, including housing. An ADU accessory to a private residence does not necessarily promote this purpose. There are no designs for the ADU provided and staff cannot render an opinion as to the ADU's livability. Therefore, staff finds criterion number one unmet. Standard two asks if the ADU is compatible with and subordinate to the main residence. Without actually seeing the design of the ADU, staff is reasonably sure that the ADU would remain subordinate to the main residence. Staff finds this criterion met. The third standard asks if the ADU is compatible with the neighborhood. Again, without seeing the plans for the ADU this is difficult to review. But staff is confident that an ADU on this property would be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion met. STAFF ANALYSIS: SUMMARY Staff believes the proposal fails to meet the standards of review for the demolition or redevelopment of multi - family housing. The standards require replacement housing with actual units either on -site or off -site, not through a cash -in -lieu payment. Specifically, staff finds the proposal does not meet standards 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Housing Demolition Requirements. Staff finds the project meets standards 1 and 7 and finds that standard 6 can be met through a condition of approval. With respect to the SPA Amendment, staff finds the application meets all the standards of review except for standard number 5 concerning compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Regarding the change -in -use criteria, staff finds the proposal in compliance with the review standards except for review standard number 2 regarding compliance with the AACP. Staff finds the review standards for an attached ADU met except for standard number one of that section regarding the proposed unit's livability. 8 r STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission adopt the staff findings and deny the application. If the application is to be substantively altered for a future re- review, staff suggests the current application be denied and a new application be submitted. Note: The Commission should first explore all potential motions of approval, acceptable ways to condition an approval, etc. The Commission should be satisfied that options to approve the project have been exhausted prior to considering motions of denial. ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission could find the application compliant with the standards of review and approve the application. Staff will draft a resolution of approval with such findings and present it during the hearing for the Commission's consideration. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFF1EMLTIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No., Series of 2010, allowing the conversion of the Silver Lining Ranch into a single - family residence." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Referral Comments from the Housing Board Exhibit B – Review standards from Land Use Code • Demolition of Multi - Family Housing • SPA Amendment • Change -in -Use • Special *view for ADUs Exhibit C – Excerpts from the Aspen Area Community Plan Exhibit D – Purpose Statements of the ADU Program and the Academic Zone Exhibit E – Application — , / �M L N � l tilD1 puttI- 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development FROM: Cindy Christensen DATE: February 20, 2010 RE: Replacement Mitigation Requirement for Silver Lining Ranch ISSUE: The applicant is requesting a referral from the Housing Board to replace the existing three deed - restricted units at the Silver Lining Ranch with a payment -in -lieu fee. BACKGROUND: The Housing Board discussed this at their meeting held on February 3, 2010. The discussion focused on a payment -in -lieu fee versus replacement units. At this meeting, information was provided to the Board that the current owner's reasoning to provide the units were that they were for Foundation employees only. What is being proposed would be to change the use to a single - family home, thereby the need for the units goes away. When the Housing Office was preparing the deed restriction, after reviewing the approval documents, there was no clear direction for the Housing Office to follow when preparing this documentation. The deed restriction that was utilized, signed and recorded was the boiler plate deed restriction for all fully deed - restricted rental units. Whether it was the intent of City Council to have the units utilized by employees other than those of the Foundation was not known at the time the document was prepared. The Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 97 -04 approved the project. This resolution does not specifically have any conditions or requirements for the deed restricted units. The only mention is on page 9, #5, in the resolution: One (1) year after the commencement of operation, an employment audit shall be conducted by the Housing Department. The permanent staff units shall be deed restricted with priority for use of these units to personnel of the Foundation, and categorized as to those employees residing in the units (Category 1, 2 or 3; but Category 4 for the two- bedroom, lower -level unit). An employee audit was provided to the Housing Office on June 9, 2000. The City Council Ordinance No. 11 Series of 1997 approved the development and referred to the conditions stated in P &Z Resolution No. 97 -04. The only mention to employee housing was as follows: WHEREAS, the City Council finds that proposed housing units will be deed - restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines, are compatible with surrounding uses and will have a minimal impact on the land. 1 The Community Development Department memo, dated April 14 1997, stated the following regarding employee housing, otherwise they were also not specific: Apartments are proposed to be provided within the building; these apartments would be able to house permanent staff of the Foundation, as well as the medical personnel that accompany the children when they come to Aspen. Spaces for twelve (12) such permanent and temporary staff would be provided within the building. The applicant will be requesting approval from the City Council to convert the current use on the property to a single - family home residence. This requires an amendment to the approved Specially Planned Area (SPA). The property was rezoned in 1997 to an essential public facility which allowed for the running of the Silver Lining Ranch. Because of the change in use, the buyer of the property believes the need for the three units goes away since the property will be a single - family residence. The property is within the Stillwater Homeowner's Association Protective Covenants which allow for one single - family residence and a caretaker dwelling unit. All of the other Stillwater HOA' s homes are located within the County, with the exception of this property which was annexed into the City in 1996; therefore, the caretaker dwelling unit would be deed restricted as a voluntary accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The Land Use Code allows for mitigation to be provided as follows: 1. On -site mitigation. 2. Off -site mitigation. 3. Buy -downs of free - market units. 4. Payment -in -lieu fee. The on -site mitigation is in violation of the Stillwater Homeowner's Association Protective Covenants. Off -site mitigation would require the buyer to purchase more land to building enough units to mitigation for 6.25 FTE's. The buy -down option is no longer a viable option unless the buyer is able to purchase a complete building to change how the HOA dues are assessed. The Housing Office will no longer accept single buy -downs in a multi free - market complex. Therefore, the buyer is requesting that the Housing Board recommend approval of a payment -in -lieu fee. If the applicant received approval for a single - family residence by providing a payment -in -lieu fee currently provided under the code, the amount due would be calculated as follows: 1 2- bedroom Category 4 2.25 X $134,079 = $ 301,677.75 1 1- bedroom Category 3 1.75 X $214,784 = 375,872.00 1 2- bedroom Category 3 2.25 X $214,784 = 483,264.00 TOTAL $1,160,813.75 This amount is based on the 2010 payment -in -lieu fees. 2 In March of 2008, the Housing Board approved a request to increase the payment -in -lieu by 80% to reflect the actual costs of constructing units (including land costs). The City Council did not approve this request as they wanted a more thorough study conducted as to what type of methodology should be used. IF they had approved this request, the payment -in -lieu fee would be increased to $1,702,852.50, an additional $542,038.75. If a $500 per square foot cost was utilized to build the minimum square footage, Category 3 and 4 one - bedroom units (700 square feet is the minimum), the cost would be $1,400,000. If $400 per square foot were used, the cost would be $1,120,000. The current cost per square foot is not known at this time since there has not been any new construction within the last two years. The mitigation amount of $1,160,813.75 divided by 4 one - bedroom units that would satisfy the 6.25 mitigation requirement is $290,203.44 per unit. A one - bedroom unit mitigates at 1.75 employees, therefore, 4 X 1.75 = 7. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Housing Board approved the applicants request to mitigate for the 6.25 FTE's at the current rate of $1,160,813.75. However, if the payment -in -lieu fee changes prior to recorded approval by City Council, that updated amount shall be used. 3 a) The proposed u comply with the G •defines of the Aspen/Pitk• County Housing Autho A recommendation om the Aspen/Pitkin Co Housing Authority sh•, be required for this st. •ard. The Aspen/Pitkin . my Housing Authority • %y choose to hold a pub • hearing with the Board o 0 irectors. b) Affor. .le housing required for itigation purposes shall . in the form of actual new built units or buy -dow units. Off -site units sh. .e provided with• • the C limits. Units outside e City limits may be a - pted as mitigatio• .y the ity Council, pursuant t. 'aragraph 26.470.090.2 f the mitigation - •uirement is less than one (1) unit, a cash -in -lieu ment may be ac• pted by the Planning and Zonin ommission upon a re , mendation from e Aspen/Pitkin County Housing • .thority. If the mitigaf• requirement is o• (1) or more units, a cash -in -lieu p•; ment shall require Ci • Council approval iursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3 • equired affordable ousing may be pr• ided through a mix of these meth. •s. c) Each u. provided shall be , esigned such that e finished floor level of perce• (50 %) or more o' he units net liva• - area is at or above na . or fini• ed grade, whichev is higher. d) e proposed unit • all be deed - restri d as "for sale" units and ansferred to qualified purch• • rs according to the Aspen/Pitkin County H• • sing Authority Guidelines. owner may be e led to select the first p asers, subject to the aforem- coned qualificatio with approval from t • Aspen/Pitkin County Housing , thority. The deed -striction shall authorize e Aspen/Pitkin County Housi Authority or the . y to oWn the unit and • t it to qualified renters • deft : in the Affordab Housing Guidelines •blished by the Aspen/P in C. ty Housing Auth. ty, as amended. The proposed uni may be rental units, 1. uding but not limited to ntal units owned by an e..Ioyer or nonprofit or ization, if a legal instru • nt in a form acceptable to e City Attorney ensu -. permanent affordability • the units. The City enco.:ges affordable housi _ units required for lodge development to be rental u • s associated with the : ge operation and contri • ing to the long -term viabiF of the lodge. U . owned by the Asp •itkin County Housin_ uthority, the City of pen, P in County or other . milar governmental or • •asi- municipal agenc shall not be subject to this ma .atory "for sale" provisi. . 9( 5. Demolition or redevelopment of multi - family housing. The City of Aspen's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second -home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market -rate housing, resident City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 135 t 1 housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long- standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the city limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and the Aspen's tourist -based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing multi - family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to insure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi - family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of Demolition.): 1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free - market multi - family housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a free - market multi - family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. a) One - hundred - percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free - market multi- family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100 %) of the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed - restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 26.470.070.4., Affordable housing. When this one - hundred percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free -market residential development with no City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 136 additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free - market residential units on the parcel. Free - market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Subsection 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free - market residential units within a multi - family or mixed -use development. b) Fifty- percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free - market multi- family housing and replacement of Tess than one hundred percent (100 %) of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50 %) of the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed - restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing. When this fifty- percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free - market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to subsection 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free - market residential units within a multi- family or mixed -use project, and there is no increase in the number of free - market residential units on the parcel. Free - market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Subsection 26.470.080.2, New free - market residential units within a multi - family or mixed -use project. 2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi - family housing units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed - restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission may require the affordable housing deed restriction on the affected units be brought into compliance with the current Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 22 -2008, § 1) 3. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this Section involves a fraction of a unit, cash -in -lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.090.3, Provision of required affordable housing via a cash -in -lieu payment. 4. Location requirement. Multi- family replacement units, both free - market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 137 unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. 5. Timing requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed - restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a certificate of occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free - market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on site or off site. 6. Redevelopment agreement. The applicant and the City of Aspen shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for noncompliance. The City of Aspen may require a bond or other financial instrument insuring compliance with the agreement. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The agreement shall be recorded before an application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. (Ord. No. 22 -2008, § 1) 7. Growth management allotments. The existing number of free - market residential units, prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided that the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Subparagraph 4, Location requirement. (Ord. No. 14 -2007, §1) 8. Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt from the procedures and requirements of this Section the following types of development involving Multi- Family Housing Units. An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not exempt a development from compliance with any other provisions of this Title (Ord. No. 22 -2008, §1): a) The replacement of Multi- Family Housing Units after non- willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may require documentation be provided by the landowner to confirm the damage to the building was in -fact non - willful. (Ord. No. 22 -2008, §1) City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 138 To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet current building codes; improve accessibility; to conform to zoning, design standards, or other regulatory requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 — Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. (Ord. No. 22 -2008, §1) b) The demolition of Multi- Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including, but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life, health, safety, or general welfare of the public. (Ord. No. 22 -2008, §1) c) The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi- Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non - working residents. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management, and building codes. (Ord. No. 22 -2008, §1) d) The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi - Family Housing Units which were illegally created (also known as "Bandit Units "). Any improvements associated with Bandit Units shall be required to conform to current requirements of this Title including zoning, growth management, and building codes. Replaced or redeveloped Bandit Units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority. (Ord. No. 22 -2008, §1) e) Any development action involving demising walls or floors /ceilings necessary for the normal upkeep, maintenance, or remodeling of adjacent Multi - Family Housing Units. (Ord. No. 22 -2008, §1) Sec. 26. .080.Major Planning and Zon' Commission applications. Th owing types of development sh e approved, approved with con ' ns or denied by - Planning and Zoning Commiss' , pursuant to Section 26.470.060 cedures for review, above and the criteria for ea pe of development described b . Except as noted, all growth management appl ions shall comply with the ge ral requirements of Sectio City of Aspen Land U ode Part 4 age 139 l ..p r., 2 3 ' 01097 b. Notice • uirements: Publ - .tion, posting ..d mailing. (See 26.304.0- 4(E)(3)(a),(b), and (c :. c. S . s ards of review: ction 26.440.030(A) or SPA designaf- , Section ..440.050 for review ".'development within S' • . d. P &Z action: Re ution recommending t• e City Council a•.roval, approval with conditions, or sapproval of the SPA. 4. Step Four - ' Eblic Hearing before th= ity Council. a. P -.ose: To review reco ' -ndations by Pl. mg and Zoning Commission and to termine if application • .r final develop t plan meets the standards for an S'A. b. Notice requiremes : Requisite noti - requirements for adoption of an ors ance by City Council . • publication, posting and mailing. (See 26.304.061.' )(3)(a),(b), and (c).) c. Standar. of review: See"' on 26.440.030(A) for SPA 4 ignation, Section 26.4• ' .150 for review of ,evelopment within SPA. d. ity Council: Ord ce approving, approving with , ditions, or disapproving th- SPA. D. Limitations.: • evelopment application for a f. • n development plan shall • - submitted within two (2) y- • s of the date of approval of . onceptual development • . Unless an extension is gr ed by the City Council prior t. -xpiration, failure to file ' . ch an application within this e period shall render null an' •oid the approval of a cr ceptual development plan. A p oval of a conceptual develo ; " ent plan shall not co' - tute final approval fo devel . , ent in a Specially Planned • -. (SPA), or permission proceed with develop Su approval shall only constitute . orization to proceed - a development applicati n for a nal development plan. (Ord. No. 7 -2002 §§ 12 -15, 2002) 40 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 2 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 e the specific aspects of the development will be accomplished. B. Variations , fitted. The final development pla • hall comply with the requirements of the underlyi • - one district; provided, however, th. , •ariations from those requireme ay be allowed •ed on the standards of this Section. - : nations may be allowed for the owing require Vs: open space, minimum distance , ween buildings, maximum hei1 • ', minimum front I d, minimum rear yard, minimum -,4'e yard, minimum lot width, m' • um lot area, tra 'access area, internal floor area ra '4, number of off - street parking s.. es and uses, and ' %sign standards of Chapter 26.4104or streets and related improv- ents. Any variations allowed shall be specified in the • agreement and shown on the fi • •o development plan. 26.440.060 Applicatio • / A. Conceptual ' ' elopment plan. 1. Cont- -/ of application. The contents o , e development application for a con a l de ' opment plan shall include the fo ,'wing: a. The general application i,;rmation required in Common D ev pment Review Procedures set forth at •pter 26.304.030. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 400, Page 91 \.,A Oa a 1 US _ 1 thereof. Sixty (60) . • ent of the employee generatis - 'above eight (8) employees shall be • 'gated through the provision o < -.ii ordable housing or cash -in -lieu there For exa < a project generating 15 e.. . oyees shall require employee mitig. ; .n for a total of 5.4 employees follows: rst 4 employees = 0 employe: itigation Second 4 employees miti • • I at 30% = 1.2 employees Remaining 7 employe - itigated at 60% = 4.2 employee Affordable housing sh. be approved pursuant to S-• on 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing d be restricted to Category 4 rat- . defined in the Aspen Pitkin County • +sing Authority Guidelines, as • ended. An applicant may choose to pre t e mitigation units at a lower C. • ory designation. b) Up to . ' free- market residence may b- created pursuant to 26.470 • -..4 — Mi • enlargement of a Historic Lane ark for commercial, lodge, • . fixed -use d. •elopment. This shall be cum • we and shall include admi I. ative GMQS approvals granted prior to • .doption of Ordinance No. - Series of 2007. Additional free - market u ' (beyond one) shall be revi - d pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2 — New ' =e- Market Residential Units • 'thin a Multi - Family o/ Mixed -Use Project. 0 i 2. i Ae an i, of an existing property, struu, ort of an ex isting st n , be use. ch the ge Develop n use Categories identified in ct Section rer po 26 , (irrespective of direction) for which a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for at least lZ two (2) years and which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the General Requirements outlined in Section 26.470 050. No more than one (1) free - market residential ef unit may be created through the change -in -use. 3. Expansio • • Free- Market Residential Units within a Multi -F• z y or Mixed -Use Project. 0 et Livable Area expansio existing free -marke idential units within a mixes a e project, or the Net Livab ea expansion afte .semolition of existing free - s et residential units within ulti - family project r. 1 be approved, approved wi conditions, or denied by Planning and Zoni 1 _ Commission based on the G ial Requirements outlined ' Section 26.470.050 he remodeling or expansion xisting multi - family reside al dwellings shall b- empt from growth manageme s long as no Demolition oc s, pursuant to Sectio • 6.470.040.3. 4. ffordable Housin: e development of affordabl ousing deed restricted in ac dance with the As. • i ' itkin County Housing Autho ' uidelines shall be approv d, proved with condi ' . s, or denied by the Planning oning Commission based the following criteria: City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 400, Page 134 r 4 26.470.050 Gen •.' Requirements. A. P lose: The i. t of growth manageme .'' - to provide for orderly develo nt and redevelopment o i e City while provid' a c mitigation from the imp said development and -development creates. R' %'erent types of development ar egorized below as well e necessary review pr. ' s and review standards for t roposed development. A posal may fall into m :le categories and therefore multiple processes and dards to adhere to and eet. 140 B. General Requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D. Applications for Multi - Year Development Allotment, pursuant to 26.470.090.1, shall not be required to meet this standard. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval, and the Conceptual Planed Unit Development approval, as applicable. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according Section 26.470.100.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. 6. Affordable housing Net Livable Area, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty (30) percent of the additional free - market residential Net Livable Area, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ( "voluntary units ") may be deed restricted at any level of affordability, including Residential Occupied. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 400, Page 128 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police p rotection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. 26.470.060 Adminis ive Applications: The followin: ' .es of development shall be a.. oved, approved with conditions, or denied by t• Community Development Direct. , pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Growth Manage, -nt Review Procedures, and the c ' -ria for each type of development described belo . Except as noted, all growth •,.. agement applications shall comply with e - eral Requirements of Section 26.• 1.050. Except as noted, all administrative gr• • management approvals shall be de. ted from the respective Development Ceili • evels but shall not be deducted fro 1 the Annual Development Allotments. Al nistrative approvals apply cumulativel 1. Single - Family an • • uplex Development on Historic Land • . k Properties. The development of • e or multiple single - family residences or • plex on a parcel of land designated a < Historic Landmark and which contain .1 historic resource shall be approved the Community Development Direc • This review applies to the rehabif ion of existing structures, reconstr • on after demolition of existing stru • es, and the development of new struc on Historic Landmark properties. No • '.rdable housing mitigation shall be re.. red provided all necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Section 26.415, 1 - , elopment Involving the Inventory of Hi .. lc Sites and Structures, and provided - .arcel contains a historic resource. Development of single -famil or duplex structures on a Historic Lana ark property that does not contain an .'. oric resource (for example, a new ho on a vacant lot which was subdivide rom a historic landmark property) s be subject to the provisions of Sectio •. 6.470.060.2 — Single - Family and Dupl l welling units. 2. Single -Fa y and Duplex Dwelling Units. The fol 'ng types of development of single- ily or duplex structures shall re.. re the .. ision of affordable housing in one o . e methods described in subparar.:.h c: a. he development of a new single -f. • y, multiple detached residenti• .• its when permitted in the zone district, or . duplex dwelling, on a vacant Is n one of the following conditions: • A vacant lot created b . ot Split, pursuant to Section 2. : 0.060(C). • A vacant lot create .y a Historic Lot Split, pursuant • ection 26.480.030.A.4, when the subje - ot does not itself contain a histo ' resource. • A vacant 1.. hat was subdivided or was a ._ally described parcel prior to Novem.-.' 14, 1977, that complies - th the provisions of Sen 26.48' .120(E), Aspen Townsite Lots. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 400, Page 129 �.. CIw f • 1. The propose ccessory Dwelling Unit or C. iage House meets the requirements • ' Sec- tion 26.5 . 0, Design Standards. 2. T pplicable deed restriction f. • e Accessory Dwelling Unit or C. • . ge House has en accepted by the Aspen/Pi County Housing Authority and th- ed restriction is re- corded prior to an applica ' • or a building permit. C. Appeal of Director's ' ermination. An appeal of a • • ination made by the Community P . •elopment Director, shall be revie as a Special ' .ew pursuant to subsection D, belo . this case, the Community Dev ent Directo ' nding shall be forwarded as a rec• . endation and a new applicatio ed not be file. D. An application An applicattioon requesting a variance from the ADU and Carriage House design standards, or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and the ap- plication has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preser- vation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and Carriage House program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability. 2. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscap- ing, privacy, and historical significance of the property. 3. The proposed ADU or Carriage House is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on- street parking, availability vi of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. E. Inspe • n and Acceptance. P • to issuance of a Certificate of Oc ancy for an ADU or Carriage Ho e Aspen/Pitkin ounty Housing Authority, or ief Building Official, shall ins e ADU or Carria House for compliance with esign Standards. Any un -appro ariations from thes ri- City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 46 1!l /i7,46;tr es- El Arts, Culture and Education 00 0 Intent culture, and education as a part of our daily lives where citizens of all ages can think, learn, care, and achieve. •Recognize the contribution of the arts, Nurture intellectual and spiritual growth • culture and education to the quality of life that enriches our lives while challenging in Aspen. Support the arts and the cultural our imaginations. community in its efforts to increase Preserve and build upon our heritage. • awareness of its significance to the future Celebrate social and ethnic diversity • and quality of life in Aspen. through arts, culture, and education. 4.* Philosophy • Increase community support for all facets of quality education. Make educational, cultural, and artistic Walter Paepcke helped found Aspen as a experiences more accessible for all valley unique community where the life -long residents. improvement of mind, body, and spirit became • Develop and cultivate local artists. more than a dream. His vision created an • Foster artistic, cultural, and educational enlightened community in which arts, culture, experiences where artists and audiences and education provide essential cornerstones of interact. our lifestyle, character, and economy. Today, • Recognize the extent to which arts, culture, these cornerstones are increasingly vital to the and education strengthen and stabilize our uniqueness of our community and to our year -round economy. economic and spiritual well being. Therefore, arts, culture, and education are acknowledged as essential to Aspen's thriving year -round Policies economy, its vibrant international profile, and its future as a unique place to live, work, and • Support the continued vibrancy of the arts learn. in our community. The City of Aspen will continue to be an • Support activities and education for youth. 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, 45 Economic Sustainability Intent Local ownership of business helps maintain our community's unusual character, tends to •Maintain a healthy, vibrant and return more money to the local economy, and diversified year -round economy that provides additional opportunities for upward supports the Aspen area community; to mobility of working people. maintain and enhance existing business and cultural entities; and, to support and Externally -owned businesses can positively promote the "Aspen Idea" of "mind, body affect the community too. For example, some and spirit." are locally serving businesses, which should be •Enhance the wealth-generating2 supported because they make commerce more capacity of the local economy while convenient and strengthen the Local economy minimizing the rate at which cash flows by causing transactions to take place in the through the local economy ( "throughput ") community that otherwise would take place and limiting the expansion of the physical elsewhere (import replacement). Another S size of the community. example: some extemally -owned businesses are locally - involved. They contribute Philosophy volunteers, cash, and in -kind support to • community and nonprofit activities. The Aspen community includes full- and part-time citizens. We share our community The community and its governments should with a large number of guests. Our economic support local ownership as well as externally - • and business decisions should support and owned businesses that are locally- serving and sustain the environment and future generations. locally - involved. They should ensure balance and integration between "Aspen the Resort" and "Aspen the A vibrant economy requires positive Community." working relationships between people and institutions, especially between the private and Aspen's economic base is real estate, Public sectors. Therefore, we must foster tourism, arts, and recreation, especially skiing. mutual respect, civility, and friendship, and Retail, lodges, services, professionals, and continually improve our capacity to work nonprofit organizations also support and are together for the common good. supported by the resort economy. Essential to long -term viability is the unique, varied, high A sustainable community's economy can quality, and welcoming experience Aspen get better without getting bigger. The offers to both residents and a diverse visitor economy and local businesses strengthen their population. They demand a lively, small -scale positions, not by continually increasing downtown with diverse and unique shops and throughput but by maximizing benefit and varied choices of accommodations, including profit with existing throughput. • small lodges. Generating wealth involves increasing profits, wages, and savings. 31 ii e 26.520 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND CARRIAGE HOUSES 26.520.010 Purpose 26.520.020 Definition 26.520.030 Authority 26.520.040 Applicability 26.520.050 Design Standards 26.520.060 Calculations and Measurements 26.520.070 Deed Restrictions, Recordation, Enforcement 26.520.080 Procedure 26.520.090 Amendments * , 26. 520.010 Purpose The purpose of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Carriage House Program is to promote the long- standing community goal of socially, economically, and environmentally responsible devel- opment patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working residents and part-time residents. ADUs and Carriage Houses represent viable housing opportunities for working residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing being easily identifiable as "employee housing." ADUs and Carriage Houses also help to address the affects of existing homes, which have provided workforce housing, being significantly redeveloped, often as second homes. ADUs and Carriage Houses support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base within the town and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's character. ADUs and Carriage Houses allow second homeowners the opportunity to hire an on -site caretaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally preferred land use pat- tern, which reduces automobile reliance. Detached ADUs and Carriage Houses emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the privacy and livability of both the ADU or Carriage Houses and the primary unit. Detached ADUs and Carriage Houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a com- munity goal of housing the workforce. To the extent Aspen desires detached ADUs and Carriage Houses which provide viable and livable housing opportunities to local working residents, detached ADUs and Carriage Houses qualify ex- isting vacant lots of record and significant redevelopment of existing homes for an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System. In addition, detached ADUs and Carriage Houses deed restricted as "For Sale" units, according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, and sold according to the procedures established in the Guidelines provide for certain Floor Area incentives. S r City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 41 r --� .. 26.710.230 Academic (A). 4414 A. Purpose. The purpose of the Academic (A) zone district is to establish lands for education and cultural activities with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities. All development in the Academic zone district is to proceed according to a conceptual development plan and final develop- ment plan approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.440, Specially Planned Areas. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Academic (A) zone district: 1. Private school or university, teaching hospital, research facility or testing laboratory, provided that such facilities are enclosed and there are no adverse noise or environmental effects; 2. Auditorium and other facilities for performances and lectures; 3. Gallery; 4. Museum; 5. Library; and 6. Administrative offices. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Academic (A) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425. 1. Boardinghouse and dormitory for housing students and faculty of schools and other academic institutions; 2. Student health care facility; 3. Student and faculty dining hall; and D. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Academic (A) zone district shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual devel- opment plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.440, specially planned area. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 67 Page l of l .,r Chris Bendon -- From: Mitch Haas [mhaas @sopris.net] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:07 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Silver Lining Ranch P &Z Importance: High Dear Chris: As we discussed this morning, I will bring the executed affidavit of notice to your office later today so that you can open and continue the public hearing before P&Z to their May 18 meeting. The applicant would like the time to make some progress on, and possibly resolve, a couple of issues prior to the actual hearing and these two weeks should provide an adequate opportunity for such. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Mitch Mitch Naas Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill (tent, Suite 109 Aspen, CO 91011 Phones (970) 925 -7819 Fam (970) 926 -7395 !mails mhaaspseprihnet Confidentiality note'. The above email and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and /or privileged. The information is for the use of the individual or entity originally intended. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information is prohibited. If this transmission is received in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments, if any rn In n 1 A AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PRO ERTY: Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 204 (� �i l" ai t 4,.80 ' STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, AnCkc, �� 5C 0 4 (name, please print) being or representing a Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: L Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing t, and was continuously visible from the day of 200, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section r to 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days p the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. L (continued on next page) Q 0 Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested; to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially'Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. y zi .....„,_ Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 20 day of AI", L , 20 00, by i eiR ,r.cc i . 1 71------- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL BUG NOTICE My commis AVENUE SILVER UNING RANCH Y sion expires: al (RN 1 ' � CHANGE IN USE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday May 4. 201Q at a meeting 1 14. f�W I ', 4 to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Planning and Zon- tom/ . s - -� �w S9GalenaiSt Aspenr� ons aeraan City Notary Public • submitted by the Little S tar Foundation; Andrea Jaeger, Director; 256 Rancho Milagro Way; Hes- perus, CO 81326. (970) 94 8 - 6056. The property s legally described as Lot a5 Stillwater Ranch Subdivision and is known as the Silver Lining Ranch; 1490 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611. The owner would like to convert the structure from a non -profit institution into a single -family residence with the ability to continue limited non - profit pro - t he conversion n req uires an amment h man- to agement review for a change-in-use, review for ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: demolition replacement m f and and growth management woadabe housing, OF THE PUBLICATION and special rd and affordable re- 9 view for an accessory dwelling unit. For further in- 6 6Co en, contact Chris Bendon at the City of As- 'OGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIG4V) P Communi Developme De partment, 130 S. den ®ci a Galena 51 Aspen Co (97 4 29.2765 ' `b'i en. 9F THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED n. o. s. ,a I tl i _ Aspen Pla antl 2 Commleslon AIL Published the Aspen des on April 18, 2010. ICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE ?QUIREDBYC.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 • , swot AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 19% II 4j . , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: f? *y LI , 201 0 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I t 1 %TM (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, w ic was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in heigt. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the W4ay of 4VR.it. , 201 O , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(EX2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. NA. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended inc idental ffi dental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the imposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifl -,Jo s prior to the public hearing on such amendments. � 1,. ,, Si r. , The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this , :' day / . 1 t V p,, of M 2013by /bl t /� 5 �C •,<�1it �� — WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ENE i Myc�u issione sires• ..5 / WOO )., 0 Notary • blic P Cot. r ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1490 UTE AVENUE — SILVER LINING RANCH CHANGE IN USE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday May 4, 2010, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Little Star Foundation; Andrea Jaeger, Director; 256 Rancho Milagro Way; Hesperus, CO 81326. (970) 948- 6056. The property is legally described as Lot #5 Stillwater Ranch Subdivision and is known as the Silver Lining Ranch; 1490 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611. The owner would like to convert the structure from a non -profit institution into a single - family residence with the ability to continue limited non -profit programs. The conversion requires an amendment to the Special Planned Area approvals, growth management review for a change -in -use, review for demolition and replacement of affordable housing, and special review and growth management review for an accessory dwelling unit. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2765, chris.bendongcLaspen.co.us. s /Stan Gibbs, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 18, 2010 City of Aspen Account S 4 t 4 t � 3� f 4-i4-lo • • MITCHELL TODD MORRIS CLIFTON H JR 1/2 MORRIS SHERIDAN C 1/2 PO BOX 1569 1409 INDIAN CREEK 801 CHERRY ST #3900 ASPEN, CO 81611 WESTOVER HILLS, TX 76107 FORT WORTH, TX 76102 MRKASPEN INVESTMENTS LLC MUNVES ANDREW NATHANSON FAMILY TRUST 34 W DILIDO DR PO BOX 24 101 OCEAN AVE #C -600 MIAMI, FL 33139 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 NORTH CLOVE N V NOVAK JEFFERY T & KATHERINE PIKE OTTE PATRICIA K 0/0 FILLOY JOSEPH M CPA 1463 UTE AVE 89 DANIEL DR ONE SE THIRD AVE STE 1445 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI, FL 33131 POLGRAVE INVESTMENTS LTD PANTHERA LLP POGLIANO GINA C/O JOSEPH M FILLOY CPA 140 FOUNTAIN PKY STE 420 1467 UTE AVE ONE SE THIRD AVE STE 1445 ST PETERSBURG, FL 33716 ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI, FL 33131 POWDER HOUSE CONDO ASSOC PUBLIC COUNSEL OF THE ROCKIES RABI SAN RICHARD #12-I KATHRYN L E 1280 UTE AVE #16 1280 UTE AVE STE 4 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77027 REESE JOHN W ROESER ELLEN QPRT ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 1280 UTE AVE STE 32 1900 HIGHLAND PARK CIR 11444 W OLYMPIC BLVD STE 10 ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT WORTH, TX 76107 LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 -1534 SALVADORE TERESA SEBASTIAN SEAN D S & AMY P S SHARPE NORTON & VIRGINIA TRSTEES ARMSTRONG JOHN B 321 GRANT ST 10490 WILSHIRE BLVD #1603 0129 FREE SILVER CT SEWICKLEY, PA 15143 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 ASPEN, CO 81611 SMITH BRADLEY & DOLECKI SMITH SHELDON ROBERT & BARBARA SHUMAN RUTH L JENNIFER 11 BROOKSIDE DR 1120 PARK AVE 1455 UTE AVE WESTPORT, CT 06880 NEW YORK, NY 10128 ASPEN, CO 81611 STACEY ARLENE D STILLWATER RANCH OPEN SPACE UHALT HUGH C ASSOC CLINE LEONARD J 999 N LAKE SHORE DR PO BOX 11597 634 CARONDELET ST CHICAGO, IL 60611 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 -3504 WAYNE WILLIAM & MARSHA TRUSTEES WILSON THOMAS H WISE HUGH D III 1483 BONNYMEDE DR 250 CAMINO ALTO #110 0252 HEATHER LN SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 -1450 ASPEN, CO 81611 HINDI .,d a 1 0TH MTN DIVISION HUT ASSOC INC 1280 UTE LLC a 1280 UTE AVE 1280 UTE AVE #16 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BASS EDWARD P BEHRHORST DAVID G ASPEN CLUB SPA LLC C/0 DORSEY GROUSE 1280 UTE AVE STE 32 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE RD 201 MAIN ST #2700 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT WORTH, TX 76102 CLINE LEONARD J COTE RICHARD CRICENTI- MUNVES PALMIRA 634 CARONDELET ST 1280 UTE AVE PO BOX 24 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 -3504 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CROWN RENEE TRUSTEE EDDY DAVID M FALLIN RICHARD ALDEN RC COLORADO TRST 1426 CRYSTAL LAKE RD PO BOX 6819 222 N LA SALLE ST #800 /JXC ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 -6819 CHICAGO, IL 60601 FARVER JOAN LIVING TRUST FLECK BARBARA FRETZ BRUCE R & BARBARA B PO BOX 66 1449 CRYSTAL LAKE RD 1432 CRYSTAL LAKE RD #2B PELLA, IA 50219 -1777 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2254 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2250 GANZ MURIEL F GERSON PETER REV TRST 32.5% GIBBON DYLAN J 1465 UTE AVE GERSON PETER QPRT 17.5% INT 1280 UTE AVE 2401 ARNO RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208 GOODMAN HERBERT I & MARY K GOODMAN LEONARD C GORDON JOHN CHARLES 5710 TECUMSCH CIR 222 N LASALLE ST #800 PO BOX 69 HOUSTON, TX 77057 CHICAGO, IL 60601 TWIN LAKES, CO 81251 -0069 HOFFMAN ALLAN R REV TRUST 50% HART H RODES & PATRICIA I HEAD FREDERICK F HOFFMAN EVELINE REV TRUST 50% 3001 HILLSBORO RD 1451 UTE AVE 150 CARONDELET PLZ APT 1004 BRENTWOOD, TN 37027 ASPEN, CO 81611 ST LOUIS, MO 63105 -3452 LUTTRELL MARTHA HUNT SUSAN M & HELEN M JONES 105 LEE SHORE P & KATHLEEN K C/O FRANCIS & FREEDMAN 15700 S PARK BLVD 501 S BEVERLY DR 3RD FL SHAKER HEIGHTS, OH 44120 -1670 WILMINGTON, NC 28405 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 MANAGING SPACES LLC MCCLAIN PETER K MITCHELL TODD PO BOX 4362 1461 UTE AVE 0786 MIDNIGHT MINE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 • ABRAHAM EDWARD A & LISE L WISE MARY 2500 BAYSHORE DR 1280 UTE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ASPEN, CO 81611 14 THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: February 12, 2010 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0004.2010.ASLU —SPA Amendment. The planner assigned to this case is Chris Bendon. X Your Land Use Application is incomplete: W found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: 1) A letter from an authorized representative of the Little Star Foundation permitting Haas Land Planning to represent the Little Star Foundation. Mr. Nealy is not the applicant. Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. ❑ Your Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. . Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429 -2759 if you have any questions. T . f You, , , / 4 s Jennifer Phe all ID eputy Director City of Aspen, Community Development Department For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required SPA PUD _____ COWOP Yes No__X_ Subdivision (creating more than 1 additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential X Affordable Housing X Yes >C No Commercial E.P.F. ,c III vi ' S aVer # r iris) 'F re I/ 4 - Ui (1490 Ute,Avenaei) AN APPLICATION FOR: SPA Amenctrnatt, GMQS Re>vC ew for w Chaagei i w We', Derr t'u)-w of Mu1W- fasnC1y ands Afforclableffetbst.ncm a nd. Special/Review a QMQS Exempt a wAVU SUBMITTED BY HAAS LAND PLANNIN , LLC 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925 -7819 faw(970) 925 -7395 mhaaisesoprus: net February, 2010 • PID No 2737 -184-06 -805 LITTLE STAR FOUNDATION, INC. 256 Rancho Milagro Way Hesperus, Colorado 81326 February 19, 2010 RE F EB 1 9 2 010 • City of Aspen C F A P ir Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 91611 Re: Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD To whom it may concern: Please accept this letter as confirmation that Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. and Neiley & Alder, Attorney and Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, LLC are authorized to represent the Little Star Foundation, Inc., a Colorado not - for -profit corporation, in connection with an Application for SPA Amendment, GMQS Review for a Change in Use, Demolition of Multi- Family Housing, Affordable Housing, Special Review and GMQS for an ADU with respect to the above referenced property which is owned by the Foundation. Very truly yours, LITTLE STAR FOUNDATION Andvta R4. 1 11 : 7 , 14 y t,, , Director AN APPLICATION FOR SPA AMENDMENT, GMQS REVIEW, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR SILVER LINING RANCH Submitted by: KAT Ranch, LLC and Little Star Foundation, Inc c/o Haas Land Planning, LLC Prepared by: HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC Planning Consultant 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 925 -7819 Fax: (970) 925 -7395 Email: mhaas @sopris.net PID# 2737- 184 -06 -805 Silver Lining Ranch TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROJECT SITE & NEIGHBORHOOD (EXISTING CONDITIONS) 4 III. PROPOSAL 10 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 12 A. Amendment to the SPA 12 B. GMQS Review for a Change in Use 15 C. GMQS Review for Demolition of Multi- Family Housing 17 D. GMQS Review for Affordable Housing 21 E. GMQS Exemption and Special Review for an Attached ADU 23 F. Conclusion 25 Exhibits Exhibit 1: Land Use Application Exhibit 2: Pre - Application Conference Summary Exhibit 3: Proof of Ownership Exhibit 4: Letter of Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC to Represent the Applicant Exhibit 5: Stillwater HOA Protective Covenants & 2004 /2009 Amendments Exhibit 6: Letter from Stillwater HOA President Exhibit 7: City Council Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1997 Exhibit 8: City Council Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 Exhibit 9: Planning and Zoning (P &Z) Resolution No. 97 -04 Exhibit 10: Deed Restriction for the Affordable Housing Units Exhibit 11: Ordinance No. 44, Series of 2007 Exhibit 12: 2007 City of Aspen Staff Memo from Jessica Garrow Exhibit 13: 2007 Memorandum from the City Attorney Exhibit 14: Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Exhibit 15: Executed Fee Agreement Exhibit 16: Mailing Addresses of Record of Property Owners Within 300' PID# 2737- 184 -06 -805 I. INTRODUCTION This application requests an Amendment to the Approved SPA (Specially Planned Area) for the Silver Lining Ranch in order to permit use of the existing structure as a single- family residence while maintaining the ability to conduct non - profit programs consistent with the Stillwater Ranch Homeowners Association's interpretation of the Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision /PUD applicable to the subject real property (Stillwater HOA). Also included in this application are requests to: allow the additional use of single - family residential through a change -in -use approval; approve the off -site replacement of the existing specialized internal multi- family housing units (via cash -in -lieu, as supported by the APCHA Housing Board); and enable an "attached" Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) through Special Review. The subject property was originally approved as a single - family residential lot in Pitkin County, designated as Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. The original owner of the property, Fabi Benedict, provided a gift of the property to Andrea Jaeger s Kids Stuff Foundation in order for the Foundation to further its mission to assist children with cancer. Much 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 containing educational and cultural activities, housing and dormitory uses, administrative facilities, health care facilities, a dining hall, and recreational uses. Although this facility operated on the property for approximately ten years, ultimately, and unfortunately, this dream did not work out due to the extraordinary costs of operating in Aspen and the fact that the altitude was not ideal for children undergoing various medical treatments. There were no conditions attached to the gift from Fabi to Kids Stuff Foundation, nor were any "deals" made with or assurances given to the City of Aspen that the property would continue as the Silver Lining Ranch in perpetuity. Furthermore, the zoning on the property was not negotiated for the public's benefit, and accordingly 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 and Fabi's shared dream a reality. The City did its part by annexing the property and granting the needed SPA approvals. The Kids Stuff Foundation then raised a substantial amount of money and constructed the facility on the property. As a result of these and other actions, Ms. Jaeger and Fabi's common dream was indeed realized. However, even the best laid plans made with only the best of intentions sometimes simply do not work out in the end. The Silver Lining Ranch, unfortunately, proved to be just such a case. Silver Lining Ranch Application Page 1 One regrettable oversight occurred when the SPA was originally approved. Namely, the SPA did not include a fallback plan that would allow the reversion to single- family use in the event that the Foundation was unable to continue its mission on Lot 5. Finally, as the recent attempt by another non - profit entity (Jewish Resource Center - Chabad of Aspen) has shown, the other owners of lots in the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision and the Stillwater HOA take the position that the Protective Covenants do not allow any uses on the property except for the Silver Lining Ranch uses as originally approved in 1997 or a single - family home. Although the owner of the property, Little Star Foundation, disagrees with this interpretation of the Protective Covenants, the actions of the neighbors in the Subdivision and the Stillwater HOA, including the threat of litigation to enforce their interpretation of the Protective Covenants, caused Chabad of Aspen to terminate its Contract to purchase Lot 5 and abandoned its efforts to use the property for a Jewish Community Center. Thus, Little Star Foundation has been placed in a posture where it can neither use the property for its charitable purposes nor sell the property to another non - profit. It is now embroiled in litigation with the neighbors and the Stillwater HOA. That litigation is likely to take years to prosecute, the outcome is uncertain, and the property is presently unused for any purpose. When the owner sought to de -annex or rezone the property in 2007, as a means of converting the allowed use back to single- family residential, both requests were denied despite the fact that the City Attorney recommended de- annexation approval and Staff recommended the rezoning approval. All attempts to keep this property as a non - profit center have failed. It is necessary that the property be allowed to be used in accordance with its originally intended and approved purpose (i.e., single- family residential) while the approved non - profit use be allowed to continue. This application seeks to accomplish that end. The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 26.440, 26.470.070, 26.470.040(9), 26.520 and 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code (the Code) by Haas Land Planning, LLC on behalf of the property owner, Little Star Foundation, Inc., and the contract purchaser of the property, KAT Ranch, LLC (hereinafter jointly and collectively referred to as "applicant "). The application is divided into four sections. Section I provides a brief introduction to the application, while Section II describes the project site and neighborhood. Section III outlines the applicant's proposed development, and Section IV addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project (e.g., Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 2 proof of ownership, etc.) are provided in the various exhibits to the application, as follows: • The completed Land Use Application Form is attached hereto as Exhibit 1; • A Pre - Application Conference Summary prepared by Chris Bendon, Community Development Director, is attached as Exhibit 2; • The Little Star Foundation is the owner of the property (see Proof of Ownership, Exhibit 3); • Permission for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to represent the applicant is attached as Exhibit 4; • The Protective Covenants of Stillwater Ranch Subdivision /PUD, as well as the 2004 and 2009 Amendments to the Covenants, are attached as Exhibit 5; • A letter from the President of the Stillwater Ranch Home Owner's Association supporting the requests made herein is attached as Exhibit 6; • City Council Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1997 is attached as Exhibit 7; • City Council Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 and Planning and Zoning (P &Z) Resolution No. 97-04 are attached as Exhibits 8 and 9, respectively; • The Deed Restriction for the Affordable Housing Units is attached as Exhibit 10; • Ordinance No. 44, Series of 2007 is attached as Exhibit 11; • A 2007 City of Aspen Staff Memo from Jessica Garrow is attached as Exhibit 12; • A 2007 Memorandum from the City Attorney is attached as Exhibit 13; • Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 is attached as Exhibit 14; and • An executed application fee agreement and a list of property owners located within three- hundred feet of the property are attached as Exhibits 15 and 16, respectively. While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information and /or clarification. Upon request, the applicant will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the application's review. Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 3 II. PROJECT SITE & NEIGHBORHOOD (EXISTING CONDITIONS) The subject property is legally described as the Silver Lining Ranch according to the Plat recorded at Book 43 Page 69, Reception No. 408852, and is located at 1490 Ute Avenue. This 6.5 acre property has a Parcel Identification Number of 2737 - 184 - 06-805 and was formerly known as Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. The property was annexed into the City of Aspen pursuant to Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1997 (see Exhibit 7), and received Conceptual /Final SPA Approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 (see Exhibit 8). In said Ordinance the upper bench of the lot (the west portion of the lot closest to Ute Avenue) was rezoned to Academic with a SPA overlay, while the lower bench (the eastern portion of the lot, next to the Roaring Fork River) was rezoned to Conservation with a SPA overlay. Additionally, a GMQS Exemption was granted for the development as an Essential Public Facility. The SPA Site Plan is recorded in Plat Book 43, Page 69. The vicinity map below shows the approximate location of the property relative to its surrounding area. ' MAtQUESt m ' �C 1 } t? N ?ft \ Wes0rpw Dr t . f Perk f ° ,.. p er l _ °sd Pd et „n crystal lab Pouf ” • 8a 02001 Mapteat b°, • OS 02001 WW11Q or WAS Vicinity Map - Silver Lining Ranch The surrounding neighborhood contains a wide variety of uses, including the Aspen Club, lodging (Aspen Alps and The Gant), single- family residences, multi- family residences, affordable housing, recreational uses (trails, parks, etc.), and offices (Benedict Building). As mentioned above, the property was originally known as Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, which subdivision was approved by the Pitkin Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 4 County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) pursuant to Resolution No. 94 -223 (Book 770, Page 783). The Final Plat for the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision is recorded in Plat Book 35 at Page 86. The Subdivision approval was for six (6) single - family residential lots and an open space parcel. The Protective Covenants for the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision (the "Covenants ") were recorded on December 30, 1994. The Covenants limit development on Lots 1 through 5 to "one free- market single family residence, one deed - restricted Category One affordable housing unit, and such accessory uses and structures as may be permitted from time to time in the AFR -2, Agricultural and Forestry Zone District or any successor to such Zone District," (see Article III, Paragraph 2(a)). Paragraph 2(d) of the Covenants states that the maximum allowable floor area on Lots 1 through 4 is 6,500 square feet (although through County land use approvals, several of the residences within Stillwater Ranch have been allowed to substantially exceed the original square footage limitation), but specifically exempts Lots 5 and 6 from this limitation. Furthermore, the Covenants state at paragraph 2(f) that in the event that Pitkin County or the City of Aspen (upon annexation) approves a use other than single - family residential use for Lot 5, the limitations in Paragraph 2 (a-e) shall not apply. This paragraph was included in recognition and accommodation of the fact that concurrent with the recording of the Covenants (and subject to the Covenants), Lot 5 was gifted by Fabi Benedict to the Kids Stuff Foundation so the Foundation could further its charitable mission. It was not until two and a half years later, in 1997, that the property was annexed into the City of Aspen and the proposed development for the Silver Lining Ranch was granted Conceptual /Final SPA Approval. As previously mentioned, the property consists of an upper bench and a lower bench. The upper bench of the property is on the western portion of the lot, and contains the access to /from Ute Avenue. The lower bench is approximately 20 feet below the upper bench in elevation and is on the eastern side of the lot, next to the Roaring Fork River. The original building envelope for Lot 5 on the final plat of the Stillwater Subdivision was located on the lower bench. This location envisioned development of a single - family residence on the lot. Instead, during the annexation and SPA approval process, the SPA Plat designated a new building envelope encompassing much of the upper bench as well as the portion of the lower bench set back from the 100 year floodplain by at least 20'. The upper bench was rezoned to Academic with an SPA overlay to allow for educational and cultural activities, housing and dormitory uses, a health care facility, and a dining hall, while the lower bench was rezoned to Conservation Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 5 with an SPA overlay to allow for development of a swimming pool and riding stable. The main building was subsequently developed on the upper bench and it was tucked into the small knoll that sits on that portion of the site. This placement allowed for the lower level to be built below grade on three of its four sides, making that level only visible from the east. Consequently, the three -story structure maintains an appearance of only two stories from the surrounding residences located to the north and west. Additionally, spruce and fir trees were planted to the north of the building, while aspen trees were planted to the south, to help screen the development from surrounding properties. The building was designed to have a residential rather than an institutional appearance in order to help it blend in with the neighborhood. As additional conditions binding on the approvals, Ordinance 11 referred to the conditions set forth in P &Z Resolution No. 97 -04 (see Exhibit 9). Said Resolution granted Special Review approval of the parking requirements, 8040 Greenline Review, and Stream Margin Review. Also in this Resolution, the P &Z recommended, and Council then adopted the following dimensional requirements for the Academic zone district portion of the SPA: 1. Minimum Lot Size: 6 acres 2. Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: 1.5 acre per unit 3. Minimum Lot Width: 200 feet 4. Minimum Front Yard: 30 feet 5. Minimum Side Yard: 20 feet 6. Minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet 7. Maximum ll sides of the building, except east elevation, which shall not exceed 32.5' to the mid- point. 8. Minimum Distance between Principal and Accessory Buildings: No requirement, except that required by building code. 9. Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site: 30 percent 10. External Floor Area Ratio: Floor area shall not exceed 14,000 square feet 11. Internal Floor Area Ratio: No requirement. In accordance with the terms of the City's approvals, the Silver Lining Ranch was developed and received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1999. The buildings on the property total to approximately 18,000 square feet, with 13,880 square feet of FAR (13,580 in the main building, and 300 square feet in the pool house); the balance is FAR - exempt space. Among other things, there are areas within the main building designated as three (3) deed - restricted affordable Page 6 Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application housing (AH) units intended only for occupancy by permanent and temporary staff of the Foundation. The affordable housing units were clearly built for the sole purpose of housing employees of the Foundation as they are not designed in a manner that would allow rental to unassociated tenants. The units are laid out as in integral part of the Silver Lining Ranch facilities and can only be accessed from within the building and through other open, functioning rooms; they cannot be locked -off. The deed restriction for the AH units is recorded at Reception No. 409578 and attached as Exhibit 10. In addition to reducing the mass of the structure by tucking the main building into the knoll on the upper portion of the site and heavily landscaping the north and south sides of the building, the development avoided the Roaring Fork River floodplain and associated riparian areas by building on the upper bench. The development also avoided creating a significant cut into the hillside between the two benches by limiting vehicular traffic to the upper bench and only allowing access the lower bench by means of a narrow ramp. From 1999 until 2006 the Kids Stuff Foundation (now known as the Little Star Foundation) ran week -long camp sessions, 14 times per year at the Ranch. These camps brought up to twenty (20) children with cancer to Aspen to enjoy a respite and a taste of life in the mountains. In addition to the children, family members, medical staff and volunteers participated in the sessions. In accordance with the approvals granted in 1997, the Foundation also conducted conferences, meetings, retreats and special events. In 2006, the Foundation determined that it was not economically or practically feasible to continue to operate in Aspen, and moved its operations to a ranch in Southern Colorado. In order to continue to fund its charitable mission, the Foundation determined that it would need to sell the subject property. In 2007, the Foundation applied to the City of Aspen to either disconnect (de- annex) the property from the City, or in the alternative rezone the property to allow for single - family residential use. During this process the Aspen City Attorney (John Worcester) recommended approving de- annexation of the property back to Pitkin County (see Exhibit 13). However, Community Development Staff recommended that the de- annexation be denied because of the loss of potential tax revenues to the City, and that the property instead remain within the City and be rezoned to allow single family residential use. Staff further commented that if the parcel was rezoned and the structure was not demolished, it would become non - conforming with regard to floor area, and recommended that a PUD replace the existing SPA so as to avert the creation of a nonconformity (see Exhibit 12). Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 7 At the time of de- annexation /rezoning review, in a letter dated January 16, 2007, the Stillwater HOA stated that, "The association would support a change in zoning on Lot 5 from Academic to single-family use, but would not support any other rezoning. Both the de- annexation and the rezoning requests were denied by the City Council with the hope that a nonprofit /institutional use could be maintained on the property. This decision was in direct contradiction of both the Stillwater HOA covenants and the City Attorney and Staff recommendations. Additionally, this denial was in conflict with the Council's own concerns about traffic and safety on Ute Avenue. Next, in November of 2008, the Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen applied to the City for an SPA Amendment and Growth Management Review for conversion of the Silver Lining Ranch into the Jewish Community Center (JCC). Although the City Council granted these requests pursuant to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 (see Exhibit 14), the Chabad never recorded an SPA Plan or Agreement within 180 days, effectively rendering the approvals null and void. Chabad's abandonment of its approvals was a result of the January 2009 Amendment to the Stillwater HOA Covenants, which purported to limit the use of Lot 5 to the "exact form" of the existing Silver Lining Ranch uses or single - family residential use, and the Stillwater HOA's threats of litigation to preclude Chabad of Aspen from using the property as a Jewish Community Center. . Currently, the 1997 Silver Lining Ranch SPA approvals remain in full force and effect. It should be noted that there was a great deal of community concern regarding the proposed conversion of the Silver Lining Ranch into the JCC. The main concern was the additional traffic that would be generated by the a t use and the plan to mitigate that additional traffic. Additionally, g g when the property was initially approved as the Silver Lining Ranch in 1997, the use that was planned for the facility (14 weeks of camps per year and me additional retreats, conferences and special events) llowed the area, t o be a part of the neighborhood, without changing character of the requirement for van service to minimize traffic impacts. A similar requirement was incorporated into the approvals granted for the JCC. Allowing single- family residential uses on the property will further neighborhood and community goals of reducing traffic on Ute Avenue and remaining a quiet residential area that is not dominated by institutional or commercial uses. The Foundation is under contract to sell the property. The contract allows for the existing use of 14 weeks of "camps" to continue each year for the next five years without any payment of rent required. The Foundation will also be Page 8 Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application allowed to use the property during these periods of time for ancillary non - profit uses, such as fundraising events. The Foundation is proposing the property will also 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. Neither a rezoning of the property, nor a PUD replacement of the SPA is needed. Since the dimensional requirements of the SPA accommodate all existing development on the site, these do not need to be amended and the structures will not be considered nonconforming. Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 9 III. PROPOSAL The Foundation is currently under contract to sell the Silver Lining Ranch. The contract is contingent upon the applicant receiving certain approvals from the City of Aspen that will allow for the property to include single - family use, with five years of Silver Lining Ranch "camps" for 14 weeks per year, as well as fund raiser and ancillary non - profit uses by the Foundation. In order for the existing structure to be used as a single - family residence an Amendment to the Approved SPA (Specially Planned Area) for the Silver Lining Ranch must occur. Additionally, there must be a change in use approval, as well as an approval to mitigate the removal of the multi- family housing located within the existing improvements. It is the applicant's intention to retain an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) within the building as permitted by the Stillwater HOA Protective Covenants. Additionally, and as supported by the APCHA Housing Board, the applicant proposes paying cash -in -lieu to meet the multi- family replacement requirements associated with the removal of the three affordable housing units on the property, which units are internal to the structure and were established solely for staff associated with the Kids Stuff Foundation. Upon approval for the addition of single - family use, the property will become a voting member of the Stillwater Ranch Homeowner's Association, and subject to all of the applicable Covenants. The Stillwater HOA is fully supportive of this application (see Exhibit 6). The FAR allowed in the SPA accommodates all existing structures on the property. However, the FAR limits of the Covenants are not applicable as Lot 5 is specifically exempted under Paragraph 2(d). Relative to the City's requirements, the 13,880 square feet allowed on this 6.5 acre property represents an FAR of just 0.05:1. By way of comparison, a standard 6,000 square foot lot in the R -6 Zone (i.e., in the West End) allows for a 0.54:1 FAR, or more than 100 times the intensity of development on the subject site. The allowed FAR and other dimensional limitations are set in the SPA. This application seeks an Amendment to the SPA to allow for single - family use, while retaining the existing dimensional requirements without change. As noted, the operational costs associated with running the Foundation on the property are beyond its sustainable means. Upon the 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 fundraisers and special events. This more economically efficient use by the Foundation will result in a reduction of the impacts under the current approvals and what has historically occurred in the traffic, safety and parking impacts on Ute Avenue. Further, the single - family residential use will also result in a reduction in traffic, Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 10 safety and parking impacts on Ute Avenue from what is currently allowed and what historically occurred. All of these impacts to the neighbors will significantly diminish as a result of the revised use plan. Additionally, single - family use is the only type of use, other than the existing use, recognized as permitted by the Subdivision neighbors and the Stillwater HOA under the Stillwater Covenants. The applicant is also willing to put a conservation easement on the C /SPA portion of the property. Such an easement would allow the current uses to continue, but would guarantee that the existing open character is maintained in perpetuity. As demonstrated by the JCC's experience, trying to put some other type of non - profit use on this property will not work. It is imperative to put that idea aside and find the best solution for the City, the Foundation, the property itself, and the neighborhood. The Foundation is proposing a solution that will bring property taxes back to the community, deliver future real estate transfer taxes, reduce traffic and parking impacts, increase safety in the immediate neighborhood, ensure the open character of the community is maintained, allow the Foundation to continue its mission, and benefit children struggling with cancer. Without this solution, the Foundation will be unable to continue its mission to assist children with cancer and their families. Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 11 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The applicable review standards of the Code are addressed in this section of the application and in the following order: A) Amendment to the SPA 026.440); B) GMQS for a Change in Use 026.470.070.2); C) GMQS for Demolition of Multi- Family Housing 026.470.070.5); D) GMQS for Affordable Housing 026.470.070.4); and E) GMQS Exemption and Special Review for an Attached ADU 026.470.040. & §26.520.080(D)). A. Amendment to the SPA Section 26.440.050 of the Code provides the standards that must be considered when development is proposed in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). These standards are presented below in italicized print and each is followed by a response demonstrating consistency and /or compliance therewith, as applicable. 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. The density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space associated with this development are all compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel. This lot was originally approved for single - family residential use as part of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, and is the only type of use (other than the existing use) that is recognized as permitted under the Stillwater Covenants by the Stillwater HOA. The change in use plan involving limited non - profit use and single - family residential use will result in a significant reduction in traffic, safety and parking impacts for this area. The neighborhood consists of a wide variety of uses, including the Aspen Club, lodging (Aspen Alps and The Gant), single -family residences, e ma ti offices residences, affordable housing, recreational uses (trails, parks, ) (Benedict Building). There are currently two homes under construction on Ute Avenue leading to this property that are 14,000 square feet. When this property was initially developed, the main building was built on the upper bench of the property and tucked into the small knoll that sits on Page 12 Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application that portion of the site. This placement allowed for the lower level to be built below grade on three of its four sides, making that level only visible from the east. This three -story structure gives the appearance of only two stories from the surrounding residences located to the north and west. Additionally, spruce and fir trees were planted to the north of the building, while aspen trees were planted to the south, to help screen the development from surrounding properties. The building was designed to have a residential rather than an institutional appearance to help it blend in with the neighborhood. Indeed, when this structure was originally approved, Staff found it to be predominantly residential and recreational in nature and appearance. All of this will remain if the current developed is approved. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. In fact, the change in use plan involving limited non -profit use and single- family residential use will substantially lessen the demands on public facilities and reduce traffic on Ute Avenue. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. The parcel is already developed and, thus, suitable for development. In fact, the City found this exact standard to have been satisfied when it approved the SPA development of the site in 1997. The change in use plan involving limited non - profit use and single - family residential use will not involve any new disturbances of land. The proposed development will not affect or be affected by hazards associated with slopes, ground instability, mudflow, rock falls, avalanches, or flooding. 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. Please see the responses to the previous standards (above). 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development is in compliance with the AACP. The parcel was originally a single - family lot and this application proposes the eventual return of the property to that use. Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 13 One of the goals of the AACP is to limit automobile traffic and improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and automobile drivers. The change in use plan involving limited non - profit use and single - family use will translate to less traffic congestion on Ute Avenue, less auto emissions, and improved overall safety for those who live in and / or frequent the neighborhood. The proposed change in use plan involving limited non - profit use and single - family residential use is also consistent with the "managing growth" goal of limiting the population of Aspen. The proposed development does not need to use any GMQS allotments, and the site is located within the City limits. Economic sustainability is another goal of the AACP. The current use of the property is and has not been economically sustainable, as the owner of the property can no longer afford to run her Foundation without selling this property. The proposed SPA Amendment will allow this important non - profit to continue to operate in Aspen and around the globe, while staving off bankruptcy. Furthermore, once the property is approved for single - family use and sold, the City of Aspen will be in a position to collect taxes. Finally, consistent with the Parks /Recreation /Open Space goals of the AACP, the applicant is willing to put a conservation easement on the C/ SPA zoned portion of the property. Such an easement would allow the current uses to continue, but would guarantee that the existing open character is maintained in perpetuity, which is consistent with the AACP goal of protecting and enhancing the natural environment, and maintaining a Greenbelt around the City's periphery. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood. No public funds will be required for this development. To the contrary, as a result of the SPA Amendment, the City will collect tax dollars from this property for the first time. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20 %) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2. No new development will be taking place on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20 %), or on any other currently undisturbed ground for that matter. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. As stated in Code Section 26.470.030(D), the annual number of GMQS allotments available for free -market residential development is 18 units. It is the Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 14 applicant's position that no GMQS allotment is needed for the proposed development. The property originally had a GMQS exemption for a single - family residence prior to the SPA approvals that created the GMQS Exempt Essential Public Facility. Moreover, and as discussed in Section B, below, this application requests Growth Management Review for a change in use; this permits one (1) free - market residential unit to be created without the need for a growth management allotment. B. CMOS for a Change in Use Section 26.470.070.2 of the Code provides the standard for Growth Management Review of a Change in Use proposal and states that, A Change in use, of an existing property, structure, or portions of an existing structure, between the Development Categories identified in Section 26.470.020, (irrespective of direction) for which a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the General Requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050. No more than one (1) free - market residential unit may be created through the change -in -use. The development proposed by this application would create a change in use from an Essential Public Facility to single - family residential. Only one free - market residential unit and one ADU (which is not considered a unit of density) will be created by this proposal. Per the above -cited language, the criteria of Section 26.470.050 are outlined below in italicized text and followed by a response demonstrating consistency and /or compliance therewith, as applicable. 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. As previously mentioned, no growth management allotments are needed for the proposed development. The property already had a GMQS exemption as a single- family lot but replaced that exemption with the exemption for an Essential Public Facility. Once the change in use is approved only one free - market unit will be created, thus no allotment is needed (per Section 26.470.070.2). Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 15 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Please see the response to standard Number 5 in Section A., above. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. The property is zoned Academic and Conservation with a SPA overlay. This application seeks an Amendment to the SPA to allow for single- family residential use, and as such the development will conform to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. No amendment of the adopted dimensional standards is required. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. This standard is not applicable to the proposed development or site. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60 %) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100J, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category • designation. This standard is not applicable as there is no commercial or lodge development proposed. Moreover, no employees will be generated as a result of this development. In fact, this development will reduce employee generation rates while still "providing" the same amount of affordable housing that currently exists on the site (through the cash -in -lieu payment, as supported by the APCHA Housing Board). 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30 %) of the additional free- market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Page 16 Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 2 6.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ( "voluntary units ") may be deed- restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. This standard is not applicable. The applicant is proposing 100% replacement of the deed - restricted AH units via cash -in -lieu, as supported by the APCHA Housing Board, and will additionally be providing an on -site ADU. No additional Net Livable Area will be created as a result of this development. Please also see the responses in Sections C and D, below, which further address Affordable Housing. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. This project will actually reduce demands on public infrastructure from those associated with the existing use of the property. The eventual conversion to a single - family residence will decrease the demands for water, sewage treatment, parking, and road and transit services. C. GM QS for Multi -Fam;l Housing Ren acement Among other things, there are areas within the main Silver Lining Ranch building designated as three (3) deed - restricted affordable housing (AH) units. The affordable housing units were clearly built for the sole purpose of housing employees of the Foundation as they are not designed in a manner that would allow rental to unassociated tenants. The units are laid out as in integral part of the Silver Lining Ranch facilities and can only be accessed from within the building and through other open, functioning rooms; they cannot be locked -off. The deed restriction for the AH units is recorded at Reception No. 409578 and attached as Exhibit 10. The applicant proposes to remove these units. Section 2 6.470.070.5(2) of the Code states that, In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 17 decrease the number of units, bedrooms, or Net Livable Area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms, and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The three existing deed - restricted affordable housing units are considered to house a total of 6.25 employees (two, 2- bedroom units and one, 1- bedroom unit). The ADU that the applicant is proposing to keep within the existing structure will not satisfy any mitigation requirements of the Code. Therefore, 6.25 employees will need to be mitigated under the multi- family replacement requirements. Section 26.470.070.5(4) of the Code states that, Multi family replacement units, both free- market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. Upon approval of the proposed SPA amendment, in light of the Stillwater Covenants, replacing the three (3) AH units on -site will not be allowed and would, therefore, be an inappropriate solution. The HOA Covenants already make clear that the maximum density permissible on -site, once converted to single - family use, is the home itself and one (1) AH unit. Since the rest of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision is within unincorporated Pitkin County an ADU is the use most comparable to the Caretaker Dwelling Units (CDU) allowed on the other lots. The above -cited Code language requires that the replacement of the three (3) AH units be off -site and deed- restricted at Category rates matching those of the demolished units. However, Part VII, Section 2.5 of the Employee Housing Guidelines of the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) regulates the buy -down of existing units and states, Page 18 Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application If the affordable units are proposed to be provided off-site through the deed restriction of existing units, the applicant shall be required to document the feasibility of this off -site location by demonstrating that they have an interest in the property or dwelling units and by specifying the size and type of units to be provided and any physical upgrade to be accomplished. Future buy -down requests for deed- restricted units shall be accepted only in existing complexes at Category 3 or above, if at all, and shall be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. In any new projects that consist of free - market and deed- restricted units, the homeowners' assessments shall be based on the value of the free - market units compared to the deed- restricted units. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to these requirements would be allowed without APCHA's approval. While the language of Code Section 2 6.470.070(5)(4) does not specifically address the cash -in -lieu option, the standards of Code Section 26.470.070(4W supply the requirements that would apply to development of off-site replacement housing and clearly indicate that, "If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these [newly built units, buy -down units, and cash -in -lieu] methods." Taken together, the provisions of the Code clearly authorize cash -in -lieu as a viable option provided such is approved by City Council pursuant to the standards of Code Section 26.470.090(3). Section 26.470.090(3) of the Code provides that, "The provision of affordable housing equal to or in excess of one residential unit, as required by Chapter 26.470 - Growth Management, via a cash -in -lieu payment shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:" (the criteria are provided below followed by a narrative demonstrating compliance and /or consistency, as applicable) a) The provision of affordable housing on -site (on the same site as the project requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the development or of the site or would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed. b) The applicant has made a reasonable good faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing off-site through construction of new dwelling units or the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status. c) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals and the cash -in -lieu payment will result in the near -term production of affordable housing units. A Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 19 recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard As previously explained, replacing the affordable housing on -site is impractical given the limitations of development resulting from the Stillwater HOA's interpretation of the Covenants. Accordingly, the units must be replaced either off -site, via buy -down units, or through cash -in -lieu. A paramount issue with regard to off -site or buy -down replacement units stems from the difficulties associated with finding acceptable units. If one chooses to convert a free - market unit into an AH unit within a complex of free - market units, problems often arise if and when special assessments are levied upon the unit owners. This recently occurred at 910 W. Hallam Street and 104 W. Cooper Avenue when large special assessments rendered the units unaffordable and the City had to purchase the units from the AH owners. The buyback of these two units cost the City approximately $550,000, as well as the eventual loss of the AH units to the free - market. Given all of the concerns with regard to buy -down units, HOA dues and assessments, the Stillwater Covenants, etc., it is the applicant's position that the most practical solution to, and method of, satisfying the replacement housing requirements is by paying cash -in -lieu for the units being eliminated and the APCHA Housing Board agrees. This solution seems especially appropriate in this instance for at least four (4) reasons: 1) The covenants applicable to the subject property preclude on -site replacement; 2) No actual employees currently working in Aspen will be left without housing as a result of the units' elimination; 3) The employee - generating use for which the units were required as mitigation in the first place will no longer exist; and 4) Provision of cash -in -lieu will further affordable housing goals by supplying funds that are currently much needed. Per Section 12 of the 2009 APCHA Guidelines, the payment -in -lieu fee for each Category 3 employee to be housed was established as $210,016, while the fee in -lieu for each Category 4 employee to be housed was $131,102. The simple calculation, therefore, is four (4) Category 3 employees times $210,016 per employee, plus two- and -a- quarter (2.25) Category 4 employees times $131,102 ([4 x $210,016] + [2.25 x $131,102]), plus a 2.3% increase as of January 1, 2010, Page 20 Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application resulting in a total cash -in -lieu figure of $1,161,149.50 due for the replacement units. It is understood that the fee will likely increase in coming years and it is acceptable that a requirement that the final cash -in -lieu figure due be based on the formula in effect at the time of payment. To help offset concerns with regard to feasibility of the fee actually replacing the units, it is proposed that the payment occur at the time the City's approval documents are recorded (i.e., upon recordation of the approved Amended SPA Agreement, which would be within 180 days of final City Council approval). This way the City gets the funds immediately, in advance of the building actually being used solely for single - family purposes and the units being eliminated. The City also gets to collect interest on the funds and /or have the flexibility available to use the funds as opportunities or needs arise. The applicant worked with the Housing Office staff and the APCHA Housing Board over the course of three (3) meetings and received their recommendation of support for mitigation via cash -in -lieu on February 3, 2010. D. GMOS for Affordable Housing The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines must follow the criteria specified in Section 26.470.070(4) of the Code. These standards must be followed for the three replacement units and are enumerated in italicized text and followed by a response exhibiting compliance. a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. As mentioned above, the three (3) existing units are deed - restricted as a 2- bedroom, Category 4 unit on lower level, a 1- bedroom Category 3 unit on the lower level, and a 2- bedroom Category 3 unit on the upper level. In order to comply with the Stillwater Covenants, an ADU will be maintained on -site and the three AH units will need to be "replaced" off -site. These replacement units would need to house 6.25 employees. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off -site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 21 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Since the mitigation required is 6.25 Fl h, (more than one unit) City Council approval must be received if the applicant is to provide a cash -in -lieu payment. The criteria of Section 26.470.090.3 and the reasons why Council should approve the cash -in -lieu payment have been enumerated in Section C, above. To reiterate, cash -in -lieu should be approved as there are no other viable options and for the following four (4) reasons: 1) The Stillwater HOA's interpretation of the Covenants applicable to the subject property precludes on -site replacement; 2) No actual employees currently working in Aspen will be left without housing as a result of the units' elimination; 3) The employee - generating use for which the units were required as mitigation in the first place will no longer exist; and 4) Provision of cash -in -lieu will further affordable housing goals by supplying funds that are currently much needed. The applicant worked with the Housing Office staff and the APCHA Housing Board over the course of three (3) meetings and received their recommendation of support for mitigation via cash -in -lieu on February 3, 2010. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50 %) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This standard is not applicable since the applicant will be providing cash - in -lieu of actual units, as supported by the APCHA Housing Board. d. The proposed units shall be deed- restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 22 first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long -term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi - municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. The applicant's proposal to provide cash -in -lieu, as supported by the APCHA Housing Board, renders this standard inapplicable as well. E. CMOS Exemption and Special Review for an Attached ADU As part of the proposal being made herein, a deed restricted ADU will be voluntarily placed on -site and within (attached to) the remodeled structure. According to Section 26.470.040(9) of the Code, the development of an ADU is exempt from the GMQS but subject to the provisions of Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. Special Review approval is needed to allow the ADU to be attached to the primary residence as the applicant intends to keep the property in as close to its existing condition as practicable. Therefore, a new detached structure, and the addition development and disturbance of the site that would result, will not be proposed to accommodate the ADU use. However, the remainder of the design standards of Section 26.520.050 of the Code will be complied with as follows: the ADU will contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet; at least 10% of the ADU will be closet or storage area; it will be capable of functioning as an independent dwelling unit (this requires an exterior entrance with no direct interior connections to the primary residence); the ADU will have separately accessible utilities (although shared services are permitted), its own kitchen and bathroom, and at least one unobstructed on -site parking space devoted exclusively to the ADU; the finished floor height will be entirely above natural or finished grade (whichever is higher); the ADU will comply with the dimensional requirements of the SPA; it Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 23 will include a means of preventing snow and ice from shedding upon the entrance to an ADU and /or from accumulating on any stairs that provide access to the ADU; and the ADU will comply with all rules of general applicability (i.e., building codes, fire codes, plumbing codes, electrical codes, etc.). The ADU will be rented to a qualified tenant in accordance with a standard deed restriction and will be registered with the APCHA. Any occupant of an ADU must qualify as a local working resident in accordance with the current APCHA Guidelines. All rentals will be restricted to lease periods of not less than six months in duration, or as may be otherwise required by the APCHA Guidelines. Any ADU lease must be recorded with the APCHA, but the owner retains the right to select a qualified renter. Given that the existing structure will become a single - family home, retention of a measure of control over who occupies the deed restricted unit is important, and an ADU provides the best and most appropriate opportunity to do so. It has been recognized by the City and the APCHA that a problem occupant in a Category / ownership unit within a shared building can be exceedingly difficult to address. Further, condominiumization of the property to satisfactorily address concerns relative to rent control laws may not be consistent with the Stillwater HOA requirements /Covenants. Placement of an ADU on the property, as opposed to a Category unit, will ensure that appropriate provisions are made with respect to affordability, including a complete lack of potential issues relative to dues or assessments being levied on the occupant(s). As mentioned above, the only design standard of Code Section 26.520.050 that the proposed ADU will not meet is the requirement that it be a detached, stand -alone structure. Thus, Special Review approval is needed. Section 26.520.080(D) of the Code governs Special Review for ADU and states that, An application requesting a variance from the ADU and carriage house design standards or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In order for Special Review approval to be granted, the following criteria must be met: Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 24 1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability. 2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property. 3. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on -street parking, availability of transit services and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. Section 26.520.010 of the Code states that, "The purpose of the ADU and Carriage House program is to promote the long- standing community goal of socially, economically, and environmentally responsible development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working residents and part -time residents. ADUs and Carriage Houses represent viable housing opportunities and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing being easily identifiable as "employee housing." Said section also states that, "ADUs and Carriage Houses allow second homeowners the opportunity to hire an on -site caretaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally preferred land use pattern, which reduces automobile reliance." The applicant's proposal to keep an ADU within the structure will enable the owner to have an on -site caretaker, and the site is in close proximity to employment and recreation centers. Therefore, this ADU promotes the purpose of the ADU and Carriage House program. By virtue of the fact that the ADU will be inside the home, it will be compatible with, and subordinate to the primary residence, as well as compatible with the character of the neighborhood. F. Conclusion The approval of the SPA Amendment requested herein will allow this property to include the single - family residential use for which it was originally approved. Upon realization of the change in the use plan involving limited non- profit use and single - family residential use there will be a significant reduction in traffic, safety and parking impacts on Ute Avenue. Additionally, single - family Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 25 use is the only type of use (other than the existing use) that the Stillwater HOA's interpretation of the Covenants allows. Trying to put some other type of non - profit use on this property will not work. That "solution" has been attempted and failed. It is imperative to put that idea aside and find the best hybrid solution for the City, the Foundation, the property itself, and the neighborhood. The Foundation is proposing a solution that will bring property taxes back to the community, reduce traffic and parking problems, increase safety in the immediate neighborhood, ensure the open character of the community is maintained, allow the Foundation to continue its mission, and benefit children struggling with cancer. Without this solution, the Foundation will be unable be able to continue its mission to assist children with cancer. Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Application Page 26 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Land Use Application Exhibit 2: Pre - Application Conference Summary Exhibit 3: Proof of Ownership Exhibit 4: Letter of Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC to Represent the Applicant Exhibit 5: Stillwater HOA Protective Covenants /2004 and 2009 Amendments Exhibit 6: Letter from Stillwater HOA President Exhibit 7: City Council Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1997 Exhibit 8: City Council Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 Exhibit 9: Planning and Zoning (P &Z) Resolution No. 97 -04 Exhibit 10: Deed Restriction for the Affordable Housing Units Exhibit 11: Ordinance No. 44, Series of 2007 Exhibit 12: 2007 City of Aspen Staff Memo from Jessica Garrow Exhibit 13: 2007 Memorandum from the City Attorney Exhibit 14: Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Exhibit 15: Executed Fee Agreement Exhibit 16: Mailing Addresses of Record of Property Owners Within 300' PID# 2737 - 184 -06 -805 EXHIBIT 11 LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Location: 1490 Ute Avenue; Silver Lining Ranch per Plat at B.43, P.69, Reception No. 408852 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REOUIRED) 2737 -184-06 -805 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Haas Land Planning, LLC Address: 201 N. Mill St., #108; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: (970) 925-7819 Co-APPLICANT: Name: Little Star Foundation, Inc. & John Burgess Address: c/o Haas Land Planning, LLC, 201 N. Mill St., Suite 108; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: (970) 925 -7819 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review (attached ADU) ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment 1 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other: ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Please refer to Section I and II of the application text as well as the applicable Exhibits. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Please refer to Sections III and IV of the application text. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 2,940.00 I Pre- Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements - Including Written Responses to Review Standards DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment Applicant: Little Star Foundation Location: 1490 Ute Avenue Zone District: A/SPA and C /SPA Lot Size: 6.5 acres Lot Area: undetermined (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: N/A Proposed: N/A Number of residential units: Existing: 3 Proposed: 1 + ADU Number of bedrooms: Existing: 5 + dorms Proposed: TBD Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 13.880 Allowable: 14.000 Proposed: 13.880 Principal bldg. height: Existing: 28' -32.5' Allowable: 28' -32.5 'Proposed: 28'-32.5' Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: N/A Proposed: No change On -Site parking: Existing: Required: N/A Proposed: No change % Site coverage: Existing: Required: N/A Proposed: No change % Open Space: Existing: Required: 30% Proposed.: No change Front Setback: Existing: Required: 30' Proposed: No change Rear Setback: Existing: Required: 20' Proposed: No change Combined F/R: Existing: Required.: N/A Proposed: No change Side Setback: Existing: Required.: 20' Proposed: No change Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: No change Combined Sides: Existing: Required: N/A Proposed.: No change Existing non - conformities or encroachments: None: the development conforms to the established dimensional limitations of the SPA Variations requested: None EXIT I CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER Chris Bendon, 429.2765 DATE: 11/5/09 PROJECT: Silver Lining Ranch, Andrea Yeager owner REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas TYPE OF APPLICATION: SPA Amendment, Growth management DESCRIPTION: The prospective Applicant would like to amend the land use approval for the Silver Lining Ranch to convert the existing structure into a single - family residence. The request would likely include a desire to maintain the existing uses for a period of five years and then the property would convert to a residence. The prospective application would like to relocate or buy-out the affordable housing that exists on -site. The change requires an amendment to the Specially Planned Area (SPA) approval, a change -in -use approval, and an approval to demolish multifamily housing (required for removing the affordable housing units). A relocation plan for the affordable housing could require an additional review for the development of affordable housing. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.440 Specially Planned Area — Substantial Amendment (a combined conceptual and final amendment is preferred) 26.470.070.2 Growth Management — change in use 26.470.070.5 Growth Management — requirements for demolishing affordable housing units 26.470.070.4 Growth Management — affordable housing (for development of off -site replacement housing) Review by: - Staff for complete application - Referral agencies for technical considerations - Community Development Director Public Hearing: Yes, at P &Z and City Council Planning Fees: $2,940. Deposit for 12 hours of staff time. Staff time required above the initial 12 hours is billed at $245 per hour.) Total Deposit: $2,940.00 Total Number of Application Copies: 25 Copies. A one - copy submission can be accepted for completion review. To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Signed fee agreement. 6. Pre - application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 11. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 12. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. Notes: If the application is submitted by a prospective purchaser, the application will need authorization from the current owner. Staff suggests that submission of the application be authorized by the bank or lender holding first position on the property. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. arcel Detail EXIT .. Pitkin County Assessor /Treasurer Parcel Detail Information Assessor/Treasurer Property Search 1 Assessor Subset Query 1 Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search Basic Building Characteristics 1 Tax Information Parcel Detail 1 Value Detail 1 Sales Detail 1 ResidentiaUCommercial Improvement Detail Land Detail 1 Photographs 1 Tax Area 11 Account Number 1 Parcel Number 11 2009 Mill Levy 1 056 11 R015073 1 273718406805 Owner Name and Address 'LITTLE STAR FOUNDATION 1 256 RANCHO MILAGRO WAY 1 'HESPERUS, CO 81326 1 Legal Description 'Subdivision: SILVER LINING RANCH 1 Location Physical Address: 11490 UTE AVE ASPEN Subdivision: "SILVER LINING RANCH 1 Land Acres: 116.45699977874756 1 Land Sq Ft: 110 2009 Property Tax Valuation Information 11 Actual Value 11 Assessed Value 1 Land:' 4,500,000' 358,200 Improvements: 1 9,242,70011 735,720' Total: 1 13,742,70011 1,093,920' Sale Date: Sale Price: rrl/ www_ nitkinacseccnr .nra /acceccnr/Parrel asn9ArrnnntNnmhtr =12 Sfl71 - ') /d /ln COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: September 16, 2009, at 7:30 A.M. Order Number: 917651 2. Policy or Policies To 13e Issued: Amount of Insurance (a) A.L.T.A. Owner's (Extended) Proposed Insured: (b) A.L.T.A. Loan 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the referenced estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: LITTLE STAR FOUNDATION, A COLORADO NON - PROFIT CORPORATION 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: CITY OF ASPEN, SILVER LINING RANCH SPA, LOT 5, STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION According to the plat recorded September 26, 1997 in Plat Book 43 at Page 69 as Reception No. 408852. COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO Purported Address: Statement of Charges: 1490 Ute Avenue These charges are due and payable before a Policy can Aspen, Colorado 81611 be issued: Reissue Rate 2006 Owner's Policy: $15,214.00 2006 Owner's Extended: $150.00 Tax Certificate: $20.00 Arden C mitt 917651 ALTA Commmitment t (6 (6/17/06) — Schedule A �" T stewart itle Officer: Melanie Lang ( —titla guar Page 1 of 1 guaranty company COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B — Section 1 REQUIREMENTS Order Number: 917651 The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. Payment to or for the account of the grantor(s) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. 3. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company of payment of all outstanding taxes and assessments as certified by the County Treasurer. 4. Execution of affidavit as to Debts and Liens and its return to Stewart Title Guaranty Company. 5. Payment of any and all Homeowners assessments and expenses which may be assessed to the property. 6. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENT IS FOR DELETION OF SURVEY EXCEPTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE OWNERS POLICY: A SURVEY, meeting the minimum detail standards of the ALTA/ACSM, Survey OR IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE, prepared by a registered Colorado surveyor, within the last TWO MONTHS, must be presented to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, for its approval prior to the deletion of any survey exceptions from the OWNERS POLICY. Stewart Title Guaranty reserves the right to take exception to any adverse matters as shown on said survey, or make further inquiry or requirements relative thereto. Said Survey, must be certified to Stewart Title of Colorado and/or Stewart Title Guaranty Company. 7. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990). 8. Relating to Little Star Foundation, The Company requires for its review the following: A satisfactory resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the proposed transaction Order Number. 917651 �s `\ ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) — Schedule B 1 Page 1 of 2 title guaranty company (Shareholders Resolution where applicable) Note: Statement of Authority recorded November 30, 2006 as Reception No. 531666 discloses the following officer: Andrea Jaeger, President. Note: The Colorado Secretary of State shows Little Star Foundation in good standing. 9. Release from the Public Trustee of the Deed of Trust dated November 30, 2006, executed by Little Star Foundation, Silver Lining Foundation and Kids Stuff Foundation as consolidated as Little Star Foundation, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, to secure an indebtedness of $5,000,000.00 in favor of Bank of America, N.A. recorded November 30, 2006 as Reception No. 531667. Assignment of Leases and Rents and Other Income recorded November 30, 2006 as Reception No. 531668. First Amendment to Deed of Trust recorded December 18, 2007 as Reception No. 545030. 10. Release by the Public Trustee of the Deed of Trust from Little Star Foundation for the use of Jewish Resource Center to secure $250,000.00, dated September 24, 2008 recorded October 3, 2008 as Reception No. 553360. 11. Release by the Public Trustee of the Deed of Trust from Little Star Foundation for the use of SREI Financial LLC dba SREI Little Star to secure $875,000.00, dated April 13 2009 recorded April 13 2009 as Reception No. 557987. 12. Deed from vested owner(s) vesting fee simple title in the purchaser(s). Note: notation of the legal address of the grantee must appear on the deed as per 1976 amendment to statute on recording of deeds CRS 38 -35 -109 (2). Order Number 917651 r C'r ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) — Schedule B 1 V �� ��Y ��ty WWW ��` Page 2 of 2 • title guaranty company COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B — Section 2 EXCEPTIONS Order Number: 917651 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. 6. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents, or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 7. Water rights, claims or title to water. 8. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. 9. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 10. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded December 14, 1911 in Book 55 at Page 196. 11. Road Easement and other matters as described in Deed recorded in Book 188 at Page 82 and in instrument recorded in Book 380 at Page 425. 12. Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, Granting Detailed and Final Plat Approval to the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD, Resolution No. 94 -233, as set forth in instrument recorded December 30, 1994 in Book 770 at Page 783 as Reception No. 377678. `w, Order Number. 917651 stewart ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) — Schedule B 2 . title guaranty company Pagel of 13. Utility Connection Permit and Water Service Agreement as set forth in instrument recorded December 30, 1994 in Book 770 at Page 791 as Reception No. 377679. 14. Grant of Utility Easement recorded December 30, 1994 in Book 770 at Page 794. 15. Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD as set forth in instrument recorded December 30, 1994 in Book 770 at Page 796 as Reception No. 377682, and Amendment to the Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD recorded December 10, 1998 as Reception No. 425355, and Amendment to the Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD recorded June 1, 1999 as Reception No. 431660 and Amendment to the Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD recorded June 1, 1999 as Reception No. 431661, and Amendment of the Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD recorded November 5, 2004 as Reception No. 503923. 16. Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD Subdivision Improvements Agreement as set forth in instrument recorded December 30, 1994 in Book 770 at Page 818 as Reception No. 377683. 17. Fisherman's Easement Agreement (Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD) as set forth in instrument recorded December 30, 1994 in Book 770 at Page 821 as Reception No. 377684. 18. All matters shown on the First Amended Plat of the Stillwater Ranch Parcels recorded in Plat Book 33 at Page 34 and on the Plat of Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD recorded December 30, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 86 as Reception No. 377681. 19. Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, Lot 5 Annexation plat recorded August 7, 1997 in Plat Book 43 at Page 35 as Reception No. 407093. 20. Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, Granting Approval of an Additional Ten Year Vesting Period for the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, Resolution No. 99 -104, as set forth in instrument recorded June 18, 1999 as Reception No. 432327. 21. Any questions, dispute or adverse claims as to any loss or gain of land as a result of any change in the river bed location by other than natural causes, or alternation through accretion, reliction, erosion or avulsion of the center thread, bank channel or flow of waters in the Roaring Fork River lying within subject land and any questions as to the location of such center thread, bed, bank, or channel as a legal description monument or marker for purposes of describing or locating subject lands. (a) All right, title or claim or any character by the United States, state, local government or by the public generally in and to any portion of the land lying within the current or former bed, or below the ordinary high water mark, or between the cut banks of a stream navigable in fact or in law. (b) Right of riparian water rights owners to the use and flow of the water. (c) The consequence of any past or future change in the location of the bed. 22. Any costs or expenses due for maintenance and snow - plowing of the access road as set forth in Order Number. 917651 r Ste. wart /� ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) — Schedule B 2 �7 � Y YC.Y �. Page 2 of 3 title guaranty company Bargain and Sale Deed recorded December 30, 1994 in Book 770 at Page 826 as Reception No. 377685. 23. Ordinance No. 10 (series of 1997) City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, recorded June 23, 1997 as Reception No. 405613. 24. Ordinance No. 11 (series of 1997) City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, recorded June 23, 1997 as Reception No. 405614. 25. All matters shown on the plat of Silver Lining Ranch recorded September 26, 1997 in Plat Book 43 at Page 69 as Reception No. 408852. 26. Occupancy Deed Restriction and Agreement for an Employee Dwelling Unit Approved Pursuant to Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, recorded October 17, 1997 as Reception No. 409578. 27. Trench, Conduit and Vault Agreement recorded December 9, 1997 as Reception No. 411465. 28. Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., Contract for Electric Service recorded October 15, 1998 as Reception No. 423228. 29. Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., Underground Right of Way Easement recorded October 15, 1998 as Reception No. 423233. 30. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Agreement recorded July 12, 1999 as Reception No. 433254. 31. Resolution of Amendment of the Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision recorded January 20, 2009 as Reception No. 555870. 32. Resolution No. 6 Series of 2009 by City of Aspen recorded March 5, 2009 as Reception No. 556912. 33. Ordinance No. 8 (Series of 2009) recorded June 3, 2009 as Reception No. 559631. NOTE: Exceptions 1 and 4 may be deleted from the policies, provided the seller and or buyer/borrower execute the Company's affidavits, as required herein, and the Company approves such deletions. Exceptions 2 and 3 may be deleted from the policies, provided the Company receives and approves the survey or survey affidavit if required herein. Exception 5 will not appear on the policies, provided the Company, or its authorized agent, conducts the closing of the proposed transaction and is responsible for the recordation of the documents. Order Number. 917651 n Y Y /� /'rt ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) — Schedule B 2 C.Y Page 3 of 3 title guaranty company EXHIBIT 1 City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Silver Lining Ranch (1490 Ute Avenue) (PID# 2737484 -06 -805) Request for SPA Amendment, Growth Management Reviews and Special Review for an attached ADU To whom it may concern: As co- applicants for the Silver Lining Ranch SPA Amendment and associated approvals, we hereby authorize Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to act as our designated and authorized representative for the preparation, submittal and processing of the application requesting the approvals listed above, as well as, any subsequent applications that may be associated therewith. HLP is also authorized to represent us in meetings with City staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Aspen City Council. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC. Yours truly, / K • " anch, LLC Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., Attorney for Little Star Foundation, Inc. Silver Lining Ranch Co- Applicants c/o Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-7819 EXHIBIT 377682 B -770 P -796 12/30/94 04:10P PG 1 OF 22 REC SILVIA DAVIS PITMIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 110.00 pROTECTIVE COVENANTS 2..Ca $TILLWATRR R *NCE BUBDIVISION /POD Deceaber 30. 1994 ARTICLE I purpose of Covenants These Protective Covenants ( "Covenants') shall govern and be applicable to that certain real property situated in Pitkin County, Colorado, known as Stillwater Ranch Subdivision /PUD (the "Subdivision "), as depicted and described on the Final Plat of Stillwater Ranch Subdivision /PUD (the "Final Plat") recorded in Plat BookJt at Page of the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. It is the intention of Fabienne Benedict ( "Benedict "), expressed by her execution of this instrument, that the present beauty, views, and environment of the lands within the Subdivision be protected, subject to the uses and improvements permitted by this instrument. In furtherance of these objectives, Benedict does hereby recite that from and after the recording of this instrument in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado, the lands within the Subdivision shall be forever burdened and benefitted by and subject to the following Covenants, to the extent set forth herein which Covenants shall run with the title to all of the Lands within the Subdivision. ARTICLE II pefinitions As used in this instrument, the term "Subdivision" shall be deemed to mean and include all of the lands depicted and described on the Final Plat of Stillwater Ranch Subdivision /PUD recorded in Plat Book.i.f at PageeZ of the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, as said Final Plat may be amended from time to tine. The term "Lot" shall mean and refer to each of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as designated and described on the Final Plat. The term "Open Space Parcel" shall mean and refer to the Open Space Parcel as designated in described on the Final Plat. ARTICLE III Development and Use Reauirements and Restrictions 1. Resolutions of Board of County Commissioners and of planning and Eonina Commission. Owners of lands within the Subdivision shall adhere to the requirements and restrictions set 377682 8-770 P -797 12/30/94 04310P PG 2 OF 22 forth in (i) Resolution No. 94 -f of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, as records in Book 77(1 at Page 77,7 of the Pitkin County records, and (ii) Resolution No. 94- df of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission as recorder Book '/(f at Page 793 of the Pitkin County records. In the event of any conflicts between said Resolutions and these Covenants, the terms and provisions of the Resolutions shall govern and control. 2. yevelopment Limitations on Certain Lots. (a) On each of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, development shall be limited to one (1) free market single - family residence, one (1) deed restricted Category One affordable housing unit, and such accessory uses and structures as may be permitted from time to time in the AYR -2, Agricultural and Forestry Zone District or any successor to such Zone District. (b) The single - family residences on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) bedrooms each. Additional bedrooms may be approved by Pitkin County subject to mitigation by the Lot owner (in the form of more on -site affordable housing bedrooms or cash-in -lieu) of any incremental affordable housing requirement associated with the additional approved bedroom(s). Two (2) parking spaces must be provided for each residence constructed on such Lots. (c) All structures on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 must be located within the building envelopes depicted on the Final Plat. (d) On each of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, the maximum allowable residential floor area (single- family residence and affordable housing unit combined) shall be 6,500 square feet. Floor area calculations shall be based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time a building permit is applied for on a particular Lot. The limitations in this Paragraph 2(d) do not apply to Lots 5 and 6. (e) No development shall occur upon or in connection with Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 excepting permitted uses within the building envelopes, access roads and individual driveways, utility extensions, irrigation systems, and fencing meeting Colorado Division of Wildlife standards. Unless required by the County for fire protection, no disturbance, including vegetation removal, shall occur outside these development areas, except for disturbance or vegetation removal associated with a landscaping plan that has been reviewed and approved in advance by the Planning Office. Within the building envelopes, removal of mature trees (any deciduous tree of six - inch caliper diameter - measured at breast height - or any evergreen taller than six feet in height) shall require prior approval of a tree removal plan by the Planning Office. 2 377682 B -770 P -798 12/30/94 04:10P PG 3 OF 22 (f) The limitations in Paragraph 2(a -e) above do not apply to Lot 6 or to the Open Space Parcel. If Lot 6 is redeveloped in the future, such redevelopment shall be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements in effect at that time. Furthermore, the limitations in Paragraph 2(a -e) above shall not apply to Lot 1 (and the platted Building Envelope thereon shall be deemed vacated) in the event that Pitkin County (or the City of Aspen, upon annexation) hereafter approves an affordable housing use in lieu of a single- family residential use for Lot 1, and shall not apply to Lot 5 (and the platted Building Envelope thereon shall be deemed vacated) in the event Pitkin County (or the City of Aspen, upon annexation) approves a use other than a single - family residential use for Lot 5. In the event of future County (or City) approval of alternate uses for Lots 1 and /or 5, the development limitations for such Lot(s) shall be set forth in the Resolution(s) of final approval and shall be recorded in the Pitkin County real property records. Upon recording, the terms and provisions of such Resolution(s) shall automatically be deemed additional Protective Covenants hereunder for purposes of the enforcement rights set forth in Article V below. (g) The following Scenic Overlay Review conditions shall apply to Lots 1 and /or 2, as indicated: (i) The building height on Lot 1 shall be limited to a maximum of 20 feet measured from existing grade or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the top of a flat roof or the midpoint of a pitched roof. The ridge of a pitched roof shall not exceed 25 feet above existing or finished grade, whichever is lower. (ii) The building height on Lot 2 shall be limited to (a) a maximum of 20 feet measured from the existing elevation of the northeast corner of the building envelope to the top of a flat roof or the midpoint of a pitched roof, or (b) the maximum height allowed in the AFR -2 Zone District, whichever is lower. Said existing elevation is the same elevation as the top of the fire hydrant situated east of Stillwater Road near the southeast corner of Lot 1. The ridge of a pitched roof shall not exceed 25 feet above said existing elevation. (iii) The foregoing height limitations on Lots 1 and 2 may be varied subject to obtaining a new Scenic Overlay approval of a site specific development plan for Lot 1 or Lot 2 pursuant to the standards and procedures in effect at the time of a new application. (iv) The owner of Lot 1 shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning Office prior 3 377682 B - 770 P -799 12/30/94 04:10P PG 4 OF 22 to the issuance of a building permit for any structural improvement on Lot 1. The purpose of the landscape plan shall be to reduce the visual impact of development on Lot 1 from Highway 82. (h) The following architectural and exterior lighting requirements shall apply to Lots 1 and 2: (i) Architectural Reauirements. No shining or reflecting roofs or other surfaces or materials shall be used or permitted to remain on any buildings or structures upon Lots 1 and 2; the exterior materials used on such buildings and structures shall be limited to wood, stone, brick, adobe or stucco; roofs and trims can be non - reflective and non - shining metal; and the exterior colors used on such buildings and structures shall be earth or natural wood tones that are harmonious with the natural surroundings. (ii) Exterior Lir7htinc Recuir rents. With the exception of one entrance light at the intersection of Highway 82 and Stillwater Road, and one outdoor light for the garage or home entrance (unless otherwise required by the Uniform Building Code), access drive and landscape ^accent" lighting shall be prohibited on Lots 1 and 2. Low level walkway lighting, however, shall be allowed for safety purposes. All exterior lighting shall comply with the applicable requirements of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. No exterior lighting shall be allowed on the north aide of any buildings constructed on Lots 1 and 2, or on any portion of the second story of any buildings constructed on Lot 2. (i) In the event that Pitkin County (or the City of Aspen, upon annexation) hereafter approves an affordable housing use in lieu of a single - family residential use for Lot 1, Benedict hereby reserves to herself and to her husband Fredric A. Benedict (and following their deaths to their children Nicolas Benedict and Jessie Benedict- Gordon) the right to review and to comment upon, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the type, density, location and design of all affordable housing improvements and landscaping that Pitkin County (or the City of Aspen, upon annexation) may propose for Lot 1, subject to the understanding that Pitkin County (or the City of Aspen, upon annexation) shall have the final authority in such matters. 3. Omen Space Parcel. (a) The Open Space Parcel is permanently restricted to agricultural uses and improvements, the pasturing of horses and related uses and improvements, and such other open space 4 377682 B -770 P-800 12/30/94 04:10P PG 5 OF 22 uses and improvements as may be approved from time to time by the Stillwater Ranch Homeowners/ Association. No such other open space use or improvement shall be approved that does not maintain horse pasturing as the primary use of the meadow portion of the Open Space Parcel, and that doss not preserve the quiet and pastoral quality of the Open Space Parcel. As used herein, *agricultural and horse pasturing uses and improvements* shall be deemed to include but not be limited to: (i) Irrigation activities, including the installation, maintenance, improvement, operation and replacement of ponds, ditches, headgates, and other water collection, distribution and delivery systems. (ii) Access roads, trails, and underground utility lines. (iii) Seeding, fertilizing and harvesting of appropriate crops from time to time, all forms of gardening, and /or a tree and /or plant nursery, and /or a landscaping operation. (iv) Pasturing, grazing, stabling, impounding, riding, feeding and care of horses and other livestock, provided such activities do not result in overgrazing or the pollution or other degradation of surface or subsurface waters. (v) Existing uses of the Open Space Parcel. (vi) Construction, maintenance, improvement, operation and replacement of agricultural or horse pasturing structures, improvements or facilities, including without limitation fences, corrals, barns, sheds, and stables. All such structures (excepting fences and corrals) shall comply with applicable provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, and shall receive such approvals as may be required pursuant thereto. (vii) Horseback riding, fishing, hiking, and cross - country skiing. (b) The Open Space Parcel may not be further subdivided, except that a lot line adjustment shall be permitted between the Open Space Parcel and the Out Parcel depicted on the Final Plat if County and landowner approval can be obtained. If final approval for such a lot line adjustment is obtained, the portion of the Open Space Parcel that is added to the Out Parcel shall no longer be subject to these Covenants and the 5 • 377682 B -770 P -801 12/30/94 04:10P PG 6 OF 22 portion of the Out Parcel that is added to the Open Space Parcel shall be deemed subject to these Covenants. (c) On or before March 1, 1995, Benedict shall form a Homeowners/ Association comprised of the owners of the six (6) Lots in the Subdivision for purposes of owning, governing and maintaining the Open Space Parcel, and shall convey the Open Space Parcel to the Homeowners' Association by Bargain and Sale Deed for the use and benefit of said Lot owners and their respective families, guests, invitees and tenants. Provided, that such deed shall reserve the exclusive use, benefit and control of the Open Space Parcel to Fabienne Benedict and Fredric A. Benedict for the remainder of their lives. During such exclusive use period, the Benedicts or either of them shall determine the appropriate open space uses for the Open Space Parcel (subject to the use limitations described above), and shall in their sole discretion have the right (but never the obligation) to authorize the use of the Open Space Parcel or portions thereof by the owners or occupants of one or more of the other Lots in the Subdivision or by existing users of the Open Space Parcel. (d) The Open Space Parcel and all parts thereof shall be maintained at all times in an attractive, clean and safe condition. All costs and expenses of owning, improving, maintaining, caring for and operating the Open Space Parcel or any part thereof (including the irrigation ditch that serves the same, the waterfall, the pond, and all irrigation and aeration systems) shall be borne by the Homeowners' Association. Provided, that the Benedicts shall bear all such costs and expenses during their lives. The Homeowners' Association shall have the authority to levy and collect regular and special assessments to cover all costs related to the Open Space Parcel. 4. Affordable Housing. (a) The owner of each of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall provide an above grade deed restricted one - bedroom affordable housing unit within the Building Envelope on the Lot. The unit shall be constructed concurrently with the construction of the single - family residence on the Lot, and the Certificates of Occupancy for the residence and housing unit shall be issued simultaneously. (b) The affordable housing unit may be either detached or attached to the principal single - family residence, and shall meet or exceed the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority ( "APCHA ") minimum net livable area requirement for Category One units. 6 377682 8-770 P -802 12/30/94 04:10P PG 7 OF 22 (c) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the primary single- family residence and the affordable housing unit on a Lot, the Lot owner shall execute and file with the APCHA an agreement in form acceptable to the APCHA which deed restricts the affordable housing unit to be built on that Lot in accordance with the APCHA's Category One income, price and occupancy guidelines in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit. (d) The foregoing affordable housing requirements shall not apply to Lot 1 in the event that Pitkin County (or the City of Aspen, upon annexation) hereafter approves an affordable housing use in lieu of a single - family residential use for Lot 1, and shall not apply to Lot 5 in the event Pitkin County (or the City of Aspen, upon annexation) approves a use other than a single - family residential use for Lot 5. 5. Utilities. (a) All residential structures on the Lots must be connected to the existing municipal water and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewer lines which serve the immediate area. Any tap or other fees shall i,e paid by the respective Lot owner. With respect to ACSD sewer service, the Lot owner must also pay an additional prorated surcharge that will be used to recover the costs of repairing a downstream constraint. The surcharge will be determined by the ACSD at the time the tap fee is paid. (b) In the event a sewage pumping system is required on any Lot, a conventional septic tank must also be installed to pretreat effluent prior to discharge into the pumping chamber. The septic tank and sewage pumping system design must be reviewed by the Aspen / Pitkin Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of a building permit for the subject Lot. (c) All individual utility service lines within the Subdivision shall be installed by the respective Lot owners at their cost and shall be buried underground. All individual utility service lines shall be located in the existing access road system, a platted utility easement or the individual Lot driveways to minimize site disturbance, unless another location is approved in advance by the Planning Office. Areas disturbed by the installation or maintenance of utility lines shall be revegetated by and at the expense of the Lot owner causing the disturbance, no later than the next growing season. (d) In -house sprinkler systems must be installed in the residential structures on Lots 2, 3 and 4 for fire protection purposes. 7 377682 B -770 P -803 12/30/94 04:10P PG 8 OF 22 Subdivis to the issuance of building allowed t the The Lot to check fire hydrants and water pressure. permit for a is filed for construction of any kind on each of Lotsp1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the owner of the Lot for which the a Z, being filed shall pay to Benedict or to her heirs the amount of $5,600.00 in order to reimburse Benedict for (i) the $20,000.00 sum paid by her to the City Water Department in lieu of dedicating water rights to the City, and (ii) the $8,000.00 sum paid by her to the City Water Department as the Subdivision's pro rata share of the cost of developing expanded water supplies for areas outside City boundaries. No building permits shall be issued for a Lot until the foregoing amount has been paid to Benedict or her heirs. 6. Easements for the Benefit of BDecific Lot. or Parcels. Benedict from time to time tof hereby grants d for e th h e use and benefit of Lots 3 and /or 4, and also grants and conveys to all interested utility companies a perpetual, non - exclusive easement over, along and beneath a 30 -foot wide strip of land along and contiguous to the easterly boundary of Lot 4 and of the Open Space Parcel, as depicted and described on the Final Plat. Said easement shall run with the title to Lots 3 and 4 and the Open Space Parcel, and shall be used solely for purposes of installing, operating, maintaining, repairing and replacing underground utility lines serving Lots 3 and /or 4, and for such surface access as may be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of those purposes. The disturbing Lot owner (or a utility company, as the case may be) shall be responsible for restoring the surface of the easement as nearly as possible to its original condition following any disturbance thereof by the Lot owner (or by a utility company) in the exercise of its rights hereunder. The Lot 4 owner and the Open Space Parcel owner shall have the right to cross said easement at any point or points with access roads and driveways, and /or with other utility lines, provided that said Lot 4 owner and /or Open Space Parcel owner, as the case may be„ shall be responsible for repairing any damage to utility lines within said easement resulting therefrom. (b) Benedict hereby grants and conveys to the owners from time to time of the Open Space Parcel, for the use and benefit of the Open Space Parcel and all persons entitled to use the same, a perpetual, non - exclusive easement and right- - of -way across Lot 4, said easement being 30 feet in width lying 15 feet on either side of the centerline of the existing access road in place between Ute Avenue and the meadow area on the Open Space Parcel, as said existing roadway traverses Lot 8 377682 8-770 P -804 12/30/94 04210P PG 9 OF 22 4, as generally depicted and located on the Final Plat. Said easement shall run with the title to Lot f4andstheirn S Space egress to the he Parcel, and shall be SpaCe for and f or underground utility egress serving the Open Space Parcel. The Lot invnrr shall have the right to cross said easement at any point points with driveways and /or with other utility lines. With the exception of such grading nt drainage id movement as maynbe required from time time and the safe and passable condition, said access roadway easement therefor) shall be left in its present natural state and shall not Space Parcel shall further improved. l beaallcosts o main aining and improving the subject roadway and easement, and shall at all times carry liability insurance in the minimum amount of $2,000,000. which insurance shall name the owner of Lot 4 as an additional insured. Benedict hereby grants to the owner from time to time of Lot 4 the right and option at any time to relocate any portion at of said access road and easement as it is Verses uous 4, and said owner's sole expense, so long functional road access is Space Parcel, and Avenue execute and area on the Open Stillwater Ranch subdivision record an /PU wwhich reflects the lrelocated easement. /POD, (c) By separate Grant of Utility Easement recorded in Book779 at Page lgy of the Pitkin County records, Benedict has granted to the owner from time toti i m eaof the11Out P arcel depicted on the Final Plat a p oL p underground utility easement along and within the existing road easement said road easement m was created in Parcel, in the Deed recorded in in Book 188 at Page 82 of the Pitkin County records. 7. AcceSS and Utility saseae t.. (a) A perpetual, non - exclusive easement and right -of -way Plat for 40 feet in width has been purposes of access from C dedicated oloradoState Highway F No. 82 to Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, and for underground utility lines. The maintenance, repair, snowplowing and improvement of said common access road is governed by the terms and provisions of that certain Access Road Maintenance Aga recorded in Book 733 at Page 504 of the Pitkin County records. By her execution and recording of these Covenants, Benedict hereby Maintenance Agreement in the followinga Access amend said respects: Road (i) Benedict hereby identifies d ebY rt o t Subdivision which will 9 377682 8 - 770 P -805 12/30/94 04:10P PG 10 OF 22 access road as follows: Lots 5 and 6, and the Open Space Parcel, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision /PUD. As specifically provided in Paragraph 9 thereof, said Lots 5 and 6 and the Open Space Parcel in Stillwater Ranch Subdivision /PUD shall no longer be burdened or bound in any way by the Access Road Maintenance Agreement, and the title thereto shall be deemed to be free of said Agreement. (ii) The Access Road Maintenance Agreement allocates to Parcel 1 of the Stillwater Ranch Parcels a one -third (1/3) share of the costs and expenses of snowplowing the common access road and of making essential repairs and improvements thereto. Benedict hereby reallocates said one -third (1/3) share as follows: One - fourth (1/4) of said one -third (1/3) share to each of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the Subdivision. Each of said Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall also be entitled to one vote under the Access Road Maintenance Agreement. The easement described in this Paragraph 7(a) is subject to the easement rights enjoyed by the improved property lying east of Parcel 3 of the Stillwater Ranch Parcels, as set forth in those certain instruments recorded in Book 275 at Page 222, Book 700 at Page 184, and Book 718 at Page 230 of the Pitkin County records, and is also subject to the easement rights enjoyed by Parcels 2 and 3 of the Stillwater Ranch Parcels as set forth on the First Amended Plat of the Stillwater Ranch Parcels recorded in Plat Book 33 at Page 34 and in the Protective Covenants for the Pine Lake Parcels (Parcels 2 and 3 of the Stillwater Ranch Parcels) recorded in Book 733 at Page 510 of the Pitkin County records. (b) 30 feet in wiidth has non-exclusive ated for purposes of access from the above- mentioned 40 -foot vide access easement to Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, and for underground utility lines. In the above - mentioned Protective Covenants for the Pine Lake Parcels, the costs of maintaining, repairing, snowplowing and improving the portion of said 30- foot wide access easement that is actually used by Pine Lake Parcel 2 (i.e., up to the point of departure therefrom of the Parcel 2 driveway) are allocated 25 percent to Parcel 2 and 75 percent to the portions of Parcel 1 that are actually served by said road. Benedict hereby reallocates said 75 percent share amongst the Lots in the Subdivision that are actually served by said road up to the point of departure of the Parcel 2 driveway. The costs of maintaining, repairing, snowplowing and improving the portion of said 30 -foot wide access road lying beyond the Parcel 2 driveway shall be shared, allocated and paid in equal shares by the Lots in the Subdivision that are actually served by such remaining portion of the road. 10 377682 B -770 P -806 12/30/94 04:10P PO 11 OF ee All road repairs and improvements shal with applicable e in o] aand regulations manner, improvements shall be made in o regulations and codes, and imp cifications prepared by a registered with plans and ape registered Colorado engineer. Any owner served by the road shall have the right to perform (or to have third owing ersons perform) such maintenance, repair, improvements with respect to the road as may be reasonably required by the circumstances, and to pay for the same, and to bill the other owner(s) served by the road for his or their share of such costs, as above set forth. Any such bill not and percent ppeerSannum from date of bill mai ing shall until interest in at 18 per full, and the billing owner shall be entitled to an award of a civil its action ato collect the attorneys' f files delinquent amount a d prevails The easement described in this Paragraph 7(b) is subject Ranch Parcels t rights forth done the above-mentioned 11 First Amended ltr thereof the ln Par a above mentioned Protective Covenants for e Pine (c) A perpetual, non - exclusive easement and right -of - way 30 feet in urpos scrofsac Lot has from the e 30-foot wide e access Plat for p rPo easement described in Paragraph 7(b) above to Lots 1 and 2, sts respectively, and for underground utility lines. All osts and expenses of repairing, maintaining, the improving said access easement shall be sharredsequaid bycthe owners of Lots 1 and 2, respectively, unles easement is not used for such in which case the Lot improvements owner shall bear constructed costs Lot and expenses. All road repairs and on ill in cvme ompl shall be made in a good and workmanlike manner and in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and codes, plans and and shall be specifications improvements d prepared by a registered Colorado angineer. 8. A sass Roads and Driveways. (a) Lot owners shall obtain access permits from the county Engineer prior to any improvement of the access roads or the construction of the individual to the issuance of serve the Building Envelopes, and prior permit for a Lot. The individual driveways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Pitkin County Road Standards permit and applied for. in effect at the time a building (b DriVeways shall enter the for the first 25 feet of the access driveway road at a 90 degree angle 11 i— 377682 8 -770 P -807 12/30/94 04:10P PG 12 OF 22 (c) Individual driveways must be paved or graveled, and must be treated with an approved dust retardant, at the cost of the Lot owner. (d) Costs of dust control measures on the 40 -foot wide common access road, if any are required, shall be governed by the terms of the above - mentioned Access Road Maintenance Agreement, as herein amended. Costs of dust control measures on the 30 -foot wide access road described in Paragraph 7(b) above, if any are required, shall be shared by the owners of the lots served thereby and by the owner of Pine Lake Parcel 2 in the manner set forth in the Access Road Maintenance Agreement (as amended) and in Paragraph 7(b) above. Costa of dust control measures on the 30 -foot wide access road across Lot 1 described in Paragraph 7(c) above, if any are required, shall be paid and shared in the same manner as the costs of repairing and improving that access road, as set forth in Paragraph 7(c) above. 9. Road Improvement District. The owners from time to time of each of the Lots shall be required to join a road improvement district that encompasses said Lot(s), if such a district is ever formed. 10. Air Quality. The owners of each of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall adhere to the Pitkin County Air Quality Standards in effect at the time of issuance of any building permits. All residential structures must, of course, comply with the Pitkin County fireplace and voodburning stove regulations in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit therefor. No woodburning devices shall be permitted in affordable housing units provided in conjunction with single- family residences on the Lots. Lot owners shall submit erosion and sediment control plans to the County Engineer for review and approval in the event required in connection with all building, access road and driveway construction and improvement, and all other earthmoving activities. 11. nerdy. The single- family residences to be constructed on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and the affordable housing units provided in conjunction therewith, must exceed the minimum standards contained in Pitkin County's 1989 Model Energy Code. The specific performance standards that must be met are set forth on Schedule A - Energy Saving Measures, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. The single - family residences on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and the affordable housing units provided in conjunction therewith, must also include water conservation devices, in accordance with the following criteria: 12 377682 8 -770 P -808 12/30/94 04:10P PG 13 OF 22 (a) Shower Heads (Gallons 2.5 Per Minute) (b) Faucet Aerators (Gallons 2.5 per Minute) (c) Toilets (Gallons per Flush) 2.5 12. Radom ass• Eac LOt owner shall be responsible for testing for the presence of radon gas on the Lot, and for implementing any remediation measures that may be required in connection therewith. H recorded By that certain instrument 1 -IM at Page _J of the Pitkin County records, a fma 'S Book portions of the Roariing Fork Rive ras it flows through the Subdivision. :r w sasemant. A perpetual, non - exclusive 14. asl � Biro on the Final Plat upon and across Lots 1, easement has been dedicated hereby 3 grants to the owner l from time D to time of Lot g 4 t the right and option ga' time to relocate any portion of said ditch or option at any at said owner's sole expense, so long as it is usage Lot 4, ied are not adve as historic usage and of entry yointo Lot 4 ai rr not changed, and so long adversely affected, as any fected, tnewP point of exit from Lot 4 delivers the remaining water to the existing ens Spac s Parc e l or the any uses or ystem on improvements pen Pa mprov without dmaging tan Oe if the ditch /pipeline is , thereon way. in any ty. lly move relocated, the platted t h 4 r o der r s hall have thearight at hall to the w location, and d the the Lot lat its option ti4 and expense to execute and record , whichde flectspthe of Lot 4, , Stillwater Ranch subdivision /PUO relocated ditch easement. furthermore, the Lot 4 owner shall have the right to continue to route such ditch /pipeline water through the existing pond on Lot 4. 15. Ho Behold Pete Horses Livestock. On Lots 1, 2, 3 , 4 and 5, household pets such as dogs and cats shall be permitted, On provided that wooden kennel for e and r the impoundment tof ehorses leashed at all Lots 4 and 5, and the grazing shall be permitted. Horses shall not be allowed on Lots 1, 3. Cattle, sheep, and other non - household pets, and i 1, 2, m3 of ndvest an °noecommercial B raising r or icommercial r than kenneling 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, kneeling of animals of any kind shall be permitted upon Lots . 2, 3, 4 and 5. The limitations pace Par eln this Paragraph 15 do not Spa. to Lot 6 or the Open velopes on 16. Henning. All fencing outside�i Colorado Division of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall comply 13 377682 B -770 P -809 12/30/94 04110P PG 14 OF 22 Wildlife standards, including a maximum of 42 inches in height using four (4) or less strands or rails. 17. Wildfire Mitigation Measures. The owners of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall adhere to the following wildfire mitigation measures on their respective Lots: (a) Brush, debris and non - ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a minimum perimeter of 10 feet of residential and accessory structures. (b) Existing vegetation and landscaping shall be thinned within 30 feet of all structures such that the spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation is a minimum of two (2) times the height of the fuel. The maximum diameter of the clumps should be two (2) times the height of the fuel. All measurements are to be taken from the edges of the crowns of the fuel. (c) Tree crown separation within the 30 -foot perimeter shall be a minimum of 10 feet between the crowns. This requirement does not apply to mature stands of aspen trees where the preceding requirements for the removal of ladder fuels have been met. However, the spacing guidelines outlined in Paragraph 17(b) above shall be followed in areas of aspen regeneration. (d) Branches shall be pruned from trees within 30 feet of all structures to a height of 10 feet above ground. Ladder fuels shall be removed from around trees and bushes. (e) Branches which extend over roof eaves shall be trimmed. Branches shall be removed within 15 feet of any chimney. (f) The density of fuels within 100 feet of all structures shall be reduced. (g) Fuelbreaks shall be provided within 100 feet of the access roads and driveways. (h) Non - combustible roof material including, but not limited to, tile, asphalt or metal roof material, or Class B Certi -Guard (registered brand name) Red Label shakes and shingles or other roof material utilizing Class B Construction techniques (1/2 inch minimum solid sheathing) or better, shall be required for all new structures. 18. park Dedication Fee. At the time a building permit is issued for the construction of a single - family residence on each of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the Lot owner shall pay to Pitkin County a Park Dedication Fee in accordance with the regulations in effect at 14 377682 B-770 P -810 12/30/94 04110P PG 15 OF 22 that time, based on the then current appraised value of the Lot. Lot 6 is exempt from the Park Dedication Fee. 19. Compliance with Government Regulations. No lands within the Subdivision shall ever be occupied or used by or for any structure or purpose or in any manner which is contrary to he zoning, subdivision, land use or building regulations of Pitkin Colorado, state or federal laws regulatio any other in force from regulations. 20. gnolosure of Facilities and Equipment: Trash Removal. Al]. equipment, facilities, and other unsightly items on any Lot within the Subdivision shall be located within the Building Envelope on the Lot (if one exists on the Lot), and whether or not a Building Envelope exists, shall be enclosed within a solid, covered structure, or fully screened from view. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific restrictions shall also apply. Any truck, tractor, snow removal or garden equipment, and any similar items, shall be kept at all times, except when in actual use, in an enclosed garage. Motor homes, trailers and boats must be kept in enclosed garages, or stored in an area that is completely invisible (during all seasons) from the other Lots and from all platted access roads. Any refuse or trash container, utility meter, or other utility facility, satellite receiving dish for television or other signals, service area, storage pile, or area for hanging clothing or other household fabrics must be located within a Building Envelope (if one exists on the Lot), and whether or not a Building Envelope exists, shall be enclosed or adequately screened from view by planting or fencing so as to be invisible from the other Lots and from the access bulk shall• No s or G allo allowed to accumulate scrap, or trash on any Lot, except building materials during the course of construction, and then only within the Building Envelope (if one exists on the Lot) and only for such reasonable period of time as is necessary prior to the use or removed rom the Lots and shall not be promptly n t be burned thereon. 21. Used or T-- porery structures. No used, previously erected, or temporary house, structure, construction trailer, or nonpermanent outbuilding shall ever be placed, erected or allowed to remain within the Subdivision, except during construction periods, and no dwelling unit shall ever be occupied in any manner its located motor ever be occupied in ubdivision 22. Completion of Construction. Any exterior construction activity upon any Lot shall be completed and fully cleaned up within 24 months from its commencement. 23. Road namaaO. Each Lot owner is responnsibleand cshall promptly repair in a good and workmanlike manner, any 15 377682 8 P -811 12/30/94 04:1 @p PG 16 OF 22 to access roads during the construction of improvements or the installation of utility lines upon or serving the owner's Lot, or damage caused at any other time by any vehicle belonging either to the owner or to the owner's family, guests, invitees or contractors. 24. Mo Business saes. oftensjy� ._ -- _ gigue. No lands or structures within the Subdivision shall ever be occupied or used for any commercial or business purpose excepting a single- family residence use for Lot 1 after and su such use , other l than a single - family residential use as may hereafter be approved for Lot 5. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on or allowed at any time within the Subdivision, specifically including without limitation the operation of snowmobiles, ATVs, off -road motorcycles (i.e., dirt bikes), or boats powered by gasoline motors or engines. Nothing shall be done or permitted to be done at any time within the Subdivision which is a nuisance or which might become a nuisance by sight, sound, smell or otherwise to a Lot or a Lot owner or occupant. An approved affordable housing use on Lot 1, and any use other than a single- family residence that may hereafter be approved on Lot 5, shall not constitute a nuisance hereunder. And with the exception of one "For Sale" sign of normal size on a Lot, no signs or billboards shall ever be erected or permitted to remain within the Subdivision. 25. Firearms. The discharge or shooting of firearms is prohibited within the Subdivision. 26. ,lo Mining. Drillina or ouarrvinq. No mining, quarrying, tunnelling, excavating, or drilling for substances within the earth, including oil, gas, minerals, gravel, sand, rock and earth, but expressly excluding water, shall ever be conducted or permitted upon or within the Subdivision. or other surfaces or 27. Roofs. Materials. Colors. No shining or reflecting roofs on any buildings or structures within the Subdivision; t he the used on such buildings and structures shall be limited to wood, stone, brick, adobe or stucco; roofs and trims can be non- reflective and non - shining metal; and the exterior colors used on such buildings and structures shall be earth or natural wood tones that are harmonious with the natural surroundings. 28. Sowers and Antennas. No towers or radio or television antennae or similar communication equipment higher than 3 feet above the highest roof line of the structure to which they are attached shall ever be erected or permitted within the Subdivision, and all such towers, antennae and similar equipment (excepting satellite dishes) must be attached to a residential structure (unless a use other than a single- family residential use is hereafter approved on Lot 5). 16 377682 B -770 P -812 12/30/94 04:10P PG 17 OF 22 29. Tanks. No elevated tanks of any kind shall ever be erected, placed, or permitted to remain within the Subdivision. Any tank used in connection with any structure or activity within the Subdiviin including lu l or water, tas shall be buried. of natural gas, fuel oil, gasoline, 30. jot 6 and the Open Mae Parcel Temporarily Exempt. Lot 6 shall be in Paragraphs 20-29 requirements from the restrictions and 29 above for so long as Lot 6 is owned of n record by Fabienne Benedict, Fredric A. Benedict, any one or more of their children, or a trust or trusts for the benefit of any of said persons. The Open Space Parcel shall be exempt from the restrictions and requirements contained in Paragraphs 20 -29 above for so long as either Fabienne Benedict or Fredric A. Benedict remains alive. 31. EmeraenoY Access Easement. Anon-exclusive easement for ingress and egress is hereby granted by Benedict to all police, sheriff, fire protection, ambulance and other similar emergency agencies or persons, now or hereafter serving the Subdivision and its residents, to enter upon the access roads dedicated on the Final prop, and inpthethe Subdivision, in the lawful performance any of other property their duties. ARTICLE It TRAIL EASEMENTS By those certain Trail Easement Agreements recorded (i) in Book 733 at Page 485, and (ii) in Book 763 at Page 935, all of the Pitkin County records, Benedict has granted trail easements across portions of the Subdivision, along the alignments shown on the Final Plat, for the use and benefit of the general public. Title thhe of aid Tail Easement i to Agreements. ARTICLE Y ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 1. Anforoament Authority. Pitkin County (or the City of Aspen, upon annexation), and each Lot owner, and the owner of the Open Space Parcel, shall have the right to prosecute an action at any time for injunctive relief and /or for damages by reason of any any brought interpret Covenants. e of these to in rpret or enforce t in these Covenants damages action for a violation hereof shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 17 • 377682 B -770 P - 813 12/30/94 04:10P PG 18 OF 22 2. Limitations en Aa t + In the event any alteration, or landscaping hn cof theclands P work is commenced upon any of the lands within the Subdivision in violation of these Covenants, , and no action is commenced within two hundred seventy (270) days thereafter to restrain such violation, then injunctive or equitable relief shall be denied, but an action for damages shall still be available to any party aggrieved. This 270 -day limitation shall not apply to injunctive or equitable relief against other violations of these Covenants. ARTICLE VI B 1. Benefits and Burdens of �vs Except as otherwise specifically re i n , all Covenants contained in this instrument r provided ded here a r e of and appurtenant to the title to all of sh the lands a burden on and Subdivision. Except as otherwise specifically the lands h ein, the the benefits of the Covenants containe in this instrument her to Pitkin County (or the City of Aspen, rument sh o nure p owners from time to time of all upon annexation) and no the the lands within the Subdivision, and shall be deemed an a such lands. The benefits and burdenspoftallcoftsa daCovenants title to shall run with the title to all of the lands to which such burdens or benefits have been made appurtenant. 2. Term of Covenants. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, and unless amended or terminated pursuant to Paragraph 3 below, these Covenants shall be perpetual, except that any covenant to which the rule against perpetuities or the rule restricting restraints on alienation may be determined to be F applicable shall only extend and P A. Benedict, Benedict ict, Pabienne Benedict and Arthur of lives of dric and their now living children, and the survivor of them Daily, rs . Plus 20 years. 3 . Amendment or Terrain tied of provided below with respect to Pitkin County, Except a otherwise be specifically provided herein, all or and part as es Covenants may be amended or terminated at any time by the recording in the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records of a resolution of amendment agreed upon, executed and acknowledged by the then - current record owners of at least 4 Lots in the Subdivision if 5 or 6 Lots are entitled to vote or of at least 3 Lots if only 4 Lots are entitled to vote. If Pit kin County (or the City of Aspen, upon annexation) hereafter approves an employee housing use in lieu of a single - family residence use for Lot 1, Lot 1 shall no longer be entitled to vote on the amendment or termination of these covenants. Similarly, if Pitkin County for the City of Aspen, upon annexation) hereafter approves a use other than a single - family residential use for Lot 5, Lot. 5 shall no 18 377682 B -770 P -814 12/30/94 04:10P PG 19 OF 22 longer be entitled to vote on the amendment or termination of these Covenants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for so long as Fabienne Benedict, Fredric A. Benedict, any one or more of their children, or a trust or trusts for the benefit of any of said persons, owns Lot 6, these Covenants may not be amend or hes terminatedwithout the notwithstanding the written consent of said owner(s). foregoing, any provision of these Covenants which was required to be contained herein by approvals obtained by Benedict from Pitkin County including, without limitation, P & Z m ade restrictive, . 94- - and BOCC Resolution No. 94 -AU, may or terminated, without the consent of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (or the City Council of the City of Aspen, upon annexation). Finally, no amendment shall be adopted which changes the status of the Open Space Parcel as open space without the prior written consent of Pitkin County, whether or not the Open Space Parcel has since been annexed by the City of Aspen. 4. Disclaimer. Except as expressly set forth in these Covenants, no representations of any kind, express or implied, are given or made by Benedict or her agents or employees in connection with the Subdivision or any Lot or the Open Space Parcel therein or any portion thereof, or any improvements thereon, or physical features thereof, or the fitness thereof for any purpose, or utility service thereto, or the development potential thereof or any manner of compliance with the Pitkin County Land Use Code or applicable environmental or other laws or regulations, or with respect to the cost of owning, developing, enjoying or maintaining any of the lands within the Subdivision. 5. Beverability. Should any provision of these Covenants be declared invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining Covenants. IN WITNESS NNERBOB, Benedict has executed these Protective Covenants as of the day and year first above written. f Zifesw.e- IState Qs d Fabienne Benedict STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITEIN ) oregoing Protective Covenants were acknowledged before me Ilial / ` lay of December, 1994, by Fabienne Benedict. . Withers my hand and offs i. 1 seal. "' My oomtission expires :5 4 5 ;(SEAL) _ 1 e - ,1 - »j / /� Notar Public / OF C' . 13956. 19 377682 B -770 P -815 12/30/94 04:10P PG 20 OF 22 SCHEDULE A ENERGY SAVING MEASURES 1. Thermal design parameters (as found within reference RS -1; 1985 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals) - Degree days heating - 8850 Temperature differential - 85 degrees F Location - Aspen, CO; 39 degrees north latitude 2. Building envelope components - (a) Walls - gross area - U<0.12 single family U <0.24 multi - family (b) Roof /ceiling - U <0.028 single and multifamily (all) (c) Floors over unheated spaces; (all) U <0.05 (d) Heated slabs on grade; insulated to 4 ft below finish grade (f.g.) all R>9.2 (e) Unheated slabs on grade; insulated to 4 ft below f.g. (all) R>6.8 (f) Basement walls; insulated to floor level or 10 feet below f.g. (all) U<0.075 (g) Crawl space walls - U <0.06 (all) specific component assemblies will be identified at time of permit application. In addition to the generic assemblies included within MEC appendix Table Nos. 602.2.1a, b, c, 602.2.2, 602.2.3, 602.2.5, and 602.2.6, other assemblies may be offered along with independent documentation of thermal performance from industry- recognized sources. 3. For wall and roof openings, air infiltration shall be less than the maximum amounts specified within MEC Table No. 502.4.2 for manufactured windows and doors, v.i.z.: (a) 0.34 cfm per foot of operable sash crack for windows (b) 0.5 cfm per square foot of door area for swinging and sliding doors. In both cases, information will be provided from manufacturer's literature substantiating the component's attainment of these requirements. Site -built openings will meet the general requirements outlined below as required under MEC Sec. 502.4.3. General construction technique will assure that exterior joints in the building envelope that are sources of air leakage, such as around window and door frames; between wall 377682 8-770 P -816 12/30/94 04:10P PG 21 OF 22 cavities and window and door frames; between walls and foundations, between walls and roof /ceilings and between wall panels; openings at penetrations of utility services through walls, floors and roofs; and all other such openings in the building envelope shall be caulked, gasketed, weatherstripped or otherwise sealed in an acceptable manner. 4. Building Mechanical Systems - The following operational requirements shall be satisfied: (a) Heating systems shall be sized in accordance with the procedures called out in Chapters 25 and 26 of Standard RS -1 (1985 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals). (b) infiltration shall be calculated as in Chapter 22 of the same reference. (c) Gas fired furnaces and boilers shall exceed the 75% efficiency requirements of MEC Table No. 503.4.3. Data furnished by the equipment supplier or certified under a nationally recognized certification program will be used to demonstrate compliance. (d) Each mechanical ventilation system provided shall be switched from a readily accessible location. Where required by MEC Sec. 403.4.4, tight- fitting dampers will be provided to control air flow when the individual system is not in use. (e) All "all -air" heating systems will be designed with an air transport factor (as defined in MEC Sec. 503.5.1) greater than 5.5. Other medium systems will be designated to an efficiency equivalent to an "all -air" system as required by MEC Sec. 503.5.2. (f) All air and water systems will be designed to provide a means for balancing the system operation. (g) Thermostat control shall be furnished consistent with the 55 to 75 degree requirements of MEC Sec. 503.8. as well as the control setback and shutoff requirements of MEC Sec. 503.8.3.4. (h) Zones for the system operation shall meet the minimum requirements of MEC Sec. 503.8.3. Within single family spaces, control shall be provided to partially restrict or shut off the heating input to each zone or floor level. Within multifamily dwellings, similar controls shall be provided for each room. (i) For systems that utilize heated air energy transport, the duct system shall be insulated to exceed the minimum R 2 377682 8 -770 P -817 12/30/94 04:10P PG 22 OF 22 value required by MEC Sec. 503.9.1. All duct construction will meet the minimum requirements of the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1988, as adopted. As permitted therein, no insulation will be provided for exhaust air ducts. (j) Hot water service piping shall meet the minimum insulation thicknesses required by MEC Table 503.11. As permitted therein, differing thicknesses may be provided for insulation materials demonstrating a R value /inch greater than 4.6. For recirculating systems, piping heat loss shall be limited to a maximum of 17.5 Btu /hr per linear foot of pipe in accordance with NEC Table No. 504.7. (k) Service water heating equipment shall exceed the efficiencies and maximum standby loss requirements outlined within MEC Sec. 504.2. Heat loss from unfired hot water storage tanks will not exceed 13.6 Btu /hr /sf of external tank surface as required by MEC Sec. 504.2.2. Combination service water /space heating boilers will only be used for those installations where an overall energy savings results. Automatic temperature controls will be provided as required by MEC Sec. 504.3; temperature setting range shall be in accordance with Table No. 2, Chapter 37 of 1984 ASHRAE Systems Handbook. Facility shall be provided for complete system shutdown as required by MEC Sec. 504.4. Circulating hot -water systems will be arranged so that the circulation pump(s) can be turned off when the system is not in operation. Service water piping insulation will exceed the required insulation thicknesses given by MEC Table No. 504.7. (1) Any swimming pool provided within the project shall meet the listed requirements of MEC Sec. 504.5. (m) Plumbing fixtures utilizing hot water shall meet or exceed the minimum conservation requirements of MEC Sec. 504.8. v.i.z. 3 gpm hot water maximum discharge shower heads. (n) Electrical power and lighting systems will be designed to conserve energy. The lighting power budget requirements of MEC Sec. 505.3 do not apply to one and two family detached dwellings and the dwelling portion of multifamily buildings. Lighting switching shall be provided for each circuit as required by MEC Sec. 505.4 15987. 3 RESOLUTION OF AMENDMENT OF THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION/PUD May 10, 1999 WHEREAS, that certain real property situated in Pitkin County, Colorado, known as the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PHD (the "Subdivision "), as depicted and described on the Final Plat of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PHD, recorded in Plat Book 35 at Page 86, is subject to those Protective Covenants of December 30, 1994, recorded in Book 770 at Page 796, as amended by that Resolution of Amendment to the Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PHD of December 9, 1998 (collectively the "Covenants "), all in the office o f the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Subdivision was approved by Pitkin County Board of County to my Commissioners Resolution Nos. 94 -156 and 94-233 (the 'Resolutions "), subject terms and conditions contained in those resolutions; and WHEREAS, the Resolutions contain as a condition of approval a restriction that "dogs shall be kenneled or leashed at all times"; and WHEREAS, Article III, Section 15 of the Covenants requires that dogs be kenneled or leashed at all times on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Subdivision, but this Section does not require that dogs be kenneled or leashed on the Open Space Parcel or on Lot 6, which is inconsistent with the Resolutions; and WHEREAS, the Covenants also state in Article III, Section 1, that "in the event of any conflicts between [the] Resolutions and these Covenants, the terms and provisions of the Resolutions shall govern and control"; and WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 3, of the Covenants provides that o of Covenants be amended by the recording in the Pitkin County, Colorado real property amendment executed and acknowledged by the then-current record owners of at least four (4) lots in the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, at least four (4) lot owners within the Subdivision desire to amend the Covenants to require that Parcel o that the Covenants conform with he conditions of l approval of the 6 and the Reso the Open Space ; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned Stillwater Ranch Lot Owners hereby resolve to amend the Covenants as follows: 1. Article III, Section 15 of the Covenants is amended to add the following sentence to the end of said section: "...Notwithstanding the foregoing, dogs shall be kenneled or leashed at all times on all parts of the Subdivision including Lot 6 and the Open Space Parcel." 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 131500 06/01/1500 12:30P AMEND CO ORVIS SILVI 1 of 2 R 12.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 2. Except as specifically amended herein, the Covenants shall remain unmodified hereby, and remain in full force and effect. LOTS 2, 3 and 4 By: Arthur C. Daily, Personal Representative of the Estate of Fabienne Lloyd Benedict, a/lc/a Fabienne Benedict, Deceased LOTI LOT6 Name: N: e: / FlE �f / 7` Title: Title: % ' STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was aclmowledged before me this 1o' day of May, 1999, by • Arthur C. Daily, Personal Representative of the Estate of Fabienne Lloyd Benedict, a/k/a F bienne Benedict, Deceased, , and Mer Ce, nDn ,. i0J � a'1 Witness may hand and official Seal. - .. _.. My commission expires: +uv.Cerr. , .. +.. r * M . 7ncr ' l!•) '.: 'fitly ,s 1111111111111111111N1111111111WIII III III 11111111 431080 00/81/1000 12:30P FIEND Co 00VI0 SIIVI 2 of 2 0 11.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITNIN COUNTY CO RESOLUTION ()F AMENDMENT TO THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION / Ph D DOiember 9.1998 WHEREAS, that certain real property situated in Pitkin County, Colorado, known as the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD (the "Subdivision "), as depicted and described on the Final Plat of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision /PUD (the "Final Pla:') recorded in Plat Book 35 at Page 86 of the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, pursuant to its Protective Covenants of December 30, 1994, (the "Protective Covenants ") recorded in Book 770 at Page 796 of the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, formed the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association, a Colorado nonprofit corporation (the "Association "), to own and manage the Open Space Parcel (the "Open Space ") shown and described on the Final Plat; 0 and un WHEREAS, Article VI(3) of the Protective Covenants provides that the Protective Covenants may be amended by the recording in the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records of a resolution of amendment executed and acknowledged by the then - current record owners of at v least four (4) lots :n the Subdivision; and Li— WHEREAS, the undersigned personal representative of the Estate of Fabienne Lloyd Benedict, a/k/a Fabienne Benedict, Deceased, the record owner of Lots 2,3,4 and 6 of the Subdivision (the "Stillwater Ranch Lot Owner ") wishes to amend the Protective Covenants, and agrees to vote in favor of an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the Association, to allow neighboring land known as Lots 12 and 1 2A of Callahan Subdivision, according to the Final Plat of Callahan Subdivision recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7 in the Office of he Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County. Colorado ( Lot 12, Callahan ") to become a member of the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association and to enjoy the use and benefit of the Open Space subject to the restrictions on the Open Space and an equal one - seventh share of the expenses of owning and operating the Open Space; and WHEREAS, Lot 12, Callahan wishes to become a member of the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association and enjoy the use and benefit of the Open Space and is willing to assume a proportionate share of the expenses of owning and operating the Open Space and be subject to the restrictions on the Open Space, NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned Stillwater Ranch Lot Owner agrees to vote in favor of amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Association and hereby resolves to amend the Protective Covenants, and Lot 12, Callahan agrees to become a member of the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association and to be bound by its Articles of Incorporation and its Bylaws and by the Protective Covenants, as follows . 3111 INS uj 1111Q%%i1!! CO 1 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ] The Stillwater Ranch Lot Owner agrees to vote in favor of an amendment to Article III, paragraph 1. of the Articles of Incorporation of the Association, to include Lot 12, Callahan as a "Lot" for purposes of full membership in the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association. 2. Article 11I, paragraph 3. (c) of the Protective Covenants is hereby amended to include Lot 12, Callahan in the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association, the homeowner's association formed for purposes of owning, governing and maintaining the Open Space 3. The Stillwater Ranch Lot Owner agrees to vote in favor of an amendment to the Bylaws of the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association at their next annual or special meeting to allow full membership and participation to Lot 12, Callahan, subject to any and all restrictions and an equal one - seventh share of all assessments and levies of the Association. 4. Lot 12, Callahan agrees to be bound by all restrictions and burdens on the Open Space recited in the Protective Covenants Lot 12, Callahan shall not, however, be burdened by any restrictions contained in the Protective Covenants that do not relate to the Open Space. Lot 12, Callahan, agrees to pay an equal one - seventh share of all costs and expenses of owning, improving, maintaining, caring for and operating the Open Space, and upon execution of this Resolution by all parties, Lot 12, Callahan agrees to pay to the Association the sum of $2,279.44, which is Lot 12, Callahan's prorata share of the $4,000.00 per Lot regular assessment that was levied by the Association for the period July 6, 1998 to July 5, 1999. 5. This Resolution of Amendment is made pursuant to Article VI, paragraph 3. of the Protective Covenants. Lot 12, Callahan shall have no vote in any future amendments to the Protective Covenants, and said Article VI (3) of the Protective Covenants shall be deemed amended accordingly. Arthur C. Daily signs this Resolution on behalf of Fats 2.3,4, and 6 of the Subdivision as the personal representative of the Estate of Fabienne Lloyd Benedict, a/k/a Fabienne Benedict, Deceased ( "Estate ") with the express written authorization and consent of the beneficiaries of the Estate to whom those lots were devised in the Last Will and Testament of Fabienne Benedict 6. In the event of any litigation arising out of this Resolution, including the interpretation or enforcement of any of the terms or provisions hereof, the prevailing party shall also be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred therein. This Resolution shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives , successors and assigns forever. This Resolution constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof Except as specifically amended herein, the Protective Covenants shall remain unmodified hereby, and remain in full force and effect. 2 Van IIINIIIIIINI1NIIIIIN1 � 1zi1ei1666 eat3u aIeIID DD arvt6 61wI 2 o 3R16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PI11CIN COUNTY CO IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Arthur C. Daily executes this Resolution of Amendment as the personal representative of the Estate and on behalf of Lots 2,3,4, and 6 of the Subdivision, and Marie - Fabienne Benedict Gordon executes this Resolution of Amendment as the owner of Lot 12, Callahan, as of the day and year first above written. LOTS 2,3,4, and 6 Arthur C. Daily, Personal Representative of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PLED: Estate of Fabienne Lloyd Benedict a/k/a Fabienne Benedict, Deceased i By: 7.,r C. Daily, Personal Representative • LOT 12, CALLAHAN: J By: tTWQU - Cn t�o� e� Marie - Fabienne Benedict Gordon, Owner STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .'f•' pay of December, 1998, by Marie - Fabienne Benedict Gordon. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Ct jaulao1o1.„.D'lt _ • (x»E fift Asper, Co 411.:, . STATE OF COLORADO ss COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ICA day of December, 1998, by Arthur C. Daily, Personal Representative of the Estate of Fabienne Lloyd Benedict, a/k/a Fabienne Benedict, Decraced Witness my hand and official seal. sea My commission expires: 1104 ko`TQ .l - b Notary Public fr (000 . mfllu, { ?.: I' 'I pp�� u I'n 3 IIllul IN11 1" 111 1111111111I111111I11111 425355 12/16/106 02 :31P P ND CO DAVIS SILVI . 3 of 3 N 16.00 6 0.60 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Sep.28. 2004 5:I4PM No.1475 P. 7/9 RESOLUTION OFAMENDMENT OF THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR STILLWATER RANCR SURDIVISION/PUD September , , 2004 WHEREAS, that certain real property situated in Pitkin County, Colorado, known as the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD ( the "Subdivision "), as depicted and described on die Final Plat of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision /PUD, recorded in Plat Book 35 at Page 86, is subject to those Protective Covenants of December 30, 1994, recorded in Book 770 at Page 796, as amended by those Resolutions of Amendment to the Protective Covenants for Stillwater Subdivision/pj)D of December 9, 1998 recorded as Reception 1999 recorded as Reception No 431660 (collectively the "Covenants", all t in the th and May 10, 1999 and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado; and 1e office of the Clerk on Lot 1,��4 and the to a maximum of four (4)) bedrooms; nd the single - family residences WHEREAS, this bedroom restriction was based upon the Pitkin County Land Use Code in effect at the time; and WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Land Use Code has been amended to remove any limitation on the number of bedrooms; and WHBRBAS, at least four (4) lot owners within the Subdivision have determined that it is within the best interest of all owners within the Subdivision to remove the four (4) bedroom limitation. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned Stillwater Ranch Lot Owners hereby resolve to amend the Covenants a follows: Section 2(b) of Article 111 of the Covenants i deleted in its entirety sentence regarding the number of parking spaces, which shall remain in effect. except for the last Except as specifically amended herein, the Covenants shall remain unmodified hereby, and remain in full force and effect. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts each of which shall constitute an original but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same document. LO 2. LOT 3: Frederic B. Borne ' • omas P. Reagan fir SILVIA 111111111101111111111111111111 503923 6 DAVIS Page: t of PITKIN COUNTY Co R 31.00 7/05 0.00 2.35E Sec 28. 2004 4:51P11 No•1415 P. 1/9 RESOLUTION OF AMENDMENT OF THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION/PUB © 2004 WHEREAS, that certain real property situated in Pitkin County, Colorado, known as the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD (the "Subdivision"), as depicted and described on the Final Plat of the Stillwater Each Subdivision/PUD, recorded in Plat Hook 35 at Page 86, is subject to those Protective Covenants of December 30, 1994, recorded in Book 770 at Page 796, as amended by those Resolutions of Amendment to the Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD of December 9, 1998 recorded as Reception No. 425355 and May 10, 1999 recorded as Reception No. 431660 (collectively the "Covenants "), all in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Covenants, in Article 111, Section 2(b) limit the single-family residences on Lot 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to a maximum of four (4) bedrooms; and WHEREAS, this bedroom restriction was based upon the Pitkin County Land Use Code in effect at the time; and WHEREAS, the Pitldn County Land Use Code has been amended to remove any limitation on the nurnber of bedrooms; and WHEREAS, at least four (4) lot owners within the Subdivision have determined that it is within the best interest of all owners within the Subdivision to remove tie four (4) bedroom limitation. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned Stillwater Ranch Lot Owners hereby resolve to amend the Covenants as follows: Section 2(b) of Article III of the Covenants is deleted in its entirety except for the last sentence regarding the member of parking spaces, which shall remain in effect Except as specifically amended herein, the Covenants shall remain unmodified hereby, and remain in full force and effect. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts each of which shall constitute an original but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same document. L 2: %� LOT3: 1 " t Frederic B Home .Thanes P. Reagan 11111 11 1 1 II 11 11 N 1111111 VIIII / 2 :35F Comm co SILVIA DAVIS 0 00 Sev.28. 2004 5:O0PM No.i475 P. 8/9 LOT a / LOT6: elPre R. :.11. Peter Gerson Julie Gerson STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITION ) ss. The foregoing insmtlment was acknowledged before me this _ day of September 2004, by Frederic B. Horne. Witness my hand and official seal My commission expires Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PTTKIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of September 2004, by Thomas P. Reagan. Witness my band and official seal. My commission expires Notary Public I 1 503823 SILVIA DAVIS PIMIN COUNTY CO 1 1 /005/2004 02:35; R 31.00 0 0.00 Oct•21• 2004 10:22AM No•1948 P. 3 LOT 4: LOT6: I /-soir Charles R. Bellock " - Gerson 7 .0 e Gerson STATE OF COLORADO ) ) sa. COUNTY OF PTIZCIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this — day of September 2004, by Frederic B. Horne. Witness my hand and official seat My commission expires Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of September 2004, by Thomas P. Reagan. witness my hand and official seal. My cone ni sion expires Notary Public I Page: 6 2: 35f SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 D 0.00 Seo.28. 2004 5:I4PM No.1475 P. 8/9 LOT 4: LOT 6: Charles R Bello c Peter G els T Julie Gerson STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OFPITRIN )ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of September 2004, by Frederic B. :trtess my band and official seal. My comntission expires Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PLTION ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of September 2004, by Thomas P. Reagan. Witness my hand and official seal. • My commission expires O Pt?y 'PV9�' My Commission Expires ? ' June 6, 2005 Notary • ., Go �' /� a WAY • . J : At. _;CRTO : -te C•1 643-1 ; III tillinap 5Z Z? : 2 Sawn DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO :35F � 0.00 Sev•28. 2004 5:OOPM No•1475 P. 9/9 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PTTKIN ) The foregoing insttumcnt was acknowledged before me this — day of September Charles R. Bellock. , 0 �ANt 6 ; '1`i Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires g' -e • • Notary Public '4 B ..• _ o. f, F co' STATE OF COLORADO ) ) as. COUNTY OF PTTKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of September 2004, by Peter Gerson and Julie Gerson. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires Notary Public 11111111111111 11111111Millili 5° 9 e 3 02:35F SJLVIfi DAVIS PJtKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 0 0.00 RECEPTION#: 555870, 0 1/20/2009 at 03:58:57 PM, 1 OF 5, R $26.00 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION OF AMENDMENT OF THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION/PUD Januaryt 2009 WHEREAS, that certain real property situated in Pitkin County, Colorado (the "County"), known as the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD (the "Subdivision "), as depicted and described on the Final Plat of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD, recorded in Plat Book 35 at Page 86, of the real property records of the County (the "Records "), is subject to those Protective Covenants of December 30, 1994, recorded in the Records at Book 770 at Page 796, as amended by those Resolutions of Amendment to the Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD of December 9, 1998 recorded in the Records as Reception No. 425355, of May 10, 1999 recorded in the Records as Reception No. 431660, of May 19, 1999 recorded in the Records as Reception No. 431661, of December 15, 1999 recorded in the Records as Reception No. 440158 and of September 5, 2004 recorded in the Records as Reception No. 503923 (as amended, the "Covenants"), and WHEREAS, at the time the Subdivision was subjected to the Covenants, it had been proposed that Lot 5 be used for a facility for children with terminal or life - threatening diseases (the "Proposed Alternate Use ") and that Lot 5 may be annexed to the City of Aspen (the "City'); and WHEREAS, in anticipation of the Proposed Alternate Use, the Covenants, in Article 111, Section 2(1), provide that, upon approval of' an alternate use of Lot 5 by Pitkin County or the City, (i) Lot 5 will become exempt from certain use limitations in Article 111, Sections 2(a)-(e), 24 and 28 of the Covenant; which are intended to, among other things, Lots within the Subdivision to single family residential use s "Single Family certain L") (ii) the terns and provisions of the (of so restricted, o t Family ro ving recorded resolutions with respect ct to County Lot the City addition to approving such alternate use will become enforceable covenants with respect to y 5 in addition to the other covenants and restrictions of the Covenants, and (iii) the right of the owner of Lot 5 to vote on any amendment or termination of the Covenants will be suspended; and WHEREAS, (i) Lot 5 was annexed to the City , pursuant to the Stillwater Ranch Lot 5 Annexation Plat recorded August 7, 1997 as Reception No. 407093, and (ii) the Alternate Use was approved by the City pursuant to City Planning and Zoning Resolution 97-04, City Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1997, recorded at Reception No. 405613 of the Records, City Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, recorded at Reception No. 405614 of the Records, and certain other materials incorporated by reference into such documents and/or approved or accepted by the City in connection with such approval (all such documents and materials, the "Approval Documents "); and WHEREAS, the intent of the Covenants is to pennit the Proposed Alternate Use in the exact form approved by the Approval Documents (in such exact form, the "Approved Alternate Use'), but not to permit any other use of Lot 5 other than the Approved Alternate Use or Single Family Use; and mai RECEPT1ON4: 555870, 01/20/2009 at 03:58:57 PM, 3 OF 5, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Except as specifically amended herein, the Covenants shall remain unmodified hereby, be executed and, as modified hereby, shall remain in full force and effect. This at all of which y ken together in multiple counterparts each of which shall constitute an original shall constitute one and the same document. LOT 3: LOT 2: AWL West LLC % ) L Ti Thomas P. Reagan Title: LOT 4: LOT 6: � �� i �� Peter Gerson e?a� • .:ell to Gerson flats 3 RECEPTION#: 555870, 01 /20/2009 at 03:58:57 PM, 5 OF' 5, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2009, by Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � by 4 a Y2 Q A A- a g daY Witness my hand and official seal. My cop5a oa:p4 . ites // — ' • Notary Publ c N Cl/c5 mw, 5 1 January 28, 2010 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Silver Lining Ranch; Application Submitted by Haas Land Planning, LLC on Behalf of Little Star Foundation (the "Application ") to Amend the Approve SPA and Change Use Dear Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Members: am writing this letter, on behalf of the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association (the "Association "). The Silver Lining Ranch is a member of the Association and is subject to the private covenants (the "Covenants "). The Application seeks an amendment to the approved SPA (Specially Planned Area) for the Silver Lining Ranch to permit the use of the existing structure as a single - family residence, while maintaining the ability to conduct non - profit programs consistent with the Covenants. The Association is writing this letter in support of the Application. The property was originally approved for single - family use and the Covenants only allow single - family use or a retreat for terminally ill children in accordance with the current approved SPA. Any other use sought for the property would be inconsistent with the Covenants and would be prohibited. In addition to conforming with the Covenants, this change in use would and char concerns with the surrounding neighborhood and would help to alleviate, traffic, parking, along Ute Avenue. Overall, it appears that the proposed single - family use is in the best interest of the community and the neighborhood and should be app R spe V Ily subm' d, . (0 • Thomas P. Reagan President Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association {00000843 \ 11 1% I % i u � im n i 1 111 1 minvii i 1 11 11111111111 101 1 of 3 R 16.66 D 0.66 N 0.66 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK ORDINANCE NO. 1a (Series of 1997) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'I HE CI'T'Y OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY To THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE "STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION, LOT 5 PARCEL" ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, on November 19, 1996, the owner of the property proposed to be annexed did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been ' reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the information prescribed and set forth in §31 -12 -107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the owners of one hundred percent (100 %) of the area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys, have consented in writing to the annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 68, Series of 1996) at its regular meeting on November 25, 1996, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of §31 -12 -107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 3, Series of 1997) at its regular meeting on January 13, 1997, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §§ 31 -12 -104 and 31 -12 -105, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: • 111111 11111 111111 11111 1111111111 111111 III 111111111 1111 407613 06/23/1917 11:378 ORDINANCE 2 of 3 R 10.00 D 0.00 N 6.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK Section 1. That the tract of land descrilxx'- in the Petition for Annexation, commonly referred to as the "Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, la it 5 Parcel ", and as shown on the annexation map, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, ColoriJo. Sahtm/. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one copy of the annexation nap with the original of this annexation ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed uected to amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this annexation ordinance. Section 4. That 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 . That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. I III 111111111111111 111 11111 11111110 11111 111 1111 005613 011/23/1907 11:37P ORDINANCE 3 of 3 R 16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the /'Y" day of -�- 1997, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. -v INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the crIg day of A-1 , 1997. 1i / John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. , City Clerk FINALLY d ;tp LY adopted, paHeslia>$gravg{l this day of / /,,� p `; / I - . 1997. 1 1 t„ ..c J John S. ennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. / h, rtty Clerk 'nObaia.old 3 111111IIII 11111111111110111111 1111111111111111111111 . 400614 06/23/1667 11:401I ONDIMIC <:..... F ; 1 of 11 ft y6 .00 D 0.06 N 6.00 PITIN cousins cum AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. SPECIALLY F ASE ASPEN, AREA (SPA COLORADO, TO APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL/FINAL THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO REZONE LOT 5 OF THE STILL WA CH TO QS ACADEMIC (A) AND CONSERVATION (C) ZONE DISTRICTS, EXEhIPTION NON-PROFIT L[ ING AS ENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY A ESS ORDINANCE No. _, SERIES OF 1997 WP EREAS, the owner of Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, Kids Stuff Foundation, (hereafter "Applicant") submitted an application (hereafter "Plan') to the Community Development Department to rezone to the Academic and Conservation zone districts and to designate the property as a Specially Planned Area (SPA); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has also requested approval of a GMQS Exemption to recognize the Foundation as a nonprofit entity qualifying as an essential public facility pursuant to Section 26.100.050(CX2Xax(3)) of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Lot 5 of the Stillwater Subdivision contains approximately 6.457 acres located in Pitkin County, immediately adjacent to the City of Aspen, in the AFR -2 zone district and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No- 68, Series of 1996 and Resolution No. 3, Series of 1997, at its regular meetings on November 19,1996 and January 13, 1997, respectively, did find the subject parcel to be eligible for annexation, meeting the provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Plan in accordance with those procedures set forth at Sections 26.9102 and 26.10.030(A) and (B) of the Aspen Municipal Code and did conduct public hearings thereon on March 4, 1997 and March 11, 1997; and WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the Plan, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, to wit, Section 26.92. 020 (Text and Map Amendments) and Section 26.80.040(B) (Development in a Specially Planned 1 111111 11111 111111 11111 1111 111111 111111 111 11111 1111 1111 2 of / 55 / e.eee N °e 0 MAIN COUNTY CLARK Area) the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Final SPA Development Plan and the proposed map amendment by a vote of 5 -0; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 97 -04, the Planning and Zoning Commission further granted Special Review approval for parking and Conditional Use Review approval for dormitory housing, a health care facility and a dining hall in the Academic zone district, and a swimming pool in the Conservation zone district; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 97 -04, the Planning and Zoning Commission thriller granted 8040 Crreenline Review and Stream Margin Review approvals; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Plan under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in Resolution 97 -04, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Kids Stuff Foundation is a unique institution which enhances our community, and that designating the property as a Specially Planned Area benefits the city's residents and visitors by allowing flexibility to accommodate the variety of proposed uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council fords that the proposed uses at the upper ppe bench (described as "The West Part of Lot 5" in Exhibit "A") of Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision are consistent with the purpose of the Academic zone district "to establish lands for education and cultural activities with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities "; and WHEREAS, the City Council fords that the proposed uses at the lower bench (described as "Th East Part of Lot 5" in Exhibit "A") of Lot 5 of the Stil water Ranch Subdivision are consistent with the purpose of the Conservation zone district "to provide areas of low density development to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the production of crops and animals, and to contain urban development"; and 2 l II !NIIIIIi!�NIIIINVIIII�I11lNgIll 40!!13 0D/23/D)aT 11 tail ONDINANCE 3 of 11 R 90.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PI/KIN COUNTY CLERK WHEREAS, the City Council finds that proposed housing units will be deed - restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines, are compatible with surrounding uses and will have a minimal impact on the land; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed use qualifies for a GMQS Exemption as a nonprofit entity pursuant to Section 26.I00.050(CX2)(ax(3)) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Plan is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan and with the public welfare and the purposes and intent of Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Ssditlat Pursuant to Section 26.92.020 (Standards of Review) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the proposed map amendments: 1. The proposed amendments are not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed amendments are compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, and will have a minimal impact on the natural environment. 3. The proposed amendments will promote the public interest and character of the City of Aspen. j: Pursuant to Section 26.92 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City of Aspen Zone District Map is hereby amended to rezone the upper bench of Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, described in Exhibit "A" as "The West Part of Lot 5," to the Academic zone district with a Specially Planned Arca (SPA) Overlay, and the lower bench of Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, described in Exhibit "A" as "The East Part of Lot 5," to the Conservation zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay. The legal description is attached as Exhibit "A." 3 1111111 11111 1111 1111111111101 1111111111111 405614 00/23/10n 11:4901 ORDINANCE 4 of 11 R 56.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK Sst4on43: Pursuant to Section 26.100 . 050 (Cx 2 xax(3)) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Kids Stuff Foundation 1s hereby granted a GMQS Exemption as a nonprofit entity qualifying as an essential public facility. Sectfzm4: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1 above, the City Council's approval of the Plan is subject to City Council approval of the Petition for Annexation by duly enacted Ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of Aspen, and is subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant and the City Council shall enter into an SPA agreement binding the real property to any conditions placed on the development order approving the final development plan. 2. The final development plan, which shall consist of the site plan of the entire site; site improvement survey of the area being developed, including building footprints, utilities, easements, and landscaping; building elevations; and the Specially Planned Area (SPA) agreement, shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall be binding upon the property owners subject to the development order, their successors and assigns, and shall constitute the development regulations for the property. Development of the property shall be limited to the uses, density, configuration, and all other elements and conditions set forth on the final development plan and SPA agreement. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the final development plan and SPA agreement within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following its approval by City Council shall render the plan invalid. Reconsideration of the final development plan and SPA agreement by the Commission and City Council will be required before its acceptance and recording. 3. The final development plan shall be recorded prior to submission of any building permits for the proposed housing units. 4. All conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission's March 11, 1997 Conditional Use, Special Review, 8040 Greenline, and Stream Margin Review approvals, as outlined in Resolution 97 -04, shall carry forward as conditions of the City Council approvals granted pursuant to this Ordinance. 5. No construction or building permits shall be issued until the parcel has been finally annexed into the City of Aspen. 6. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended. &Aoki: 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. 4 1111111111111111111 • 3 of 11 R 30.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PIMIN COUNTY CLERK ig 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 at the validity of the remaining portions thereof. C ne 7: A public hearing on the c )rdin:mce was held on the 14th day of April, 1997, 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. ceeHon 0: This Ordinance shall not become effective unless and until the City Council approves the Petition for Annexation by duly enacted Ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of Aspen. APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: atS Community Development Director City Attorney Y b the City INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, Council of the City of Aspen on the4,1_ day of _ ,71142 1997. r John amen, Mayo , Kathpn $. • ,./+ 'h, Cit., Clerk /J >{,(.�J4,_r/., FINALLY adopted. passed and approved this � day o 1997. •'.� John Be t ett, Mayor Atte, `Katltryn S. Ke City Clerk 0W 5 3 -14-1997 I :01P1.1 FRit.f PAPER CHASE/pA 9709638700 _ _ _ _ LOWIMANCEawtl _ _ t � EXHIBIT A' Alpine Su.,�, s, 1 iimu 1I� 11111 Olp I� VI NI NI 11111 111 101 Post Office Box 1730 0 of 11 R 50.00 D O.00 N0.08 PITNIN COIOITY CLERK Aspen, Colorado 81612 MARCH 14, 1997 JOB NO. 97 -1 RIDS STUFF FOUNDATION LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR RE ZONING OF LOT 5, STILLWATER RANCH /p U D . DESCRIPTION OF THE WEST PART OF LOT 5 THE WEST PART OF LOT 5, STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION/ P.U.D., PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNIN AT THE ET CORNER OP SAID LOT 5; THENCE 84 EAST 199.73 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09° 24'26" " EAST 417.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH THENCE SOUTH 51 °15'00" EAST 28.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36 ° 30'00" EAST 132.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 327.32 FEET; THENCE 77 °15'00" WEST 90.00 FEET; SOUTH THENCE 18 °47'00" WEST 246.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 30 °14'46" WEST 192.41 FEET; THENCE 153.02 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A.RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS NORTH 48 °0 3'50" WEST 114.80 THENCE NORTH 55 °45'00" THENCE NORTH 52 ° 22' " WEST 46.93 FEET; OF BEGINNING; 39 WEST 4 6.93 FEET TO THE POINT CONTAINING 2 .562 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. DESCRIPTION OF THE EAST PART 0` 5 THE EAST PART OF LOT 5, STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION/ P.U.D., PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTH 00 °0 9'36" WEST 168.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32 ° 27'17" EAST 73.71 FEET; HIB RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USES IN THE ACADEMIC (A) AND CONSERVATION (C) ZONE DISTRICTS, SPECIAL REVIEW OF PARKING REQUIREMENT$ 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW FOR THE KIDS STUFF FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON LOT 5 OF THE STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REZONING AND CONCEPTUAL/FINAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE KIDS STUFF FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION, ON LOT 5 OF DIE STILLWATER RANCH CITY OF ASPEN Resolution 97-(4 WHEREAS, The Community Development Department received an application from The Kids Stuff Foundation, for Conditional Use Review for dormitory housing, a health care facility and a dining hall in the Academic zone district and for a swimming pool in the Conservation zone district Special Review for perking requirements in the Academic zone district 8040 Greenlint Review; Stream Margin Review; Rezoning; and Conceptual/Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Review; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.60.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Conditional Uses may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; pursuant to Section 26.64.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, parking requirements in the Academic zone district may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission through Special Review; pursuant to Section 26.68.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, 8040 Greenline Reviews may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and pursuant to Section 26.68.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Stream Margin Reviews may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.92.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding requests to amend the Official Zone District Map; and pursuant to Section 26.80.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding Conceptual/Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Development Plan proposals; and WHEREAS, the Housing Office, City Engineering, Parks Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Environmental Health Department and Community Development Department reviewed the proposals and recommended approval of each with conditions; and WHEREAS, the above referenced application was legally noticed for a public hearing; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing at a continued meeting on March 11, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a 5-0 vote the Conditional Uses with conditions, the Special Review with conditions, the 8040 Oreenline Review with conditions, and the Stream Margin Review witb conditions; and. WHEREAS, during a public hearing at a continued meeting on Match I1, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 5-0 vote of the request to amend the Official Zone District Map and the Conceptual/Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Development Plan proposal. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: 11111111111111111 111 1111 111 III 1111 111 111 407/14 11/23/1107 111418 0001NA ICE 7 of 11 R 51.11 0 0.00 11 0.00 PMTKIN COUNTY MIRK A. Conditional Use: That the Conditional Use for dormitory housing a health care facility and a dining hall is the Academic (A) zone district, and a swimming pool in the Conservation (C) mire district at Kids Stuff Foundation on Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision is approved with the following conditions: I. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall: a) Install any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the public rights -of -way; b) Locate any additional proposed construction in such a way that it does not encroach into an existing utility easement or public right -of- -wily; c) Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval of this application; d) Submit a "Site Improvement Survey" to the Engineering Department; • e) Indicate all utility meter locations and trash containment areas on fmal development plans; t) Ensure that the project meets all runoff design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4xf) with the building permit application, and provide a drainage report and mitigation plan signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado; g) Submit a permanent erosion control plan and a temporary sediment control plan and containment plan for the construction phase; and h) Needles and other contaminated hems will need to be handled as medical waste and the operator will need to contract with a medical waste pick up hauler to properly dispose of these items. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall: a) Submit as-built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprint, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Data Processing Department in accordance with City G1S requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit b) Permit Community Development Department and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval; c) Be required to sign a sidewalk. curb and gutter agreement with the City; d) Increase the width of the access easement through the properly to twenty (20) feet in order to meet emergency access width requirements, and emergency access to the new building must be twenty (20) feet wide. That is, the driving surface must be twenty (20) feet wide and must be cleared of snow for the full width. A dedicated fire engine mm around that will remain free of parked cars, meeting Fire Marshal requirements, must be provided; e) Pave the driveway; and. 0 The Environmental Health Department shall approve both plans and specifications of all food service facilities. A minimum of two (2) weeks shall be necessary for the Department to review and approve plans. Also, final approval from the Environmental Health Department is required before opening for business. and prior to issuance of a Colorado Food Service License. 1111111111011�1111111111111111111111 400014 00/23/1007 11:41* ONDIA NCE 0 of 11 R56.0D0.00 N6.00PI1KIN COUNTY CLFRIC 3. Also prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall consult with City departments regarding the following: a) City Engineering for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; b) Parks Department for tree removal, landscaping, and selection of vegetative species, as well as provisions for trail easements and fencing design; c) City Streets Depamnent for street improvements, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public dgMS -of- -way; and nt of Environmental Health for d) Aspen visions for Consolidated the swimming g pool, and the interceptor visions for the and oil kitchen, oil ando sa nd interceptor provisions for swimg ool, rr ee the garage, and blood borne and hazardous il and sand the waste disposal provisions for the medical suite. 4, Prior the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, , shhall ll be made by the Platmhrg and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. One (1) year after the commencement of operation, an employment audit shall be conducted by the Housing Department The permanent staff units shall be deed restricted with priority resifirg in of these units to personnel of the Foundation, and categorized as to those employees the units (Category 1, 2, or 3; but Category 4 for the two-bedroom, lower -level unit). 6. Deliveries to the facility for all services (i.e., food, medical supplies, etc.) shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 pin.. and consolidation of deliveries will be implemented to the maximum extent practicable. 7. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zing Commission shall be adhered to and of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do soonditions B. Special Review: That the Special Review for off - street parking requirements in i Academic 8zone �ic sat Kids s Stuff Foundation on Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision requiring c vans and ten outdoor parking spaces meets the standards of Section 26.64.040(8) of the Aspen Municipal Code and is approved with the following conditions: 1. One (1) year after commencement of the facility's operation, a parking audit/study be conducted by the applicant and submitted to the Community Development Department for review. If the findings indicate that the provided parking is not adequate, mitigation will need to be proposed by the applicant and approved by the Commission pursuant to Special Review in accordance with Section 26.64.040(8) of the Municipal Code. 2. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. C. 8040 Greenlin Review: That the 8040 Greenline Review for the Kids Stuff Foundation development proposal on Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision meets the standards of Section 26.68.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code and is approved with the following conditions: Iiu uin1 1 1 1 11111111IIN1111II m11111111111 1111 0 of 11 R 56,00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKSN court cum • 1. Regarding the horse facilities. a) Careful housekeeping and cleanup of all areas shall occur on a regular, daily basis; b) Runoff through this area shall be controlled by creating diversion swales to keep runoff from the stable area from traveling off the property or into nearby rivers; c) One (1) year after commencement of the facility' s operation , a horse population and water quality audit/study shall be conducted by the applicant and submitted to the Community Development Department for review. If the findings indicate that the water quality is below acceptable leveb, a fifty (50) foot buffer from areas that could be easily contaminated, such as the river, 100 -year flood plain and wetlands, will be implemented and maintained to protect riparian vegetation, alluvial soils and groundwater and surface water; d) An evaluation shall be done to detennine the 'carrying capacity' of the area for horses as compared to land area available; e) If concems arise, the Aspen/Pirkin Environmental Health Department reserves the right to require water quality sampling at the owner's expense; 2. Prior to issuance of any building permits or use of the facility, the applicant shall provide proof to the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department that proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to offset increases in PM and traffic caused by the project; 3. At least thirty (30) days prior to issuance of a building permit, the plans and specifications complete with piping layout, equipment and mechanical specifications along with design calculations, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Aspen/Pitrin Environmental Health Department; 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shah be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. D. Stream Margin Review: That the Stream Margin Review for the Kids Stuff Foundation development proposal on Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision meets the standards of Section 26.68.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code and is approved with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with the Parks Department to design a fence around the stable with rail. Togs that are capable of being dismantled to allow debris associated with flood waters to pass through the property; 2. The proposed location of the swimming pool and horse stable be moved to at least fifteen (15) from the edge of the top of slope, as detemrined by the Aspen Engineering Department. All portions of all structures/construction must fall within the approved building envelope; 3. If any outdoor lighting is proposed, said lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope. Any and all outdoor lighting will feature down -directional and sharp cut -off fixtures: 4. A plat documenting the approved building envelope as related to surveyed information shall be submitted to and approved by the Aspen Engineering Department. This plat shall include revised site sections meeting the standard set forth by Section 26.68.040(8)(10), and shall be recorded within 180 days of stream margin review approval; 11111 IpI ITN pp 111 1 11 10 o + f 1 1 H SR I B I 1 e DR DE 14 0.00 Norma TKIR COUNTY CLER 1miii III 111111111111111111mmiii01111iiiim 400014 00/23/1007 11:400 ORDINFOICE 11 of 11 R 00.00 D 0.00 14 0.00 PITKIN COIRRY CLER 5. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. E. Rezoning: That a recommendation to approve the rezoning as requested by the applicant, provided the annexation request is approved, is forwarded to the City Council. That is. the Commission recommends to Council that the subject parcel be zoned Academic (A) on the upper bench, Conservation (C) on the lower bench, and Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlaying the entire parcel, subject to both the dimensional requirements adopted by Council through the approval of a Specially Planned Area and the parking requirements adopted by the Commission through the approval, with two (2) conditions, of the Special Review request. F. Specially Planned Area: That the Commission recommends that Council designate Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch as a Specially Planned Area (SPA) and allow for the consolidation of conceptual and final SPA review. The Commission fuller recommends that Council accept the following dimensional requirements for the Academic (A) zone district portion of the SPA: 1. Minimum Lot Size: 6 acres 2. Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: 1.5 acre per unit 3. Minimum Lot Width: 200 feet 4. Minimum Front Yard: 30 feet 5. Minimum Side Yard: 20 feet 6. Minimum Rear Yard 20 feet 7. Maximum Height: 28' to the mid -point of the roof, as measured on all sides of the building, except for the east elevation, which shall not exceed 32.5' to the mid 8. Minimum Distance Between Principal and Accessory Buildings: No requirement, except that required by building code. 9. Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site: 30 percent 10. External Floor Area Ratio: Floor area shall not exceed 14,000 square feet 11. Internal Floor Area Ratio: No requirement. In addition, the Commission recommends that Council fords that the proposed SPA meets all applicable standards (1 -8) of Section 26.80.040(B) and ould be approved with the condition that an SPA plat shall be approved by the Engineering DgpXmi orded within 180 days final SPA approvaL /4 .... ..•:i'1 1 _.; G. General Provisions: ' ,. • , ' /. • I. That this Resolution shall not bccodl0 effe.Ttive.gniEsf until the City Council approves the Petition for Annexation by duly enadje9/Orditalle,>(nntreaing the subject property to the City of Aspen. • . !'._ L r S 2. All material representations made by the apphtin is application and during public meetings . with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall C�C�gyt'e`d to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/CO mission having authority m do so. APPROVED by the Commission at its continued meeting on March 11, 1997. Attest: Planning and Zoning Commission: A/, �� es ! - I : _..tea )�ac� ! L 'e Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Sara Garton, Chairperson 797atd /Sr 99 4 � 4 11111111111111111111111111111111111 NNIIII i 400370 10/17/1007 02:29P DEED RES DRVIS SILVI � 1 of 4 R 21.00 D 0.00 N 0.0D PITRINCO COLORADO - - OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT FOR AN EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT APPROVED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 11, SERIES OF 1997 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this t? day of October, 1997, by `y oke,it, Kids Stuff Foundation (hereinafter referred to as 'Owns'), whose address is 1490 Ute Avenue, located In the County of Pitldn, and the AspenlPilkin County Housing Authority, a multi- jurisdictional housing authority established pursuant to the AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT recorded In Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office (hereinafter referred to as "Authority'). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Owner owns real property more specifically described as Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitldn County, Colorado (hereinafter referred to as "Real Property), which Real Property shall contain three affordable deed restricted dwelling units, as described in Exhibit 'A', approved by the City Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, recorded at Reception No. 405614 of the PiWn County Clerk and Recorders Office. For purposes of this Agreement, the Employee Dwelling Unit, the Real Property, and all appurtenances, improvements and fixtures associated therewith shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Property: and WHEREAS, this Agreement imposes certain covenants upon the Property which restrict the use and occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Uri to employees and their families who are employed in Pi6dn County and meet the qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations contained herein, the Owner hereby covenants and agrees as follows: 1. Owner hereby covenants that the Employee Dwelling Units described above shall at all times remain rental units and shall not be condominiumized. 2. The use and occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Units shall henceforth be limited exclusively to housing for employees and their families who are employed in Pitkin County and who meet the definition of "qualified employee" and a further stated in Exhibit "K. 3. The Employee Dwelling Unit shall not be occupied by the Owner or members of the immediate family ("Immediate Family' shall mean a person related by blood or marriage who is a first cousin (or closer relative] and his or her children) nor shall the Employee Dwelling Unit be used a guest house or guest facility. 4. Wdtten verification of employment of employee(s) proposed to reside In the Employee Dwelling Unit shall be completed and filed with the Authority by the Owner of the Employee Dweitmg Unit prior to occupancy thereof, and such verification must be acceptable to the Authority. 111111 11111 111111 11111 111 11111 11111 11 11 i n 1111 111 409570 10/17/1997 02:29P D® RES DAVIS SILYI 2 of 4 R 21.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITRINCO COLORADO 5. The Employee Dwelling Unit shall be required to be rented for periods of no less than six (6) consecutive months. Upon vacancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit, the Owner Is granted ninety (90) days in which to locate a qualified employee. R no employee is placed by the Owner, the Authority may rent the Employee Dwelling Unit to a quafffed employee. 6. The maximum rental rate shall not exceed the Category 3 rental rate as set forth In the Rental Guidelines established by the Authority and may be adjusted annually as set forth by the Guidelines. The maximum permitted rents for the volt on the date of execution of this deed restriction as stated in Exhibit W. Rent shall be verified and approved by the Authority upon submission and approval of the lease. Employees shall be qualified by the Authority as to employment only, and not maximum income or asset Iimltetons. 7. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit shall provide for a rental temp of not less than six (6) consecutive months. A signed and executed copy of the lease shall be provided to the Authority by the Owner within ten (10) days of approval of employee(s) for the Employee Dwelling Unit 8. This Agreement may be removed by the Owner with the approval of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissoners, subject to the requirement that the Employee Dwelling Unit is removed or modified. If modfied, the remaining Improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a'dweQing unit' as defined In the Pitidn County Land Use Code and must meet otherwise applicable code requirements. 9. Unless modified as stated above, this Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Real Properly as a burden thereon for the benefit of. and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Authority, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pitdn, Colorado, and their respective successors, as applicable, by any appropriate legal action including. but not limited to, injunction, abatement or eviction of non - qualified tenants. 10. This Agreement further guarantees compliance by requiring the Owner to pay the equivalent cash -in -lieu fee for an equal employee dwelling unit if found by the Board to be in default of the required employee dwelling unit deed restrictions. The equivalent cash -in- lieu fee shall be determined by amortizing the current price of an equivalent dwelling unit fee over a thirty (30) year period to determine the daily cost of the unit. The daily cost shall be multiplied by the number of days that the unit was found to be in default by the Board to determine the equivalent cash -in -lieu fee. Fees so collected shall be applied to the Pspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Fund. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on this date and year above first written. OWNER: 1 / (� /, +d l �c4� n 1 C8oafaeotIQd tut oundatan AkI( 2 11 1111 111111 1111111 1 1 11111111 111 1 11110 1111 IN 3 e1 4 R 21.00 D 0.00 R 0.00 PITKINCO caORlco Mailing Address: 201 North Mill Aspen, CO 81611 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this L\say of October 1997, by .Heitf-Beekeut, Kids Stuff Foundation. WITNESS MY hand and official seal. e Ci Pueut My commission expires: q�' � w CpE1111304D 7RES 20. tan ' ! 1611 rkl , Notary Public ACCEPTANCE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY The foregoing agreement and its tees are accepted by the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY :rank Peters, 1. Chairperson STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j. day of October, 1997, by Frank Peters. ^ , WITNESS MY hand and official seal; My Commission expires: / -1 022 P U ' A .PP.f ry M 1 ' ,11.1 Notary ubiic io 11 TE ` Op; 3 EXHIBIT "A" Unit Description Maximum Location of Unit Identification of Unit Bedroom Size Category Rent Lower Level Staff Apartment 2 2- bedroom 4 $1,654 Lower Level Staff Apartment 1 1- bedroom 3 $1,014 Upper Level Staff Apartment 3 2- bedroom 3 $1,121 WaOkullriduAr IN I II uhi 01111NIIIO1111I % I J VIII I 4 of 4 N 21.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PIIKINCO COLORADO 4 4.1 61 - pia) p _ ` ; o tom ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE DISCONNECTION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE "LITTLE STAR FOUNDATION RANCH DE- ANNEXATION." WHEREAS, on March 7, 2007, the owner of the property proposed to be disconnected from the City of Aspen did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a "Petition for Disconnection by Ordinance" pursuant to Section 31 -12 -501, C.R.S; and WHEREAS, Section 31 -12 -501, C.R.S. sets forth the procedure required to disconnect a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of a city. WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the Petition for Disconnection of said territory to be in the City's best interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Disconnection, commonly referred to as the "Little Star Foundation Ranch de- annexation ", and as legally described below, is hereby disconnected from the City of Aspen, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31 -12- 501, C. R.S. Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD, according to the Final Plat thereof recorded December 30, 1994, in Plat Book 35 at Page 86 of the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado. Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one (1) certified copy df this ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two (2) copies of this ordinance with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this ordinance with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this ordinance. Section 4. The land so disconnected shall not thereby be exempt from the payment of any taxes lawfully assessed against it for the purpose of paying any indebtedness contracted by the City of Aspen while such land was within the limits thereof and which remain unpaid and for the payment of which said land could lawfully be taxed. Section 5. That 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 6. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of, 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. z r= � I aye � ' v. MEMORANDUM }=:� TO Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner TB RU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director DATE OF MEMO: May 8, 2007 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2007 RE: 1490 Ute Ave Petition for Disconnection from the City of Aspen REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council has been asked to approve a petition for disconnection by ordinance of the 6.487 acre parcel located at 1409 Ute Avenue. The parcel is also known as Lot 5 in the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. BACKGROUND: In 1997 the property owner, Silver Lining Ranch, requested annexation into the City and requested rezoning and a Growth Management Exemption. Subsequent to the annexation, the parcel was rezoned to Academic (A) and Conservation (C), both with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay. The Applicant was also granted a Growth Management Exemption for a non -profit entity qualifying as an essential public facility. Prior to annexation, the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision was approved by the Pitkin County BOCC. Below is a map indicating the lots in the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision; all are within the Growth Boundary. 1 r Logend . w —ba. SubrProPertY - Las Page 1 of 4 The subdivision includes six lots and a large open space parcel. The Land Use approvals from the County included five growth management allotments for single- family homes on Lots 2 — 6. These Lots were zoned AR -2 (Residential — 2 Acre) and under the approved subdivision were permitted to include 6,500 square feet of floor area, plus 4,000 square feet of exempt sub -grade floor area and 750 square feet of exempt garage area. Of the six lots, only one, Lot 5, was ever annexed by the City. DISCUSSION: Based on the Petition for Disconnection, it appears the property owner is interested in disconnecting from the City in an effort to revert back to the previous zoning and approvals received in the .County prior to Annexation. Regardless of if the property is disconnected or not, the property would be required to undergo a land use process in order to either change zoning in the City or establish zoning in the County. Attached as Exhibit A is a map of the area. The areas in blue are located within the City, and the areas in green are located in the County. Lot 5, located in the City, is in pink. A large version of this map will also be available at the public hearing. City Zoning If the Petition is not granted and the property stays in the City, the property owner would be permitted to retain the current zoning, but a similar activity or use would be required to occur on the Lot in order to comply with the permitted uses in the Academic (A) and Conservation (C) zone districts (See Exhibit B for a list of the permitted uses in these zone districts). If, however, a change in use is desired, the property would need to be rezoned in order to accommodate that use. As indicated in the map attached as Exhibit A, the surrounding areas in the City include an Affordable Housing development zoned AH/PUD (Ute Park Townhomes), the Aspen Club zoned Rural Residential (RR PUD), and single - family and duplex homes zoned R -15B and R -15 PUD. The adjacent zoning in the County is AR -2, Residential — 2 Acre, which is intended "to provide for a moderate density, transition zone between moderate and low density residential land uses." (Pitkin County Land Use Code) If the parcel was zoned to a residential use for the purposes of constructing a single - family or duplex dwelling unit, the property would be required to undergo a Growth Management Review and provide affordable housing mitigation for the new square footage. The lot is 6.487 acres, or approximately 282,573 square feet. If the property owner pursued (and the City granted) rezoning of the entire parcel to R -15 (Moderate Density Residential), R -30 (Low- Density Residential), or RR (Rural Residential) to accommodate a single family residence or duplex on the property, the allowed Floor Area Ratio for a single family home would be approximately 11,251 square feet and the allowed Floor Area Ratio for a duplex would be approximately 13,997 square feet. Staff, however, would recommend that the area currently zoned as Conservation (C) remain in that zone district in order to continue to preserve the natural resources in the area, and would recommend that only the Academic (A) zone be considered for re- zoning to residential. If this occurred, the area able to be built on and the allowable floor area would be reduced, per Section 26.710.022 of the Land Use Code. (See Exhibit C) This portion of lot includes approximately Page 2 of 4 147,000 square feet of lot area. If only this portion of the property was re-zoned to a residential use (R -15, R -30, or RR), the allowed Floor Area Ratio for a single family home would be approximately 8,540 square feet and the allowed Floor Area Ratio for a duplex would be approximately 9,930 square feet. Currently, the parcel contains a structure of approximately 18,000 square feet. If the parcel was re -zoned in the City and the structure was not demolished, it would be a non - conforming structure with respect to Floor Area. This could be remedied by placing a PUD on the Lot which would establish dimensional requirements for the property. Staff would recommend that a PUD replace the existing SPA in this circumstance. The Applicant has not indicated an interest in zoning the property to a multi-family zone district, but this is another potential avenue the Applicant could pursue should the property remain in the City. County Zoning Should the Petition be granted, the owner would be required to receive land use approvals from the County. This would entail site plan review and zoning. While it is not certain exactly what zoning would be granted in the County, it is likely the property would be re -zoned to AR -2 (Residential — 2 Acre) in accordance with the original subdivision approval and the zoning in the rest of the subdivision. Exhibit A indicates the area of the subdivision and the current County zoning for Lots 1 - 4 and Lot 6. If the parcel were zoned in accordance with the rest of the subdivision, it is likely the lot would have the same dimensional requirements as the other single family lots in the subdivision. Further, it is likely the property would be subject to the covenants and restrictions in the Subdivision as well as all subdivision approvals. This would include 6,500 square feet of floor area above -grade plus 4,000 square feet of exempt sub -grade floor area and 750 square feet of exempt garage area. Lot 5 received a Growth Management Allotment from the County when it was originally approved by the BOCC in the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. Growth Management Allotments do not expire in the County, so if the Lot reverts back to the County no Growth Management review would be required. Part of the original subdivision approvals required that each lot provide an on -site ADU as mitigation for the first four bedrooms built; if the home is built with more than four bedrooms, further mitigation would be required. FINANCIAL /BUDGET IMPACTS: Under its tax - exempt status as a non - profit company, the property has been exempt from paying property tax since its annexation into the City. The petition for disconnection states that the applicant believes the sale of its property for single - family residential development will provide the highest monetary benefit, and it is presumed the parcel will revert to a single - family home should the de- annexation be approved. If this parcel reverts to a single - family use, or any other use not associated with a non - profit entity, it will lose its tax exempt status and will begin paying property taxes. The City will lose this potential revenue if the petition is granted. City services such as police, fire, utilities, and administrative services have been provided since the time of annexation. These services will not be impacted negatively if the property remained in the City. It is even likely that City services may be reduced with the development of a single - family use. Page3of4 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council not approve the Petition for Disconnection. If the property remains in the City there is an opportunity for it to remain an Academic use or turn to a single family use. Further, if the property was changed to a single - family use and lost its tax exempt status property tax revenue would be generated for the City. If the Petition for Disconnection is granted, the City loses this potential revenue. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: ExhibitA —Map Exhibit B — Academic and Conservation Zone District permitted uses Exhibit C — Section 26.710.022, Zoning of lands containing more than one underlying zone district Page 4 of 4 Exhibit B Stillwater Ranch De- Annexation 26.710.230 Academic (A). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Academic (A) zone district is to establish lands for education and cultural activities with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities. All development in the Academic zone district is to proceed according to a conceptual development plan and fmal develop -ment plan approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.440, Specially Planned Areas. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Academic (A) zone district: 1. Private school or university, teaching hospital, research facility or testing laboratory, provided that such facilities are enclosed and there are no adverse noise or environmental effects; 2. Auditorium and other facilities for performances and lectures; 3. Gallery; 4. Museum; 5. Library;. and 6. Administrative offices. C Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Academic (A) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425. 1. Boardinghouse and dormitory for housing students and faculty of schools and other academic institutions; 2. Student health care facility; 3. Student and faculty dining hall; and D. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Academic (A) zone district shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual development plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.440, specially planned area. 1 Exhibit B Stillwater Ranch De- Annexation 26.710.220 Conservation (C). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Conservation (C) zone district is to provide areas of low density de- velopment to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the production of crops and animals, and to contain urban development. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Conservation (C) zone district: 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Park, playfield, playground and golf course; 3. Riding stable; 4. Cemetery; 5. Crop production, orchards, nurseries, flower production and forest land; 6. Pasture and grazing land; 7. Dairy; 8. Fishery; 9. Animal production; 10. Husbandry services (not including commercial feed lots) and other farm and agricultural uses; 11. Railroad right -of -way but not a railroad yard; 12. Home occupations; 13. Accessory buildings and uses; and 14. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040; and 15. Temporary special events associated with ski areas including, but not limited to, such events as ski races, bicycle races and concerts; with special event committee approval. C Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Conservation (C) district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425. 1. Guest ranches; 2. Recreational uses including a riding academy, stable, club, country club and golf course; 3. Ski lift and other ski facilities; 4. Sewage disposal area; 5. Water treatment plant and storage reservoir; and 6. Electric substations and gas regulator stations (not including business or administration offices). D. Dimensional requirement& The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Conservation (C) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (acres): 10. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (acres): 10. 3: Minimum lot width (feet): 400. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 100. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): 30. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): 30. 7. Maximum height (feet): 25. 8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): No requirement. 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. 10. External floor area ratio: (applies to conforming and nonconforming Tots of record): same as R -15 zone district. 2 '1 p. LT ci f. lla Oar oilmen Mern0ra ndsm Car naomer's one TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: May 14, 2007 ��QQ RE: Ordinance No. 1 , Series of 2007, to Disconnect Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision from the city limits of the City of Aspen Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed ordinance that, if approved, would disconnect Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision from the city limits of the City of Aspen. The parcel proposed for disconnection is part of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision located on the eastern edge of the City limits. Attached please find a Petition for Disconnection by Ordinance submitted by Sister Andrea Jaeger, the founder of Little Star Foundation. The petition describes the reasons for the request and history of this parcel. I have asked city staff members to be present at the public hearing of the ordinance to describe any issues that the city staff may wish to bring to City Council's attention before approving the ordinance. Also, attached hereto please find a memorandum from the Community Development Department that makes a recommendation regarding this matter. State law authorizes City Council to adopt an ordinance to disconnect lands that are within and adjacent to the boundary of the City of Aspen upon the filing of an application by the property owners and a finding of the City Council that the best interests of the City would not be prejudiced by the approval of the disconnection. The attached proposed ordinance contains the requisite findings and, if adopted, would disconnect the parcel from the city limits of the City of Aspen. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Ordinance No. to , Series of 2007, on first reading. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ORDINANCE NO. le ,`cLO (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE DISCONNECTION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE "LITTLE STAR FOUNDATION RANCH DE- ANNEXATION." WHEREAS, on March 7, 2007, the owner of the property proposed to be disconnected from the City of Aspen did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a "Petition for Disconnection by Ordinance" pursuant to Section 31 -12 -501, C.R.S; and WHEREAS, Section 31 -12 -501, C.R.S. sets forth the procedure required to disconnect a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of a city. WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the Petition for Disconnection of said territory to be in the City's best interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Disconnection, commonly referred to as the "Little Star Foundation Ranch de- annexation ", and as legally described below, is hereby disconnected from the City of Aspen, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31 -12 -501, C. R.S. Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD, according to the Final Plat thereof recorded December 30, 1994, in Plat Book 35 at Page 86 of the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado. Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one (1) certified copy of this ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two (2) copies of this ordinance with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this ordinance with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this ordinance. Section 4. The land so disconnected shall not thereby be exempt from the payment of any taxes lawfully assessed against it for the purpose of paying any indebtedness contracted by the City of Aspen while such land was within the limits thereof and which remain unpaid and for the payment of which said land could lawfully be taxed. Section 5. That 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 6. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall . be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. 2 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the _ day of , 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of ,2007. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2007. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk JPW- saved: 3 592 - G: \john \word \ords \little star disconnect.doc 3 RECEPTION #: 559631, 06/03/2009 at 09:59:23 AM, 1 OF 9, R $46.00 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO '� y ORDINANCE NO. 8 (SERIES OF 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A CONSOLIDATED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) AMENDMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AS AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE SILVER LINING RANCH INTO A JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER, LOCATED ON LOT 5 OF THE STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SILVER LINING RANCH, 1490 UTE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2735 - 184-06 -805 WHEREAS, The Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services, for review for Arts, Cultural, and Civic Use in the Academic zone district; Special Review for parking requirements in the Academic zone district; 8040 Greenline Review; Stream Margin Review; and Conceptual/Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Review for the property commonly known and referred to as the "Silver Lining Ranch" which has previously been designated a specially planned area (SPA) on the City of Aspen Official Zone District Map; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4, Series of 1997, of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, granted approval of the Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision for Conditional Use Review in the Academic zone district; Special Review for parking requirements in the Academic zone district; 8040 Greenline Review; Stream Margin Review; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, of the City Council of the City of Aspen, granted final approval of the Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision Specially Planned Area (SPA) final development plan, and granted a GMQS exemption for a non - profit entity qualifying as an essential public facility; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 24, Series of 2006, of the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions, a Growth Management Review to determine employee generation, and Special Review to establish off -street parking requirements; and recommended approval to City Council of a Growth Management Review as an essential public facility for the Jewish Community Center, proposed to be located at 435 West Main Street; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 36, Series of 2006, of the City Council of the City of Aspen, granted approval of the Growth Management Review as an essential public facility for the Jewish Community Center, proposed to be located at 435 West Main Street; and WHEREAS, upon initial review of the subject application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions of a Specially Planned Area (SPA); and, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 1 RECEPTION #: 559631, 06/03/2009 at 09:59:23 AM, 2 OF 9, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 20, 2009, continued to February 17, 2009, upon further public testimony, discussion and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution No. 5, Series of 2009 by a five to one (5 -1) vote; 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 Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 27, 2009, the Aspen City Council approved an SPA amendment and Growth Management Review to allow for the Jewish Community Center at the Silver Lining Ranch, as described herein, by a vote of five to zero (5 -0) NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves a Consolidated Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment and Growth Management Quota System Review for an Essential Public Facility for the Jewish Community Center at the Silver Lining Ranch. Section 2: Engineering Requirements The building permit application shall include a drainage and stormwater study for all impervious area on site. The developer will be required to be granted permission from the Aspen Club to construct the retaining wall on the westem side of the property. Impacts of construction outside the site's property boundary must be agreed upon with neighboring properties and addressed in the 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. The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21, and all design and construction standards published by the Engineering Department. Section 3: Affordable Housing and Audit The proposal generates nine and one half (9.5) employees. 5.75 employees will be housed on site through the provision of a. one - bedroom unit and a two - bedroom unit. This reflects the applicant's commitment to provide housing for a minimum of 60% of the employees generated by the project. The applicant shall submit an employee audit prior to building permit issuance and two years after issuance of C.O. The form and methodology of the audit shall be reviewed by APCHA and be consistent for both audits. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the audits. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 2 RECEPTION #: 559631, 06/03/2009 at 09:59:23 AM, 3 OF 9, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO The applicant shall provide mitigation for 60% of employees associated with the operation in excess of 9.5 employees unless otherwise waived by City Council. Section 4: Sanitation District Requirements Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled commercial kitchens and food processing establishments. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways including hard landscaping which will impact public ROW or easements owned by the district. 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 are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. ACSD will not approve service to food processing establishments retrofitted for this use at a later date. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells, elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of an excavation/foundation or access/infrastructure permit. Section 5: Approved Dimensional Standards The dimensional requirements which shall apply to this property are as follows: Dimensional Standard Approved SPA Plan Dimension Minimum Lot Size 6 acres Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit 2 acres per unit Minimum Lot Width 200 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 20 feet, with an amended building envelope to accommodate parking. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 feet Maximum Height 28 feet (Measured to the mid -point of the roof on all sides of the building, except for the east - facing elevation, which was limited to 32.5 to the mid -point of the roof Minimum Distance Between Principal and No Requirement Accessory Buildings Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site As shown on site plan, with the addition of an affordable housing cabin. Floor Area Ratio Existing as-built condition plus 700 square feet for the affordable housing cabin. Off -Street Parking 3 garage spaces, 20 outdoor spaces Section 6: Allowed Uses: In addition to the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the Academic and Conservation zone districts, this property is also allowed to be used for Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses, and Affordable housing for employees of the Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 3 RECEPTION #: 559631, 06/03/2009 at 09:59:23 A14, 4 OF 9, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Section 7: Proposed Activities: The proposed activities in the Jewish Community Center include: a pre- school, Hebrew school, adult education, religious services, and special events. The proposed scope of activities for this property is as follows: SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES AT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER Activity Time Period Frequency Attendance Pre - School 8am to 3pm 5 days per week 35-40 children Hebrew 3:30pm to 5pm 2 days per week 8 -10 children School Teen Program 6pm to 8pm 1 night per 20 -25 persons month Adult 10:30am to 11:30 am 1 day per week 5 -10 persons Education 7:30pm to 9pm 1 night per 15 -20 persons week Religious Friday around sundown every week 10 -20 persons services Saturday 9am to Noon 10 -40 persons Special events Evenings and weekends 5 -10 events per more than 50, less year than 200 per event Affordable Year round 3 units on -site 5.75 employees Housing The schedule and frequency of activities shown in this table are based on current plans and may vary slightly over time. Insubstantial changes to the timing or profile of the above approved uses and activities may be authorized by the Community Development Director. Substantial changes, such as new and significant programming or a dramatic increase in activity, may require a substantial amendment to the SPA Plan. No limitation on the type, frequency, or style of religious services shall be imposed by the City of Aspen. Section 8: Parks An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set (decrease the amount of spruce trees, increase in aspen, cottonwood, Douglas fir, and service bevy bushes). The new grading and planting will require City seed mixes and approval of the landscaping. All new plantings will need to be irrigated and the landscape plan reviewed by Parks Department. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfrll, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. Hand work only will be approved within the protection zones and for the re- opening of the irrigation ditch. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 4 RECEPTION#: 559631, 06/03/2009 at 09:59:23 AM, 5 OF 9, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Section 9: Ute Avenue Trail Improvements The Jewish Community Center shall construct a ten (10) foot wide trail within the JCC property connecting the primary facility to the boundary of the Aspen Club property as depicted on the proposed site plan attached as Exhibit A. The City shall grant the necessary encroachment licenses to accommodate this trail connection. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary trail easements from the neighboring Aspen Club property. The design specifications for the trail connection shall be finalized with the City Parks Department prior to construction. The applicant has offered to contribute a proportionate share to the completion of the Ute Avenue Trail from the proposed construction noted above to the existing concrete trail to the west. The proportionate share is based on 50% of the capital costs of the trail improvement not including costs associated with land or easement acquisition or project management. The total Jewish Community Center obligation shall not exceed $70,000 (2009 dollars). This trail contribution shall be payable to the City of Aspen in one of two ways: 1) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new facility. In this case the $70,000 shall be held by the City of Aspen in a separate interest bearing account to be used solely for the construction of the Ute Avenue Trail. If the funds are not used within seven (7) years of the issuance of a Development Order, the City shall return the funds to the Applicant, with interest. 2) At the time of trail development, within 30 days written notice from the City to proceed with the construction of the trail. In this case the pending contribution shall be secured through a bond, letter of credit, or other similar means of security acceptable to the City Attorney. The $70,000 shall be adjusted annually starting in 2010 according to an Engineers News Record construction pricing index acceptable to the City Engineer. The security shall be provided prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new facility. This obligation shall be valid for a period of seven (7) years and shall terminate on the seventh anniversary of the issuance of the Development Order. Section 10: Transportation Demand Management Program The Jewish Community Center shall be subject to the Transportation Demand Management Program as outlined in Exhibit 13. The purpose of this plan is to minimize single - occupant auto trips to or from the JCC. The Applicant and City Transportation Department staff shall jointly develop a reliable methodology for measuring the effects of the TDM Program. The TDM Program may be amended from time to time as needed and as agreed upon by the JCC and the City Transportation Department as an Insubstantial SPA Amendment. Section 11: 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. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 5 RECEPTION #: 559631, 06/03/2009 at 09:59:23 AM, 6 OF 9, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Section 12: 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 13: 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 14: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of April, 2009, at a meeting of the City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 23rd day of March, 2009. Atte . :/ .[J.. / /� � / ' ��i�an" s 'o9 Kathryn S. • h, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, ] Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11 day of May, 2009. Attest: / Kathryn S. ), , ch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: JohII7lfVorces eq City Attorney Attached: Exhibit A — Site Plan — 10' wide Ute Avenue path, revised driveway and parking, and All cabin Exhibit B — Transportation Demand Management Program for the JCC. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 6 RECEPTION #: 559631, 06/03/2009 at 09:59:23 PM, 7 OF 9, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Exhibit A, Ordinance No. 8, Series 2009. I z — — s t . `,� 1. I , I l • .1 r R µ • I , i I ,{Wt 3 1 i j 1 / $ t p a y • r I, u c I 1 N ,___.....s... \ , et::, s..., I - -.12:_, ... __ „„_ _ ., 1111 , „:"...-...:::". ' - .- �/ 1 a.w,.c 1 I Ordinance No 8, Series of 2009 Page 7 RECEPTION #: 559631, 06/03/2009 at 09:59:23 AM, 8 OF 9, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Exhibit B, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 PROPOSED JCC TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM 1. The Jewish Community Center (JCC) will operate a free shuttle service for the pre- school. Up to 3 vehicles will circulate, each of which can carry up to 15 children. The shuttles will pick up children prior to pre- school and drop off children after pre- school at Koch Park (or another suitable off -site location to be determined in conjunction with the City's Transportation Department). The JCC establishes as its goal that all of the children attending the pre - school will utilize the JCC shuttle, the cross town shuttle, or personal non - vehicular transportation (a bicycle, walking, etc.). Parents will be charged a daily fee for dropping off or picking up children at the site with their car, unless there is some type of emergency (such as a sick child), in which case the fee would not be applied. 2. The JCC, or any individual who is conducting a special event (that is, any event that will have an attendance of 50 persons or more), will operate a free shuttle service for attendees at the event. The shuttle service will begin prior to the event and operate during and after the event. The shuttles will pick up and drop off attendees at designated locations around Aspen, including but not limited to, the Rio Grande parking garage and specified hotels. The organizer of the event (the JCC or an individual) will be responsible for stating on all materials advertising the event (including the JCC web site) and all invitations to the event that there is NO parking on site for the event and that all attendees must arrive at the site via a JCC shuttle, the cross town shuttle, or via personal non - vehicular transportation. The only parking that will be allowed on -site will be for the event hosts, catering staff, and other persons being employed to serve the special event. 3. The JCC will submit a schedule of that year's planned special events to the Community Development Department at the beginning of each year. Seven to fourteen days prior to each event the applicant will contact the City Transportation, Parking and Police departments to remind staff that there is an upcoming event and that the JCC may be requesting parking enforcement if attendees violate the no parking signs. 4. The JCC shall assign a staff person to each special event to ensure that the only people who gain access to the site are the event hosts, catering staff, and other persons being employed to serve the special event. The staff person shall also be responsible for keeping a count of any attendees who attempt to access the site for parking. If the staff person sees any attendees parking along Ute Avenue he or she will immediately contact the City to request police enforcement via ticketing of illegally parked vehicles. 5. The JCC will conduct internal audits of traffic to the site. The internal audits shall occur at least once every quarter of the year during the first two years of the operation. This audit shall be performed by a JCC staff person or other person Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 8 RECEPTION #: 559631, 06/03/2009 at 09:59:23 AM, 9 OF 9, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO employed by the JCC who will count traffic coming to and going from the site on a typical day (that is, not a day when a special event is occurring). The audit shall last for at least 3 days, and shall include 2 weekdays and a Saturday. The audit shall identify the number of daily trips generated by the pre - school and the number of trips generated by other uses of the site. 6. Twice a year the JCC will conduct an independent audit of the traffic to the site — once on March and once in July. The first such bi- annual audit shall occur within one year after the initial occupancy of the building by the JCC. The bi- annual audit shall consist of a week long traffic count performed by an independent contractor deemed acceptable by the City's Community Development Department. The independent contractor shall prepare a report summarizing the quarterly traffic counts obtained from the intemal audits, the traffic counts conducted for the bi- annual audit, and any reports prepared to summarize traffic from special events. The contractor shall determine whether the pre - school and special events have been able to achieve close to 100% usage of shuttles by attendees. The report shall also summarize the actual number of trips generated to and from the site to determine whether traffic has complied with the limits of 125 trips per day during the week and 140 trips per day on Friday stated in the traffic study. If the first three years of audits demonstrate compliance with the commitments made in this TDM program and the stated traffic limits, the applicant may petition to the Community Development Department that the bi- annual audit requirement be waived. 7. If the JCC does not achieve the goals stated above for use of shuttles for pre- school and special events or if it exceeds the 125/140 trip per day limits, then a hearing would be held before the P8Z to review the additional traffic demand management measures the applicant would be required to implement. 8. JCC employees will be discouraged from parking on -site, except for the caretaker, who needs to have a vehicle for his job. Employees will be encouraged to join the ride sharing program that is being planned for the Aspen Club and to use the cross town shuttle. The JCC will purchase several bicycles and keep them on -site for use by employees. 9. The JCC will promote the use of the cross town shuttle or non - vehicular modes of travel (walking, bicycles, etc.) for all other day - to-day uses of the site, such as for attendees of religious classes, adult education, etc. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 9 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and KAT Ranch. LLC and Little Star Foundation, Inc, as co- applicants (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for an SPA Amendment. Growth Management Reviews. and Special Review (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 2.940 which is for twelve (12) hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of 5245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLIC T By: By: �5 Chris Bendon Community Development Director KA *: b, LLC By: / 1 Ric! rd Y. Neiley, Jr., Attorney for Little Star Foundation, Inc. Mailing Address: c/o Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen. CO 81611 (970) 925 -7819 4 H MTN DIVISION HUT ASSOC INC 1280 UTE LLC 1280 UTE AVE #16 ' UTE AVE _ , ... BEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 EN CLUB SPA LLC BASS EDWARD P BEHRHORST DAVID G ) CRYSTAL LAKE RD C/O DORSEY GROUSE 1280 UTE AVE STE 32 'EN, CO 81611 201 MAIN ST #2700 ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT WORTH, TX 76102 JE LEONARD J COTE RICHARD CRICENTI - MUNVES PALMIRA CARONDELET ST 1280 UTE AVE PO BOX 24 / ORLEANS, LA 70130 -3504 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 WN RENEE TRUSTEE EDDY DAVID M FALLIN RICHARD ALDEN :OLORADO TRST 1426 CRYSTAL LAKE RD PO BOX 6819 V LA SALLE ST #800 /JXC ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 -6819 :AGO, IL 60601 /ER JOAN LIVING TRUST FLECK BARBARA FRETZ BRUCE R & BARBARA B OX 66 1449 CRYSTAL LAKE RD 1432 CRYSTAL LAKE RD #2B A, IA 50219 -1777 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2254 ASPEN, CO 81611 -2250 GERSON PETER REV TRST 32.5% GIBBON DYLAN J r TE AVE F GERSON PETER OPRT 17.5% INT 1280 UTE AVE I, CO 81611 2401 ARNO RD ASPEN, CO 81611 SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208 MAN HERBERT I & MARY K GOODMAN LEONARD C GORDON JOHN CHARLES CUMSCH CIR 222 N LASALLE ST #800 PO BOX 69 - ON, TX 77057 CHICAGO, IL 60601 TWIN LAKES, CO 81251 -0069 HOFFMAN ALLAN R REV TRUST 50% RODES & PATRICIA I HEAD FREDERICK F HOFFMAN EVELINE REV TRUST 50% WSBORO RD 1451 UTE AVE 150 CARONDELET PLZ APT 1004 VOOD, TN 37027 ASPEN, CO 81611 ST LOUIS, MO 63105 -3452 LUTTRELL MARTHA JSAN M & HELEN M JONES WARREN D & KATHLEEN K C/O FRANCIS &FREEDMAN PARK BLVD 2105 LEE SHORE PL 501 S BEVERLY DR 3RD FL R HEIGHTS, OH 44120 -1670 WILMINGTON, NC 28405 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 ING SPACES LLC MCCLAIN PETER K MITCHELL TODD :4362 1461 UTE AVE 0786 MIDNIGHT MINE CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MITCHELL TODD MORRIS CLIFTON H JR 1/2 MORRIS SHERIDAN C 1/2 PO BOX 1569 1409 INDIAN CREEK 801 CHERRY ST #3900 ASPEN, CO 81611 WESTOVER HILLS, TX 76107 FORT WORTH, TX 76102 MRKASPEN INVESTMENTS LLC MUNVES ANDREW NATHANSON FAMILY TRUST 34 W DILIDO DR PO BOX 24 101 OCEAN AVE #C -600 MIAMI, FL 33139 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 NORTH CLOVE N V NOVAK JEFFERY T & KATHERINE PIKE OTTE PATRICIA K CIO FILLOY JOSEPH M CPA 1463 UTE AVE 89 DANIEL DR ONE SE THIRD AVE STE 1445 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI, FL 33131 PANTHERA LLP POGLIANO GINA POLGRAVE INVESTMENTS LTD 140 FOUNTAIN PKY STE 420 1467 UTE AVE C/0 JOSEPH M FILLOY CPA ST PETERSBURG, FL 33716 ASPEN, CO 81611 ONE SE THIRD AVE STE 1445 MIAMI, FL 33131 POWDER HOUSE CONDO ASSOC PUBLIC COUNSEL OF THE ROCKIES RABINOW RICHARD A & KATHRYN L 1280 UTE AVE #16 1280 UTE AVE STE 4 3711 SAN FELIPE #12 -I ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77027 REESE JOHN W ROESER ELLEN QPRT ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 1280 UTE AVE STE 32 1900 HIGHLAND PARK CIR 11444 W OLYMPIC BLVD STE 10 • ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT WORTH, TX 76107 LOS ANGELES, CA 90064-1534 SALVADORE TERESA SEBASTIAN SEAN D S & AMY P S SHARPE NORTON & VIRGINIA TRS ARMSTRONG JOHN B 321 GRANT ST 10490 WILSHIRE BLVD #1603 0129 FREE SILVER CT SEWICKLEY, PA 15143 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHELDON ROBERT & BARBARA SHUMAN RUTH L SMITH BRADLEY & DOLECKI SMIT 11 BROOKSIDE DR 1120 PARK AVE JENNIFER WESTPORT, CT 06880 NEW YORK, NY 10128 1455 UTE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 STACEY ARLENE D STILLWATER RANCH OPEN SPACE UHALT HUGH C 999 N LAKE SHORE DR ASSOC CLINE LEONARD J CHICAGO, IL 60611 PO BOX 11597 634 CARONDELET ST ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 -3504 WAYNE WILLIAM & MARSHA TRUSTEES WILSON THOMAS H WISE HUGH D III 1483 BONNYMEDE DR 250 CAMINO ALTO #110 0252 HEATHER LN SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 -1450 ASPEN, CO 81611 iE MARY ABRAHAM EDWARD A & LISE L 0 UTE AVE 2500 BAYSHORE DR BEN, CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 •