The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.sp.Kids Stuff.A597 ,. ,._-~_..... . .,....."..~--..._.<"""'"'..,...... ~,- """ .-.J CAS!!' 'AD SUMMARY SHEET. CITY (]' '';PEN DATE RECEIVED: 2/4/97 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID # 2737-184-05-805 CASE # A5-97 STAFF: ~IMl Cl!tllB6f! ;'-1t-I-zA /fJtQS PROJECT NAME: Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application Project Address: Stillwater Ranch, Lot 5 APPUCANT: Kids Stuff Foundation AddresslPhone: StillwaterRanch, Lot 5 OWNER: "The Silver Lining Ranch" AddressIPhone: Stillwater Ranch, Lot 5 REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman AddressIPhone: Box 3613 Aspen, Co. 920-1125 RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address: . -- FEES DUE PLANNING $0 ENGINEER $0 HOUSING $0 ENV HEALTH $0 CLERK $ TOTAL $0 FEES RECEIVED PLANNING $0 ENGINEER $ HOUSING $ ENV HEALTH $ CLERK $ TOTAL RCVD $0 # APPS RECEIVED 20 # PLATS RECEIVED 5 GIS DISK RECEIVED: , ~ TYPE OF APPUCATION Staff Approval P&Z CC CC (2nd readin ) ~, ~. REFERRALS: .~ o City Attorney o City Engineer (DRC) o Zoning o Housing o Environmental Health o Parks o Aspen Fire Marshal o City Water o City Electric o Clean Air Board o Open Space Board o Other: o CDOT o ACSD o Holy Cross Electric o Rocky Mtn Natural Gas o Aspen School District o Other: '- ..- .' DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DATE DUE: APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution #" Staff Approval Plat Recorded: II Sul~ 1.927 / Date: , Date: Book 3M!1?, , ,Page CLOSED/FILED ROUTE TO: DATE: .1-" Lf":f INITIALS: 4At - -~ . , . , June 20, 2000 . Andrea Jaeger Silver Lining Foundation 1490 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN' PlTKlN COMMUNITY DEVELO~IENT DEPARNENT , Dear Andrea: I just wanted to confirm receipt of the information you sent me on June 15. Thank you for the documentation regarding to 'the conditions of approval per Resolution 97-04 related to the parking audit, water quality study and housing audit. Staff really appreciates such a prompt response. Either the Environmental Health Department, or myself will be foUowing up regarding the second phase of the water quality study. Should you have any questions please feel free to call rne at 920-5441. Regards, ~ ~es~i~o~er .City of Aspen cc: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director' / 130 SoUTH GALENA STRW . AsPEN, COLORADO 81611-l975 . PHONE 970.920,5090 ' FAX 970.920,5439 1'rinted on lW:yeled Paper fF'HECEiVED "".M 1 " "OM ' . .;.- t: UU June 15,2000 T~e <;iluer li~,\j fo.'\hfio,\ A8~t'N / ~;'rK1N '~..'- ::.... ,.... ,-..; . ASPEN COLORADO Saral! Oates Aspen/Pitkin Community Developrnent Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Saral!: Pursuant to our Approval under Resolution 97-04, this letter and attaclunents are in response to items 3 B (1) and 3 C (lc). Item 3 (5) (Housing Audit) was addressed to Cindy Christiansen via e-mail on June 9, 2000 (copy attached), . Item 3 B (l) - Parking Audit o Internal report done from April 4 through May 30th as requested by City. (parking Activity Report attached.) . Item 3 C (lc) - Horse Population and Water Quality Audit o Since the Foundation did not house any horses for the first year of operation, we are asking for a deferral of this request until next year. We will have horses beginning the summer of2000, We had a standard bacteriological water test done prior to the arrival of the animals to use as a basis of comparison. (copies attached) We will do this same test in late summer after the animals have left to check for any changes in the bacteria level. We would ask that if the City mandates a full audit/study next year, that the request be specific in the type of tests that are required to satisfy the City's conditions. In conversations with several different organizations, they asked very specific questions as to what type of tests the City was requiring and where the tests should be taken, Should you have any questions regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to call me at 925-9540, J "" .'-'" r- ~.f MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council {\ \ ~ I Amy Margerum, City Manage~V John Worcester, City Attorney L.f /' Stan Clauson, Community DevelO\fn irector if Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Directo , Mitch Haas, Planner * - - The Silver Lining RanchlKids Stuff Foundation, Request for Waiver of Fees THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: November 24, 1997 SUMMARY: The Kids Stuff Foundation, Inc. (alk/a Silver Lining Ranch) recently gained approval for an annexation, ,an SPA development plan, a rezoning to Academic/ Conservation/SPA, a GMQS exemption, a stream margin review and 8040 greenline review, a special review, and a conditional use review for the development of a permanent facility dedicated to providing children with cancer and other life threatening illnesses with a short- "" term "retreat" in the therapeutic setting of the Rocky Mountains and Aspen, The facility will include dorm rooms, activity rooms, a gathering space, dining facilities and recreational amenities. It will house the children during their visits to Aspen, and it will house employees on a year-round basis. The Kids Stuff Foundation (KSF) is a 501(c)3 organization (not-for- profit) and was recognized by City Council as an "essential public facility." KSF is seeking exemption from fees associated with building permits, water taps, land use reviews, the Environmental Health Department, and all. others in light of the purpose for constructing the ranch, its non-profit status, and its recognition as an essential public facility. PREVIOUS ACTION: With the adoption of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, City Council approved the Conceptual/Final SPA, Rezoning, and GMQS Exemption for KSF's development of the Silver Lining Ranch. Similarly, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the conditional uses, 8040 greenline, stream margin, and special review requests of the KSF via Resolution 97-04 on March 11, 1997, REVIEW PROCEDURE: The City of Aspen maintains policies regarding requests to waive planning application and building permit fees, water tap fees, park dedication fees, and parking impact fees. All of the three (3) residential units associated with the development of the Silver Lining Ranch will be deed restricted, category units, Planning and Building Permit Fees The policy regarding planning application and building permit fees allows for the waiving of these fees "for developments which constitute 100% affordable housing." The Director of the Community Development Department will waive these fees if authorized by Council. I .~ ~ ~ ,. Water Tap Fees The same policy regarding waivers for development constituting 100% affordable housing holds true for water tap fees, provided operable water conservation devices are employed. The Director of the Water Department stated that the Water Department would not have any special problems with the waiver from a financial standpoint, but he worries about the possibility of setting a difficult precedent. Park Dedication Fees The policy addressing the waiver of park dedication fees allows for exempting developments of "essential community facilities," In granting a GMQS exemption through Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, Council determined that KSF, as a non-profit, qualifies as an "essential. public facility." Furthermore, the Director and Assistant Director of the Parks Department have stated that they have no objection to waiving the dedication fees. Finally, there are no parking impact fees associated with the development of the Silver Lining Ranch, Engineering, Housing and Environmental Health Fees With regard to the referral fees collected with the planning application, the City Engineer and Housing Office have stated that they are not opposed to waiving their fees, which are considered part of the Planning Application Fees, The Director of the Environmental Health Department stated that they only waive fees for developments of 100% affordable housing; they cannot waive fees collected for the state licenses that they issue (i.e., commercial kitchen/restaurant licenses cost $IOO/year). No fees were collected when the planning application was submitted, including referral fees for the reviews conducted by Housing, Engineering or Environmental Health. Other City and County Fees Fees associated with entities that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the City, such as Holy Cross Electric charges, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District fees, Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder fees, Land Management Department fees, State Licensing fees, and others cannot be waived by City Council. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The fees that would have been due with the planning application were never collected because of this fee waiver application. Those fees due at the time of building permit application submittal include the building plans check fee and the energy code check fee. Those due at the time of building permit issuance include the building permit fee, the zoning check fee, and the water tap fees, Additional fees such as those associated with fire sprinkler permits, plumbing permits, electrical permits and mechanical permits would also be collected as part of the building permit fees, but the dollar amounts of these fees for this project were not yet able to be determined. The following tabulation represents the fees that would be due to the City: 2 l .~ ,,-.' . , FEE TOTAL FEES WAIVED PAID Land Use Review Fees: Planning Review Deposit. , . . , . . , . . , . . , ..$ 1,080.00 Environmental Health Referral. . . . . . , .. , . $ 155,00 Housing Referral. , . , . . , . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . $ 70,00 EngineeringReferral.............."... $ 110,00 Park Dedication Fee. . . . " . . , . . , . . , . . , . . . . . , . . ,$ 3,634.00 Gas Log Appliance Registration Fee (Envir, Health) .$ 30.00 Building Plans Check Fee. . , . . , . . , . . . . . , , , . , . . ,$ 2,041.75 Energy Code Check Fee.. .. , .. , .. , .. , .. , , .. , .. $ 314.12 Building Permit Fee.. ,. ". , " , ,. , .,. , ,. , . , , .. $ 3,141.J5 Zoning Check Fee. , . . . . , . . , . . , . . . . . , . . , , . . , ,.$ 4,680.00 Water Tap Fees. . . , . . , . , . . , . . , , . , , . . , . . , , . , ..$ 24,234.00 Total* $39,490.02 -$ 162.00 -$ 23.25 -$ 10.50 -$ 16.50 -$3,634,00 -0- -$ 306.26 -$ 47.12 -$ 471.J 7 -$ 702.00 -$ 3,635.10 -$9,007.90 $ 918.00 $ 131.75 $ 59.50 $ 93.50 -0- $ 30.00 $ 1,735.49 $ 267,00 $ 2,669.98 $ 3,978,00 $20,598.90 $30,452.12 * Additional fees such as those associated with fire sprinkler permits, plumbing permits, electrical permits and mechanical permits would also be collected as part of the building permit fees, but the dollar amounts of these fees for this project were not yet able to be determined. STAFF COMMENTS: Portions of the project qualify for waivers of Planning and Building Permit fees since those portions of the development will constitute one-hundred percent affordable housing. The development will be comprised of multiple uses,' only one of which will be housing, but every housing unit (3 units) contained on the property will be deed restricted and registered with the Housing Office, These three units make up 2,670 square feet of the structure's total 17,809 square feet, or 15% of the total floor area, The policy would, therefore, allow for waiving 15% (the percentage of the project that is made up of 100% deed restricted, employee housing) of the Planning and Building Permit fees. As the Planning and Building Permit fees include all of the Land Use Review Fees, the Building Plans Check Fee, the Energy Code Check Fee, the Building Permit Fee, the Zoning Check Fee, and'the items denoted above by the asterisk, waiving 15% of these fees (which total to $11,592.02) would mean that the applicant would be responsible for paying $9,853.22* while the remaining 15%, or $1,738.80* could be waived. This 15% waiver would also apply to those fees that are denoted by the asterisk and have not yet been calculated. With regard to Water Tap Fees, the Water Department finds it appropriate to waive these fees as the three residential units will be deed restricted and affordable. Waiving 15% of $24,234 would mean that the applicant would be responsible for paying $20,598.90 while the remaining 15%, or $3,635.10 could be waived. The policies regarding Park Dedication Fee waivers are clearly met as the project qualified as an "essential community facility" for a GMQS exemption by Council. Under this policy, 100% of the $3,634 in Park Dedication Fees would be waived. 3 - j ,;;;...." .--; In the case of the table above and waiving 15% of those fees for which affordable housing- related fee waiver policies exist, and waiving 100% of the Park Dedication Fees, a total of $9,007.90* would be waived while the applicant would be required to pay the remaining $30,482.12*. It is staffs recommendation that Council waive $9,007.90* of the fees associated with the development of Kids Stuff Foundation's Silver Lining Ranch, and suggest that the Kids Stuff Foundation apply for a grant from Council for the remaining $30,452.12*, RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Finding that 15% of the development of the Kids Stuff Foundation's Silver Lining Ranch will constitute 100% affordable housing, a corresponding 15% of the Planning and Building Permit Fees, and Water Tap Fees shall be waived. Also, since the development qualifies as an 'essential community facility,' 100% of the Park Dedication Fees shall be waived." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Letter from Andrea Jaeger of the Kids Stuff Foundation, Inc. 4 "Z72i Response By: 'fI''IJi ~-ti ' By Oate: /I, 'e1 ~or' r .-~ ~ \ ~~\~ 1 ~ ." ,.9, lb ~'!:~.~~ 'ZL ....0.. ,;-..., r\ He ~il"er li,\i,\j R4'\"~ ASPEN COLORADO August 21, 1997 City Council c/o Amy Margerum, City Mgr. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: SILVER LINING RANCH Dear Ms. Margerum: ) €X~\'Brr "A" f DISTRIBUTED TO: f~ CC "P~ 0 k. kod... -j. VJy-~ I am writing to request a waiver for city fees related to the permit process and construction of the Silver Lining Ranch, a facility of Kids' Stuff Foundation (KSF), KSF, founded in 1990, is a 501 (c)3 organization incorporated in Aspen. KSF is dedicated to providing children with cancer and life-threatening illnesses with opportunities to enhance their life experiences, Our Silver Lining Ranch program currently serves many children a year in the therapeutic setting of the Rocky Mountains. As you know, the Silver Lining Ranch will provide a permanent facility to include dorm rooms, activity rooms, a gathering space and dining facilities to house these children during their visits to Aspen. We are seeking exemption from fees for Building Permits, Water Taps, the Health Department fees and any others in light of the purpose for constructing the Ranch. Although t.l],e Aspen community lIaS been extremcly generous in its support for this project, our resources are very limited, Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns about this proposal. We appreciate your attention to this matter, Sincerely, ~lr kid,. ~flf C.",Mio"" l'\w lN3V'ld013A30 JJ.INnWV'lOO t-lI\JI..I'I\,I':l..JQ",", L661 L '1 ~j' 1\' O~^,3~:::l1;-$ , e> o C o "" 01 'tl c: :::J $! CD c: 'c 'E:a: ~<( :s 'iiit- ::J ~~ ~ 010 <> EO !ij !:'~ 0:: .[0)' ~ o .- ffi Q) U).S ' Ec:Q)...J ~~~~ rn ~J: E5 'C:~ l!!.. .s;::.c::: (OW o lJ..(J) 0:: C I'll E ~ III 'C .c o .oJ E.... lil .. .- o c...Cl ....CDO~ L1.Ult-Ul " -" <1 III .c: E-< ~. <1 " " <1 '" .rl '" " .rl " .c: u :>. 'tJ <1 'rl U o '" '" " " 'tJ .'ij S o " 'I< " '" '" " " " s .c: '" " '" '" " .rl .c: '" 'tJ " '" :. " o 'I< " " '" " ri 0. " o :>. 'tJ ri g U :>. 'tJ <1 'rl U " " o " " ~ ..j...J.j.J Q) '''; 1tI n::l ~ .c:.c: ~ ~..j...J..jJ.j...J rn <10'" '" 'r-l...-l..c:: fIl c::...-/ tI).j.J..jJf...r(])rtl "<d .rl > 0. o ~ Cf} ftl-ri W .c: '" " 0. '" " .,...j.,...j OJ illCf}.jJH r:::: Q) ~ . Q) >,(J)::!wrn..c:: o..c::u..c::../..l:3: ~.j..J'.-l.j.J'r-l 0. 'I< <1 '" s.c:'I<<1"o. CV'rd-,..j -..-I Q) H'O 010 Q) rtl "0 J:: ~ .!:tI) tJlQ)...-/ Q) ..j...J c:::> CIl Q'r-! ~::l {1) C.4-l'OOQ+J ....-1 '0 f> ..c:: ..-/ 'tJ 0 <1 <1 '0 aJrl .,-1 Q) ::l (I) 1::4-l <V >-..-1 fI) :>"w ~rtl"d.-lO..c:: OrlC.-Irl..jJ :> ~rtl'r-l 0.. <1" .Q S <1 ..-1 (l).. [l'rl <1'tJ (IJ H.O OJ <ll CIJ o -rl.jJ..c:: co ...-1 rn +J ..j...J ..jJ Q) .~..;g'g'tJii ~.b.gB~ '0 c: Ul en U S o c: (]) (1) Q) -rl 0 (I) 4-1 ..c::..j...J U l> 4-l t1l +Jrtl rol\lr::::~ "o....c:: .r; ltI 4--l C c:: >, l> Q) o ::l 0'1l-i rl rt:l 1--1 o...-! +J,..C ~ Q.l~CJ} U S "." 'tJ <1 o 0'l"O t1l H Q) 0 00 c: r::::.,....j c: .,., ..c:: ..-1 'O.r-! tIJ cQ'.j....1tr.l rom 'r-! H-r-I ::l..j...J.j.J ~ roH:3:0(1jC:: .......j ..c::..c::.rl4-1 0.. H '0 ..j...J co 4-1 :< Q) ill Q) IS ro Q) l> H OJ fIl ..jJ rl ro >, rtI .-I CI} O'r-! A DID rl. .jJCf.l$:1rlf...r.rlC: rtl o...rtl+J Q) 'tJ".c:s ".c: ".c: <Ii" :. .j.JE-ttll ...co> r:::: rO<V+JS-:1-l ltI..J-J ~..c:: 0 ;3: ro .jJ c: a 1-1 '''; 0 ill H C ro '0 ..-1 't:l O\1)dl"d+Jrtl ...-/ >,..j...J ID rtl e . '" 0." S o m +J'::l H H t1l .....; ::l rn H ::l 0 r:: ,...., ..jJ H rn U 4-l.,.-.I (])'.-/''''''r-! U r:::: Q) ::t:: tIl 4-l '0 0..-/ ..0 'I< <1 'I< 0 ""rl "'''' " '" . 'tJ ri <1 "''' <10 0"-' " " '" " " ".Q u " <1 o '" "'" u > "''tJ.c: ..c::Ql.j.J "'rl "" :. :.'tJ .rl <1 "''''' '" <1 " .c: 0 'tJ "'Uri .rl "".c: ..-t H U '" <1 .c: o "'" .r-I....-l-..-l '" "':. III " ,,'tJ-" Q) ...-/ f...r 'tJ>0 ",.:.,j..-I :; ,,'tJ <1 C " 0..-/...-/ U " ".c: 0"", '" 0 <1.c: '" -rlE-l r:::: .rl " " " ." -"ri'tJ "'ri "'O.c: " u "':>'<1 <1"'''' .rl 0... H " "'tJ " o <1.c: .c:"", o "" '" .c: '" '" " '" " " " " 0. :>. " o 0 .c:<1.c: o " " :.'" :. o +'<1'" u '" "".c: 0."'" " '" OJ 'I< "''I< "'" '" <1.c:", 0"''' c o .rl '" <d " " 0. o 'I< o " III " :>. " <1 o <1 o 'tJ " " '" .Q " " '" ::., '" 0. 'tJ <1 III " " " o .c: " " " .c ... o o 00 o 00 ..0 l.f) 0 NO ... .. riO""'('\] -(1)0 ..{J}<f} o l'IlN Ul Ul .rl<ll-'r-!.,-i :>.:>.:>.:>. ro nj co Cil 0-lCl.lA.r0-l " " H H l'Il tIl " " " " o 0 " " .c:.c:00 .c:o:: "'0 l..OOOO r-i'<:1'l"OOO .-Ir-!O'Ir- ri ri " <1 <1 .. ..-1 Z:.: o::U :;: .. .c: <1 rei l'Il ...-1 ..c: OJ l> J..{ CIJ S Q.J H "'..:I '" ",e, <Il '" '" s ,: ~<1 s III M '" :;:0 0. U') " ..;ri .Q 'I< '" Ori .rl " '" "'>0 ""'''' .rl "S-cl <1 Ill" o <1 U H tJ'l .rl '" " l'tl o.Q) .c:.c:'tJ ... u <1 " . ~ ~ .c: " U QJ tJl <1.c: 0 Ill'" " " 0. '" <V nj a> .c: "" -l-l '0 01 Q.) Q)'r-! U -l-l (fJ C C lt1::1:::l 10 o U ".c: " " ".c: ::1 Q) O.j..l o k .r-! L: eel 0 :3: '" "'" <1 ~ ro CJ} Q) .c:'tJ" -l-l.J-lk"O '" '" ri ..c f...I tJl.,....J .j.J rt:l W..G "" U "':>. " <1" 00)'.-10 o..c: 'I< 0. '" " " <1" CI} 4--10,(1) o ..-j ...-1 'I< "'''' 4-1 en trJ-.-j ru OJ Q) C '" S ," " to') ..-1 t;t +J '" " ri "0 (lj ttJ nj ~ U " .c: 0. .r-! 0 0 'O...-! 0 OJ H...c: en S '" :. <1 :> ""; :>. "u rl 0'1 c: c: ...I< c: 0 ro Q).., >,..c: "" <1 <1 :." "''' 'tJ " .c:" l>U).j..l!.H ro",'rl.':; ..c:m~r-l " O"O.j..I (I) tI)..-j 0>'0 M :> (l)..-f ""rl S > 'tJ 0 OJ C 0 H ~ -.-I +J 001 , " " '" " '" e, '" " " 'tJ ~ . .... c.... O~ ;:;0::> III -gO O:lOe - :s Ll.c::.;::; 01 (I) 0 C a. q:; '2 ~ 0, ._ ,I:: ..... .s: ... ai >.;; ~~~ == Cl) tI).... :J cPo .cO) 1-"=1" .... c o ! iii ::s co o .~ l!! U III UO 0.. CII .c - o c o ~ .. ::s ,.,0 III o Ul III .. ,- III 1::0 III CII D.. CII ~ 'Q. E w Ul .. III >.0 Olll CII CII :s ~ u-'Q. E w ..J ~ g .....lCLl'IMC>>eeleel..... , ... ::> o .c ~ '" ... ::> o .c co f!? ~ ~ ~ :;:, ::J ::] ::J o 0 0 0 .c .c .c .c co..... co lO .....OT"""OMNNN ~ ... ... ::> ~ :J ::> 0 ::> oo.co ..c:..t:~..c: T""'T""'T""C\J C\j C')C\j.-OC')C')C\jC\j C\jC')C\jC\jC\jC\jC')C\j a CII ~ l!! CD <<Ii . 'T""' T"" T"" T"" T"" .-C- or- T"" i' 0 ~. .. III (!) ... ~ :3 .... :J 0 :J o .c 0 .cC\j.c N:;::-- 'Ot lC .- M eel 0 Ll'I ..... .... .... .... N N N .;: a. <( ~ ::J o .c C\j - .- .- .....Ll'ICQ$!C>>.....$!lCN f! ~ e? f? f! ~ f! f! ::J :J :J :J ::J ::J :J :J 000 000 0 0 .c.c.c.c.c.c.c.c lOlOlClOCO COlO co C\jC\jC')'OtC')C')lOC')O ~ to.. "- s... f! :J L. :::J :J ::J ::J 0 ::J 0 0 oo.cO.c.c .c .c .c~ _C\jC\j_ T""NT""'T"""T""..... C\j NO__NNT""T""'T""O C\jC\jC')C')C')C\jC').-.- T""'T""T""T""'(-or-T"""T""T"" N'OtC>> >. III ::i! ....lCCQMLl'IO ~,,""~NNC"') .....:-............".,.-...~_.......""...,:..'._......,. . 0 1S,l NO ''''0' "Z : i. '.." 3Wll.,_ t.e, ",'~31V'a w ..'::'.:731VO aS~ G3^13~3~ \1<"<: ',-,I 3WIl ,(..:,S''' <(,W ' . -..a:.-..\;.-! cl:- iJ:JVd55tHL Nt ill/IIM LON 00 :::>cr: "'.0 ~ ~ zu. ~ :::> , '" m :5 0 .~ Si '" ~, -z ~ :- lfJ-< "- :::> 'r.o, ~.~.~ ",IE "' ,<,. ~ Z'C:( re '" Iii >- 000 w a: '" .. :::> , I i!'~" '" :::> S w 8 ~::ii "' " , m ",i::!:z -< 0 sg~ !!!. t fjj ~ ~ , '~'a= j: ll" >J- -< "'I mlffi Z UJUJ- '" rffi g'j" ~ 0: "- a:o-S: ~ '. 0 ~ ~ ~ m " , . I- ffJl;i 1-", (fit; ....OuJ ~,~~,;: -11::0 ~ ' <~a:C:C (.)t:::~o~ a z. !Z5! ~ 9~~~~ 2~~~8~ o a: z~e ::3...... .qOcha,. ml8(1) QO~c ",0 00(", Qw, ~3J In'" .~ ~~l: ~ ~ ~ : , I;: ~ ... '\~ ' ~ ~ '-> \. ,. I, .>w< ~ ~} :'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Ul (,( 0::; ir=> => "-\'" ~ -.:.t Wa.og en_.-- ~ ~"-:Em:i ), ~ r&~":i'-;~ i ~ r ",- ~c15 111 L~ ",,..~ i w ~ * r:: " ...J-a. iii {) 'Q.. a:::;, ~ a::i3~__~a.. UJ Wen -4 Cl. K ~,~ 5,~ ~ ~ s@a:ttl15 ~.~, ~===!i ... . >- l ~'. >( t>- ~ UJ .:::::1 1:" ~ !;co .. en::2:::;, -:!E Cl ~ ?--~CD, :j ffi-~i~K<, ~~i~ffi~'!:&i f! ~ 3 ~8jEgg:~S iii ~ ~ 8 =::'s: ~ ~ [jl w a: f5 -< l' " o -f 0; s " u: w " " '" :, ~ w" :-,g . a: Gin <z "'- ",jil 0;2 '" ~.~ ~:j ~ - U'~ :::>0 3~,s 2f~ $> ttl UJ w VJ ~ ,~.... I ~ fl c:: oj,! f2 ~, UJ ~ ~ ~ "~ ~~ '" "'110 <; " o "(, ,I; ';i ',~ C~I '~ i ~t' - ,...... ~, :5 ~ \ () (j"' 'It 0 1S31 NO 1:'"1 a,l .,( 3Wl1 ' ,"fie:' (3lVa .4.- ,,/.,", ..,," ::J.. 03^,303~ It (j:;: " .';;i 3Wl1 ,_'t' '>"i;:,f.;~' ':,.3lVa "'''' ;;0 I!! 3:Jtfds 5tHLNI ill/IIM LON 00 ~,~ ~ -' "'~ ~ ~ m :::> ji 0 ~ a: a: ~ uJ C5 ~ 1t a:oz ,f("Z ~ ::l x 13 =:J'5(f.1 0 0- 0 8itffi a: " 5;! w ..' m ws" C:; % ,~ W a: -< ..i" W 0,,3: >,,.,.. f" u: 'j.' lfJ ~ ::j:a'C) -' w <) '" Vi o:,z~ :::> z \f~ "- ~ lfJ;t '" ~-}:::!~ "' "'''' -1."<.' z<a: '" ~ >- Ouo w a: :ro.:!: '" " '" :::> '" S I'-Z::J W 0 3:::J.:11 '" " (f.I~Z S1 '" ~g~ 0 w ~ w " mo:~ I u: .~ "' '" '" Z ~~,~ ffi a 0: '" to 0- 0 ~ -< ~ "' '" ..: '\::l ."'\ \ (\ I {: ~\l~\ i ~ ,. U'JW ~ ... .;; ~ fZ (.) tn .< :; ,,-,,<:, 0 \ - W-l Ii 0 a: w ? I- ~...." l.L.>-Z< ~tl:::lc Ul ""- en ' ~ 0-1 ir=> c.. (/)- W t) )oil We.. oQ ~-1 ~ a to- - " '- ~~:Em :::! .... == It... !!h ! :!~ ", a:~rli I (Jt::"'~o~ c?J ;:. -. a:~:::2 m 6ZQ~ ~c...tt:3 0::'; ~;;, . ~ 0: 0 ~ -is: t ..JoQowo.~ 'w ~\Uen ....I;:) J,U - a..::2:::.::: .::!; U) ZE!C~8~ ~ ~5b3~@J- ~U,I-;~" ~ ~==~i ~(,)8 ..,:. ~ ; affi \c~ ,:~8:~ ~ ~~. ~ i--. i;::2:.g i: ~- 0 "',~~~ :1 < en z' ">4-. Z :E,~ w 0<( ~ ~8a:~!!:..o ! '::iZ ~ ~ ~ ~ I-" Ui it 8 ~S[ :i ~ ~ ~ ~ ---("': i'ii ~ ~ 8 ___~.. a: 0: - 9 ~ , t' '- , ~, ....... ;U1 1Jl w a: '" " -< 0; z Q " z u: w '" '" '" ,~ "'0 ~t3 ...'" ~.~ ~t~ "'e; Zz 0::; ","- z" o~ ~.!@ ::>" 10.;= 0:::' 1,1);5 ""'" ~'~ ,-:-,' Hi ~ ",,, ,,, a: Ii:' w "' a: w [l; ~ tl:l~ "'110 " ...,.. - -'> ..",. '~~. q: I:i Iii 1: " ~-, , " ^ r;. D/SrS. U, TE", 0,., ,TO: rp */~~41 = MEMO Paul E. Andersen Paul Andersen Construction Co. Inc. 1004 East Durant Avenue Suite 3 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone 970-920-1596 Fax: 970-920-4492 , S,(' TO: Honorable Mayor John Bennett & Council FROM: DATE: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 SUBJECT: 15,000 sq. ft. facility for terminally ill children Dear Mayor & Council: I read in the paper today that quote from Mayor Bennett, "nobody has complained about the above facility." I felt under the circumstances I should at least add a few comments. I start from the assumption that all monies spent on children should be wisely spent and some understanding of the costs and benefits should be sought out. I worked as a VISTA Volunteer under the auspices ofthe Johnson's Great Society and I saw mjllions wasted. Costs: a. You destroy an absolutely beautiful meadow with a monster structure-IS, 000 x $275.00= $4,125,000.00 to build plus operating costs. b. You bring more people into an already crowded valley-both patients and staff. c. You need more employee housing. d. You have to pay utilities and upkeep on a building that is used only part of the year. e. Additional traffic on Ute Avenue. f. Negative Impact on wildlife and flora. Benefits: ,....., 1....^ a. I see the benefits as absolutely minimal. These are sick kids who aren't going to be around long and therefore will make little or no contribution to the Welfare of the greater society, They need care and love from their families and ifthat is not available from the state-but to spend this kind resources on these kids makes no sense. I recommend the following instead. Given that half of the genius level kids never even get to go college in this country, I propose that a scholarship foundation be set up with the monies that would spent on this upper class camp. These are the kids who can really make a difference as productive adults in the lives of people in general. They might even find cures for the diseases killing these kids that you want to bring to Aspen. This summer camp is another example of good intentions gone astray. ~~--:urs, u Anilersen , :-'" r'\ "I' a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Amy Margerum, City Manager /L /' Stan Clauson, Community Development Dire~ Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director~ J Mitch Haas, City Planner ~ ' ~r. . Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application - Second Reading of Ordinance Number II, Series of 1997, THROUGH: FROM: RE: DATE: April 14, 1997 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Annexation, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, and Specially Planned Area (SPA) approval to create a permanent home for the Kids Stuff Foundation in Aspen. The Kids Stuff Foundation is a non-profit organization that brings groups of up to twenty (20) children with cancer and other life threatening medical conditions to Aspen for a week of relaxation and adventure in the Rocky Mountains, The applicant's application is attached as Exhibit "A", and referral comments from Engineering, Housing, Parks, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and Environmental Health are included as Exhibit "B," Community Development staff recommends that City Council approve the Kids Stuff Foundation annexation, rezoning, GMQS exemption, and Specially Planned Area (SPA) with conditions, APPLICANT: Kids Stuff Foundation, represented by Alan Richman. LOCATION: Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch is located at the northeast end of Ute Avenue, just outside of the current city limits. The lot is bounded by The Aspen Club and Lot IS of the Callahan Subdivision to the west, the Roaring FOrk River and Lot 6 of the Stillwater Ranch to the east, an out parcel and open space to the south, and Lot 13 of the Callahan Subdivision to the north. (See attached vicinity map, Exhibit A). The surrounding uses vary widely in nature. The Aspen Club provides private recreational services (commercial), the Benedict and Tenth Mountain Trail buildings serve as offices, while other uscs along Ute A venue include affordable housing, single and multi- family dwellings (housing both residents and second home owners) and a variety of public recreational facilities (trails, parks, etc.). ZONING: Proposed zoning is Academic (A)/Conservation (C)/SPA. CURRENT LAND USE: None; the lot is vacant. r-.. r-. LOT SIZE: Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch contains 6.457 acres (over 281,000 square feet); the area of this lot may be subject to reductions such as those associated with areas below the high water line, and with areas containing slopes of 20% or greater. BACKGROUND: The annexation process has already been initiated by the submission of a petition to annex by the applicant and by the City Council's adoption of Resolution Number 68, Series of 1996 (November 25, 1996) and Resolution Number 3, Series of 1997 (January 13, 1997); these Resolutions are attached as Exhibits"D" and "E," respectively. As required, an annexation agreement will be submitted as a supplement to the current application upon approval of the annexation by the City. Resolution No, 68, Series of 1996 .found substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S, (the technical requirements for a petition for annexation); established January 13, 1997 as a date for a public hearing to determine compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C,R,S.; and, authorized the institution of zoning procedures for land in the area proposed to be annexed. Resolution No.3, Series of 1997 found that the annexation request and the procedures followed by the applicant are in substantial compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and that said standards have been met. Having detennined at public hearings that compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 exists, an Ordinance to annex has been prepared by the City Attorney for Council's consideration; as with all ordinances, a public hearing will be required as part of the second reading of the annexation Ordinance. Req].lest & Process As allowed for by Section 26.80.040(A) of the code, the applicant has requested that conceptual and final SPA review be consolidated for this project. The Director of the Community Development Department has concurred that consolidated review would be appropriate for this project because it involves the development of only a single building and most of the public service issues involving the parcel were resolved during the County's Stillwater Ranch subdivision review, However, "the [Planning and Zoning] Commission or the City Council may, during review, determine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur, " Thus, the application is being processed as a two-step review pursuant to the terms and procedures of final development plan review, The review process for this application is shown below: STEP ONE STEP TWO City Council: ConceptuallFinal SPA Rezoning GMQS Exemption Planning & Zoning Com'mission: ConceptuallFinal SPA Rezoning Conditional Use' Special Review' 8040 Greenline' Stream Margin ' , Approval granted by the Commission, 3/11/97, subject to Council's approval of the associated reviews. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application at their March 4, 1997 and March II, 1997 public hearings; The Planning and 2 .,,-,.. .~ Zoning Commission granted final approval to the applicant's conditional use, special review, 8040 greenline and stream margin review requests, each with conditions, Furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve the applicant's rezoning request as proposed, and that Council approve the consolidated conceptual/final SPA request with specified dimensional requirements and a condition that an SPA plat be approved by the Engineering Department and recorded within 180 days of final SPA approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution, 97-04, which provides the above approvals and recommendations states that, "This Resolution 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" (see Exhibit "G"). The City Council renders final decisions regarding the annexation, rezoning, GMQS exemption, and SPA requests, These requests require two readings of an ordinance by Council, with public hearings at the second reading. In total, the review process for the Kids Stuff Foundation development application is being consolidated into a two (2) step process from a four (4) step process, and requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E) prior to each step. DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to develop a retreat containing educational and cultural activities, housing and dormitory uses, administrative facilities, health care facilities, a dining hall, and recreational Uses, The following sections of the code are applicable to City Council's review of this development application: Chapter 26,92, Amendments to the Land Use Regulations and Official Zone District Map; Section 26.28.220, Conservation (C) zone district; Section 26.28.230, Academic (A) zone district; Section 26.1 00,050(C), Exemptions (GMQS); and, Chapter 26,80, Specially Planned Area (SPA), The Proposal The Kids Stuff Foundation was the beneficiary of the gift of Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch (also known as the "Silver Lining Ranch"), from the Benedict family. The Foundation has been operating in the Aspen Area since 1990. As the Foundation has not had a facility in which it could provide housing or meals for the children, they have been staying in local lodges and eating in local restaurants. This has considerably increased the cost to the Foundation for each group that it brings to Aspen, More importantly, it has prevented the children from sharing their entire week's experiences together and has limited the ability of the Foundation to offer continuous, on-site medical supervision for the children. Kids Stuff Foundation plans to run sessions for children for one (I) 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, it is anticipated that the sessions will run for two (2) weeks in each of these months, for a total offourteen (14) such sessions per year. This is the maximum planned use ofthe facility for children's sessions, There would be a maximum of twenty (20) children in attendance at any session, All of these children would stay in the proposed building. Children would travel to and from the Ranch in three (3) or four (4) vans. Meals would be served on the premises and many activities (i.e., arts and crafts, outdoor recreation, talent shows, etc.) would occur there as well. It is also anticipated that staff would be housed at the facility during the sessions. Apartments are proposed to be provided within the building; these apartments would be able to house permanent staff of the 3 !""""'\ --.. 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. In addition to the regular use of the property for children's sessions, the Foundation would like to make the facility available to other groups whose mission is related to that ofthe Foundation. The intent would be to permit small conferences, meetings or retreats by other medically-related children's groups, cancer groups, pediatric doctors and similar groups, Such use ofthe facilities would be limited to just one (I) such session, lasting one (I) week per month, that would occur only during the months that the Foundation does not use the facility. These session could involve twenty (20) to forty (40) people, and all attendees at these sessions would be required to travel to and from the facility in vans, to minimize traffic impacts on Ute Avenue. It is also likely that there would be up to twelve (12) special evening or full day events held at the Ranch during the year. These events could 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 Foundation may make the Ranch available to the community for non- profit medical events. Once again, all attendees at these events would be required to travel to and from the facility in vans. The Foundation's permanent office would be included within the proposed building. Approximately four (4) to five (5) staff members would work in the office year-round. These persons would travel to and from the facility using their own vehicles. Also included within the proposed building are apartments that would be occupied by two (2) to six (6) staff persons on a year-round basis. These persons would also be permitted to have their own vehicles. Section 26.92,020. Standards for Review of Amendments to the Official Zone District Map Provided the annexation request is approved, the applicant proposes to zone the subject property Academic (A)/Conservation (C)/SP A. The Academic (A) Zone District is intended to establish lands for educational and cultural activities, with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities. The zone district allows, as conditional uses, dormitory housing, health care facilities and dining h.alls. These represent the principal uses intended for the planned structure. The Commission granted approval of these conditional uses at their March 11, 1997 hearing (see Exhibit "G"). The applicant anticipates that the upper bench of the property (as described in Exhibit "F"), or the portion on which the proposed building, driveway and parking area are proposed, would be designated Academic (A). The Academic (A) Zone ,District requires that the applicable dimensional requirements be established by adoption of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Plan. The applicant has requested a consolidated conceptual and final SPA review, and pursuant to Section 26,80.040(A), the Community Development Director has determined that consolidation would be appropriate. The lower bench of the subject property contains sensitive floodplain lands, riparian habitat and open meadows; thus, the applicant proposes that it be designated for conservation. The area outside of the 100-year floodplain would, as proposed, contain a horse riding stable (an allowed use in the Conservation (C) Zone District) and a pool which is allowed as a conditional use. The Commission granted conditional use approval for the swimming pool at their March 11, 1997 4 >> r-. ~~ hearing (see Exhibit "G"), This portion of the property would be used by the children for recreational purposes, but would otherwise be maintained in its natural state, In Resolution 97-04, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the rezoning as requested by the applicant, provided the annexation request is approved, That is, the Commission recommended 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 the dimensional requirements adopted by Council through the approval of a Specially Planned Area and the parking requirements that have been adopted by the Commission through the approval of the Special Review request. A legal description of the two portions of the site has been submitted by the applicant and is attached as Exhibit "F," The standards for review of an amendment to the official zone district map, as provided in Section 26,92.020, and staffs responses are as included in the staff memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated March 4, 1997 and the addendum to that memo dated March II, 1997. Said memo and the addendum are attached as Exhibit "C." To summarize staffs findings and the Commission's recommendation with regard to the rezoning request, it was found that the Academic (A)/Conservation (C)/SPA zone district designations would be appropriate and meet all applicable standards for review as outlined by Section 26.92.020(A-I) of the Municipal Code (see Exhibit "G"). ChaJlter 26,80, Specially Planned Area (SPA) Section 26.80.030(A), Standards for Designation, states that, A. Any land in the city may be designated specially planned area (SPA) by the city council if. because of its unique historic, natural, physical, or locational characteristics, it would be of great public benefit to the city for that land to be allowed design flexibility and to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multiple use development. A parcel of land designated specially planned area (SPA) shall also be designated on the city's official zoning map with the underlying zone' district designation which is determined the most appropriate. The underlying zone di~trict designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the uses and development which may be considered during the development review process, RESPONSE: Given the natural, physical, and Iocational characteristics of the site in question, with regard to the site's topography, natural features, and surrounding land uses and structures, staff feels that it would be beneficial for the parcel to be allowed design flexibility in order to facilitate its planning and development in a comprehensive, multiple use fashion, Staff further suggests, as indicated by the preceding section of this memo, that the zoning requested by the applicant would be the most appropriate designation for this particular parcel. The Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with staff on this opinion, and recommended that Council designate Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch as a Specially Planned Area (SPA) and that Council allow for the consolidation of conceptual and final SPA review. The Academic (A) Zone District is intended to establish lands for educational and cultural activities, with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities, The zone district allows, as conditional uses, donnitory housing, health care facilities and dining halls. These represent the 5 " ~ .1"""\ principal uses intended for the planned structure. If the Council should determine the applicant proposes any use for the property that is not allowed as either a permitted or conditional use in the Academic (A) or Conservation (C) zone districts, then the applicant would request, as part of their SPA plan, that Council vary the uses allowed in those zone districts in order to permit the given use. Staff does not find that any of the proposed uses would require such a variance. The Academic (A) zone district also requires that the dimensional requirements applicable to all proposed uses shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual and final SPA plan, Accepting staffs recommendation, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that Council approve the following dimensional requirements for the Academic (A) zone district portion of the SPA: I. Minimum Lot Size: 6 acres 2. Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: 1.5 acres 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 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 comparing these dimensional requirements with those of the surrounding Conservation (C) and Rural Residential (RR) zone districts, staff [mds that the proposed dimensional requirements for the proposed Academic (A) zoning are very much consistent with a zone that would be located between RR and C zoning, and recommends approval of the dimensional requirements as recommended by the Commission. The specific SPA review standards, as contained in Section 26.80.040(B), and staff's responses are included in the staff memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated March 4, 1997 and the addendum to that memo dated March II, 1997. Said memo and the addendum are attached as Exhibit "C." To summarize, though, both staff and the Commission found that the proposed SPA meets all applicable standards (1-8) of Section 26.80.040(B), and, thus, should be approved with the condition that an SPA plat is approved by the Engineering Department and recorded within 180 days of final SPA approval (see Exhibit "G"). Section 26.] 00.050(C). GMQS Exemption by City Council Section 26,1 OO,050(C)(2)(a) provides an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) for essential public facilities. The cited section states that the City Council shall exempt the construction of essential public facilities from the growth management scoring and competition procedures if the following standards are met: (1) Except for housing, development shall be considered an essential public facility if it serves an essential public purpose, provides facilities in response to the demands for growth, is not itself a significant growth generator, is available for use by the general public and serves the needs of the city. 6 '. r"\ t""'\ RESPONSE: See the response to criteria (3) below. (2) An applicant for an exemption pursuant to this section shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that the impacts of the essential public facility will be mitigated, including those associated with the generation of additional employees, the demand for parking, road and transit services, and the need for basic services , including but not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, drainage control, fire and police protection and solid waste disposal. It shall also be demonstrated that the proposed development has a negligible adverse impact on the city's air, water, land and energy resources and is visually compatible with the surrounding areas, RESPONSE: The applicant agrees to mitigate all project impacts as follows: . Employees will be housed on-site. The submitted application package indicates that several units will be provided on-site with the intention of housing as many as twelve (12) employees during sessions. Some of the units would also be used to house employees of the Foundation on a year-round basis, There would be a maximum of twenty (20) staff persons involved in any session, but not all of these persons would be Foundation employees. Some would be medical professionals who accompany the children to Aspen and would be housed in the facility. Some would be volunteers from the community, who would meet the children at the site of their daily activities (ski area, rafting, etc.) but would not require housing on-site. The rest would be the Foundation's employees and would be housed on-site during sessions. The Housing Department provided referral comments on the conditional use review approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission (see Exhibit "B"), To summarize, the Housing Department memo of February 27,1997, states that the applicant proposes that there would be four to five staff members who would work in the office year-round, and the applicant has allowed for some pennanent housing on-site, Housing Department staff qualifies pennanent housing as self-contained units; place to sleep, bathroom and kitchen, Housing Department staff found that the proposed units would cover the pennanent staff for the project with an additional 3.75 to 4.75 units to be used for the additional part-time staff. Based on the Housing Department's recommendation, a condition was attached to the Commission's conditional use approval requiring that "one (I) year after the commencement of operation, an employment audit shall be conducted by the Housing Department. The pennanent 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)," . On-site parking is proposed for the Foundation's vans in a garage and for employees and visitors in the parking lot. On page 18 of the submitted documents (attached as Exhibit "A"), the applicant has made a commitment that "on those occasions when there are special events at the facility, [they] will require visitors to travel by vans. [They] will not allow those guests to drive along Ute Avenue, nor will [the Foundation] provide more than minimal parking for them on site," As mentioned earlier, the children will also be transported by vans, minimizing the impact of the facility on Ute Avenue traffic. 7' r-.. ,.-" The on-site parking requirements for the Foundation, as proposed, were approved via Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the condition that "one (I) 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(B) of the Municipal Code" (see Exhibit "C"). . There are existing services with adequate capacity to provide water, sewer, and other basic services to the proposed development. The costs of any extension of lines or mains required to serve the proposed development would be borne by the Foundation (see Exhibit "C"), . The project's impact on the City's air and water resources as welI as its visual impact is anticipated to be negligible, and of a similar magnitude to the development of a residence in this location. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 97-04, attached as Exhibit "G," contains conditions applicable to the 8040 greenline and stream margin approvals that will ensure minimization of impacts on the City's air and water resources. For instance, five (5) conditions regarding water quality and runoff concerns associated with the horse facilities were placed on the Commission's 8040 greenline approval, as welI as another condition requiring the applicant to provide proof that the proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to offset increases in PMIO and traffic impacts caused by the project (see Exhibit "G"). With regard to the visual impacts of the proposed development, the proposed site design calIs for placing the building into the smalI knolI that sits on the upper portion of the site. By placing the building within this topographic feature, the lower level of the building can be buried below grade on three (3) of its four (4) sides, making the lower level visible only from the east. This, in effect, alIows a three story structure to keep its appearance to that of a two story structure from the surrounding residences, located primarily to the west and the north. The application also calIs for screening the building from view from the surrounding properties by planting spruce and fir trees to the north of the building and aspen trees to the south of the building, FinalIy, the proposed elevations illustrate a building designed to have a residential, rather than institutional, appearance, Given the distance at which the proposed building would be viewed from other residences, it would be very difficult for an observer to know that it is not a residence. In addition, the proposed structure would be dwarfed by the adjacent Aspen Club. (3) Notwithstanding the criteria as set forth in Sections (1) and (2), the City Council may determine, upon application, that development associated with a nonprofit entity qualifies as an essential public facility and may exempt such development from the growth management competition and scoring procedures and such mitigation requirements as it deems appropriate and warranted. RESPONSE: The Kids Stuff Foundation is a non-profit organization, and staff feels that the City Council should support the Foundation's request to be recognized as an essential public facility, pursuant to the above cited criterion. Such a finding would alIow the Council to exempt the proposed development from the criteria set forth in Section (I). Staff also feels that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the mitigation criteria of Section (2), although Council may, 8 '. ~, ~ upon determining that the Foundation qualifies as an essential public facility, exempt the applicant from any mitigation requirements deemed inappropriate or unwarranted, RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Kids Stuff Foundation Conceptual/Final SPA development plan. Staff and the Commission also recommend approval of the rezoning as requested by the applicant, provided the annexation request is approved; that is, staff and the Commission recommend 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 (as these portions are described in Exhibit "F"). The SPA should be subject to both the parking requirements approved via Special Review by the Commission (with the associated conditions) and the, following dimensional requirements: 1, Minimum Lot Size: 6 acres 2, Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: 1.5 acres 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 that required by building code, 9. Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site: 30 percent I 0, External Floor Area Ratio: Floor area shall not exceed I 4,000 square feet 1 I. Internal Floor Area Ratio: No requirement. In addition, staff recommends approval of a GMQS Exemption pursuant to Section 26.1 00.050(C)(2)(a) of the Municipal Code, provided the mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant, as outlined in this memo, are implemented, Staff further recommends that all approvals granted to the Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application be subject to City Council approval of the Petition for Annexation by duly enacted Ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of Aspen, and subject to the following conditions: 1. 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, 9 ~ ~, (~ 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 II, 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 memo, 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 hear- ings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance Number II, Series of 1997, on second reading. The ordinance grants approval, with the conditions recommended in the staff memo dated April 14, 1997, to: a) the Kids Stuff Foundation Conceptual/Final Specially Planned Area development plan, b) rezoning to Academic (A)/Conservation(C)/SP A zone districts, and c) GMQS Exemption," CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: EXHIBITS: "A" - Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application "B" - Referral Comments "C" - Commission Memo and Addendum from staff (3/4/97 and 3/11/97, respectively) "D" - City Council Resolution Number 68, Series of 1996 "E" - City Council Resolution Number 3, Series of 1997 "F" - Legal Description of Areas to be Zoned Academic (A) and Conservation (C) "G" - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 97-04 10 ".-, ~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SILVER LINING RANCH ANNEXATION, REZONING, GMQS EXEMPTION AND SPA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, April 14, 1997 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m, before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S, Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the Kids Stuff Foundation, requesting approval to create a permanent facility combining dormitory accommodations, medical facilities, group dining, recreation facilities and housing for the staff. The project will require the following land development approvals: . Annexation of the property by the City of Aspen; . Rezoning to Acamdemic (A)/Conservation (C)/SPA; . GMQS Exemption for development associated with a non-profit entity; and . Consolidated Conceptual and Final SPA; The property is located at Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision a/k/a Silver Lining Ranch. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. stJohn Bennett. Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on March 29, 1997 City of Aspen Account Community Development Department 130 S, Galena Street r", Aspen, Colorado 81611 6__- " _\ cr,......,~ ,,\>' l.J 0 /Q& 0", iv' PI'] "SI. r" v -,'J, C " , -J " ':', l' -I '. I '-<:~,. ......,v-:..y ...- ~J ,",-'--- '-,."'.;:,....~ -''-''''-''':'''; c"~,_~ <-,,- "'. = LEFKOWITZ BARRY AND NO HORN MICHAEL AND HO~~M 1280 UTE AVE ASPEN CO 81611 iNSUFFICiENT ~-~DDRESS .,; r Community DevelopmentDepartment r" 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ".,9"N~^ ',," '0' f'tl ( V,,\R29 199'1 ~~,~~i' , i -- r ^ I 101 ^ YS " IMi.-U K ':, i=' -11 , US.... /~ it L_____,~~.........- ~\ .' " ..~. "~,."'~.. ,c""~,,,,,....., '." .'.' "-,,..' 'i"",,'~':'''e.'' ",,,,'5,,;,' ,- "f,,.<":;'''':''''i\~',... ... .. . ...'. -;"f:-','",,".~-,?,-., .,C',-.\"", STILLWATER RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASS 1280 UTE AVE ASPEN C "~'I"", ;-,j;~, I() ((J _____\:i'-,,'Q,~I!lJ-'!.f"- Ir- i J!f~Uf.E"!{Nrprr. M'DR e'VI , "U ESS \ \ , , , /"", I ...~ /"" ":ommunity Development Department " 130 S, Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 PM .~\ , 18 FEE, J ' 1391/' ". . ,., ,~. . :.", ~~ NATHANSON GARY NATHANSON LINDA 1480 CAPRI DR PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272.2705 NAT~~80 902722029 i895 02/22/9 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND NAT~ANSON ST i 3633 SERRA RD MALIau CA 9026S-~9i6 r" ~'Io."""''-''/",~5'@.I-a<:.> i , 11,.1" .,ll.lIlliull",lI.ulH.l..nll ."I.lHII.Il,"1111,1 / / t"'-. MEMORANDUM ~'1'f- TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Amy Margerum, City Manager ~ Stan Clauson, Community D, evelOPf"" ;='m~ Julie Ann Woods, Deputy DIrector . Mitch Haas, City Planner 4l' . Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application - First Reading of Ordinance Number lL Series of 1997. THROUGH: FROM: RE: DATE: March 24, 1997 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Annexation, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, and Specially Planned Area (SPA) approval to create a pennanent home for the Kids Stuff Foundation in Aspen. The Kids Stuff Foundation is a non-profit organization that brings groups of up to twenty (20) children with cancer and other life threatening medical conditions to Aspen for a week of relaxation and adventure in the Rocky Mountains, The applicant's application is attached as Exhibit "A", and referral comments from Engineering, Housing, Parks, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and Environmental Health are included as Exhibit "B." Community Development staff recommends that City Council approve the Kids Stuff Foundation annexation, rezoning, GMQS exemption, and Specially Planned Area (SPA) with conditions. APPLICANT: Kids Stuff Foundation, represented by Alan Richman. LOCA nON: Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch is located at the northeast end of Ute Avenue, just outside of the current city limits. The lot is bounded by The Aspen Club and Lot 15 of the Callahan Subdivision to the west, the Roaring Fork River and Lot 6 of the Stillwater Ranch to the east, an out parcel and open space to the south, and Lot 13 of the Callahan Subdivision to the north, (See attached vicinity map, Exhibit A). The surrounding uses vary widely in nature. The Aspen Club provides private recreational services (commercial), the Benedict and Tenth Mountain Trail buildings serve as offices, while other uses along Ute A venue include affordable housing, single and multi-family dwellings (housing both residents and second home owners) and a variety of public recreational facilities (trails, parks, etc,), ZONING: Proposed zoning is Academic (A)/Conservation (C)/SP A. CURRENT LAND USE: None; the lot is vacant. I""" ,~ LOT SIZE: Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch contains 6.457 acres (over 281,000 square feet); the area of this lot may be subject to reductions such as those associated with areas below the high water line, and with areas containing slopes of 20% or greater, BACKGROUND: The annexation process has already been initiated by the submission of a petition to annex by the applicant and by the City Council's adoption of Resolution Number 68, Series of 1996 (November 25, 1996) and Resolution Number 3, Series of 1997 (January 13, 1997); these Resolutions are attached as Exhibits "D" and "E," respectively. If necessary, an annexation agreement will be submitted as a supplement to the current application upon approval of the annexation by the City, Resolution No. 68, Series of 1996 found substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C,RS, (the technical requirements for a petition for annexation); established January 13, 1997 as a date for a public hearing to determine compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C,R.S.; and, authorized the institution of zoning procedures for land in the area proposed to be annexed, Resolution No.3, Series of 1997 found that the annexation request and the procedures followed by the applicant are in substantial compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.RS., and said standards have been met. Having determined at public hearings that compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 exists, an Ordinance to annex will be prepared for Council's consideration; as with all ordinances, a public hearing will be scheduled as part of second reading of t)le annexation Ordinance. Request & Process As allowed for by Section 26,80,040(A) of the code, the applicant has requested that conceptual and final SPA review be consolidated for this project. The Director of the Community Development Department has concurred that consolidated review would be appropriate for this project because it involves the development of only a single building and most of the public service issues involving the parcel were resolved during the County's Stillwater Ranch subdivision review, However, "the [Planning and Zoning] Commission or the City Council may, during review, determine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur, " Thus, the application is being processed as a two-step review pursuant to the terms and procedures of final development plan review. The review process for this application is shown below: STEP ONE STEP TWO City Council: Conceptual/Fiual SPA Rezoning GMQS Exemptiou Plannimr & Zoning Commission: ConceptuallFinal SPA Rezoning Conditional Use* Special Review* 8040 Greenline* Stream Margin' * Approval granted by the Commission, 3/11/97, subject to Council's approval of the associated reviews. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application at their March 4, 1997 and March II, 1997 public hearings. The Planning and 2 ~. ,"'"", Zoning Commission granted final approval to the applicant's conditional use, special review, 8040 greenline and stream margin review requests, each with conditions. Furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve the applicant's rezoning request as proposed, and that Council approve the consolidated conceptual/final SPA request with specified dimensional requirements and a condition that an SPA plat be approved by the Engineering Department and recorded within 180 days of final SPA approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution, 97-04, which provides the above approvals and recommendations states that, "This Resolution 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" (See Exhibit "G"). The City Council renders final decisions regarding the annexation, rezoning, GMQS exemption, and SPA requests, These requests require two readings of an ordinance by Council, with public hearings at the second reading. In total, the review process for the Kids Stuff Foundation development application is being consolidated into a two (2) step process from a four (4) step process, and requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E) prior to each step. DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to develop a retreat containing educational and cultural activities, housing and dormitory uses, administrative facilities, health care facilities, a dining hall, and recreational uses. The following sections of the code are applicable to City Council's review of this development application: Chapter 26,92, Amendments to the Land Use Regulations and Official Zone District Map; Section 26.28.220, Conservation (C) zone district; Section 26.28.230, Academic (A) zone district; Section 26.100,050(C), Exemptions (GMQS); and, Chapter 26,80, Specially Planned Area (SPA). The Proposal The Kids Stuff Foundation was the beneficiary of the gift of Lot 5, StillWater Ranch (also known as the "Silver Lining Ranch"), from the Benedict family, The Foundation has been operating in the Aspen Area since 1990, As the Foundation has not had a facility in which it could provide housing or meals for the children, they have been staying in local lodges and eating in local restaurants. This has considerably increased the cost to the Foundation for each group that it brings to Aspen, More importantly, it has/prevented the children from sharing their entire week's experiences together and has limited the ability of the Foundation to offer continuous, on-site medical supervision for the children. Kids Stuff Foundation plans to run sessions for children for one (I) 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, it is anticipated that the sessions will run for two (2) weeks in each ofthese 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 would be a maximum of twenty (20) children in attendance at any session. All of these children would stay in the proposed building. Children would travel to and from the Ranch in three (3) or four (4) vans, Meals would be served on the premises and many activities (i.e" arts and crafts, outdoor recreation, talent shows, etc,) would occur there as well. It is also anticipated that staff would be housed at the facility during the sessions. Apartments are proposed to be provided within the building; these apartments would be able to house permanent staff of the 3 .""'"" ,,-, 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, In addition to the regular use of the property for children's sessions, the Foundation would like to make the facility available to other groups whose mission is related to that of the Foundation. The intent would be 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 would be limited to just one (I) such session, lasting one (1) week per month, that would occur only during the months that the Foundation does not use the facility, These session could involve twenty (20) to forty (40) people, and all attendees at these sessions would be required to travel to and from the facility in vans, to minimize, traffic impacts on Ute Avenue, It is also likely that there would be up to twelve (12) special evening or full day events held at the Ranch during the year. These events could 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 Foundation may make the Ranch available to the community for non- profit medical events. Once again, all attendees at these events would be required to travel to and from the facility in vans. ' The Foundation's permanent office would be included within the proposed building. Approximately four (4) to five (5) staff members would work in the office year-round. These persons would travel to and from the facility using their own vehicles. Also included within the proposed building is apartments that would be occupied by two (2) to six (6) staff persons on a year-round basis. These persons would also be permitted to have their own vehicles, Section 26 92.020. Standards for Review of Amendments to the Official Zone District Map Provided the annexation request is approved, the applicant proposes to zone the subject property Academic (A)/Conservation (C)/SP A. The Academic (A) Zone District is intended to establish lands for educational and cultural activities, with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities. The zone district allows, as conditional uses, dormitory housing, health care facilities and dining halls, These represent the principal uses intended for the planned structure, The Commission granted conditional use approval to these uses at their March II, 1997 hearing (see Exhibit "G"), The applicant anticipates that the upper bench of the property (as described in Exhibit "F"), or the portion on which the proposed building, driveway and parking area are proposed, would be designated Academic (A). The Academic (A) Zone District requires that the applicable dimensional requirements be established by adoption of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Plan. The applicant has requested' a consolidated conceptual and final SPA review, and pursuant to Section 26.80,040(A), the Community Development Director has determined that consolidation would be appropriate, The lower bench of the subject property contains sensitive floodplain lands, riparian habitat and open meadows; thus, the applicant proposes that it be designated for conservation. The area outside of the 100 year floodplain would, as proposed, contain a horse riding stable (an allowed use in the Conservation (C) Zone District) and a pool which is allowed as a conditional use. The 4 1""'. (""', Commission granted conditional use approval to the swimming pool at their March 11, 1997 hearing (see Exhibit "0"). This portion of the property would be used by the children for recreational purposes, but would otherwise be maintained in its natural state. In Resolution 97-04, the Planning and.Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the rezoning as requested by the applicant, provided the annexation request is approved. That is, the Commission recommended 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 the dimensional requirements adopted by Council through the approval of a Specially Planned Area and the parking requirements that have been adopted by the Commission through the approval of the Special Review request. A legal description of the two portions of the site has been submitted by the applicant and is attached as Exhibit "F." The standards for review of an amendment to the official zone district map, as provided in Section 26.92,020, and staff s responses are as included in the staff memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated March 4,1997 and the addendum to that memo dated March 11, 1997. Said memo and the addendum are attached as Exhibit "C," To summarize staffs findings and the Commission's recommendation with regard to the zoning request, it was found that the Academic (A)/Conservation (C)/SP A zone district designations would be appropriate and meet all applicable standards for review as outlined by Section 26.92.020(A-I) of the Municipal Code (see Exhibit "G"). Chapter 26.80, Specially Planned Area (SPA) Section 26.80,030(A), Standards for Designation, states that, A. Any land in the city may be designated specially planned area (SPA) by the city council if, because of its unique historic, natural, physical, or locational characteristics, it would be of great public beneflt to the city for that land to be allowed design flexibility and to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multiple USe development, A parcel of land designated specially planned area (SPA) shall also be designated on the city's official zoning map with the underlying zone district designation which is determined the most appropriate. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the USeS and development which may be considered during the development review process, RESPONSE: Oiven the natural, physical, and locational characteristics of the site in question, with regard to the site's topography, natural features, and surrounding land uses and structures, staff feels that it would be beneficial for the parcel to be allowed design flexibility in order to facilitate its planning and development in a comprehensive, .multiple use fashion. Staff further suggests, as indicated by the preceding section of this memo, that the zoning requested by the applicant would be the most appropriate designation for this particular parcel. The Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with staff on this opinion, and recommended that Council designate Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch as a Specially Planned Area (SPA) and that Council allow for the consolidation of conceptual and final SPA review. The Academic (A) Zone District is intended to establish lands for educational and cultural activities, with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities, The zone district allows, 5 ,-" ,-\ as conditional uses, dormitory housing, health care facilities and dining halls, These represent the principal uses intended for the planned structure. If the Council should determine the applicant proposes any use for the property that is not allowed as either a permitted or conditional use in the Academic (A) or Conservation (C) zone districts, then the applicant would request, as part of their SPA plan, that Council vary the uses allowed in those zone districts in order to permit the given use. Staff does not find that any of the proposed uses would require such a variance. The Academic (A) zone district also requires that the dimensional requirements applicable to all proposed uses shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual and final SPA plan. Accepting staff's recommendation, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that Council approve 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: 2S' 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. S, 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 comparing these proposed dimensional requirements with those of the surrounding Conservation (C) and Rural Residential (RR) zone districts, staff finds that the proposed dimensional requirements for the proposed Academic (A) zoning are very much consistent with a zone that would be located between RR and C zoning, and recommends approval of the dimensional requirements as re,commended by the Commission. The specific SPA review standards, as contained in Section 26.S0.040(B), and staff's responses are included in the staff memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated March 4, 1997 and the addendum to that memo dated March 11, 1997. Said memo and the addendum are attached as Exhibit "C." To summarize, though, both staff and the Commission found that the proposed SPA meets all applicable standards (1-S) of Section 26,SO,040(B), and, thus, should be approved with the condition that an SPA plat is approved by the Engineering Department and recorded within ISO days of final SPA approval (see Exhibit "G"). Section 26.100 OSO(C), GMOS Exemption by City Council Section 26.100.0S0(C)(2)(a) provides an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) for essential public facilities. The cited section states that the City Council shall exempt the construction of essential public facilities from the growth management scoring and competition procedures if the following standards are met: (1) Except for housing, developmentshall be considered an essential public facility if it serves an essential public purpose, provides facilities in response to the demands for growth, is not itself a significant growth generator, is available for use by the general public and serves the needs of the city, 6 ~ .~ RESPONSE: See the response to criteria (3) below, (2) An, applicant for an exemption pursuant to this section shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that the impacts of the essential public facility will be mitigated, including those associated with the generation of additional employees, the demand for parking, road and transit services, and the need for basic services , including but not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, drainage control, fire and police protection and solid waste disposal, It shall also be demonstrated that the proposed development has a negligible adverse impact on the city's air, water, land and energy resources and is visually compatible with the surrounding areas, RESPONSE: The applicant agrees to mitigate all project impacts as follows: . Employees will be housed on-site. The submitted application package indicates that several units will be provided on-site with the intention of housing as many as twelve (12) employees during sessions, Some of the units would also be used to house employees of the Foundation on a year-round basis. There would be a maximum of twenty (20) staff persons involved in any session, but not all of these persons would be Foundation employees. Some would be medical professionals who accompany the children to Aspen and would be housed in the facility. Some would be volunteers from the community, who would meet the children at the site of their daily activities (ski area, rafting, etc.) but would not require housing on-site. The rest would be the Foundation's employees and would be housed on-site during sessions, The Housing Department provided referral comments on the conditional use review approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission (see Exhibit "B"). To summarize, the Housing Department memo of February 27, 1997, states that the applicant proposes that there would be four to five staff members who would work in the office year-round, and the applicant has allowed for some permanent housing on-site, Housing Department staff qualifies permanent housing as self-contained units; place to sleep, bathroom and kitchen: Housing Department staff found that the proposed units would cover the permanent staff for the project with an additional 3,75 to 4.75 units to be used for the additional part-time staff. Based on the Housing Departments recommendation, a condition was attached to the Commission's conditional use approval requiring that "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)." . On-site parking is proposed for the Foundation's vans in a garage and for employees and visitors in the parking lot. On page 18 of the submitted documents (attached as Exhibit "A"), the applicant has made a commitment that "on those occasions when there are special events at the facility, [they] will require visitors to travel by vans, [They] will not allow those guests to drive along Ute Avenue, nor will [the Foundation] provide more than minimal parking for them on site," As mentioned earlier, the children will also be transported by vans, minimizing the impact ofthe facility on Ute Avenue traffic,n 7 I""'- r\ The on-site parking requirements for the Foundation, as proposed, were approved via Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the condition that "one (I) 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(B) of the Municipal Code" (see Exhibit "C"). . There are existing services with adequate capacity to provide water, sewer, and other basic services to the proposed development. The costs of any extension of lines or mains required to serve the proposed development would be borne by the Foundation (see Exhibit "C"), . The project's impact on the City's air and water resources as welJ as its visual impact is anticipated to be negligible, and of a similar magnitude to the development of a residence in this location, The proposed site design calls for placing the building into the small knoll that sits on the upper portion of the site. By placing the building within this topographic feature, the lower level of the, building can be buried below grade on three (3) of its four (4) sides, making the lower level visible only from the east. This, in effect, alJows a three story structure to keep its appearance to that of a two story structure from the surrounding residences, located primarily to the west and the north, The application also calls for screening the building from view from the surrounding properties by planting spruce and fir trees to the north of the building and aspen trees to the south of the building. FinalJy, the proposed elevations illustrate a building designed to have a residential, rather than institutional, appearance. Given the distance at which the proposed building would be viewed from other residences, it would be very difficult for an observer to know that it is not a residence. The proposed structure would be dwarfed by the adj~cent Aspen Club. (3) Notwithstanding the criteria as set forth in Sections (1) and (2), the City Council may determine, upon application, that development associated with a nonprofit entity qualifies as an essential public facility and may exempt such development from the growth management competition and scoring procedures and such mitigation requirements as it deems appropriate and warranted RESPONSE: The Kids Stuff Foundation is a non-profit organization, and staff feels that the City Council should support the Foundation's request to be recognized as an essential public facility, pursuant to the above cited criterion. Such a finding would allow the Council to exempt the proposed development from the criteria set forth in Section.(1), Staff also feels that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the mitigation criteria of Section (2); and Council may, upon determining that the Foundation qualifies as an essential public facility, exempt the applicant from any mitigation requirements deemed inappropriate or unwarranted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Kids Stuff Foundation Conceptual/Final SPA development plan. Staff and the Commission also recommend approval of the rezoning as requested by the applicant, provided the annexation request is approved; that is, staff and the Commission recommend 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 (as described in Exhibit "F"). The SPA should 8 ,""" ^ be subject to both 'the parking requirements approved via Special Review by the Commission (with the associated conditions) and the following dimensional requirements: 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 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, staff recommends approval of a GMQS Exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.050(C)(2)(a) of the Municipal Code, provided the mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant, as outlined in this memo, are implemented. Staff further recommends that all approvals granted to the Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application be subject to City Council approval of the Petition for Annexation by duly enacted Ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of Aspen, and 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 fmal development plan and SPA agreement by the commission and city council wiIl 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 Con- ditional Use, Special Review, 8040 Greenline, and Stream Margin Review approvals shall carry forward as conditions of the City Council approvals granted pursuant to this memo. 5. No construction or building permits shall be issued until the parcel has been finally annexed into the City of Aspen. 9 . !"""- -. 6. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public hear- ings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance Number --' Series of 1997, the Kids Stuff Foundation ConceptualJFinal SPA development plan, rezoning to Academic/Conservation/SPA zone districts, and GMQS Exemption with the conditions outlined in the staff memo dated March 24, 1997." EXHIBITS: "A" - Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application "B" - Referral Comments "C" - Commission Memo and Addendum from staff (3/4/97 and 3111/97, respectively) "D" - City Council Resolution Number 68, Series of 1996 "E" - City Council Resolution Number 3, Series of 1997 "F" - Legal Description of Areas to be Zoned Academic (A) and Conservation (C) "G" - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 97-04 10 3_14-1997 4,01 Pt,1 ,...., 1""\ FRO~1 ;PER CHASE/PAGES 97096:38700 I E)(ijtBn: of'" Alpine Surveys, Inc. Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, COI~r~0o 81612 970 925 2688 MARCH 14, 1997 JOB NO. 97-1 KIDS 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 SUEDIVISION! P.U.D., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: EEGINNING:.'.ATTHE . WEST, CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTH 84001'42" EAST 199.73 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09024'26" EAST 417.59 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 89013'19" EAST 28.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 51015'00" EAST 65.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36030'00" EAST 132.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 327.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 77015'00" WEST 90.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 18047'00" WEST 246.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 30014'46" 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 48003'50" WEST 114.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55045'00" WEST 45.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52022'39" WEST 46.93 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 2.562 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. DESCRIPTION OF THE EAST PART OF LOT 5 THE EAST PART OF LOT 5, STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION/ P,U.D., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO MORE pARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5: THENCE SOUTH 00009'36" WEST 168.88 FEET; TliENCE SOUTH 32027'17" EAST 73.71 FEET; 3-14-1997 4dZl2Pt.1 FP~PAPEP CHASE/PAGES 9709638700~\ P.2 PAGE 2 OF 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR RE-ZONING OF LOT 5, STILLWATER RANCH/P.G.D. MARCH 14, 1997 (DESCRIPTION OF THE EAST PART OF LOT 5, CONTINUED) THEt'lCE SOOTH 65.00 FEET; THENCE SOOTH 47033'46" WEST 273.42 FEE,T; THENCE SOOTH 71027'00" WEST 55.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 77015'00" WEST 137.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 327.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36030'00" WEST 132.26 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51015'00" WEST 65.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89013'19" EAST 477.88 FEET. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 3.895 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. r- ,-.., ADDENDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THROUGH: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner RE: Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application - Public Hearing. Stillwater Ranch, Lot 5, Parcel LD, No. 2737-184-05-805. . DATE: March 11, 1997 Section 26.68.030, 8040 GreenlineReview Pursuant to Section 26.68.030(A), "the provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above 8040 fret above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen, and all development within one hundredjifty (150) fret below the 8040 greenline," The elevations on Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch range from approximately 8020, on the upper bench, to approximately 7990, on the lower bench. Also, the southern portion of the site, on which no development is proposed, contains an area at and above the 8040' elevation. Therefore, the proposed development is subject to the standards of 8040 greenline review. In fairness, it should be pointed out that the 8040 greenline review was primarily intended to address development proposed on Aspen Mountain and other steep hillsides within the City of Aspen. Nonetheless, the applicant has provided responses to the standards contained in Section 26.68.030(C), 8040 Greenline Review Standards, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, These eleven (l I) standards and staff's responses follow. 1. The parcei on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development, considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsistence and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers. lfthe parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. RESPONSE: The parcel has not been found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, It should also be noted that the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision was approved by Pitkin County, and the review process leading to said approval included a 1041 (Hazard Areas) Review. In addition, the applicant has confined the building locations to the most suitable portions of the property. The existing conditions drawing, part of Exhibit "A," r- ~ illustrates the location of several key features that have guided the site planning to the most suitable locations, First, the existing conditions map illustrates the location of a "moderate avalanche hazard" from the "Ute Avenue chutes" that affects the property. The boundaries of this hazard area were taken from a site specific study performed as part of the subdivision review process in Pitkin County. The proposed building envelope is entirely outside of and avoids this hazard area. Next, the map also illustrates the existing topography of the property and identifies those areas that contain slopes in excess of thirty (30) percent. These areas are primarily found along the hillside just below the proposed building site and have, with limited exceptions, been avoided by the proposed devel9pment. Finally, the lower bench of the property contains an open meadow and associated wetlands/floodplain areas along the Roaring Fork River, There is a distinguishable edge in the meadow separating the "water influenced" vegetation from the remainder of the meadow. This line corresponds to the 100-year floodplain shown on the drawing. It is the applicants intention to use the area outside of the floodplain for recreational structures (a pool or tennis court, and a horse stable) and to leave the area within the floodplain in its natural condition. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. RESPONSE: The proposed development would not have a significant adverse affect on , the natural watershed, nor cause increased runoff, drainage or soil erosion. As is discussed in the Stream Margin portion of this addendum, the development would be located outside of the flood plain of the Roaring Fork River to avoid any impacts on water quality. In addition, the applicant has agreed with the recommendations of the Engineering and Parks Departments, as outlined in their respective memos that are provided in Exhibit "B of the original memorandum for this project, which, stated that the fencing for the proposed corral should be able to be temporarily dismantled (i.e., barbed wire, wire mesh or split rail) so as not to obstruct flood borne debris that could cause a rise in the flood level and potential damage to adjacent properties. Drainage associated with the upper bench would be detained on-site and drywells would be placed under the parking area, sidewalks and other impervious surfaces. Gutters would be used on the roof of the building to direct water to the drywells. Furthermore, the applicant is required to submit a drainage report and mitigation plan signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado with their building permit application. The provisions of this plan are required to meet the runoff design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(t), Also, the building permit application must include a 2 r. ~ permanent erosion control plan, and a temporary sediment control and contaminant plan for the construction phase. Plant materials would be installed along the proposed pedestrian ramp in order to stabilize and revegetate the. hillside. Rocks, boulders and similar native material would be used on the hillside below the building to stabilize disturbed areas. Given the above described design considerations and control measures, staff does not feel that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the natural w:ltershed, runoff, drainage, or soil erosion, nor would it have consequent effects on water pollution, ], The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. RESPONSE: There should be no significant impacts on air quality from the proposed development. The proposed building would contain no wood burning devices, and there would be just one (I) gas log device in its living room. Further, the applicant has committed to a transportation demand management program that would severely limit vehicle trips to and from the proposed facility. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. RESPONSE: As was described in the original staff memorandum regarding this proposal, the vast majority of the development would be located on the upper bench, thereby avoiding the need to cut a new road into the hillside. The proposed site plan provides for avoidance of virtually all steeply sloping portions of the property as well as avoidance of the flood plain. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural features. RESPONSE: This standard is similar to the preceding standard in that the design and location of the proposed development substantially advances the goal of minimizing grading and associated site disturbances, Consequently, staff feels' that the proposed layout of the development would, to the extent practical, minimize grading and disturbances to the terrain, vegetation and natural features. In addition, the applicant has stated that, since their original submittal, they have prepared a more detailed grading plan which they would be "happy to present at any public meeting regarding this application." 6, The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. RESPONSE: See the :'esponse to standard number four (4), above. Staff believes that the proposed development plan complies with this standard. 3 ,1""'\ f"""'.. 7. Building height and bulk will. be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. RESPONSE: As described in the original staff memorandum, the applicant has incorporated design considerations to reduce the perceived mass of the strncture, such as tucking it into the small knoll' on the upper bench and heavily landscaping the north and south sides of the building, The perceived bulk of the proposed building will be further . reduced by the dwarfing affect created by locating next to the Aspen Club building: The proposed rustic yet refined design of the building would, in staff's estimation, facilitate blending in with the open character of the area. 8, Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development, RESPONSE: All required utilities are already in place and are available to service the proposed development, including sufficient water pressure. Any required extension of utility lines or services would be provided at the applicant's expense. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. RESPONSE: Access to the property would be gained directly from Ute Avenue. The capacity of Ute Avenue to serve the proposed development was discussed at length in the original staff memorandum for this application, specifically on pages 5-6 and 14-15 of said memo. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. RESPONSE: The applicant has purposely located the development on the upper portion of the site to ensure easy access for emergency vehicles, including not only fire protection vehicles, but also emergency medical services. With the drive aisle of the parking area and the driveway to the garage, there would be adequate room for fire protection vehicles to pull into the parking lOt area, back-up a short distance into the driveway, and drive straight back out (forward) to Ute Avenue. Also, the parking lot has been designed with areas to accommodate snow storage. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicatedfor public use, Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. RESPONSE: No trails designated on the Plan map cross the property. As requested in the Parks Department memorandum dated February 26, 1997, the applicant has agreed to provide the Parks Department with the option of crossing the southerly, triangular portion of the property, if necessary, as the need arises to temporarily realign the trail from the adjacent/adjoining property, There is already a ten (10) foot wide "Fisherman's Easement" (Book 770, Page 821) dedicated along the southerly side of the Roaring Fork 4 1""". "-"'. River through the subject property, thereby providing access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. Section 26.68.040, Stream Margin Review Because development is proposed within one hundred (100) feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, this proposal is also subject to stream margin review. Section 26.68.040(B) states that "no development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) fiet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond one hundred (100) fiet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all the [14J standards setforth below:" 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and RESPONSE: The one hundred (l00) year flood plain of the Roaring Fork River is shown on the proposed site plan as well as on the existing conditions map, both of which are included in Exhibit "A." The applicant has also provide a letter from Mr. Jay Hammond, P.E" which is attached as Exhibit "C." Mr. Hammond states that he has determined that the flood plain depicted on the site plan and existing conditions map reflects the 1987 FEMA maps prepared for Pitkin County. Mr. Hammond's letter states that, "[his] review would indicate that the flood plain boundary shown on the Existing Conditions Map may, in fact, be conservative (i.e., higher into the site) than the FEMA map and profiles indicate." The proposed site plan illustrates that the only development that is proposed for the lower bench is a swimming pool, horse stable and corral. These structures would be located outside of the flood plain boundary shown on the plans, which may, in fact, be higher on the site than the actual flood plain on the ground. Therefore, there should be no impact on the base flood elevation from any of the proposed development. The applicant has stated that they would design the fence around the stable with rail logs that are sufficiently above ground to allow debris associated with flood waters to pass through the property. The only planned habitable space is well above the. flood plain boundary (by more than thirty feet) and will not affect the base flood elevation. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map, or areas of historic public use or access are dedicated via a recorded easement for public use, Dedications are 5 ,r" .-, necessitated by development's increased impacts to the City's recreation and trail facilities including public fishing access; and. RESPONSE:. No trails are designated through this property on the Trails Plan Map. See the response to standard number eleven (I I) of the 8040 greenline review, above, 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable; and RESPONSE: The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan recommends that trees not be cut along the River, that the River not be filled in and its banks not be graded. It also recommends that disturbed areas be brought back to as natural a state as possible, including the use of native plant species. The proposal does not require any trees to be removed along the River, nor does it require any filling in of the River or grading of its banks, The landscape plan proposes that native species of trees and grasses be planted around the proposed building. Staff frods that the recommendations of the Greenway Plan are being accommodated by the proposed plan. 4, There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits, The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy; and RESPONSE: The proposed development would not remove or damage stream bank vegetation, nor would it necessitate stream bank slope grade changes. Grade changes, however, are proposed for the lower portion of the site, outside of the flood plain boundary, in order to move the 7990' topographic contour to the east, provide ramp access from the building to the lower bench, and accommodate the proposed swimming pool and stable. These grade changes would all occur within the proposed building envelope. The applicant has indicated that the fenced corral area would be left in its natural, ungraded state, 5. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and RESPONSE: The proposed development would not interfere with or change the River's course, The applicant recognizes the potential for the horse stable to result in pollution of the River. Therefore, if determined to be necessary, they would place a low berm around the stable to keep pollutants from reaching the river. The building permit application will be required to include a permanent erosion control plan, and a temporary sediment control and contaminant pIan for the construction phase. Drainage associated with the upper bench would be detained on-site and drywells would be placed under the parking area, sidewalks and other impervious surfaces. Gutters 6 1""'\ ,,-,, would be used on the roof of the building to direct water to the drywells. Furthermore, the applicant is required to submit a drainage report and mitigation plan signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado with their building permit application. The provisions of this plan are required to meet the runoff design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)( 4)(f). As per the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) comments, included as Exhibit "E," the swirrnning pool will be required to be designed with its own drain and connection to the sanitary sewer lines; therefore, drainage of the pool would not occur outside of its designated building envelope, 6, Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation ofa water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and RESPONSE: No such alteration or relocation is proposed, thus no written notice is required, 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his [or her) heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and RESPONSE: Since no alteration or relocation is proposed, a guarantee is not required. 8, Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one-hundred-year floodplain; and RESPONSE: .since no work is proposed within the IOO-year flood plain, copies of permits are not applicable or necessary. 9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability, if any development is essential within this area, it may only be approved by special review pursuant to Section 26.04,100; and RESPONSE: The proposed development is located considerably above the top of the banks of the Roaring Fork River; however, this standard would require that the proposed swimming pool and horse stable be moved to be at least fifteen (l5)feet from the top of slope, as determined by the Engineering Department. This would require a change from the proposed sites for these. facilities, unless approved by special review, Staff recommends that the Commission require moving the swimming pool and horse stable at least fifteen (15) feet to the west of the top of slope (as determined by the Engineering Department) as a condition of approval, 10. All development outside the fifteen (I5) foot setbackfrom the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by th~ Zoning Qfficer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 26.04, IOO; and 7 1"""--. ~ RESPONSE: The applicant has provided these drawings, and the only above-grade structure proposed on the lower bench is a horse stable. The drawings indicated that there is sufficient room to move the stable to the west in order to cornply with the above cited standard. Staff believes that the above standard was not intended to regulate structures with the sort of character that horse stables embody, but rather was intended to regulate the urban appearance of residences and commercial operations along the river front. Horse stables are, in staffs estimation, compatible with the rural, country river front feeling and appearance that this standard is intended to protect/preserve. 11, A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side to native riparian vegetation; and RESPONSE: A landscape plan was submitted with the original application, and no new vegetation is proposed on the lower portion of the property, outside of the proposed building envelope. All proposed plantings are of native tree and grass species, 12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s} directed toward the river or located down the slope; and . RESPONSE: The applicant has stated that "if any lighting is used along the lower portion of the property, it will comply with these standards." This should be a condition of approval. 13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level; and RESPONSE: The applicant, Mr,David Brown, a registered architect, submitted site sections showing all of the required site elements, These illustrations are included as Exhibit "D." 14. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. RESPONSE: The applicant conducted a site analysis of the property last summer, when it was not covered with snow, as is currently. the case. The applicant found that the line between wetland and upland vegetation is distinctly visible and approximately corresponds to the 100-year flood plain boundary. Therefore, by developing outside of this boundary, impacts on wetland and riparian vegetation would be avoided. If necessary, the City can verify the location of this boundary later this spring (1997), prior to any construction taking place. STAFF FINDINGS: Staff finds that there is sufficient information to support the applicant's requested zoning designations as amendments to the official zone district map. That is, staff finds that the requested Academic (A)/Conservation (C)/SP A zone district designations would be appropriate and meet all applicable standards for review as outlined by Section 26.92.020(A-I) of the Municipal Code. 8 /"""', ..-, With regard to the Specially Planned Area (SPA) consolidated conceptual and final review request, staff finds that the proposed dimensional requirements for the Academic (A) zoning are very rnuch consistent with a zone that would be located between RR and C zoning (as the site inquestion would be), with the following two exceptions: I) the percent of open space required for the building site beset at (the applicant has requested that this number be determined at the hearing); and 2) the minimum lot area per dwelling unit be set at 1.5 acres per unit. Further, staff frods that the SPA request complies with the eight (8) standards for SPA review, as contained in Section 26.80.040(B). Staff also finds that the conditional use requests to allow dormitory housing, health care facilities and a dining hall in the Academic (A) zone district, as well as recreational uses including a riding stable/corral and a swimming pool in the Conservation (C) zone district meet all of the standards (A-F) of Section 26.60.040 of the MuniCipal Code. The applicant's proposal to have three (3) parking spaces, for their vans, contained within a garage in the building, as well as ten (10) outdoor spaces for the individual vehicles of their guests and staff, coupled with the van services that would be provided, has been found to be adequate to satisfy the Special Review requirements set forth in Section 26.64.040(B) of the Municipal Code. Staff also frods that the proposal meets all applicable requirements associated with the 8040 greenline and stream margin reviews, provided a few conditions are imposed. RECOMMENDATION: As the application requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission take action on seven (7) different review processes, this recommendation is broken into seven parts, as follows: REZONING RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission advise the City Council to approve the rezoning as requested by the applicant, provided the annexation request is approved. That is, the Commission should recommend 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 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 of the Special Review request. SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission advise Council to designate Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch as a Specially Planned Area (SPA) and allow for the consolidation of conceptual and final SPA review. Staff further recommends that the Commission advise Council to accept the following dimensional requirements for the Academic (A) zone district portion of the SPA: . 1. Minimum Lot Size: 6 acres 9 r-.. r-. 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 SideYard: 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 that required by building code. , 9. Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site: _ percent (to be determined at the hearing) 10. External Floor Area Ratio: Floor area shall not exceed 14,000 square feet II. Internal Floor Area Ratio: No requirement. Staff further recommends that the Commission forward, to Council, a finding that the proposed SPA meets all applicable standards (1-8) of Section 26.80.040(B) and, thus, should be approved with the condition that an SPA plat is approved by the Engineering Department and recorded within 180 days final SPA approval. CONDITIONAL USE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested conditional uses, subject to 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-way; c) Agree to join any future irnprovement 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 final development plans; f) Ensure that the project meets all runoff design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f) 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; and, g) Submit a permanent erosion control plan and a temporary sediment control plan and containment plan for the construction phase, 10 ,,-., I"'. 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 GIS 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 property 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 turn around that will remain free of parked cars, meeting Fire Marshal requirements, must be provided; and, e) Pave the driveway, 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 Department for street improvements, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of- way; and, d) Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and the Department of Environmental Health for drainage provisions for the swimming pool, grease and oil interceptor provisions for the kitchen, oil and sand interceptor provisions for the garage, and blood borne and hazardous waste disposal provisions for the medical suite. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 11 (""', ~. 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 for use of these units to personnel of the Foundation, and categorized as to those employees residing in the units (Category I, 2, or 3; but Category 4 for the two-bedroom, lower-level unit). 6. Deliveries to the facility for all services (Le., food, medical supplies, etc.) shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a,m, and 7:00 p.rn., 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 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. SPECIAL REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant fmal approval to the proposed off-street parking finding that the standards of Section 26.64.040(B) have been met, with the following condition: I. One (I) 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 Relliew in accordance with Section 26,64.040(B) of the Municipal Code. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant final approval to the 8040 greenline review finding that all applicable standards (1-11) of Section 26.68.030 of the Municipal Code are being met by the proposed plans. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant final approval to the stream margin review, and the top of slope and building envelope arrived at therewith finding that all applicable standards (1- 14) of Section 26.68.040 of the Municipal Code are being met, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with the Parks Departn3ent to design a fence around the stable with rail logs that are sufficiently above ground 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 determined by the Aspen Engineering Department. All portions of all structures/construction must fall within the approved building envelope. [2 r>-. .-- 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(B)(10), and shall be recorded within 180 days of stream margin review approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the staff recommendations, with regard to the Kids Stuff Foundation application, as outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated March 11, 1997," EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" - Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application Exhibit "B" - Referral Comments Exhibit "C" - Addendum to Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application Exhibit "D" - Proposed Building Envelope and Site Section for Stream Margin Review Exhibit "E" - Additional Referral Comments Related to Addendum .13 1"""-. 1"""\ MEMORANDUM ~~ 1 l 1997 ) Date: Julie Woods ,Planning Office Lee cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Officer 1i~~ Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health Officer ~ l ,'- March 11, 1997 To: Through: From: Re: Silver Lining Ranch - Development Application for Annexation, Rezoning GMQS Exemption, Conditional use, spa and Special Review ' =============================================== The Aspen/Pitkin Environmeptal Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the fOllowing comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLEcrlON: Section 11-1.7 "It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on-site sewage disposal device." The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSDl meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated sanitation District to handle the increased flow for the project shOuld be determined by the ACSD. The applicant has failed to provide documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development. A condition of approval for this project should be that the applicant shall provide documentation "..that the appli~nt and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development..n as defined in the Municipal code of the City of Aspen. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: section 23-55 "All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits WhiCh use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system: The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen water Department shall determine if adequate water is available for the project. The City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. The applicant has failed to provide documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutuallY bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development. A condition of approval for this project should be that the applicant shall provide documentation "..that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development..n as defined in the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. 1. I""'> ^ WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted." Water quality impacts are Possible from both surface runoff drainage and from runoff from the .stable area. DRAINAGE A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be evaluated ' by the City Engineer. The applicant must obtain all necessary federal permits, including but not limited to 404,201,208, or Clean Water permits from the Army Corps of Engineers. We recommend that a condition of approval be that the applicant provide these permits, or written documentation that they are not needed. surface water and groundwater contamination can also be caused by inadequate setback distances between the horse facilities and the wetlands and river. There must be assurances that no water quality issues result from the drainage associated with the facilities for the horses. This Department recommends the following conditions of approval for the horse facilities: al careful housekeeping and cleanup of all areas on a regUlar basis bl controlling runOff through this area by creating diversion swales to keep runoff from the stable area from traveling off the property or into nearby rivers. Cl maintaining a 50 foot buffer from areas that could be easilY contaminated such as , the river, 100 year flOOdplain and wetlands, to protect riparian vegetation, alluvial soils and groundwater and surface water dl an evaluation done to determine the 'carrying capacity' of the area for horses as compared to land area available. If concerns arise, this Department reserves the riGht to require water quality sampling at the homeowner's expense. AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of {the air quality section of the Municipal Codel to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methOds and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pOllution throughout the city.... The Land Use Regulations seek to .Iessen congestion. and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met. as well as to .provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants., The major concern Of our department is the impact of increasing traffic In a non-attainment area designated by the EPA. Under the requirements of the state Implementation Plan for the Aspen area, PM-10 (which comes almost all from traffic driVing on paved roads) must be reduced by 25% by 1997. In order to achieve that reduction, traffic increases that ordinarily would occur as a result of development must be mitigated, or else the gains brought about by community control measures will be lost. In addition, in order to comply with the municipal code requirement to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce POllution, traffic increases of development must be offset. In order to do this, the applicant will need to determine 'the traffic increases generated by the project, commit to a set of control measures, and 2 ~ ..-, Show that the traffic decreased by the control measures is at least as great as the. traffic increases of the project without mitigation. The applicant has suggested that all attendees at the camp and conferences will be required to travel in vans and others will be encouraged to wall< or rides bil<es to minimize traffic impacts. These are gOOd ideas. However, what needs to be addressed is the actual impact on traffic of all development in the proposed Plan: buildings to accommodate sessions for 20 children, conferences for up to 40 people, and special events 15 to 20 times a year; sleeping accommodations and apartments forthe children and staff, Increases in traffic or PM,0 will occur due to trips by staff, vOlunteers, service people, maidS, cleaners, and the vans themselves. The apPlicant will need to first determine the traffic and PM,0 increase from the project, and then imPlement enough mitigation measures to prevent air pollution from this project The applicant is referred to Institute of Engineers Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition for trip generation rates to be used for various types of developmentprojects. Then proposed mitigation measures will have to be evaluated to ensure they will fully offset any increase in traffic and PM10. We recommend that a condition of approval be that prior to issuance of any building permits or use of the facility. the applicant provide proof to the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department that proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to offset increases in PM,0 and traffic caused by the project. FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department before the building permit will be issued if there are to be any firePlaces or woodstoves. In metropolitan areas of Pitkin County which inCludes this site, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have WOOd burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. Barns and agricultural buildings may not install any type of firePlace device. Obtaining this permit is a condition of building permit approval. FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required whiCh includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily Cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or caUSing a nuisance. Obtaining this permit is a condition of approval of the building permit for this project. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the PUblic peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors. .....Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels." 3 ","" ,-', DUring construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhOOd. The applicant shOuld be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. POOLS AND SPAS All design, installation and maintenance must comply with "Swimming pool and Mineral Bath Regulations, Colorado Department of Health, water Quality Control Division, adopted AugUst 1S, 1993: A copy can be obtained from our office. A condition of approval should be that at least 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, shaD be submitted for review and approval by this department. MEDICAL FACiliTIES Medical facilities are not regulated by this department. Needles and other contaminated items 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. FOOD SERVICE FACilITIES A review of plans and specifications by this department is required by Section 10.401 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of coloraaD. The Department shall be consulted before preparation of plans and specifications. A condition should be approval of both plans and specifications before the building permit is approved. A minimum of two weeks shall be necessary for the Department to review and approve plans. Also, final approval from this Department is necessary before opening for business and prior to issuance of a ColoradO Food service License. 4 t"'1 1""1 S TRYKER/B ROWN ARCH I TECTS,PC ~TRANSMITTAL TO: I1I1Ut ~ FROM: C7f'f-1fc.'l--1 erzowv DATE: ~. 1- CJ7 NO. Of P:\CES. ~ NOTES: 0d~ UflI1l7 <9eoer f'lCVY\ -(rrkv\. f9-2 Vilt'i1tfL) 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 300 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970.925,2254 925,2258 (FAX) ~ <' - Q: ~ .'0, Q;,ir .,:'t.~; , "':>,,Ii[j " ..~'\ .\t- 'iIt 's~".,:,.," - I"':.L, .,""~f' '.\ ' ~ r ''''t,..;~ ;'., '"' \:S: .1'4'~:"'.'>' .~~ . ~ :' ': ' -; ).>::.~ '" ",,::.;.,..- "'" ' :"~~:';r'})~~: ~,,: .' ".,,- , !I. .11*' Of < ~. -";:' ,.l '" N .... ::?~~~~. 'i'."" ..:e. ;.:",. 4: t; ~ <?- HZ ~S :.A rr \" .... .,~,~ 1.. ...1: '~J~' "Y~~'i"3 /OJ .:"'0- & Ji' .b .,. :t "",. - f~ ~o .- ~, ,', .,!;,.,::., . .~U' . .,..~.lI . ..<.... .. I , I '" ;"j ,,~ ~ '- .:... .. ~, <?' .t-)' ::-::',> ~ .0 :;: J,? ~ ;!A f:~ '~ J a. '0 Iii .~ c c .. I- c ;oc .. .. ..... u-I:!.- :..:1 "O~ .. -+- . o V> .0 :J""sP ~ <) 'i ~~ - ....... \ .... , "" -<r ell' . " N' ",- , t 010 r, I' ~ 'I.l it to... \n ~ l.{\C - , N ::e::- I I I / I I I I / I I I I I I / Iq' I I ~ I ~ ~ / .... if! I I / I I / I I I / / I I I . I I i / I / ( / / / / / I I - '~." .. . '"lJ. " '... _ '" a. . _-.J . /II ~ >... . c. J:.'~,. 1t' .. 'I 'If .......... I: . ,""'~ .~ ,t": ",y- . ~'...' .. - 'V .. .C .. ~ . .. ;; - o . .. .. ;: l&.. . '" ~ o ,...N ,GO + 0N 0- :t.;. ~(Q ~. ' .; .....:. y ~,~~. ....~~... ~ 'i~~.' 1 ,-., ~. 7'97 4:17PM ."'" P.l Memorandum TO: Mitch Haa.~, Community Development PlllIlD.er FROM: Rebc=a Scbickling, Parks Depatlment DATE: March 7,1997 RE: Silver T .icing Raneh - Streoun Mnrsin It 8040 Grcc:n.Iine We have reviewed the information on thc Silver T.iniul( Ranch for Stre:m1 Margin Review aud ' 8U40 Green/ine. Our previous comments cuver the majurily of the iSl$ues r3i~ed w. the initial application. r would re-iteTl1tc however, the JWed to keep the corml oul <Jf rip4rillll :':<Jnes. The 8l'r1ic:\tiol1 states that "the line bct1.>.'een wetland and ul'latul vegetation i~ distincUy visible and approximately corre~ponds !u the 100 year flood plain boundary," I r this is the ClISC then. tbe curral should be limited in the 100 year flood area. If the sill; plan i~ COlfl;CI then the curral appears to extend into the 100 year flood plain quite fal'. I would recommend this area be confirmed in the spring prior to building permits being issued. .. . f"""'. ~ \ f~",i\T "CJ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THROUGH: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner RE: Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application - Public Hearing. Stillwater Ranch, Lot 5, Parcel LD, No. 2737-184-05-805. DATE: March 4, 1997 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Annexation, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use, Specially Planned Area (SPA), and Special Review approval to create a permanent home for the Kids Stuff Foundation in Aspen. The Kids Stuff Foundation is a non-profit organization that brings groups of up to twenty (20) children with cancer and other life threatening medical conditions to Aspen for a week of relaxation and adventure in the Rocky Mountains. The applicant's application is attached as Exhibit "A", and referral comments from Engineering, Housing and Parks are included as Exhibit "B". Community Development staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission hear the case, but then continue the Kids Stuff Foundation to a date certain as soon as possible. This date should be determined by the Commission at the March 4, 1997 hearing. In addition; the applicant is required to complete stream margin and 8040 greenline ESA reviews, which could also be heard at the continued hearing date. APPLICANT: Kids Stuff Foundation, represented by Alan Richman. LOCATION: Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch is located at the northeast end of Ute Avenue, just outside of the current city limits. The lot is bounded by The Aspen Club and Lot 15 of the Callal1an Subdivision to the west, the Roaring Fork River and Lot 6 of the Stillwater Ranch to the east, an. out parcel and open space to the south, and Lot 13 of the Callal1an Subdivision to the north, (See attached vicinity map, Exhibit A). The surrounding uses vary widely in nature. The Aspen Club provides private recreational services (commercial), the Benedict and Tenth Mountain Trail buildings serve as offices, while other uses along Ute Avenue include affordable housing, single and multi-family dwellings (housing both residents and second home owners) and a variety of public recreational facilities (trails, parks, etc.). r" /"'....., '. ZONING: Proposed zoning is Academic (A)/Conservation (C)/SP A. CURRENT LAND USE: None; the lot is vacant. LOT SIZE: Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch contains 6.457 acres (over 281,000 square feet); the area of this lot may be subject to reductions such as those associated with areas below the high water line, and with areas containing slopes of 20% or greater). ALLOWABLE FAR: Given the fact that the property is not currently zoned, the allowable FAR cannot yet be determined; furthermore, none of the requested zoning designations, Conservation/Ac<:idemic/SPA stipulate minimum or maximum floor area ratios. The Academic (A) zone district requires that the applicable dimensional requirernents be established by adoption of a Specially Planned Area (SPA). PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to develop a retreat contaJrnng educational and cultural activities, housing and dormitory uses, administrative facilities, health care facilities, a dining hall, and recreational uses. REVIEW PROCEDURE: As requested by the applicant and agreed to by the Director of the Community Development Department, this application will follow a consolidated, streamlined review process. The conditional use and special review requests will be heard and decided upon by the Planning and Zoning Commission at public hearings. Also at this public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission will review the annexation, rezoning, and consolidated conceptual and fmal SPA requests, and send their recommendations on to the City Council. The City Council, in turn, will render decisions regarding the annexation, rezoning, GMQS exemption, and SPA requests. The annexation and rezoning requests will require two readings by Council. In total, the review process for the Kids Stuff Foundation developrnent application is being consolidated into a two (2) step process from a four (4) step process, and requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E) prior to each step. To summarize, the Planning and Zoning Commission will render final decisions on the conditional use and special review requests, as well as the stream margin and 8040 Greenline reviews (discussed below), The Planning and Zoning Commission will make recommendations to the City Council regarding the annexation, rezoning and SPA' requests. The following sections of the code are applicable to the review of this development application: Chapter 26.92, Amendments to the Land Use Regulations and Official Zone District Map; Section 26.28.220, Conservation (C) zone district; Section 26,28.230, Academic (A) zone district; Section 26.l00.050(C), Exemptions (GMQS); Chapter 26.80, Specially Planned Area (SPA); Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses; and, Section 26.64.040, Review Standards for Special Review. 2 r-. r--.. The eventual development of those portions of the site for which Conservation (C) zoning is proposed will require a stream margin review pursuant to Section 26.68.040. Furthermore, prior to final development approval, the applicant will need to cornplete an 8040 Greenline review pursuant to Section 26.68.030. The fact that the stream margin and 8040 Greenline reviews have not yet been accomplished is the primary reason staff has recommended continuing the public hearing to a date certain. The applicant intends to have the required materials for staff review of the stream margin and 8040 Greenline reviews completed prior to the continued hearing date; this should enable the Commission to make fmal decisions on these items before closing the hearing. BACKGROUND: The Kids ,Stuff Foundation was the beneficiary of the gift of Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch (also known as the "Silver Lining Ranch"), from the Benedict family. The Foundation has been operating in the Aspen Area since 1990. As the Foundation has not had a facility in which it could provide housing or meals for the children, they have been staying in local lodges and eating' in local restaurants. This has considerably increased the cost to the Foundation for each group that it brings to Aspen. More importantly, it has prevented the children from sharing their entire week's experiences together and has limited the ability of the Foundation to offer continuous, on-site medical supervision for the children. Kids Stuff Foundation plans to 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, it is anticipated that the sessions will 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 would be a maximum of twenty (20) children in attendance at any session. All of these children would stay in the proposed building. Children would travel to and from the Ranch in three (3) or four (4) vans, Meals would be served on the premises and many activities (i.e., arts and crafts, outdoor recreation, talent shows, etc.) would occur there as well. It is also anticipated that staff would be housed at the facility during the sessions. 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 pe ~at accompany the children when they come to Aspen, Spaces for twel e (12) such permanent and temporary staff would be provided within the building. In addition to the regular use of the property for children's sessions, the Foundation would like to make the facility available to other groups whose mission is related to that of the Foundation. The intent would be to permit small conferences, meetings or retreats by other medically-related children's groups, cancer groups, pediatric doctors and sirnilar groups. Such use of the facilities would be limited to just one (I) such session, lasting one (1) week per month, that would occur only during the months that the Foundation does not use the facility. These session could involve twenty (20) to forty (40) people, and all ,3 ",..... r-, attendees at these sessions would be required to travel to and from the facility in vans, to minimize traffic irnpacts on Ute Avenue. It is also likely that there would be up to fifteen (15) or twenty (20) special evening or full day events held at the Ranch during the year. These events could include celebrations, dinners, award cerernonies, meetings and fund raising activities. The ranch will not open for rental to the general public for special events, although the Foundation may make the Ranch available to the community for non-profit medical events. Once again, all attendees at these events would be required to travel to and from the facility in vans. The Foundation's permanent office would be included within the proposed building. Approximately four (4) to five (5) staff members would work in the office year-round. These persons would travel to and from the facility using their own vehicles. Also included within the proposed building is apartments that would be occupied by two (2) to six (6) staff persons on a year-round basis, These persons would also be permitted to have their own vehicles. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The comments from the City Engineering, Housing, and Parks Departments are included as Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 16.91.010, Standards for Review of Amendments to the Official Zone District Map Provided the annexation request is approved, the applicant proposes to zone the subject property Academic (A)/Conservation (C)/SPA. The Academic (A) Zone District is intended to establish lands for educational and cultural activities, with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities. The zone district allows, as conditional uses, dormitory housing, health care facilities and dining halls. These represent the principal uses intended for the planned structure. The applicant anticipates that the upper bench of the property, or the portion on which the proposed building, driveway and parking area are proposed, would be designated Academic (A). The Academic (A) Zone District requires that the applicable dimensional requirements be established by adoption of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Plan. The applicant has requested a consolidated concepmal and final SPA review, and pursuant to Section 26.80.040(A), the Coriununity Development Director has determined that consolidation would be appropriate. The lower bench of the subject property contains sensitive floodplain lands, riparian habitat and open meadows; thus, the applicant proposes that it be designated for conservation. The area outside of the 100 year floodplain would, as proposed, contain a horse riding stable (an allowed use in the Conservation (C) Zone District) and a pool 4 /","" ,-, which is allowed as a conditional use. This portion of the property would be used by the children for recreational purposes, but would otherwise be maintained in its natural state. The standards for review of an amendment to the official zone district map, as provided in Section 26,92,020, and staff s response are as follows: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment to the official zone district map would not be in conflict with any portiones) of Chapter 26, Land Use Regulations, of the Municipal Code, B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with al/ elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The first written page of the MCP states that "our goal is to be a community that is environmentally responsible," and zoning newly annexed lands to the Conservation (C) and Academic (A) zone districts will help to further this goal. Indeed, one of the four major themes of the AACP is "promoting environmentally sustainable development." Staff has reviewed all potentially applicable elements of the AACP and believes the proposed zoning designation would be consistent with it. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The surrounding zone districts are R-15(PUD), Moderate-Density Residential, to the north; RR(PUD), Rural Residential, to the west; AHl(PUD), Affordable Housing PUD, to the southwest; and, Pitkin County lands zoned Agriculture/Forestry/Residential, including open space, to the south. The proposed zone districts would, in staff's opinion, be compatible with these surrounding zone districts because the proposed Conservation/ Academic/SPA zoning would maintain the low- intensity, open, rural feeling facilitated by the existing designations. In addition, the neighborhood surrounding the subject property contains an unusually diverse mixture of uses, as mentioned and described above. The proposed structure will be predominantly residential and recreational in nature and appearance, with limited use. Staff believes that the proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics, thereby satisfying the above criterion. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: As mentioned earlier in this memo, transportation for all groups using the proposed facility will be carried out by vans. Therefore, although as many as forty (40) persons may occupy the building during children's sessions and special events, their traffic 5 r< r-'\ impacts will be limited to three (3) to five (5) vans transporting them to and frorn the facility. A study of the capacity of Ute A venue was prepared by the traffic engineering experts, Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc., in 1996. This study, which was prepared in support of a land use application submitted by the Aspen Club, demonstrated that the comfortable carrying capacity of Ute Avenue is 3,000 vehicles per day. The methodology used to make this determination is explained in a letter from Phil Scott to the Community Development Department, dated March 14, 1996, a copy of which is attached with Exhibit "A." Mr. Scott's report demonstrates that because winter conditions on this road create a much more limited driving surface than during the rest of the year, the comfortable carrying capacity of the road in the winter is only 2,100 vehicles per day, This capacity is considerably in excess of the vehicle count performed by his firm in 1996, which showed approximately 1,250 vehicles using Ute Avenue on a winter day. The capacity is also in excess of the nearly 1,480 vehicles per day that could be expected to use the road after access to some of the Aspen Club parking is shifted to Ute Avenue. In fact, based on the approval granted by City Council to the Aspen Club, the calculated increase in daily traffic on the road to 2,309 vehicles per day will not be achieved, since the City required that the Club retain some parking on the Highway 82 side and increased the Club's commitment to a shuttle service above and beyond what the study reflects. Therefore, the applicant believes, and staff concurs, that enough excess capacity exists on Ute Avenue to accommodate the small number of van and individual staff vehicle trips that the proposed project would generate. This conclusion takes into account the increased usage that will result from the Aspen Club PUD Amendment and should be valid in both summer and winter conditions. 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 medicalfacilities. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment will not result in any demands on public facilities. The proposed development, on the other hand, will exert some demands, but none that will exceed the capacities of these facilities. As described above, the Foundation provides its own transportation facilities and will, not cause any burdens on the RFT A. The fact that Ute Avenue has excess capacity and can accommodate the proposed development is also described in detail above, The availability of both water and sewer service to this property was established by Pitkin County during the subdivision review for the Stillwater Ranch. A twelve (12) inch water line runs through the Ranch and connects with Ute Avenue near Lot 5, at the cul-de-sac. There is also a fire hydrant in the cul-de-sac, The eight (8) inch sewer main ends east of the Aspen Club, within Lot 5. A buried primary elec.tric line lies in the east end of Ute 6 !""", ,'-' A venue. The covenants for the subdivision require all structures to be connected to these lines. The applicant agrees to do so and will bear any associated costs. The applicant has also committed to retaining their drainage on-site in order to comply ,with the City's standard of maintaining drainage on-site to pre-development levels, and will, thus, not impact the City's drainage system in doing so. The project will have no impact on the community's schools as the children using the facility will only be there for one week and will not be attending any schools, The project provides its own emergency medical facilities anq will not be a burden to the community's existing medical facilities. Finally, as recreational opportunities will, be provided on-site, the facility will not substantially impact the community's parks system. Also see the referral comments from the Engineering and Parks Departments, attached as Exhibit "B." F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: Designation of the lower portion of the property as a conservation area will ensure that the natural environment of the area is maintained. In addition, the landscape plan shows plans to plant a considerable number of trees on the property, grouped in a manner so as to enhance the natural feel of the area. Furthennore, the project will be subject to stream margin and 8040 Greenline reviews which will directly ensure the protection of natural and environmental features. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: Staff ,believes that providing the opportunity for children with serious illnesses to be able to enjoy a retreat in the healthy, beautiful and invigorating mountain environment of Aspen is consistent and compatible with the community's ideals and character. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: The annexation of the subject parcel by the City (a changed condition) necessitates its being zoned within ninety (90) days. l Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with either the public interest or the purpose and intent of the Land Use Regulations. As described in the responses to standards A-H, above, the proposed development would be an asset to the community. 7 ,-. ,~ Chapter 26.80, Specially Planned Area (SPA) Section 26.80.030(A), Standaids for Designation, states that, A. Any land in the city may be designated specially planned area (SPA) by the city council if, because of its unique historic, natural, physical. or locational characteristics, it would be of great public benefit to the city for that land to be allowed design flexibility and to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multiple use development. A parcel of land designated specially planned area (SPA) shall also be designated on the city's official zoning map with the underlying zone district designation which is determined the most appropriate. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the uses and development which may be considered during the development review process. Given the natural, physical, and locational characteristics of the site in question, with regard to the site's topography, natural features, and surrounding land uses and structures, staff feels that it would be beneficial for the parcel to be allowed design flexibility in order to facilitate its planning and development in a comprehensive, multiple use fashion. Staff further suggests, as indicated by the preceding section of this memo, that the zoning requested by the applicant would be the most appropriate designation for this particular parcel. The Academic (A) Zone District is intended to establish lands for educational and cultural activities, with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities. The zone district allows, as conditional uses, dormitory housing, health care facilities and dining halls. These represent the principal uses intended for the planned structure. If the Council should determine the applicant proposes any use for the property that is not allowed as either a permitted or conditional use in the Academic (A) or Conservation (C) zone districts, then the applicant would request, as part of their SPA plan, that Council vary the uses allowed in those zone districts in order to pennit the given use. Staff does not find that any of the proposed uses would require such a variance. The Academic (A) zone district also requires that the dimensional requirements applicable to all proposed uses shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual and final SPA plan, In evaluating the range of possible dimensional requirements for the subject property, the applicant examined the actual dimensions contained on the proposed site plan as well as the dimensionai requirements of the Rural Residential (RR) zone district, which is the City's low density residential zone district and which is currently applied to the adjacent Aspen Club property. The applicant's resulting proposal for dimensional requirements are summarized as follows: 1. Minimum Lot Size: 6 acres 2. Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: 2 acres per unit 3. Minimum Lot Width: 200 feet 4. Minimum Front Yard: 30 feet 5. Minimum Side Yard: 20 feet 8 ~ ,-., 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 that required by building code. ' 9. Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site: As shown on site plan. 10. External Floor Area Ratio: Floor area shall not exceed 14,000 square feet. II. Internal Floor Area Ratio: No requirement. In comparing these proposed dimensional requirements with those of the Conservation (C) zone district and those of the Rural Residential (RR) zone district, staff finds that the proposed dimensional requirements for the proposed Academic (A) zoning are very much consistent with a zone that would be located between RR and C zoning, and recommends approval of the dimensional requirements as requested, with the exception that the percent of open space required for the building site be specifically quantified. For purposes of comparison, the RR and C zone districts do not contain any requirements with respect to a minimum percentage of open space for a building site. As allowed for by Section 26.80,040(A) of the code, the applicant has requested that conceptual and final SPA review be consolidated for this project. The Director of the Community Development Department has concurred that consolidated review would be permitted for this project because it involved the development of only a single building and most of the public service issues involving the parcel were resolved during the County's Stillwater Ranch subdivision review. However, "the [Planning and Zoning] Commission or the City Council may, during review, determine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur. " The review standards for SPA review, as contained in Section 26.80.040(B), and staffs responses are as follows: 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. RESPONSE: The applicant has provided architectUral elevations that depict the proposed appearance of the facility. They have designed a building that has a residential, as opposed to institutional, appearance, befitting the primary character of the neighborhood. The location of the structure along the edge of the hillside enables the construction of the lower level below grade. The design uses projections and a large, covered balcony to further reduce the perceived mass, and the structure will be screened by trees to the north and south in order to buffer views from the surrounding areas. The proposed height of the structure varies, as measured from different points of its perimeter. The view of the east elevation, where all three stories are exposed, indicates a height to the midpoint of the roof of 32.5 feet, with the peak at 38 feet. In comparison, the 9 r"'\ r-. height of the southwest elevation, which would be the elevation most visible to the public, is 26.5 feet to the midpoint of the roof and 30 feet at the peak, The floor area of the proposed structure is estimated to be 13,125 square feet (plus an additional 750 square feet for the proposed stable), While this would be a relatively large structure, it is situated on a 6.5 acre site. Residences in the nearby Preserve Subdivision are of similar or even larger size, while the adjacent Aspen Club is significantly larger than the proposed structure. Residences on Lots 1 through 4' of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision are limited to 6,500 square feet in size, but no such limitation was applied to Lot 5, in anticipation that it might be donated to the Kids Stuff Foundation. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. RESPONSE: The adequacy of Ute A venue to service the proposed project and the availability of water, sewer and other public services have been discussed earlier in this staff report. See the review of standards D. and E. under the section of this memo entitled "Section 26.92,020, Standards for Review of Amendments to the Official Zone District Map," above. 3, Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls, avalanche dangers andflood hazards. RESPONSE: It should also be noted that the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision was approved by Pitkin County, and the review process leading to said approval included a 1041 (Hazard Areas) Review, In addition, the applicant has confined the building locations to the most suitable portions of the property, The existing conditions drawing, part of Exhibit "A," illustrates the location of several key features that have guided the site planning to the most suitable locations, First, the existing conditions map illustrates the location of a "moderate avalanche hazard" from the "Ute Avenue chutes" that affects the property, The boundaries of this hazard area were taken from a site specific study performed as part of the subdivision review process in Pitkin County, The proposed building envelope is entirely outside of and avoids this hazard area. ' Next, the map also illustrates the existing topography of the property and identifies those areas that contain slopes in excess of thirty (30) percent. These areas are primarily found along the hillside just below the proposed building site and have, with limited exceptions, been avoided by the proposed development. Finally, the lower bench of the property contains an open meadow and associated wetlands/floodplain areas along the Roaring Fork River. There is adistinguishable edge in the meadow separating the "water influenced" vegetation from the remainder of the meadow. This line corresponds to the 100-year floodplain shown on the drawing. It is the 10 f""". .--- applicants intention to use the area outside of the floodplain for recreational structures (a po.ol or tennis court, and a horse stable) and to leave the area within the floodplain in its natural condition. 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. RESPONSE: The proposed site plan demonstrates avoidance of the Roaring Fork River floodplain and associated riparian area( s) by locating the building site on the upper portion of the property. The site plan also eliminates the need to create a significant cut into the hillside between the upper and lower portions of the site by limiting the vehicle traffic to the upper portion and only accessing the lower portion through a narrow ramp. Finally, the perceived mass of the structure has been reduced by tucking the building into the srnall knoll on the upper portion of the site and by providing landscaping to screen the building. Furthermore, the project will be subject to stream margin and 8040 Greenline reviews which will further ensure the avoidance and minimization of adverse environmental impacts. 5, Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: Staff finds that the proposal is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan in many respects. For instance, the proposal involves the provision of transportation alternatives that will help to reduce congestion and pollution; environmentally sustainable development; maintenance and creation of places and opportunities for social interaction and lifestyle diversity; encouragement of land uses; businesses and events which serve both the local community and the tourist base; encouragement of non-profits to provide housing for their own employees; and, development of a stimulating, active and supportive environment that betters the lives of . everyone, preserves our natural resources and provides opportunities for all to enjoy. Staff does not feel that the proposed development would be inconsistent with any portions or provisions of the AACP. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood RESPONSE: No public expenditures will be required for the provision of public facilities to serve the subject property, as the required facilities are either already in place or will be provided at the applicant's expense. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Sect ion 26.84,030(B)(2)(b). 11 ~\ .--, RESPONSE: The cited section of the code has no bearing on this application, Since only one use is proposed, meeting the density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b) is not applicable. 8, Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. RESPONSE: The applicant has requested a GMQS exemption from City Council pursuant to Section 26.100.050(C)(2)(a)(3), as the proposed use likely qualifies as an essential public facility since it would be associated with a nonprofit entity. Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses The Academic (A) zone district lists auditorium and other facilities for performances and lectures, library and administrative offices as permitted uses. It also lists dormitory housing, health care facilities, and dining halls as conditional uses, The Conservation (C) zone district lists recreational uses, which staff interprets to include riding stables/corrals, and swimming pools (or tennis courts, as may be the case), as conditional uses. As shown on the submitted floor plans and site plan, each of these uses is intended to be developed within the building or on the property of the Ranch. Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, a development application for a conditional use approval shall meet the following standards: (A) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals. objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. RESPONSE: Consistency with the AACP has been discussed under the review of Standard 5, page 11, above. Staff determined that the proposal is fully consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the AACP, The intent of the Academic (A) zone district is to establish lands for educational and cultural activities, with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities, Staff believes that the proposed development is consistent with these purposes, in that the children who attend the sessions will be able to learn about and experience the joys of healthy living in the mountains and will have the opportunity to participate in the culture of Aspen. This type of experience is entirely consistent with the traditions established by such institutions as the Aspen Institute and Aspen Music School, which also give participants an opportunity to learn about and experience the Aspen way of life while enriching the community by doing so. The Aspen Institute is also zoned Academic (A)/SPA. "The purpose of the Conservation (C) zone district is to provide areas of low density development to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, . . and to contain urban development." Given the fact that, once annexed, the portion of the site to be zone Conservation (C) would be the southwestern most site in the City of Aspen, the purpose of containing urban development will be well served by the proposed plans. The goals of 12 /""", ,^, providing areas for low density developrnent and enhancing recreational opportunities are consistent with the proposal, ,as it includes only one building and a stable. (B) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposedfor development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposedfor development, RESPONSE: As described earlier in and throughout this memo, the surrounding uses along, Ute Avenue represent a diverse mixture of residential, visitor, commercial and recreational activities. The planned use of the proposed facility has elements of many of these uses. The residential appearance of the proposed structure will help it to blend in with the neighborhood. Moreover, the limited use that is planned for the facility will allow it to become a part of the neighborhood, without changing the character of this area whose residents have expressed their desire for it to remain a quiet residential neighborhood that is not dominated by institutional or commercial uses. There could be little argument that the proposed use would not enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity. (C) The location, size. design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash. service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. RESPONSE: The proposed location and design of the facility have been described in detail in earlier sections of this memo and, in staff s opinion satisfy the requirements of this standard. As also noted earlier, vehicular and other service impacts related to this proposal have been confined to the upper portion of the property, on the side nearest to the Aspen Club, to minimize the potential impacts on any other residences and to avoid having any vehicular impact on the sensitive riparian areas of the lower portion of the property. The corral would be located on the lower bench and eastern portion of the site, thereby positioning it as far from any residential sites as possible while still being on the property and outside of the floodplain; odor-related impacts on surrounding properties would be minimized by the proposed location of the corral. (D) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water. sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. RESPONSE: The adequacy of public facilities for the proposed development have been addressed in previous sections of this memo and have been found, by staff, to meet all applicable standards, (E) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental needfor increased employees generated by the conditional use. RESPONSE: Employees will be housed on-site. The submitted application package indicates that dormitory units (five bedrooms) will be provided on-site with the intention 13 f""'. ~ of housing as many as twelve (12) employees during sessions. The two units located on the lower level would have private kitchen facilities, and would likely be used to house employees of the Foundation on ayear-round basis, There would be a maximum of twenty (20) staff persons involved in any session, but not all of these persons would be Foundation employees. Some would be medical professionals who accompany the children to Aspen and would be housed in the facility during sessions. Some would be volunteers from the community, who would meet the children at the site of their daily activities (ski area, rafting, etc.) but would not require housing on-site. The rest would be the Foundation's employees and would be housed on- site during sessions. (F) The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title, RESPONSE: The proposed conditional uses will comply with all additional standards imposed on it be the AACP and by all other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. Section 26.64.040, Review Standards for Special Review The Academic (A) zone district requires that the off-street parking requirements for "all other uses" be established by special review. The applicant proposes to have three (3) . parking spaces within a garage contained within the building; these spaces would be used for the Foundation' s vans. They also propose to have ten (10) parking spaces located near the entry to the property, on the south side of the building, for the individual vehicles of their guests and staff. These spaces are shown on the proposed plans; see Exhibit "A." Section 26.64.040(B), Off-Street parking Requirements, provides that whenever the off- street parking requirernents of a proposed development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following standards are met: 1. The applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel. the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, providedfor the residents, guests and employees, In determining whether to accept the mitigation or whether that parking be provided on-site, the Commission shall take into consideration the practical ability of the applicant to place parking on-site and whether the City has plans for a parking facility which would better meet the needs of the development and the community than would location of the parking on-site. 14 1"""'-, """'. RESPONSE: It is the applicant's intention to provide sufficient parking to meet the actual needs of the occupants of the proposed building, their staff, and their guests, without providing so many parking spaces that it would be possible for all of these persons to consider traveling to the facility in their individual vehicles. That is, the number of proposed spaces would provide a balance between the ability to handle those persons that would not be required to travel to the facility via the provided vans, and providing a disincentive to those that might consider driving their own vehicles regardless of the van service. As stated earlier in this memo, the applicant has committed to requiring children and other groups to travel to and from the Ranch by vans. The Foundation can and would certainly control the potential impacts to on-street parking for their own use of the facility. If an outside group wishes to use the Ranch, they will.be required to work with the Foundation to schedule their guests' arrivals and departures in groups in order to guarantee their transportation occurs through the use of the vans. If such an outside group is unwilling or unable to do so, then the Foundation will not allow them to use the facility. Some of the Foundation's staff will need to come to the facility from off-site locations. While the Foundation has stated that they will encourage these persons to walk or use bicycles when conditions allow, there is still a need to provide some parking spaces for them. Similarly, although volunteers and other guests will generally meet the staff and children at activity sites, there may be times that a limited number of these persons will be required to drive to the Ranch in their individual vehicles. The ten (l0) proposed outside spaces that would be provided should meet this need, without becoming a feature that actually induces people to travel to the ranch via their own vehicle. Though there is adequate room for additional parking, if warranted, staff feels that the proposed off-street parking, coupled with the van services that would be provided, should be adequate to satisfy the requirements of Section 26.64.040(B). STAFF FINDINGS: Based upon review of the applicant's land use application and the referral comments, Community Development staff finds that there is insufficient information to move forward with all of the necessary reviews, particularly the required stream margin and 8040 Greenline reviews. While it appears to staff that the proposal complies with the standards applicable to the rezoning, conditional use, SPA, and special review requests, there is a potential that the stream margin and 8040 Greenline reviews could affect these requests; thus, staff feels that it would be most appropriate to continue the required hearings to a date certain. Staff, concurring with the applicant, requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission go as far into the required hearings as possible, . without taking any final actions, and then set a date certain for the earliest possible continuance of these hearings. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development staff recommends that Planning and Zoning Commission's decisions and recommendations to Council regarding the Kids Stuff 15 ~. ,-.., Foundation development application be continued to a date certain. This date should be determined by the Commission at the March 4, 1997 hearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings regarding the annexation, rezoning, conditional use, SPA, special review, stream margin review, and 8040 Greenline review requests for the Kids Stuff Foundation development application to ~ 1997." EXHIBITS: "A" - Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application "B" - Referral Comments 16 . . !"""\ !"""\ 7lspen 0onsohckzled danilalion Z,zslricl 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925.3601 Sy Kelly . Chairman Albert Bishop. Treas. Louis Popish . Secy. FA-X #(970) 925-2537 Michael Kelly Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. February 27, 1997 Mitch Haas Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RZ: SUver Linil'lg Proposal-Lot 5 Stillwalcr Ranch Dear Mitch, The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient collection and treatment capacity to serve this project. Service is contingent upon the District's Ru1es, Regulations, and Specifications which are on me at the District office. A tap permit must be completed at our office when detailed plans become available, Fees will be estimated at that time. The total connection charges due the District must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. The actual connection for service must be made by District personnel. The applicant will need to address the following issues: L The swimming pool connection and drain size, 2. The site plan needs to show the existing main District sewer line in the vicinity of the project. 3. Out parcels adjacent to this property have been granted easements that must be maintained for future sewer service to the out parcels. 4. An oil and grease interceptor will be required for the common and public kitchen area. 5. An oil and. s"ncl i.nterceptor win be required for the vehicle gArage area. 6. Disposal of blood borne waste will have to be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. The District will need to review the landscape and drainage plans. The applicant is encouraged to contact our office for information concerning service line requirements and the location of the subsequent connection to the public system. -7t/t, Thomas R. Bracewell Collection Systems Superintendent cc Chuck Roth, City of Aspen Engineering EFA Awards of Excellence 1976.1986.1990 Regional and National FEE 27 '97 03:00PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC 1""". .,,-,, P.l MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: February 27, 1997 SILVER LINING RANCH Parce/ID No. 2737-184-05-805 RE: ISSUE: The appliclmt is requesting to create a permanent home for the Kids Stuff Foundation in Aspen. The applicant states that apartments will be provided within the building that wftl be able 'to house permllllSllt staff of the Foundation, as well as the medical personnel that accompany the children when they come to Aapen. . aACKGROUNO: According to Section 26.100.050.C.2.a(3): Notwith$tllfldlng the ctiiena as set fatth ill SetJ1Jons 26.1IXJ.050(C}(2)(a)(1) and 26, 100.0oO(X)(2)(a)(2} the ~ Cauncil may detemdne upon sppJicaoon that development asSDCiatrxl ~ a non"mm entity qtlElliffea as an 1NJ$Iffl/ial pUblic facility IIlld mey ex,,",pl such development fltlm tire growth managfll7lent oompeli/lon and scoring pm<:edures and such mitigation requirements as ,~ d""",,, apptaPrtate and wa/7'llnted. The applicant proposes that there will be four to five staff members who will work in the offloe year-round. Additionally, medical and other personnel will be traveling with the chilciren. The. applicant has allowed for some permanent housing on-site. Staff qualifies permanent housing as self-contained units; place to sleep, bathroom and kitchen. The staff housing would be configured by staff as follows: Upper Level Plan 1 2-bedroom unit 2.25 = 2.25 FTE's 2 Studio units 1.25 = 2,50 FTE's Lower Level Plan 1 2.bedroom unit 2.25 = 2.25 FTE's 1 1-bedroom unit 1.75 = U2. FTE's TOTAL 6,75 FTE's These units would have to oontain bathrooms and kitchens to be inoluded In the count. This would cover the permanent staff for the project with an additional 3.75 to 4.75 to be used for the additional part-lime staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project with the condition that one year after operation, an audit be conducted on employment. Staff also recommends that the permanent staff units be deed restricted with priority for use of these units to personnel of the Ranch, and categorized as to those employees residing in the units (Category 1, 2 or 3). This gives some flexibility to hire the individuals that are needed at the Ranch, 1"""\ ,-' MEMORANDUM From: Mitch Haas, Planner Nick Adeh, City Engin~ c:1 Chuck Roth, Project Engineer {J.,-t<- February 27, 1997 To: Thru: Date: Re: Silver Lining Ranch - Annexation, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Conditional Use, SPA & Special Review (parcel ID No. 2737-184-05-805) I have reviewed the above referenced application, and I have the following comments: 1. Improvement Survey - The application did not include an improvement survey. A CUITent improvement survey is vital to the planning process for knowledge of existing easernents, and utilities. If topography is needed for slope reductions or top of slope, and if it is drawn on this sheet, the title should be "irnprovement and topographic survey." 2. Additional Review Categories - The project is also subject to 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, and Environmentally Sensitive Area reviews. Responses to those review criteria should be required prior to proceeding. J, Sidewalk. Curb and Gutter - The nearby portions of Ute Avenue do not include sidewalk, curb and gutter. The applicant will be required to sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter agreement 'with the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, 4. Ute Avenue Cul-de-sac - The site plan does not indicate if the cul-de-sac is a public right-of- way or an access easement. Note that the cul-de-sac is in Pitkin County, not in the City. 5. Trash & Utilities - Show trash containment area on final development plans. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals must be installed on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way or access easement. For pedestals, easements must be provided. The building permit drawings must indicate all utility meter locations. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. All utility extensions must be buried. 1 r--. ~ 6, Site Drainage - The application states that drainage will be retained on site, This project must meet runoff design standards of Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.fwith the building permit application including a drainage report and mitigation plan signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. Also, the building permit application must include a permanent erosion control plan and a temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. 7. Snow Storage -' The applicant is advised to consider providing snow storage areas in the site design. 8. Access - The width of the access easement through the property must be upgraded to 20 feet to meet emergency access width requirements, and emergency access to the new building must be 20 feet wide. That is, the driving surface must be 20 feet wide and must be cleared of snow for the full width. A dedicated fire engine turn around meeting Fire Marshal requirements must be provided that will be free of parked cars. Where the driveway ties in with the cul-de-sac, it should be as close to perpendicular as possible with a 20 foot return radius on each side, For purposes of air quality considerations, that is PM-! 0 and non-attainment, the driveway should be required to be paved. 9, Trail Easement - It should be a condition of approval for the annexation, or for any other appropriate component of the application, that the applicant provide a riverside trail easement on one or both sides of the river as will be further discussed by the Parks Department in their separate memorandum. The applicant should also be required to dedicate fishing easements on both sides of the river to a distance of five feet beyond the mean high water line. . 10. Ramps - The ramps will be required to conform with ADA width and grade requirements. I L 100-vear Floodplain - The proposed site plan shows a corral that is located partially in the 100-year floodplain. The applicant must be warned that the corral fencing would obstruct floodbom debris which could cause a rise in the flood level and potential damage to adjacent properties. 12. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - The applicant is advised to consider the following issues: a Where will the swimming pool be drained? b. Show existing sanitary sewer lines on the parcel. There is a serious concern that the proposed building site is located on top of an existing sewer line, c. Have other parcels in the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision obtained sanitary sewer service through the applicant's lot 5? An easement for those service lines must be shown if it has to be maintained by others (not the owners). 2 ,"", "'" d. An oil and grease interceptor will be needed for the kitchen and an oil and sand interceptor for the garage. e. Blood born waste disposal from the medical suite must be addressed prior to issuance of a , building permit. 13. Fire Marshall - The application did not discuss fire protection concerns. In addition to the access requirements discussed in number 8 above, the applicant is advised the that Fire Marshall requires sprinkling of the building and an alarm system. 14. Improvement Districts - The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement districts that are formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of- way and to provide a signed and notarized agreement with recording fees prior to the final building inspection. 15. Work in the Public Right-of-wav - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval frorn city engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes , street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the city community development department. M97,36 3 I~, I~ I EXJfl8IT" CD) .S~e4.. /It:ut- '1i!~ ~V 1'~ if~ 9619,44{Ju. e~,'Uf.u. rl612 P~'9u (97C) 92C-1125 . February 26, 1997 Mr. Mitch Haas, Planner City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: ADDENDUM TO KIDS STUFF FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. Dear Mitch, Based on our recent telephone conversations, I am hereby submitting this letter as an addendum to the Kids Stuff Foundation Development Application. The purpose of this. letter is to provide you with application materials to address the standards for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) that you have identified for this property, these being 8040 Greenline Review and Stream Margin Review. 8040 Greenline Review The elevations on this property range from approximately 8020, on the upper bench, to approximately 7990, on the lower bench. Therefore, technically, the'proposed development is subject to the standards of 8040 Greenline Review. It should be pointed out,however, that 8040 Greenline Review was principally intended to address development proposed on Aspen Mountain and other steep lnllsideswithin the City of Aspen. We have, nonetheless, provided responses to the standards contained in Section 26.68.030 C; of the Aspen Land, Use Regulations, as follows: 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is. suitable for development, considering its slope, ground. stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Response: The suitability of the proposed development site has been addressed in our original application. As the Site Plan shows, the proposed location of this development has avoided virtually all of the steeply sloping portions of the site and has been located outside of all designated avalanche hazard areas, ~, 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect' on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Response: The proposed development will not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, nor cause increased runoff, drainage or soil erosion. As is discussed in the Stream Margin section of this letter, the development has been 10cated outside of the flood plain of the Roaring Fork River, to avoid any irnpacts on water quality. Drainage associated with development of the upper bench will be detained on-site and drywells will be placed under the parking area, sidewalks and other impervious surfaces. Gutters will be used on the roof of the building, to direct water to the drywells. Plant materials will be installed along the proposed pedestrian rarnp to stabilize and re- vegetate the hillside. Rocks, boulders and sirnilar native material will be used on the hillside below the building to stabilize disturbed areas. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Response: There should be no significant impacts on air quality from the proposed development. The proposed building contains no wood burning devices and there will be just one (1) gas log device in the living room. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with. the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Response: As was described in our original application, the development has been located on the upper bench, which avoids the need to cut a new road into the hillside. It avoids virtually all of the steeply sloping portions of the property and avoids the flood plain. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation' and natural features. Response: We have submitted a preliminary grading plan with our original application. We have prepared a rnore detailed grading plan that we will subrnit, at the request of the City, or that we will be happy to present at any public rneeting regarding this application. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Response: See the response to standard #4, above. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 2 f"""', ~ Attached, please find a letter, submitted to us by Jay Hammond, P.E. Mr. Hammond states that he has determined that the flood plain boundary we have depicted reflects the 1987 FEMA maps prepared for Pitkin County. His letter states that: "My review would indicate that, the flood plain boundary, shown on the Existing. Conditions Map may, in fact, be. conservative (ie., higher into the site) than the FEMA map and profiles indicate". The Site PIan illustrates that the only development that is proposed for the lower bench is a swimming pool, horse stable and corral. These structures have been located outside of the flood plain boundary shown on the map, which may, in fact, be higher on the site than the actual flood plain on the ground. Therefore, there' should be no impact on the base flood elevation from any of this development. We will design the fence around the stable with rail . logs that are sufficiently above the ground to allow debris associated with flood waters to pass through the property. The only planned habitable space, is well above the flood plain boundary (by more than 30') and cannot possibly affect the base flood elevation. 2. Any.. trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open SpacelTrailsPlan map is dedicated for public use. Response: No trails are designated through this property on the Trails Plan Map. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. . Response: The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan recommends that trees. not be cut along the River, that the River not be filled in and its banks not be graded. It also recommends that disturbed areas be brought back to as natural a state as possible, including the use of native plant species. This proposal does not require any trees to be removed along the River, and will not fill in the River nor grade its banks. The landscape plan proposes that native , species of trees and grasses be planted around the proposed building, 4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation o/the stream bank. Response: The proposed development does not propose to rernove stream bank vegetation or to make stream bank slope grade changes. . 5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary. Response: 'The development will not interfere with or change the River course. The applicant recognizes the potential for the horse stable to result in pollution to the River. Therefore, if the City determines iUo be necessary, we will place a low berm around the stable to keep pollutants from reaching the River. 4 '" Response: As described in our original application, we have reduced the rnass of the structure by tucking the building into the small knoll on the upper bench and by heavily landscaping the north and south sides of the building. . 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Response: Utilities are already in place to serve this site and are addressed in greater detail . in the original application. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. Response: There is access to the property directly from Ute Avenue. 10.. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow.removal equipment. Response: We have purposely 10cated the building on the upper bench to ensure easy access to the site for emergency vehicles, -including not only fire protection vehicles, but also emergency rnedical services. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/TraiIs Plan map is dedicated for public use. Response: No trails designated on the Plan rnap cross the property. Stream Margin Review Because we propose development that is located within 100' of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, this development is also subject to strearn margin review. Our responses to the standards of standards of Section 26.68.040 B. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations are as follows: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation wjll not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. . Response: The 100 year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River is shown on the Site Plan and . Existing Conditions Map, both of which were included in our original application. 3 """,,, . """" 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice Is submitted to the Federal . Emergency Management Agency.. Response: No such alteration or relocation is proposed, so no written notice is required. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. Response: Since no alteration or relocation is proposed, no guarantee is required. 8. 90pies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. Response: No work is plarined within the 100 year floodplain, so no copies of permits are necessary. 9. There is no development other than approved vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within 15 feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. Response: The proposed development is located considerably above the top' of the bank of . the Roaring Fork River~ 10. All development outside the 15 foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a 45 degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. . Response: Please see our response to standard #13, below. 11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Response: A landscape pIan was submitted with the original application. 12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast, with no lights directed toward the river or located down the slope. Response: If any lighting is used along the lower portion of the property, it will comply with these standards. 13. Site sections drawn by a registered landscape architect or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea leveL 5 ~ ~, Response: Since the only above-grade structure propos,ed on the lower bench is a horse . stable, we have not provided these drawings. If the City determines these are necessary, we will subrnit them prior to the review of this application by the Planning Commission. 14. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Response: We conducted a site analysis of this property last sumrner, when it was not covered with snow, as is currently the case. We have found that the line between wetland and upland vegetation is distinctly visible and approximately corresponds to the 100 year flood plain boundary. Therefore, by developing outside of this boundary, we will be able to avoid impacts on wetland and riparian. vegetation. If necessary, the City can verify the location of this boundary laterthis spring, prior to any construction taking place. I hope this letter has provided all of the information you require to. complete your review. Please let rne know if there is anything else you require. ' Very truly yours, Jh;:BER~CFS Alan Richman, AICP 6 f~ ~ I EXHIBIT ot8"1 Memorandum TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development Planner FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department Pierre Wille, Nordic Trails Coordinator DATE: February 26,1997 RE: Silver Lining Ranch We have reviewed the application for the Silver Lining Ranch for annexation, rezoning, GMQS Exemption, conditional use, SPA and special review. The City of Aspen Parks Department maintains a public Nordic trail on the south edge of the Benedict Property, This winter use trail easement connects Ute Ave. and the North Star Nature Preserve. The trail contours along the base of the mountain approximately parallel to the avalanche red zone indicated on the plat by the Alpine Surveys. It appears as though the Nordic trail lies entirely outside of the proposed Silver Lining Ranch parcel.. However, occasionally (e.g. once every few years?), there may be a need to relocate the Nordic trail temporarily due to possible avalanche slides in the area. We would like to request the option to cross the southerly triangular part of the property if necessary. We would notify and work with the applicant when or if the need arises to realign the trail in this area temporarily but condition that such a request not be withheld unreasonably, We would still need to obtain permission from the adjoining property owner prior to any temporary realignment as well. Due to this property being annexed into the City, the applicant may be required to apply for a tree removal permit if some trees are proposed to be removed. Trees that would require a permit prior to any excavation or tree removal include: scrub oak over 3 caliper inches in diameter (measured at 4 1/2 ft. above grade), conifers over 4 caliper inches or deciduous trees over 6 caliper inches. Trees that are removed are required to be mitigated, however, it appears that many new trees are propose:: :0 be planted. The applicant should review if any trees may be impacted by any of the development proposal (including the pool, stables, parking areas etc.) as soon as possible. Additionally, no excavation should occur within the dripline of trees and no stockpiling of material, dirt or other debris should be done within the drip lines of trees, The final comment on the application is the location of the corral. It appears as though a significant portion of the corral may extend into the 100 year flood plain area. Horses and other livestock can significantly impact riparian areas. The applicant should have a wetlands delineation done to insure that the corral rernain outside of the sensitive areas. Additionally, during high water, if this area becomes saturated or flooded, this could pose a threat to the horses. A possible solution would be to have a second corral in the southerly portion of the property to be used during the spring run-off and as a secondary pasture to avoid over-grazing. 1""'\ ,'-' We would request though, that any fencing for this area be able to be temporarily dismantled (i.e. barbed wire, wire mesh or split rail) if the need arose to cross the area for Nordic access, The applicant should also have this area reviewed by the Division of Wildlife prior to putting up a fence, because there may be some guidelines they have due to the proximity of this property to elk habitat. 2 "" . ,...." ENGINEERS SURVEYORS t""'\ (970) 925-6727 FAX (970) 925.4157 SG M SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER P,O, Box 2155 Aspen, CO 81612 February 25, 1997 Mr. David Brown STRYKER I BROWN ARCHITECTS 300 South Spring Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Lot 5. Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. Silver Un/no Ranch. Flood Hazard Boundarv Dear David: I am writing in follow-up to our recent conversations regarding the flood hazard boundary shown on the mapping associated with the Silver Uning Ranch project on Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. I would begin by noting that the mapping and related flood plain boundary definition were not prepared by our surveyors or our firm. My understanding, through conversations with Sunny Vann, Tom Stevens and Jim Breasted (of Alpine Surveys) is that the flood hazard line was located on the site plan drawing by Tom Stevens in the planning phase for the subdivision approval. Tom's interpretation of the flood hazard boundary was taken from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for Pitkin County (Panel 204 of 325) dated June 4,1987. . I have reviewed the undated Existing Conditions Map for the Silver Uning Ranch by Alpine Surveys as well as the site plan for the project based on the sarne mapping against the brochure map of the flood hazard boundary prepared in 1987 by FEMA, While it is usually difficult to correlate the FEMA mapping with site-specific conditions, it is somewhat easier in this location due to the location of the City Limit line bounding the site which is also shown on the 500 scale FEMA map. My review would indicate that the flood plain boundary shown on the Existing Conditions Map may in fact be conservative (ie. higher into the site) than the FEMA map and profiles indicate. According to FEMA, the floodwater profile elevation 7984 is located at approximately the "i" in "Roaring Fork" on the Alpine map. According to FEMA, tfJe floodplain is only about 50 feet wide at this location whereas it is shown at closer to 100 feet wide and approaching 7986 to 7988 in elevation on the Alpine map, Where the Roaring Fork leaves the property to the southeast, FEMA indicates a flood hazard elevation of 7986 whereas the Alpine mapping is in the 7988 to 7990 range and, again, broader than FEMA shows. In short, it is my opinion that the 10o-year flood plain boundary shown on the Alpine Survey Existing Conditions map and related site Plan for the Silver Lining Ranch is appropriate if not conservative in defining potential development limitations on the lower portion ofthe property. It is also worth noting that the main level of the only habitable building in the proposed project is some 36 feet above the adjacent floodplain, Development proposed on the lower bench is limited to non-habitable space including a stable building, corral and possible swimming pool. I hope these comments will be sufficient for your building permit process for the Silver Lining Ranch project. Let me know if you require additional comment or detail. Given the evidence associated with the FEMA mapping for this site and the configuration of the development 118 West 6th, Suite 200' Glenwood Springs, Colorado' (970) 945.1004 ... ,J-., ~ : February 25, 1997 Mr. David Brown Page 2 proposal, we do not feel that a site-specific flood hazard analysis would be warranted for this location and development plan. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 0J.0r >5 ay . Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JHJjh SLA1 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ~~ ZONE ~ ZONE X PITKIN COUNTY INCORPORATED AREAS 080287 - "0 ~ ~'::--.. ~~_...,;,~. .....,.''''~ R~ II' :.,. ::~=: ~ ,....':, :-\oJ!:!" . :.~:~ ..:..; :;iL :Q.i;! V' I: =.::~ .i .-<:..: ;;to R -Z~ ~ _.. __ '.-1, =-:--=--::o:~, "",,;, '-=r~- '-"'- ( \ ! I \ '\ I \ ! 1\ I: .l~ k ',. "-.....!,--./ I , dl ,~u .i~~ Ill' .~_""I .., ", . ~ s ~! 6! ...1 i Ii l ?)~ ' &' .d<l' I \ \ ~ ~ ~\:0 ' {j>fII rJl(\ Ii (>1'7 "I ~/ .:j~ ~ ~ Oi III II) % I'll 11, '\" '"' Iql '1'1 I.. I,ll "' ------~.._~._-_...._-, -,"- .~_._,~"-",;,--',-,~---,,--",,--,-,.,,--,,'-"-"-~+,-"""'------~--- r"- .-, PUBLIC NOTICE RE: SILVER LINING RANCH ANNEXATION, REZONING, GMQS EXEMPTION, CONDmONAL USE, SPAAND SPECIAL REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 4, 1997 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p,rn. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen" to consider an application submitted by the Kids Stuff Foundation, requesting approval to create a permanent facility combining dormitory accommodations, medical facilities, group dining, recreation facilities and housing for the staff. The project will require the following land development approvals: . Annexation of the property by the City of Aspen; . Rezoning to Acamdemic (A)/Conservation (C)/SP A; . GMQS Exemption for development associated with a non-profit entity; . Consolidated Conceptual and'FfuaTSPA; . Conditional Use Review for dormitory housing, health care facility and dining hall; and . Special Review to establish parking requirements for the Ranch, The property is located at Lot 5 Stillwater Ranch Subdivision aka Silver Lining Ranch. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S, Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. s/Sara Garton. Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on February 15, 1997 City of Aspen Account '* Alan;e, ~ rL!.t.tid up c.opl..( u/oN,. '. .~. ~ V'"e. ~ MEMORANDUM THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY ArrORNEY'S OFFICE FROM: Mayor and Members of Council JohnP, Worcester ~ TO: DATE: January 7,1997 RE: Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, Lot 5 (Silver Lining) Annexation - January 13 Public Hearing This matter is on Council's agenda for a public hearing to determine compliance with certain provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 as part of the statutory required process for amJexing unincorporated property into the City. If Council determines at the public hearing that compliance with these provisions exist, then an ordinance to amJex will be prepared for Council's consideration at a later date. As with all ordinances, a public hearing will be scheduled as part of second reading of the amJexation ordinance, The appropriate time for interested citizens to offer comments on issues, other than compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act, regarding the amJexation of the parcel to the City would be during the second reading of the amJexation ordinance. The public hearing scheduled for the 13th can, therefore, be limited to the sole issue of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act. At Council's regular meeting on November 25, 1996, Resolution No, 68, Series of 1996, was adopted. That resolution found substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.RS. (the technical requirements for a petition for amJexation); established January 13, 1997 as the date for a public hearing to determine compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.RS., (described below); and authorized the institution of zoning procedures for land in the area proposed to be amJexed, January 13. Because 100% of the property owners have consented to the proposed amJexations, amJexation elections are not required. However, at the public hearing, Council must make a determination that the proposed amJexations are in compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 of the state amJexation statutes, Appended hereto for your information is a copy of these state statutes, I"" ~. Section 31-12-104, C.RS., sets forth specific eligibility requirements which Council must find and determine at the scheduled hearing. These eligibility requirements are set forth iIi the proposed resolutions. The facts that support the determination of compliance will be presented by staff at the hearing, In addition, Section 31-12-105, C.R.S. imposes a set of limitations on every annexation. It is these limitations that Council must also consider at the public hearing scheduled for the 13th. I have also attached a copy of a proposed resolution which you may adopt as Council's written findings and determinations following the public hearing. The proposed resolution summarizes the limitations of Section 31-12-105 in the form of factual statements that will need to be established at the public hearing. cc: Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Nick Adeh, City Engineer Kathryn Koch, City Clerk g:\letters\jwOl0797.mem ~ ...-, 31-12-104. Eligibilit)' for annexation. (I) An ~reais eligible for annexa- tion if the governing body, at a hearIng as provided m sectlon 31.12-109, finds and determines: (a) That n01 less than one-sixth of the. perimete: of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexmg mumclpal1ty. Contiguity shall not be affected by the exis1ence of a plaited street or alley, a publ1c or prIvate right-of-way, a public or private transponatio.n right-of-way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or anlficlal waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed, (b) That' a community of interes1 exists between the area proposed !o be annexed and the annexing municipality; 1hat said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said area is integrated wilh Or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality, The fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing munici- pality required by paragraph (a) of this subsection (I) shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements ~ the governing body, upon the basis of competent evidence presented at the hearing provided for in section 31-12-109, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist: (I) Less than fifty percent of the adul1 residents of the area proposed 10 be annexed make use of pan or all of the fOllowing types of facilities of the annexing municipality: Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial. or commercial; and less than twenty-five percent of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are no adult residents a1 the lime of the hearing. this standard shall not apply, (II) One-half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets) is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intention to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years, (III) It is not physically practicable 10 extend to 1he area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to all of its citizens on 1he same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. This standard shall not apply to 1he extent that any ponion of an area proposed to be annexed is provided or will wi1hin the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or through a quasi-municipal corporation. f"""\ "-". 31-12-105. Limitations. (I) Notwithstanding any provisions of this part 1 to the contrary, the following limitations shall apply to all annexations: (a) In establishing the boundaries of any territory to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, shall be divided into separate parts or parcels without the written consent of the land- -owners thereof unless such tracts or parcels are separated by a dedicated . ~t, road, or other public way. (b) In establishing the boundaries of any area proposed to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, com- prising twenty acres or more (which, together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon has a valuation for assessment in excess of two hundred thousand dollars for ad valorem tax purposes for the year next preceding the annexation) shall be included under this pan I without the ' written consent of the landowners unless such tract ofland is situated entirely within the outer boundaries of the annexing municipality as they exist at the time of annexation. In the application of this paragraph (b), contiguity shall not be affecled by a dedicated street, road, or other pUblic way. (c) No annexation resolution pursuant to section 31-12-106 and no annexation petition or petition for an annexation election pursuant to section 31-12-107 shall be valid when annexation proceedings have been commenced for the annexation of part or all of such territory to another municipality, ' except in accordance with the provisions of section 31-12-114. For the pur-I pose of this section, proceedings are commenced when the petition is filed with the clerk of the annexing municipality or when the resolution of intent i is adopted by the governing body of the annexing municipality if action on ' the acceptance of such petition or on the resolution of intent by the settiIig of the hearing in accordance with section 31-12-108 is taken within ninety days after the said filings if an annexation procedure initiated by petition for annexation is then completed within the one hundred fifty days next following the effective date of the resolution accepting the petition and setting the hearing date and if an annexation procedure initiated by resolu- tion of intent or by petition for an annexation election is prosecuted without unreasonable delay after the effective date of the resolution setting the hear- ing date. (d) As to any annexation which will result in the detachment of area from ,any school district and the attachment of the same to another school district, no annexation resolution pursuant to section 31-12-106 or annexation peti~ tion or petition for an annexation election pursuant to section 31-12-107 is valid unless accompanied by a resolution of the board of directors of the school district to which such area will be attached approving such annexa- tion. j;j n' -I -',I W W ~~ ",S",;}" '" '" w w "I:. ~ ~ ~ t r ~ ~ ~ w 3 ~ ~ ~ 8gg!:? ~~~~ '.N--n '" '" w w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g g 0> .... -=1 -(j) Ul Ci> w- (J) )> -l -l -I s: ::r: ;::OOP)>.oc ZZ~ZO<: )> m < ' ^ J> GllDP~mZ )>)>-I)>tn::O ;u::om:;o)>c -< CD ;U ,_ ::tl -l ?u ;u rn:;:v :r: )>~ffi-<r )>~o I o ;:: m o :;: z c )> <: m en )> 8 I Z Z m '" HI Z ~ I r )> Z o -- in s: o o ^ m '- C r m N"'.)~:')"j.Jt-.) ---.. ...:; --4 -J -J -J (UWW (.o)WW ~ -;J "I:. ~ ~ ~ 'I: 0l~Q.l~0l~ ~~~w6~ , . . 1- t. . :5",g~o...g _ m ~ 51 ~ ~ Ol ~ ~ ~ b ~ . . t- , B:5q:5 a ~ - ...... :3 8 51:5 rn ffi (j; ffi l> ~~m~m N 1::i-f;.j -J....... --J W (U L.l ~.I ....... .....j !... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 889 0> '" w "18:5 8 8 .f:> 00 00 en 00 (}l~(nUl(}l ::! '" ~ 8l ~ ,.I 'N "'fj ,.s'n (jlJ(jzj~ ~~~~?: ;:ti' -u -=u ~ 0 Z Z -~ 1:1-s:'t-.p F ~ OOO)>COl>po)>ccc mrGlr~o::u-iro::u~rri-< WC) -i-l:r.m);:G>::u;.u~ ~?;!)>~6I~::O_~m,-:;:u <z'- Ow::OZ-'OQo ~m~~2o~~~g;~ffi() ~z z"TI< )>~o)>"Uo z<Z rn{j):;umw;oI)> ~)>z z?Qo:.urn1:?:(') -l <-< ^~)> 0 s: - r III 0 Z ~ ... )> en 0 r 0 ~ Gl m " ;= r o -< '- o en m " I ;:: o 'U )> o o -6 '" z c r= ):> or-I ... 0 I r -< )> rn 0 ~ )> en 0 (Dmz ~C; 'Z ;::0 0)> '0 )> o o '0 _.._'~ -:n"'- ~ o ;0)> I )>-f Z ~ ffi g Cii ~ Z .. I rri ;B =0 en In en In )> 0 s: )> Z o o ~ Ol ~ ~ ~ g 0>'" 8:5 8 ~ ffi ~~ rn i!j g: III 'e. 'e. cn;o IO ITIr r r 0:;; 0... Z m ;0;0 o Z '" )> III -l ;00 ...Z )> r o o ;0 " o ;0 )> en I m r o o Z '" )> ;0 '" )> ;0 )> )> en '- o Z -f -I ITI o ~ <0 W f5 <0 :;: :;: _ 0 r 0 (JJo :!; ;:: ;0 m rn ;0 ",m r 0 Ci;o 'lO v. o o ~~~~~~I~~~~~i~'il! ~ s;: :i i! 0 :E ~ (0 ~ ~ ~ lD ~ Z ~ ~ OJ m~)>;:uO. ;uU5mN~w"U~rnc~ ~wZ~G~~~~&~~~o~~~ m ::r: ~ < a -< s:: -< m (D ;0 -< 0 ::u m Z r oomm~o~ z~;u"U)>-< ;0;0 oo_c ~' <0 In ::0 Z OJ OJ..... m:::U o w-l< < ^ (U :;0 <:::uo 0::0 ::0 Oc/) C/) 0 0 ~-1 -IW'I ~ ~ ~ r o 0 Ii> (JJ -, m w 0> o .~. 'j; 1;; j;'C (JJ )> " 0 m" z (JJ o Z ''1 l> '< (jj W' (I. ::r: c/) )> m ~ 0 Q""UZ<=i' cmzmJ:O en Z c ::u 11 :;:v }> -< ~ m}> z Ul r 0 o ;! 0 0 o r (JJ )> r" " (JJ;>} (JJ - Z Gl en F 'z ~ '0 "F' Z ~ 'F ';') gf6*~g~mg~ ~:iZ)>Gl~-<=ti~:1 Gltn GlOOGl< m::O O'll::O;;urnO '-0 r^-1'::O mO m rn-l (j) A (j) Y) ::c "If.~'ii OJ;)> ~~~ :;: 0 o " ;U )> ... r I 1ii )> o m en 0=0 )> r 0 wmm 00- 000> '" 0> - .... N - r , , r= ~ ~~ 7" <0 'il n r)> <;r<o W 0 N fdjj . ~ 000 )> 0 )> ~ ~ ~ W ~ Q ? .. ~ ~ ~, _.., 1 ,,_ ,,,1_.-- n <: c> 0 )> );0 0 0 ~Cl~~ '" t, <0 ~ NO Q , . y' , ,:)"1:3" ~'J ....... ~~ 'N N rS't:.r --J ;.; ~.J -I W ...... W w ~~?!~ ~~~~~ , '? 6 '~ I}l :58-Ci~ .... <!l (0 -J - 0> ~ '" .~~ i ~ -~ -~ lJ~(Dm~& 2S~-~ o:!; o Z Z (/)m-l6 (I):!! en...... -l me'" Cr(J)'- =H 0 );0 ~ 11 rn z z O r' ~ C s: :::.. 0 z)> ;:: or)> )>... ;0 6~ ~ Z... r -m ... ~ rn ~ (JJ ... ..~ 5: Z ~ [:J-f mI rm of;; I Z 0;:: :;: )> ;>} o -f ;0 C (JJ -, m rn '- l>z (JJ m ~ :;: Z -< o ;0 " II'I m )> )> )>;0 ;>} o ... -f :";Oij;: ;oOc rn 0 ::u ~ m)> ;0 I o " :n "(.: .-.- :E- O )> I ;0 Z -f (JJ " o )> Z -f o ;0 o 0 ~ j;: :-;! r-~ -;>} Z)> 0_ o ;0 r - Z m < ;= r;; Gl rn z~ -< )> -0 :5 - '" ::i 'I" 'I" ~ 0 -I 0 0 UlOZOO 'Of o)'-GiOlOJ en -" ~.I .... -" N 01 IV 01 (J') 0-" 0 .... -. O':l .... N ..... N , , . , , 8 8-8~'~-~.g_.~ ;U;:OO:;UZ~=1O ooo~N_trn::E oOS:zS:o;oz Z z}> . C . ~s:z"U~S;()R1 )>)>)>lTIrn;uJ:z :;:o:::oenrrirm~rn j1j iii "U ;.u"TI (J) rn ';1 ;1 ~ ::! .; 6;5;::0 ~2? iiiffi~ ~ z Z - m z z ~ III rnmz 0 toOJ-l "Tl ~~)> ;U rn m r- () Q j: -G') 0 o mm ;0 :;:u z::u 0 o ~ en :;: o -<~ Z Z ~ (... :c (; 0 F ~ ?t ~ m ~ ~ Qo6; go :!: 0,- () OJ 0 -I 0 )> ~ --I ~ Z "U III -0 ^ ):>0 z )> Z z)oo Z )> -< Z .( () Q~ 0 o 0 0 ~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~m~@~~~~~ (J)COlOS:COCOO OJccc onc()cc 1J -I -I X en -l >< -i >< ;U ~ ::tl -I -I -I ~ :;:u ::0 -I ;;u -I -I ;orn-i(J')C/)mNrrlN-<(j)ommm -<-<nl-<rnrn Z p I ~ -0 )> "'0 )> -J c/) }> ):> }> )> l> (ft VI (f) )> c/) ):> p G)<W < <-J-trO<<<>-I-I<-I<<J:o m -I ~ Z m ?J m N f?:. r s:: m m In ::: )> )> m f? m m 0- ~ ~~ ~~g ~~~ ~ ~ < r ^-~ 4^^ ^ ~ m Z men mrn m IJl -l G> ;0 --I ;;0;:0 :;0 (J) Dm 00 0 ~:;E ~ ;0 0 0 ;0 0 -f I [-}"l{ 't{ f:>, -~,~ E{ T:~ [1 wwwwwwww ~~?!?:'I:~?!~ ~~~t~~~;z. ~h8~~~e~3 gb~8gbbg (}l:a.......(J')(D~:a""' :351g5185151en en 'f!UlOlVlUIg. <!l (Xl (;) 0 +-0. W tAl ft rnffi(,()~:1~~a. Z o [1" (1 '!1 -,~ (.0) (.0) (.oJ' J ~ ~ ~ :" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6ww~~9 f' f';J ~ , b 1'" ~~~go2l (J')~NONN ~ .... U1 0> <0 0> 0> .1" l' I< 0 :!:; f- a Ci w U> g g S! :3 :3 g g ti1 ~ Q) 00 ()) ~,I m & fa ~ W --l 01 .... (0 IJ,IJ, ........ ON l> 'zl>l> en;po C/) (J) "lJ C/l "U -0 mIrnm z < z z ;= r- m n T:~ -: (.01 w ... ?!~~ A 0: III Ul .... c =Il -OJ -00 OJ 'j;; 0 ccrn(j)o-f_1 -t -I Z 'U rnmrnrnI:I: :;u:::o D Z s: s: )00 ):- 0 () 0 0 ~ i~'~~~~i o(/~z~)>~ ~ ~ m -I Z Z flI :;:0 ;;u Z (lI 0 03 OCJm~~~~ "'00 0:2 Z Z:r: I )>cc r -f'" z)>)> '" C -I m ;0 )> '- C r m )> Z -f I o Z -< ~ = ~ Z " 3 ~ '" $0 ~ l> l>'l> n l> l> l>)>" l> ~~<n~~~o~~~~!g~~ rn()(J)mmm mrnmmrnm z):>oozzzl>zzzzzz Gl Z Gl Q o 0 ~ o=";-;i;ooo Or-WOOD 'of OJ -0) '00 co" 00 cn3:RJo;o;ffi .... 0 0 .... -' ..... .... I}l......... !!I !!l ~ ;= 0 o '0)"-05" @ m ~ :: . , o [) 00 "~"~. ~ ~ 00 00 Ijj'ljj ~ ~ .... 7''' "f> o ~ N ~ -0> I""-, .1""'\ N tj tJlt3 ..., '" '" (,J,U) ~ ~ -....j""'-J ~ .!.. '?1 '?1 ~ ~ &. 0 '" 0 :!: 'i' !? 8 8 ~ N - '" ~ '0 0' -0: '" '" t; g: ~ g: ((j '" '" ..., .... '" '" :;; :;; c c (j) ;= .... :r: m ,. m '" j; r- s: 0 .... ,. z ;0 :r: ;0 .... ^ c -( :r: "0 Gl 0 ,. :r: ~ ;0 () .... '" z :r: m ;0 '" :r: .'ii r- .... 1:J - - 'j> () () r- 0 Z 5 m r- ;0 m ,. 0 0 z 0 ,. r- ;0 g: 0 :::; <- m 0 " ,. ;0 -l Z m ;0 ~ ~. a; N '" '" '" '" .... '" () '" () c ,. )> .... s: s: ;0 m Z 0 0 ,. 0 z z < ,. 0 m ,. ;0 m r- () r- .... :r: m 0 .. -l .. Gl '" 8 ~ .... ~ l> ';:;; Ii; z en m "0 r- "0 :;; m r- m Z ,; ;z: 0 r- ;0 r- r- m m -( ,. Z en 6 (j 0 .f; 0 ,. 0 '" ~ '" ..., <?i <?i ~ '" ~ ~ '? , , '" @ .... -. '-- _,eo._ , ! o g . c 3 a " ~ CIl n '" " '" z o ~ " ~ z .. fi - ~ " ~ z ~ N )> '" '" iil ~ ~ D -< !il .. it N .;;' '; r- . i . ~- I , l' . L r- r- , ( r- i r- , j r ! , ~r- ,.... , ,,,',1 ,.... r-, i " , "f , r- ' .'r-'_ I r ,... i , ('. 1'\ ' "SILVERLININGRANCI-I ' ,,' " ",' " ,'" ", . '," " -. . . DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION , " . FOR ANNEXATION, REZONING, . " . ",". . .. . '.."',' '. l , ' " . . , """ ,"" " " . . . GMQS EXEMPTION, CONDmONAL USE, .' , " . " ' '. ". ,',' . '..,. SPA AND,.SPECIALREVIEW . '. ' SUBMI'I'TEn TO . '.. SUQi\1ITTED,BY '. ,i\LAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES . . . '.' BQX 3(i13 ' .' ASPE)N, C()I..ORADO 8161.2' . 920- l125 ... - ... r" "'" ... ... - ,... - - ... ... .... - /"""., 'P~ s~ go" S61S A4/U*. ~ 6'1612 P~7tU (970) 920-1125 January 31, 1997 Mr. Stan Clauson, Comrnunity Development Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: KIDS STUFF FOUNDATION DEVEWPMENT APPLICATION Dear Stan, Attached please find twenty (20) copies of a land use application requesting annexation, rezoning and associated approvals for the Kids Stuff Foundation. Five (5) full-sized sets of the Site Plan and Existing Conditions Survey are also being provided for your use. Also enclosed is a single copy of the following item, as requested in my pre-application meeting with you: . A list of the owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property. As a non-profit organization, Kids Stuff Foundation hereby requests that the City waive the land use application fee for this project. Should you have any questions or need any additional inforrnation during the period of staff review of this application, please feel free to contact me at the address or phone nurnber above. Thank you for your assistance while this application was being prepared and for your continuing attention to this project. . Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES ~ ~p ... ,-.. .JlII{:,;. - !"- - - - - - - - ,..., - - - - ... ,.... ,-, ,.. ... r-. .~ TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. APPLICATION REQUEST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 II. PROJECT PROPOSAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 3 III. AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP ........... 14 IV. GMQS EXEMPTION .......................................... 18 V. CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL SPA ................. 20 VI. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 VII. SPECIAL REVIEW TO ESTABLISH PARKING REQUIREMENT....... 25 ... !"- - ... - - - - ... ... ... - - - - ,... ... - - /""'I 1""'\. I. APPLICATION REQUEST This is an application to create a permanent home for the Kids Stuff Foundation in Aspen. The Kids Stuff Foundation is a non-profit organization that brings groups of up to twenty (20) children with cancer and life threatening medical conditions to Aspen for a week of relaxation and adventure in the Rocky Mountains. Participants are given the opportunity to take a break from their hospital and medication schedules and to enjoy a nurturing atmosphere where they can make friends and share difficulties, solutions and experiences with children similar to themselves. The Foundation was the beneficiary of the gift of Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch, a/kJa, "The Silver Lining Ranch", by the Benedict family. Lot 5 contains 6.457 acres (over 281,000 sq. ft.). A vicinity map illustrating the location of the property is provided on the following page. Proof of the ownership of the property is provided by the deed to the property, attached hereto as Exhibit #1. The owner of the property (hereinafter, "the Applicant") is being represented by Alan Richman Planning Services for purposes of this application. A letter from Andrea Jaeger, President of the Foundation, confirming this arrangement is attached as Exhibit #2. Kids Stuff Foundation has been operating in the Aspen Area since 1990. Since the Foundation has not had a facility in which it could provide housing or meals for the children, they have been staying in local lodges and eating in local restaurants. This has considerably increased the cost to the Foundation for each group that it brings to Aspen. But, more importantly, it has prevented the children from sharing their entire week's experiences together and has limited the ability of the Foundation to offer continuous, on-site medical supervision for the children. The Foundation has been able to use the Silver Lining Ranch for the outdoor enjoyment of the groups it brings to Aspen. The Foundation is now ready to create a permanent facility on the property that will allow the children to stay there while they visit Aspen. The facility will combine dormitory accommodations, medical facilities, group dining, recreation facilities and housing for staff. A pre-application conference was held with City staff to discuss this project. Based on this meeting, it was confirmed that the following land development approvals are required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations to accomplish this project: 1. Annexation of the subject property by the City of Aspen. This process has already been initiated by the submission of a petition to annex by the applicant and by City Council's adoption of Resolution #68, Series of 1996, on November 25, 1996 and Resolution #3, Series of 1997, on January 13, 1997. An annexation agreement will be submitted as a supplement to this application, when requested by the City. Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Pagel ... ,... ~~= ~zu -;>-z ,.,Jz< --,.." I;I.),.,J..... - - ,... - ,... ... ,.... ,.... - ... ... ,... - ... ... ,... /""'I ,~ ~ - "'- ~'" ~- tIl'" COO ::-0 'C ~ Q.,~~oo c.f.lo~Ln ..c:u"'''' ~ ,'" 5 c"~ ~ t/) ~o;'.o;" 8 "'1<: >< M<:O\J:S! ~ t'CS ~ ~ = ~ 0 =:= .... ~ 1;1.)"0 rIl = "0 = .... 0 ~~ rJj f-< ~ ~ ~Zf-< ~~- ><05 ~~~ rJji:'Q< I:: o ..... .... QJ ~ .-:: 0 IJ:JJooooJ o .."0 = ~ CIJ .. Q.,oS rIl 0 ,,- , ' " ' "14 ~_/'.~ \:1 if, :, ,j <I, 4 ,>,'"" , ~... ~ /~ .c '16' 1!' f-/ .' ~,~\ 0' , , '!'\ <$', -''1~'~'' J~~~ lS ." .< \....1;;;__ l~ \~ :~ ~; .1J,l "1\ - ,... 2. ,... 3. - 4. - - 5. - 6. - - - - - ,... - ... ,... ,.... - - /""'I r- Zoning of the subject property following annexation, pursuant to Chapter 26.92 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The applicant hereby requests that the property be zoned Academic (A)/Conservation (C)/SPA. GMQS Exemption for development associated with a non-profit entity, pursuant to Section 26.100.050 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Consolidated Conceptual and Final SPA Review, pursuant to Chapter 26.80 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Conditional Use Review for dormitory housing, health care facility and dining hall, pursuant to Chapter 26.60 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Special Review to establish the parking requirements for the Ranch, pursuant to Chapter 26.64 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The following sections of this application are organized to respond to the standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations for each of these review procedures. However, before turning to these standards, the next section of this application provides some additional background information about this project, including a description of how the Silver Lining Ranch is intended to be operated, so as to provide a context for review of this proposal. Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 3 - ,... - - ~ ,.... .... - .... - - - ,... - - ".. - - ,.. I"""- 1""'\ II. PROJECT PROPOSAL The Stillwater Ranch Subdivision contains six (6) lots and an open space parcel. The Subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Resolution 94-233, recorded in Book 770, Page 783 of the Pitkin County records. The Final Plat for the Subdivision is recorded at Plat Book 35, Page 86. Kids Stuff Foundation, Inc. is the owner of Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. The Foundation submitted a petition to the City of Aspen to annex the property on November 19, 1996. The Aspen City Council adopted Resolution #68, Series of 1996, and Resolution #3, Series of 1997, determining that the petition complies with certain requirements of the State's annexation statute. The remaining aspects of the annexation procedures are intended to be accomplished coincidentally with the review of this land use application by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Following annexation to the City, the Foundation intends to develop the property to provide a permanent home for its activities. Following is a summary description of those activities. Foundation Plans for the Silver Lining Ranch Kids Stuff Foundation plans to 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, it is anticipated that sessions will be 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 of these children will stay in the building we plan to construct at the Silver Lining Ranch. Children will travel to and from the Ranch in three (3) or four (4) vans. Meals will be served on the premises and many activities (arts and crafts, outdoor recreation, talent shows, etc.) will occur there. It is also anticipated that staff will be housed in the building at the Ranch during these sessions. Apartments will be provided within the building that will 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 are provided within the building. In addition to the regular use of the property for children's sessions, the Foundation would like to make the facility available to other groups whose mission is related to that of the Foundation. Our intent would be to permit small conferences, meetings or retreats by other medical children's groups, cancer groups, pediatric doctors and similar groups. There would Development Application for Sliver Lining Ranch Page 4 '"" !"- ,- - - - - - ~. - - ,... - - - ".... - - ,.. ,.... 1""', be just one (1) such session, lasting one (1) week per month, that would occur only during each of the months that the Foundation does not use the facility (these being January, February, April, May and October). Sessions would involve in the range of twenty (20) to forty (40) people. All attendees at these sessions would be required to travel to and from the facility in vans, to minimize traffic impacts on Ute Avenue. It is also likely that there will be special events held at the Ranch, during the year. We expect there will be no more than fifteen (15) to twenty (20) such evening or full day events per year. These events could include celebrations, dinners, award ceremonies, meetings and fund raising activities. The Ranch will not be open for rental to the general public for special events, although the Foundation may make the Ranch available to the community for non-profit medical events. Once again, all attendees at these events would be required to travel to and from the facility in vans, to minimize traffic impacts on Ute Avenue. Included within the building is the Foundation's permanent office. Approximately four (4) to five (5) staff members will work in the office year-round. These persons will travel to and from the facility using their own vehicles. Also included within the building are apartments that will be occupied by two (2) to six (6) staff persons on a year round basis. These persons may also have their own vehicles. Description of Development Proposal We have provided a Site Plan that illustrates the location of the proposed building and the accessory development to the building that is planned. We have also provided an Existing Conditions survey that illustrates the natural and man-made features and easements on the property and helps the reader to understand why we have chosen the building location shown on the site plan. This can be described as follows. The property is comprised of an upper and a lower bench, separated by a hillside that drops approximately twenty (20) feet. The upper bench contains the existing access to the property from Ute Avenue, and is the portion of the property on which we plan to develop the building. The bench consists of gently rolling terrain, with two small, prominent "knobs". There is some scrub vegetation and some clumps of relatively immature Aspen trees on this bench, but there are no prominent trees there. The upper bench overlooks the lower bench and has spectacular views toward Independence Pass. The lower bench consists of an open meadow and associated wetlands/floodplain areas along the Roaring Fork River. There is a distinguishable edge in the meadow separating the "water influenced" vegetation from the remainder of the meadow. This line corresponds to the 100 year floodplain shown on the drawing. It is our intention to use the area outside of the floodplain for recreation structures (a pool or tennis courts and a horse stable) and to leave the area within the floodplain in its natural condition. The lower bench also contains a huge Ponderosa Pine, that is a very prominent feature on the property we will preserve. Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 5 ,.. ,... "... - - - - - ,... !"- ,.... .... r- - - r- - - ,... .,[! , II "! .:~ ~. ,/ \ . . l ,/'-"""'" \ *. , : \ \ . ,i ". H .~. 'v/ / / ". !i .~vt~'i;'~~.~ )' / I" W6 zaiJ6 ' h '/ / / /. ~ ----:::.-;:/-/ '" ~. t B e ~ .~ ~~ ~o . ~""" 1OQ'01,M '>\ ) I / / I. \\ /( 'i r / I \' ~ I ) / / \0 ~ ~/(/ ,,~>~~,'~i I~ ;~ ( / "...~ ~I.! . :Si! !:: ~I \. ,,~ f l\ --'// " / ,~I 'il 5 ..j ii ~ Cli ,I I' , d ~I TIdl /1;~1 .Ll J j .R' i ii. i'- JIll m <<II r.~il '" , . !J nn I,ll m ,... .... ... ,... ,... ,... - ,... - ,... ,... ,.... ,... ,... ,... ,... .... .... ,... ~ L 2 a I ~ . ~'~o -'---"), . ".. -' / I ') I ( ( " :'\ I~ ! /;/ ~ ~ f I I \\' ~ I~/!/ \\ ~ I~ / / / \ t ~ I, i ~ ' ~~ l '~ ~ 8} I! .~.... ;:i "It' . ,,~""i ,;:J ~~~~I ,,/ ",S<! ~0)7 J . i\ -/ \, " } "-' ,; I, 1/ Ii // /; /i , .I ;i/ -'~( /; (l ! i ~! ~I ~! ~p 'l::s oIll' 6 --l ~I ~ a ~i J~ d o ~ ~I ~,~~ ~;~~ l~, I 11 i fd lit! tdi " ml 11"/ 'i Ut,1 '" !HI lhi I" I,ll UI - /""'I ,-" - I'" The building envelope shown on the final plat approved by Pitkin County is located at the base of the hillside, at the edge of the lower bench. While the location of this envelope would have been reasonable to ensure the privacy of the residence that was anticipated for this lot, we have instead chosen the upper bench for development of the Foundation's building for several reasons. - - A primary reason for locating the building on the upper bench is the ease of access it provides for the children who will use this property. Because of the illnesses they have, they require access that can comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). As the site plan illustrates, this access can be provided at grade by developing the upper portion of the property. The garage, which is located on the main level of the building, will be sized to hold three (3) of the vans that are used to transport the children to and from all activities. Another small (ten [10] space) parking area is located at the entry to the property, to be used for guest parking and for a limited number of staff vehicles. - - - By locating the access and parking at the entry to the property, we can consolidate the vehicle impacts on the site to a minimum and we avoid having to build a road down the hillside. The building envelope approved by the County would have required such a road to be built, with substantial visual scars resulting. We, instead, are planning a narrow "ramp" sidewalk, for pedestrians, wheelchairs and possibly, for a small golf-cart type of vehicle to transport the children between the building and the recreation facilities. ,... !"- The building we plan to develop is shown in schematic form in a series of elevation studies depicted on the following pages. The building has been tucked into the small knoll that sits on the upper portion of the site. By placing the building within this topographic feature, we can bury the lower level of the building below grade on three (3) of its four (4) sides, so the lower level will only be visible from the east. This allows us to build a three (3) story structure and keep its appearance to two (2) stories from surrounding residences that are primarily located to the west and north. - -- .... The site plan shows we will plant spruce and fir trees to the north of the building and Aspen trees to the south of the building, to screen it from views from surrounding properties. - The elevations illustrate that we have designed the building to have a residential, rather than an institutional appearance. Given the distance at which it will be seen from other residences, it would not be possible for an observer to know that this is not a residence. - We have also provided floor plans illustrating the planned internal uses of the property. Uses on the lower level include a staff apartment, providing space for up to four (4) persons, various support areas, and game and computer rooms. The main level consists of a kitchen and dining area, several gathering areas, an office and a medical suite. The upper level consists of 6 bedroom areas, providing space for up to twenty (20) children, and staff apartments, providing year round or temporary housing for up to eight (8) staff members. - - - Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 8 I'" - - ~~= ~zu r"';>-z ...Jz~ - - ... 1;1.) ...J ,.. ... - ,... - - ,.. ,.... - ,... ,- - - - ,... ,.,...., ~ = ~ 0 =:= - ~ 1;1.)"0 rIl = "0 = .... 0 ~~ o "0 =' ~ CIJ .. Q.oS rIl 0 ::: ~ QQ ~ /rl Cl . . ~ !I II >- .; iii e .z :! It- - --- -- ~ :", ,,': 1 , : " : , :,' '" ~~-----" ~~:--~,-,: , " , i ~~ I"" , "t-;..#.:.. ~:----:.~ I. .' I ' , , i /,H." : r------',,< ~ eli I 'I I' ~ '" " -< " -< " IE ! , ; j . \J I I I : .; Z ! ~ '" :t: ~ ~ ,I ~ " s ~ > ~ m ~ ~I CIl I ;; ~ .~.. "'- .... ~~ - ';; ... e ~ ~~ ~- CIl\l. ~ :3~ -< :t: ~ !o< iii ~ - " ~~ !(O ,,;l -5 .. ~ . 9 ::0 ... ." .... ~ ] I i ~. I Q . I i i ~ Q "6 ~ Q ~ == ~ ....-I ~ ~ = ... = o . ~ < '"' <J'l III III :z = ~ - ~ - CIJ > CIJ ,..J = ..... ~ ~ .... ,....., ,....., ~ - = rJj ~~ '" 0\ .... ... b 0\ ~ 0 tIl"" .... ~ .... 0 - 000 ~ ~~= .E!~ ~ ~ 'e~ ...' ,"0 ::.:: 'l) . ~zu 1;1.)"0 = ~ ~Zf-< c..o~c:o ~ .... rJ'.J ~ ~~- ~o~~ ~ :" , - Z rIl = CIJ ~ :E = Q.,oS ~05 ::l~\QJ, .... < =~~ "0 = ~iiO'oS! ~ jJ r= .... 0 rIl 0 f-<~~ ~ ~R ~ u ...-c ,...i;f.) ...J ~~ <U ~ co ~ rJji:'Q <O\.JS CI tiS .... - - - 3 o 0; j} ~ o o It - .... I; I I' I"'" .... I ~ il ~~ i I" :~ It, iL1J1 it- 11' " i! I !i II II 'I i' i .... .... - ,.. - ... - I ii , I' I II l: ... I. I .'" I .. i tiS=.E. .; I Ie ~o;~ 52J L~J ~ ... ~ " I "~~I l~1 ~ , ' i . '. '" :2 3 o 0; j} ~ o o It ~ <1l ~ 0- "" e 8. .... ....- .... "'" e ~-ll ..... .li~ 3 o 0; j} ~ o o It e ~-ll ...- ... ..~ ~l e ~ 8. ~ .... ~ .. ...- ... ... ,,~ .. l: '" J!='l.o ",,,.9 ~~ 00 'C" ... "''' e ~ 1:' O'C cJ~ ...." 8t3.!: = fU s: - ~ CIJ ,..J ~ CIJ Q., ~ ~ ... /""'I ~, ~ - rJj "'- \0 = 1:'-0 ~ N b ~..... - ::: 0 tJl'" ..... 0 " ell 0 , 9 ~(J::r:: = .J: ~ ~ .S "g ..... \c . .... t:S "" ~Zf-< .. .. ~ ..... tI.l ~ c~ ~.s~~ lJ;l ...~ Z u 1;1.)"" ~~s: ltl .II = = CIJ .. -:s8,1:I ::?J. ;... ;>-z rIl Q.,oS ><Ou ~ ~~~ ~ < ...JZ~ "0 = lJ;l ~ - - .... 0 rIl 0 ~~~ ~~t~ &l <ll """" ..lJ:J ,..J ~~ <U ~i:'Q< 0 eX ~ ,.... - - ~ .. ili - '" . 0; . ~~ -. '", ". w . I Ii II ~ I .... ".. - I ~ I c 2 ~ II ~ i ~t I ~U ~ I JI .= 5i31i il ..s, :;g t Q.. - - - .s ~ . Ii! - I I I I. Ii - :3 '" - - , , I i i !I " .' " 'I " ~ . ili - - - . 1 " .. ~ ... . .. . i e -" -. ~: !!' .. ::l . 1 " .. ~ .a . .. . " .@] ~ . 0 ~~ .e ~ . . . - n i . f" .s :! :::. ... Iii", " . .;; ::l @] s ~ I HI . - . ti ~s ~ , , , , , , , [gJ i : .. , , , , , , , , [gJ . . '21 . - .llt ~ S . " '!~'i~ :1!...::I:s.. ~ ~ <+<.1 ~l ~j I QJ '" <Il N CO g; = t:S s:: - CIJ > CIJ ,..J 104 ~ ~ o ,..J - ro--, ~ ~ - ~ "'- rJ:J "'''' -' = = cr-- f-< ~- cr-- 0 - ~ 0 U)OO .... 0 ~ 0 ..... u 000 b ~= = '':= ~ \.O.l ~-o ....' , .~ ~ ,"0 ,= <\l Q!l ~ .w . .... ~ ~Zf-< ~ ~ .... ~ ZU 1;1.)"0 = ~ Q.. 0 ~ 00 ~ t"a M ~~- tJl_l.!')~ ~ II ,.. ;> -z = CIJ ~ -E8~", ~ . :> rIl Q.,,S ~00 = ,I.!') \!':i .... < ,..J Z< "0 = o :: N ~ Q) aJ - .... 0 fIJ 0 f-<~~ r./)Q.l0'\a. U - ...... ::J~ ~ t'CS QJ > - - QJ =" ~ - : d ~ " ~ i .. i1 I I"j .... .... ,.. :;): =' rJ:J ,i: II 0 t'CS !i IJ:J ~ ... ,.. ... ... - ... ... ... ... - - .-, .-, .... = ::t1 0 =:= .... ~ 1;1.)"0 r./') = "0 ::l .... 0 ~~ o .."0 = ~ CIJ .. Q.,.,S rIl 0 <00 ~~~ rJ)i:Q< ~ - "'- ~'" ~- tJl'" 000 ::-0 oc r= Cl..o"d'!QO U':l_lf')t.n .z;01'jgj :sU I , o ::'~ If') C/)QJo\~ ,,"' , 8'" R x M<Co-.JS \0 0\ 0\ ..... b , '" ..... ~ = o .l""( ..... ~ > ClJ - ~ ~ . N -< ~~= ~ZU ....;> ..... z ,.,JZ< .........."'" I;I.),.,J...... , ..... - Q<; '"' i:O ~ '"' u '"' Ci ,II ..... OJ <a u rJl - " T I" " ii,i .... 'i II" Ie;: j'i:! :1:: ,ii' - ifi! Ii.: I:': Ii!' .... I:: n ! I I:: " 0 0 ..... .... ..... - t'CS .... t'CS :> :> iRt QJ QJ - - I ii ~ - , .1)' ~ : ~. I II I" ,Ii Ii ..= .... :i~li; .... rI:l !ii' Ii'; ~ QJ - Ii'_ _, II, 'I i : : ~ : I , ' :: :~ 0 ~ if r-r,~ i i :i '~!I Z Ii ~ ,!,: ' , , ~ I i;~1 ... i'IW'I: ii'" jl\ Hi!illll!]: ii t:I.,I",,,, , ':\ i:i - iil !Ii ~ .... .... - - .... - - /""'I 1""'\ - III. AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP r-. After consultation with staff from the Community Development Department, the applicant proposes that this property be zoned Academic (A)/Conservation (C)/SPA. - The Academic (A) Zone District is intended to establish lands for education and cultural activities, with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities. The zone district allows, as conditional uses, dormitory housing, health care facility and dining hall. These represent the principal uses intended for the planned structure. We would anticipate that the upper bench of the property would be designated Academic (A). - - - The Academic (A) Zone District requires that the applicable dimensional requirements be established by adoption of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Plan. A request for consolidated conceptual and final SPA approval is included in this application package. - That lower bench contains sensitive floodplain lands, riparian habitat and open meadows, so we propose it be designated for conservation. The area outside of the 100 year floodplain will contain a riding stable (an allowed use in the Conservation [C] Zone District and a pool (an accessory use to the main building). This portion of the property will be used for recreation purposes by the children, but otherwise will be maintained in its natural state. - - The standards for review of an amendment to the official zone district map and our response to those. standards are as follows: A, Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. - - Response: The proposed amendment to the map will not be in conflict with any portions of Chapter 26. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. - - Response: The applicant has reviewed all potentially applicable elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and believes the proposed zoning designation would be consistent with that Plan. - c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. ... Response: The surrounding neighborhood to this property contains an unusually wide variety of uses. - - Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 14 - I"" - ,- .... ... ... ... .... ... ("'"'\. .-, . Immediately adjacent to this property is the Aspen Oub, containing one of the largest buildings in all of Pitkin County, which provides recreational services to,hundreds of members and guests on a daily basis. . Next to that property are the Benedict Office and Tenth Mountain Trail buildings. . Other uses along Ute Avenue include affordable housing, single and multi-family dwellings (housing both residents and second home owners) and a variety of recreational activities (trails, parks, etc.). The proposed use will be residential and recreational in character. Physically, the building has been designed to appear similar to a dwelling unit. Its occupancy will also be similar to that by a family, since at most times, the children and the staff will occupy the building together and will come and go to activities as a group. We believe the impacts of this facility will be similar to that of a house occupied year round, since it will only be used by children and other groups for limited times of the year and a few staff members year-round and because transportation for the children and groups will be exclusively by vans. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: As described above, transportation for all groups using this facility will be by vans. Therefore, although as many as forty (40) persons may occupy this building during children's ... sessions and special events, their traffic impacts will be limited to three (3) to five (5) vans transporting them to and from Town. ... A study of the capacity of Ute Avenue was prepared by the traffic engineering experts, Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc., in 1996. This study, which was prepared in support of a land use application submitted by the Aspen Club, demonstrated that the comfortable carrying !"" capacity of Ute Avenue is 3,000 vehicles per day. The methodology used to make this calculation is contained in a letter from Phil Scott to the Community Development Department, dated March 14, 1996, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit #3. !"" .... ... ,... .... - ... Mr. Scott went on to demonstrate that because winter conditions on this road create a much more limited driving surface than during the remainder of the year, the comfortable carrying capacity of the road in the winter is only 2,100 vehicles per day. However, this capacity is considerably in excess of the vehicle count performed by his firm in 1996, showing approximately 1,250 vehicles using Ute Avenue on a winter day and is in excess of the nearly 1,480 vehicles per day that could be expected to use the road after access to some of the Aspen Club parking is shifted onto Ute Avenue. In fact, based on the approval granted by City Council to the Aspen Oub, the calculated increase in daily traffic on the road by 230 vehicles per day will not be achieved, since the City required more of the Club's parking to be on the Highway 82 side and increased the Club's commitment to a shuttle service above and beyond what the study anticipated. Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page IS - - r- ,~ Therefore, we believe there is excess capacity on Ute Avenue to accommodate the small number of van and individual staff vehicle trips this project will generate, This conclusion !"" takes into account the increased usage that will result from the Aspen Club PUD Amendment and should be valid in both summer and winter conditions. ,-, ... <- - ... 1"" - - ,..,.. I"" ... ... ... - ... - 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. Response: As described above, the Foundation provides its own transportation facilities and will not cause any burdens on RFTA We have also described how Ute Avenue has excess capacity today, and that the traffic we generate will have a negligible effect on this road. The availability of both water and sewer service to this property was established during the subdivision review by Pitkin County for Stillwater Ranch. A twelve (12) inch water line runs through the Ranch and interconnects with Ute Avenue near Lot 5, at the cul-de-sac. There is also a fire hydrant in the cul-de-sac. The eight (8) inch sewer main ends east of the Aspen Club, within Lot 5. A buried primary electric line lies in the east end of Ute Avenue. The Covenants for the Subdivision require all structures to be connected to these lines. The applicant agrees to do so. We agree to retain our drainage on-site, to comply with the City's standard of maintaining drainage on the site to pre-development levels. We will not impact the City's drainage system in doing so. The project will have no impact on the community's schools, since the children using the facility will only be here for one (1) week. The project provides its own emergency medical facilities and will not be a burden to the community's existing medical system. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: Designation of the lower portion of the property as a conservation area will ensure that the natural environment of the area is maintained. In addition, our landscape plan shows that we will be planting a considerable number of trees on the property, enhancing the natural feel of this area. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 16 .... ("""\ .'-" ... Response: We believe that providing the opportunity for children that are facing grave illnesses to be able to enjoy Aspen's healthy mountain environment is entirely consistent with ,.... "the Aspen Idea" and represents the best of what this community has always stood for. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. ,... .... Response: The annexation of this property by the City necessitates its being zoned by the City within ninety (90) days. ,.. L Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in hannony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. - Response: The proposed amendment would be in harmony with the public interest and with the purpose and intent of Chapter 26. - .... ... - ... ... ... ... - - """ Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 17 ~ ... ... ,... - ... ... ... ... ,... - - ,... - ,... ,... ,.. - - ,-.., r--, .~ IV. GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.100.050 C.2.a. provides an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System for essential public facilities. It states that the City Council shall exempt the construction of essential public facilities from the growth management scoring and competition procedures if the following standards are met: (1) Except for housing, development shall be considered an essential public facility if it serves an essential public purpose, provides facilities in response to the demands for growth, is not itself a significant growth generator, is available for use by the general public, and serves the needs of the city. Response: See the response to criteria (3) below. (2) An applicant for an exemption pursuant to this section shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that the impacts of the essential public facility will be mitigated, including those associated with the generation of additional employees, the demand for parldng, road and transit services, and the need for basic services, including but not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, drainage control fire and police protection and solid waste disposal. 1t shall also be demonstrated that the proposed development has a negligible adverse impact on the city's air, water, land and energy resources and is visually compatible with surrounding areas. Response: The Applicant agrees to mitigate all project impacts, as follows: . Employees of the Foundation will be housed on-site. The plans that accompany this application illustrate that several units will be provided on-site, intended to house as many as twelve (12) persons during sessions. Some of the units will also be used to house employees of the Foundation year round. There will be a maximum of twenty (20) "staff' persons involved in any session, but not all of these persons are Foundation employees. Some are medical professionals who accompany the children to Aspen, who will be housed in the facility. Some will be volunteers from the community, who meet the children at the site of their daily activities (ski area, rafting, etc.) but do not require housing on-site. The rest will be the Foundation's employees who will be housed on-site during sessions. . On-site parking is provided for our vans, within the garage, and for employees and guests. We hereby commit that on those occasions when there are special events at the facility, we will require visitors to travel by vans. We will not allow those guests to drive along Ute Avenue, nor will we provide more than just minimal parking for them on our site. As described above, the children will also always be transported by vans, minimizing the impact of the facility on Ute Avenue traffic. Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 18 ~ ... ... - ... ... r" - - ... ... ... - - - ,... ... - ,,*-' r-, t"""'\ . Provision of water, sewer and other basic services has been addressed above. . The project's impact on the City's water and air resources and its visual impact is expected to be negligible, of a similar magnitude to the development of a residence in this location. (3) Notwithstanding the criteria as set forth in Sections (1) and (2), the City Council may determine, upon application, that development associated with a nonprofit entity qualifies as an essential public facility and may exempt such development from the growth management competition and scoring procedures and such mitigation requirements as it deems appropriate and walTanted. Response: We request that City Council determine that this application, submitted by the non-profit Kids Stuff Foundation, represents an essential public facility. This finding will allow the Council to exempt this development from the criteria set forth in Section (1). We have demonstrated herein our compliance with the mitigation criteria of Section (2). Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 19 ... ... ... ... .... ... .... - - ... ~ ".. ... ... ... - ... -, ... 1""'\, ~ V. CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL SPA The Academic (A) Zone District is intended to establish lands for education and cultural activities, with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities. The zone district allows, as conditional uses, dormitory housing, health care facility and dining hall. These represent the principal uses intended for the planned structure. If the City should determine this application proposes any use for this property that is not an allowed or conditional use in the Academic (A) or Conservation (C) zones, then we would request, as part of our SPA Plan, that the City vary the uses allowed in those zone districts to permit that use. The Academic (A) zone district also requires that the dimensional requirements applicable to all proposed uses shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual and final SPA plan. In evaluating the range of possible dimensional requirements for this property, we have considered several factors. We have examined the dimensional requirements of the Rural Residential (RR) zone district, which is the City's low density residential zone district for development of lands having the character of this property, and which is currently applied to the adjacent Aspen Club property. We have also evaluated the actual dimensional standards contained on the proposed site plan. The resulting dimensional requirements can be summarized as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Minimum Lot Size: 6 acres. Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit: 2 acres per unit. Minimum Lot Width: 200 feet. Minimum Front Yard: 30 feet. Minimum Side Yard: 20 feet. Minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet. 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. Minimum Distance Between Principal and Accessory Buildings: No requirement. Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site: As shown on site plan. External Floor Area Ratio: Allowable floor area shall not exceed 14,000 sq. ft. Internal Floor Area Ratio: No requirement 8. 9. 10. 11. As provided by Section 26.80.040 A of the Code, the applicant requests that conceptual and final SPA review be consolidated for this project. During our pre-application conference, the Planning Director concurred that consolidated review could be considered for this project, since it only involves the development of a single building and since most of the public service issues involving the development were resolved during the Stillwater Ranch subdivision review. The review standards for SPA review and our responses are as follows: 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. Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 20 ... '""', .... - ... - ,... ,-.. .~ Response: The applicant has provided architectural drawings that illustrate the proposed appearance of the facility. We have designed a facility that has a residential, rather than an institutional appearance, befitting the character of this neighborhood. The location of the structure along the edge of the hillside enables us to build the lower level of the structure below grade. The design uses projections and a large, covered balcony to further reduce the appearance of mass, and, as shown on the Site Plan, will be surrounded by trees to the north and south to buffer views from surrounding developed areas. The height of the structure varies, as measured around the perimeter of the building. The view of the east elevation, where all three stories are exposed, indicates a height to the mid- point of the roof of 32.5', with a height to the peak of the roof of 38'. In comparison, the height of the southwest elevation is 26.5' to the mid-point of the roof and 30' to the peak of the roof. The floor area of the structure is estimated to be 13,125 sq. ft. (plus 750 sq. ft. for the stable). While this will be a relatively large structure, it is situated on a very large piece of ... land that contains nearly 6.5 acres (over 281,000 sq. ft.). Residences in the nearby Preserve Subdivision are at least this large, while residences on Lots 1 through 4 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision are limited to 6,500 sq. ft. in size. No such limitation was applied to Lot ... 5, in anticipation that it might be donated to the Kids Stuff Foundation. !'"" - .... - - ... ,.. - - - 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Response: The adequacy of Ute Avenue to serve the project and the availability of water, sewer and other public services for the project have been previously discussed. 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. Response: We have confined building locations to the most suitable portions of the property. The existing conditions drawing illustrates the location of several key physical features that have guided our site planning to these suitable locations. First, the drawing illustrates the location of a "moderate avalanche hazard" from the "Ute Avenue chutes" that affects the property. The boundaries of this hazard area were taken from a site specific study performed as part of the subdivision review process in Pitkin County. Our proposed building envelope is entirely outside of and avoids this hazard area. The drawing also illustrates the existing topography of the property and depicts those areas that contain slopes in excess of thirty (30) percent. These areas are primarily found along the hillside just below where we propose to build the structure and have, with limited exceptions, been avoided by our proposed development. Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 21 ,... ~ ~ - Finally, the drawing illustrates the location of the 100 year floodplain on the lower portion of the property. The site plan shows we will keep the stable and pool outside of this area. ,... 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. ,... .... Response: The project has avoided the Roaring Fork River floodplain and associated riparian area, by developing the building on the upper portion of the site. We have also avoided creating a significant cut in the hillside between the upper and lower portions of the site by limiting the vehicle traffic to the upper portion of the site and only accessing the lower portion through a narrow ramp. Finally, we have reduced the mass of the structure by tucking the building into the small knoll on the upper portion of the site and by heavily landscaping the north and south sides of the building. ... r- 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. I"'" Response: As described above, the proposal 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. ... - Response: No public expenditures will be required for public facilities, as those facilities are either already in place or will be provided at the Applicant's expense to serve this property. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Sec. 26.84.030 (B)(2)(b). ,.. - Response: This section has no effect on this application, since only one use is proposed, meaning that density is not a relevant measure. - 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. ... Response: The Applicant has requested a GMQS exemption for an essential public facility operated by a non-profit foundation. ,... - - Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page ZZ - - ,... ,... ,... - - ,... ,.. ,... ... ,.. .... ... ,.... ,.... ,... - ,... - I""" .~, VI. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW The Academic (A) zone district lists auditorium and other facilities for performances and lectures, library and administrative offices as permitted uses. It also lists dormitory housing, health care facility and dining hall as conditional uses. As shown on the floor plans, each of these uses is intended to be developed within the building on the Ranch. Therefore, our responses to the yandards of conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The consistency of this proposal with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan has been addressed in prior sections of this application. The intent of the Academic (A) zone district is to establish lands for education and cultural activities, with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities. We believe that the proposed development of the Silver Lining Ranch will be consistent with these purposes, in that the children who attend the sessions will be able to learn about and experience the joy of healthy living in the mountains and will have the opportunity to participate in the culture of Aspen. This type of experience is entirely consistent with the traditions established by such institutions as the Aspen Institute and Aspen Music School, which also give participants an opportunity to learn about and experience our way of life and enrich our community by doing so. Other planned uses of the facility, such as small conferences, meetings or retreats by other medical children's groups, cancer groups, pediatric doctors and similar groups and occasional community use are also consistent with these themes of educational and cultural enrichment. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: As described previously in this application, surrounding uses along Ute Avenue represent an unusually diverse mixture of residential, visitor, commercial and recreational activities. The planned use of this facility has elements of many of these uses. The fact that the planned building has a residential appearance will help it to blend in with its neighborhood. Moreover, the limited use that is planned for this facility will allow it to become a part of this neighborhood, without changing the character of this area, whose residents have expressed their desire for it to remain a quiet residential neighborhood that is not dominated by institutional or commercial uses. Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 23 .... ... .... - ,... - .... ,- - ... - ,.... .... ... !"- - - .... ,... /""'I /""'I c. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. ' Response: The location and design of this facility have been described in detail in other sections of this application. As noted earlier, vehicular and other service impacts of this proposal have been confined to the upper portion of this property, on the side nearest to the Aspen Club, to minimize the impact on any other residences and to avoid having any vehicl1lar impact on the sensitive riparian areas of the lower portion of the property. D, There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The adequacy of public facilities for this project has been addressed elsewhere in this application. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Response: Affordable housing needs have also been addressed elsewhere in this application. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title. Response: The proposal is otherwise in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Land Use Regulations. Development Application for Sliver Lining Ranch Page 24 ,... r- ,... - ~ - ... ,.... ,'" ;.....' - .... ... ,... - ... ... - - /""'I I""- VII. SPECIAL REVIEW TO ESTABLISH PARKING REQUIREMENT The Academic (A) zone district provides that the parking requirement for "all other uses" be established by special review. We plan to have three (3) parking spaces within the garage that is contained in the building. These spaces will be used for the Foundation's vans. We also plan to have ten (10) spaces located near the entry to the property, for the individual vehicles of our guests and staff. Section 26.64.040 B. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations provides that whenever the off- street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met: 1. The applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on- street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for the residents, guests and employees. In determining whether to accept the mitigation or whether to require that parking be provided on-site, the Commission shall take into consideration the practical ability of the applicant to place parking on-site and whether the City has plans for a parking facility which would better meet the needs of the development and the community than would location of the parking on-site. Response: It is our intention to provide sufficient parking to meet the actual needs of the occupants of this building, our staff and guests, without providing so many parking spaces that it would ever be possible for all of these persons to consider travelling to the facility in their individual vehicles. As we have stated throughout this application, children and other groups will be required to travel to the Ranch by vans. We can certainly control this potential impact for our own use of the Ranch. If a group wishes to use the Ranch, they will have to work with us to schedule their guests' arrivals and departures in groups by vans. If they are unable or unwilling to do so, then we will not allow them to use the facility. Some of our staff will need to come to the facility from off-site locations. While we will certainly encourage these persons to walk or use bicycles when conditions allow, we feel the need to provide some parking spaces for them. Similarly, although volunteers and other guests will generally meet us at activity sites, there may be times that a limited number of these persons are required to drive to the Ranch by individual vehicles. The ten (10) outside spaces we have provided should meet this need, without becoming a feature that actually induces people to travel to the Ranch in their own vehicle, Development Application for Silver Lining Ranch Page 25 - ,.. - - ..... ,... !"" - ,... - - ,... - !"" - ,... - - ,... :::'; 17 f., IJ ::'::, )7"" ....."7 "'7 Ii:) ~:}' [ L. 'vi :r r; :n J::.) V J r:; ~ \.'" DDC 0. Ii)\'!, p,.~ I;';,:, EXHIBIT #1 .... J '1'1'; I I\i j 1 "![:C llZI. (!Iii' r:,:i:...C,(' \h:~.li .R BARGAIN AND SALE DEED KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT FOR AND AS A CHARITABLE GIFT AND DONATION, the undersigned FABIENNE BENEDICT ("Donor") hereby donates, sells and conveys to KIDS' STUFF FOUNDATION, INC., a Colorado not-for-profit oorporation ("Donee"), whose address is P.O. Box 10970, Aspen, Colorado 81612, the fOllowing real property situate in the county of Pitkin, state of Colorado, to wit: Lot 5, stillwater Ranch SUbdivision/PUD, according to the Final Plat thereof recorded December 30, 1994 in Plat Book 3,)- at Page a.. of the real property records of Pitkin county, Colorado, together with a perpetual, non- exclusive easement, right-oi-way and joint user right along, within and beneath the existing road easement between the Ute Avenue Cul-De-Sac and the Out Parcel, as shown on said Final Plat (as said road easement was created in the Deed recorded in Book 188 at Page 82 of the Pitkin County records), for purposes of access, ingress and egress to Lot 5 and the installation of underground utilities serving lot 5. With all its appurtenances, subject to the following: (a) In the event that Donee utilizes part of the existing road easement between the ute Avenue CuI-De-Sac and the out Parcel for purposes of access to Lot 5, Donee shall share equally with the owner of the out Parcel the costs and expenses of maintaining and snow-plowing the portion of said access road actually used by Donee. (b) Lot 5 and the road and utility easement are conveyed hereby in an "as is" condition, subject to all patent or latent conditions or problems of any kind or nature, and further subject to all title matters of record or otherwise, specifically including without limitation: ( i) recorded Book 380 Road easement and other matters described in Deed in Book 188 at Page 82 and in instrument recorded in at Page 425. (ii) All matters contained on the First Amended Plat of the Stillwater Ranch Parcels recorded in Plat Book 33 at Page 34. (iii) BOCC Resolution No. 94-;/JJ recorded in Book 7/"'(/ at Page 7.l.l. (iv) All matters contained on the Stillw~ter Ranch SUbdivision/PUD recorded in Page a. Final Plat of .. - Plat Book $J at - ".. /, f ... - ,... - ,... .... /"'" - - /"'" - ,... ,... ,... - - - 3776B~:) 8.,.7/0 r-", p... ~ 7 /""'I "c: 1. i~: I 3i(:I/.::1 ii, Il: ;:i :: 1 j.l:;:i ,::' (v) Subdivision Improvements Agreement recorded in Book 7-1 () at Page Flf'. (vi) Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch SUbdivision/PUD recorded in Book W,at page7.9~. (vii) Fisherman's Easement Agreement recorded in Book ~O at Page t:z./. (vii~) Grant of utility Easement recorded in Book ~ at Page'LJ.i:. (ix) Water Service Agreement between the city of Aspen and Donor recorded in Book7~ at page7~. (c) In accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 3(C) of the Protective Covenants for Stillwater Ranch SUbdivision/PUD, on or before March 1, 1995, Donor is obligated to form a Homeowners' Association to own, govern and maintain the Open space Parcel depicted on the Final Plat of Stillwater Ranch SUbdivision/PUD. The members of the Association will be the owners of the six (6) Lots in Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, and the Association will have the power to levy and collect general and special assessments on such members for purposes of paying the costs and expenses of owning, improving, maintaining, caring for and operating the Open space Parcel. By its acceptance of this Bargain and Sale Deed, Donee shall be deemed to have consented to and approved the formation of said Homeowners' Association, to have consented to being a member thereof, and to have agreed to execute any and all documents that may be required in connection with the formation thereof. Signed and delivered this 30th day of December, 1994. DONOR: 9atr"e<oU<.t:_ ~.u('di(;f- Fabienne Benedict STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. ) COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30th day of December, 1994, by Fabienne Benedict. WITNESS my hand and offifitJ~al. My commission expires:S /";/7'-5 \\\l111"" ""f,.. \\\' 0""\0 .0 1,.-.- ,,\~..:;. ... ...... .J> ....... ::-~ () 0" '.. ,<', ~ , ..,J.~ ~ e f) . Y ~ c'/'..Je. :; '~1;~;:..,.l.~:~~7f) ',' J ').:l }..., . .II" (SEAL) '-.,./ , 1447.. 2 ... ,... - ,... - - ,.... ,... .- ,.. ... ,.. ,.. ,.. - ,... ,'" - - /""'I ~ EXHIBIT #2 December 31, 1996 Mr. Stan Clauson, Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: KIDS STUFF FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Dear Mr. Clauson, As the owner of record of Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, Kids Stuff Foundation hereby authorizes Alan Richman Planning Services to act as our designated representative with respect to the development application being submitted to your office. Alan Richman is authorized to submit those development applications required by the City to create a permanent home for us. He is also authorized to represent the Foundation in meetings with City staff and with the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and Aspen City Council. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number is included in the land development application. Sincerely, a~~<: J c;?t Andrea Jaeg# G-;: Kids Stuff Foundation, Inc. - - I I I ,- ,- ~--, =...... , -_. -, -.. -._~. ~lIl ~ EXHIBIT #3 Lk?"\H, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. T},...NSPORTATION !'LANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS """ 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) .333.11 05 FAX (303) 333.1107 - ,~ ,'! II "+. l~!JtJ - J - Mr. Dave Michaelson Deputy City Planning Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen. CO 81611 - He: Aspen Club (LSC #960030) - Dear Mr. Michaelson: ,... [n response to a March II. 1996 draft memorandum to you {rom Ross Soderstrom. we wish tl,> cl<lJ1{y,uld expand on certain aspects of our January 6. 1996 Aspen Club traffic study as follows: - I. Comfortable Capacity of Ute Avenue. Based on the methodology presented In Ule current Highway Capacity Manual. togethe," with OUI" expel1ence with similar traffic counts and conotUons over tile past 25 yeal's. we calculated Ule comfortable capacity of Ute to lle 3,000 vehicles pel' day assuming the follOWing: - - . Hourly capacity of a two-way local street WIder "Ideal" conditions'" 2.000. . Directional split = 70%/30% (factor" 0.89). · Volume to Capacity Ratio (LOS C) '" 0.70 . Lane Width = 12' . Frtctlon Factor (on-street pal'lclng . both sides. fl"equent driveways, and minimal tnlcks/buses) = 0.30 . Design Speed = 25 mph · % of 24-hour tra{ffc dUling peak-hour = 12% ... ... Therefore. the capacity was calculated as follows: Capacity ~ (2000 x 0.89 x 0.70 x 0.30)/ 0.12 .. 3000 - 2. Drtvewl\Y Spnclng. The approximate 50. foot dIstance between the site's two western- most driveways should not pose safety or operational problems. FIrst o{ all. virtually a!l access in and out of the west dIiveway will be ortented towards tile west with mlntl11allnteractJon between adjacent driveways. The center drtveway wi!l prtmartly selve exltlng {rom ntne proposed employee parking spaces with very little In and out activity to conflict WIth the adjacent drIveway, - - - 3. F.sllmMed r~amc Olstr1hutjoO. The dlstlibuUon percentages cited on Page 2 of ,)ur report are somewhat misleading. It should have been stated that 100 percent oi the traffic presently accessIng the site via SH 82 a.w1 passing Ull'ough Ule Cooper/Original Intersection IS c.Ilstrtbuted as (ollows: - .~)."':,'~" .... .-., .... - - .... .... - .... ,... ... ... - ... ,..., ,.... ... - ,... ... , ~ ..---......,... /""'I Mr. Dave MIchaelson Page 2 Match 14. 1996 . Main w/u Ori,Ljlllal - Cooper w/u Orl~fnal = Dun~lll w/o OrllCth\al ~ 55% 35% -1.Q% 100% . . An addlllon'll five percellt currcntly accesses the site vln ~H B2 without passing through the Cooper/Orlwmu intersection (to/from the east). This lAtter ~lllegolY IllIlIAI' Included In our analysIs, 4. Peak-Hour Delay. Overalt peak-hour tmInc del.'w at the two study Intersection!'! will bp. reduced by the proposed plan. When the totnl nmount of trn.lIlc on each of the eight study Intersection approaches Is multiplied by the averl1ge apprnn~h rip.lny. I.ol,nl penk. hour delay associated with the redistributed tramI' patterns Is 248.6 seconds le<'l.'\ ror the two peak-hours than e""'sung Ir,li'Oc patterns, 5. Lane Width R.,duclloQ Impacts due to snow stacking. According to the Highway Capacity Manllal, reduced lane widths on two-lane roadways reduce capacity as (allows: El1ecUve Lane WJ.d.th..lEW.I 11 10 9 Percelll Reductlon F(ll'tl1r 7% 17% 30% hI utl.."r wurds, l! the whltel'Ull\e typlcal,'oadway width Is reduced frolll '24 to 18 feel due to snow stacking, the calculated :l,OOO vehicle comfortable c~pacHy wOlllrJ hp. reduced to 2.100. This I'educed total Is still ,12 percellt greater than the \,480 totnl (I ,250 e.'lisUng plu$ 230 proJect-related) which 1\l1lI be e.,<perlenced following project Implementation. It should also be noled that none of the additional tT:'lrn~ to hp. generated will Include selVlce vehtcles since :all service traffic activity currently acce",~p."l VIa Ute Avenue, . . . - """... - '. /""'I r-', Mr Dave MI(;haelson Page 3 March 14, 1996 - We trust that this supplemental infomlation will assist with further underst::l11dfIlij of the propo.'led A.,pen Club proposal. PletlSe call if YOll have I\..rther qIJe.'lUons concerning the traffic "nets "1 tillS pmposed project. - - - - - - - ,... - ,..., - .... - - ... Sincerely, LEIGH, SCO'IT & CLEARY, INC. By: t/~ /'> ( .:-/..". "- Phtllp N. Scott'l:ll. P.E. PNS/wd ...."........