HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20080805AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, August 5, 2008
4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing
SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. 332 Main Street, Subdivision Review, Resolution #28
B. Aspen Valley Hospital Facilities Master Plan, Conceptual PUD,
Resolution #23
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 332 West Main Street- Subdivision Review (Public Hearing)
DATE: August 5, 2008
~C. A~
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Alice Brien.
REPRESENTATIVE:
John Muir Architects.
LOCATION:
332 W. Main Street, Lot K and the
West %2 of Lot L, Block 44, City
and Townsite of Aspen.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
MU, Mixed Use, including office
space and a one bedroom free
market unit.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
MU, Mixed Use, including office
space, one 2 bedroom free market
unit and one 3 bedroom free market
unit.
SUMMARY:
The subject property is a designated Landmark, located in
the Main Street Historic District. HPC approvals have
been granted for restoration work and construction of a
new addition that replaces one existing residential unit and
adds another. P&Z and Council review is required
because the development of a new multi-family dwelling
unit is included in the definition of Subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the application meets the criteria for
Subdivision and recommends P&Z make such a finding to
clty COUttCII.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use recommendation of approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site:
• Subdivision for the creation of amulti-family dwelling unit, pursuant to the definition of
Subdivision and Municipal Code Section 26.480.030.A.3. (City Council is the final
review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission).
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is a Queen Anne home built in 1889. It was converted to a mixed use
building, containing commercial and residential space, many years ago.
The applicant has received HPC approval to demolish and replace anon-historic addition at the
back of the building. An existing one bedroom unit will be removed, triggering residential
multi-family housing replacement, as the regulations existed when this project entered into the
review process (2005). The Code requires no less than 50% of the existing unit's bedrooms and
net livable area must be mitigated in the form of Affordable Housing; however, when the
calculation results in a fraction of a unit (as is the case here), a cash in lieu payment may be
provided.
According to the Housing Guidelines, a 1 bedroom unit has been determined to house the
equivalent of 1.75 employees. The owner of the 332 W. Main site must mitigate for %: of 1
bedroom, or 1.75 x 50%= 0.875. While the Land Use Code does not specifically state the category
for mitigation, the Housing Office averages the payment-in-lieu fee of Categories 2 and 3, and the
average is cunrently $214,833. Mitigation is $214,833 x 0.875= $187,979, to be finally calculated
and paid at time of building permit.
Because this project involves the creation of an additional unit, above and beyond the one that
currently exists, Subdivision is triggered, as is the need for a Growth Management allocation. A
new unit on a landmark site is eligible for a one time Administrative exemption from Growth
Management pursuant to Section 26.470.040.B.3 (This is the code citation in effect at the time of
application. The same exemption is now located at Section 26.470.060.4.c.)
SUBDIVISION:
The Applicant is requesting a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to
City Council regarding Subdivision. The Subdivision section lists actions which are exempt
from review as follows (emphasis added by Staff). Based on this language, the application is
not exempt from review:
26.480.030.A.3, A~nroved Subdivision. All subdivisions approved prior to the effective date of
this chapter, except those lots contained within an approved subdivision which are intended or
designed to be re-subdivided into smaller lots, condominium units, ormulti-family dwellings.
The Land Use Code defines multi-family dwellings as including one or more units located
within an office, retail, or service commercial building. The applicant is creating a new multi-
family residential unit, therefore review is required.
2
Subdivision regulations state that City Council is the final review authority on this application,
afrer considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. A drafr
Subdivision Plat is attached.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP as well as the applicable
review standazds in the City Land Use Code. (See Exhibit A for findings.) Staff recommends
approval of the project.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No._, Series of 2008, recommending Council approval of the
proposed Subdivision at 332 W. Main Street."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B- Application
3
Exhibit A
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
The AACP supports the preservation and viable use of historic structures. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the area.
Staff Finding
The property is located in the Mixed Use zone district, where commercial and residential uses
are intended to co-exist. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Finding
The proposed Subdivision will not impact the future development of the surrounding area, which
is a designated historic district. The project is almost 1,000 square feet below the allowable
FAR. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this
Title.
Staff Finding
The proposed Subdivision meets the applicable review standards. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition
that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed
subdivision.
Staff Finding
The subject lot is a standard historic townsite lot, with no unusual natural hazards present. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
4
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial
patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities
and unpecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
The layout of the Subdivision is entirely consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
Staff Findins
The project does not involve the development of new parcels, streets, or other infrastructure not
already in place. The applicant has not applied for condominiumization to sepazate ownership of
units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new
dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding
The applicant is required to provide mitigation as described in the memo. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set
forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Findine
The applicant will have to provide School Land Dedication fees as applicable. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management
approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.
(Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2)
Staff Findine
Growth Management Allocations and Exemptions are in place. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
5
Resolution No. 28
(SERIES OF 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL GRANT SUBDIVSION APPROVAL
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 332 W. MAIN STREET, LOT K AND THE
WEST'/: OF LOT L, BLOCK 44, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
WHEREAS, the applicant, Alice Brien, owner, represented by John Muir
Architects, requested Subdivision approval for the property located at 332 W. Main
Street, Lot K and the West '/z of Lot L, Block 44„ City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado;
and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval of the Subdivision
request; and,
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on August 5, 2008, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director, and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that a recommendation
for Council approval of the land use request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Aspen Area Community Plan, by a vote of _ to _; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission found that this
Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of the
subdivision request to create a new multi-family dwelling unit at 332 W. Main Street, Lot
K and the West''/z of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen.
Section 2: Plat and Aereement
The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of
Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval if City Council
provides final approval of the subdivision request.
Section 3: Buildin¢ Permit Aaplication
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
Section 4: Affordable Housine. Cash-in-lieu Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.530.040 Housing Replacement Requirements, in
effect at the time of this application, the Applicant shall pay afee-in-lieu to mitigate the
demolition and replacement of an existing residential multi-family housing unit. The City
of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the
calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit
submittal.
Section 5: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall
pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to issuance of any building permit that triggers
this fee. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the
amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of
building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the mazket value of the land
including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site.
Section 6: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, if any Park
Development Impact Fee is applicable, the fee shall be assessed at the time of building
permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance.
Section 7:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 8:
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 9•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this Ss' day
of August, 2008.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
~'B .
RE: Aspen Valley Hospital -Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road) -
Conceptual Planned Unit Development -Resolution No. 23, Series 2008 -Public
Hearing
MEETING
DATE: August 5, 2008
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Aspen Valley Hospital, David
Ressler, CEO
REPRESENTATIVE:
Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning
Services.
LOCATION:
Parcel C, Aspen Valley Hospital
District Subdivision, commonly
known as 401 Castle Creek Road.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Public (PUB) zone
district. Lot C contains 19.1 acres
or approximately 832,085 sq. ft. of
lot area.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
develop a master plan for the
redevelopment and expansion of the
hospital campus.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission request additional information with regard to
the site access and traffic analysis, parking analysis and
existing easements/envelopes at the Final PUD
application.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning
Commission a recommendation of approval of Conceptual
PUD.
Page I of 8
Photo of the hospital's main entry._
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
As noted in the July 15` staff memo, the Conceptual Planned Unit Development review for the
proposed master facilities plan of the hospital is being divided into four hearings with individual
topics as noted below:
July 1, 2008: Project Overview: Operational Needs, Program, Trends, Phasing,
Architecture & Design
July 15, 2008: Employee Housing, Site Improvements (grading, drainage, trail location),
Noise Analysis
August 5, 2008: Transportation (parking generation, trail easement, site, roads, bikes, trails,
parking garage), Housekeeping items
August 19, 2008: Conditions of approval, Vote
Again the purpose of Conceptual PUD is to allow the Commission the opportunity to identify
any major questions or concerns that you would like to have the Applicant address further, either
at this stage of review (conceptual) or at a later more specific stage of review (final).
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Aspen Valley Hospital District, LLC has requested approval to redevelop and
expand the existing hospital campus which was annexed into the City in 2003. The focus of the
proposal is on Parcel C of the campus, where the hospital, senior center/assisted living
(Whitcomb Terrace), ambulance barn, heli-pad and the hospital CEO's residence are located.
Parcel A of the campus includes the Schultz building and Mountain Oaks employee housing.
Pazcel C contains approximately 19.1 acres or 832,085 square feet. A site map is provided on the
next page per Figure 1.
The Applicant would like to redevelop the parcel taking into account a twenty year program life
cycle with an anticipated 2016 build-out timeline. The following tables compare existing and
proposed development for the site and the buildings on the campus.
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existin Conditions Pro osed Conditions
Pazcel Area 832,085 s . ft. 832,085 s . ft.
Building Footprint
(residence, hospital, bus barn,
& hase I) 90,849 sq. ft. 171,164 sq. ft.
Im ervious Area 190,700 s . ft. 189,854 s . ft.
O en S ace 550,536 s . ft. 471,067 s . ft.
Surface arkin 175 110*
Notes: * The proposed surface area does not include parking structure spaces, with pazking
ara e s aces the total a uals 339 s aces.
Page 2 of 8
Table 2: Existin and Pro osed Gross S uare Feet of Develo ment
Existin Facili Pro osed Total at Build-Out
Below Grade 5,000 24,558 29,558
Above Grade 70,700 96,121 166,821
Med. Office 0 17,716 17,716
Sub-Total 75,700 138,395 214,095
Parkin Gaza e 0 76,000 76,000
Total 75,700 214,395 290,095
Fieure l: Subiect Site
N~ni
,~
ter- ~-- - \~ ~~ ~ ~~
~~~/ ` ~ ~
\\.__-._
n
1_
r I \\
1~ ~\
`` ~~ 0 ~' \ ~~.
\~ {
\~ I "'°
,,
~,, ~~~ \,
,~.
! ~~
~ ~ '~,
~;
i ° ~~~~
_~ ~ `~l
~~
Site Access/1'raftic Analysis:
Currently all vehiculaz traffic to and from the hospital is accessed via the intersection of Castle
Creek Road and Doolittle Drive. The Applicant is proposing a looped service road accessed off of
the existing curb-cut for Whitcomb Terrace to sepazate service/delivery traffic from general visitors
and staff access. In the application, the Applicant states that improvements to the Whitcomb
Terrace/ Castle Creek Road entrance are necessary to meet engineering standazds for grade and
sight distance. In addition to providing a deceleration lane on Castle Creek for the intersection, the
Applicant is proposing to raise the height of a portion of Castle Creek Road.
The application notes that improvements aze planned for the Castle Creek Road/ Doolittle Drive/
main hospital entrance. As included in Appendix F of Exhibit A, the transportation consultant's
Page 3 of 8
summary recommends a new access on Castle Creek Road to accommodate Doolittle Drive as
indicated in Figure 2. However, none of the drawings in Appendix D of Exhibit A show the
recommendations of the traffic engineer.
Figure 2: Recommended Hospital Entrance Imorovements
-''~~~
Hospital ~
Perking Lot
/,
N~ ~ `~~
~~d a
En~~
H.H.S. r
Parking Lot wstim~ ~ ~~~~~~~
///~r~ Y ~
O b~
1
~ Q
Ms. ama
~~ ftaildential
~ Area
N
1 j~,a 1Y ~ Q
for Ne
The initial traffic analysis provided by the Applicant indicates that the cun•ent Level of Service
(LOS) for Castle Creek Road/Doolittle Drive is a LOS B (rated from A to F) and is projected to
remain at that level of service over time if certain improvements aze made including: improving the
intersection of Castle Creek Road and Whitcomb Ten•ace, constructing two dedicated accesses (one
for the hospital and one for Doolittle Drive), as well as the implementation of various auto
disincentives.
With regazd to trail access, the proposal provides some realignment to the paved pedestrian trail that
roughly pazallels Castle Creek Road. Additionally, the hospital entrance is redesigned to better
accommodate RFTA pick-up and drop-off service (upon request).
Page 4 of 8
Staff Comments and Recommendation: Circulation and the impacts associated with the
redevelopment of the hospital need to be studied to minimize any negative impacts. Potential
impacts with regard to some of the proposed improvements have been noted by other
departments or agencies and detailed analysis is necessary to evaluate and address those
potential impacts.
Staff Recommendation:
• Service Road. Based upon the concerns voiced by the City Engineer with regard to raising the
height of Castle Creek Road and the construction that it will entail, staff recommends that the
Applicant reevaluate the location of the service road for Final PUD application and study
alternatives that are less impactful and meet the goals of the master plan.
• Main Hospital Access. Staff recommends that a greater area (as shown in Figure 2) be studied
within the application rather than just Parcel C (as shown in Figure 3)with regard to
circulation inclusive of Doolittle Drive, the RFTA bus stop, and the pedestrian crossings (both
on-site and the Castle Creek Road crossing. Additional study to minimize trail/street crossings
as well as other Sraff c conflicts should be undertaken.
• Site Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Staff recommends that a detailed TIA be submitted at
Final PUD that includes the roundabout, proposed service road and the Doolittle Drive/RFTA
bus stop/pedestrian crossings. Additional information that responds to the questions that the
Transportation Department raised (Exhibit F) should be provided. Additionally, staff
recommends that the area be shown as part of the study area on the approved Conceptual PUD
site plan.
Parking:
Currently, surface parking is provided on-site and when measured according to the land use
code's dimensional standard for a parking space provides 175 stalls. The Applicant is proposing
to relocate some of the existing parking and expand the overall number of parking stalls
available to 339 stalls, an increase of 164 stalls. The bulk of the stalls will be provided in a
pazking gazage. The number of parking stalls provided will peak during phase II due to the
Page 5 of 8
construction of the parking gazage as well as the existing parking on the west side of the property
not being removed until a later phase of development.
The parking garage is accessed from both the main hospital entrance and from the proposed
service road. The pazking gazage is sited to take advantage of the topography that drops in
elevation as you move towazds the north end of the property. The garage provides three (3)
stories of parking; however, when you access the pazking from the main entrance the top story of
the garage is level with adjacent at grade parking.
As noted in the application and shown in Table 3 below, the overall number of parking stalls
estimated to be necessary are 392 due to on-site staffing, the medical office space, and patient
stations. This number is greater than the proposed number of stalls, as the reduced number takes
into account alternative modes to get to the hospital.
Table 3: Pazking Demand Projection
Table 2
Aspen Valley Hospital
Aspen, Coloredo
Master Plan Parking Demand Projection
(November, 2006; LSC #060420)
Peek Per(od
Parketl
Demand Component Units Rate Source Vehbles
Stall (Maximum on•site) 200 employees 0.75 perked vehicles per empbyee (1) 160
Medical -Dental Office 29 KSF 3.5 parked vetdclae per KSF (2) 101.5
Patient StaOons 162 Bede or Statbns 0.75 perked vehicles per station (3) 121.5
373
Vacancy Factor (6%) 1.05
TohlSpeces Needed 392
Notes:
(1) Based on Empkryee Survey conducted at Aspen Valley Hospital in Augus4 2006
(2) Source: PeAdnp GenereNon, 3b Ed(tion, 2004 published by the Inatitule of Trensportation Engineers
(3) Source: HLM &LSC estimate
Staff Comments and Recommendation.• It is important for the facility to provide adequate
parking for the users of the hospital, but also consider how alternative modes of transportation
such as bus service, walking/cycling, and car pooling reduce the overall number of spaces
needed as is outlined in the application. Parking garages are often associated with hospital
development and can limit the overall footprint of impervious surface area associated with
parking.
Staff Recommendation:
Revaluate Parking Needs. The summary provided by the transportation consultants considers
the parking needs of the development based on staffing, a parking generation rate for medical
office space and patient stations; however, the medical office space is based on a gross number
of 29, 000 sg. ft. rather than the 17, 000 sq. ft. proposed. Staff recommends that the Applicant re-
Page 6 of 8
evaluate the parking needs and adjust accordingly based on up to date plans at the Final PUD
application.
Housekeeoine Items:
Parallel with the east property boundary is a 100 foot wide pedestrian, bicycle and road easement
that encumbers the subject property. Within this easement aze other utility and trail easements.
Additionally, an area is identified on the site as `Employee Housing Phase II' near Whitcomb
Terrace. As proposed, the parking structure will encroach into both of these azeas. Development
cannot occur (at least in the easement) until the easement is removed. The previous
encumbrances to the property can be superseded (and removed) by the recordation of a new plat.
A history of the easement and delineated housing site aze included on pages 35 and 40 of the
application (Exhibit A). The applicant surmises that the 100 ft. easement was required prior to
the construction of the bike /pedestrian trail. The project was originally approved in the county,
which required development to be 100 feet from a major roadway (Castle Creek Road). The
employee housing `parcel' was required to memorialize the housing component associated with
the former master plan; however, the Beaumont was purchased instead.
Figure 4: 100 Foot Wide Easement and AH `Parcel'
Staff Comments and Recommendation: The 100 feet wide easement appears to be unnecessary
as there are separate easements for utilities and the existing trail. However, the removal of the
easement will allow development to be located closer to the pedestrian trail which may impact
the quality of the pedestrian experience. The employee housing site may not be necessary
depending on the hospitals plans for affordable housing.
Page 7 of 8
Staff Recommendation:
• Provide Additional Research. Staff recommends that the 100 foot easement be removed with the
consent of other departments such as utilities, engineering and parks. The employee housing
parcel' may also be removed dependent on additional research. The Applicant needs to
thoroughly research the employee housing parcel' and how it relates to the approval of the
original master plan so that the City clearly understands what, if any, affordable housing
mitigation was required for the original master plan, if it was developed (Beaumont/Mtn. Oaks),
and if additional affordable housing is required how it will be provided. This information should
be submitted at the Final PUD application.
RECOMMENDATION: At this point and time, Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission continue the public hearing to August 19, 2008.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the hearing on the AVH Master Facilities plan to
August 19, 2008."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A -Application (provided previously to the Commission)
ExwalT B - APCHA Referral dated July 3, 2008 (provided with 7/15/08 staff memo)
EXHIBIT C - Engineering Referral dated May 17, 2008 (provided with 7/15/08 staff
memo and current memo)
EXHIBIT D - Parks Department Referral (provided with 7/15/08 staff memo and current
memo)
EXHIBIT E - Pitkin County Referral dated May 6, 2008
EXHIBIT F - Transportation Referral dated May 5, 2008
ExHIeIT G - Public comment from Kazen Ryman dated July 2, 2008
Page 8 of 8
~.x~~T C
Jennifer Phelan
From: Trivia Aragon
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:37 AM
To: Jennifer Phelan; Trisha Nelson
Subject: AVH DRC Comments
Attachments: Framework for Establishing Quality of Service.doc; Site Transportation Impact Study Report
outline.doc
Jennifer:
I am unable to provide a complete review of the land use application for AVH. Below is a list of the information needed to
complete my review:
o The traffic impact analysis (TIA) needs to be completed according to the attached outline. A quality of service
evaluation in the TIA will be pertormed according to the attached outline.
o A comprehensive drainage report must be completed according to the engineering department's design criteria.
This analysis must account for all off site basins and must consider the downstream facilities. It must also identify
whether or not these facilities are sized appropriately. The report must also include the analysis of drainage along
Castle Creek Road.
o The plan proposes raising Castle Creek road. The validity of this proposal still needs to be provided.
The following are general comments:
o Using the detention pond is not an appropriate use for snow storage. Adequate now storage areas within the
parking areas must be provided for. Additionally the use of the trail for snow removal operations is not the
appropriate use of this trail.
o The phasing drawings currently show all phases on one drawing. This drawing needs to be broken out in to
multiple drawings that show existing conditions and one phase per sheet.
o Currently the TIA recommends improvements to the entrance at Doolittle Drive. These improvements must be
shown on the drawings. The improvements recommended in the TIA are the hospital's responsibility (I need verify
with John Worcester).
o There is a 100 foot pedestrian, biking and road easement on the property. There is a question as to whether or
not any hospital improvements can occur in this easement.
Trish Aragon, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 429-2785
Fax: (970) 920-5081
Framework for Establishing Quality of Service
Mode Quali of Service Considerations
Pedestrian Presence, connectivity and width of sidewalks
Lateral separation from traffic
Barriers and buffers from traffic
Crossing opportunities on arterial and collector roadways
Delays at intersections
Driveway frequency and volumes
Visitor experience (national/state/local parks or at other types
of recreational or entertainment venues)
Bicycle Presence of a dedicated facility
Network Connectivity
Number and width of travel lanes adjacent to the route
Volume and speed of traffic
Percentage of trucks and busses encountered
Pavement condition
Transit Frequency and hours of service
Reliability of service
Passenger loads
Travel times
Automobile Corridor travel times
Intersection delay
Queue length
Site Transportation Impact Analysis -sample table of contents
I. Introduction and Summary
a. Purpose of report and study objectives
b. Executive summary
1. Site location and study area
2. Development description
3. Types of studies undertaken (impacts, signal warrant, site access, etc.)
4. Principal findings
5. Conclusions
6. Recommendations
II. Proposed Development (Site and Nearby)
A. Off-site (or background) development
B. Description of on site development
1. Land use and intensity
2. Location
3. Site plan
4. Zoning
5. Phasing and timing
III. Existing Area Conditions
A. Study area
1. Area of influence
2. Area of significant transportation impact (may also be part of Chapter N)
a. site access points and major intersections (signalized and unsignalized) adjacent
to the site. Depending on the development size ,the first signalized intersection
on each street serving the site could also be analyzed, if it is within a specific
distance of the site as determined by the engineering dept)
B. Study area land use
1. Existing land uses
2. Existing zoning
3. Anticipated future development
C. Site accessibility
I . Area roadway system
a. Existing
b. Future
2. Traffic volumes and conditions
3. Transit service
4. Pedestrians and bicyclists
5. Existing relevant transportation system management programs
6. Other, as applicable - (ie crash analysis for 3 yrs)
N. Projected Traffic
A. Site trafTic (each horizon year)
I. Trip generation
2. Trip distribution
3. Modal split
4. Trip assignment
B. Through traffic (each horizon year)
1. Method of projection
2. Non-site traffic for anticipated development in study azea
a. Method of projections
b. Trip generation
c. Trip distribution
d. Medal split
e. Trip assignment
3. Through traffic
4. Estimated volumes
C. Total traffic (each horizon year)
V. Transportation Analysis
A. Site access
B. Capacity and level of services
1. Existing conditions
2. Background conditions (existing plus growth) (for each horizon year)
3. Total traffic (existing, background, and site) (for each horizon yeaz)
C. Transportation safety
D. Traffic signals
E. Site circulation and parking
VI. Improvement Analysis
A. Improvements to accommodate existing traffic
B. Improvements to accommodate background traffic
C. Additional improvements to accommodate site traffic
D. Alternative improvements
E. Status of improvements already funded, programmed, or planned
F. Evaluation
VII. Findings
A. Site accessibility
B. Transportation impacts
C. Need for any improvements
D. Compliance with applicable local codes
VII. Recommendations
A. Site access/circulation plan
B. Roadway improvements
1. On-site
2. Off-site
3. Phasing, if appropriate
C. Transit, pedestrians and bicycles
D. Transportation system management/transportation demand mngmt actions
1. Off-site
2. On-site operational
3. On-site
E. Other
IX. Conclusions
~~~~~~
Aspen Valley Hospital
Parks Department Requirements:
An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access
infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120.
Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. The overall mitigation
for removals during this phase of improvements already has a carry over from the
construction of the Obstetrics Unit.
2. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual
tree or groupings of trees on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester
or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to
commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill,
storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any
tree on site. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on
the plan.
The Parks Department is concerned about the lack of spacing for several proposed
Blue Spruce Trees. New locations and planting plan should be designed to reflect
appropriate spacing away from the new structure, existing vegetation and each
individual plant species. Parks Department can provide red lines to the applicants
landscape architects.
4. During the construction of the Obstetrics Unit a small portion of the pedestrian
trail, located at the hospitals current entrance, was realigned and partially
landscaped. This area needs to be completed with the addition of imgation,
seeding and other vegetation if applicable. The applicant should design and
present this improvement for approval by the Parks Department.
5. Once a final alignment for the Nordic trail is determined and approved by the
Parks Department the alignment and use shall be memorialized with a trail
easement granted by the Hospital to the City of Aspen for use as a trail easement.
This should be identified (called out) on the site plans and in a signed easement
document. Support of the proposed Master Plan Facility is contingent on
acquiring an easement.
6. The proposed Nordic alignment is causing concern to one of the neighbors
adjacent to the proposed alignment. The applicant has to work through the
neighbors concerns and present the proposed solutions to the pazks Department.
Support of the proposed Master Plan Facility is contingent on addressing these
concerns.
7. The current proposed Nordic alignment does not show a workable connection to
the existing trail connection located across Castle Creek Road. The connections
and turns have to be able to allow for the operation of a snow cat based on the
machines specifications and capabilities to properly groom, this includes the
overall skiing experience. Support of the proposed Master Plan Facility is
contingent on creating a workable connection and trail alignment.
8. It is critical that that the construction of the detention ponds and the trail
alignments are completed prior to the start of the winter seasons. Parks will not
allow any construction activities of any kind to take place within the Nordic
alignments, or around the Nordic alignments. Construction impacts to these areas
will greatly reduce the skiers experience and more importantly viability of the
snowpack.
9. It was discussed that the 2"d detention pond would be used for the storage of snow
removed from the property. This is not acceptable to Pazks and Nordic. Traffic
on the Nordic trail is limited to Nordic users and grooming equipment only. Any
other users will greatly decrease the skiing experience and decrease the viability
of the snow conditions. Re-alignment of the Nordic trail from the proposed
alignment might help address the need to store snow. As is proposed Parks can
not support the proposed project until this potential conflict is addressed.
] 0. Parks and Trails is also concerned with the proposed changes to the intersection
of the Hospital and Doolittle Drive. The proposed changes will increase the
number of trail crossing conflicting with traffic and change the alignment of the
trail crossing castle creek road from Marolt to the bus stop. These are important
concerns to workout and make sure it does not create dangerous situations
between pedestrians and vehicles. The applicant should utilize the expertise of a
traffic engineer to review the plans and determine the best way to intermix the
uses.
r
~~~~~ ~
TO: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, City of Aspen
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Lomg Range Planner, Pitkin County
RE: Referral Comments -Aspen Valley Hospital Conceptual PUD Application
& Master Facilities Plan
DATE: May 6, 2008
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the following Staff comments regarding the
Conceptual PUD application for the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan. Please
give a call if you have questions, or would like to discuss any of the issues raised.
Traffic Impacts
Round-About Intersection The applicant's traffic impact analysis concludes that
proposed improvements to access points, construction of a deceleration lane and other
grade improvements in combination with proposed auto disincentives, will mitigate
impacts to Castle Creek Road associated with anticipated traffic generation.
Improvements proposed by the applicant are intended to keep the service levels on Castle
Creek Road at the current "B" rating. The applicant does not however, address the
impact of their proposed growth on the round-about at the intersection of Highway 82
and Castle Creek Road. The County has recently been made aware of the fact that the
round-about is functioning at a service level of "F " at peak periods. While there are and
will continue to be other factors contributing to the level of service at this intersection,
the County recommends that the Hospital be required to contribute a pro rata share for
improvements determined to be necessary at this intersection.
Construction Management The County supports the applicant's proposal to coordinate
the timing of Castle Creek Road improvements contemplated for Phase II with
construction of the Castle Creek pedestrian path proposed by the Pitkin County Open
Space and Trails Board. To further limit traffic disruption on Castle Creek Road and at
the Highway 82 intersection, the Hospital should be required if feasible, to coordinate
timing of road improvements and general construction with the construction schedule
contemplated for the Music School. It is recommended that a staging and construction
management plan be required of the applicant prior to issuance of any building permits.
Traii Crossing If proposed auto disincentives are successful and prove to increase
pedestrian use of the Mazolt Trail to access the Hospital, it may be appropriate to require
the applicant to contribute to payment for and/or design of safety improvements for the
trail crossing from Marolt to the Hospital.
RFTA
The Hospital should be required to provide funding or facilities to RFTA at a level
determined by ItFTA, based on the extent to which services/facilities will be impacted by
the proposed expansion/improvements at the Hospital campus.
Medical Office Space
While Growth Management Exemption requests are not typically addressed at the
Conceptual PUD stage of review in the City, the following is offered while the County
has the opportunity to comment. It is our understanding that the Hospital will request
that the proposed 17,716 sq. ft. of Medical Office Space be exempted from Growth
Management competition as an essential community facility. This request has been
controversial when it's been proposed by the Hospital in past applications to the County.
In past application reviews, Staff has found the office building space to be a "growth
generator," not meeting the definition of an "essential community facility." Furthermore,
the concern has been raised that the medical office space competes directly with medical
office space that could be provided in downtown Aspen and in the B-2 zone district (the
Aspen Business Center.) On that basis, it may be inequitable to exempt medical office
space as an essential community facility at the Hospital campus, when it is not exempted
in other locations which are providing similar services to the same market.
In the event that the City grants a GMQS exemption for the office space, the County
recommends that the space be owned by the Aspen Valley Hospital or anon-profit
corporation controlled by the Hospital Board; and that the office space only be occupied
by medical practitioners with hospital staff privileges or non-profit, non commercial
medically oriented organizations, patients, and support staff.
General
It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with all prior commitments
made to the County regarding affordable housing mitigation, trail and road
improvements, provided they are still relevant.
2
~~~~r ~
Jennifer Phelan
From: Lynn Rumbaugh
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 12:20 PM
To: Jennifer Phelan
Cc: Trisha Nelson; Tricia Aragon
Subject: RE: due date for comments on AVH Master Plan
Hi Jennifer:
In terms of changes to road access, I defer to Engineering. However, if the Castle/Maroon bus stops are to be moved as
part of any access changes, Transportation needs to approve their placement and other issues. In terms of the traffic
mitigation measures listed on page 22, I have the following comments:
1. I am under the impression that AVH already subsidizes bus passes. Do they plan to increase this subsidy as part
of the traffic mitigation plan?
2. What are the subsidized taxi fares that are referred to? Are they planning to provide taxi-operated shuttles?
3. We would like more information on the other programs referred to in this document such as paid parking, shared
shuttles, etc. For example:
*Who would be charged for parking (patients, employees, management)?
'How would a paid parking program be managed (permits, meters)?
*Would carpoolers be exempt from paid parking?
*How does AVH envision the operation of a shared dial-a-ride or Highlands shuttle?
`How does AVH envision improved RFTA service (with current RFTA driver shortage)?
In short, we would like a more detailed traffic mitigation plan from the developer/consultant. We are happy to meet with
AVH to brainstorm and discuss measures if needed.
Lynn Rumbaugh
Transportation Programs Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
voice: 970-920-5038
fax: 970-544-9447
web: www.asoenpitkin.com
From: Jennifer Phelan
Sent: Thursday, May Ol, 2008 3:42 PM
To: Development_Review_Committee
Subject: due date for comments on AVH Master Plan
For anyone who would like to provide written comments on the hospital master plan, this is a reminder that comments
are due to me no later than May 12`". Thanks.
JevuM,fer ~heiaw, Deputy Director
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
PH: 970.429.2759
FAX: 970.920.5439
www.asoenpitkin.com
~~~~ ~
Karen Ryman
343 Grove Ct.
Aspen, CO 81611
krymanCc~msn.com
970 925-6499
July 2, 2008
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o Jennifer.Phelan(a.ci.aspen.co.us
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Commissioners,
I request that when you review the master plan for the Aspen Valley Hospital
expansion that you take into consideration an updated transportation system for
in-patients, visitors, out-patients, hospital employees and potential medical and
office staff that will use the proposed attached medical building. I also would like
to have you look at the current bus stop and make changes to accommodate the
increased number and diversity of the passengers using the stop.
I live and am a member of the board at the Twin Ridge Townhomes. I did attend
the local meeting for nearby residents when the architect and hospital director
explained the new hospital plans and its' phases of development.
My concerns are twofold on the bus system:
1. The buses now circle through past the front door of the hospital (if
snow plowing in the winter is completed) only if requested. Visitors
don't know this is a possibility and don't ask. Injured patients from
labs, therapy or ER often hobble over to the bus stop because they
don't know to ask for the bus to come to the door.
The master plan for the remodel at AVH did not have any change in
this system. It did not have a route planned that would drop patients
and employees off at the proposed medical clinic, therapy entrance,
or the front entrance where the out-patients would arrive. Given the
promotion of the use of buses in this county, this does not seem
appropriate at all for moving people. I believe their plan is to
continue with the current "on call" system in place. They have a
somewhat complicated two entrance plan to the hospital, parking
garage, and parking spaces, but parking not increasing a great deal
to compensate for the medical building parking. It's going to be quite
a way to the current bus stop from that proposed building. Please
look at a possible route the buses could take to give these
passengers better service.
The current bus stop is on Doolittle Drive. It serves Marolt Housing,
Castle Ridge, Water Place, Mountain Oaks, Twin Ridge,
Meadowood, HHS, and AVH. This summer there are I believe 11
buses an hour. It is probably the second busiest bus stop in town.
The buses do not have a way to pull off the road. The passengers
can walk in front or back of the bus right into the road and passing
traffic. The bus stop could be moved back towards Castle Creek Rd.
and allow the bus to pull into a lane off the road. The lighting is one
large light high overhead on a phone pole. It does not give safe
lighting to the stop or security for women and young people at
night. The APHA is proposing more 3`d floor housing at the Marolt
and 35 units on the Marolt lot above. Our board is concerned as well
as the Castle Ridge Mgmt., the homeowners at Water Place, and the
Health and Human Services Director, Nan Sundeen. For safety
reasons from the above pull off problem, the school bus stops at the
Health and Human Services. This allows the students to come in the
building without supervision, use the vending machines when they
should be going on home. The Right Door and counseling services
offices are in place there.
I believe proposed and increased expansion of AVH, APHA at Marolt and Water
Place, and MAA all will impact the number of passengers on RFTA increasing
considerably. It is time to look at the infrastructure for bus service at the same
time as P & Z considers these approvals. RFTA is looking to the city and county
as they do not develop the bus areas per their representative.
Sincerely,
Karen Ryman
Twin Ridge Homeowners Board