HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20121204 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, December 4, 2012
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS—
A. Resolution regarding conflicts of interest
B. Aspen Valley Hospital, Phases III &IV, Final PUD
C. 601 E. Hyman, Growth Management Review
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
-YA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Deb Quinn
MEETING DATE: December 4, 2012
RE: Procedural Resolution
Earlier this year an applicant, at a public hearing, requested that a Planning and Zoning
Commission member not participate in the hearing due to bias against the applicant. The
attached resolution, which is fairly self-explanatory, provides a means of resolving any similar
requests in the future by requiring an applicant to make the request in writing to the City
Attorney's office in advance of the hearing. It also includes the possibility that such an issue
might still get raised for the first time at a hearing by someone other than an applicant.
The determination of unfairness or bias of a commission member is not for the Planning and
Zoning Commission to determine. However, when the request has been made and the affected
member, after consultation with the City Attorney's office, has determined that the member can
be fair and impartial despite the accusation, allegation or request for recusal,that decision will be
announced at the public meeting.
The intent is to eliminate as much discussion of these requests at a public meeting as possible, to
preserve the order and integrity of the meetings.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion "I
move to approve resolution 2012- as presented by staff."
Attachment: Resolution Creating a Procedure for Requests for Recusal
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CREATING A PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTS FOR RECUSAL
OF A MEMBER OR MEMBERS
RESOLUTION # , SERIES OF 2012
Recitals
1. Section 8.4 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen,provides in part that
"Each board and commission shall operate in accordance with its own rules of procedure except
as otherwise directed by the council."
2. Section 26.304.060C.6. of the Aspen Municipal Code, "General Hearing
Procedures; Other Rules to Govern," allows the decision-making body to have "adopted rules of
procedure, so long as the same are not in conflict with this Title."
3. Section 26.212.010 of the Aspen Municipal Code,provides in part:
Powers and duties. In addition to any authority granted the Planning and Zoning Commission
(hereinafter "Commission") by state law or the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, the Commission shall have:the following powers and duties:
N. To adopt such rules of procedure necessary for the administration of its responsibilities
not inconsistent with this Title;
4. Section 26212.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code provides, in part:
F. The chairperson of any meeting of the Commission may administer oaths, shall be in
charge of all proceedings before the Commission and shall take such action as shall be
necessary to preserve order and the integrity of all proceedings before the Commission.
5. Chapter 2.02 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes standards of conduct for
officials of the City of Aspen, including the members of volunteer boards. The purpose statement for
such standards of conduct is "to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the public and the
integrity of City government by defining and proscribing certain conflicts of interest that may arise
between the City and City.Council members,employees or appointees to City boards, authorities and
commissions. " It recognizes that"some actions are conflicts per se between public duty and private
interest while other actions may or may not pose such conflicts depending upon the totality of the
circumstances surrounding certain actions."
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission regularly addresses potential conflicts of
interest and its members recuse themselves when a conflict is apparent.
7. The Planning and Zoning Commission has had applicant representatives request
recusal of a member at a public hearing, on the basis of bias toward the applicant or applicant
representatives.
8. The Aspen Municipal Code addresses behavior of those who make quasi-judicial
decisions in a public hearing in Sec. 2.02.110. "Quasi-judicial proceedings," which states as follows:
City Council members, City officials and employees, required as part of their duties to
take direct official action that involves a quasi-judicial proceeding shall:
(a)Follow the voluntary disclosure procedures set forth at Section 2.02.050, if he or she
has a financial or personal interest in any quasi-judicial proceeding;
(b)Attempt as reasonably possible to remain impartial and make final decisions only
after a full and open hearing based on evidence presented at a hearing
(c)Avoid as reasonably possible communications outside the hearing or public meeting
process on pending matters and disclose all information regarding the pending matter that
he or she may have received from sources outside the public decision-making process;
(d)Avoid as reasonably possible taking any public position or stance on a pending matter
until all of the evidence has been presented and he or she is required to take a direct
official action on the pending matter;
(e)Avoid as reasonably possible any conduct through words or conduct that would lead a
reasonably prudent person to believe that he or she has prejudged the pending matter until
such time as he or she is required to take a direct official action on the matter;
(f)Endeavor to prevent personal feelings about an applicant or an application from
entering into the decision making process; and, if personal bias reaches a level where he
or she cannot make an impartial decision based on facts in the record,follow the
voluntary disclosure procedures set forth at Section 2.02.050; and
(g) If in doubt, seek advice from the City Attorney's office on whether a particular
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
9 The Planning and Zoning Commission desires to establish a procedure to address
allegations against its members in a way that allows the applicant to raise the issue yet does not
require the use of public meeting or hearing time to discuss the issue.
10. Resolution of an issue.of bias or impartiality or other conflicts of a member is not for the
Planning and'Zoning Commission to decide,but rather is up to the individual member who has the
alleged bias or other reason for recusal. However, it is the duty of the chair of the Commission to
preserve order and the integrity of any meeting. When a member with an alleged bias or other
alleged reason for recusal disagrees with'an applicant's request for recusal,the Planning and Zoning
Commission does not want any disruption of the order and integrity of its proceedings.
11. At their regular meeting of , 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission
considered a procedural rule to address an applicant's allegation of bias or unfairness and request
for recusal.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts the following policy:
An applicant requesting recusal of a Planning and Zoning member from a public hearing
on an application shall make such request in writing as soon as the applicant is aware of
its need for such a request, but no later than seven days after notification to the applicant
of the date of the application's public hearing. The written request shall include
sufficient detail and documentation to apprise the member whose recusal is requested of
the reason the applicant believes the member cannot fairly judge the application. The
written request shall be submitted to the City Attorney's office.
Upon receipt of the request, the City Attorney shall discuss the request with the member
of the Planning and Zoning Commission whose recusal was requested in order to
determine whether the member's participation in the public hearing meets the criteria of
Aspen Municipal Code Section 2.02.110. The member shall recuse him or herself when
he or she believes that he or she could not meet all of those criteria. The applicant shall
be advised by the City Attorney in advance of the public hearing that the member will or
will not recuse himself or herself.
At the time of the meeting when conflicts of interest are I addressed, the Chair will
announce that a request was received and that the criteria in code section 2.02.110 were
discussed by the member and the City Attorney, that the member will or will not recuse
himself or herself, and that the applicant was advised. There will be no other discussion
of the issue at the meeting by the applicant, its representatives, any member of the
Planning or Zoning Commission, City staff or members of the public.
Should the issue be raised initially by a member of the public or otherwise at a public
hearing, the Chair shall take such action as is necessary to preserve the order and integrity
of the proceeding, including, but not limited to, declaring an immediate recess to allow
for discussion between the affected member and the City Attorney, or such other action
as circumstances require. The Chair may, but need not,request"a motion and vote on any
such action.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the_ day of ,
2012.
L.J. Erspamer, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
P1
MEMORANDUM
aj;;p
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission �Q
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, ,
RE: Aspen Valley Hospital—Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road)—Final
Planned Unit Development,Phases III & IV—Resolution No. , Series 2012—
Continued Public Hearin
MEETING
DATE: December 4, 2012
APPLICANT/OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Aspen Valley Hospital, David Ressler, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
CEO Commission continue the hearing to a date
certain.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning SUMMARY:
Services The Applicant requests of the Planning and
Zoning Commission approval of a Growth
LOCATION: Management review and a recommendation of
Parcel C, Aspen Valley Hospital District approval for a Growth Management review and
Subdivision, commonly known as 401 Final PUD.
Castle Creek Road
CURRENT ZONING&USE
Located in the Public (PUB) zone district
with a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
overlay.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting Final PUD
approval and associated land use
approvals for Phases III and IV of the
master facilities plan for redevelopment
and expansion of the hospital campus.
Page 1 of 7
P2
SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report addresses the questions raised since the last hearing. It
contains the following:
• A summary of the issues raised from the last meeting with additional
information provided by Staff and the Applicant;
• Review Criteria; and
• Staff recommendation & motion
The applicant's team will have new consultants present at the hearing to discuss noise and
lighting issues and staff anticipates the need to continue the hearing to a future date
certain.
It is also important to note that the application is reviewed under the Land Use Code in
effect at the time of conceptual approval. The staff findings are written to reflect these
criteria.
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS:
At the November 20th public hearing on the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan, Phases
III and IV, the Planning and Zoning Commission raised a number of issues that they asked be
addressed in further detail at today's hearing as noted below and in Exhibit J.
1. Pedestrian Connectivity. The applicant will be responding at the hearing with regard to
concerns of pedestrian connectivity from the bus stop and Schultz building to the hospital.
2. Lighting_ The applicant will have their recently hired lighting specialist available to discuss
site lighting.
3. Mechanical. Additional simulated views are included as part of the applicant's addendum,
as well as further discussion on the mechanical.
4. Sound. The applicant has provided a noise analysis and the consultant will be available to
discuss the results at the hearing.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning
Commission to undertake Phase III and IV of the redevelopment and expansion of the hospital
site:
• Growth Management Review for Expansion or New Commercial Development with the
development of a new medical office space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.080
(1) (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the proposal).
Additionally, the following land use requests will be reviewed and acted upon by the City
Council:
Page 2 of 7
P3
• Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility with the development of the
hospital pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.090 (4). (City Council is the final review
authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission).
• Final Planned Unit Development(PUD) for the development of a site specific development
plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final review authority
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission).
Final PUD review before the Planning and Zoning Commission is the third step in a four step
review process. Conceptual PUD review for the entire proposal, steps one and two, was granted
via Resolution No. 3 (series of 2009) by City Council. Once this application is heard by the
Commission, the City Council will conduct a final review of the application and
recommendations of the Commission at a public hearing. As noted in the application, the
Applicant is proposing redevelopment in four (4) phases to maintain existing operations
throughout the redevelopment. So far, Phase I has been constructed (prior to the adoption of a
master facilities plan) and Phase II is ongoing. This application is for Phases III and IV.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The Applicant, Aspen Valley Hospital District, LLC. has requested Final PUD approval for
Phases III and IV of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan to redevelop and expand
the existing hospital campus. The focus of the proposal is on Parcel C of the campus, where the
hospital, senior center/assisted living (Whitcomb Terrace), ambulance barn, heli-pad and the
hospital CEO's residence is located. Parcel C contains approximately 18.5 acres or 805,860
square feet. Parcel A of the campus includes the Schultz building, Mountain Oaks employee
housing, and RFTA bus stop.
Conceptual PUD approval
The hospital received Conceptual PUD approval of the Master Facilities Plan via Resolution No.
3 (Series of 2009) for the property in May of 2009 taking into account a twenty year program life
cycle.The project is divided into four phases, so that hospital operations can continue throughout
construction. Each phase of development allows the hospital to continue day to day operations.
Phase I was completed with the expansion and remodel of the obstetrics ward.
Phase II
The Applicant received approval for Phase II of the master facilities plan in July of 2010.and it is
currently under construction. Phase II includes a two story addition to the existing hospital,
development of the 18 on-site affordable housing units, a three level parking garage, partial
construction of the loop service road as well as access improvements to the site, drainage and
utility improvements,trail realignment, and RFTA bus stop improvements.
As mentioned, the hospital project has been developed in phases in order to accommodate the
ongoing operation of the hospital during this redevelopment.
Phases III and IV
Phase III includes a two story addition and a basement,with the greatest amount-of expansion
(approximately 33,000 sq. ft.) on the ground floor, abutting the west side of the existing building.
The upper story addition includes medical office space and circulation(approximately 18,000 sq.
Page 3 of 7
i
P4
ft.), a basement of about 19,000 sq. ft., completion of the loop service road, 3 bay ambulance
garage, a new entry and parking. Interior remodeling of the existing building is also part of this
phase. Phase III programming includes:.
Basement programming — mechanical, laundry services, information systems, morgue, and
unfinished shell space.
First floor programming—loading dock, operating suite, endocrinology suite, staff and physician
support space, imaging suite,breast center, emergency department, lobby and main entry.
Second floor programming—medical offices.
Phase IV proposes an addition to the ground floor (approximately 6,500 sq. ft.) and basement
(approximately 1,800 sq. ft.), as well as a renovation of the existing building. Phase IV
programming includes:
Basement programming—meeting room, auditorium and public toilets.
First floor programming — extension of main lobby, four bay registration, cardiology suite,
outpatient services, oncology suite, chapel, expanded cafeteria seating.
Table 1 summarizes the proposed gross square footages of both Phases III and IV and compares
them to the conceptual numbers provided in Phase II. A comprehensive table, showing all phases
of development, is included as Exhibit E.
Table 1: Proposed Gross Square Footage of Phases III and IV
Phase III Phase IV
Included in Current Difference Included in Current Difference
Phase H Application Phase II Application
Application Application
Basement 10,671 19,385 8,714 3,813 1,854 -1,959
Level One 32,715 33,280 565 6,128 6,721 593
Level Two 4,724 8,152 3,428 0 0 0
MOS 15,000 10,187 -4,813 0 0 0
Ambulance 0 3,436 3,436 0 0 0 °
garage
Total 63,110 74,440 11,330 9,941 8,575 -1,366
As the project has progressed from its conceptual approval to design detail, some aspects of the
phases have changed or are proposed to be different such as the medical office and basement
design and will need to be memorialized in the PUD approvals for Phases III and IV.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
Page 4 of 7
P5
Development within the Public zone district requires approval of a conceptual and final PUD
through the PUD process. The Applicant is requesting final PUD approval for Phase III and IV
of the hospital's master facilities plan.
PUD Review covers a broad spectrum of criteria that are used in considering the application
including consistency with the AACP, consistency with the character of existing land uses in the
surrounding area, site design, landscape design, architectural character, etcetera.
Staff Comment: Overall the massing, expansion and site improvements of the hospital facility
proposed for Phase III and IV are similar to the Conceptual PUD approval. The site contains a
mix of uses including institutional (hospital), medical office space and multi family residential
(senior and affordable housing units) which are similar to uses in the immediate neighborhood,
including other residential affordable housing developments (Marolt seasonal housing Mountain
Oaks, Waterplace, and Castle Ridge) as well as institutional uses (county health and human
services). With regard to site planning and scale, the proposed development is compatible with
the campus style developments within the vicinity of the parcel such as Highlands, the Aspen
public school campus and the Aspen recreation center. These projects have areas of
concentrated development surrounded by some form of open space. Additionally, they serve
important community and resort functions. The hospital facility's site plan focuses the
redevelopment on the southerly portion of the parcel. The hospital facility's architecture,
including materials, are of a high quality and appropriately reflect the institutional use.
The following comments, as they relate site planning and development under the PUD criteria
are provided for additional consideration.
• Lighting. After hearing from the applicant and their lighting specialist staff recommends
providing direction to the applicant to develop a list of implementation measures for
addressing current and future lighting that the Commission will review and potentially
recommend for implantation to City Council.
• Access and Circulation. If the Commission agrees that the solution the applicant
proposed for pedestrian circulation from the bus stop area to the hospital is a good
solution, it should be incorporated into the site plan.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS:
The Applicant is requesting two (2) separate growth management approvals to obtain sufficient
development allotments to construct Phase III and IV of the proposed project. It should be noted
that when affordable housing units are provided on-site, the individual mitigation requirements
are not required to be added together for a combined sum, as long as the largest amount of
required mitigation of any one growth management request is met. The requests and the project's
compliance with the applicable review standards are discussed below:
I) Growth Management Approval for Expansion or New Commercial Development. The
Applicant has requested approval for development of medical office space as required by
Section 26.470.080 (1), Expansion or New Commercial Development. The review
requires that the development proposal have sufficient growth management allotments,
be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan, mitigate for employees generated,
and represent minimal additional demand on public infrastructure.
Page 5 of 7
P6
During the Final PUD review for Phase II of the master facilities plan, the hospital
requested and was allocated 27,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial area for the medical
office space to cover all phases of development. During the Phase II review 15,000 sq. ft.
of commercial net leasable was mitigated for, leaving a balance of 12,000 sq. ft for
subsequent phases.
For Phase III, the applicant is requesting 10,187 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable space.
Sixty(60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial development
are required to be mitigated by the provision of affordable housing. Resolution No. 3
(Series of 2009), approving the Conceptual PUD permits the Applicant to use the Mixed
Use zone district employee generation rate for calculating employees generated by the
medical office space. Within the Mixed-Use zone district, 3.7 full time Equivalents
(FTEs) are generated per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. The basement and upper
floor employee generation rate is reduced by twenty-five (25) percent or 2.775 FTEs per
1,000 square feet of net leasable area.
Phase 1I will contain an expected total of 10,187 sq. ft. of net leasable area, with all of it
on an upper floor. The new net leasable area generates 28.6 FTEs [(10,187 sq. ft./1,000
sq. ft.) x 2.775]. When mitigated for at sixty (60) percent, as required by the code, the
number equals 16.95 FTEs.
2) Growth Management Approval for the Development of Essential Public Facilities. The
Applicant has requested approval for development of an Essential Public Facility as
required by Section 26.470.090 (4), Essential Public Facilities. City Council approves this
review based upon a recommendation of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the Community Development Director.
As proposed, the hospital component of the project in Phase II represents 86,451 gross
sq. ft of new Essential Public Facility for phases III and IV. As noted in the conceptual
approval, Phase III of the hospital redevelopment will generate 20.16 employees while
Phase IV will generate 8.46 employees.
Staff Comment: For Phase III, the greater mitigation amount for the two uses (hospital and
medical office space) is the hospital function at 20.16 employees anticipated to be generated,
while Phase IV is anticipated to generate 8.46 employees. The hospital is permitted to uses
an existing credit for affordable housing mitigation (that reflects existing affordable housing
the hospital owns and the housing that is being developed on site during Phase II
construction) and the credit covers the sum, of mitigation required for Phases III and IV;
however, the hospital employee generation estimate is required to be confirmed with an
actual audit once each phase is finished and operational.
RECOMMENDATION: After review and discussion of the agenda item, staff recommends
continuation of the hearing to a date certain.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the hearing on the AVH master facilities plan for
Phases III and IV to January , 2013."
Page 6 of 7
P7
EXHIBIT D— Applicant's Industry Standards slides from 10/30/12 PowerPoint presentation
(provided 11/20/12)
EXHIBIT E— Comparison of Development Phases (provided 11/20/12 and 12/4/12)
EXHIBIT F— Roof Plan(provided 11/20/12)
EXHIBIT G— Commissioner comment via email, Jim DeFrancia, dated 11/16/2012 (provided
11/20/12)
EXHIBIT H— Growth Management Review Criteria
EXHIBIT I- PUD Review Criteria
EXHIBIT J- Applicant addendum, from Leslie Lamont, dated 11/28/12
Page 7 of 7
All Phases of Development
LU
Phase III -Phase 1V
Proposed in Current Proposed in
Conceptual Phase l. Phase 11 Phase II Application Difference Phase 11 Application Difference '.
Sub-basement 0 0 1,489 0 0 0 0 0 0
Basement 24,558 0 10,094 10,671 19,385 8,714 3,813 1,854 -1,959
Level One 63,194 5,721 18,856 32,715 33,280 565 6,128 6,721 593
Level Two 32,927 0 20,977 4,724 8,152 3,428 0 0 0
Medical Office Space 17,716 0 12,000 15,000 10,187 -4,813 0 0 0
Ambulance Garage 0 0 0 0 3,436 3,436 0 0 0
Subtotal 138,395 5,721 63,416 63,110 74,440 11,330 9,941 8,575 -1,366
Existing Hospital 75,700 75,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parking Garage 76,000 0 76,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 290,095 81,421 139,416 63,110 74,440 9,941 8,575
Phase 11 Approved Additions to Master Facilities Plan
Currently
Approved Proposed Difference Above and Below Grade Comparison
Proposed
Affordable Housing 15,500 13,593 -1,907 Level Conceptual Build-out Difference
Whitcomb Terrace Sub-
Expansion 8,000 0 -8,000 basement 0 1,489 8,264
Below Grade Basement 24,558 31,333
Gross Sq. Ft.Totals Level One 63,194 64,578
Conceptual Approval 290,095 Level Two 32,927 29,129
5,493
Sum of Phase 1 81,421 MOS 17,716 22,187
Sum of Phase I & II 220,837 Above Grade Ambulance 0 3,436
Proposed sum of Phases I, II, & III 295,277 Totals 1 138,3951 152,1521 13,757
Proposed sum of Phases I, II, III & IV 303,852
Note: Housing and Whitcomb not included
CL
P9
EXHIBIT H
Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System
26.470.080 (1), Expansion or new commercial development. The expansion of an existing
commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building or the development of a new
commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building shall be approved, approved
with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on general
requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050.
Staff Finding: In Phase III, the applicant is requesting to develop 10,187 sq. ft. of net leasable
commercial office space in the form of medical offices. This is less than what was anticipated in
the conceptual approval. As part of Resolution No 3 (Series 2009— Conceptual PUD approval),
the Applicant is permitted to use the Mixed Use zone district employee generation rate. As such
3.7 employees are generated for every 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable area (NLA); however, the
employee generation rate is reduced by 25% or 2.775 when located on a second story. Section
26470.050 requires that "60% of the employees generated by the additional commercial or
lodge development" be mitigated. Following is the employee generation calculation:
10,187 sq.ft. /1,000 sq.ft =10.187
10.187 X 2.775 = 28.26 employees generated
28.26 *.6 =16.95 employees required to be mitigated
The hospital district has an existing affordable housing inventory in the form of the Beaumont,
Mountain Oaks, and the CEO house. The Conceptual PUD approval memorialized the
employees housed by these developments as 57 Full Time Equivalents and is permitted to be
used as credit towards additional employee generation associated with each phase of
development. Additionally, the redevelopment of the property is approved for new on-site and
off-site affordable housing. The on-site affordable housing, with its mix of studio and one-
bedroom units will house 28.5 employees. Considering both numbers, the total employee credit is
85.5 FTEs.
As part of the Conceptual PUD approval the Applicant estimated the number of new employees
generated during each phase of development for hospital operations. A total of 48.4 employees
are expected to be generated with the hospital expansion with a certain amount expected to come
online with each phase of development.
It was determined that with the approval of Phase H that 19.98 FTEs will be generated by the
medical office space and as noted above, the Phase III medical office space will generate 16.95
FTEs. With the development of Phase III, both the medical office space and the hospital function
will generate employees and it is estimated that 20.16 employees will be generated by the
hospital function. With on-site affordable housing, only the greater of the two generation rates is
required to be mitigated. For Phase III that is the hospital function.
Phase IV's expansion solely involves the expansion of the hospital and the employees anticipated
to be generated equals 8.46 FTEs.
Page 1 of 4
NO
FTE Credit Phase II Phase III Phase IV
mitigation mitigation mitigation
requirement requirement requirement
Employees 19.98 20.16 8.46
Generated
FTE Credit 85.5 65.52 45.36 36.9
26.470.090 (4), Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility, upon
a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure
to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an
essential public facility project.
b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council
may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is
deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in
consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used
as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs,
pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations.
Staff Finding: In Phases III and IV, the applicant is requesting 86,451 gross square feet
(including the ambulance garage) to develop and expand the hospital function of the parcel. The
director has found the hospital function of the property to be considered an Essential Public
Facility and Council has determined that the employee generation rate for the hospital be based
on actual audits that should be completed after each phase of development is complete.
26.470.050. General requirements.
B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this
standard.
Staff Finding: Sufficient growth management allotments are available for both the Essential
Public Facility and the Commercial uses on the property for Phases III and IV. There is no
annual cap on the amount of square footage that can granted in the calendar year for an
Page 2 of 4
P11
Essential Public Facility and the allotments for the medical office space were granted from the
2010 calendar year. Staff finds this criterion met.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as
with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Finding: The proposed development is on a large tract of land that acts as a campus
setting for the hospital, senior housing, ambulance barn, and health and human services
building. The property is close to open space and some dense residential neighborhoods. The
development is an expansion of an existing use with the addition of affordable housing. The site
is adjacent to other residential and affordable housing developments as well as institutional
uses. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Finding: The development is being reviewed as a site specific development plan and each
phase of development will conform to the dimensional standards granted. Staff finds this
criterion met.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
Staff Finding: Conceptual PUD approval was granted in 2009 and the proposal is in substantial
compliance with the approval. Staff finds this criterion met.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated
by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A,
Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The
employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4,
Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a
lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be
extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of
the Certificate.
Staff Finding: Detailed mitigation requirement are detailed under the heading-of 26470,080 (1),
Expansion or new commercial development. The applicant is developing on—site affordable
housing mitigation and has an available credit to use for any mitigation requirements. Staff finds
this criterion met.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural
or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty
Page 3 of 4
P12
percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished
floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation
units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided
absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability,
including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be
extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of
the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage
Conversion.
Staff Finding: There is no free-market residential development proposed in this application and
the criterion is not applicable.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional
demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public
infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and
communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal,
parking and road and transit services.
Staff Finding: The Applicant has been working with a number of city departments to ensure that
adequate utilities/facilities are provided on-site. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
Page 4 of 4
P13
Exhibit I
26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor
PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues
associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain
standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the
reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding: The redevelopment and expansion of the hospital campus implements goals
and policies of the AACP.
• By providing affordable housing, it contributes towards a critical mass of permanent
local residents with the Aspen Community Boundary—Managing Growth, Goal B, pg 18.
• The redevelopment of the campus contains development within the urban growth
boundary to contain and limit sprawl—Managing Growth, Goal D, pg 19.
• The site has multi modal transportation options through the trail system and bus service,
promoting transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles—Managing Growth, Goal E, pg 19.
• The Applicant is proposing a Transportation Demand Management plan to reduce the
impacts of automobiles and promote alternative modes of transportation —
Transportation, Goals E and G,pg 23.
• By making improvements to the trail and bus stop the Applicant is able to "Maintain and
improve the appeal of bicycling and walking...by adding sidewalk connections, replacing
sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where
appropriate... " (Goal C, pg 22)
• By using a palette of materials and range of building forms the design "Makes every
public project a model of good development, on all levels,from quality design to positive
contributions to the community fabric. " (Goal B, pg 43)
• The provision of affordable housing on the site helps "Create an affordable housing
environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new
neighborhoods... " (Intent, pg 25)
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The proposed development is on a large tract of land that acts as a campus
setting for the hospital, senior housing, ambulance barn, and health and human services
building. The property is close to open space and some dense residential neighborhoods. The
development is an expansion of an existing use with the addition of affordable housing. The
site is adjacent to other residential and affordable housing developments as well as
institutional uses. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Page 1 of 11
P14
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Finding: Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future
development of the area, as improvements to utilities and intersections may make future
development easier with the upgrades that are occurring. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from
GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development
and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan
review.
Staff Finding: Under the current proposal, the application will be reviewed as an essential
public facility (for the hospital operation) which has no cap on the square footage granted in
a calendar year, require growth management approval for the development of just over
10,000 sq. ft. of new commercial space/medical clinics (net leasable)for phase III. During
Phase II approvals, 27,000 sq. ft. was requested and granted for all phases of development
from the 2010 growth management year by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Allotments
are available for this phase of development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall
establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General
Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone
District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During
review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements
shall comply with the following:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and
compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the
surrounding area.
b) Natural or man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep
slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding
area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical
resources.
Staff Finding: The site contains a mix of uses including institutional (hospital/ambulance
barn), medical office space and multi family residential (senior and affordable housing
units). The property is close to other residential and affordable housing developments as well
as institutional uses (county health and human services). No known natural hazards exist on
the lot. The relocation of the heli pad will reduce a potential man-made hazard. Most of the
development proposed is within areas of the site that have already been impacted by
Page 2 of l l
P15
development. The applicant is proposing to maintain a large percentage of open space and
natural vegetation on the site which is characteristic of other developments in the
neighborhood, such as the Marolt housing, which tends to cluster development allowing for
open space. The proposed development is compatible with the campus style developments
within the vicinity of the parcel such as Highlands, the Aspen public school campus and
community recreation center with ball fields and tennis courts. These developments are
projects that have areas of concentrated development surrounded by some form of open
space. Additionally, they serve important community and resort functions. Improvements to
the site include safer pedestrian routes and an improved transit stop which improves
circulation within the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open
space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD
and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing to concentrate the redevelopment to an area that is
already developed with both the hospital and Whitcomb Terrace, minimizing the impact of
the new development and maintaining a large amount of undeveloped land on the site. As
noted earlier, a large portion of the site is undeveloped and the proposal will maintain that
feeling of openness. The dimensional requirements allow for the expansion of the hospital
while minimizing the footprint of the hospital on the ground and maintaining open space.
Other examples of development, such as the Marolt seasonal housing, are clustered and
maintain an area of open space in close proximity to the hospital. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the
following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including
any nonresidential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed.
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for
pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive
techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general
activity centers in the City. -
Staff Finding: The Applicant provided a summary of the parking needs analysis in the
Conceptual PUD application. The analysis considered alternative modes of transportation
that can be used to get to the hospital and reduced the estimated number of off-street parking
spaces needed for the redevelopment by approximately 20%from the originally estimated
need of 350-400 for Whitcomb Terrace, the hospital and the medical office space. The
conceptual PUD application approved 339 spaces without considering the impacts of an
expansion of Whitcomb terrace or new affordable housing units on-site. Currently, at the
Page 3 of 1 l
P16
completion of Phase IV a total of 356 parking spaces are proposed and broken down as
follows:
• Parking structure: 219 (with 10 spaces proposed for the affordable housing units)
• Hospital surface parking: 98
• Whitcomb Terrace surface parking: 31
• Affordable Housing surface parking:2
• Affordable housing tuck-under parking:6
An updated trip generation plan, recognizing the changes being proposed recommends that
the hospital and medical office space, with a Transpiration Demand Management Plan in
place will need 315 spaces. This is slighly greater than what is being proposed. By adding
the parking for Whitcomb Terrace and the affordable housing, 356 is a reasonable number of
parking spaces. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient
infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced
if.
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service
the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding: Sufficient infrastructure exists to service the development although some
upgrading is required and those upgrades are currently occurring; however, as density
relates to the number of dwelling units on a site and the last two phases of development do
not include residential development, this standard is not applicable.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural
hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD
may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or
the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due
to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful
disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding: As noted previously, the last two phases of development do not include
residential development; therefore this standard is not applicable.
Page 4 of 11
P17
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development
pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's
physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as
expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists
no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5,
above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with
and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern,
land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate
than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD
conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as
otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD
Development Plan.
b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be
reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Staff Finding: The applicant is not proposing housing as part of Phases III or IV; therefore
this standard is not applicable.
C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and
ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual
interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are
preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding: In general, the northerly portion of the site is undeveloped and in a natural
state which is being maintained to handle storm water and continue the use of the area with
Nordic trails. The redevelopment is proposed to maintain that feel and limit the developed
area of the 18.5 acre site towards the southern end where the hospital currently exists. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and
vistas.
Staff Finding: As mentioned previously, the northerly portion of the site is undeveloped and
in a natural state which is being maintained to handle storm water and continue the use of
Page 5 of 11
P18
the area with Nordic trails. The redevelopment is proposed to maintain that feel and limit the
developed area of the 18.5 acre site towards the southern end where the hospital currently
exists. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural
context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and
pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding: The proposed building is generally oriented towards the public street but is set
back from the street, which contributes to the more open feel of Castle Creek Road. Existing
vegetation currently screens the hospital and additional landscaping is proposed. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service
vehicle access.
Staff Finding: The City of Aspen Fire Marshal has reviewed.the proposal, and has
commented on the project during Phase II development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding: According to the application, the project will comply with all applicable
requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Staff Finding: Site drainage was extensively reviewed and approved for the entire site by the
City Engineer as part of Phase II of the redevelopment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to
accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff Finding: The Applicant has developed the master plan to accommodate the multiple
functions at the site: helicopter access, ambulance and service access, as well as patient
access. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed
landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves
existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental
plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Page 6 of 11
P19
Staff Finding: The landscaping is planned to correspond with the two development zones of
the project: developed and natural. A number of new plantings are proposed with a more
intensive/traditional landscaping near the hospital and natural grasses, serviceberry and
gambel oak in the natural areas. As part of Phase II's approval, landscape screening for
the affordable housing is required and will be required to be field located with the approval
of the parks department. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and
interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding: The undeveloped area of the site (generally described as the northerly
meadow)provides a natural open setting. Enhancements in this area preserve these features.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is
appropriate.
Staff Finding: The Applicant provided a landscape plan with the Final PUD application for
phases III and IV. Parks has reviewed the plan and has some minor comments with regard
to standard vegetation protection that is required with any development and is requesting the
opportunity to work with the applicant with field locating plantings to ensure that areas are
not overplanted which could jeopardize the health of existing vegetation. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
E. Architectural character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to
existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and
indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and
cultural resources.
Staff Finding: A variety of materials are being proposed for the redevelopment of the
hospital: glass and different types of masonry. As an institutional type of use, the
architectural design reflects the use of the building with a palette of materials that fit well on
the site. The current design provides appropriate massing and architecture for the 18.5 acre
site and the use of it as a hospital campus. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of
the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive
mechanical systems.
Staff Finding: The Applicant has noted that Phase II of the building is expected to be
designed to achieve LEED certification and that Phases III and IV will be designed and
constructed in an environmentally sustainable way equivalent with LEED certified
construction. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate
manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Page 7 of 1 1
P20
Staff Finding: Snow storage is anticipated to be handled by removal and relocation in the
drainage basin. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials,
weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency.
Staff Finding: As mentioned previously, the Applicant has noted that the building is expected
to be designed to achieve LEED certification and that it is anticipated that the building is
designed and constructed in an environmentally sustainable way as noted previously. Snow
storage will occur with drainage basins. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns.
The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind
to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is
proposed in an appropriate manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless
otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features,
buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is
prohibited for residential development.
Staff Finding: As noted in the application, the site lighting that has been developed is
intended to "be limited to fixtures required by code or as needed to provide a safe
environment and clear wayfinding on the Hospital grounds. " As part of Phase II outdoor
lighting was submitted that met the city's foot-candles allowances and full cut-off fixture
requirement; however, it has become clear that neighbors are concerned about the site's
lighting. The hospital is currently reviewing options to lessen the-impact of lighting.Work is
on going with this criterion.
G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a
common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the
proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation
area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and
proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief
to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses
and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in
perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD
or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
Page 8 of 11
P21
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent
care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with
a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development.
Staff Finding: There is no specific common open space for the benefit of the development;
however, two trails on the site are for the benefit of the public. Minor changes to the Nordic
trail have been approved by the Parks department and the relocation of the pedestrian trail
along Castle Creek has been reviewed to improve safety at intersection crossings. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development
does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does
not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated
with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding: The Water, Sanitation, Fire and Electric Departments reviewed this
application and determined there is adequate service.for this development. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the
necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding: At this time no adverse impacts on the public infrastructure are anticipated.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and
where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement.
Staff Finding: The Applicant has been working with a number of city departments to ensure
that adequate utilities/facilities are provided on-site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to minor PUD applications) The
purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly
burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail
facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of
the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street
either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area
dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding: Staff believes that all structures and uses have appropriate access to a public
street, with the majority of improvement constructed in Phase H and nearing completion.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Page 9 of 11
P22
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not
create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such
surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding: Staff believes that adding a service access road minimizes potential congestion
with general hospital traffic. Improvements to the access drives for both the hospital and
Whitcomb Terrace will improve circulation on the site inclusive of a deceleration/turn lane
and improved RFTA bus queuing area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to,
the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and
the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for
appropriate improvements and maintenance.
Staff Finding: Two trails on the site are for the benefit of the public and will be provided
appropriate easements. Minor changes to the Nordic trail have been approved by the Parks
department and the relocation of the pedestrian trail along Castle Creek has been reviewed
to improve safety at intersection crossings. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans, as applicable,
regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed
to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private
ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and
emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within
the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding: There are no gates or guard posts proposed as part of this PUD.
J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The
purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary
burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are
mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be
defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the
following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete
development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of
initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to
public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to
be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing
Page 10 of 11
P23
and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase.
Staff Finding: The hospital master facilities plan has been developed so each completed
phase can function as a complete development and permits the continued operations of the
hospital as construction occurs. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Page 11 of 11
P24
Lamont Planning
Services, LLC
1�3tT
Meiniju
To: Jennifer Phelan, Assistant Director,Aspen Community Development Department
From:Leslie Lamont, Project Planner
Date: November 28, 2012
Re: Aspen Valley Hospital Phases III/IV-Supplemental Memo for December 4, 2012
Planning&Zoning Commission Meeting
The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for their consideration at the December 4, 2012 meeting. The information is
provided in response to questions from the P&Z, staff, or the community.
Please find attached the following items for review:
1. In response to a question from the P&Z there are several renderings of the facility at
build out. The renderings show the facility from various vantage points with mechanical
rooftop units in place.
2. In response to a question regarding the orientation of the roof top units and how that
affects their function, the following description is provided by the team's mechanical
engineer and architect:
Each of the new Roof Top Units (RTU's) is designed and pre-manufactured to
condition and deliver up to between 12,000 and 18,000 cubic feet per minute
(CFM) for the areas they serve. In order to do this and to make sure that the
air is properly conditioned and filtered, the RTU's have a series of
compartments and components which pull the air through them and treat it, in
sequence. These compartments are generally arranged in a horizontal
fashion to minimize the vertical profile of the RTU, and to allow for supply and
return air to and from the building, to be ducted directly to the bottom of the
unit. The height and width of each unit is determined by several factors
including the volume of air required of each and the maximum air velocity to
control the pressure drop through the equipment to minimize the energy used
by the unit fans, the corresponding fan sizes in diameter, intake and relief air
p:970-963-8434 e:lezlamont @gmail.com c:970-948-1357
P25
louver sizes along the sides, and the location and size of the exhaust air
plenum, which needs to be directed away from the side intake (usually above
the other compartments) and prevailing wind directions. A Plenum is a space
inside an enclosed area; in this case it is the roughly 24" of space above the
actual equipment that acts as a duct to send the exhaust air to the opposite
side of the unit due to the prevalent wind direction.
3. Tom Dunlop of Dunlop Environmental Consulting, Inc. (DEC) in consult with
Engineering Dynamics, Inc. of Englewood, CO (EDI), conducted a noise analysis at the
request of the Aspen Valley Hospital. The most recent noise analysis was perfonned on
October 19-20, 2012 followed by random days ending on November 3, 2012. The
purpose of the 2012 study was to follow up on studies conducted in 2007, 2008 and 2010
and document changes in noise levels from various locations around the perimeter of the
hospital.
Tom's report and map indicating monitor locations are attached for review. Tom will
attend the December 4 meeting to review his findings.
In addition to the attachments, the design/development team will be prepared to review
the following issues at the December 4 meeting:
1. Pedestrian Connectivity between the Hospital and the Doolittle Drive RFTA bus stop
and the Health and Human Services Building.
2. Recent updates on lighting mitigation and proposed lighting for Phases III/IV.
Attachments:
A. Roof Top Views from Various Vantage Points
B. Noise Analysis
p:970-963-8434 e:lezlamont @gmail.com c:970-948-1357 2
-o
N
07
low
v Ur
_X32
View from Southeast design
. _ .....�_/.. � �9,��_,--- _., ■.�■■■CCU■■■�■■■'��� _
t -- a=■��I .worm, III ii,� '' a ■■■■---- --�.■-- �.
_�i��iw iii�i `iii�li w1 ■u�' lm X119 1� !up 'i'■■■■■■■�■�■■�■'n I I III !
mile.
View from Southeast design
J
S3
{ 1
P28
i
l�
s�_y
•F
s
�qq
t
i
?. t
slog
■H1■
■�1of
■Rimy
�Ems
- his
III
1111
gill'
I
a:
r `
. � =:,.,. � �-i•%; 44'�� *"ref ��JJ�= �: t� .a � _ .
_ ♦ _ ! oT!'"!�; [
��jj,,� jR` .�y �� • �� �d' •'r # `. 4.,.a+ .rte��
- t
Aii
{
r
■
r
r as
MOTIT 1 0 • .
�- A
jog
^' • �. ,.,� � ;-� �-�;fir^
WISaM ._
•R r
�i
•1� i
i,
IV%
sime:
a -
P32
DUNLOP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.
Environmental and Public Health Planning for the Future
Thomas S.Dunlop
President
November 28,2012
Aspen Valley Hospital
John Schied,Director of Operations
0401 Castle Creek Road
Aspen,CO
81611
Re: Aspen Valley Hospital Noise Analysis
Dear Mr.Schied:
INTRODUCTION
Dunlop Environmental Consulting,Inc.(DEC)is pleased to submit the following
findings of an analysis of noise in the neighborhood of Aspen Valley Hospital.DEC,in
consult with Engineering Dynamics,Inc.of Englewood,CO(EDI)performed the
analysis at the request of the Aspen Valley Hospital(AVH)consulting team under
your leadership.The most recent noise analysis was performed Oct 19-20,2012
followed by random days ending on November 3,2012.
The DEC and EDI team was tasked with following up on noise analysis done in 2007,
2008 and 2010.During the earlier studies the focus was on determining ambient
noise levels using two areas of focus.The first was to study the affects of moving the
helicopter landing zone from its current location to another location on AVH
property approximately 15 feet higher and on the same side of the hospital.The
second was to determine ambient noise levels in the neighborhood around AVH.
Ambient noise is a composition of sounds from various sources common to a
specific area.
The challenge before us in 2012 was to replicate and expand the neighborhood
locations.The helicopter study performed earlier was determined to be applicable
in 2012 given the fact that the existing and proposed helicopter landing zone
remains in the same general location as it was during the earlier study.
Careful attention was to focus this study on properties in close proximity to AVE.
Locations chosen as receptor sites for placement of the sound level meters were
selected based on the earlier studies to ensure scientific comparison. The original
nine neighborhood sites were used again with slight modifications to one of the sites
by Highway 82 in order to reduce the impact of highway noise.An additional two
sites were selected on Heather lane in response to neighbor requests.
Post Office Box 6289 Snowmass Village,Colorado 81615 USA Office and Fax(970)923-4820
1
'6 printed on retytled papa
P33
The protocol used to carry out the noise analysis was done using techniques and
equipment that is defensible using scientific principles and best management
practices.DEC and ED[have decades of experience in noise analysis.DEC has
specialized experience in community noise monitoring and noise ordinance
compliance.EDl has broad experience In community noise monitoring as well as a
very strong background in industrial and aeronautical noise analysis.All of these
skills were applied on this project to ensure to AVH and the community that the
analysis was done with transparency and scientific support.
Details of the type of equipment used during the test are available including sound
level meter definitions,readings taken at each receptor site,a map showing.
locations of each meter(included as attachment 1),and other criteria used to
establish the network of meters.The location map is included with this report along
with an example of what various everyday items register in decibels(attachment 2).
Other details not provided in this summary report are available upon request.
PROCESS
Protocols followed were in conformance with two noise abatement ordinances that
pertain to this project.They are Title 18-Noise Abatement,City of Aspen;and
Chapter 6.36-Noise Abatement,Pitkin County.Each ordinance identifies stationary
noise source maximum allowable levels by zone district and by time of day
(nighttime and daytime). Units of measure are in decibels depicted as dB(A).
The hospital is in the Aspen City limits and is zoned Public.The nighttime standard
[9pm-7am]in the Public zone is either 55 decibels or 60 decibels(there appears to
be a conflict in the City ordinance as the Public zone appears under two zone
classifications;Lodging and Commercial).The daytime standard[7am-9pm] in the
Public zone is either 60 decibels or 65 decibels.For purposes of taking a
conservative approach,the lesser of the maximum allowable standards will be used.
Therefore,in the City Limits noise cannot exceed 55 dB(A)at night and 60 dB(A)
during the day. Measurements are taken at the property line.
The Meadowood Subdivision is located in Pitkin County and is zoned R-30 and AR-2,
both falls under the Residential noise standard.The nighttime standard[7pm-7am]
is 50 dB(A).The daytime standard[7am-7pm]is 55 dB(A). As a point of reference
normal conversation spoken about three feet away falls between 55-60 dB(A).
Sound is measured on a logarithmic scale since that is most relative to human
hearing.In simple terms a 10-decibel increase or decrease in sound presents a
human perception that the sound is either twice as loud or twice as soft. Two
sources of sound producing identical noise levels do not double the amount.For
example two sources at 80 dB(A)each will not register as 160 dB(A),but rather will
register as 83 dB(A);approximately a 23%increase.This is significant when
comparing and understanding the impact of noise levels on humans.
2
P34
Residential noise standards represent a conservative approach.The standards
mentioned above will be referenced when compared to readings taken during the
noise monitoring program.
FINDINGS
In summary,the sound level readings taken on October-November 2012 can be
characterized using the same conclusion reached after the 2007 study.The
measured data shows that the noise environment in the area around Aspen Valley
Hospital is not pristine,but is typical for mixed land use.In this instance land uses
include;dense residential units,single family residential homes,State Highway 62,a
church,a major traffic intersection,a water treatment plant,an office building,a
senior center,an approach corridor to the airport,and a public school campus.
A side-by-side comparison of noise readings at the same nine locations used in 2007
revealed baseline or existing levels almost identical during both studies.The earlier
study documented slightly louder levels,but that is attributed to the fact a
helicopter study was incorporated in the 2007 study and not the one done in 2012.
The additional two neighborhood receptor locations were comparable to the
original nine.Three additional sites using slightly different protocol were chosen to
add more definition to the study area.Total number of sites monitored was
fourteen.
Eleven neighborhood site location data for sound that was recorded over
approximately a 24-hour period for 90%of that time is as follows(ninety percent is
used as a representation of sound level heard for that amount of time out of the
length of time the meter was recording.Ninety percent is used in community noise
enforcement).During the approximately 24-46 hour period the sound level meters
were running at sites 1-11 the AVH'chiller'unit was operating at various speeds
and the AVH boiler room outside doors were open between approximately Sam to
5pm.All roof top mechanical systems were in operation during the test.
1) Vacant area across from 120 Twin Ridge Dr 43 dB(A)
2) Meadowood Dr near Heather Ln 36 dB(A)
3) Meadowood Dr near Primrose Path 39 dB(A)
4) Near end of Laurel Ln 34 dB(A)
5) Northeast of Prince of Peace Church in open area 37 dB(A)
6) Hang glider landing meadow-300 ft from Hwy 82 35 dB(A)
7) Near 205 Larkspur Ln 37 dB(A)
8) Glen Eagle Or by high school 29 dB(A)
9) MAA housing-Music School Rd 39 dB(A)
10) 146 Heather Ln 35 dB(A)
11) 240 Heather Ln 36 dB(A)
3
P35
Sites 12-14 were 10-minute tests with hospital mechanical equipment in operation.
The shorter test is a commonly used protocol in community noise enforcement.In
this instance the shorter time was able to record comprehensive ambient sounds.
12) AVH property line closest to Meadowood Dr 49 dB(A)
13) 202 Meadowood Dr 44 dB(A)
14) 189 Meadowood Dr 41 dB(A)
The substance of these results can be realized when compared to the two noise
abatement ordinances mentioned earlier.When applying the quietest standard of
50 dB(A)to the 360 degree study area around AVH,levels recorded were below the
accepted community noise levels,
Given all of the above recordings,one that rises to higher importance is the one
taken at the AVH/Meadowood Subdivision property line,location 12(please see
attachment 1).It documents that the main AVH mechanical system closest to the
property line is in compliance with applicable noise ordinances.It is worthy to recall
that applicable noise abatement ordinances identify the location of sound level
monitoring to be at a property line to determine compliance.
All of the neighborhood test sites registered quieter than the most conservative
code standard of 5o dB(A).The Hospital is committed to follow up on mechanical
noise coming from the facility upon the completion of Phases 11,111 and IV of the
project in accordance with the commitments and representations made during the
review process and to the community at large.As an example,follow up may include
additional noise studies.
CONCLUSION
Human hearing is not identical.Hearing loss due to age,disease,injury or birth
defects can dramatically influence a person's reaction to sound that is loud,soft,low
frequency or high frequency.When discussing the impact of a noise source,
remembering that people have varying degrees of sensitivity to sound must be
weighed when personalizing complaints.Noise abatement ordinances take into
account the larger population when approving standards for community noise
regulation.In other words,a noise may not violate a standard,but it may still be
heard.This is what results in the earlier statement that the area around AVH is not
pristine,but is composed of various private and public land uses that all contribute
to the ambient sounds recorded during this study.
The overall observation concluded by this study is that,despite an increase in the
size of the facility,increased activity at AVE has not resulted in excessive noise
when compared to applicable City of Aspen and Pitkin County noise standards.Nor
has noticeable change taken place between past noise studies and the study recently
completed in 2012.This finding supports previous representations to the
community that noise Ievels would not increase with growth.As the Hospital
4
P36
continues to complete the Master Facility Plan staff remains committed to continued
noise monitoring to ensure that sound at the AVH property line does not exceed the
City of Aspen and Pitkin County noise standards.
Please contact me with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Thomas S.Dunlop,MPH,REHS
Attachments: Sound level meter location map, attachment 1
Sound level comparison chart,attachment 2
cc: Lamont Planning Services,LLC
Stephen Selby,AVH Project Manager
5
P37
;Site#6
Site- � +
V } Go
A°n Creek Rd z
SFte#2 j
!r
2� -v
♦sic /o � SiTe�3 Site#9 S��`
i
�"s- <•. � . tin
O_. Cl
J
� Site#�
Pat 800lltih�c
is Site,4 " i .Laurel Site#4 E Wow- f
75' cascade to ahr i
Lark-,I Ln-
•J Site#7 f�
o , CL a Dr
t
-0
w
00
a 10 normal breathing f'JTGtc�,//, elt>l Z
a 20 whispering at 5 feet
a 30 soft whisper
• 50 rainfall
a 60 normal conversation
a 110 shouting in ear
a 120 thunder
Home Work Recreation
a 50 refrigerator a 40 quiet office,library a 40 quiet residential
a 50-60 electric • 50 large office area
toothbrush a 65-95 power lawn a 70 freeway traffic
a 50-75 washing mower a 85 heavy traffic,noisy
machine a 80 manual machine, restaurant
a 50-75 air conditioner tools a 90 truck,shouted
a 50-80 electric • 85 handsaw conversation
shaver a 90 tractor a 95-110 motorcycle
a 55 coffee percolator a 90-115 subway a 100 snowmobile
a 55-70 dishwasher a 95 electric drill a 100 school dance,
a 60 sewing machine a 100 factory machinery boom box
a 60-85 vacuum • 100 woodworking a 110 disgo•_
cleaner class a 110 busy video arcade
a 60-95 hair dryer a 105 snow blower a -110 symphony
a 65-80 alarm clock a 110 power saw concert
a 70 N audio a 110 leafblower a 110 car horn
a 70-80 coffee grinder a 120 chain saw, a 110-120 rock concert
a 70-95 garbage hammer on nail a 112 personal cassette
disposal a 120 pneumatic drills, player on high
a 75-85 flush toilet heavy machine a 117 football game
a 80 pop-up toaster a 120 jet plane(at (stadium)
a 80 doorbell ramp) a 120 band concert
a 80 ringing telephone • 120 ambulance siren a 125 auto stereo
a 80 whistling kettle a 125 chain saw (factory installed)
• 80-90 food mixer or • 130 jackhammer, a 130 stock car races
processor power drill a 143 bicycle horn
a 80-90 blender • 130 air raid a 150 firecracker
s
� C' Pi
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Nadolny,Planner Technician
RE: 601 E. Hyman Ave, aka Victorian Square Condominiums, GMQS and Subdivision
Reviews-Public Hearin
HEARING DATE: December 4,2012
APPLICANT/OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Victorian Square, LLC Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the application for Growth
REPRESENTATIVE: Management and provide a favorable
Stan Clauson—Stan Clauson Associates; recommendation to City Council regarding
Sarah Broughton—Rowland&Broughton Subdivision Review.
Architecture and Urban Design
SUMMARY:
LOCATION: The Applicant requests Subdivision approval for the
Victorian Square Condominiums, development of the third floor free-market residential
commonly known as 601 E. Hyman Ave, unit, and approval of Growth Management allotments
City and Townsite of Aspen for 2,056 sf of new net leasable commercial space
and one new free-market residential unit.
CURRENT ZONING&USE
This property is located in the Commercial
(C-1)zone district. The site is currently
used as commercial office space.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is proposing to demolish the
existing two-story commercial Victorian
Square building and replace it with a three-
story mixed-use building containing retail
and commercial office space and one free-
market residential unit.
Figure A:Photo of subject property as viewed from the
E.Hyman Ave.fagade.
1
P2 ,
LAND USE REouESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the site, which have
been categorized by the final decision-making board below.
1. Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision-making body for the following
reviews:
a. Growth Management: New Net Leasable Space. Pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.470.080.1, this application requires the Planning and Zoning
Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny
Growth Management.
b. Growth Management: Addition of Multi-family Free-Market Development.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.080.2, this application requires the
Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with
conditions or deny Growth Management.
c. Growth Management: Affordable Housing. Pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.470.040 C.7, this application requires the Planning and Zoning
Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny
Growth Management.
2. City Council is the final decision-making body for the following review:
a. Subdivision: For the residential unit within the proposed development that has
separate legal interests. An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.480.040, Subdivision, requires the Planning and Zoning
Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of the Subdivision to City Council.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing two-story commercial building located on
the corner of E. Hyman Ave and S. Hunter St, and to redevelop the site with a new three-story
mixed-use building that contains commercial and free-market residential uses. Conceptual
Commercial Design Review approval was granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission on
November 16, 2012 per Resolution 19, Series 2012. The existing property is located in the
Commercial (C-1) Zone District on a 4,500 sf lot.
The Applicant proposes the following:
• The expansion of commercial development by 2,056 sf of commercial net leasable area
beyond the existing commercial net leasable area for a total of 7,265 sf net leasable
commercial space.
• The development of one 1,835 sf free-market residential unit.
The proposed project will generate additional employees that will require affordable housing
mitigation, discussed below.
2
P3
Staff Comments:
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW:
The Applicant is required to provide affordable housing mitigation for both the increase in net
leasable space, as well as the addition of the free-market residential housing unit. The Applicant
is requesting growth management approval to obtain sufficient development allotments to
construct the proposed project. The request and the project's compliance with the applicable
review standards are discussed below:
1) The existing net leasable space is 5,209 sf, and the proposed net leasable space is 7,265
s£ The development of new net leasable space in a mixed-use development requires
affordable housing mitigation at 60% of the employees generated by the new commercial
space. Additionally, basement and upper floor commercial space allows for a 25%
reduction of the number of employees generated per square foot of new net leasable
space compared to at-grade new net leasable space. In this case, the Applicant must
provide mitigation for the 2,056 sf difference, which calculates as 3.41 Full Time
Equivalents (FTE's) as outlined in Exhibit A, attached.
2) There is no existing net livable space currently on the site, so the Applicant must provide
mitigation for the entire 1,835 sf of new free-market residential space. The development
of new net livable space in a mixed-use development requires affordable housing
mitigation at 30% of the additional free-market residential net livable area. The net
livable space mitigation calculates as 550.50 sf of affordable housing unit space that must
be provided for. To convert this square footage into employees, one employee = 400 sf
of net livable area. Therefore, this calculates to 1.38 FTE's as outlined in Exhibit A,
attached.
3) Since the Applicant has not proposed to provide any on-site mitigation, both FTE
calculations must be mitigated for, for a combined total of 4.79 FTE's. The Applicant
has proposed to provide mitigation through the purchase of a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credits which will be properly extinguished per Section 26.470.070(4)(b) of the
Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the purchase of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credits as a means of mitigation.
SUBDIVISION:
The development of a free-market residential dwelling unit requires approval of subdivision
pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's Land Use Code, which includes units
within the same development that have separate legal interests.
In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets all
applicable subdivision review standards as established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050,
and attached as Exhibit B to this memo. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission provide a favorable recommendation of approval to City Council of the
request for Subdivision review.
3
P4
SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATIONS FEE:
Land Use Code Chapter 26.620, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either
dedicate lands for school function or provide a cash-in-lieu payment. The Applicant has
proposed to pay a cash-in-lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use
Code Chapter 26.620.
Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that the Applicant
pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed
development.
IMPACT FEES:
The Applicant is required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee_ and TDM/Air Quality Impact
Fee for the additional net leasable and net livable square footage associated with the
redevelopment of the site pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610.090, Impact Fees. The fees
for this project shall be assessed and paid prior to building permit issuance.
OFF-STREET PARKING:
For every 1,000 sf of net leasable that is added to the site, the Applicant must provide either one
off-street parking space or payment-in-lieu. The proposed development increases the net
leasable space by 2,056 sf, equivalent to 2.056 off-street parking spaces. The Applicant has not
proposed any on-site parking for this development, and will therefore be required to provide
payment-in-lieu for the parking spaces.
Per the Code, no off-street parking is required for a residential multi-family unit within a mixed-
use building within the C-1 zone district.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
• Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) — APCHA is recommending to the
APCHA Board at their regular meeting on December 5, 2012 approval of the use of the
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit to satisfy the required employee housing
mitigation for the 4.79 FTE's.
• Parks—All landscaping within the public right-of-way will be subject to the requirements
of Chapter 21.20 of the Municipal Code, and approved by City Parks and Engineering
Depts. prior to installation. Parks will have final approval of any tree species planted.
Any trees that will be removed from the property will require an approved tree permit,
with mitigation required for removals. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during
the tree removal permit process.
• Engineering — The site design must meet the requirements of the Urban Runoff
Management Plan, to be submitted prior to final building permit issuance. All sidewalk,
curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as outlined in Title 21 of the
Municipal Code. A construction management plan must be submitted that includes
mitigation for parking, staging/encroachments and truck traffic. An excavation
stabilization plan will be required. The Applicant may provide a fee-in-lieu payment for
a portion of the water detention requirements as per Section 2.12.14 of the Municipal
4
P5
Code.
• Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) - ACSD will review the approved
drainage plans, on-site utility plans, the location of any food processing equipment, and
landscaping plans that involve impact to the public right-of-way. Old service lines must
be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to ACDS
requirements.
• Fire - The project is subject to all codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection
District, including, but not limited to the installation of a fire suppression system installed
according to the latest edition of NFPA 13, and the installation of a fire alarm system
installed according to the latest edition of NFPA 72.
• Utilities-The transformer shall remain located on the project site, and must meet all
Engineering right-of-way standards, City Electrical Distribution Standards, and
applicable Electrical Code Requirements. Water service should be sized by a fire
protection professional and reviewed by the Water Dept.
RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the applicable review
standards in the Land Use Code, and recommends approval of this application.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2012, granting GMQS allotments and a
Subdivision approval recommendation for the expansion of new net leasable commercial space
and free-market residential space for the property located at 601 E. Hyman Ave."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A-GMQS Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B- Subdivision Review
EXHIBIT C-Department Referrals
EXHIBIT D-Application
5
P6
Resolution No._
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND SUBDIVISION REVIEWS FOR
NEW COMMERICAL AND FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
THAT IS PART OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS VICTORIAN
SQUARE CONDOMINIUMS AND LOCATED AT 601 E. HYMAN AVENUE,
CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No.'s 2737-182-25-801,2737-182-25-027, 2737-182-25-028, 2737-182-25-029,
2737-182-25-030, 2737-182-25-031, 2737-182-25-032,2737-182-25-033.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Victorian Square, LLC requesting Growth Management and Subdivision Reviews
approval to develop new commercial net leasable area and a new free-market residential
unit as part of a new mixed-use development located at 601 E. Hyman Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, prior to applying for the Subdivision review and Growth
Management review for new commercial and residential development the Applicant
received Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission via Resolution No. 19, Series of 2012; and,
WHEREAS, the Growth Management review is for approval of both the
commercial and residential components of a Mixed—Use Building which contains 7,265
sq. ft. of net leasable area, of which 2,056 sq, ft. of net leasable area is newly created
and1,835 sf of residential that is entirely newly created; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval of the Growth
Management Review requests; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval of the Subdivision
Review request; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on
December 4, 2012; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission grants approval of the
Growth Management Review request for the commercial component of a mixed
development that contains 7,265 sq. ft. of net leasable area; and,
1
P7
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission grants approval of the
Growth Management Review request for the free-market residential unit within a mixed-
use development that contains 1,835 sq. ft. of net livable area; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the Subdivision review request.
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 approves Growth Management
Reviews for:
• New Net Leasable Space: Pursuant to Section 26.470.080.1 of the Land Use
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission grants approval for 2,056 growth
management allotments related to 2,056 sf of new net leasable space within the
proposed development.
• Addition of Multi-Family Free-Market Space: Pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2
of the Land Use Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission grants approval for
one growth management allotment related to the addition of one multi-family
free-market residential unit within the proposed development.
• Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7 of the Land Use Code,
the Planning and Zoning Commission grants the Applicant approval to meet the
requirement of affordable housing mitigation through purchasing a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credits for the required 4.79 FTE's, to be deed-restricted at a
Category 4 or lower.
Section 2•
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 Subdivision
review to City Council regarding the addition of a multi-family free-market residential
unit having separate legal interests.
Section 3: Building
The Applicant shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a
building permit is submitted. All dimensional standards shall be met for the C-1 zone
district and confirmed at the time of building permit.
Section 4: Engineerin1
The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the
Engineering Department. The project must comply with CMP requirements at the time
2
P8
of permit. The design for the site must meet the requirements of the Urban Runoff
Management Plan. A drainage plan must be submitted prior to building permit issuance.
Section 5: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is
not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2009 Edition, Section 503),
approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 6: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards.
Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements:
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office. Oil and Grease interceptors (not
traps) are required for all food processing establishments and shall be identified and
specified prior to building permit. Old service lines must be excavated and properly
abandoned.
Section 8: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise
abatement and pool designs.
Section 9: Exterior Lighting:
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 10: Off-Street Parkin
The Applicant is required to provide parking mitigation for the increase in net-leasable
commercial space on site. The new net leasable square footage will generate 2.056
parking spaces. The Applicant will provide cash-in-lieu payment as mitigation for the
parking spaces, as per Section 26.515.030, Required number of off-street parking spaces,
of the Land Use Code. This same section of the Code states that the Applicant is not
required to provide parking for the residential free-market unit as the development is
within the C-1 (Commercial) zone district.
Section 11: Impact Fees
Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a Parks
Development fee and a TDM/Air Quality fee pursuant to Chapter 26.610, Impact Fees.
The amount of the fees shall be calculated by the Community Development Department
3
P9
using the calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time the Applicant submits
a building permit.
Section 12: School Land Dedication Fees
Prior to the issuance of building permit, the Applicant shall pay a School Land
Dedications fee pursuant to Chapter 26.620, School Land Dedication. The amount of the
fees shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the
calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time the Applicant submits a building
permit.
Section 13:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 14:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 15:
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 4`h day
of December, 2012.
LJ Erspamer
Planning and Zoning Commission Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney
4
P10
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A: Floor plans
5
Resolution Exhibit.+
Floor Plans
COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL TCANOPY COMMERCIAL
1,826 SF(NET) 2,554 SF(GROSS) OVERHANG ABOVE 3,162 SF(GROSS)
2,417 SF(NET) PROPERTY LINE 3,022 SF(NET)
PEDESTRIAN SHARED LOBBY
AMENITY 265 SF TOTAL
540 SF(NET) I COMM.199 SF(75%)
_ 12%OF PROPERTY - -RES.66 SF(25%) r—COMMERCIAL LOBBY
107 SF TOTAL
-COMM.107 SF(100%)
STAIR AND ELEVATOR -J >—STAIR AND ELEVATOR
I _ 280 SF TOTAL �-- 200 SF TOTAL
I a ) COMM-210 SF 5%
-COMM.210 SF(75%) (7 )
RES.70 SF(25%) -RES.70 SF(25%)
TRASHIRECYCLING -
-- 162 SF TOTAL 'I+aJ. - _ I STAIR -i
i! ,-a- MECHANICAL -COMM,122 SF Q5%) ❑ fir--: - I 191 SF(EXEMPT) __--
,
II 1 i ROOMS I RES-40 SF(25%) - -
-1 — — — —
S95 F TOTAL LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN
LEVEL 0 FLOOR PLAN -COMM.146 SF(75%) LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN
- - 49 SF(25%)
FLOOR AREA: NET LEASABLE: F;ES, FLOOR AREA: NET LEASABLE: FLOOR AREA: NET LEASABLE:
3,573 SF x 0% = 0 SF 1,826 SF COMMERCIAL 2,554 SF RETAIL 2,417 SF COMMERCIAL 3,162 SF OFFICE 3,022 SF COMMERCIAL
+902 SF *NON-UNIT 191 SF STAIR EXEMPT
3,456 SF FLOOR PLATE +387 SF *NON-UNIT
3,645 SF FLOOR PLATE
RESIDENTIAL
1,952 SF(GROSS)
1,835 SF(NET)
GREEN GREEN FLOOR AREA TOTALS EXEMPT DECK AREA: LEGEND
ROOF
5,716 SF COMMERCIAL (75%) 2,250 SF FLOOR AREA ALLOWED NET LEASABLE FLOOR AREA
ECK 512 SF 1 ----- 1,952 SF RESIDENTIAL (25%) x15 % PERCENT ALLOWED
-== 7,668 SF TOTAL AREA(100%) 337.5 SF EXEMPT DECK AREA NET LIVABLE FLOOR AREA
--- STAIR AND ELEVATOR
------ +_-_-_ 285SF(EXEMPn RESIDENTIAL AREA: DECK AREA: DECK AREA
2250 SF ALLOWABLE AREA 337.5 SF EXEMPT DECK AREA _
�( ) GREEN ROOF +298.0 SF REMAINING RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
-1952 SF TOTAL PROPOSED AREA _ OPEN TO BELOW \�
298 SF REMAINING AREA 635.5 SF TOTAL DECK AREA
DECK#2
LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN 123.5 SF PROPOSED DECK AREA: NON-UNIT SPACE
FLOOR AREA: NET LIVABLE: +1235 SF DECK#2 EXEMPTIONS -____
. -
1,952 SF RESIDENTIAL 1,835 SF RESIDENTIAL - -------------
285 SF EXEMPTIONS 635.5 SF TOTAL DECK AREA
PEDESTRIAN AMENITY
+0 SF *NON-UNIT
2,237 SF FLOOR PLATE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sara Nadolny, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen,APCHA Operations Manager
DATE: December 6, 2012
RE: 601 E. Hyman (aka Victorian Square)Redevelopment
ISSUE. The applicant is requesting approval to mitigate the employee housing requirement by
purchasing affordable housing credit certificates for the redevelopment of the 601 East Hyman
property.
BACKGROUND: The project involves the demolition and replacement of the current two-story
commercial building with a three-story mixed use building. Commercial space will be located in
the basement,first and second floor, and a single-family residence is to be located on the third level.
DISCUSSION: The applicant is required to mitigate for the additional employees impacted by the
redevelopment. The applicant is requesting that the mitigation be in the form of the use of the
affordable housing credit program. Below are the calculations to show the mitigation requirement:
Existing Proposed FTE
Type Location FAR . FAR Difference Multiplier X Mitigation
Commercial Basement 0 1,826 1,826 3.075 60% 3.36897
Commercial I"Floor 3,045 2,417 -628 4.100 60% -1.54488
Commercial 2"d Floor 2,164 3,022 858 3.075 60% 1.58301
Residential 3`d Floor 0 1,835 1,835 .3 30% 1.37625
TOTAL OFF SITE MITIGATION 4.78335
The residential mitigation is based on 30% of the additional square footage of 1,835 (550.50)
divided by 400 square feet(1 employee =400 square feet of net livable area).
Based on the above information, the employee housing mitigation required is 4.78335 FTE's that
is being proposed to be satisfied by the purchase of the affordable housing credit certificates.
RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting
held December 5, 2012 and are in agreement that providing the affordable housing credit
certificates is an accepted option to satisfy the employee housing mitigation at the 4.78335 FTE's.
601 E.Hyman(aka Victorian Square)Redevelopment Pagel
P13
Exhibit A
GMQS Review Criteria
26.470.050. General requirements.
B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet
this standard.
Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed a mixed use building that will require three
growth management reviews:
a. New net leasable space. The applicant is proposing to expand the amount of
commercial net leasable space current found on-site by 2,056 sf. This expansion will
require 2,056 development allotments. Per the 2012 table of annual allotments
managed by the City's Planning Dept., there are sufficient growth management
allotments available to accommodate the proposed development. Staff finds the
criterion as it relates to the expansion of net leasable space to be met.
b. Addition of one multi family free-market unit. The applicant is proposing to create
one multi family free-market residential unit within the development totaling 1,835 sf
of new net livable space. This development will require one single allotment, which
is available per the aforementioned table of annual allotments. Staff finds the
criterion as it relates to the addition of one multi family free-market unit to be met.
c. Affordable housing. The Applicant shall be required to provide affordable housing
mitigation for the addition of new net leasable space and the multi family free-
market unit. According to Land Use Code Section 26.470.030 (D) Annual
development allotments, there is no annual limit on the amount of affordable
housing that can be created. The Applicant is proposing to purchase a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit as means of satisfying the affordable housing
requirement associated with this development. Staff finds the criterion as it relates to
the affordable housing to be met.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as
with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Response: The proposed development is a mix of commercial and free-market
residential, which are the same uses found throughout the surrounding area. This
development is proposed within the C-1 zone district, which permits both commercial and
1
P14
multi family residential uses. The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) is a guiding
document, and not regulatory; however, Staff finds this development to be compatible
with the goals of the AACP in that this development within the commercial sector
provides additional commercial spaces that will aid in the goal of balanced, diverse and
vital businesses that meet the needs of year-round residents and visitors. The proposed
development also is a redevelopment of an existing building site, thereby meeting the
goal of creating certainty in land development, and limiting the burden on public
infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Response: The proposed development will conform to the limitations of the C-1 zone
district, including maximum height, permitted uses, floor area ratios, maximum
residential dwelling unit size and the commerciaUresidential ratio. A condition to meet
the requirements of the underlying zone district is included in the resolution and will be
confirmed at building permit application. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
Staff Response: The development is not subject to Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission or Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, but is subject to
Conceptual Commercial Design Review. This approval was granted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission with the approval of Resolution 19, Series 2012. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection
26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant
chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to
Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90
Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Staff Response: The Applicant will provide mitigation for 60% of the employees generated
by additional commercial development in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority guidelines.
Commercial Net Leasable Mitigation:
1. Existing Employee Generation Credit
• First floor—3,045 sf11 NOW.IOx.60= 7.4907 FTE's
• Second floor—2,164 sf/1000x3.075x.60=3.99258 FTE's
=11.48328 FTE's
2
P15
2. Proposed Employee Generation
• Basement—1,826/I000x3.075x.60=3.36897 FTE's
• First floor—2,417/1 NOW.I Ox.60=5.94582 FTE's
• Second floor—3,02211000x3.075x.60=5.57559 FTE's
• Third floor—0
= 14.89038 FTE's
3. Proposed FTE's—Existing FTE's =3.406552 FTE's, rounded to 3.41 FTE's
The Applicant has proposed to provide mitigation for the required 3.41 FTE's through
the purchase of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, which will be properly
extinguished as per subsection 26.570.090. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA) supports this form of mitigation. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at
least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for
which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is
higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100
Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
Staff Response: The Applicant will provide mitigation for 30% of the employees generated
by the addition of free-market residential net livable space in accordance with the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority guidelines.
1. Existing Free-Market Net Livable Residential=0 FTE's
2. Proposed Free-Market Net Livable Residential
• Third floor—1,835 sf(30)=550.50 sf
• Net Livable square footage conversion to FTE's =550.501400=1.37625
3. Proposed FTE's—Existing FTE's =1.37625 FTE's, rounded to 1.38 FTE's
The Applicant has proposed to provide mitigation for the required 1.38 FTE's through
the purchase of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, which will be properly
extinguished as per subsection 26.570.090. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA) supports this form of mitigation. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3
P16
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy
and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste
disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Staff Response: The proposed project is a demolition and redevelopment, and will therefore
any redevelopment will take place on a previously developed parcel. The proposed
development presents very minor additional demand on public infrastructure. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
(Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1; Ord. No. 6—2010, §2; Ord. No. 3-2012 §17) (Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1)
Subsection 26.470.040(4) Affordable Housing
Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a
public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed to provide affordable housing mitigation for
the increase in commercial net-leasable and free-market residential net livable space
through the purchase of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. The Aspen Pitkin
County Housing Authority (APCHA) supports this form of mitigation at a Category 4 or
less. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual
newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits.
Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to
Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-
lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council
approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development
Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods.
Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed to provide affordable housing mitigation for
the increase in commercial net-leasable and free-market residential net livable space
through the purchase of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits. The total amount
of mitigation will be equivalent to 4.79FTE's. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever
4
P17
is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to
Chapter 26.430.
Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed to provide affordable housing mitigation in
the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit rather than providing mitigation
on-site. Stafffinds this criterion to be not-applicable.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed
restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the
unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established
by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an
employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing
units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and
contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County
or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory
"for sale" provision.
Staff Response: The Applicant has proposed to provide affordable housing mitigation in
the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit rather than providing mitigation
on-site. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for
mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non-
mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Staff Response: The Applicant is required to provide affordable housing mitigation as a
result of this development, and will be doing so through the form of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable.
5
P18
Exhibit B
Subdivision Review
26.480.050. Review standards.
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and
requirements:
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture,
landscaping and open space, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master
plan.
Staff Response: The proposed subdivision associated.with this project is compatible with
the development in the immediate vicinity. The proposed project is located within the
Commercial (C-1) zone district, and follows all of the requirements of the zone district.
The proposed building reflects the range and variation in building height of the
Commercial Character Area. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the area.
Staff Response: The proposed development is located within the Commercial (C-1) zone
district, which is an allowable and appropriate area for a commercial and residential
mixed-use building to be located. The development in the immediate area is primarily
commercial in nature. The proposed development will complement the existing and
developing neighborhood uses by its addition of retail, office, and residential uses.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Response: The development surrounding this subdivision is commercial. The
proposed building is mixed use, with the basement through second floors serving as
commercial space, and the subdivided free-market residential unit on the third floor.
These proposed uses have the potential to strengthen the surrounding area and may
add to the vitality of the block, acting as a compliment to the neighboring art museum.
Staff does not feel that this development will impact the existing infrastructure, nor will
it impose limits on future development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this
Title.
Staff Response: The proposed subdivision's compliance with the applicable requirements
of this Title shall be determined at the time of issuance of building permit. The
Applicant is not proposing any variations from the requirements of this Title. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
1
P19
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 Response: The proposed subdivision is on previously developed land, which is flat,
and suitable for redevelopment, without threat of flooding, drainage issues, rock or soil
creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, or other natural hazards. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial
patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities
and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Response: The proposed subdivision will not be designed to create spatial patterns
that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities or
unnecessary public costs. The subdivision will only serve to separate the commercial
and residential legal interests in the proposed development. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if
the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision
design standards would result in incompatibility with an applicable adopted regulatory
plan, Title 28, the municipal code, the existing, neighboring development areas and/or the
goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
Staff Response: The required improvements identified in Chapter 26.580 shall be provided
for the proposed subdivision, as found applicable by the City's Engineering
Department. The Applicant has not identified any unique situations related to this
development, nor has a request been made related to any_variation to the design
standards. Staff finds these criteria 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 Section
26.470.070.5, Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. 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.
2
P20
Staff Response: The proposed development will contain a single new residential dwelling
unit. The Applicant has proposed to provide for the affordable housing associated with
this unit through the purchase of Affordable Housing Credits as permitted by the Code,
should this method prove satisfactory to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
Applicant will further extinguish the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit as
directed in subsection 26.540.080 of the Code. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at
Chapter 26.620.
Staff Response: The Applicant is required to comply with the School Land Dedication
Standards as per Chapter 26.620 of the Land Use Code. The Applicant has indicated
intended compliance by providing payment for all dedication and impact fees
associated with this development. 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.
Staff Response: Growth Management is also a review of this public hearing. Staff expects
Growth Management review will be approved based on the development allotments that
are available for the 2012 calendar year. Although a major growth management
application, this proposal is not in direct competition with any other proposal for these
growth management allotments. Staff anticipates this criterion will be met, so the
Applicant may proceed with subdivision approval.
(Ord. No. 44-2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §§29, 30; Ord. No. 3, §18)
3
P21
Exhibit C
Department Referrals
P22
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sara Nadolny, City Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen,APCHA Operations Manager
DATE: November 16, 2012
RE: 601 E. Hyman (aka Victorian Square)Redevelopment
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to mitigate the employee housing requirement by
purchasing affordable housing credit certificates for the redevelopment of the 601 East Hyman
property.
BACKGROUND: The project involves the demolition and replacement of the current two-story
commercial building with a three-story mixed use building. Commercial space will be located in
the basement, first and second floor, and a single-family residence is to be located on the third level.
DISCUSSION: The applicant is required to mitigate for the additional employees impacted by the
redevelopment. The applicant is requesting that the mitigation be in the form of the use of the
affordable housing credit program. Below are the calculations to show the mitigation requirement:
Existing Proposed FTE
Type Location FAR FAR Difference Multiplier X Mitigation
Commercial Basement 0 1,826 1,826 3.075 60% 3.36897
Commercial 1St Floor 3,045 2,417 -628 4.100 60% -1.54488
Commercial 2nd Floor 2,164 3,022 858 3.075 60% 1.58301
Residential 3 Floor 0 1,835 1,835 .3 30% 1.37625
TOTAL OFF SITE MITIGATION 4.78335
The residential mitigation is based on 30% of the additional square footage of 1,835 (550.50)
divided by 400 square feet (1 employee=400 square feet of net livable area).
Based on the above information, the employee housing mitigation required is 4.78335 FTE's that
is being proposed to be satisfied by the purchase of the affordable housing credit certificates.
RECOMMENDATION: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) will be
recommending to the APCHA Board at their regular meeting to be held December 5, 2012, to
approve the use of the affordable housing credit certificates to satisfy the required employee
housing mitigation at the 4.78335 FTE's.
601 E.Hyman(aka Victorian Square)Redevelopment Page 1
P23
Memorandum
Date: November 15, 2012
To: Sara Nadolny, City of Aspen Planning
From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department
Re: 601 E Hyman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landscaping within the Public Right of Way:
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are
not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department.
The applicant should recommend a tree based species available in the City of Aspen Arbor
guide. Parks will work with the applicant on the final approved tree species.
Irrigation will be required with a specific planting medium appropriate for tree growth.
Planting specifications and details need to be approved by the City of Aspen Parks
Department and City Engineering. The City of Aspen is requiring that the improvements to
the ROW include the use of Silva Cell Technology and pavers placed within the planting
zone,the area 5 feet off back of curb. These specific improvements are being installed
within the ROW of 625 E Hyman Ave and the two projects should coordinate where
possible.
Tree Permit:
Per City Code 13.20 an approved tree permit will be required before any tree is removed or
impacted under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be
approved prior to approval of building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the Parks
Department at 920-5120 or download the permit at www.asl2enpitkin.co on the Natural
Resource page, click on the 2012 tree permit tab. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash
in lieu or as an on-site planting per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape
plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates.
P24
Date: November 26, 2012
Project: 601 E Hyman
City of Aspen
Engineering Department DRC Comments
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project
packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
Drainage:
General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan
Requirements. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will meet these
requirements. A full review will be completed when there is enough information to
review.
A compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit application. This
includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses FIL,
it can only be applied to existing impervious areas all new areas will need to discharge at
historic rates.
Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet all the Drainage
Principals:
1.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. The WQCV vault .
indicates stormwater treatment was considered.
2.Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment.
3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area.
4.Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions.
5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control.
6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site,the community, and the
environment.
7.Use a treatment train approach.
8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained.
9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind.
Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter:
General note: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering Standards as
outlined in Title 21.
A number of issues should be examined. This includes the following:
1. A direction ramp will be required. A directional ramp may interfere with the
existing Type R stormwater inlet. The inlet may require modification.
2. A minimum walkway of 8 feet is required.
3. Use Silva Cells for tree plantings.
P25
Construction Management—Engineering is concerned about the Construction
Impacts of this site. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking,
staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. Note that the current code does not allow
for any encroachments during the on-seasons (November 1 —April 15 and June 1 —
Labor Day).
Excavation Stabilization—Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the
excavation of the building the City will require an excavation stabilization plan
prior to building permit submittal.
Fee in Lieu—This project is considered a Major project and can opt to pay the Fee in
Lieu for a portion of the detention requirements. Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of
the Municipal Code.
P26
Referral by Tom Bracewell
Aspen Sanitation District
DRC 11-14-12
ACSD Requirements-601 E. Hyman Ave. Redevelopment
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which
are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations
of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit.
Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments.
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shaft drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to
specific ACSD requirements.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more
than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will
require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to
be dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop
an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity
of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will
be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional
proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order
to fund the improvements needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of
the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover
the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would
fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost
difference for larger line).
Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any
portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved
containment facilities.
P27
Aspen Fire District
Ed Van Walraven
Development Review Committee Comments
Re: Redevelopment of 601 E. Hyman Ave
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District.
This includes but not limited to the installation of a fire suppression system installed according
to the latest edition of NFPA 13, the installation of a fire alarm system installed according
to the latest edition of NFPA 72.
We are enforcing the International Fire Code 2009 Edition as amended by the Aspen Fire
Protection District and adopted by the City of Aspen.
P28
Aspen Fire Protection District
Ed Van Walraven
Development Review Committee Comments
Re: Redevelopment of 601 E. Hyman Ave
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District.
This includes but not limited to the installation of a fire suppression system installed according
to the latest edition of NFPA 13, the installation of a fire alarm system installed according
to the latest edition of NFPA 72.
We are enforcing the International Fire Code 2009 Edition as amended by the Aspen Fire
Protection District and adopted by the City of Aspen.
P29
Utilities
Andy Rossello, Utilities Engineer
Development Review Committee Comments
Re: Redevelopment of 601 E. Hyman Ave
The transformer shall be located on the Project Site. The exact location is up for discussion and
must meet all Engineering R.O.W. Standards, City Electrical Distribution Standards, as well as
meet all applicable Electrical Code Requirements.
Water service should be sized by a fire protection professional and reviewed by the Water
Department.