HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20130108A AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, January 8, 2013
4:30 p.m. City Council Chambers
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
1. ROLL CALL
11. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. 114 Maple Lane, Residential Design Standards Variance
B. Aspen Valley Hospital, Phases III and IV, PUD
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
C. Chair and Vice-chair appointment
VII, BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
A
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRu: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM:Claude Salter, Zoning Officer
RE: 114 Maple Lane-Residential Design Standards Variance-Public Hearing
DATE: January 08, 2013
APPLICANT/OWNER: Subject Property: 114 Maple Lane
Monty and Camilla Earl
LOCATION:
Subdivision: Smuggler Park, Lot:
114, commonly known as 114
Maple Lane.
Current Zoning:
R-3 /SPA, High Density
Residential(R-3)
Residential / Specially Planned
Area
Summary:
The Applicant requests a variance w
from a Building Elements
Residential Design Standard. -
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the
requested Residential Design x
Standard Variance.
Page 1 of 7
P2
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:The Applicant is
requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to
redevelop the site:
Residential Design Standard Variance for the front entry door,porch, and street facing principal
window standards(Building Elements),pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020.D,
Variances. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.)
The variance is for 26.410.040(D)(1) Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Windows
(D)(1)requires that:
(a): The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten(10) feet back from the
front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight(8) feet.
(b): A covered porch of fifty(50) or more square feet,with a minimum depth of six (6')
feet, shall be part of the front fagade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than
one(1) story in height.
(c): A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of
windows face the street.
Proiect Summary:
The Applicant has a single family residence currently under construction.The residence is
known as 114 Maple Lane. When the permit set was submitted the plans did not meet the
Residential Design Standards (RDS). Staffs worked diligently with the homeowner to meet the
Residential Design Standards prior to the issuance of the building permit.
The building permit was submitted on May 22,2012 to demolish the existing structure and place
a new modular home on a site built full basement. The permit was submitted without RDS
compliance. The plans were amended by the owner to meet the standards.The building permit
was issued on September 9, 2012. The owner did not request a variance at the time of building
permit issuance, as the plans met the Residential Design Standards. The owners are now
requesting a variance from the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard,which
is the location of the front entry door,the requirement for a porch(or canopy) and a street facing
principal window or group of windows.
Staff analysis:
Residential Design Standard Variances:
All new residential structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the Residential Design
Standards or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code chapter 26:410,
Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards, "is to preserve established
neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each
home...contribute to the streetscape."
Specifically the intent of the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard is to,
"ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which
provide human scale to the fagade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building
traditions".
Page 2 of 7
The Applicant's approved plan has a street facing door, a porch, and principal windows, all of P3
which have yet to be built. They are requesting a RDS variance so they do not have to build to
the approved plan set. This would mean the street facing fagade of the house would have no
door,porch or principal window or group of windows as shown below in Figure 1.
Figure: 1 Front Facade, subject property.
The plan set was approved with a compliant design. Below, see Figure 2 the compliant elevation of the
street-facing fagade as approved via the building permit.
Figure 2 compliant elevation
Tk Lam, snow stops applied
,.� �,�• North side 114 � _ __ � �= ��
Maple _;.
i
i
's
Y
bottom of widows 7
foot off flnish floor __-
Page 3 of 7
P4
In general the purpose of the standards is to, "... preserve established neighborhood scale and
character ... and... contribute to the streetscape." A front porch provides outdoor living space
and animation to the streetscape. The required elements help create homes which are
architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood is enhanced by the
standards. Without the standards, the streetscape and neighborhood suffer. Garages and solid
walls facing the street do not meet the standard nor do they contribute to the vitality of the
neighborhood. Below, see images in Figure: 3 which do not meet the standard nor contribution
the streetscape within the neighborhood.
Figure: 3 Structures which do not contribute to the streetscape
�a►�a��� a���ae�a
A B
5�
.... - -alt_ „�� o i ❑ 9�R�B !
D
r
n C
sl ;ri,
.P
E
Page 4of7
P5
The neighborhood does not have a consistent pattern of development. The neighborhood is
mixed with structures of varying ages; some homes have street-facing doors, some have front
porches and some have street-facing principal windows and some have all three. The homes
which comply with the three elements of the standard clearly benefit the neighborhood. Below,
see Figure: 4 representations of structures which meet the standard and enhance the
neighborhood.
Figure: 4 structures which enhance the neighborhood
A
UK
l.r
a
l
E w2w On F
Page 5 of 7
P6
There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to
grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020(D)(2):
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the
development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as
it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed
development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity
as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request does not meet either of the two variance standards.
With regard to review standard `a', the context of the development in Smuggler Park is mixed.
However, if granted; the structure would not contribute to the streetscape of the neighborhood.
The Smuggler Park neighborhood includes assorted building styles, predominantly vintage
trailers;some modern site-built homes.
The homes adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property have had mixed success
meeting the standard of street facing entry doors, porches and street facing windows. In the
cases where the standards are met the neighborhood benefits because the combined elements
enhance the neighborhood, make it feel and functions like a vibrant place for people to walk,
complete with interesting architecture and neighborhood character which is established by the
relationship between front facades of buildings and the street they face. The area between the
street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm of the
neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. The architectural elements are the structure
which enhance streetscape and help create the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood.
The proposed variance with the absence of the street facing door, porch and street facing
windows will detract from the streetscape and reinforce a development pattern that does not
create any visual interest in the neighborhood.
The variance request does not meet the review standard `b' as the site does not have a site-
specific constraint. In fact, the applicant demonstrated the ability to meet the standards as part
of their approved building permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request does meet the variance review standard,
noted above that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 D,Variances. Staff
recommends denial of the request.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to adopt Resolution No._, Series of 2013, denying a variance requests from the Street
Oriented Entrance and Principal Window Standard.
Page 6 of 7
P7
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
Exhibit B: Application
Exhibit C: Plans for Permit
Page 7 of 7
P.8
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
Section 26.410.020 (D)(2): Residential Design Standard Variances
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the
development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as
it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed
development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity
as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or
Staff Finding: Staff finds the requested variance does not meet review standard `a'. The context of
the development in Smuggler Park is mixed. However, if the variance request is supported; the
structure would not contribute to the appropriate design of the neighborhood. The Smuggler
Park neighborhood includes assorted building styles, predominantly vintage trailers; some
modern site-built homes and a fair number of square boxes with lifeless facades facing the
street. There are examples of newer development meeting the standards.
The homes adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject property have had mixed success
meeting the standard of street facing entry doors, porches and street facing windows. In the
cases where the standards are met the neighborhood benefits because the combined elements
enhance the neighborhood, make it feel and functions like a vibrant place for people to walk,
complete with interesting architecture and neighborhood character which is established by the
relationship between front facades of buildings and the street they face. The front door
establishes the entry to the home. It divides the public and private realm and provides interest
to the streetscape.
The proposed variance with the absence of the street facing door, porch and street facing
windows will detract from the streetscape and reinforce a development pattern that does not
create any visual interest in the neighborhood.
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal does not meet this standard. There are no site specific
constraints necessitating a variance. In fact, the applicant demonstrated the ability to meet the
standards in their building permit.
Page 1 of 1
Cxhibit: B Application
P9
ATTACHMENT2-LAND USE APPLICATION
i' 1JECT: }
Name: It V
Location: aVt e - . , L %I
dicate stye t address,lot&block number,legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID# RE U1RED
APPLIC UNT: l }
I
Name: t ���-C
Address: N Obt
Phone#: 2J t (P
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone#:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:(please check all that apply):
❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use
❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ TextAlap Amendment
❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA
❑ ESA—8010 Greenline,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Final SPA(&SPA
1vlargin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mi ountain View Plane
❑, Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other:
❑ Conditional Use
EMSTING CONArrIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.
tnq
MWA
PROPOSAL: (descrilptioTn of proposed buildin s,uses,modifications, c.
�vbtrl r bye .. t ' t�t�6V1
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE:�
❑ Pre-Application Conference Summary
❑ Attachment#1,Signed Fee Agreement
❑ Response to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form
❑ Response to Attachment#4,Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards
❑ 3-D iviodel for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5"X 11"must be folded. A dish with an electric copy of all written text
(Microsoft Word Format)must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must subunit a 3-D model.
OCT 9 2012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P10
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL.REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: €V0' UL �Cvvl,-k'—
Applicant: (,/ GM c awvt 1 I 1=-x,
Location: Ct L - GLVt
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark,easements,and steep slopes.Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the TvIunicipaI Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed:
Number of residential units: Existing. Proposed:
Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed-
Proposed%of demolition(Historic properties only):
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: - -Existing: Allowable: Proposed.-
Principal bldg.height: Existing: 411otivable: Proposed.•
Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed.-
%Site coverage: Existing. Required: Proposed.,
% Open Space: Existing. --Required.- Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: Requited: Proposed:
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined F/R: Existing: Required. Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required. Proposed.,
Side Setback: Existing: Required. Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: Required.-- Proposed:
Distance Between -Existing Required: Proposed.-
Buildings
E Wting non-c ormitiT or encroachments: (7 r>
u Yt(k
Vanati ns requ ted: ?Orr k lrt cI 'go r� b�
P11
Variance requested for:
114 Maple Lane
Aspen CO
Owners: Monty and Camilla Earl
This request is for a variance to the zoning rules as they relate to Smuggler trailer
park.
We request a variance to the Residential Design Standard section 26.410.040(D)
a. An entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet back
fiom the front-most wall of the building. Entry door shall not me more
than 8 feet.
b. A covered entry porch of fifty or more square feet,with a minimum
depth of six feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and
canopies shall not be more than one story in height.
c. A Street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or
group of windows face the street.
We are seeking this variance in relation to section 20.410.020(D)(2)(a)
where it states"An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design
Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance,if granted
would:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the
context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the
particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria,the
reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development
within adjacent structures,the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader
vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted:
The requirement of an entry porch in section(b)mentioned above is virtually non-
existent in Smuggler. As far as section(a)requiring an entry door is sporadic,there are
some that do have this and many that do not. Section(c)is like section(a)some do some
do not. These rules have been in effect during the course of many projects in Smuggler,and if
you walk through the park you can see they were never applied. A project was done on
Cottonwood in 2005. The only doors facing the street are garage doors, there Is not a porch on
the front facade,the only windows facing the street are in the garage doors, l don't think you
would consider those principal windows. The house next to this has no doors facing the street,
no principal windows and no porch, it was also done recently. The owners didn't mention having
to go through this when they did there project, all of our neighbors,that we have talked to, are
shocked that the city is imposing these standards now when it is quite obvious they never have in
the past.
We, like every house in Smuggler, have oriented the main group areas of the home towards
Aspen Mountain. This is probably the most consistent design feature in the park,it is why houses
on the other side of the street do have windows and doors, and in a few cases decks and
porches, facing the street, because that happens to be on the same side of their house as Aspen
Mountain. If we orientate these areas of our home towards the Smuggler Trailer park private
P12
street,we will face straight into our neighbors living space. Naturally they are strongly opposed.to
us doing this; they don't want to view us any more than we want to view them. tike most of the
homes in Smuggler we want our door on the side, We do not want windows on that side of the
house and we do not want a porch on that side of the house,the porch would be absolutely
inconsistent with the neighborhood, almost all porches and decks face Aspen Mountain. Our
neighbors are as opposed to this as we are, for their sake and ours we ask that you please grant
this variance.
Thank you,
Monty and Camilla Earl
P13
ONE REPORT
t To: Date Ordered: 09-21-2012
end Title
GlfARAMEE COSIPNFY Attn: CAMILLA EARL Order Number 446832
WWWATGC.c o.e
Fax: Phone: 970-379-2389
Address: 114 MAPLE LN # 114 ASPEN, CO 81611 County: PITKIN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 114, SUBDIVISION SMUGGLER PARK, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
OWNERSHIP&ENCUMBRANCES
Certification Date: 09-11-2012
OWNERSHIP: MONTY B. EARL,CAMILLA EARL
Doc jyp e Doc Fee Date Reference#
WARRANTY DEED $57.50 06-21-2011 580669
ENCUMBRANCES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
Item Payable To Amount Date Reference#
DEED OF TRUST $220,000.00 08.12.11 581849
DEED OF TRUST $350,000.00 06.21-11 580671
MODIFICATION 06-25.12 590054
MODIFICATION 06.25-12 590056
Cush Ref#
This ONE REPORT is based on a limited search of the county real property
records and is intended for informational purposes only.The ONE REPORT
By: STEPHEN STRICKLAN D does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title
Land Title insurance,and should not be used by the recipient of the ONE REPORT
as the basis for making any legal,investment or business decisions.The
Property Resource Specialist recipient of the ONE REPORT should consult legal,tax and other advisors
Email' sstrickland @It9c.com before making any such decisions.The liability of Land Title Guarantee
Company is strictly limited to(1)the recipient of the ONE REPORT,and no
Phone: other person,and(2)the amount paid for the ONE REPORT.
Fax:
Form OE.WEB 06/06
P14
Prepared For:
PaTitle CAMiLLA EARL
OUAMNTEE COMPAW
www.crGC.cou "
Reference: 114 MAPLE LN # 114 ASPEN, CO 81611
Attached are the additional documents you requested:
Doe Type Recorded Reception#1BookPage
STEPHEN STRICKLAND
Land Title
Property Resource Specialist
Email: sstrickland@itgc.com
Phone: _
Fax:
ADD.DMS 446032
N 3 P15
i
vl-
=� C
J � � i � � r> r !�•� r r� t jl � �~
i
U n
,i �ivFr�7.
r •r vt p )r ti 2101 r
6A i
LLLwu
1+tSfi �x '
1 p
- tiW
'4W vu
t0
T
P17
SITE PLAN 114 Maple lane
West
10 foot set back required
i
GRASS parking s
GRASS I i I
�.
I r i
set back
sia
irvre!!for egress f t
,aarkinj
Cj
III _..
o _, WALL HELD 5 INCHES OFF property fine f parkng
a b, FOR OVERHANG f '
-1 1 0 set back East, roperty's ine
Eve and gutter no more than 6 aches overpraperty line per easement, 114 = 1 foot
P�. ,00zef in prooperty me East gg
nCT 9 2012
ctTV rJf XJ EN
OD
0 00
FRONT ELEVATION
RIGHT 5IDE ELEVATION
IWWO 1M1E5 N C v l 0!0 x S xY pxiE 0 C N C x F L N 0 1 C 5 U NIN0 T10LC WEL NYIC
sCHUIT sole EXTERIOR ELEVATION , 1 ocalvaaNBU0003461 NSnaxa 1173
951 2BX44 IBR-20R .HTG-26403R
C&IH bIANUFACTQTRING, INC. FRONT & RIGHT 5I DE phYO MG.OTC OMIC ININ09 Ix n0.
- — _ _ _ DBG 09�06i2011 09�27R01f 20-I
007 9 2012
CITY o _l\
C04ii'flh11f1'i�='•1E1.0°trycP;l
!RE9 I I I
. ..........
FRONT ELEVATION
MIGHT 61DE ELEVATION
OrRUgo TITLE Roou-a
R Ial n Pn aT ORTE ac xean� ao TES 800003461 iV3
SCHULr 5o2a
EXTERIOR C ELEVATION t pmI omcelPnoN �o� uo.
FRONT & RIGHT 51DE 95l 2B 88 Hloat 03fl
CMH afMFACTITRING. INC. oAaww m Dote.oRa wIC reaTCO a¢eI w
B9G 09,06,2011 092,201! 20-1
OCT J 2012
CMz'0 ; :N
CID
'O
a 0
Al
w f.
k
HEARD
z "
`/
3{n qj, E ,.1
SP
-(
}atziU �6[ r 5
� s
ko,
r
3
4, �a
r ra
�ff,
Al
� ,{c��4 z��'.5� � '��5� �s��t t �5-c��.��y''%h4���.}c ,���.M��u���e �A•,a 1�L..rx'.,�}"�"��'3'���.e<�.F , �i' a�.a �h�" +�,��
.v.F `' � �:s�a+- �n d-•.o.c`LF 'Rh 1 �c:;ti"'it" n'�� �. .GS}P `'�a� Ss ,,, .!-.. t� r� {�uvai
� T Ei 3--1.3' k°�,ts` .. U �i' ,n�-�" �"'�r�'��`,"k� s.�ra(r�-°y�'"� �•�'n:e"+z�, st�` '.'.. yy'''�t��'"S-+e� ,�i yd �,.
��'Y t� }�h '�'�;ez; � -i ..Qa'' e .., -•�.,,�5� �F -dym�,'y'- t yS�fi���'��b'cF�'�' �� F�S x-k-�'��-3�^���i'�
P21
Main level Floor plan 114 Maple
revised from factory
ext. stair
w!Rdpw well window well
^YHA �i'J IrIrC .. B'-01516' TO •-�� '�••IO'i"--'�' 101/2'-3'BIlt'�i;Y•3•—Tb"�i'?�'1"tM1'fC 1(il.YF I i
living room i
i 1=n '4 iv 9'•17—L '--b.�n G = � -N.fo,
porc
—r� A
, 2P' uP' i i ±ice S i
i
4 I y .:^3v C'1vP '-- ` f 9'3 79_ a'j:s'" -1a 5�8" 7g 98•`r-iY•, �-0 .
�
J �%��r:.w "- .3 T•Y 5'16-- �..r.r!
window well m q n i } non factory added
T ,=-b'-1 �'�;I p ' windows and doors.32 u-value
office h y
J S0Y8'.r`,' i_— bottom of windows
' ! .� 7 feet off shower floor
r•-la•
..d fib._.
.1 -7.a 1/d Yba/6' J';ff ld'--. 4'••YJ-- 2'a-".' J�—i--�,r91rz•�at7 vr'—i-Y- 1f'1C„- Le 7/9'x•.
....nmech chase -
P22
I it 11 1 1 I
I �w� 1 1 I
j t !
'I It ! it -
I
11
-prope. I I L !�_ .r•,•4 I� i ,,,: I I ! 1 L_...-__I i 1 1 I i
I , ,
10'�T
'
! ! '^FT
it
if
r ���—'�"T—i'r•-' a - + i i-'---=—�-'` sta (� i'2 re s"-i`ITi_.-..I'_" ,. ' ! I -��_i- i_..
1 it I t r--_-r------'--- -r-----r--- -- ----- --
1 I � �n + � ----- - -------I------�- J __p•--�---.1`-�T-J�--''''--�-JS.: V I I .1 I 1
i--r=--i-"----=---�-�
�=_I_�_�,
_ -�-J---'-J-r-J7-_-�-"-1
I I- °1__•_ �_ ___'_ _�-_-'-_=__I-_=-'�_---��Tpor'ch-: k;�;: -�.;.._ _-1-_j___;_._�_
1 �—�1 ���-_I'T_-i-_i___.r_�_r-, r• _ice_�-__�-_! ! :-_I_ I �-I ±___ _ .,� _H-1— .
1_ I ?
-{--r—•- -1 i t -*' ;l-_r.._J__r__-i r_JT _i___.:.I
I i-{ �
�0 1 t� i , -- —VVQ211EtDINCI��3OFFprtlZs�ztyim2�-- ; _- --- _—ii _�._ _
'r_..I_--¢-�---t--:-i------* I; �fI✓,q;_'—�--{- I __ '-
_}i___.j._J___
1£'--=
Lai � i i i i
I
I I I
I I ; Fva�a (e.tlrrL6�u>r.Gezouaepr� O,�p rl J--�OVt �' ,
P23
Resolution No.X
(SERIES OF 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
ESIGN STAND M SSION
DENYING A VARIANCE FROM A RESIDENTIAL
FOR LOT: 114,SMUGGLER PARK SUBDIV OONF PI I{_IN,COLORADO. AS
114 MAPLE LANE,CITY ASPEN,COUNT
Parcel No. 2 73 70 7490114
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received nan Ta application from the
Camilla and Monty Earl,represented by Mr.dow Residential Design Standard, at approval 4 Maple
Street Oriented Entrance and Principal
Lane; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 D. Variances,during Planning duly not and
public
Commission may approve Residential Design Standard V
hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the Review Standards; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended denial of a Variance Ufre CodeResidential
Design Standard — Street Oriented Entrance and Principal
26.410.040(D) and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal
Development Directlrr,, and has
has reviewed and considered
comment recommendation t public hearing; and, Ty
taken and considered public
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 8, 2013, the Planing and
Zoning Commission denied Resolution No X,(Series of 2013),by a—to— (---)vote and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution does not
furthers and is not necessary for the promotion of public health,safety,and welfare.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of from he followingaRes Residential
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby denies the variance
Design Standard:
Street oriented entrance and rinci al window. All
hall haveea street-oriented entrance and
except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.O10.B.4
1
P24
a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-
oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a
principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever
street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following
conditions are met:
a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the
front-most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight(8) feet.
b) A covered entry porch of fifty(50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six
(6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more
than one(1) story in height.
c) A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of
windows face street.
Section 2•
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 4•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
DENIED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on January 8, 2013.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONNING
COMMISSION:
Debbie Quinn, Special Counsel
Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
2
P25
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: required front fagade.
3
1 +,C
r
�t
• i'.T�<1 55 -s�l�4�i-yhG' - yY Ti.'c2..{lam� Yi.�.`ti` .L"`C�x
.+— "'•YZ� � Pr`_ - -C � s _ r sir, +;�.�Y�y�F���]
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
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 2013—
Continued Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: January 8, 2012
APPLICANT/OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Aspen Valley Hospital, David Ressler, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
CEO Commission approve the application with
conditions.
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.
SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report contains the following:
• Review Criteria; and
• Staff recommendation & motion; and
• Draft resolution
The Applicant's team will discuss mechanical equipment, based upon comments at the last
hearing in December.
Page 1 of 7
P2
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:
• Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility (EPF) 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). The Planning and Zoning Commission determines the employee generation
rate for RPF function.
• Final Planned Unit Development(PUD) for the development of a sitespecific develo ment
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.
Page 2 of 7
P3
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.
ft.), a basement of about 19,000 sq. ft., completion of the loop service road, development of a 3
bay ambulance garage, a new entry and reconfigured 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 It. 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 1V
Included in Current Difference Included in Current Difference
Phase R 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
Page 3 of 7
P4
Phase III Phase IV
Included in Current Difference Included in Current Difference
Phase H Application Phase II Application
Application Appi ication
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
Note: * The ambulance garage was shown as a porte corchere during previous reviews but was not
calculated as part of the gross square footage.
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:
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 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 at the last
meeting, staff recommends the Commission recommend the applicant develop a lighting
plan for Council's review and approval that lists implementation measures for
addressing current and future lighting on the site. The Applicant has provided an
Page 4 of 7
P5
overview of the direction they intend to take with regard to lighting remediation, Exhibit
K; however a final plan should be submitted and approved by the 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.
• Some additional field location of plantings to soften the entry area of the parking garage
should be considered and 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,
mitigate for employees generated, and represent minimal additional demand on public
infrastructure.
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 from the 2010 allotment year. During the
Phase II review 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable was mitigated for, leaving a
balance of 15,000 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 III 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
Page 5 of 7
P6
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 represents 72,828 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: Staff recommends that the employees generated for the Essential Public
Facility use be what is outlined in the conceptual approval and as noted previously. City
Council will finalize the percentage of mitigation required. Assuming no decrease in
mitigation is permitted, the greater mitigation amount for the two uses (hospital and medical
office space)for Phase III is the hospital function at 20.16 employees, while Phase IV is
anticipated to generate 8.46 employees. The hospital is permitted to use 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.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Parks: An approved tree permit is required. Vegetation protection fencing is required on the site.
New landscaping shall be approved by the department to ensure proper plant spacing, field
locating plantings with the Parks department is requested. This will be included in any ordinance
reviewed by Council.
APCHA: An audit is required within one year of a C.O. being issued for each phase to verify
employee generation for the hospital function. The audit shall be conducted during the hospital's
high season of operation(winter). This will be included in any ordinance reviewed by Council.
RECOMMENDATION: As noted earlier in the staff memo, the overall massing, expansion
and site improvements of the hospital facility proposed for Phase III and IV are similar to the
Conceptual PUD approval. The campus style development relates to other campus style
developments in the area, all of which serve important community and resort functions.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve a growth management review and recommend
approval for Final PUD and a growth management review to permit development of the AVH
master facilities plan for Phases III and IV."
ATTACHMENTS: (NEW ATTACHMENTS ARE IN BOLD)
EXHIBIT A— Application(provided 10/30/12)
EXHIBIT B— Affidavits of Public Notice (provided 10/30/12)
EXHIBIT C— Application Addendum dated November 13, 2012 (provided 11/20/12)
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, 12/4/12 and 1/8/2013)
EXHIBIT F— Roof Plan (provided 11/20/12)
Page 6 of 7
P7
EXHIBIT G— Commissioner comment via email, Jim DeFrancia, dated 11/16/2012 (provided
11/20/12)
EXHIBIT H— Growth Management Review Criteria(provided 12/4/12 and 1/8/13)
EXHIBIT I- PUD Review Criteria(provided 12/4/12 and 1/8/13)
EXHIBIT J- Applicant addendum, from Leslie Lamont, dated 11/28/12 (provided 12/4/12)
EXHIBIT K- Clanton and Associates, Light Trespass Mitigation Options
Page 7 of 7
P8
RESOLUTION NO._
(SERIES OF 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW,
ESTABLISHING EMPLOYEE GENERATION FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC
FACILITY,AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR PHASES III AND IV OF THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL
DISTRICT MASTER FACILITIES PLAN, LOCATED ON PARCEL C,ASPEN
VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 401
CASTLE CREEK ROAD,CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID:2735-121-29-809
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the
Aspen Valley Hospital District (Applicant), represented by Leslie Lamont of Lamont Planning
Services, requesting approval of a Final Development Plan and associated land use reviews for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Phases III and IV the Aspen Valley Hospital District
Master Facilities Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Conceptual PUD approval (via Resolution No. 3, Series of 2009)
conceptually approved a redeveloped and expanded multi-story hospital building and parking
garage, medical office space, affordable housing and site improvements on Parcel C of the Aspen
Valley Hospital Subdivision, to be developed in four phases; and,
WHEREAS, the Conceptual PUD approval outlined the employee generation rate to use
in evaluation of the medical office space as well as the anticipated employees generated for the
hospital function; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed
Final PUD and associated land use reviews for Phases III and IV and recommended approval
with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, during a meeting on October 30, 2012, the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider .the project and continued the
public hearing to November 20, 2012 for further discussion. At the November 20, 2012 public
hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the project and continued the hearing until December 4, 2012 for further discussion. At the
December 4, 2012 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to January 8, 2013 for
further discussion. At the January 8, 2013 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission
opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and approved a growth management
quota system review for Expansion or new commercial development, establishment of the
employee generation rate for an essential public facility and recommended City Council approve
the Final Planned Unit Development application for Phase III and IV by a_to vote,
with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No._, Series 2013
Page 1 of 4
P9
Section 1: General Approvals
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 Review for Expansion
or New Commercial Development for the medical office space and recommends City Council
approve Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility as well as Final Planned
Unit Development for Phases III and IV of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan.
Specifically, this approval and recommendations of approval permit the Applicant to develop
Phases III and IV of a four phase master facilities plan inclusive of 10,187 sq. ft. of net leasable
commercial and office space for the development of medical offices and an expansion of the
hospital facility by 72,828 gross square feet(excluding the medical office space).
Section 2: Growth Management Allotments
The Applicant requested 27,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial and office space from the 2010
annual allotment allowance for commercial development. This allotment request represented the
total net leasable square feet necessary to construct the entire master facilities plan over the
course of the proposed four phases of development. The Planning and Zoning Commission
granted 12,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial and office space from the 2010 growth
management year for Phase II, leaving a balance of 15,000 sq. ft. to potentially be requested in
subsequent phases in later years.
With this resolution, the Planning and Zoning Commission grants 10,187 sq. ft. of commercial
net leasable space for Phase III rather than the 15,000 originally anticipated. The commercial
space is determined to generate 16.95 employees. An additional 64,253 gross sq. ft. of essential
public facility for the hospital function of the building is requested for Phase III which generates
20.16 employees. City Council determines the mitigation requirement for the Essential Public
Facility Growth Management review, based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's finding
herein that 20.16 employees are generated by the hospital function of Phase III. Housing
Mitigation is required for the greater of the two mitigation requirements, which will be
memorialized in any City Council ordinance for Phase III.
Phase IV proposes 8,575 gross sq. ft. of essential public facility for the hospital function of the
building which generates 8.46 employees. Housing Mitigation for Phase IV will also be outlined
in any City Council ordinance, based on City Council's Essential Public Facility Growth
Management review.
As memorialized in the conceptual PUD approval for this project (Section 2.0 and Exhibit B of
Resolution No. 3, Series of 2009), an existing credit shall be applied to the employee generation
for each phase of development.
Section 3• Dimensional Requirements and Other Recommendations
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to City Council that the redevelopment of
the property in Phases III and IV as presented shall meet the dimensional standards as outlined in
the exhibits of this resolution.
Additionally, the Commission recommends that the following suggestions be incorporated into
the Final PUD approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No._, Series 2013.
Page 2 of 4
P10
a. An additional pedestrian access way is incorporated into the site plan as shown in Exhibit 1.
b. A lighting plan be developed and adopted that outlines all remediation techniques that will be
undertaken for lighting that has been installed on the site as well as the design of any additional
outdoor lighting in Phases III and IV to minimize undesirable brightness and light trespass.
Additionally, the Commission recommends Council carefully consider requiring light shades on
any new two story component and require an interior lighting plan be developed for the interior
of the entry proposed for Phase IV as expansive amounts of glass are proposed and light trespass
should be minimized.
c. Carefully consider additional landscaping to screen the parking garage improvements and
minimize visual impacts to neighbors and the community.
Section 4•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 5•
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6•
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 8th day of
January,2013.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney , Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No._, Series 2013
Page 3 of 4
P11
Exhibit 1 —Pedestrian access improvement
Exhibit 2—Height plan
Exhibit 3— Mechanical plan
Exhibit 4—Master phasing plan
Exhibit S—Floor plans
Exhibit 6—Exterior elevations
Planning and Zoning commission
Resolution No._,Series 2013
Page 4 of 4
GUARD RAIL
OUTDOOR DINING TERRACE--\ 1 ALONG FULL � ( +
SEE PCU ENTRY 1 LENGTH OF \\ ■
ENLARGEMENT PLAN, I UPPER WALL
SHEET L-1.3 I j RETAINING \\
i WALLS SEE I \\
CIVIL SHEET
CG-105 AND
STRUCTURAL
— ♦ ENGINEER'S \�
■! °v __ J DRAWINGS.
------
EXISTING !!h SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS PHASE p PARKING
TO REMAIN _ 77 PARKING i IMPROVEMENT)
SPACES I I NOTE:
1) THIS DIAGRAM IS
i EXCERPTED FROM SHEET
L-1.0 OF THE PHASE 2
91 1,. •/j -- CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT
4 EXISTING SET.
PARKING 2) THIS DIAGRAM DEPICTS
SPACES TO- PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY
REMAIN = CURB RAMP&SIDEWALK / :: IMPROVEMENTS AS PROPOSED
—_I FOR COMPLETION WITH PHASE
EXISTING PAINTED CROSSWALK I 2 CONSTRUCTION.
— HELIPAD
TO REMAIN 6'WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK
_WITH ADA CURB RAMPS i
RAW WATER CONNECTION
AND IRRIGATION PUMP
PAD; SEE IRRIGATION \ I
PAINTED _ SHEET 11.2
ow CROSS- __ __ ___
WALK TRAIL STOP SIGN, SEE NOTES REALIGNED HOSPITAL I
AVH LOOP ROAD * REALIGNED PEDESTRIAN ENTRY ROAD, SEE CIVIL
I I Q
i TRAIL SHEET CS-102
♦ JI IMPROVED PEDESTRAIN /,•�,� ii
■ %''/ TRAIL CROSSING
1 I
TRAIL STOP SIGN, SEE NOTES -
GUARD RAIL AT DOOLITTLE DRIVE
REQUIRED AT CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS GREATER �s' i °°p I I
0 20 40
m /
GRADING PLAN FOR TOW/BOW. i
1'=40' THAN 30 IN HEIGHT A T HHS PARKING LOT AND NEW
TO DETERMINE EXTENTS OF`GUARD RAIL COORDINATE �
RFTA STOP. SEE CIVIL y
STEEL GUARD RAIL INSTALLATION WITH PREFABRICATED ■ m CASTLE CRE
SHELTERS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH FALL i IMPROVEMEN KEY PLAN I
PROTECTION CODES. SEE CIS
i /� !i SHEET CS-1
pedestrian access revision exhibit - phase 2
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL M.F.P. 12 . 2012 1 of 2
N
T
M
T
_ C
�r LEGEND
TUMBLED CONCRETE PAVERS e
(PERVIOUS PAVING)
CAFETERIA PATIO `•� '%+`? �� SPECIALTY PAVING (INTEGRAL
LA COLOR CONCRETE)
OUTDOOR CHAPEL
(CHAPEL GARDEN) �� CONCRETE
CRUSHER FINES PATH
EASTERN
ENTRY SURFACE PARKING ;`� ��:';:^�';'":�
(PHASE 2 CJ LANDSCAPE AREA
IMPROVEMENT)
�v""ua:tls• �.
PHASE 3-4 APPROXIMATE
MAIN �• s ,. 77
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
ENTRY =.; - 6 I ' SEE GRADING PLAN
(EXCLUDES LIMITS OF
INTERIOR RENOVATION)
r:r4
••�° :%/%% N OTE: THIS DIAGRAM IS
PUBLIC `EN " �. EXCERPTED FROM SHEET L-2.0
MERGENCY ;-��;�; � �� TRY/ � � I OF THE PHASE 3/4 FINAL PUD
OM ENTRY =/;!;;%`i �. DIRECTIONAL I APPLICATION SUBMITTAL AND
SIGNAGE (%.D PAINTED CROSSWALK 1 ILLUSTRATES PEDESTRIAN
16 SURFACE
PARKING SPACES CONNECTIVITY AT FULL
<
•� BUILD—OUT.
too
&WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK
1
WITH A
A CURB RAMPS
.'
I
✓�
.t��a t x?.^•n .:}^:i'i?•i'•`':.>'?'':i..iii[7>f5'.:�,',:,isi�: ;':7 i'is';ii`:jkii?:•�?i.};t!j1�j>i.'{ti ---PAINTED TE
DC
CROSSW ALK
LK
..--
ati•'+•:�e•:7.4g�r{�.�::riaC$;•.:....:....:..�..a:r.�..:.:•.:.x..�..s.:..:.v..>.•r..�..�.�.•r..+::..>u.....r.:.n.�:.� �.
+:'•.'i%?{t:?:•�..'r::Ybi:P3:::::�::ir.:',:•:::ii�:i9::i�:i::�:i¢�a?:�::i:aL:f:i�::i::i?i'S:°ice 5::'r::i:`T __._
�
ROAD
I
:•..:;�::��.>..;:-r-:::.�t: P
1
LO
O
1
� I
�••••�•`"'`� AVH SERVICE LOOP
�:�...... ROAD
•• - i
Z, H.H.S.PARKING
IO
=f2:0740 t� \` I KEY PLAN
M
pedestrian access revision exhibit - phases 3/4
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL M.F.P. 12 . 2012 2 of 2
� r
SLOPED OVERFRAMING W
SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE ....__.._.._:.._._.::'.
ROOF W1 EXTRUDED RIBS
ELEVATION -M-.—�F-Ck4.•-
(28'-8'AEG)
SLOPED
O NW! E D OVEtFRAMING!WI
SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE ROOF Wt SINGLE-PLY Y MEMBRANE ROOF u
WIMRUDEDRBS PI; EXTRUDED RIBS
I
—
.__.
;.
ELEVATION
l�
(1e'-0AEC)
— -
i
li{{l�l ; I! EXIST. � l EOSf. � -
! l
-� !;I!I., {7{I 'Iv�,, !�I !I!i!I COURTYARD �COl1FLTYPRD
ELEVATION
32'-0'AFG
(32'-0-AEG)
EXISTING SLOPED OVERFRAMING W/ ! i
SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE ROOF W/ EXISTING !
-- - EXTRUDED RIBS SOLAR PANELS
_T..-._.. ....._..............._ _._.__._. ;
SLOPED OVERFRAMING WI SINGLE-PLY
'
! - _ MEMBRANE ROOF Wl EXTRUDED RIBS _
�/-
E - ELEVATION
LEVATION '
32'-0'AEG
-_srrsxl
SLOPED OVERFRAMING W/SINGLE-PLY
2•.l •)AD ED TPOMEMBRANE� ` —__ MEMBRANE ROOF W/EXTRUDED RIBS _�___..-.
r'�y00FlNGWITAPERED SKYLIGHT -
INSULATION I [, Ca je,$•
ELEVATION ! - -
__.1 ._._— ._.—_................. EXIST.RTU _. EXIST.RTU
1r-0•AFC _
ELEVATION
10'-0'PFG ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION
(14'-0'AEG) - m r. -- (22'-5'AEG) (14'-0-AEG) I74'-10'AEG)
............__ . .. .....I• FB.EVATIONi 2 ! �Ii / � .... _...... `_. .....
ADHERED TPO MEMBRAN _..
7 OWING WlTAP9iED
SCREEN WALL I .... '°•• ,. - --
ELEVATION
16'E'AFG
RTU
L '.__.......__......._...-....._.- __._......—__ ELEVATION
h-}I I ;i:.-:c_:-.._.._ "c=•..�I I;i .,ILL''•�, J� 1 d
V ! J- - t.—' \ -- _ -----------
( AEG)
•ADHERED TPO rte.,.•.'-" .
ELEVATIO _ t -��MEMBRANE
7'-6'AFG N EGETARVE .. I ROOFlNG W/
AEG) OOFlN(>� I _._-.�. .._ .. __—..
ELEVATION
t�JS ,...._.._......................__..i !':, J
'f 2 W i AFG
13.PA0 RAW (t' AEG
)
ELEVATION -•-- ELEVATION
6'-O'AFG ! 24'-0•AFG
(8-0AEG) r ( HELIDAl1 _t...._ ---... L.-..'� �_'..... �` (25'-0•AEG)
NELIPAD SAFETY NET __.. � \` �/ MAT]N ELEVATION
ELEVATION r ADHERED Wl�MEMBIW ♦ 18'-0'AEG 115'-0'AEG
5'-0'AFG ELEVATION ( )
(8'-0•AEG) ISW AFG INSULATION. ELEVATION
' (33'-D'AEG)
HBJPAD ELEVATION ELEVATION
I"AFG j 21W AFG �
(1S'-0'AEG) "`� (21'-0'AEG)
F831PADSAFE'TYNET ,i ELEVATION
1T-VAFG
(13'-0'AEG)
ELEVATION
V.. 13'-6'AFG
(7'-0'AEG)
r
CL ELEVATION - I
16'-6'AFG ®
(6' 'AEG) !
i
�r
CL
design
n Flg¢ry�nbrrx,bnol AC.
�NyAI 8201&h SVeN MaA,
SW a 200.
Denier,co 602023219
E
]20.BA8.02]
R 9 ge01 Wanber
1121900
I ASPEN VALLEY
HOSPITAL
--_ PHASE 3
ADDITION/EXPANSION
NO,C.I.G 9ek Woe0
' �� I.. � I = .Y�M9le0oAtto Aepen,CO8,611
h} CW WUIIaaYmrW WtlMn TBn09Te
mev _. �� AAV w�mwn sWMm�iwa�mlaa
..__..... !�,?, - .I ma 1m mrnaaorrwNZO.
N. mar � LeU2WW
�_ >r. I maVagnel�,a
x. -. 21
_+ MM9fA0Ar Wa'
aeMiB �<ArAAAIMaMMA1MAa4E0.1
LaAiy�IWAA W 6011AA9A6A
MaW'.E 1ratl9oAWW rro IWFa, i6] ___.-� eEb Oele
CONSTRUCTION
DRAWINGS 00.%%201D
l: i A-` Irem m,e
,y PHASE2 -
�i PHASE 3
PHASE 4 N
LEGEND T
19T ROOR D.EV.•,AOd'.UBOa AM?S '
4:ELEVATION 2Cd AA0.�FIM6N06AOE
IrvAEO1•�6ovE EZnnw6 caAOE
kM den
wal IAIe
OVERALL ROOF
PLAN
vMal n�M�r
PUD
hewn Lry AulhOr c1WCM�Chocher
SLOPED OVERFRAMING WI
SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE
ROOF Wl EXTRUDED RIBS "_ - _ .__.- __..__ HT ABOVE ROOF uvr
SLOPED OVERFRAMING W/ t EXISTING SLOPED OVERFRAMING WI
SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE ROOF SINGLE PLY MEMBRANE ROOF WI
W/EXTRUDED RIBS EXTRUDED RIBS
j ---- --–
11 I I TT•I
�EXIST. j( -� �EXIST.
COURTYARD _ COURTYARD
' I
f
i EXISTING SLOPED OVERFRAMING W/
T-� SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE ROOF W/
EXTRUDED RIBS
-' 34-T 34W
I % z REPLACED RTU REPLACED RTU N Ll
_I -
HT ABOVE ROOF 10'-6" I
F T ABOVE ROOF T- SLOPED OVERFRAMING W/SINGLE-PLY
MEMBRANE ROOF W/EXTRUDED RIBS
/-ADHERED TPO MEMBRANE
1� `ROOFING W/TAPERED
INSULATION 'F— SLOPED OVERFRAMING WISINGLE-PLY
MEMBRANE ROOF W/EXTRUDEDRIBS 40'-0'
SKYLIGHT HT ABOVE ROOF 10'•6' REPLACED RTU j
ELEVATION
(14'-O'AEG)
40'-0'
SCREEN WALL � - ., § NEW RTU
ELEVATION
16•6 AFG GETATI
(16'-O'AEG) ROOFINGf/ •• - y�/`
NraaovEROOF 1as
,
,r
HELPAID
to
i
X2399 in -- --._.-.
CL
I�NESIGN
design
Heery International Inc.
i
< 820 16th Street Mall,
Suite 200,
�- Denver,CO 80202-3219
�s�►► a\\ 720.946.0276
I ► ..11h project number
CASTLE CREEK ROAD --—- 1121900
______---- ^►► I ABUS STOP �
A S P E N V A L L E Y
PEDESTRIAN DOOLITTLE DRIVE j H O S P I T A L
TRAIL I ' Ilill � � '
SURFACE PHASE 3 AND 4
PARKING
/ •,______ _ STRUCTURE IPARiwGI l i I _ �-- ADDITION/EXPANSION
STORM WATER ^�� I _ - - I i
7 _
MANAGEMENT ;FjOSPIT�L BUILDING,
;Y BASIN (SHOWN AT FULL BUILD-OUT) __ I 1 0401 Castle Creek Road
•- � S Aspen,Co 81611
O EMPLOYEE 11191 F f1a n ?I - - I �
p 7 HOUSING
00 , INN i/i //� / / _I \ consultants/construction managers
LOADING /%/���iJ%%i��/" % </ sruaualQ—ow SNw. GRMDn.
DOCK i iii �'�` � '!�//�� '. /
3100 n2yaud Ave,d300 311 Main SL Sude 102
/� �i oe��
cam .ccel
3o3ss51541 3a 9709ms51f97a.
asszz
SCERE Ga�unSnow
/ i•� i/ � �� _ 5420W dRRUad WW 200 1920 w1w SL Sum 201
y I f J A-de.C=002
303A33.95DO113
1 — 30142271001f3034221900 303.433.9500113034335524
/ WHITCOMB Yil IVI III. 1 PARKING. Eg—N
7 CEO I °<�0�, / TERRACE Ada
Main 5t Sidle A3
7 e RESIDENCE 970 70 0311190704.0113
<� I - 'I seal/signature
1
/ NORDIC TRAIL / I
`'ems, 1 I I 1 1•-'i I
\ 1 \ a / .✓i issued for dale
PHASE 3/4
LOADING / 1
FINAL PUD AUGUST 10,2012
DOCK
/ item date
\ AVH LOOP ROAD EXISTING
` m.' AMBULANCE
_ '_^_r r„ BARN I
CASTLE CREEK ROAD —__—__------- —""— \
DOOLITTLMRIVE ,
_ 1 1'PARKING I I I I I SU� I; PLAN NORTH
-t
- \ �nln(. TR E KI
I I I I I H i l l LEGEND
4r '
t ! PHASE 1
O BUILDING
o —� / \\\t 1 I PHASE 1
\ 1 \ � NOTE:THIS SHEET IS PROVIDED TO
\ — ILLUSTRATE THE VARIOUS PHASES OF
CEO —
RESIE I PHASE 2 PHASE 2 BUILDING THE EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF
DENC
C ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL AND IS
-�_ EMPLOYEE Q INTENDED AS A DIAGRAMATIC
�--�_ HOUSING i PHASE 3 REFERENCE ONLY. sheet title
_
CO'B HOSPITAL BUILDING PHASE 3
TERRAC BUILDING MASTER SITE
E (SHOWN AT FULL
SITE DIAGRAM BUILD-OUT) I PHASING DIAGRAM
PHASE 4
NOT TO SCALE � `"'�. ` i � PHASE4 BUILDING
HOISTING —-�——— PHASE LIMITS/ sheet number
LIMITS OF 'I
AVH LOOP ROAD \-� BUILDING DISTURBANCE
(PRE P-1 O 1
�. -PUD)
lAMBULANCE -- a drawn by checked by
„.,,...,,.x'�e.n". -,<
t
6
LEGEND design
CIRCULATION: PUBLIC
CIRCULATION:STAFF/PATIENT
NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINT/EXPANSION LOADING
CURRENT BUILDING FOOTPRINT/RENOVATION DOCK Hoary lntemational Inc.
ELEVATOR:PUBLIC I PARKING GARAGE 82016th Street Mall,
Suite 200,
ELEVATOR:STAFF/PATIENT Denver,CO 80202.3219
EXTENT OF PHASE 7 720.946.0276
APPROVED AND COMPLETED project number
EXTENT OF PHASE 2 _^,_—_ _. 1121900
APPROVED AND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION s --
® EXTENT OF PHASE 3 E ''VIN -- -- --- _ —
I I A S P E N V A L L E Y
APPROVED AND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION I T. r
EXTENT OF PHASE 4 -
APPROVED AND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION I
PHASE 3 AND 4
---- ADDITION/EXPANSION
I
i0401 Castle Creek Road
Aspen,Co 81611
Iconsultants/construction managers
Si�reira"wilaotamc Dwearlp
t / 34DI East sap.d A..'3W 311 A'ai.,St.SUb 102
Denve,CO 8209 crbwda'c.Co M23
303.399.515411303.333.9501 970163.65201 f 970.953.6522
8CER Ensireeiing
Waol Road.
CO 80002 ui1a 200 Dowe,.CO 3322.201
_Jf�
303327400/1303A22.7900 3J3i73.950011303433662f
t
U , LOBBY C2t.,dal, DE2
502 Oai.,e CO CD 8J62]
/ 97070/0311/f 970 76:.0313
seal/signature
1
MECHANI AL
O
00❑ issued for date
rr EE ING PHASE 3/4
IL�4lIN RY OBBY FM
I S FINAL PUD AUGUST 10,2012
I ..-.-_._....-...._......._- ,•___ -. -. item
date
----__ RGE ;
LETINC!
OOM (�
SHELL SPACE
PLAN NORTH
w
SCALE:1"=30'1c
kev plan
sheet title
BASEMENT
LEVEL
sheet number
AF-100
.. ^"°'°'"""""'°,..""�""•°"'°v.a„m."""'°".� drawn by checked by
v....kaeaaw�a+4+nw+,a+ae,�.,..a»•....oxe.r
m��K"a..•n.n..ran....,r..a.w.o..w.a+...�ww cenp.om��erw.'rw.a+r..r_wwA,..a
"a,aes�>.mra.r..i.�".r'ra..4a..n.n.waa. wfer.wnfrmwr6w.osown�r.�wanrtf i.»F
LEGEND
\- — design
CIRCULATION:PUBLIC
CIRCULATION:STAFFIPATIENT
NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINTIEXPANSION
CURRENT BUILDING FOOTPRINT/RENOVATION Heery International Inc.
■ELEVATOR:PUBLIC Suit a 16th
00Street Mall,
ELEVATOR STAFFMATIENT Q \\\ Denver,0.946 CO 202-3219
EXTENT OF PHASE 1 LOADING
APPROVED AND COMPLETED DOCK project number
EXTENT OF PHASE 2 -- - - --- = 1121900
APPROVED AND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION I
EXTENT OF PHASE 3 I HEALING o A S P E N V A L L E Y
APPROVED AND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION �� L I GARDEN H O S P I T A L
EXTENT OF PHASE 4 _
APPROVED AND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION Y _
PPO , _ ADDITION/EXPANSION
RVIC _
a N BIKE 0401 Castle Creek Road
C TRAIL Aspen,Co 81611
S CA
consullanLs/conslruction managers
EN KI
3� -- Sbuebnl Cun4WA.M Q OF840n S1.
> I '(I 3400 Faef eerawAre,Xi00 31141bin St,5bie 182
tr fr Oeroer.Co on Ceb.-Ab.00816t3
0- 303.3995154/}381.337.9501 970.983.052010709P'3SM
° BCERE'➢i_9 s.wnabo.
U _ kad.GEFoW.5u9e 208 D—,COIL102.20t
I COURT BARD 7�.�O113 �3.MI92
y 387.422.740011303.4227900 30.1.433.450011383.473.5821
l I ( Sw%Enpreeaq
502 Main SL SL8eA3
II LOBBY �,g, c O' M.;;°9°w4.93f3
'c
z! C f t seallsignature
ED.
S qL� r `� g ° •I ® CU ENTRANCE
J DROP-0
• ,� BORA RY 0
_ � j —
• - - T issued for date
NI AF _ a PHASE 3/4
IM G FINAL PUD AUGUST 10,2012
— l .. dlil I
-- item date
MBULANCE ` TF T Y C AP
ARAGE 84 I 3 OUTD00
ROP OFF LOBBY DINING EA -6
E C b
� BILIC
• ` IN ENTRANCE PLAN NORTH
SCALES 1"=31Y�
c � ICS
M GENCY
D TMENT
DROP-OF key plan
sheet title
LEVEL ONE
AF-101 sheet number
� � ►� � (/(�
•^°`°°"a"'r""'""°°"'°.'"°",..,.�.bb„.m.e,a drawn by checked by
bel R•b�Y+b-[bbmmr,b•.•inwW,w,bbo�aa.+ GhryvOm,h�wsvtivuou.wsa4nulera
i0.vA.OsaM1noObaa"va.e,elwsNman bwqubwW bapale P�oen vn��p[�mm�[.vu z�nrm sl�[TKas.'n[.^.ia-ap
.,g1.mb..v.-wM 9.-_a.wmpwe,"b.,�Yanlei-w
LEGEND design
CIRCULATION:PUBLIC
CIRCULATION:STAFFIPATIENT
NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINT/EXPANSION
CURRENT BUILDING FOOTPRINTIRENOVATION Hoary Intemational Inc.
820 16th Street Mall,
ELEVATOR:PUBLIC Suite 200,
®ELEVATOR:STAFFIPATIENT 720.946 02 66ozoz-szls
r'C EXTENT OF PHASE 1 Q ❑❑ Q o project number
APPROVED AND COMPLETED _ 0 0
EXTENT OF PHASE 2 ° 1121900
APPROVED AND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION L i
® EXTENTOFPHASE3 ROOF _ j A S _P E N V A L L 17 Y
APPROVEDANDCURRENTLYUNDERCONSTRUCTION f` H Q S P I T A L
EXTENT OF PHASE 4 �o
APPROVED AND CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3 AND 4
ADDITION/EXPANSION
ROOF
® CAB. 0401 Castle Creek Road
O o�a u _ Aspen,Co 81611 pig]
consultants/construction managers
III�I ;1 o O 74W east Baya,d Aye,aoo Ca ft,'vi6t6We ID2
i 303.39 51541 f3 Callon4ale,If616D
_
303.399 5154 1 f 301311.9c0l 970967.65A1/f970.967.E524
— - COURT= aleae,IR d.y ea0on96d
.4.d.,C0=2 uis 200 ID.-,CO 66022
- COURT 1 A R D -YARD. 303.4227400,1303.4227900 301431950011307,473.5624
II
L� �i �k;�tSeA3
970 7G4 03111 f 970 704.0317
Cr. seal/signature
MEDICAL
OFFICE
SPACE ROOF ;
CIO�
issued for dale
! I PHASE 3/4
FINAL PUD AUGUST 10,2012
! 'I
-- - item date
j I OOF
~ 1 OPEN TO BELOW
OPF goo °
0 / . .i LO BY
i
HEL- AD b F
� — PLAN NORTH
i
u�L�J
I /
l
'SCALE'71'=30' T
L�
J'
key Plan
sheet title
LEVEL TWO
sheet number
AF 102
.''o�^'°'.'":""'e""`"°`"`•"°'..."'.""".n»y"';,.�;'" drawn by checked by
�xww.xwax�.aa. x•bxa
e��.es.r•,.mo-,:,w.e.�.�+s,a.xm.�R„m ..,��r.ono....,usg,,,us;,ec,xue.us�.Y,
1
design
Heery International Inc.
820 16th Street Mall,
Suite 200,
Denver,CO 80202-3219
720.946.0276
project number
1121900
A S P E N V A L L E Y
- H O S P I T A L
I il' ! II III I!! I!1 II I' I II 14I I l !I I 11 III I �' j I I I PHASE 3 AND 4
ADDITION/EXPANSION
0401 Castle Creek Road
Aspan.Co 81611
❑ - -� -
s
ED _ - - - - - NOTE.OXYGEN PAD STRUCTURE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY
-- -- --- ------ — -'_. - consultants/consWctionmanagers
El St-b"Ce Iwla ii. DXM Deegn
3400 East 0aYxW Ave,9700 711 AUin$L Sub 102
303.399,51151—.M80209 303.333.9501 970,9963fi52�970.9831512
BCER Engle. Gj.5-
5420 Ward Road.Sul le 200 192 MAd SL Suite 21
Arvada,CO W02 Denier,0090202
NORTH ELEVATION 3D3.422-7400/1301.12279W 303.437.95W 71303.437.56N
509ds EngneeNg
502 Main St,Sul la A3
Cadmndala,C06Zt
80
970.2 4 0311 1 1 1970.704.0313
seal/signature
issued for date
PHASE 3/4
FINAL PUD AUGUST 10,2012
item date
RUIZ
EAST ELEVATION SCALE:1"=20'A
- I
key plan
sheet title
NORTH
AND EAST
ELEVATIONS
sheet number
A-201
drawn by checked by
2
design
Heery International Inc.
820 16th Street Mall,
Suite 200,
Denver,CO 80202-3219
720.946.0276
project number
1121900
Ft FrrTTM AS P PEN V A L L E Y
O S P IT A L
Jowl
- - - -
- `` ° PHASE 3 AND 4
- '" — ° ` ° r _ - ADDITION/EXPANSION
0401 Castle Creek Road
I Aspen,Co 81611
SOUTH ELEVATION
consultants/construction managers
Slu w.tC uaLanh lno. DHM Casign
3100 Eaaf aayaud Aw,4300 311 Main SL Suee 102
Denver,C060209 C,,bondaL,0061623
303.399.51511 f 303 333.9501 970.963,652011970 963.6522
DCER Engineering Gal—Snow
5420 Ward Road,Suite 200 1920 Mallet SL Suite 201
Arvada,0060002 Denver.0000202
303.422.74001 f 303422.7900 303433.9500/(303.4335624
Sepm E,,'-dng
502 Mal,St,Sulte A3
Carbondale,C060623
970.704.03111 f 970 704.0313
seal/signature
issued for date
PHASE 314
FINAL PUD AUGUST 10,2012
item date
Ifl!1_ I ll 111 wlll !I l In t
t+I I
SCALE:1"=20'b
I
WEST ELEVATION
key plan
sheet title
SOUTH
AND WEST
ELEVATIONS
" sheet number
A-202
m,""� drawn by checked by
n
WAll Phases of Development
Phase 111 Phase IV
Proposed`in Current; Proposedin
Conceptual. Phase I Phase II . Phase 11 Application Difference Phase ll 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 81,421L 139,416 63,110 74,440 9,941 8,575
Phase II 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
Sum of Phase 1 81,421 MOS 17,716 22,187 5,493
Ambulance
Sum of Phase I & II 220,837 Above Grade Garage 0 3,436
Proposed sum of Phases I, 11, & III 295,277 Totals 138,395 152,152 13,757
Proposed sum of Phases I, 11, III & IV 303,852
Note: Housing and Whitcomb not included
P23
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
10.187X 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 II 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
P24
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 72,828 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
P25
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 26.470.080 (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
P26
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. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Page 4 of 4
P27
Exhibit I
26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. ey
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
P28
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 pattern's 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 11
P29
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 11
P30
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
P31
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 maybe 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
P32
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. Staff finds 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
P33
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. Stafffinds 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 11
P34
Staff Finding: Snow storage is anticipated to be handled by removal and relocation in the
drainage basin. Staff finds 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
P35
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. Stafffinds 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 II and nearing completion.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Page 9 of 11
P36
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. Stafffinds 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
P37
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
0MLON &ASSSiAM
LIGHTING DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
Aspen Valley Hospital
Light Trespass Mitigation Options
The purpose of the Light Trespass Mitigation is to reduce the brightness of the lights for
neighbors.There are five different areas of concern: Whitcomb Terrace traffic circle area and
parking, hospital parking lot, hospital parking garage, wall mounted sconces and loop road.
Options to mitigate undesirable brightness and light trespass and AVH's intended resolution for
each area include:
1. Replacing the LED light bars with built-in shielding bars to reduce brightness of the
luminaire when viewed from off the site;
RESOLUTION:AVH will replace light bars at exterior pole and wall lights as
recommended.
2. Reduce LED light bar quantities in order to lower average lighting levels;
RESOLUTION:AVH will reduce the light bars from 3 to 2 at all remaining pole and wall
lights,pending new and final photometrics using the recommended light bars.
3. Change color temperature of the LED light bar to a warmer 2700K color;
RESOLUTION:AVH will change all light bars in pole-mounted lights to the
recommended 2700K color.
4. Install LED light bars in the wall sconces with backlight shielding to reduce the amount of
brightness on the wall;
RESOLUTION:AVH will replace the light bars as recommended.
5. Selectively identify and remove some poles and replace with lower height bollards;
RESOLUUION:AVH will selectively remove poles and replace with bollards,pending
new and final photometrics using recommended light bars.
6. Turn off lights that are not needed after a designated curfew;
RESOLUTION:AVH has already implemented lighting controls including motion
sensors, dimmers, and timers for the parking garage, the top level parking deck, and
the entry lobby.
' x 4 _:Y
e
*ir Wo Apt
Figure
Figure 1—Black cover plate Figure 2—Spill light shielding on
reduces apparent bottom LEDs
P39
Aspen Valley Hospital—Lighting Design Ideas December 28,2012
Heery International Page 12
z,
2700K 3000K 45 00K 6500K
High Pressure Sodium Metal Halide[Quartz,Ceramic] Cold LED
[2000K] I [6000-6500K]
Cooper LED LighIBAIr[4000K]
, w
Figure 3—The color appearance of various light sources can be defined
in terms of color temperature,measured in"degrees"Kelvin(K).The
Cooper Light Bar is the current specification.Recommend 2700K.
AccuLEDOptics-
5 Asymmetric Distributions
Area Typ2 R_d_Y Typ3 Ty"4 rb tangw
Area typo 3 NrJo
5 Spill Light Eliminator Distributions
812 313 SU SLR SU
—c:: 4a 4 --�— +
3 Symmetric Distributions
Typ53gma Ty063w- rpe63q_
Ed.VrWt wun UwOff.
Figure 4—The picture above compares the various light distributions
and spill light control options.
P40
Aspen Valley Hospital—Lighting Design Ideas December 28,2012
Heery International Page 13
Specific Mitigation Ideas and AVH's Intended Resolution
1. Whitcomb Terrace
The pole mounted luminaires on this property have the greatest visibility to properties and street below.
So,lowering the height of the luminaires will make the greatest impact by reducing visual line of site
from the property to the offending luminaire. Mitigation options and AVH's intended resolution,
pending new and final photometrics include:
• Remove some or all luminaires, poles and bases at the traffic circle;
• Replace some or all light poles with round bollards with fully shielded bollard without louvers;
• Review additional landscape and exterior architectural lighting;
Fully shielded bollard alternate Current exterior lighting
2. Hospital Parking Lot
The hospital parking lot has 12-foot high poles with LED luminaires. Mitigation options and AVH's
intended resolution include:
• Replace LED light bars in parking lot luminaire with 2700K LED bars with Type III distribution and
spill light control;
• Use black finish light bar cover;
• Reduce the number of light bars from 3 to 2, pending new and final photometrics.
P41
Aspen Valley Hospital—Lighting Design Ideas December 28,2012
Heery International Page 14
2700K LED color temperature with spill light
shielding on right pole
3. Hospital Parking Garage
The parking garage LED lighting is currently controlled with motion sensors that switch from a low light
level to high as people walk or drive near.Since some of the lighting is visible off site, below are
mitigation ideas and AVH's intended resolution:
• Turn off upper deck pole mounted luminaires at a designated curfew as an additional control
step beyond the motion sensors already installed;.
Use black finish light bar cover to control luminaire brightness where light bars are being
replaced as recommended on the top deck only;
• Shield perimeter mounted interior garage lighting with permanent shields at fixture locations
which are fully visible to the exterior;
Shielding demo for garage light
• Install a permanent mesh fabric at openings at the perimeter to reduce garage luminaire
brightness.
P42
Aspen Valley Hospital—Lighting Design Ideas December 28,2012
Heery International Page 15
4. Rear Loop Drive
Navigation on the service loop road can easily be accomplished with lower height bollards. Mitigation
options and AVH's intended resolution include:
• Install non-louvered bollards at each location previously planned to receive vertical light poles.
5. Hospital Wall Sconces
The wall sconces have similar issues as the parking lot lighting,such as color and brightness and should
be included in the overall mitigation effort. Options for mitigation and AVH's intended resolution
include:
• Replace light bars with 2700K LED and spill light control bars;
• Use black finish light bar cover;
• Sconces on the east wall have been disconnected.Sconces at the stair wells will be retrofitted.
P43
Aspen Valley Hospital—Lighting Design Ideas December 28,2012
Heery International Page 16
Future Lighting Design Strategies for Phases Ill and IV
There are many human factors related to lighting in the built environment. These factors will be the
primary drivers of the lighting design for the Hospital in order to deliver a high quality visual
environment, increased occupant comfort, and foster wellness and productivity. A successful electric
lighting design will provide a system of lighting layers (ambient,task, and accent) which respond to the
needs of the occupants. This strategy is particularly effective in energy-aggressive, high performance
buildings. Separating lighting into layers will increase visual comfort, provide additional flexibility, and
create visual interest.
Additionally,exterior and lobby interior lighting design will be designed consistent with the principles of
minimizing light trespass and brightness to the neighborhood.
Exterior
• Specify 2700K light sources;
• Specify Type III distribution with spill light control for pole-mounted luminaires;;
• Use retaining walls and other hardscape features as lighted elements(face towards building);
• Use fully shielded bollards without louvers;
• Minimize use of poles in general.When used,specify 2700K LED light bars with built-in shielding
as recommended above;
• Specify wall sconces with deeply regressed light sources;and
• Provide dimming for all lighting and establish a nighttime schedule with automated controls.
• Use low lumen (light)output luminaires for reduced brightness and minimum acceptable safe
light levels(footcandles).
The success of most lighting designs lies in the selection of the correct equipment. Luminaires are built
differently in order to optimize specific performance characteristics for which they are applied.Selecting
luminaires cannot be done on aesthetics alone, but must also consider photometric performance,
energy use,and project goals.
Interior Lobby
• Specify 2700K light sources;
• Specify only non-luminous or non "glowing" luminaires;
• Use luminaires with fully shielded light sources;
• Do not allow direct illumination through exterior windows;
• Provide a low mounting height layer of light such as step lights,and wall washing(below 8');
• Light between windows such that lighted surfaces are not reflected out the windows;and
• Provide dimming for all lighting and establish a nighttime schedule with automated controls.
Tune (set) minimum acceptable lighting(footcandle)levels.
• If ceiling is lighted,aim lights towards interior and either turn off or dim the lights to a low level
at night.