HomeMy WebLinkAbout0013.2004.ASLU
0013.2004.ASLU/1_Application Text 2-26-04.doc INTRODUCTION
The Aspen Valley Hospital (the Applicant) submits the following land use application to the City of Aspen requesting a rezoning to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (PUD),
PUD development review for the construction of 25 affordable dwelling units, and a Growth Management Quota System exemption for affordable housing. In addition, the Applicant would
like to request a waiver of tap fees for the development of 100% affordable housing for an essential public facility. Please refer to the Pre-Application Conference summary, Exhibit
1.
The Hospital purchased the former Beaumont Inn in 2000 for hospital employee housing. Please refer to Exhibit 2 for ownership documentation. The Hospital received a conditional use
approval for affordable housing in November of 2000. At this time the Hospital is interested in pursuing the appropriate land use reviews in order to develop and operate up to 38
affordable dwelling units on the site for Hospital employees.
The Applicant’s representative is Leslie Lamont of Lamont Planning Services, LLC. Permission to represent the Hospital is found in Exhibit 3. The application fee agreement and a list
of owners located within three hundred feet were attached to the submittal.
The application is divided into four sections. Section I is a brief introduction to the application. Section II describes the existing conditions of the site and previous land use
approvals and Section III provides a review of the Applicant’s proposal. Section IV addresses the relevant Code sections and the project’s compliance with the City of Aspen Land Use
Regulations Title 26.
Upon receipt and review of this application the staff and pertinent review bodies may request additional material. The Applicant will provide any additional material during the time
of review of this application.
II. PROJECT SITE
The site is located at 1301 East Cooper Avenue. The property is 53,543 square feet and zoned R-15, moderate density with a Lodge Preservation Overlay. Currently there is approximately
20,979 square feet of floor area on the parcel. The complex includes a two story building comprised of two “wings” connected by a short breezeway, a two-story triplex and a three-bedroom
modular.
Historically a small lodge has occupied the property renting up to 31 rooms. There have been several land use approvals to expand the lodge which required employee mitigation. The
triplex and modular were added to the site and deed restricted for purposes of mitigation.
After the Hospital purchased the property and obtained the conditional use approval they refurbished one of the “wings” (the Silver building) creating ten deed restricted dwelling units
for hospital employees. The triplex (the Garden building) and the three-bedroom modular are also occupied by Hospital employees and remain deed restricted units. The remaining lodge
structure is not occupied on a permanent basis.
The site it located just at the top of the hill and has served as a defining point between Town and the east side of Town. The site is relatively flat except at the northern end where
the property slopes north down the hill. The property supports a variety of vegetation including lilac bushes, stands of Aspen and some significant coniferous trees.
Access to the site is at the top of the hill in the southeast corner off of Highway 82. The property is bounded by single family residential land uses on the south and west sides, multi-family
townhomes on the north side and Highway 82 on the east side.
PROJECT PROPOSAL
The Hospital proposes to construct another 25 employee dwelling units on the Beaumont site for a total of 38 dwelling units on site. In order to accommodate the new development, the
Hospital proposes to demolish the older lodge structure which is closest and perpendicular to Highway 82 and remove the three-bedroom modular from the site. Those three bedrooms will
be replaced within the project as three Category 1 studios.
A total of thirteen deed restricted dwelling units located in the refurbished section of the lodge (the Silver Building) and the triplex will remain in their current configuration and
deed restricted status:
Five 2-bedrooms at Category 3
Two 1-bedrooms at Category 3
One 1-bedroom at Category RO
Two studios at Category 1
One studio at Category 2
Two studios at Category 3
Access to the property, off of Highway 82, will remain at its current location. There are 38 parking spaces purposed for the site which provides one parking space per dwelling unit.
The current parking configuration will remain roughly the same however it will be upgraded. The gravel lots will be paved, internal turning radius improved, ADA spaces identified,
pedestrian access points defined, and the parking spaces along the southern boundary may be covered. Please refer to the site plan for further detail.
The north end of the property will require significant grading and soils removal. The soils analysis by HP Geotech (Exhibit 4) concludes that there are unstable soils and trash and
organics in the land at this end of the site. However, the regrading creates several opportunities for community benefit. Reducing the slopes, combined with the demolition of the
lodge building, will negate the need for the large retaining wall that parallels Highway 82. Removal of the wall will improve the site distance and increase traffic safety at the entrance
to the property and enable the expansion of the turning lane on Highway 82. These site improvements will make possible the construction of a public sidewalk connecting to the one that
ends on the Lacet property.
The Hospital proposes to develop four separate buildings. It is the intention of the Hospital to phase development on the Beaumont site when mitigation is required for future Hospital
campus expansions. However the Applicant is aware of the disruptive nature that phased development can have within the neighborhood and to Hospital residents.
Additionally, constructing 25 units in four separate buildings will break up the massing of the buildings and negate the perception of one long building along Highway 82. This is an
important architectural feature as most of the new development is located on the perimeter of the site.
As stated above, three of the four new buildings are proposed for the perimeter of the site, primarily along Highway 82. This is necessary because half of the buildings will remain
on the property thus confining new development to a specific area of the property. Further confining the new development is the current access to the property at the top of the hill.
This cannot be relocated due to safety concerns. The Applicant’s commitment to preserving as much of the mature vegetation on the site as practicable also dictates the location of
future development. The surrounding neighborhood will benefit from the site design as well. Locating buildings along Highway 82 will create a neighborhood street presence and keep
the parking area internal to the site. Furthermore, locating new development along the Highway will reduce the disturbance and changed conditions to existing neighbors.
At this conceptual phase the following programmatic elements apply to the four new buildings:
The Cooper Building
Location: at the top of the hill, adjacent to the vehicular entrance of the property and parallel to Highway 82.
Number of Units: eight.
Type of Unit: two studios, four 1-bedrooms, two 2-bedrooms.
Gross Floor Area: 6,400 sq. ft.
Height: the south end of the building is two stories stepping up to three stories in the middle, and back down to two stories at the north end. The maximum height is 27.5 feet to the
mid-point of the roof, 32 feet to the ridge. The height of the two story sections is 21 feet to the mid-point of the roof, 25 feet to the ridge.
The Homestead Building
Location: parallel to Highway 82 and in the approximate location of the old lodge building (half way down the hill heading into Aspen).
Number of Units: eight.
Type of Unit: four studios, four 1-bedrooms.
Gross Floor Area: 5,250 sq. ft.
Height: the maximum height is 27.5 feet to the mid-point of the roof, 32 feet to the ridge.
Notes: the first floor of the Homestead will be garden level and the building is designed to step up the hill reflecting the changing topography of this location.
The Canal Building
Location: at the north end of the property at the toe of the slope. This building is perpendicular to Highway 82 and parallel to the Lacet multi-family building across the irrigation
ditch.
Number of Units: eight.
Type of Unit: five studios, two 1-bedrooms, one 3-bedroom.
Gross Floor Area: 5,560 sq. ft.
Height: the maximum height is 27.5 feet to the mid-point of the roof, 32.5 feet to the ridge.
Notes: taking advantage of the grading that is required for this portion of the site, the first floor is garden level. Access to the outside will no be provided at the garden level
on the north side in order to reduce noise impacts and increase privacy for the Lacet residents.
The Cresta Building
Location: a small three story building, in the middle of the property between the Homestead, Silver and Garden buildings.
Number of Units: one.
Type of Unit: one 2-bedroom.
Gross Floor Area: 1,000 sq. ft.
Height: maximum height is 22 feet.
As discussed earlier, the majority of the new development proposed for the site does not have a direct affect upon adjacent neighbors. However, the Canal building is within close proximity
to existing neighbors. As the Hospital’s proposal was being prepared, the Applicant organized a small neighborhood meeting for the residents of the Lacet subdivision to introduce the
project.
Several neighbors participated in the meeting at the Beaumont site to review the proposal. Most of the questions and concerns focused on the Canal building and its proximity to the
Lacet multi-family buildings. Concerns included landscape screening of the building and the importance of using mature vegetation at the time of installation and most importantly the
alignment of the two buildings and impacts to privacy and views. It was suggested that the Canal building be rotated so residents were not looking directly into each other’s homes.
Phasing and the length of phasing was also a concern as extended construction can be very disruptive.
The Applicant appreciates the comments and participation by the neighbors. Rather than amend the site design and building plans prior to submitting the application for public review,
the Applicant has elected to submit the application without changes and to discuss all the issues during the public review process.
IV - REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
The proposed development is subject to rezoning, PUD development review, and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing. Each review is discussed below.
A. Section 26.310 Amendment to the Official Zone District Map
Aspen Valley Hospital requests a change to the official zone district map to rezone the property located at 1301 East Cooper Avenue from R-15 with a Lodge Preservation Overlay to Affordable
Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD).
Although the Hospital received a conditional use approval in 2000 to manage affordable housing on the property, the Hospital now seeks to rezone the property so the underlying zone district
of AH/PUD compliments the primary use of the property. In addition, because affordable housing is a community asset and a community goal, the AH zone district includes a variety of
incentives for the development of new affordable housing. At this point in time the Hospital is submitting a long range development plan for the property to solidify in advance for
the public and the Hospital the long term use of the property. The Applicant believes that a long range plan is preferable to a piece meal approach in which Hospital affordable housing
is approved on a project by project basis.
Pursuant Section 26.310.040 the standards of review for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
Response: Currently, the Hospital manages on site, 13 affordable dwelling units for Hospital employees based upon a conditional use approval granted in November of 2000.
This rezoning request is not in conflict with the Land Use Code and is in fact an attempt to bring the property into further compliance with the existing and long term uses of the property.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: The Housing section of the AACP states as the intent: Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods,
is affordable, and respects our overall community concerns, as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The Hospital’s proposal preserves existing development while blending new development into the overall scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal to construct
four new buildings on the site is designed in a manner that compliments the existing structures and does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Locating the new development
on the periphery and in the center of the site mitigates to the greatest extent possible impacts to neighbors.
In addition, existing infrastructure will be improved. For example, water lines will be upgraded and the public sidewalk will extend up the hill.
Eliminating the existing lodge structure will enable the hillside along Cooper Avenue to be regraded. Recontouring the property in this location will improve travel sight lines for
vehicles exiting the property and facilitate the construction of a sidewalk thus providing a missing link in the City’s trail network.
Most importantly, the rezoning of this property and subsequent development of additional affordable housing represents an increase in the affordable housing inventory within the Aspen
Community Growth Boundary and within walking/biking distance to many city amenities. The property is located on a RFTA bus route with 30 minute headways to and from Ruby Park. Although
riders will have to change buses to get to the Hospital those buses operate 20 minute headways.
Finally, the Hospital’s application is an example of a Special District developing affordable housing to meet the demand for quality, affordable housing within close proximity to employment
and community amenities.
In review of the Housing Criteria from the Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan, this project complies with the following criteria:
Criteria 1: Community Growth Boundary location
Criteria 2: Proximity to available public mass transit
Criteria 3: “Containable Development” compatible with neighborhood and does not promote sprawl
Criteria A: Contiguous to existing public facilities and infrastructure
Criteria B: Amenable to transit, bike and pedestrian oriented design (non-automotive)
Criteria C: Visual compatibility with surrounding area
Criteria D: Optimize the site’s development potential
Criteria E: Contribute to the Aspen/Pitkin County ousing GoalsHousing Goals
Criteria F:Criteria F: Quality fo life: range of income groups, mixed uses, assess to open space Quality of life: range of income groups, mixed uses, access to open space
Criteria G: Quality of design and construction
Criteria H: Utilize and conserve natural features
Criteria I: Fiscal impacts of site compared to other sitesCriteria G: Quality of desing and construction
3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Response: There are two multi-family affordable housing projects in the vicinity of the Beaumont. Lacet affordable housing is directly to the north of this property and the Alpine
Cottages are located across Cooper Avenue.
Although 1/2 of the property is surrounding by low density residential neighborhoods, this property has historically been a pocket of greater density and intensity due to the lodge use.
The architectural design is intended to reflect the materials used throughout the neighborhood. The buildings that are closest to the low density neighborhoods will continue to exist
in their current configuration. New development is proposed along Highway 82 and adjacent to the multi-family housing in the Lacet subdivision.
4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Response: According to the traffic analysis conducted by Schmueser Gordon Meyer (SGM), the increase in traffic from 31 lodge units to 38 dwelling units “will not adversely affect the
performance of the (property’s) access” (Exhibit 5).
In addition removal of the retaining wall and the reduced slopes will increase the sight distance from the northerly direction. These site improvements will also facilitate the extension
of the sidewalk up the hill which is a great improvement for pedestrian safety.
5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: According to the Engineering Report by SGM (Exhibit 6), there is ample capacity in water, sewer and electric utilities to service the additional dwelling units proposed for
the site. A new fire hydrant will be installed near the entrance to service this project. SGM recommends that an existing drywell should be replaced and at least three additional drywells
should be installed to address drainage impacts. All miscellaneous utilities have the capacity to service the expansion.
As stated earlier there is an existing bus route along Highway 82 that will service this project. Residents of this project are Hospital employees thus this housing supports the community’s
emergency medical facilities.
6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: The rezoning is intended to reflect the current use and future uses of the site – affordable housing. The use of the site for affordable housing is not incompatible with
the historic use and zoning of the property as the impacts of the lodge and the intensity of the lodge use, during the summer and winter seasons, are similar to the needs of multi-family
housing.
The Applicant is committed to preserving as many of the mature trees on site as is practicable.
7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: Providing quality affordable housing, within Town and within close proximity to community jobs and amenities enhances the balance of the community and supports community character
by enabling residents to live and work in the same community.
8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Response: The Hospital received a conditional use approval in 2000 for this site to provide deed restricted dwelling units for Hospital employees. There are two other properties zoned
AH directly adjacent to and across the street from this property.
9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Response: Based upon the previous discussion of the project within this section, it would appear that rezoning the property to AH/PUD for the development of more affordable housing
is within the best interest of the community and through the PUD review process will be found to be in “harmony” with this Title.
B. Section 26.445.050 Review Standards Conceptual Planned Unit Development
Rezoning the property to Affordable Housing requires a PUD review process to establish most of the dimensional requirements for this zone district. Pursuant to Section 26.445.050 the
following review standards shall apply:
1. General requirements.
a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: Rezoning the property to AH/PUD is consistent with the AACP in that the AACP recommends development of affordable housing within the urban growth area. In addition, the Housing
section of the AACP encourages the development of affordable housing by the private sector. Although he Hospital is a special district established to provide a public service, the
Hospital is not relying upon City or County affordable housing funds to develop the Beaumont property for housing for Hospital employees.
b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
Response: Prior to the Hospital’s purchase the former lodge went through several expansions. New buildings and additional lodge rooms were constructed as well as four units of deed
restricted housing for lodge employees.
Lacet subdivision, adjacent to the property on the north side, was one of the first developments to take advantage of the newly adopted AH zone district that stipulated a 70/30 affordable
housing to free market residential unit mix.
Alpine Cottages is across Highway 82 from Lacet and is another AH project with deed restricted units and free market units.
The south and east sides of the property that are adjacent to the Riverside subdivision, and the single family area of the Lacet subdivision will not be disturbed, thereby reducing any
construction impacts to those two neighborhoods. The most significant changes to the property occur along Highway 82. The residential neighborhood on the other side of the Highway
is situated well above the project site.
As will be reviewed in the Establishment of Dimensional Requirements 26.445.050 B. section, the site planning and design of the new structures have been done with the surrounding neighborhood
in mind. Significant changes to the property occur on the Highway 82 side of the property, mature vegetation is preserved to the greatest extent practicable and the building elevations
along the highway step down the hill to minimize visual impacts. For the Canal building the building’s first floor is garden level and there is no outside space planned for this first
level (on the north side) to respect the privacy of Lacet residents and future residents of the Hospital’s project.
c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
Response: The proposed development is contained on site and is not dramatically different than what was on the site when the property operated as a lodge.
d. 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.
Response: The proposed development seeks a GMQS exemption for the development of 100% affordable housing.
2. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements.
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional
requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements,
compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
2a. Proposed Dimensions for this Project
The following dimensions are proposed:
1. Minimum Lot Size: 53,543 square feet or roughly 1.23 acres. With slope density reduction the lot size for FAR purposes is 50,320.4.
2. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit: studio – 400 sq. ft.
(as stipulated in the LUC) 1-bedroom - 500 sq. ft.
2-bedroom - 1000 sq. ft.
3-bedroom - 1500 sq. ft.
3. Maximum allowable density:
16 studios @ 400 sq. ft each = 6400 sq. ft.
13 1-bedrooms @ 500 sq. ft. each = 6500 sq. ft.
8 2-bedrooms @ 1000 sq. ft. each = 8000 sq. ft.
1 3-bedrooms @ 1500 sq. ft. each = 1500 sq. ft.
_______________________________________________________________
Total 38 dwelling units 22,400 sq. ft. of lot area required for the number & mix of dwelling unit proposed by AVH.
4. Minimum Lot Width – N/A the 1.23 acres is not being subdivided into smaller parcels.
5. Minimum front yard – along Highway 82: 10 feet*
6. Minimum side yard – on the north side: 5 feet*; on the south side adjacent to Riverside Subdivision: 3.5 feet the first ½ of the property boundary and 1 foot the second ½ of the property
boundary, provided covered parking is constructed. If parking is not covered than the setback will remain at 5 feet.
7. Minimum rear yard – on the west side: 10 feet*
8. Maximum site coverage – 18,200 square feet (.42 acres) or 34% of the site
Maximum height – 27.5 feet to mid-point of roof and 32.5 feet to top of ridge.
Minimum distance between buildings on the lot – 7.4 feet
Minimum percent open space required for the building site – 18,878 square feet (.43 acres) or 35% of the site
Trash access area: 135 square feet and includes trash dumpsters and recycling bins
Allowable floor area – 30,192 square feet or a ratio of .6:1. The proposed floor area of the project is .6:1.
Minimum off-street parking spaces – 38 spaces
*These setbacks were established when the property became a Lodge Preservation Overlay and are not being changed with this proposal.
2b. Review Standards: The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following:
a. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property:
i) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area.
ii) Natural or man-made hazards.
iii) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms.
iv) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources.
Response: The site is very limited for new development: approximately 50% of the existing development on the project site will remain in its current configuration, the entrance to the
property cannot be relocated, there is mature vegetation that the Applicant is committed to preserving to the greatest extent practicable, and it is the Applicant’s desire to disturb
the least amount of neighbors as possible. Thus most of the new development is located on the periphery of the site. In addition, the Hospital is interested in building an amount
of affordable dwelling units on the site that will meet their long term employee housing needs. Therefore, a majority of the new buildings are three stories.
Although the site presented various challenges and is somewhat constrained for new development, the site planning for this project as well as the design of the buildings attempted to
the greatest degree possible to respect the surrounding neighborhood. To the south of the property is the Riverside subdivision. Except for possibility of covered parking, no development
is proposed for this side of the property. In this location, the side yard setback has been reduced to 3.5 feet for the first half of the property boundary and 1 foot for the second
half of the property boundary in the event covered parking is built along the south property boundary. However, if covered parking is not constructed the setback will remain at 5 feet.
Pursuant to Section 26.575.040 A., surface parking can be within an established setback if the parking is part of an approved parking plan.
The setback for the west property boundary will remain 5 feet as established with the Lodge Preservation Overlay.
On the north property boundary the 5 foot side yard setback is also the same as the setback established with the previous Lodge Preservation Overlay zone. However, the Canal building
places development closer to the adjacent multi-family housing of the Lacet Subdivision than the previous uses on the property. Although the established setback is 5 feet, the actual
setback of the new building averages 12 feet. The setback for the Lacet building is 10 feet.
The design of the Canal building was influenced by its close proximity to the neighbors. There is no outdoor living space proposed for the ground floor on the north side. Significant
vegetation is proposed to replace the few aspens that will be lost as well as to enhance the existing vegetation that is preserved. The height of the Canal building is approximately
the same as the Lacet building. Although the issues of building orientation were raised at the neighborhood meeting, the Applicant would like the opportunity to discuss the building
with staff and public review bodies before considering possible site planning changes.
The majority of new development is proposed for the area of the property that parallels Highway 82. Approximately one third of the two buildings along the Highway are 25 feet high at
the mid-point which is consistent with height limit of the surrounding R-15 zone district. Two-thirds of the buildings are 27.5 feet to the mid-point and 32 feet to the top of the ridge.
The Canal building, across from the Lacet residents is 27.5 feet to the mid-point and 32.5 feet to the top of the ridge.
b. 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.
Response: As stated previously in this application the design of the project considered the mass and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. The height of the Lacet building is 31 feet
to the top of ridge and the Alpine Cottages multi-family dwelling units across the street are 30 feet to the ridge for the buildings along Highway 82. Many of the condominium developments
along Cooper Avenue are three story buildings. Although these are closer to downtown, it is a predominate scale along Cooper Avenue.
The Beaumont buildings are designed to step down the hillside following the grade along Highway 82. At the entrance to the property the Cooper building, at two stories, is designed
to emulate other residential structures along the Highway.
Parking is internalized on the site and the majority of the open space is on the periphery buffering development from adjacent neighbors. There is 35% open space on the site.
c. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations:
i) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses.
ii) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed.
iii) 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.
iv) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city.
Response: The number of off-street parking spaces is 38; one for every dwelling unit. The Applicant believes it is important not to under park the project. It is also important to
provide a parking space for every unit because night shifts make RFTA or riding a bike to work impracticable. However, because the Hospital operates around the clock it is unlikely
that all residents will be at home at once thus guest parking or overflow should not be a problem.
The project site is on a RFTA route with 30 minute headways to Ruby Park. The project is also a comfortable distance for one to ride their bike to work utilizing the City’s bike path
system.
d. 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:
i) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development.
ii) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Response: N/A
e. 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:
i) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
ii) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution.
iii) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City.
iv) 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.
Response: N/A
f. 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:
i) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject.
ii) 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.
iii) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses,
and characteristics.
Notes:
a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying zone district as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms
to the maximum density provisions of the respective zone district or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a Final PUD Development Plan.
b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Response: A maximum allowable density is not established for the AH zone district; the density is determined via the PUD review process. However, the zone district does provide a minimum
lot area per dwelling unit, depending upon the type of dwelling unit i.e. studio or 1-bedroom etc., as guidance. According to Section 26.710.110 D. Note #1 the square feet of lot area
required for this project is 22,500 square feet. (Please refer to Section IV.B.2a. for maximum density calculations.) The size of the property well exceeds the lot area required for
the number of dwelling units. The property is approximately 53,543 square feet. A slope reduction analysis reduces the size of the property to 50,320.4 square feet.
Slope Reduction Calculations
Slope Area Reduction Net Area
0%-20% 49,488.9 none 49,488.9 21%-30% 890.9 50% 445.5
31%-40% 1,544.7 25% 386
40%< 1,587.7 100% none
Total 53,512 +/- 30’ 50,320.4
3. 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:
a. 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.
Response: The Applicant and the development team plan to re-use existing landscape materials (red sandstone ornamental stones) on-site. There has also been a concerted effort in design
of the buildings and building’s placement to retain existing mature vegetation. These two design features will help recall the site’s past. In addition the entryway signage design
and materials intend to reflect historic elements of the site.
The architectural designs will compliment existing site topography and the new grading of the site. Taking advantage of the necessity to remove large amounts of soil and debris from
the northern end of the site, the Applicant will be able to extend the public sidewalk southeast through the site. (This has been a goal of the City’s for quite sometime.)
And the site will incorporate the City of Aspen ornamental streetlight fixtures along Cooper Ave.
b. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas.
Response: Clustering of residential structures will provide intimate interstitial spaces for residential gardens and passive uses. View corridors to Ajax Mountain and Smuggler Mountain
are maintained as much as possible.
c. 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.
Response: The buildings are sited adjacent to Highway 82 to internalize surface parking, minimizing it from public view. The proposed Homestead and Cooper buildings relate ground floor
patios to the grade of extended sidewalk, encouraging neighborly social exchange. The extension of Highway 82 sidewalk will have a better relationship with the street with the elimination
of the tall retaining wall on site and removing the wall will improve the sight distance looking west for vehicles entering and exiting the site.
d. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access.
Response: The development team met with the Aspen Fire District to better understand strategies for emergency access to the site and the site plan addresses their recommendations. These
include a 6 foot wide pedestrian access path between the Canal Building and Homestead Building, radius and paving provisions for fire vehicle access and turnaround into and within the
site.
e. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Response: Two ADA accessible parking spaces are identified on the site plan. Site grading is compliant with ADA access to designated units.
f. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Response: Off-site drainage will continue at predevelopment flows with the use of drywells installed on site.
g. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Response: There will be adequately designed space to accommodate one enclosed dumpster structure.
4. 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:
a. 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.
Response: Programmed commons spaces- phased with development- will be provided for residents’ use. The site design and building design have been sensitive to the necessity to preserve
to the greatest extent practicable existing plant materials- especially mature trees. Proposed tree material selections include hardy species as well as ornamentals for seasonal interest
and historic (Victorian) homage.
b. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Response: The architecture compliments the sloping hillsides along the north (Lacet) and east (Highway 82) side yards. A significant preservation effort has been made to protect existing
spruce, aspen and Douglas fir tree species.
c. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate.
Response: A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with the final PUD application and the Applicant intends to work with the Parks Department on tree mitigation measures.
During construction orange construction fencing with metal support posts at dripline of the protected tree will be provided. After construction the Aspen Valley Hospital will provide
routine maintenance and servicing of landscape materials, including weed abatement, for the site.
5. Architectural Character.
It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient
use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building’s use, the building’s proposed massing, proportion,
scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall
be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the
development shall:
a. 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.
Response: The project is compatible with the local character of Aspen. It recalls the late nineteen century, mining town, stick style Victoria architecture that is common in Aspen.
We accomplish this through the use of “small” scale, single family residential massing, vertical proportionment of openings and the buildings themselves, rich color, and detailing
that recall local historic nuances. We also propose the use of materials such as local stone to anchor the buildings in masonry, lap siding, and metal roof materials, all of which
are common to this neighborhood and region. This project does not attempt to replicate the historical aspect of the architecture; it instead is an interpretation with a more contemporary
edge as is also common to the Aspen valley. In addition to breaking the building facades into separate smaller, more vertically proportioned planes, the building massing steps with
the topography, which provides for frequent breaks in the roof lines and façade massing which is also a common characteristic of this hilly end of the Aspen valley.
b. 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.
Response: The buildings are oriented to prevailing breezes in order to encourage natural ventilation while enclosing the interior site to provide weather protection with entries that
collect around a central court yard with good southern solar exposure. All units have a front and back exposure allowing them to be opened up seasonally and encourage breezes to pass
through the buildings and minimizing or eliminating any potential need for mechanical air conditioning. The central court yard concept also allows for better community interaction
and security by putting activity and eyes into a common area and allows for better screening of parking areas from the street. The buildings trace the site perimeter, presenting a
properly scaled building façade on the street and canal edges. The site planning has also integrated the existing mature coniferous trees and other vegetation (see the landscape narrative),
which will promote summer cooling.
c. accommodates the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Response: The project’s metal shed roofs will shed snow to the front and back sides of the units. Secondary roofs at front doors and balconies will shed snow away from pedestrian areas
and into landscape areas. Parking areas have been kept relatively contiguous for ease of snow removal and large landscape areas have been preserved for stock piling snow. Water runoff
will be managed on site with drywells.
6. 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:
a. 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.
b. 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.
Response: No lighting of the site or building features is proposed other than what will be required for safety. The development’s exterior lighting will comply with the standards of
Section 26.575.150. Pursuant to Section 26.575.150.D, a detailed lighting plan will be submitted for review and approval with the final PUD application.
7. 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:
a. 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.
Response: Located at the site of the last structure to be built, the Cresta Commons concept will provide needed residential open space within the project with potential seating, play
and barbecue uses. With eventual site buildout, the residential common area would be relocated to the west side of the existing Silver building with views toward Ajax Mountain.
b. 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.
Response: All open space on the property shall be considered “Common Area” for all residents. The Applicant does not intend to provide public open space or recreational space within
this project.
c. 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.
Response: PUD maximum coverage protects the proposed open space from future development. However, it is proposed that the Cresta building will eventually occupy the site of an interim
park area, the Cresta Commons. Aspen Valley Hospital will support on-going maintenance.
8. 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:
a. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
Response: The Beaumont Inn site is located within the City of Aspen and is currently served by all primary and secondary utilities. Capacity is available from all of the necessary
utilities to serve the additional units proposed. The site is also located on Highway 82 with an existing driveway access that will be upgraded by the proposed expansion for affordable
housing.
b. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Response: No adverse impacts on existing public infrastructure are anticipated by the expansion of the Beaumont Inn site for affordable housing. The proposed development will be adding
a fire hydrant adjacent to Highway 82 to the benefit of other adjacent properties and will be removing several old service taps on area utility mains to the benefit of those facilities.
c. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement.
Response: No oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are proposed in anticipation of future development in adjacent areas.
9. Access and Circulation.
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:
a. 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.
Response: There is a single vehicular access to the property off of Highway 82 at the southeast corner of the property. The access is located near the crest of the hill. This access
will not change. According to the traffic study performed by Dan Cokley, P.E. of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (Exhibit 5), this access is adequate to accommodate the increased number
of trips generated by 38 dwelling units. (The study is required for this application and an Access Permit application is required by CDOT.)
In past reviews of proposed development on this site, the steep hill and existing retaining wall have caused concern for adequate sight distance in the westerly direction. For the posted
speed limit, 25mph, the sight distance is adequate however, for a vehicle traveling 30 to 35 mph the required sight distances are not met.
The Applicant proposes, for a variety of reasons already mentioned in this application, to regrade the project site adjacent to Highway 82. The grades of the hillside on the north end
of the property will be significantly reduced and the retaining wall will be eliminated. As a result the sight distances will be greatly improved.
The Applicant proposes to construct a sidewalk along the property’s boundary along Highway 82. There are two pedestrian accesses proposed to connect the project to the new sidewalk.
At the north end of the property the Fire District has requested pedestrian access that is at least 6 feet wide to accommodate emergency personnel on foot. Another pedestrian access
point is proposed half way up the hill connecting the middle of the site to the sidewalk.
b. 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.
Response: As discussed in the Access Permit report, which includes a traffic study, the increased traffic will not negatively affect the performances on the access. However, the Applicant
is seeking an Access Permit from CDOT due to the increased traffic of the proposed development. The Applicant intends to secure that permit upon final approval of the PUD.
c. 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.
Response: As discussed above, the Applicant intends to construct a public sidewalk along Highway 82 for the entire length of the Applicant’s property. This extension of the City’s
sidewalk network is an important missing link and greatly improves safety.
d. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to
be implemented in an appropriate manner.
Response: The proposed sidewalk will add a missing connection to the City’s trail network. In addition, the project is located on a RFTA Mountain Valley route. Because of the convenient
bike and pedestrian access to Town and location on a RFTA route with 30 minute headways, the parking plan provides one space per dwelling unit.
e. 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.
Response: The parking area has been designed to support emergency access and trash removal.
f. security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Response: There are no security gate or guard posts planned for this project. However, on either side of the entryway low 3 foot tall walls are proposed to define the driveway and
designed as landscape features that will be subtle in nature. The walls tie into and are of similar material as the patio privacy walls found along the buildings that parallel Highway
82.
Section 26.470.070.J Growth Management Quota System Exemption
Pursuant to Section 26.470.070.J of the City’s Land Use Code the proposed development is exempt from the GMQS competition and scoring procedures. The Applicant intends to construct
25 affordable dwelling units in accordance with the housing guidelines and review standards of this section.
The City Council and its housing designees shall consider the following standards of review when considering an exemption request:
the city’s need for affordable housing;
compliance with applicable community plans;
the proposed location, number, type, size, rental/sale mix, and price/income restrictions of the affordable housing units; and
phasing of affordable housing unit production in relation to impacts being mitigated through such provision.
1. Affordable Housing History of the Project Site
AVH purchased the former Beaumont Inn in 2000 and received a conditional use approval (Resolution 57, Series of 2000, Exhibit 7) to operate the 31 lodge rooms as affordable housing.
In compliance with the conditional use approval, the hospital was required to deed restrict the units to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. Deed restrictions were recorded at
the time the hospital remodeled one of the structures converting and upgrading existing lodge rooms into 10 dwelling units; one of the units was brought into ADA compliance.
Previous owners of the lodge were required, as part of expanding lodge operations, to provide employee mitigation. In 1987 an occupancy and rental deed restriction was recorded that
deed restricted three dormitory style units to Category 1. In 1992, a new owner remodeled the lodge and built a triplex for employee housing purposes. A three-bedroom modular unit
was located on site to replace the three dormitory units in the lodge. Today the triplex includes a Resident Occupied one-bedroom unit, a Category 3 studio unit and a Category 2 studio
unit. The modular is deed restricted to Category 1. Please refer to Exhibit 8 for those documents.
Currently the renovated units, the triplex and the modular are the only occupied units on a consistent basis and are the only units with recorded deed restrictions. A more complete
description of the existing units is as follows:
Table 1 Existing Units
Unit Number Type Sq. Ft. Category
100 2-br. 949 3
101 2-br. 949 3
102 studio 296 1
103 1-br. 745 3
104 1-br. 786 3
200 2-br. 1,004 3
201 2-br. 1,004 3
202 studio 296 1
203 2-br. 1,145 3
204 studio 508 3
Triplex 1-br. 2,250 RO
studio 3
studio 2
Modular 3-br. 264 1
2. Current Proposal
The Applicant proposes to construct 25 affordable dwelling units, 24 of the units will be deed restricted to Category 4 and one studio unit will be deed restricted to Category 1 which
will replace a Category 1 bedroom when the existing modular is removed. The units will be deed restricted in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County housing guidelines.
The Hospital is proposing Category 4 for the new dwelling units because Category 4 provides the most rental flexibility for the Hospital. AVH employee compensation is wide ranging due
to the variety of skills required at the Hospital. If units are deed restricted to lower categories then some employees may exceed the income limits.
Although, the housing authority provides a process to amend the designated categories, the Hospital, like many businesses in our resort community, must recruit employees on a seasonal
basis twice a year. It would be inefficient to request from the Housing Authority changes to rental rate structures at least twice a year.
Historically, the Hospital has rarely charged the maximum rental rate for their units. Obviously, the Hospital cannot charge more for a unit if it exceeds what an essential employee
is paid. In addition it would be unfair to undercharge an employee that has the ability to pay Category 4 rental rates. Therefore, the Applicant proposes the Category 4 classification
which provides the most flexibility.
Following is the conceptual proposal for the dwelling units:
Table 2 Proposed Units
Units Type Sq. Ft. Category
1 3-br. 1,200 4
3 2-br. 950 4
10 1-br. 700 4
11 studio 500 1 Category 1
9 Category 4
____________________________________________________
Total 25 30 bedrooms 16,550 sq. ft.
In summary, there are currently 14 deed restricted units on-site. Four of the units were required mitigation linked to lodge expansions and 10 were deed restricted to comply with the
Hospital’s conditional use approval. The development proposal includes the addition of 25 new deed restricted dwelling units and the removal of the modular unit. The modular’s three
bedrooms will be replaced within the 25 new units. For this Conceptual PUD review, the mix of new and existing units and proposed categories are as follows:
Table 3 Dwelling Unit Summary Existing and Proposed
# DU Type Category ()
1 3-br. 1(4)
8 2-br. 3(4) 5(3)
13 1-br. 2(3) 10(4) 1(RO)
16 studio* 10(4) 3(1) 2(3) 1(2)
Total 38 48 bedrooms
*the existing modular will be replaced by three Category 1 studio units
Based upon the review standards, the proposed dwelling units comply with the standards of the APCHA guidelines and standards of this section. The development also complies with the
AACP as mentioned previously within this memo. The project represents 100% employer developed affordable housing located within the City of Aspen.
3. Housing Production and Mitigation Requirements
The Hospital, in a proactive move, purchased the former Beaumont Inn for current and future employee needs. According to the Planning and Zoning Commission memo for the conditional
use review in 2000, the Hospital requested that existing and future dwelling units (excluding the existing four deed restricted units in place at the time of purchase) be reserved for
future employee mitigation purposes. Reservation (and some strong opinions) was expressed by some members of the P&Z as well as the Housing Authority Board about “banking” dwelling
units for future use. However, it appears from the memo and minutes of the meetings that further discussion of the issue would be more appropriate when the Hospital came forward with
a comprehensive redevelopment proposal for the property. The Hospital believes that this discussion is appropriate in conjunction with review of this rezoning/PUD redevelopment plan
submittal.
Like many employers in this community, the Hospital has a long history of providing employee housing within the Aspen area for existing and future employees. The Hospital, to date, has
14 units with 21 beds at the Beaumont property and 21 units with 30 beds at Mountain Oaks for a total of 35 units and 51 beds. Not only does employee housing facilitate recruitment
but it helps retain good employees to ensure that a vital community service is fully functional around the clock, 365 days a year.
The Hospital has begun to evaluate their facilities and operations, due in part to federal health care requirements and partly due to the changing characteristics of the community and
required services. For the extensive financial investment the Hospital must consider when planning an expansion to the Hospital’s facility, it would be unrealistic and financially
risky for AVH to enter into a detailed capital facilities planning process without knowing mitigation costs or how they will comply with employee mitigation requirements. It is well
known that one of the largest costs for expanding a business in Pitkin County is employee mitigation. If the Hospital can rely upon a specific number of employee mitigation credits
from the Beaumont site then they can focus on what they are in the business to do which is to provide cutting edge quality health care.
Finally, the Hospital purchased the Beaumont with long term quality housing for their employees in mind. The Hospital not only purchased the lodge prior to other Hospital developments
but upgraded existing lodge units without knowing whether the units would be considered part of a future pool. Those upgrades have added quality deed restricted units to the community’s
affordable housing inventory.
Therefore, Aspen Valley Hospital requests, as part of the GMQS exemption request for the development of 25 deed restricted dwelling units and the redevelopment for the Beaumont property,
that 56.25 employee credits be created for future Hospital developments requiring employee mitigation.
Table 4 Employee Credits for Existing Unit Remodel
#DU Type Employees per unit
5 2-br. 5 X 2.25 = 11.25
2 1-br. 2 X 1.75 = 3.50
3 studios 3 X 1.25 = 3.75
Total 18.50 employees housed
Table 5 Credits for New Dwelling Units
#DU Type Employees per unit
1 3-br. 1 X 3.00 = 3.00
3 2-br. 3 X 2.25 = 6.75
10 1-br. 10 X 1.75 = 17.50
11 studios 11 X 1.25 = 13.75
Total = 41.00 employees housed
Subtotal Credits = 59.5 employees housed or credits
Subtract the modular to be replaced with three studio units = 3.75
Total Credits = 55.75
4. Future Mitigation Requirements
In this conceptual stage of review, it is anticipated that the redevelopment of the Beaumont will provide housing for 55.75 employees (this does not include the four deed restricted
units that were restricted by previous approvals). However, since the 2000 conditional use approval the Hospital has incurred an employee mitigation requirement that is intended to
be fulfilled via the Beaumont project.
When the Obermeyer Place project was approved earlier this year, up to 9,000 square feet of medical office space was included within the project. The Hospital proposes to lease the
space on behalf of local physicians. Employee mitigation is required for the medical office space. According to the Obermeyer Place Ordinance (Exhibit 9), the office space will generate
3 employees per 1,000 square feet of space. Mitigating 60% of those employees, the Hospital will be required to mitigate, in the form acceptable to the Housing Authority, 16.2 employees:
(9,000 sq. ft. = 27 employees) (27 X .6 = 16.2 employees)
Deducting the Obermeyer Place housing requirement from the employee credit pool created by the Beaumont project, 40 employee credits remain for future development mitigation purposes
(55.75 – 16.2 = 39.55).
5. Tracking Employee Housing Credits
Keeping track of the employee credits overtime will help staff and the hospital maintain accurate bookkeeping. For other projects such as the Smuggler Mobile Home Park, the PUD process
was used to monitor credits. It is proposed that this PUD plan be utilized for record keeping.
By way of an example, if the Hospital were to expand the Hospital facilities on Castle Creek Road employee housing mitigation would be required. How and when the employee housing is
mitigated would typically track with the land use approval that approved the facility expansion. The construction of the mitigation units on the Beaumont site would presumably be consistent
with the final PUD plan which should not require an amendment to the Beaumont final PUD plan.
However, in order to keep track of the employee credit pool established in the Beaumont final PUD plan it is recommended that the Applicant record in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder a minor amendment to the Beaumont PUD plan reflecting any reductions in the employee housing credit pool. Thus an accounting system is established that is autonomous
from the other land use approvals that the Hospital may seek. Staff would only have to review the file of the Beaumont property to understand at any given time how many credits are
still available.
6. Summary
This development plan for the former Beaumont property is essentially a long range development plan for employee housing on the site. The planning for this site was done in order for
the Hospital to phase future development. Development of housing would occur as necessary and/or required as part of future Hospital development proposals.
For purposes of this GMQS exemption section of the application the Hospital seeks to:
secure the exemption to ultimately construct 25 new deed restricted dwelling units on-site deed restricting 24 units to Category 4 and one unit to Category 1;
establish an employee credit pool of 55.75 employees for future housing mitigation purposes; and
comply with the employee mitigation requirement for the 9,000 square feet of medical office space in the Obermeyer Place project thus mitigating 16.2 employees to be deducted from the
Beaumont employee pool leaving 39.55 employee credits for future Hospital development proposals.
21
Beaumont Conceptual PUD Application
February 27, 2004
0013.2004.ASLU/AVH Cover.pdf
Submitted by: Aspen Valley Hospital c/o John Shied, Director of Engineering 0401 Castle Creek Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 544-1149 Prepared By: Lamont Planning Services in association
with Otak, Inc. HLM Design Schmueser Gordon Meyer Aspen Valley Hospital Beaumont Site Conceptual PUD Development Application
0013.2004.ASLU/Cover TOC 22704.doc
Aspen Valley Hospital Beaumont Site
Conceptual PUD Development Plan Application
Submitted by:
Aspen Valley Hospital
C/o John Schied, Director of Engineering
0401 Castle Creek Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 544-1149
February 27, 2004
Prepared by:
Lamont Planning Services, LLC
Planning Consultants
725 Melissa Lane
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
(970)963-8434
In association with:
Otak, Inc.
Urban Designers/Landscape Architects
36 North 4th Street
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
HLM Design
Architects
820 16th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202-3219
(720)946-0276
Schmueser Gordon Meyer
Engineer Surveyors
118 W. 6th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970)945-1004
Table of Contents
Section Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Project Site 1
III. Project Proposal 2
IV. Review Requirements 4
A. Rezoning 5
B. PUD Review 8
C. GMQS Exemption 21
Appendix
Exhibit 1. Pre-Application Summary
Exhibit 2. Ownership Documentation
Exhibit 3. Permission to Represent
Exhibit 4. Soils Analysis
Exhibit 5. Traffic Report/Access Permit
Exhibit 6. Engineer Report
Exhibit 7. Conditional Use Approval Resolution 57, Series of 2000
Exhibit 8. Previous Deed Restrictions
Exhibit 9. Obermeyer Place Ordinance 18, Series of 2003