Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20180403 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING April 03, 2018 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT A. Ambulance Barn - April 3rd Noon - Meet at Site II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. Minutes - March 6, 2018 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 465/557 Mill Street, Rezoning B. 405 Castle Creek Road, Ambulance barn VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Chair/vice Chair appointment VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 6, 2018 Chairperson Skippy Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:35 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Skippy Mesirow, Ryan Walterscheid, Scott Marcoux, James Marcus, Ruth Carver. Absent: Kelly McNicholas Kury, Rally Dupps, Spencer McKnight Staff present: Linda Manning, City Clerk Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Director Jim True, City Attorney COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow welcomed the new commissioners and thanked them for applying. He commented that it’s nice to have a full commission back. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Phelan commented that we will need to continue the public hearing on rezoning. Ms. Manning introduced Jeannine Stickle, the new Records Manager for the City of Aspen, who will be taking minutes for the Planning and Zoning Commission going forward. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Walterscheid motions to approve the minutes February 20, 2018. Mr. Mesirow seconds, approves. Mr. True commented that the commissioners need three to adopt the minutes. New members can vote to adopt the minutes. Mr. Walterscheid asks if one of the new commissioners would vote to adopt the minutes. Mr. Marcoux votes to adopt the minutes. All approved. Motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. Phelan introduced herself to the commission and introduces Sarah Yoon, Historical Preservation Planner. She states that we need to continue the 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning - Public Hearing - to the 4/3/2018 meeting. P1 IV.A. Mr. Walterscheid motioned to continue to the Mill Street rezoning to the third. Mr. Mesirow seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS Pedestrian Mall Update (no packet material, presentation only) Mike Albert from Design Workshop introduced himself and his colleague Darla Calloway. He gave the background on the pedestrian mall project for the benefit of the new commissioners. They recapped the topics of their previous two meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Tonight, we will present the refined conceptual design along with a series of framework strategies. We request that Planning and Zoning make a recommendation to move the project forward to the next phase of design, and they would welcome any comments you have. Previous feedback from Planning and Zoning was around: the information kiosk, the water level and edge condition of the Kai Davis Fountain, opening up the park’s edge at the Wagner node, an idea for a misting fountain and a notion to create a new activity node within the mall. We talked about intersections. There were a couple of topics outside of the project’s scope that revolved around public art and food and vendor carts. There were some things on which additional studies or information was needed, including the trees, bricks, Sister Cities Node, outdoor dining, the future of an outdoor fire feature, and questions around phasing and budgets. Ms. Calloway stated that Design Workshop is approaching this project through the lens of historic preservation through three categories: chronology, principals and guidance, and early visioning. Ms. Calloway gave a history of the construction of the mall. She stated that they think about the mall in sections: the urban park, the urban plaza, and the nodes. The bricks are a big part of what give these areas a unifying character. Problems with infrastructure regarding water mains and electrical services is the main reason this project became a priority. Reconstructing right down the center of the mall would have a significant impact on the trees. Instead, our plan is to push the utilities as close to the buildings as possible making a loop around the mall and the trees. Sewer, gas, cable, and primary electric services are still under review from the individual utility owners and will be discussed at a future meeting. Regarding storm water, we are looking for strategies that take water that hits the mall and moves it through the soil system below. These systems would not impact the historic character of the mall. In our last conversation, we talked a lot about the bricks. We don’t have enough of the original bricks to do the project with those again. The current bricks are also unable to meet today’s ADA code. We will salvage as many bricks as we can that meet the ADA standards and can be used in non-ADA areas and custom bricks are going to be developed. As much as possible the new bricks will match the color, texture, and patterns of the original bricks. We were directed by council to make as much of mall as accessible as possible. Initial studies suggest that we can get the majority of the mall’s cross slopes to be ADA accessible, there are a couple of areas that have existing constraints that will make it difficult to achieve. Emergency access. Today emergency vehicles move through on the southern section of Hyman and Cooper and move through the center of the mall on Mill and Galena and we’re going to maintain those points of access going forward. A conversation we’re going to be having with Council at the next P2 IV.A. meeting is what is the criteria for design regarding security. We would love your thoughts on what’s right for Aspen on that topic. Mr. Albert stated that the plans today have been driven by the historical analysis and technical data. The third pillar that’s just as important has been engaging our community. A stakeholder engagement started sixteen months ago. Our takeaway was three items. One is that people do understand and believe that we need to improve infrastructures including the utilities, ADA, potential areas of snow melt, and bike storage. The second was keep it similar to what it is today. The third is encourage vitality. That brought us to conceptual design alternatives. Three plans were presented. The first, was entitled “Stay the Course,” which was most closely aligned with today. The second started to tweak a couple of areas and try to find ways of creating activity in these areas. The third took that a little bit further and began to rethink the edge of Mill street and the park. The Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning, and the community all weighed in. There were several key takeaways. The first was maintain historical and character. The second was to realign or simplify the edge of Wagner park. Integrating a fountain at Sister Cities, building in flexibility for outdoor dining. Connect to Durant with a plaza-like setting. Narrowing the intersection crossings. Removing and going through a process of editing to better organize and remove clutter. Increase bike storage and relocate it off the mall. Snowmelt was seen as acceptable but in very limited areas and connected to improving accessibility. There are a few areas where we didn’t have consensus. One was the right configuration of outdoor dining. The replacement of crabapple trees with non-fruit bearing trees. The third is the idea for a community table and water feature over by the Independence node. The fourth was public art. That one is a policy-based aspect. We can identify locations for it but the selection and the details is a different topic. That brings us to the refined conceptual plan. We have spent our last month after the last meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission coming up with a plan that balances everyone’s ideas and desires. There are three strategies we are trying to achieve in this master plan. The first is retain the design as closely as possible. The second is, improving the pedestrian connection to Rubey Park and the base of the mountain. The third is strengthening the edge along Wagner Park. In the Hyman and Cooper area, we want to preserve the historical feature. We need to level out the paving in several areas to get to 2% cross slope. It is believed that we can take the side pitches and lift them up to 2% and it will not be detrimental to the trees. Also, we need to reinforce the historical tree intent. The designers were hoping to achieve a mixed informal forest with a few outliers. Because the utilities are going to be located on the perimeter of the mall’s edge, those trees would be removed and the middle ones would be preserved. As they do not meet historical intent, they would not be replaced. We would repair and preserve the memorial benches. The plan is to remove, refurbish, and replace in same location. The Kai Davis fountain is as relevant and important as the dancing fountain from a historical perspective. The change from two lanes to one gives us the opportunity to expand the curb, moving it out five feet. This would allow people to walk around it and congregate around it. The main essence of fountain and the sculpture would remain. P3 IV.A. Onto outdoor dining. The mall is successful because of its messy vitality, especially from the outdoor dining part of it. There are two camps: the businesses depend upon that space to improve their bottom dollar, especially during the off season. Many feel that the middle of the mall has been compromised and it’s no longer a pedestrian thoroughfare. We want to better configure the outdoor dining without reducing or expanding it. We spoke about three options for the dining. One was: keep it as is, a mixture of locations. The second option was: let’s just consolidate all of that chaos in the middle of the mall and leave the sides. The third received the most votes from the various groups. Pedestrian circulation down the middle would be restored through the middle of the mall. The majority of the dining would be located along the northern side. Instead of occupying 15 feet in the middle, the single rowed dining options would allow pedestrians to walk in front of the store fronts. Restaurants on the Southern side would be allowed a 1/3 section of the middle to be occupied with tables and chairs. This is not a new idea to outdoor dining, it would be similar to Lincoln Road in Miami or European examples that align tables and chairs along the storefronts. Moving to strategy two: reinforcing the connection to Durant and Mill Street. When we presented various options, people gravitated towards extending a more hardscape plaza connection between the mall and down to Durant street. When they come across Durant street, people would be greeted by a bosque, a bike & ski storage area, and spruce trees that would remain. Along the Eastern edge, additional street trees would be planted. The existing curb would stay in place. The four spots, two handicap and two city, would be relocated to the other side of Durant Street. Mr. Mesirow asked if there would be any change to the sidewalk on the Belly Up side. Mr. Albert said we could make a change, but there would be an issue with the Belly Up bus parking. Moving it in front of someone else’s business didn’t seem right. Mr. Walterscheid asked if this was raising the paved area within the street right away. Mr. Albert answered that it is not, there would still be a curb especially on the Rubey Park side. When we move to the opposite end, we talk about narrowing Galena and Cooper, from a two way to a one way. It would be a concrete intersection similar to Gondola plaza. We’re really trying to build consistency at intersections so that pedestrians and drivers know what to do. The kiosk would be rebuilt in the same location. The brick patterns and paving will be maintained. At every intersection, one parking space will be removed for bike parking, waste receptacles, ski racks, etc. There are many issues with the existing fire pit. This is the area that police and emergency personnel get called to the most. People come out of the bars and gather there, then it ends up in a brawl. Also, it generates lots of complaints from land owners and the Independence building. Third, Aspen is an environmentally-focused town and should not be burning fossil fuels. The plan does remove the fire pit. When looking back through historical drawings, there was an idea for a water feature in this node. Instead of the fire pit location, the water feature would go into grove of crab apple trees. The space will remain similar to today. It would include flexible tables and chairs, a place where Ducky Derby can set up their inflatable, concerts, all of those flexible uses. It would be a new gathering point that we’re calling the Community Water Table. It is a new water feature and a new place to get away in the mall. The water can be turned off and the space can continue to be used. Mr. Marcoux asked if the water will be recirculated. P4 IV.A. Mr. Albert replied that it will. From an environmental perspective, not all water features are created equal. Still pools and even the dancing fountain, there is so much activity that the water evaporates. Strengthening the edge within Wagner Park: There is an overwhelming sense that people believe that is our central park, but there are currently lots of obstacles in front of it. We want to create a connection. Additional toilets would be beneficial for the number of special events that happen there. We would like to open the view from the park across Sister Cities Plaza so that you could start to see Wager Park all along Cooper avenue. We would add removable tables and chairs and bring new action through the existing water feature. We would add recessed spray nozzles that would mist and could be turned off. The entire area would be uninterrupted during events. People could set up tents and occupy that space. The restroom building would be relocated to the south and shade trees would be added to frame view. This would add a new edge to the park. Moving to the north, people have asked to disperse activity and increase vitality. The Community Water Table, misting fountain, and enlargement of the playground would disperse the programming. The nature-inspired playground would be increased by 25% and would eat into existing location of restrooms. There would be a shade structure along the northern edge for parents and people to gather underneath. The outdoor dining on the eastern side would be maintained relatively in its same location and configuration. Similar options for outdoor dining. These are not restaurants today, but in the future could be accommodated. A new restroom building could be occupied on the Southern end of this. The bathroom relocation would be 100 feed door to door. We would double capacity of the stalls. One final thing: restoring the deciduous trees. Historically, all of Mill Street was envisioned as monoculture plantings, not the mixture that happens on the East/West side. Some of the ash trees have been replaced with a wide variety of species and the monoculture idea has been lost. The idea is to reestablish the same species planting which was originally intended. Trees that do not need to be removed from the infrastructure would remain and we would fill in between those. Mr. Mesirow asked if there was any further determination made on playground area and which sort of aesthetic we’re going with. Mr. Albert said not really. There were three ideas: a nature inspired playground, an adventure playground, and an imagination playground that is a create your own with plug and play. The plug and play and nature ideas rose to the top. That will be further explored. Mr. Walterscheid excused himself and left the meeting. Ms. Calloway brought the topic back to the trees. Tree preservation is one of the highest priorities of how we’re going to organize infrastructure on the mall. Some trees are at risk going forward because of the infrastructure movement. The replacement will be as a grove, not just a tree here and there. The proposed trees on the mall would bring consistency to Mill Street that has been lost over time. We are looking to replace the crab apple trees with a non fruit-bearing species with the same base shape. The plan is to grow trees in advance so they have mature trees to be put back into the mall. Elements that have been added over time would not be put back into the mall. These include the fire pit, concrete planters, planter pots, the circular bench around sister cities, and some stationary seating that’s around the playground. P5 IV.A. In terms of site furnishings, people are concerned that bikes are everywhere and are being chained to trees. Bike storage will not be accommodated in the mall footprint but are in those parking spaces that Mr. Albert mentioned before. We’re looking to double capacity there. The memorial benches will be refurbished and put back, but there will be no more stationary seating. We will use flexible tables and chairs. The waste and recycling will be maintained in the same quality and locations. The planter pots won’t be done the same way. We will concentrate hanging baskets on the lamp posts. In thinking about lighting, the feedback we’ve heard is no extra lighting on the mall. The current lighting is a big contributing factor to character and feel. We will maintain the light posts in their current locations. We will paint and retrofit them with additional outlets. We will use LED fixtures and improve the quality of light, but not the quantity. Mr. Mesirow asked if the color and temperature will be the same. Ms. Calloway responded that the lighting will be a warm LED. We have also heard requests to get rid of the mix of colors and unify a warm tone across the mall. Ms. Calloway stated that, when the mall was originally constructed, there were a series of low level bollards that were on Hyman and Cooper. They were constructed of wood and were removed sometime in the ‘90’s. Should those be brought back in? They would be made of a different material that could stand the test of time. Mr. Mesirow asked if they had light elements on the top of them. Ms. Calloway said yes. They were t-shaped. Mr. Albert stated that light would cast down on all 4 sides of the bollards. They were right along rolled curbs. Ms. Calloway stated that their lighting analysis said that the mall could benefit from more light, but that has not been our community’s values. Last, signage. When the mall was originally constructed, there were street vents that told you what street you were on. That would be brought back into the existing light posts. The information kiosk and information panel would be rebuilt. Moving ahead, there are a couple of topics to focus on based on last conversation. Confirmation that the lighting and signing strategy, the approach to Sister Cities Plaza, and the tree succession strategy are moving in a good direction. And then we want to make you aware of the multiple phases of design should this project go forward. We would be coming back to you with very specific details of how we treat them. We talked about architectural features on the mall. That would be going out to a public RFP process. Construction phasing and cost edging, we know that that is an integral part to this discussion. With that, we’re going to open up for questions. Mr. Marcoux stated that his biggest concern is construction around the mall with other buildings. He asked if there will there be a halt to all other construction during the mall construction. He asked how we will know what other permits are submitted at the same time as the mall. Ms. Calloway answered that that’s a big part of why this project is happening now, because we know there’s redevelopment planned on the mall, and the two have to be working together. P6 IV.A. Mr. Marcoux stated that, if one construction project of the other is delayed, it could have a big impact. Ms. Calloway responded that, thinking of construction and sequencing down the road, we’re going to have some choices to make. We know it’s an expensive and multi-season project. There are going to be some approaches for how to do this. We’re going to come back with options so we can decide as a community what the right approach. Jack Wheeler commented from the audience. He introduced himself as the Capitol Asset Director. As we go forward, one of the opportunities we’re trying to capitalize on to lessen the impact of the construction on the community. If there is development happening on a building on the mall, it would be a great opportunity for us to come in and do that part of the mall. I don’t know what the phasing is going to look like, but we want to partner as much as we can with the developments that are already going on. Ms. Carver commented that she thinks it looks very nice. Design Workshop has done a good job. I would like to see you do something about the sidewalk in front of Belly Up because it is heavily used and not wide enough. Maybe RFTA doesn’t need that much turnaround space. If you can’t plant trees, maybe make the sidewalk interesting, because it’s very unattractive. We need to get rid of the fire pit because it causes trouble. It’s not just people coming out of the bars at night, there are lots of homeless people who hang out there. If there’s a fire, make it high like an Olympic torch. Get rid of crab apple trees as much as possible. The bear issues are terrible. They are attracted by the crab apple trees and the restaurants. Mr. Marcoux asked about the impact of limiting snowmelt on the mall regarding repairs. The snow and ice will get in the patio and could cause cracks. If we have snowmelt, maybe that would prolong any repair and save money for the City of Aspen. Mr. Albert stated that it’s a balance of maintenance costs versus energy costs. Mr. Marcoux asked if we can use solar somewhere in this project, maybe for lighting. Mr. Albert replied that they have talked about that. What is being discussed regarding snowmelt is a five-foot band directly in front of businesses. Mr. Marcoux suggested a lane going down each side for maintenance. As time progresses, the part under the snow could look older than the snow melt. Mr. Mesirow proposed that business owners to have a six-foot awning, as long as it’s in continuity with HPC guidelines. Mr. Albert said that we can look into that. Some of the awnings are already on the south side currently. We have to be careful on the south side because of emergency access because we need to maintain a 20-foot width. The building to building special relationship is critical, if you alter that it might be compromised. That is the potential problem. Ms. Phelan commented that you have to look at historically, how awnings were traditionally used. P7 IV.A. Mr. Mesirow asked for more information about the complaints about the fire pit. He acknowledged that Belly Up being there is a part of the problem, but people will be there anyway because it’s a nice seated environment. Is this about the homeless individuals? Mr. Albert mentioned complaints from the neighboring home owners and Independence Square. I am concerned about a couple of wealthy homeowners kicking out the most needy amongst us. Mr. Albert replied that it is being approached from a lot of different angles. Ms. Calloway commented that she did an emergency access walk with police and fire. They have requested that the fire pit is removed or managed in a different way. The thing about security on the mall is that it’s flexible. But fire keeps coming back. We could do it in a flexible way that could be used as part of special events on a seasonal basis. Mr. Marcoux asked about the possibility of installing cameras around the fire pit. Mrs. Calloway replied that she doesn’t think so. Mr. Marcoux mentioned that if we had cameras, people might be on better behavior because they they’re on camera. Mr. Wheeler commented that City Council and the current Police Chief are not excited about the fire ring that’s there. They have been vocal about us not burning fossil fuels. The problem isn’t the Belly Up. It doesn’t matter where it is. The fire pit attracts people because it’s cold eight months of the year. If it attracts a group after 10:00 or midnight, people get sketchy sometimes. Mr. Mesirow commented that it’s a public space, not a space for the three adjacent home owners. Mr. Wheeler commented that he has heard from a lot of who like the fire. Burning fossil fuels is the main issue, given who we are as a community. A portable fire ring that they can bring out might be a good idea. It could burn wood, beetle kill or whatever would be much cleaner and more sustainable than fossil fuels. Mr. Marcus asked about the minimum threshold for what needs to be ADA accessible. Ms. Calloway answered that the focus is on access to buildings. The threshold is: have you provided access to every experience in a public space? Mr. Marcus asked if we need to make the entire mall be ADA accessible, or if it can just be the spaces where people access the buildings. Ms. Calloway replied that that is one approach but not the one being given by Council. Their approach is to make as much of the mall as accessible as possible. Mr. Wheeler stated that if it’s a walk around surface, it should be ADA compliant. If we’re going to re- develop the entire surface, shouldn’t we make it accessible? Council is having that conversation with us. I think it can be done and not lose the feel or the historic integrity of the mall. P8 IV.A. Mr. Marcus commented that, as far as the access, he appreciates the way the plan opens up the area that goes towards the park and removed the bathrooms. The connection to Durant street is a huge improvement. Full disclosure, my family owns the Belly Up building. Obviously, I have a vested interest in that area specifically. Ms. Carver was on point that that’s a highly trafficked area and crappy sidewalk. There is a lot of action in that area. Equipment is moved in and out of that area on a daily basis. Anything on both ends that you can do to create the connection to the mountain on that side would be good. That is the focal point of our town. Ms. Carver commented that she wasn’t clear if Design Workshop was suggesting heated sidewalks. I believe that is a huge waste of money and energy. If you’re thinking about safety, it’s the ice, streets, and curbs where the problems are. Mr. Mesirow asked if there are any other questions. In terms of feedback, they’re looking for specific areas. Mr. Marcoux stated that a lot of questions he had were answered. I loved the mono tree species. Mr. Mesirow asked if the commissioners all agreed with that. I would tend to agree with that. Mr. Marcus agreed. Mr. Marcoux stated that he doesn’t know how RFTA would look at Rubey park. Has RFTA given their opinion on this matter? Ms. Calloway responded that they are not changing how busses move through. We are maintaining all of circulation and the radius. Mr. Marcus stated that he likes how the plan expands the playground area. That area creates a lot of activity and a lot of parents congregate along that area. Mr. Marcoux asked if they looked at winter features that would keep people in town past 5:00 when looking into the models of Miami and Paris. It’s nice to keep people in the mall rather than have them retreat into galleries and pizza restaurants. Did you do research on European mountain towns? Mr. Albert stated that they have worked with sixteen consultants on this project. One is Project for Public Spaces. That firm was built after William White who studied successful public spaces in urban conditions. Some of their recommendations were around creating an enclosed space that could be used for events like winter farmers markets. They would be pretty detrimental to the mall and core. Mr. Marcoux agreed that they would be too large. Mr. Albert stated that the goal is to provide the canvas for future things. A portable fire pit, lawn games, we are creating a space for things like that to be constructed. Mr. Marcoux stated that with the amount of money going into it, restaurants shouldn’t be able to bolt into the ground. No business should be able to have temporary mounts. P9 IV.A. Mr. Mesirow stated that the most critical thing going forward is to keep the current location of the fire pit as an active space for the community. Regarding security, 2018 profiles are different than they were. We haven’t had any security incidents yet, but building security in is a good idea. It should be invisible, don’t change the look or feel. Perhaps we could put in the bollards that had been previously removed as they were part of the historic intent and we could use those as a security feature. Mr. Albert stated that there are different ways of tackling security. There are permanent features like the bollards, additional personnel, additional cameras, which would not prevent something that happened in Spain. Bollards are just one tool. Mr. Mesirow wondered if this is just a matter of law enforcement. In the case of a vehicular-based attack like in Spain, you can’t have a permanent feature because emergency vehicles have to get through. Mr. Wheeler stated that the council said they don’t want bollards. We’re going to be very thoughtful about it. This plan is going to be in front of you at every step of the way. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any other thoughts on security issues. Outdoor dining? I would stress strongly that policy may be for a subsequent policy discussion, but I think it’s critical from an infrastructure standpoint to make sure that we’re not curtailing that conversation later by not having adequate infrastructure. Mr. Albert said that the universal feedback is to build in flexibility. This is a 50-year plan. Mr. Mesirow asked if there was anything that the commissioners missed that Mr. Albert and Ms. Calloway particularly wanted feedback on. Darla stated that the commissioners had concerns about the tree succession strategy. Are we on track? Mr. Marcoux stated that he likes the idea of growing them offsite and bringing them in mature. Mr. Albert clarified that by “mature trees,” they don’t mean they’re going to be the size that they are now. Mr. Wheeler thanked the new members for joining the commission. Ms. Calloway stated that the new commissioners could look on their website if they are interested in more background and to see the three alternatives. In general, are you supportive of moving forward? Mr. Mesirow said that they are. The direction we’re going is great. I just want to officially end the meeting. I would like to thank the new commissioners. Great first meeting. Mr. Mesirow motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Carver seconded at 6:15 PM. Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager P10 IV.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning - Public Hearing MEETING DATE: April 3, 2018 The applicant is requesting the public hearing be continued to May 15, 2018. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation of the public hearing to May 15, 2018. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning application to May 15, 2018.” P11 VI.A. Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Planning and Zoning Commission Review Staff Memo 4.3.18 Page 1 of 9 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Pitkin County Ambulance Facility – Major Public Project Review Resolution No. __, Series of 2018 – Public Hearing DATE: April 3, 2018 APPLICANT: Pitkin County, Ambulance District OWNER: Aspen Valley Hospital District REPRESENTATIVES: Rich Englehart, Pitkin County Kevin Heath, Studio B Architects LOCATION: 405 Castle Creek Road CURRENT ZONING Public (PUB) SUMMARY: The applicant requests P&Z recommend approval to City Council to approve the development of a new ambulance facility on the Aspen Valley Hospital campus. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends P&Z provide recommendation of approval, with conditions. Locator Map Rendering of proposed ambulance facility P12 VI.B. Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Planning and Zoning Commission Review Staff Memo 4.3.18 Page 2 of 9 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting Planning and Zoning Commission provide recommendation of the following land use approvals by City Council: • Major Public Project Review – (Chapter 26.500) for development proposed by a governmental entity. (See “Staff Evaluation” for full description of this review process). This is a two-step process, with P&Z making recommendation to Council. Council has the final decision-making authority. • Subdivision, Minor Amendment – (Chapter 26.480) for changes to the recorded plat. • Planned Development – Project and Detailed; combined review – (Chapter 26.445) to establish the dimensional requirements and other essential elements of the project. • 8040 Greenline Review – (Chapter 26.435) – required of projects in the 8040 Greenline review area. • Growth Management, Essential Public Facilities Review – (Chapter 26.470) – to review the employee generation created by the facility and the request to waive mitigation requirements. • Transportation and Parking Management, Special Review – (Chapter 26.515) – to review the provisions of parking and contributions to multi-modal access and circulation for an Essential Public Facility BACKGROUND: The project site is located on the campus of the Aspen Valley Hospital. The lot, which currently includes Pitkin County’s Health and Human Services building, a parking lot and a RFTA bus stop that provides service to the hospital, was initally subdivided in Pitkin County and later annexed into the City of Aspen. The lot is zoned Public (PUB). According to the recorded Plat for the property (Book 27, Page 6) from 1991, the lot is 2.871 acres (125,061 square feet). The plat also established area and bulk requirements for the lot: Min. Lot Area: 2.871 acres Min. # of Off Street Parking Spaces: 57 Min. Front Yard Setback: 30 feet Min. Side and Rear Yard Setbacks: 10 feet Min. Lot Width: 115 feet Max. Height Principal Uses and Buildings: 28 feet Floor Area Ratio: 0.5:1 Accessory Buildings and Uses: 12 feet Note: the recorded plat had a scrivener’s error that listed the “Minimum” Height rather than Maximum. In confirming with Pitkin County planning staff, the County never utilized a minimum height requirement – and the 28 feet is consistent with County maximum heights at the time. (See figure 2 below) The lot contains an access and parking easement and a dedication of a right of way to the City of Aspen. P13 VI.B. Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Planning and Zoning Commission Review Staff Memo 4.3.18 Page 3 of 9 The Ambulance District is currently located on the Aspen Valley Hospital campus a short distance away from the proposed site on the lot that contains the hospital. The existing facility is aging, undersized and provides inadequate resources for the ambulance equipment, staff, and administration. In 2014, voters in Pitkin County approved a funding mechanism for the replacement of the ambulance facility. This project seeks to build a new ambulance facility that meets current and future needs of the Ambulance District. The proposed facility is a two-story, 33 feet tall building, with approximately 13,000 square feet of gross floor area. The exterior materials are CMU block and a vertically oriented, metal siding. The ground floor is occupied with the bays for ambulances and other equipment, a classroom, a decontamination room, and storage for supplies and crew gear. The second floor houses administrative offices, meeting rooms, sleeping quarters and a kitchen, dining and lounge space for staff on 24 hour shifts. Figure 3. Front elevation facing the front entrance to Aspen Valley Hospital. Figure 1 – Plat, 1991, Book 27, Page 6. Parcel boundary is outlined in red. Figure 2. Exploded view of dimensions on recorded plat. P14 VI.B. Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Planning and Zoning Commission Review Staff Memo 4.3.18 Page 4 of 9 Figure 4. East elevation facing the HHS parking lot and RFTA bus stop. An important part of the project is a redesign of the parking, access, and multi-modal transportation facilities that are located on the site. The new ambulance facility’s proposed location currently contains 14 automobile parking spaces. The project proposes a redesign of the larger parking area to include these 14 lost parking spaces. This site provides a RFTA bus stop and essential circulation facilities to access the bus stop. The site also contains important pedestrian and bicycle facilities in navigating access to the Health and Human Services building, the Aspen Valley Hospital, and the bus stop that serves the entire Castle Creek corridor. Figure 5. Proposed redesign for parking lot and circulation features. New Ambulance Facility Existing HHS Building RFTA Bus Stop P15 VI.B. Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Planning and Zoning Commission Review Staff Memo 4.3.18 Page 5 of 9 STAFF EVALUATION: Public Project (Exhibit A): The proposed facility is subject to Major Public Project review. The Public Project eview process was adopted by City Council in December 2015 to bring the Land Use Code into compliance with Colorado Revised Statute §31-23-209. Public Project review is an alternative process for development projects submitted by governmental entities, quasi-municipal organizations, or public agencies providing essential services to the public. The review process includes a requirement to provide a decision within 60 days of application. The following sections of the Land Use Code also apply to the proposed project: Subdivision – Minor Amendment, Planned Development, 8040 Greenline (ESA), Growth Management, and Transportation and Parking Management, Special Review. Staff responses to each section are detailed in Exhibits B-F, with specific highlights noted in the sections below. Subdivision, Minor Amendment (Exhibit B): The applicant is proposing two changes to the dimensions approved with the initial subdivision and recorded on the plat. First the applicant is requesting increasing the maximum height to 33 feet from 28 feet. Secondly, the minimum front yard setback is proposed at 10 feet, reduced from 30 feet. Typically, the dimensional requirements of a project are defined by the Planned Development (PD), not on the plat. Since the original plat listed dimensions, the subdivision amendment is required to remove these dimensions from the plat. The new plat will not specify the dimensions. Instead, the site specific approval, approved by the PD, including the dimensions will be approved by this review and memorialized by the Ordinance. While staff has no opposition to the reduction of the front yard setback to accommodate the location of the new facility, staff does not support increasing the maximum height to 33 feet. First, the maximum height established to accommodate the HHS building on the lot was established by Pitkin County prior to annexation. 28 feet was the norm at the time (and today in many city and county zone districts) and other adjacent buildings, including residential buildings, are consistent with this massing. While the total height of the existing HHS remains unclear as equipment and screening have been added on the roof, it seems that the original design was built to 28 feet. Second, while the main hospital facility across the street has building heights of 32 feet and 33 feet, the front façade of the hospital steps down as it relates to the entry and has articulated massing before getting to the maximum height. The hospital’s parking garage does have elements that have a height of 40 feet. The proposed ambulance facility has its maximum height define the front façade with no articulation. As it relates to the street, a 33 feet tall, nearly flat façade runs the length of the building as it relates to the hospital loop road. Lastly, the proposed facility is located in the 8040 Greenline review area which requires that “building height and bulk will be minimized”. Existing Proposed Staff Recommendation Height 28 feet 33 feet 28 feet Front yard setback 30 feet 10 feet 10 feet Table 1 – Proposed changes to dimensions P16 VI.B. Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Planning and Zoning Commission Review Staff Memo 4.3.18 Page 6 of 9 Importantly, the proposed square footage of the new facility when combined with the existing square footage of the HHS building falls well below the existing allowable FAR of 0.5:1. No changes are proposed to the existing maximum floor area ratio. Planned Development (Exhibit C): As a property within the Public zone district, the property is required to go through a Planned Development review to establish dimensional requirements. Typically, Planned Development is a two-step process including Project Review (uses, layout, mass scale, dimensions) and Detailed Review (landscape, fenestration, materials, lighting). As a Public Project, Project Review and Detailed Review are consolidated into one review, with a recommendation from P&Z and final approval on all aspects of the project from City Council. Overall, staff is supportive of the proposal. There are a few issues related to access and site planning that need to be addressed prior to final review by Council and/or submission of a building permit – in addition to the concern regarding proposed height described above. Because of the expedited review process required by Major Public Project Review, several issues that would normally be resolved and agreed upon during Planned Development Project and Detailed Review are yet to be defined. These issues have been identified by City referral agencies and will continue to be negotiated with the applicant as the project moves toward building permit issuance. Addressing these unresolved design issues constitute the bulk of the recommended conditions of approval. Three (3) issues, in particular, will need further design work in meeting City requirements: 1) The layout and dimensions of the redesigned parking area and circulation plan are not yet finalized. The location contains a bus route and stop, pedestrian walkways that connect the bus stop to HHS and the hospital, and a nordic trail access point. While initial design suggests likely improvements to the existing conditions, questions were raised about the proposed design by the Engineering, Transportation, Building and Parks Departments; Aspen Fire District; and Aspen Sanitation District that will need to be addressed prior to permit issuance. Specific issues that are not yet sufficiently designed: • enhancements to the RFTA facility including improved bike parking and pedestrian amenities • absence of bike parking for the new ambulance facility • initial parking design that creates potential conflict with bus and traffic circulation • a proposed gate at the entrance to the parking lot that is prohibited by PD review criteria • access and route definition for pedestrians and bicyclists in the redesign of the parking and circulation – both on-site and for connections to AVH. • the width of the entry to the site is not sufficient for fire access. • The existing location of a fire hydrant is in conflict with parking design. • a parking configuration that retains the required 57 parking spaces for the site P17 VI.B. Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Planning and Zoning Commission Review Staff Memo 4.3.18 Page 7 of 9 2) At this point in the design process, City Engineering Department does not yet have enough detail regarding plans for snow storage and storm water management – particularly in meeting the City’s Urban Run-off Management Plan requirements. 3) Trash, recycling and compost facilities are as yet undefined. The applicant has stated support for working with City Environmental Health in the design of compliant facilities. 8040 Greenline Review, ESA (Exhibit D): The proposed project is within 150 feet measured horizontally below the 8040 Greenline. As such, it is subject to review criteria outlined in 26.435.030.C. Because the site is already developed, and many of the concerns raised by the 8040 Greenline review have already been resolved, or mitigated, most of the criteria are not applicable or clearly met. The one exception to compliance is the previously mentioned concern with height and bulk of the proposed building. Growth Management (Exhibit E): The proposed project has been determined as an essential public facility. There are two unique features of essential public facilities in terms of Growth Management: 1. There is no annual allotment limit. 2. Employee generation is determined by P&Z or HPC. City Council may then assess, waive, or partially waive any mitigation requirement. Although employee generation is determined by P&Z, the Public zone district provides for an employee generation rate of 5.1 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. This generation rate was evaluated for office uses only and is not always appropriate for facilities with other purposes. As such, the code additionally allows each Essential Public Facility proposal to be evaluated for actual employee generation. The application provides a current number of 13.96 employees that are working in the existing ambulance facility and there are no immediate plans to increase this number. APCHA staff and board have evaluated the request to waive employee mitigation and recommend in favor of the waiver, subject to provision of an audit of employees prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and at two intervals into the future at five and ten years from project completion. This recommendation is consistent with other recently approved Essential Public Facilities. Planning staff concurs with APCHA’s recommendation and recommends that P&Z support this determination of employee generation and future audit procedures. Note: the existing ambulance facility is located on the same parcel as the main Aspen Valley Hospital. The existing facility is not proposed for demolition, but will instead be used for storage by both the hospital and Ambulance District. While the storage area is not foreseen to generate new employees, any future use would be evaluated as part of employee generation audits required of the hospital. Staff is evaluating mechanisms to ensure that the existing facility included in future calculations of employee generations. Transportation and Parking Management (Exhibit F) A project of this scale and outside of the roundabout requires a Level Two Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). This type of TIA requires a transportation analysis performed by a transportation engineer utilizing P18 VI.B. Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Planning and Zoning Commission Review Staff Memo 4.3.18 Page 8 of 9 a study of traffic counts related to the Highway Capacity Manual and a determination of the trips generated by the new development. The outcomes of the analysis provides direction to how the project could best mitigate the generated impacts. From the TIA, appropriate mitigation requirements are identified using the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) toolkits. The applicant submitted a 2012 Level 2 TIA that was conducted for the redevelopment of Aspen Valley Hospital. Engineering, Transportation and Planning staff have all noted that this is inadequate and would not typically be accepted as a sufficient level of submission. It is more than five years since the study was conducted and while adjacent to the hospital, is a separate development project. Additionally, the completed TDM/MMLOS toolkit was submitted without an appropriate level of detail or response to the potential impacts of the project and required mitigation. From staff’s perspective, this is the most inadequate part of the larger application of the project. It is unlikely given cost and time constraints that the applicant will submit an updated TIA, or a more complete TDM/MMLOS worksheet. Instead, Engineering and Transportation would like to insure that the applicant works with City staff to upgrade the pedestrian, bike, and transit facilities that are adjacent to and located on the site of the project to improve safety, access, and mobility. Examples of these improvements may include the installation of bike parking facilities, enhancements to the RFTA bus stop, and design of the parking facility and related circulation to provide efficient and safe pedestrian and bicycle access. The existing plat/subdivision requires 57 off-street parking spaces. These spaces are located in two distinct parking areas. One of these areas, and 14 parking spaces would be taken by the proposed new facility. The other, larger area is proposed for redesign and restriping. Staff recommends that the existing number of total spaces be maintained. No additional parking spaces are recommended. This important aspect of the project will need additional clarification prior to Council review at Second Reading. REFERRAL DEPARTMENTS: The application was reviewed by APCHA, Engineering, Building, Zoning, Parks, Transportation, Environmental Health, Sanitation District, and the Fire District. The Development Review Committee met with the applicant and provided comment at a meeting on March 21, 2018. All received comments are included in Exhibit F, with applicable recommended conditions of approval included in the Draft Resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that P&Z approve Resolution No. ___, Series of 2018 providing recommendation of approval of the ambulance facility to City Council, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit for review an amended plat within 180 days of approval (and prior to building permit submission). 2. The Applicant shall submit for review within 180 days of approval (and prior to building permit submission) for review, an Approved Plan Set, pursuant to 26.490.040.D. P19 VI.B. Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Planning and Zoning Commission Review Staff Memo 4.3.18 Page 9 of 9 3. The Applicant shall submit, for review by the City Attorney, a development agreement within 180 days of approval (and prior to building permit submission) that satisfies the requirements of 26.490.050. 4. The Applicant shall provide an employee audit to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) to confirm current employees and again at five (5) and ten (10) years following issuance of a CO. Additional subsequent audits may be requested at the discretion of APCHA. Any additional employees generated shall require the provision of affordable housing mitigation. Staff will work to identify a mechanism to ensure that the existing facility continues to be evaluated for any potential employee generation as its future use is determined. 5. A building permit shall not be issued unless the project is in compliance with policies and codes as currently adopted and amended per Title 8 (Building and Energy Codes) of the Aspen Municipal Code. 6. The approved project at building permit issuance shall satisfy the requirements of Title 29, The City of Aspen’s Engineering Design Standards – including but not limited to approval of required plans (including the Urban Runoff Management Plan.) 7. The Level 2 Transportation Impact Analysis from 2012 conducted for the redevelopment of Aspen Valley Hospital submitted by the applicant is accepted. However the mitigation options submitted in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) worksheet are not satisfactory. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant will work with City Engineering and Transportation staff to identify and implement appropriate mitigation strategies to satisfy TDM/MMLOS requirements. Prior to review with City Council at Second Reading, the applicant will provide a more realized plan related to the parking area and related multi-modal circulation facilities. 8. At the time of application, the waste management (trash, recycling and composting) facilities and plan were undefined. The applicant will work with City Environmental Health staff to design and implement a compliant trash, recycling and compost enclosure. 9. The applicant shall request from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Commitment and Conditions to Serve Letters and will work with ACSD to identify the most appropriate sewer service option for the new facility. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. ___, Series of 2018, recommending approval of the Pitkin County Ambulance Facility, with conditions. EXHIBITS: A. Review Criteria – Public Project B. Review Criteria – Subdivision, Minor Amendment C. Review Criteria – Planned Development D. Review Criteria – 8040 Greenline (ESA) E. Review Criteria – Growth Management F. Review Criteria – Transportation and Parking Management G. Development Review Committee Comments H. APCHA Recommendation I. Application P20 VI.B. DRAFT Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Resolution No. X, Series 2018 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. XX (SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL GRANT MAJOR PUBLIC PROJECT REVIEW AND RELATED LAND USE APPROVALS FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY AMBULANCE DISTRICT FACILITY LOCATED AT 405 CASTLE CREEK ROAD ON THE CAMPUS OF THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: LOT 1, PARCEL A, THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 30, 1989, IN PLAT BOOK 23 AT PAGE 34 AS RECEPTION NO. 314687 AND AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED JULY 25, 1991 IN PLAT BOOK 27 AT PAGE 6 AS RECEPTION NO. 334895, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-123-007-802 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the land use review of a new ambulance facility (the Application) from Pitkin County on behalf of the Ambulance District (Applicant) for Major Public Project Review ; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application – January 3, 2018, as applicable to this project; and, WHEREAS, this property is located in the Public (PUB) zone district; and, WHEREAS, as a governmental agency, the Applicant has requested this Application to be reviewed as a Public Project, pursuant to Chapter 26.500.030 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department referred the Application to Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department, and received comments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, a summary of public outreach was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided full access to review the Application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on April 3, 2018, during which the recommendations of the Community P21 VI.B. DRAFT Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Resolution No. X, Series 2018 Page 2 of 4 Development Director and comments from the public were heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of X to X (X – X). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council grant the Pitkin County Ambulance District facility Major Public Project review approval, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein in Section 2. The proposed project includes the construction of a new ambulance facility and the reconfiguration of adjacent parking and multi- modal circulation. The recommended dimensions are described below in Section 4. Section 2: Recommended Conditions of Approval The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. The Applicant shall submit for review an amended plat within 180 days of approval (and prior to building permit submission). 2. The Applicant shall submit for review within 180 days of approval (and prior to building permit submission) for review, an Approved Plan Set, pursuant to 26.490.040.D. 3. The Applicant shall submit, for review by the City Attorney, a development agreement within 180 days of approval (and prior to building permit submission) that satisfies the requirements of 26.490.050. 4. The Applicant shall provide an employee audit to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) to confirm current employees and again at five (5) and ten (10) years following issuance of a CO. Additional subsequent audits may be requested at the discretion of APCHA. Any additional employees generated shall be subject to the provision of affordable housing mitigation. Staff will work to identify a mechanism to ensure that the existing facility continues to be evaluated for any potential employee generation as its future use is determined. 5. A building permit shall not be issued unless the project is in compliance with policies and codes as currently adopted and amended per Title 8 (Building and Energy Codes) of the Aspen Municipal Code. 6. The approved project at building permit issuance shall satisfy the requirements of Title 29, The City of Aspen’s Engineering Design Standards – including but not limited to approval of required plans (including the Urban Runoff Management Plan.) 7. The Level 2 Transportation Impact Analysis from 2012 conducted for the redevelopment of Aspen Valley Hospital submitted by the applicant is accepted. However the mitigation P22 VI.B. DRAFT Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Resolution No. X, Series 2018 Page 3 of 4 options submitted in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) worksheet are not satisfactory. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant will work with City Engineering and Transportation staff to identify and implement appropriate mitigation strategies to satisfy TDM/MMLOS requirements. Prior to review with City Council at Second Reading, the applicant will provide a more realized plan related to the parking area and related multi-modal circulation facilities. 8. At the time of application, the waste management (trash, recycling and composting) facilities and plan were undefined. The applicant will work with City Environmental Health staff to design and implement a compliant trash, recycling and compost enclosure. Prior to review with City Council at Second Reading, the applicant will provide a more realized plan related to waste (trash, recycling, compost) management. 9. The applicant shall request from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Commitment and Conditions to Serve Letters and will work with ACSD to identify the most appropriate sewer service option for the new facility. Section 3: Employee Generation The Planning & Zoning Commission has reviewed the project as an essential public facility pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.050.C, and has determined that the applicant’s current calculation of 13.96 FTE at the existing facility will remain consistent in the proposed new facility. Additionally, The Planning and Zoning Commission has considered a recommendation from the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board that any employee generation mitigation should be waived per condition #4 above. Section 4: Recommended Dimensions The following dimensions are recommended for the amended subdivision/Planned Development: Min. Lot Area: 2.871 acres Min. # of Off Street Parking Spaces: 57 Min. Front Yard Setback: 10 feet Min. Side and Rear Yard Setbacks: 10 feet Min. Lot Width: 115 feet Max. Height Principal Uses and Buildings: 28 feet Floor Area Ratio: 0.5:1 Accessory Buildings and Uses: 12 feet At the time of Planning and Zoning Review, the applicant has presented a gross floor area of the proposed ambulance facility of 12,707 square feet. The methodology used to calculate Floor Area does not correspond with 26.575.020. As such, P&Z recommends approval of a facility not to exceed 13,000 square feet of Floor Area, as the calculated Floor Area will likely be less than the gross floor area and allows some flexibility of design as the project moves forward. P&Z also recommends the inclusion of the following phrase once the Floor Area of the project is determined: “Up to a 10% increase may be approved administratively for development that does not increase the mass or scale of the building.” Section 5: P23 VI.B. DRAFT Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Resolution No. X, Series 2018 Page 4 of 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 Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 6: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7: 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. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 3rd of April, 2018. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: _______________________________ ___________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager P24 VI.B. Exhibit A – Public Project Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A PUBLIC PROJECT 26.500.070 General review standards The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects: 1. The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible with neighborhood context; and Staff Findings: The project site is located within the Public (PUB) zone district. The proposed use as an ambulance facility is compatible with the other health/medical related uses in the area and is an allowed use within the zone district. The Public zone district establishes all dimensional requirements for a project through the adoption of a Planned Development approval. Detailed responses to other review criteria are in Exhibits B-F. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and Staff Findings: The proposed project supports several community goals found within the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). AACP goals supported by this project include: Aspen Idea II.1. Maintain the legacy of the Aspen Idea by enhancing and preserving our non-profit and quasi-public facilities and spaces, and ensuring that development of new facilities is consistent with community goals. Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability VI.2. Public sector development should be a model for the ideals reflected in this plan, and should comply with the Land Use Code. Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability VI.3. Preserve and enhance our non-profit and quasi-public facilities and spaces. Transportation I. Improve the convenience, reliability, efficiency, comfort, accessibility, affordability, safety, capacity and quality of the regional transit service experience, while ensuring physical improvements are consistent with community character Transportation II.3. Improve the convenience, safety and quality of experience for bicyclist and pedestrians on streets and trails. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code; and, Staff Findings: See detailed responses to applicable Code sections in Exhibits B-F. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P25 VI.B. Exhibit A – Public Project Page 2 of 2 4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Findings: As an essential public facility, this project requires the assignment of allotments, but there is no cap on allotments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P26 VI.B. EXHIBIT B SUBDIVISION, MINOR AMENDMENT 26.480.090. Subdivision amendments. A. Minor amendment. An amendment to an approved subdivision found to be generally consistent with the original approval but which does not qualify for an insubstantial amendment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council. The amendment must either respond to issues raised during the original review or must address an issue that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the review. The City Council must find that the change is minor and that it is consistent with or an improvement to the approved subdivision. Notwithstanding the above, the City Council may find that an amendment request is substantial and should require review as a Major Amendment. Staff Findings: The applicant is proposing two changes to the dimensions of the subdivision: 1) Increasing the maximum height from 28 feet to 33 feet, and 2) decreasing the front yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet. On the topic of height, staff cannot make findings in support of the 33 feet maximum height limit for the following reasons: a) Staff finds that the height request is inconsistent with the original subdivision that was established based on dimensions that were common in Pitkin County at the time of approval. b) Additionally, increasing the height is inconsistent with the requirements of 8040 Greenline review. c) The 33’ proposed height on the front façade, which is mostly flat is a very different height than that found across the street at the hospital. While identical in measurement, the ambulance facility does not articulate the height/massing as it moves back from the street. d) The ambulance facility is adjacent to residential development. While the setback reduction is significant, staff finds that immediate access to the loop road is an important design feature of the ambulance facility – and that the reduced setback has no negative effect on the adjacent development. No change to allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is proposed, and the addition of the ambulance facility combined with the existing Health and Human Services building keep total development on the lot significantly under the allowable Floor Area. Staff finds that the proposed changes are minor and that the proposed changes meet the criteria as long as maximum height remains unchanged. P27 VI.B. Exhibit C – Planned Development Review Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT C PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. 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. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: The proposed facility is consistent with several sections of the AACP and the original and subsequent updates to the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The project site is not located within the Aspen mudflow or debris zone or 100- year floodplain. Initial analysis by City Engineering staff did not identify any concerns regarding hazards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. P28 VI.B. Exhibit C – Planned Development Review Page 2 of 9 Staff Findings: The proposed structure will be located in an area that has been previously developed as a parking lot. While sloped terrain does exist on the site, the northwest portion of the proposed building is built into the existing topography, reducing the need for additional grading or slope disturbance. Staff finds these criteria to be met. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Findings: The building’s access (entrance and equipment bays) face the hospital’s loop drive. Its design is entirely driven by providing efficient egress for emergency vehicles. Staff finds this criterion to be met D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Findings: The Public zone district establishes all dimensional requirements for a project through the adoption of a Planned Development approval. The proposed dimensions are listed below: Dimensions Proposed Lot Area 125,061 square feet (2.871 acres) Maximum height 33 feet (28 feet – recommended) Front yard setback 10 feet Rear and Side setbacks 10 feet Approximate Gross square footage New structure –12,707 sq. ft. Existing HHS – 14,394 sq. ft. Total – 27,101 sq. ft. Allowable FAR (floor area ratio) 0.5:1 Off-street parking spaces 57 spaces Since there are no established dimensions, the application does not require a variation. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Findings: As discussed in the memo, staff finds the request for reducing the front yard setback to 10 feet to be compatible with the project’s context. On the other hand staff supports the project entirely if maximum height is limited to 28 feet, but cannot make findings at 33 feet. P29 VI.B. Exhibit C – Planned Development Review Page 3 of 9 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Staff Findings: Again, with the exception of height, the proposed project is compatible with surrounding development patterns, including scale and massing. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. 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, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. Staff Findings: There are currently 57 parking spaces located on the property (and required by the recorded plat). While 14 spaces are proposed for elimination by the siting of the proposed facility, a redesign of an adjacent parking area can accommodate 57 spaces. The employees have used this parking area for the existing facility, no new employees are proposed, and the new facility is not intended to attract the general public – or the demand for additional parking. If the new design accommodates the required 57 parking spaces, staff finds this criterion to be met. There are design concerns with the parking lot that be addressed prior to Council’s final review 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 – Amendments. Staff Findings: Since Project Review and Detailed Review are consolidated under the Public Project review process, any allowance to increase square footage granted by Council would be memorialized in the Final approval. Following final approval, Staff recommends an allowance of up to 10% that can be approved administratively to accommodate design flexibility – as long as the addition does not increase mass or height. If any other dimensions are affected by the increased square footage, staff recommends Council require an amendment to address and memorialize any other changes. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Staff Findings: The project is exempt from Commercial Design Standards, Staff finds this criterion not applicable P30 VI.B. Exhibit C – Planned Development Review Page 4 of 9 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Findings: The proposed materials are CMU block and vertically oriented metal siding. A variety of materials are found on buildings in the vicinity. The materials seem consistent with the use of the building. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: As discussed in the staff memo, the TIA and resulting TDM/MMLOS provided by the applicant are inadequate. However because of the time requirements of the Major Public Project Review, a condition of approval has been added that the applicant work with Engineering and Transportation to identify and implement improvements to transit, bike and pedestrian facilities as they relate to the redesign of the parking and circulation on-site. Staff finds this criterion to be met, with conditions. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The proposal will be required to meet the requirements of the URMP and Engineering Design Standards. The Engineering Department has raised questions related to stormwater treatment and retention, and requested additional information related to the routing of stormwater and snow storage. These issues are included in the proposed resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: At this time the applicant believes there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has asked to work with the applicant to identify the most appropriate sewer service location. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. P31 VI.B. Exhibit C – Planned Development Review Page 5 of 9 I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Findings: The proposal includes unobstructed vehicular access from the hospital loop road. No legal access points are proposed to change as part of this proposal. No streets are retained under private ownership. A proposed gate (future) to control access to the parking area is prohibited by this criteria. This will 26.445.070. Detailed Review Standards. Detailed Review shall focus on the comprehensive evaluation of the specific aspects of the development, including utility placement, and architectural materials. In the review of a development application for Detailed Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Project Review Approval. The proposed development, including all dimensions and uses, is consistent with the Project Review approval and adequately addresses conditions on the approval and direction received during the Project Review. Staff Findings: Project Review and Detailed Review have been consolidated into one review through the Public Projects review process. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. B. Growth Management. The proposed development has received all required GMQS allotments, or is concurrently seeking allotments. Staff Findings: See Exhibits E and H for staff responses related to GMQS. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Site Planning and Landscape Architecture. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designed 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. Vegetation removal, protection, and restoration plans shall be acceptable to the Director of Parks and Open Space. Staff Findings: The applicant’s landscape architect has met with City Parks staff to discuss appropriate tree placement and species related to the parking lot and circulation redesign. An approved landscape plan will be required for building permit issuance. 2. Buildings and site grading provide simple, at-grade entrances and minimize extensive grade changes along building exteriors. The project meets or exceeds the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable requirements for emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Adequate snow storage is accommodated. P32 VI.B. Exhibit C – Planned Development Review Page 6 of 9 Staff Findings: The proposed development includes a simple, at-grade entrance on the front facade, and meets ADA requirements. Snow storage areas are identified in the parking area and in cooperation with and on-site of Aspen Valley Hospital. Staff finds this criterion to be met, with the condition that snow storage areas are identified and approved by Parks and Engineering prior to building permit issuance 3. Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into the landscape in a manner that enhances the site. Staff Findings: There are no energy efficiency or production features that are proposed for the landscape. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 4. All site lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City’s outdoor lighting standards. Staff Findings: An initial lighting plan has been submitted. A lighting plan will be approved as part of the building permit process. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Findings: The proposal will be required to meet the requirements of the URMP and Engineering Design Standards. The Engineering Department has raised questions related to stormwater treatment and retention, and requested additional information related to the routing of stormwater and snow storage. These issues are included in the proposed resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. D. Design Standards and Architecture. The proposed architectural details emphasize quality construction and design characteristics. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The project architecture provides for visual interest and incorporates present-day details and use of materials respectful of the community’s past without attempting to mimic history. Staff Findings: On one hand, the proposed facility is a visually prominent building across from an architecturally interesting entrance to Aspen Valley Hospital. On the other hand, this a utilitarian building. Due to its location, it is exempt from Commercial Design Review. The Aspen Valley Hospital Board has reviewed the design as have other neighbors. The roof form while providing architectural interest, contributes to staff’s concerns regarding heights. If this were located in a location where Commercial Design Review was required, staff does not believe that the proposed design would be fully compliant. Ultimately, the interior needs of this building take precedence over the exterior. 2. Exterior materials are of a high quality, durability, and comply with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. P33 VI.B. Exhibit C – Planned Development Review Page 7 of 9 Staff Findings: The proposed materials are high quality, durable, and comply with the applicable standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Building entrances are sited or designed to minimize icing and snow shedding effects. Staff Findings: The public entrance is covered and protected from icing and snow shedding. The designed roof sheds snow to the rear of the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into structures in a manner that enhances the architecture. Staff Findings: In the project design to this point, staff finds the criterion not applicable 5. All structure lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City’s outdoor lighting standards. Staff Findings: Structure lighting includes wall mounted downcast lights, downcast walk way lighting and downcast LED lights to illuminate the parking and circulation. These will not create direct glare or hazardous interference. A final lighting plan will be approved during the building permit process. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Common Parks, Open Space, Recreation Areas, or Facilities. If the proposed development includes common parks, open space, recreation areas, or common facilities, a proportionate, undivided interest is deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the Planned Development. An adequate assurance through a Development Agreement for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a prohibition against future development is required. Staff Findings: The Parks Department is working with the applicant to create an appropriate redesign of an access point to an existing nordic trail. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any new vehicular access points minimize impacts on existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of the Project Review and as otherwise required in the Land Use Code. These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements and to determine any required cost estimating for surety requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Findings: As discussed in the staff memo, the TIA and resulting TDM/MMLOS provided by the applicant are inadequate. However because of the time requirements of the Major Public Project Review, a condition of approval has been added that the applicant work with Engineering and Transportation to identify and implement improvements to transit, bike and P34 VI.B. Exhibit C – Planned Development Review Page 8 of 9 pedestrian facilities as they relate to the redesign of the parking and circulation on-site. Staff finds this criterion to be met, with conditions. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Findings: The proposal will be required to meet the requirements of the URMP and Engineering Design Standards. The Engineering Department has raised questions related to stormwater treatment and retention, and requested additional information related to the routing of stormwater and snow storage. These issues are included in the proposed resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Findings: At this time the applicant believes there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has asked to work with the applicant to identify the most appropriate sewer service location. Staff finds this criterion to be met with conditions. I. Phasing of development plan. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Phasing shall insulate, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. All 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 Planned Development, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures shall be completed concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. P35 VI.B. Exhibit C – Planned Development Review Page 9 of 9 Staff Findings: The applicant has proposed two phases for the project – 1) redesign and improvements to circulation and parking features and 2) the construction of the ambulance facility. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P36 VI.B. EXHIBIT D 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 26.435.030. 8040 Greenline review. A. Applicability. The provisions of 8040 Greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) in the City and all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below, as measured horizontally, the 8040 Greenline, unless exempted pursuant to Subsection 26.435.030.B.. Development on land located in the R-15B Zone District is not subject to the 8040 Greenline review. C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. 11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Staff Response: Due to the fact that the proposed project is locating on an already fully developed site, most of the criteria do not apply, or are clearly met. However, staff cannot not make findings that the proposed building (at 33 feet in height) meets criteria. While staff appreciates space requirements of the ambulance facility – particularly the 16 feet plate height requirement of the first floor, criteria #7 specifically requires that “building height and bulk” be minimized. P37 VI.B. Exhibit E – Growth Management Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT E GROWTH MANAGEMENT 26.470.050. General requirements. A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. 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: a) 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 Findings: Allotments are required for this facility, but there is no cap. Staff finds this criterion not applicable b) The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Findings: Surrounding land uses include the Aspen Valley Hospital, Pitkin County’s Health and Human Services Building, a heavily utilized RFTA bus stop and neighboring free- market and affordable housing development. The ambulance facility is compatible with the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan and is consistent with community goals as described in the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Findings: The proposed development is located within the Public (PUB) zone district. The proposed use as ambulance facility is an allowed use within the zone district. All dimensional requirements are established through the Planned Development review process. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d) The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. Staff Findings: This application is reviewing Growth Management concurrently with Planned Development review as part of a consolidated review through the Public Projects review process. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P38 VI.B. Exhibit E – Growth Management Page 2 of 4 e) 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 Findings: The proposed project is an essential public facility and does not propose any additional commercial or lodge development. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. f) Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Staff Findings: The proposed project is an essential public facility and does not propose any net livable area. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. g) 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 Findings: Some upgrades to existing facilities may be required at the applicant’s expense, however it seems that the additional demand overall to the infrastructure can be accommodated and will be mitigated through the new development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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: P39 VI.B. Exhibit E – Growth Management Page 3 of 4 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. Staff Findings: The proposed project provides a necessary and voter approved facility for the Pitkin County Ambulance District, which the Community Development Director has determined to be an essential public facility that meets the definition: “A facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 Findings: APCHA has recommended that affordable housing mitigation should be waived for the proposed ambulance facilities. First, as described, the new ambulance facility will not immediately generate new employees from the existing facility. The facility promotes civic uses and broader community goals. Future audits will confirm actual generation rates. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The applicant has made a reasonable good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Staff Findings: Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. d. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. Staff Findings: No fee-in-lieu is requested, all mitigation is proposed as physical units. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a fee-in-lieu payment, including all or none. Unless otherwise required by this Title, the provision of affordable housing mitigation via a fee-in-lieu payment for 0.25 FTEs or less shall not require City Council approval. 26.470.100.1 Employee generation. Applicants may request an employee generation review with the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Growth management review procedures, and according to the following criteria. All essential public facilities shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine employee generation. In establishing employee generation, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following: a) The expected employee generation of the use considering the employment generation pattern of the use or of a similar use within the City or a similar resort economy. P40 VI.B. Exhibit E – Growth Management Page 4 of 4 Staff Findings: The Land Use Code identifies an employee generation rate of 5.1 FTEs per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable space for the Public zone district. However, this generation rate is specific to office uses only. While this facility has some office use, most of the floor area is given to vehicle storage and other uses. In the case of Essential Public Facilities, the Land Use Code allows for the evaluation of actual employee generation – in this case the applicant has initially identified 13.96 employees. b) Any unique employment characteristics of the operation. Staff Findings: Because of the unique nature of this facility, staff finds it appropriate to use actual employees to determine employee generation. c)The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed-use building or of a related off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions. Staff Findings: Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. d)A proposed restriction requiring full employee generation mitigation upon vacation of the type of business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff Findings: There is no proposed restriction for the proposal as this is anticipated to serve as government offices indefinitely. e) Any proposed follow-up analyses of the project (e.g., an audit) to confirm actual employee generation. Staff Findings: APCHA has recommended and Planning Staff concurs that an audit of employees is required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and at a 5 year and 10 year interval into the future. Staff finds this criterion to be met. f) For lodge projects only: An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for the lodging component of the project may, at the discretion of the Commission as a means of incentivizing a lodge project, be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement of the free-market residential component of the project. Any approved reduction shall require an audit to determine actual employee generation after two (2) complete years of operation of the lodge. Staff Findings: There is no lodge component to this project. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. P41 VI.B. EXHIBIT F TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT 26.515.080. Special Review Standards. Whenever the transportation, mobility, and parking impacts of a proposed development are subject to special review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving transportation, mobility, or off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on its conformance with all of the following criteria: 1. The transportation, mobility, and off-street parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Staff Findings: As discussed in the memo, the applicant’s TIA and TDM/MMLOS submission are not sufficient. However, the project is proposing a significant redesign of the parking facility and related multi-modal infrastructure. The applicant will work with Transportation and Engineering staff to identify and implement appropriate mitigation strategies to enhance on-site pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. Staff finds this criterion to be met, with conditions. 2. An on-site mitigation solution meeting the requirements and guidelines is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Staff Findings: There are numerous options for meeting mitigation options on-site. Criterion is not applicable. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Findings: The end outcome of the new facilities will not generate new demands for parking, but will require the redesign of on-site multi-modal facilities. Street parking is not available. Staff finds this criterion to be met, with conditions. P42 VI.B. EXHIBIT G DRC REFERRAL COMMENTS The Development Review Committee met with the Applicant to discuss the proposed project on Wednesday, March 21st in Council Chambers. Representative of the following referral agencies were present: Engineering, Building, APCHA, Zoning, Parks, Environmental Health, Aspen Fire District, and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The Transportation Department has provided comment, but was not present at the meeting. The following comments were provided by referral agencies: Engineering Comments – provided by Justin Forman Design Issues: Fire Access: The entrance along the front of the facility is considered a “fire road access” and must meet the fire code minimum of 20 feet in width (16 feet shown). The project will need to work with Parker Lathrop, Fire Marshal, to adjust the design to get the appropriate turning radius and correct road width for fire access. Utilities: All utility relocations and installations must meet current City of Aspen and City of Aspen Water Distribution Standards. Any relocation of utilities from the property to the Right of Way or adjacent easements will be subject to City of Aspen standards on utility separation distance. Special considerations should be given for critical infrastructure in the area including but not limited to the existing potable water system. Positive field verification via potholing of utility location and crossings shall be required. Verify water line service required, provide fire flow calculations if larger than 2 inch during building permit. Phased Permit: It is the understanding of the Engineering Department that the project is planning a phased permit approach. Please note that all of the plan set (drainage, infrastructure, grading, etc.) must be submitted upfront that was outlined by emails sent by Stephen Kanipe before the City can break out these permits. Drainage – LID, treating & reducing, Snow Storage #1 & #2 This project is categorized as a major within the City’s URMP. This design will need to be performed by a licensed professional engineer that provides the appropriate water quality capture volume, conveyance of major flows, detention to the historic undeveloped rate or fee-in-lieu for the entire area, and a drainage study. One of the two guiding principles of the URMP is to avoid unnecessary impervious area and reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. Potential ways to reduce unnecessary impervious surfaces include minimizing parking to the extent practical and the use of permeable pavement systems to lower effective imperviousness where a hard but pervious surface is desired. P43 VI.B. More treatment and operation procedures should be shown for the snow storage areas #1 and #2. For #2, it shows snow piled in the “Doolittle Ponds” area. This snow would need to be properly treated prior to release. The Doolittle Ponds appear to be maintained by the Aspen Valley Hospital, please provide information on these ponds and operation/maintenance procedures. For area #1, will the storage of snow be trucked offsite or will it all melt within the back area of the parking lot? If the snow is to be trucked offsite to another facility, information should be provided showing how the melt is being properly treated. The Engineering Department suspects that the hospital pond is not sufficient in size. Salts killing the ponds, mud, proper function in the warmer months etc. Easements: It is Engineering’s understanding that some of the drainage infrastructure will connect to the Hospital’s infrastructure. As communicated prior, proper easements must be in place and drainage calculations provided showing these new improvements can work the existing Hospital infrastructure. Trash Enclosure: The final configuration and look of the trash enclosure is not known at this time. The design team should be aware of sight lines with this enclosure to ensure there are no conflicts or blind spots with pedestrians, buses, and vehicles. Gate: A gate has been provided for the project, can you please explain more of the purpose? Staff has concerns with the amount of buses using this gate, vehicles damaging the gate during inclement weather, and also vehicles/bicycles traveling down the “wrong way” direction to access the parking lot. TIA: This project triggers the requirement of a Level 2 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) as it is outside of the roundabout and an essential public facility larger than 2,200 square feet. A Level 2 would require a traffic engineer to carefully study all modes of travel (transit, bicycle, pedestrian, single occupancy). A complete analysis has not been provided, but staff has identified some items that are believed to be addressed: Bicycles: The plan does not show any details providing support of persons who will bicycle to the facilities. No bicycle storage racks are shown. The area is a major junction of the trail system, with the design shown, the only unobstructed way to enter the facilities by bicycle is to go the wrong way on a one-way street. Parking Lot – The current parking lot holds 57 and is being increased to 68 spots. Can you please explain the reason for this increase? A TIA would have determined what is required. P44 VI.B. Buses: This plan shows adding 11 perpendicular head-in parking spaces that increases the collision potential on this major bus route. The project should consider reducing that crash potential by switching the head-in parking to parallel. Pedestrian – Good and standard practice for parking lots shall include pedestrian circulation incorporating walkways, narrowed crossways, and landscaping that ensures the visibility and separation of pedestrians from the street. It is recommended that walkways be provided and at least one additional crosswalk be added to help facilitate a safe crossing through the parking lot across the drive lane to the buildings. As discussed previously, the switching of the 11 head-in to parallel would be one solution that will provide the room needed for a protected walkway on the south side. With the head-in parking there will be sight angles where the buses cannot see pedestrians (children in particular) who are about to cross the travel way. The channelization of the pedestrians will help to minimize this bus/pedestrian conflict on a major bus route. Regarding these walkways, they could be made of pervious pavers that would reduce impervious area and provide stormwater treatment. The project should work with the Parks Department to ensure that the landscaping, specifically trees planted, also do not obstruct the views of pedestrian/vehicles/buses in the parking lot. Trash enclosure & sight lines Overall, staff requires more TDM/MMLOS improvements that benefit the larger traveling public. We are happy to work with the project to discuss potential solutions. Building Comments – provided by Bonnie Muhigirwa 3/21/2018 Project: Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Location: 405 Castle Creek Rd Plan set date: 10/27/17 We have done a preliminary review for compliance on this project to the policies and codes as currently adopted and amended per Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code. https://www.cityofaspen.com/197/Building-Energy-Codes https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/243 The comments are intended to provide the applicant with corrections or concerns that may require further development or be redrawn to show compliance. We are available to schedule a meeting to discuss these items at your earliest convenience. Please either email me at bonnie.muhigirwa@cityofaspen.com or call at (970)429-2787. 1)The accessible route connecting the bus station to the hospital needs to be maintained per 1104.1. 2) The floor plans (A002) and elevations (A202) do not show the required landing at exit door 303C from stair 303. The landing and thresholds will need to comply with 1010.1.6, 1010.1.7. P45 VI.B. Parks Comments – provided by David Radeck: 1. The Nordic Trail area that will begin above the stairs will require a turnaround for both the Snowcat and the Snowmobile with the groomer attachment. 2. This will require a re-grading of this area to a flatter surface than what is currently there. 3. It will also require moving the large boulder out of this turning area. 4. There may be some existing trees that may need to be relocated to facilitate this turnaround. 5. Proposed plantings shown on L-1.00 on the west side of building will need to be reduced in number and locations. 6. A tree removal permit is required and must be accompanied with both an existing and proposed site plans and a cost estimate for plantings from a nursery. 7. Mitigation will be charged for all approved removals and can be mitigated with plantings. 8. Root barrier and/or Silva cells may be required for the parking areas. 9. Tree protection fencing is required at the driplines of all trees that are to remain. All native material must be protected also. Comments from Environmental Health and Sustainability – provided by Liz O’Connell Chapman 1. Public buildings must provide at least 200 square feet of space to store trash and recycling containers (Municipal Code 12.10.030(A) a.). a. The proposed application does not appear to meet this requirement, although there are no dimensions provided on either the submitted drawings or the drawings present at the 3-21-18 meeting. b. Applicant indicated they would be sharing trash and recycling space and services with the Health and Human Services building. 2. This property will be subject to Special Review because there is not alley access to the trash and recycling space (Municipal Code 12.10.030 C). a. Applicant presented a new configuration for the trash and recycling enclosure which would be located adjacent to the roadway. This configuration is acceptable to Environmental Health and Sustainability, if ADA access is preserved and traffic is not compromised. 3. Applicant presented drawings at the 3-21-18 meeting which depict the trash and recycling enclosure as part of a large storage space. a. Applicant was advised this is acceptable, but there must be at least 200 square feet of space dedicated to the storage of waste materials to allow separation of recycling and compost. b. Applicant indicated there might be a trash compactor in this space and was advised that a trash compactor has surface and power requirements. P46 VI.B. c. Applicant indicated the enclosure might be open to the sky. They were informed this does not qualify as wildlife proof and there would need to be an additional wildlife barrier (i.e. electric wire). 4. The current Pitkin County Health and Human Services facility is participating in the SCRAPS compost collection program and the new waste space will need to accommodate the ongoing success of this program by ensuring there is adequate space for trash, recycling and compost containers. ACSD Comments – provided by Hamilton Tharp The PITCO Ambulance facility must request the following from the ACSD: 1. Commitment to Serve letter. 2. Conditions to Serve letter. I believe that these two letters are part of the permit application. I am happy to speak to their representative about sewer service options, which I quickly outlined in the DRC meeting 3/21/18. Aspen Fire District comments – provided by Parker Lathrop 1) the access loop used to enter and leave the parking lot and serve the RFTA bus stop needs to be a minimum of 20 feet. 2) existing fire hydrant needs to be located if accessible parking spaces remain where they are currently proposed 3) the Fire District will work with applicant and Environmental Health to identify a compliant location for waste facilities. Zoning Comments – provided by Jim Pomeroy · Please amend the FA to be code complaint so that we can both document accurately the FA for the HHS building and the new ambulance building. o Upper levels of stairs do not count towards FA. o Please show the subgrade walls to calculate percentage of basement that counts as FA. o Outside overhangs greater than 4’ will count towards deck o All outside walkways 6” above grade as well as all outside stairs count as deck. · Please show height to the top of the highest point on the roof. · Storage Areas that are not trash areas will count as FA. P47 VI.B. Transportation Comments - provided by Lynn Rumbaugh and John Krueger 1. Unless the ambulance district employees work for the Hospital and receive Hospital transportation benefits, I am unsure why the AVH tdm plan is included in the submitted materials. If AVH transportation benefits are being extended to these employees, please clarify. 2. Is the lack of TDM selections in the TIA an oversight? Or does the applicant feel that there are no appropriate TDM measures for staff? Perhaps the staff is required to drive ambulance vehicles to and from work each day, but that isn’t clear to me upon review. 3. I would prefer to see improvements made to the existing bus shelters (or via access to them if Justin has any suggestions) as part of this project rather than a bench on the nordic trail. I’m not seeing how this relates specifically to the bus stop. 4. If they are planning any physical changes or improvements to Castle Creek Road, the bus stop area or any changes to bus circulation/route to the bus stop - City Transportation, RFTA and others should be involved. It does not look like they are but, there have been some discussions about this. P48 VI.B. Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing Page | 1 LAND USE MEMORANDUM TO: Ben Anderson, Planner FROM: APCHA Board of Directors THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director DATE: March 23, 2018 RE: Recommendation for Ambulance Facility to be located at 405 Castle Creek Road PROJECT: The applicant for 405 Castle Creek Road, Aspen Ambulance District, or Pitkin County, is seeking approval to construct an approximate 13,000 square foot ambulance facility. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The new building is to replace the existing ambulance facility located west of the proposed facility on the same stretch of the Hospital Loop Road. The new facility will be in the employee parking lot north of the Health and Human Services (HHS) building. PROPOSAL: To replace the smaller outdated facility with a new one to accommodate all the Aspen Ambulance District’s ambulances in enclosed bays and provide more room for staff bunk rooms and offices. The new facility will be set back almost 25 feet from Hospital Loop Road to allow time and visibility for ambulance drivers as they approach the street. A new facility will be approximately 12,435 gross square feet (gsf) on two levels above grade. The layout is as follows: Ground Floor (7,000 square feet): · Four ambulance bays and two first responder vehicles totaling 3,462 square feet; · Balance to be occupied by storage for ambulance supplies, decontamination room, and a fitness room; · Lobby with direct access to a training room; · Restrooms and vertical circulation Second Floor (5,435 square feet): · Ambulance District Offices; · Bunk rooms and living quarters Exhibit H APCHA Recommendation P49 VI.B. Page | 2 DISCUSSION: The applicant is a public agency; therefore, can pursue a Public Project review pursuant to Chapter 26.500. The Community Development Director deems the project an “essential public facility.” All essential public facilities are reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine employee generation pursuant to Section 26.470.110.D. The criteria for employee generation review are in Section 26.470.050.C. Section 26.470.050.C, Table 3, states the Employee Generation Rates. The Public Zone District (PUB) generates 5.1 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable space; however, the study that created the employee generation rates evaluated only office-type public uses, and the number should not be considered typical for other non-office public facilities. Based on this Code section, any development within the PUB shall be evaluated for actual employee generation. Section 26.470.110.D.3), “Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council may assess, waive or partially wave 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 applicant is formally requesting approval to waive all affordable housing mitigation requirements for this facility. Their commitment to provide affordable housing is shown in other ways: · Continue to develop affordable housing projects and provide land for AH projects as opportunities present themselves; · Continue to purchase existing units to house County employees; · Pledge 50% of its AH funds to supply housing to County employees in addition to housing for the workforce at large under APCHA authority. The County’s goal on developing a new Ambulance Facility is to meet the current needs of the Ambulance District, and not create space for additional employees. The applicant states that there will be no new employees because of this project, but rather existing employees will be shifted to the new facility. The applicant states that they currently have 13.56 employees which will not change after completion. According to Section 26.470.050.C, Table 3 (attached), the housing mitigation requirement is based on actual employee generation. P50 VI.B. Page | 3 RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held March 21, 2018 and recommended approval with the following conditions: A baseline of current Pitkin County employees – full- and part-time – will be provided to APCHA prior to building permit issuance. At least twice within 10 years after Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is received on the new building, employee audits will be conducted (preferably 5 years and 10 years after CO). The audit shall include all employees – full- and part-time – working out of the building. The hours would be added and then divided by 2,080 to get the FTE count. If the audits show additional employees above the baseline, mitigation shall be required. Mitigation can be satisfied by utilizing existing deed restricted units provided by the County (new or as buy-downs). APCHA shall request the audit from Pitkin County. Failure to request the audit shall not render any of the approvals invalid. Pitkin County shall provide the Housing Authority and the Community Development Department with the audit report. The Housing Authority and Community Development Department shall forward the audit to the Housing Board and/or City Council for review, as applicable. Any costs for the audit shall be paid by the applicant. P51 VI.B. 2735-123-007-802P52VI.B. P53VI.B. ASLU Public Project Aspen Ambulance District 273512307803 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Justin Barker, 970.429.2797 DATE: 9.12.17 PROJECT: Ambulance District REPRESENTATIVE: Kevin Heath, Studio B, kevin@studiobarchitects.net REQUEST: Major Public Project DESCRIPTION: The applicant (Aspen Ambulance District) is proposing the development of a new 10,000 – 13,000 sq. ft. facility, located on the same property as the Health and Human Services building. This lot is zoned Public (PUB), and is Lot 1, Parcel A of the Aspen Valley Hospital Subdivision, which was originally created in 1989. The plat for Parcel A, which includes two lots, was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1991, and is recorded at Book 27, Page 6. The current development on Lot 1 of Parcel A includes the Health and Human Services building, two small outbuildings, surface parking, and a RFTA bus stop. Lot 2 of Parcel A includes the Mountain Oaks employee housing. As a public agency, the applicant is eligible to pursue a Public Project review, pursuant to Chapter 26.500. The scope of the proposed development qualifies as a Major Public Project, requiring a two-step public hearing process before P&Z (recommending body) and City Council (decision maker). The applicant shall respond to the review standards for Public Projects, as well as the other reviews listed below to ensure a robust consideration of the proposal and to meet one of the general review standards for Public Projects (26.500.070 (3)). The review criteria include all sections of the Land Use Code that would otherwise be applicable to the project in a standard review process, which are listed below. Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community Development Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application within sixty (60) days of the Community Development Department’s determination of a complete application. Planned Development All dimensional requirements for this site, including floor area, height, and setbacks shall be approved by City Council, with recommendation from P&Z, on a site-specific basis through a Planned Development Review. The existing dimensional requirements for Parcel A are defined on the subdivision plat. Any new proposed dimensions should consider the use, context and surrounding development. The initial design shall be detailed enough to respond to both Project Review and Detail Review standards found in Section 26.445.050 and 26.445.070. Growth Management The Community Development Director has determined the proposed development to be an “essential public facility”. City Council is the decision-making body on required mitigation for an essential public facility, with recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. All essential public facilities are reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission to determine employee generation, pursuant to Section 26.470.110D. The criteria for employee generation review are in Section 26.470.050.C. Affordable housing mitigation requirements may be assessed, waived, or partially waived as deemed appropriate by City Council. The applicant has indicated that there are no new employees associated with the proposed project. The Applicant will need to provide a baseline inventory of existing and proposed employees (FTEs) as part of the P54 VI.B. 2 application. Staff recommends the applicant include a strategy for affordable housing mitigation for any potential future net increase in employees associated with the proposed development. The housing mitigation and employee generation will be reviewed by APCHA, as a recommending body to P&Z and City Council. Subdivision The existing subdivision plat will need to be amended to reflect the new development and dimensional requirements. Staff believes this qualifies as Minor Amendment, and will be combined with other applicable reviews during the Public Projects review process. A draft amendment plat is required as part of the application. Transportation and Parking Management A Transportation Impact Analysis is required for this project. A link is provided below. This project is considered a major development outside the roundabout (2,200 or more square feet of new essential public facility) and therefore requires a Level Two TIA. Additional information regarding a Level Two TIA can be found in the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Additional Requirements The Applicant has indicated that the proposed development is not intended for general public access. As a property outside the Aspen Infill Area without public access, this development is not subject to Section 26.412, Commercial Design Review. Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to Section 26.304.035, and a sketch-up model are required for this application prior to the first public hearing. REVIEW PROCESS: Step 1: P&Z Review for recommendation and employee generation Step 2: Council Review Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach 26.304.060.B.1 Combined Reviews 26.445 Planned Development 26.445.050 PD – Project Review and Detailed Review Standards (26.445.050 and 26.445.070) 26.470 Growth Management (26.470.050 - General Requirements, 26.470.110.D - Essential Public Facilities, 26.470.050.C - Employee generation and review) 26.480.090 Subdivision Amendments 26.500 Public Projects 26.515 Transportation and Parking Management 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines 26.710.250 Public (PUB) Zone District Land Use App: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/Land%20Use%20Application.pdf Below is Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ Review by: Staff for complete application and recommendation Development Review Committee for technical considerations P55 VI.B. 3 P&Z City Council Public Hearing: P&Z for Major Public Project Review City Council for Major Public Project Review Neighborhood Outreach: Yes, prior to 1st public hearing at P&Z Planning Fees: Planning Deposit – Planned Development ($10,400 for 32 hours) Referral Fees: Housing, Parks, Environmental Health @ $1,625 each Engineering (per hour) - $325 Total Deposit: $15,600 (additional planning/engineering hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of $325/hour) To apply, submit one paper copy of the following information:  Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form (Attached)  A completed Level Two TIA, containing at a minimum a Site Plan Review, Trip Generation, Capacity Analysis, and TDM, MMLOS, and significant impact Mitigation Measures. More information can be found in the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Long%20Range%20Planning/Trasnportation%20 Mitigation/Aspen%20TIA%20guidelines_4.2015update.pdf  Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Recent-Code- Amendments/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be included with the application.  A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. P56 VI.B. 4  A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado.  Written responses to all review criteria.  Baseline inventory of full-time equivalents (FTEs) associated with the existing development and proposed project.  Draft Subdivision/PD Plat representing all existing and proposed improvements and d imensional requirements.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  2 Copies of the complete application packet and, if a pplicable, associated drawings.  Total deposit for review of the application.  A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format.  A sketch up model will be required for the public hearing. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P57 VI.B. View your transaction progress 24/7 via Stewart Online Ask us about your login today! Date:October 24, 2017 File Number:01330-104874 Property:401 Castle Creek Road, Aspen, CO 81611 SELLER: Aspen Valley Hospital Delivery Method: Emailed WIRED FUNDS ARE REQUIRED ON ALL CASH PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE ESCROW OFFICE AS NOTED ON THIS PAGE TO OBTAIN WIRING INSTRUCTIONS. We Appreciate Your Business and Look Forward to Serving You in the Future. P58 VI.B. ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas Corporation (“Company”), for a valuable consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the Requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company. All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate six months after the Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue the policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized signatory. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. Countersigned by: Stewart Title 97 Main Street, Suite W201 Edwards, CO 81632 For purposes of this form the “Stewart Title” logo featured above is the represented logo for the underwriter, Stewart Title Guaranty Company. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No. 01330-104874 004-UN ALTA Commitment 6-17-06 Page 1 of 2 P59 VI.B. CONDITIONS 1.The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2.If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions. 3.Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4.This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. 5.The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount o f Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties.You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at< http://www.alta.org/>. All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No. 01330-104874 004-UN ALTA Commitment 6-17-06 Page 2 of 2 P60 VI.B. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A File No.: 01330-104874 1. Effective Date: October 06, 2017, at 8:00 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued:Amount of Insurance (a) ALTA Owner's Policy 2006 (Standard) Proposed Insured: (b) ALTA Loan Policy 2006 (Standard) Proposed Insured: 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the said estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: Aspen Valley Hospital District, a Colorado Special District 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Parcel 1: Parcel C, THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof recorded August 30, 1989 in Plat Book 23 at Page 34 as Reception No. 314687 and Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan recorded January 4, 2011 in Book 95 at Page 64 as Reception No. 576521 and recorded March 25, 2014 in Plat Book 106 at Page 27 as Reception No. 608883. Parcel 2: Lot 2 of Parcel A, THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof recorded August 30, 1989 in Plat Book 23 at Page 34 as Reception No. 314687 and Amendment thereto recorded July 25, 1991 in Plat Book 27 at Page 6 as Reception No. 344895. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Purported Address: 401 Castle Creek Road Aspen, CO 81611 STATEMENT OF CHARGES These charges are due and payable before a policy can be issued Title Report $500.00 Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No. 01330-104874 CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch A STO Page 1 of 1 STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY P61 VI.B. File No.: 01330-104874 The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. 2. Payment to or for the account of the grantor(s) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. 3. None NOTE: This product is for informational purposes only. It is not a title insurance product and does not provide any form of coverage. This product is not a guarantee or assurance and does not warrant, or otherwise insure any condition, fact or circumstance. This product does not obligate this Company to issue any policies of title insurance for any subsequent transaction based on the information provided or involving the property described herein. This Company’s sole liability for any error(s) relating to this product is limited to the amount that was paid for this product. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART I Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No. 01330-104874 CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B I Page 1 of 1 STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY P62 VI.B. File No.: 01330-104874 Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the public records. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the Effective Date but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) minerals of whatsoever kind, subsurface and surface substances, in, on, under and that may be produced from the Land, together with all rights, privileges, and immunities relating thereto, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the Public Records or listed in Schedule B. Water rights, claims or title to water. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patents recorded November 5, 1927 in Book 55 at Page 293, recorded December 3, 1892 in Book 55 at Page 35 and recorded June 16, 1894 in Book 55 at Page 45. Right of Way for Ditches and Canals constructed by authority of the United States as reserved in the United States Patent recorded November 5, 1927 in Book 55 at Page 293 Easement and right of way recorded January 28, 1966 in Book 218 at Page 385, and in instrument recorded November 10, 1981 in Book 417 at Page 220 as Reception No. 237049. Easement and right of way for the purpose of a communication system, as granted to the Mountain States Telephone Co. by Frank Marolt, Jr., in instrument recorded December 11, 1929 in Book 162 at Page 172. Terms, conditions, obligations, restrictions, limitations, reservations and easements as contained and set forth in Warranty Deed recorded October 28, 1975 in Book 304 at Page 723. A strip of land on each side of a centerline being for the purpose of a sewer line or lines as set forth in instrument recorded April 13, 1976 in Book 310 at Page 716 and as set forth in Easement Agreement recorded May 10, 1976 in Book 311 at Page 678. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART II Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No. 01330-104874 CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B II STO Page 1 of 5 STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY P63 VI.B. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Permanent Easements as granted to the City of Aspen as set forth in instruments recorded November 10, 1981 in Book 417 at Page 221 as Reception No. 237050 and recorded November 10, 1981 in Book 417 at Page 222 as Reception No. 237051. Easement Agreement as set forth in instrument recorded January 28, 1982 in Book 420 at Page 552 as Reception No. 238661. Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, Granting a Rezoning of the Aspen Valley Hospital Property from AF-2 PUD, Growth Management Exemption for Essential Community Facilities and Special Review Approvals for the Construction of an Approximately 3,000 Square Foot Physical Therapy Expansion Resolution No. 87-81, as set forth in instrument recorded February 23, 1988 in Book 557 at Page 620 as Reception No. 297700. Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Aspen Valley Hospital District to Provide a Health and Human Services Campus at the Aspen Valley Hospital, Establishing a Master Planning Process, and Authorizing a Land Exchange, Ordinance No. 88-16, as set forth in instrument recorded May 23, 1989 in Book 593 at Page 135 as Reception No. 311756. Underground right of way Easement granted unto Holy Cross Electric Association Inc., as set forth in instrument recorded July 6, 1989 in Book 596 at Page 987 as Reception No. 313137. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, Granting Approval for the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan, Resolution No. 89-79, as set forth in instrument recorded August 24, 1989 in Book 600 at Page 270 as Reception No. 314457. Permanent Easement granted unto the City of Aspen as set forth in instrument recorded April 3, 1990 in Book 617 at Page 390 as Reception No. 321414. Easements granted unto the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Colorado as set forth in instruments recorded April 3, 1990 in Book 617 at Page 465 as Reception No. 321447, and recorded April 3, 1990 in Book 617 at Page 466 as Reception No. 321448 and re-recorded April 4, 1990 in Book 617 at Page 558 as Reception No. 321475. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, Granting a Master Plan Amendment Approval to the Aspen Valley Hospital District, Resolution No. 92-11 as set forth in instrument recorded April 30, 1992 in Book 676 at Page 259 as Reception No. 344179. Underground Right of Way Easement granted unto Holy Cross Electric Association Inc., as set forth in instrument recorded February 4, 1992 in Book 668 at Page 625 as Reception No. 341273. Ground Lease Agreement recorded July 24, 1995 as Reception No. 383614 and recorded May 28, 1996 as Reception No. 393022. Nordic Trail Easement Agreement as set forth in instrument recorded November 3, 1995 in Book 798 at Page 533 as Reception No. 387008. Ordinance No. 95-23 recorded September 05, 1996 as Reception No. 396737. Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, Amending the Pitkin County Land Use Code by Adding a New Section 3-150.145 ""Essential Accessory Uses to Existing Government or Non-Profit Essential Community Facilities"" and Repealing and Re-enacting Section 3-150.130 ""Metro and Non-Metro Area GMQS Exemptions"" Ordinance No. 97-34 as set forth in instrument recorded October 14, 1997 as Reception No. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART II Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No. 01330-104874 CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B II STO Page 2 of 5 STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY P64 VI.B. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 409421. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, Granting Approval to the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan Amendment, and GMQS Exemption for 14,500 Square Feet of Interior Remodeling and Construction of a 5,500 Square Foot Expansion to the Existing Hospital Building, Resolution No. 96-285 as set forth in instrument recorded October 25, 1996 as Reception No. 398331; and Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, Amending the Conditions of Resolution No. 96-285 Regarding the Allowed Square Footage for an Expansion of Aspen Valley Hospital, Resolution No. 97-82 recorded May 8, 1997 as Reception No. 404232. Resolution recorded May 13, 1998 as Reception No. 416797. Easements, rights of way and other matters as shown and contained on Plats of the subject property recorded August 30, 1989 in Book 23 at Page 34, recorded July 25, 1991 in Book 27 at Page 6, recorded May 13, 1996 in Book 39 at Page 62 and recorded May 16, 1997 in Book 42 at Page 75. Resolution recorded October 14, 1999 as Reception No. 436618. Resolution No. 195-2000 recorded November 14, 2000 as Reception No. 448796. Ordinance No. 15-2001 recorded October 18, 2001 as Reception No. 459878. Occupancy Deed Restriction Agreement recorded March 12, 2002 as Reception No. 465006. Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2003 recorded September 16, 2003 as Reception No. 488462 Resolution No. 205- 2000 by Pitkin County recorded November 28, 2000 as Reception No. 449202. Memorandum of Agreement recorded January 24, 2001 as Reception No. 450852. Ordinance No. 30 (Series of 2003), An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, Approving the Annexation of Certain Territory to the City of Aspen, Colorado, to be Known and Designated as the "Aspen Valley Hospital District Annexation" as set forth in instrument recorded December 24, 2003 as Reception No. 492818. Easements, rights of way and other matters as shown and contained on Aspen Valley District Annexation to the City of Aspen recorded July 26, 2005 in Book 74 at Page 73 as Reception No. 512823. Grant of Temporary Easement, Short Term Drainage Ditch Construction and Operation Agreement recorded July 2, 2008 as Reception No. 550708. Resolution No. 3 Series of 2009 by City of Aspen Resolution recorded May 26, 2009 as Reception No. 559342. Resolution No. 8, Series of 2010 recorded May 12. 2010 as Reception No. 569236. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2010 recorded August 13, 2010 as Reception No. 572613. Easement Agreement recorded August 24, 2010 as Reception No. 572964. Easement Agreement recorded December 1, 2010 as Reception No. 575544. Notice recorded December 15, 2010 as Reception No. 575899. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART II Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No. 01330-104874 CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B II STO Page 3 of 5 STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY P65 VI.B. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. Trench, Conduit and Vault Agreement recorded January 18, 2012 as Reception No. 585989. Ordinance No. 012-2012 Approving Lease Agreement recorded September 27, 2012 as Reception No. 592634. Lease Agreement recorded September 27, 2012 as Reception No. 592635. Holy Cross Underground Right of Way recorded January 3, 2013 as Reception No. 595769. Trench Conduit and Vault Agreement recorded January 14, 2013 as Reception No. 596104. Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan recorded January 4, 2011 in Book 95 at Page 64 as Reception No. 576521 and recorded March 25, 2014 in Plat Book 106 at Page 27 as Reception No. 608883. Subdivison/Planned Unit Development Agreement recorded January 4, 2011 as Reception No. 576523. Agreement recorded January 4, 2011 as Reception No. 576524. Notice of Approval recorded July 5, 2011 as Reception No. 580971. Holy Cross Underground Right of Way Easement recorded January 18, 2012 as Reception No. 585986. Trench, Conduit and Vault Agreement recorded January 18, 2012 as Reception No. 585989. Notice of Approval recorded August 15, 2012 as Reception No. 591369. Agreement recorded October 16, 2012 as Reception No. 593106. Deed Restriction recorded October 16, 2012 as Reception No. 593107. Holy Cross Underground Right of Way Easement recorded January 3, 2013 as Reception No. 595769. Trench, Conduit and Vault Agreement recorded January 14, 2013 as Reception No. 596104. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2013 recorded June 28, 2013 as Reception No. 600720. Occupancy Deed Restriction Agreement recorded August 22, 2013 as Reception No. 602712. Notice of Approval recorded October 16, 2013 as Reception No. 604775. Grant of Easement recorded December 5, 2013 as Reception No. 606291. Financing Statement from Cali Corp and Aspen Valley Hospital, debtor(s) to Community Banks of Colorado secured party, recorded January 8, 2014 as Reception No. 607197, giving notice of a security interest pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. Planned Unit Development Agreement recorded March 25, 2014 as Reception No. 608884. Cross Country Skiing Easement recorded March 25, 2014 as Reception No. 608885. Escrow Agreement recorded March 25, 2014 as Reception No. 608887. Special District Public Disclosure recorded October 27, 2014 as Reception No. 614881. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART II Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No. 01330-104874 CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B II STO Page 4 of 5 STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY P66 VI.B. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. Notice of Approval recorded August 18, 2015 as Reception No. 622520. Notice of Approval recorded August 18, 2015 as Reception No. 622521. Notice of Approval recorded November 1, 2016 as Reception No. 633493. Easement recorded August 31, 2017 as Reception No. 641063. Any and all existing leases and tenancies. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B PART II Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No. 01330-104874 CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B II STO Page 5 of 5 STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY P67 VI.B. DISCLOSURES File No.: 01330-104874 Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: A. B. C. THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY MAY BE LOCATED IN A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT; A CERTIFICATE OF TAXES DUE LISTING EACH TAXING JURISDICTION SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY TREASURER OR THE COUNTY TREASURER’S AUTHORIZED AGENT; INFORMATION REGARDING SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH DISTRICTS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, OR THE COUNTY ASSESSOR Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-2-2, Section 5, Paragraph G requires that “Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed.” Provided that Stewart Title conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner’s Title Policy and the Lender’s Title Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative Mechanic’s Lien Protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner’s Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A. B. C. D. E. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single-family residence, which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled Mechanic’s and Materialmen’s Liens. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased, within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and/or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity agreements satisfactory to the company; and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. To comply with the provisions of C.R.S. 10-11-123, the Company makes the following disclosure: a. b. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner’s permission. NOTE: THIS DISCLOSURE APPLIES ONLY IF SCHEDULE B, SECTION 2 OF THE TITLE COMMITMENT HEREIN INCLUDES AN EXCEPTION FOR SEVERED MINERALS. Notice of Availability of a Closing Protection Letter:Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-3, Section 5, Paragraph C (11)(f), a closing protection letter is available to the consumer. x NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN, UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY SATISFIED. File No.: 01330-104874 CO Commitment Disclosure Revised 1/1/17 P68 VI.B. STG Privacy Notice Stewart Title Companies WHAT DO THE STEWART TITLE COMPANIES DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION? Federal and applicable state law and regulations give consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal and applicable state law regulations also require us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to understand how we use your personal information. This privacy notice is distributed on behalf of the Stewart Title Guaranty Company and its title affiliates (the Stewart Title Companies), pursuant to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service that you have sought through us. This information can include social security numbers and driver's license number. All financial companies, such as the Stewart Title Companies, need to share customers' personal information to run their everyday business—to process transactions and maintain customer accounts. In the section below, we list the reasons that we can share customers' personal information; the reasons that we choose to share; and whether you can limit this sharing. . Reasons we can share your personal information.Do we share Can you limit this sharing? For our everyday business purposes— to process your transactions and maintain your account. This may include running the business and managing customer accounts, such as processing transactions, mailing, and auditing services, and responding to court orders and legal investigations. Yes No For our marketing purposes— to offer our products and services to you. Yes No For joint marketing with other financial companies No We don't share For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your transactions and experiences. Affiliates are companies related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and non-financial companies. Our affiliates may include companies with a Stewart name; financial companies, such as Stewart Title Company Yes No For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your creditworthiness.No We don't share For our affiliates to market to you — For your convenience, Stewart has developed a means for you to opt out from its affiliates marketing even though such mechanism is not legally required. Yes Yes, send your first and last name, the email address used in your transaction, your Stewart file number and the Stewart office location that is handling your transaction by email to optout@stewart.com or fax to 1-800-335-9591. For non-affiliates to market to you. Non-affiliates are companies not related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and non-financial companies. No We don't share We may disclose your personal information to our affiliates or to non-affiliates as permitted by law. If you request a transaction with a non-affiliate, such as a third party insurance company, we will disclose your personal information to that non-affiliate. [We do not control their subsequent use of information, and suggest you refer to their privacy notices.] SHARING PRACTICES How often do the Stewart Title Companies notify me about their practices? We must notify you about our sharing practices when you request a transaction. How do the Stewart Title Companies protect my personal information? To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security measures that comply with federal law. These measures include computer, file, and building safeguards. How do the Stewart Title Companies collect my personal information? We collect your personal information, for example, when you ß ß request insurance-related services provide such information to us We also collect your personal information from others, such as the real estate agent or lender involved in your transaction, credit reporting agencies, affiliates or other companies. What sharing can I limit?Although federal and state law give you the right to limit sharing (e.g., opt out) in certain instances, we do not share your personal information in those instances. Contact us: If you have any questions about this privacy notice, please contact us at: Stewart Title Guaranty Company, 1980 Post Oak Blvd., Privacy Officer, Houston, Texas 77056 File No.: 01330-104874 Page 1 Revised 11-19-2013 P69 VI.B. P70VI.B. P71VI.B. P72 VI.B. P73 VI.B. P74 VI.B. P75 VI.B. P76 VI.B. P77 VI.B. P78 VI.B. P79 VI.B. P80 VI.B. P81 VI.B. P82 VI.B. P83 VI.B. December 27, 2017 Mr. Justin Barker City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Major Public Project Review Submission Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Lot 1, Parcel A, Aspen Valley Hospital Subdivision Mr. Barker, Enclosed please find our application for a major public project review for Pitkin County’s new Ambulance Facility. This new building will replace the existing ambulance building, which is currently located just west of the proposed Facility on the same stretch of the Hospital Loop Road. The new Facility will be located in the employee parking lot north of the County’s Health and Human Services (HHS) Building. The goal of this project is to replace an inadequate, small and outdated building with a new one that will accommodate all of the Aspen Ambulance District’s ambulances in enclosed bays and provide more room for staff bunk rooms and offices. The new Facility will be 12,435 gsf on two levels above grade. The ground floor is a total of 7,000, primarily occupied by four (4) ambulance bays and two (2) first responder vehicles (totaling 3,462 sf). The remainder of the ground floor is occupied by storage for ambulance supplies, a decontamination room, and a fitness room. This floor level also has a lobby with direct access to a training room, restrooms and vertical circulation. On the second floor (5,435 sf), the Ambulance District has offices, bunk rooms and living quarters. The building exterior responds to the site context by aiming the public side of the building towards the hospital and away from the residential neighbors. Materials will be metal siding and concrete masonry to relate to some of the materials used at the hospital. The overall horizontal proportions of the building are emphasized. The roof slopes to the south to better include rooftop photovoltaic panels. The site plan maintains the current circulation uses. The Nordic trail that comes from the west will be brought down to the level of the Hospital Loop Road approximately 150 feet further west via a new stair. A bench will be placed at the top of the stair for skiers. The ramp access to the north and west side of the HHS building will be improved to become handicapped accessible. The new Ambulance Facility is set back almost 25 feet from the Hospital Loop Road, to allow time and visibility for ambulance drivers as they approach the street. Ambulance District employees and their very occasional visitors currently park in the hospital parking lots and will continue to do so. The twelve (12) HHS employee parking spaces lost to the new building will be absorbed into the HHS main parking lot, either through better enforcement (restricting use of the lot to HHS business only) or possibly a restriping project that is currently being considered. P84 VI.B. Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Major Public Process Review Submission Page 2 of 3 General Review Standards from Section 26.500.070 1. The proposed project conforms with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible with neighborhood context. Response: The entire parcel is located within the City’s Public (PUB) zone district. Section 26.710.250 outlines the permitted uses, conditional uses, and dimensional requirements for this zone district. Ambulance buildings and other essential government facilities are permitted uses under paragraph B.5 of this section (also very similar to B.9 fire station). All of the buildings located on the parcel fall within this category. Regarding dimensional requirements for this parcel, paragraph 26.710.250.D states that these requirements are set by the Planned Development approval. Attached to this letter as Exhibit A are the proposed dimensional requirements for this parcel. These requirements are mostly based on those currently existing for the Hospital District Subdivision, as indicated on the subdivision plat, recorded at Book 27, Page 6. We used these dimensions as guidelines because they maintain the status quo for the parcel. The two exceptions are the minimum number of off-street parking spaces and the front yard setback. The parking spaces will be addressed as described above. The original plat indicates that there will be a minimum of 57 spaces; there will be 47 in the main lot unless/until it is restriped. The front yard setback was originally set at 30 feet. Given the generous original distance from the HHS building to the street, we feel that a reduction for the front yard setback to 10 feet to the property line is appropriate, especially given that the building will actually be located about 25 feet from the Hospital Loop Road. 2. The proposed project supports stated community goals. Response: The proposed project will allow the Ambulance District to operate more efficiently. Currently they cannot store their vehicles indoors, a situation that slows response times in winter. They also do not have adequate office, storage, or bunk room space. They have no place to get training to maintain certifications. The proposed project has gone through an extensive programming exercise to ensure that the spaces are right-sized to support the District’s needs. Several public meetings and on-line opportunities have been held to gather input from the community on the facility. Finally, this project furthers the goals of the City of Aspen by helping to provide an effective, efficient, and comprehensive system of first responder facilities for the community. 3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code. Response: No variances from the Land Use Code are requested. 4. The project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.47 0, Growth Management Quota System. Response: Growth Management Quota System allotment for essential public facilities is governed by paragraph 26.470.030 of the Land Use Code. According to paragraph C of this section , there is no development ceiling for essential public facilities. Further, according to paragraph D of this section, there is no annual allotment limit governing essential public facilities. Since the proposed project has been classified as an essential public facility, it is clearly eligible to receive a GMQS allotment. The review criteria for this project are contained within paragraph 26.470.090.4 of the Land Use Code. Those standards are addressed below. P85 VI.B. Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Major Public Process Review Submission Page 3 of 3 GMQS Review Criteria from Paragraph 26.470.090.4 a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility. Response: The Community Development director has determined that the proposed project is an essential public facility by virtue of the Pre-Application Conference Summary dated September 12, 2017. 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. Response: Pitkin County (applicant) formally requests the waiving of all affordable housing mitigation requirements for the Ambulance Facility project. This is not to say that Pitkin County does not support the effort to provide affordable housing. The opposite is true and this commitment is sho wn in other ways. Pitkin County has been a partner in APCHA since in its inception and will continue to do so. In addition, the county has in the past and will continue to develop affordable housing projects and provide land for AH projects as opportunities present themselves. Representing the county's commitment to affordable housing is the fact that the county continues to purchase existing units in order to house county employees. Moving forward, the county has pledged 50% of its AH funds to supply housing to county employees in addition to housing for the work force at large under APCHA authority. It is important to note that the primary goal of this project is to adequately meet the current needs of the Ambulance District, not create space for additional employees. No new employees are being hired as a result of this project. Rather, existing employees will simply be shifted a few hundred feet down the road to the new facility. c. The applicant has made a reasonable good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Response: With the request to waive affordable housing mitigation requirements (see above), this standard does not apply. d. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing. Response: With the request to waive affordable housing mitigation requirements (see above), this standard does not apply. Please review this information and, if you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Daniel Gartner, AIA, LEED AP, President CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS, P.C. P86 VI.B. Exhibit A Proposed Dimensional Requirements Pitkin County Ambulance Facility, Lot 1, Parcel A 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): 2.871 acres 2. Minimum Net Lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): No Requirement 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 115 feet 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 10 feet 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): 10 feet 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): 10 feet 7. Maximum height (feet): 40 Feet 8. Minimum floor-to-floor heights (feet): No Requirement 9. Minimum Distance between buildings (feet): No Requirement 10. Public amenity space: No Requirement 11. Floor area ratio (FAR): 2:1 12. Net Livable Area AH units (square feet): No Requirement P87 VI.B. P88 VI.B. XSDXSDPEAK ELV = 8033.7'VICINITY MAPSITEHWY. 13PITK IN COUNTYAMBULANCE FAC IL ITYHHS BUILDINGASPEN VALLEY HOSPITALHOSPITAL LOOP ROADP89VI.B. x xxxXSDXSDue ueue ue ueueueu e u e ueueueue ueueueoe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe12.7'X26"XSDXSDHOSPITAL LOOP ROADCASTLE CREEK ROADPROPOSED P ITK IN COUNTYAMBULANCE FAC IL ITY S ITE ,EXIST ING ASPHALT PAVEDPARKING LOT TO BE DEMOL ISHEDHHS BUILDINGP90VI.B. x xxxXSDXSDue ueue ue ueueueu e u e ueueueue ueueueoe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe12.7'X26"XSDXSDHOSPITAL LOOP ROADCASTLE CREEK ROADPITKIN COUNTY AMBULANCE FACILITYFFE=8017.556994 SFHHS BUILDINGP91VI.B. XSDXSDue ue ue ue ue ue ueueueueueueu e u e u e u eueueueueueueueueueueXFOXFOPITKIN COUNTY AMBULANCE FACILITYFFE=8017.556994 SFHOSPITAL LOOP ROADHUMAN HEALTH SERVICESBUILDINGAPPROX. FFE=8019.00P92VI.B. x xxxXSDXSDue ueue ue ueueueu e u e ueueueue ueueueoe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe12.7'X26"XSDXSDHOSPITAL LOOP ROADCASTLE CREEK ROADP93VI.B. XSDXSDue ue ue ue ue ue ueueueueueueu e u e u e u eueueueueueueueueueueXFOXFOPITKIN COUNTY AMBULANCE FACILITYFFE=8017.556994 SFHOSPITAL LOOP ROADP94VI.B. ..EXIT ###APPARATUS BAY #6 111 APPARATUS BAY #5 110 APPARATUS BAY #4 109 APPARATUS BAY #3 108 APPARATUS BAY #2 107 APPARATUS BAY #1 106 LOBBY 101 STAIR 302 ELEVATOR 301 ELEC. 105 TRAINING ROOM 104 MEN 103 WOMEN 102 FITNESS 115 READY ROOM 113 MEDICAL STORAGE 114 DECON 112 STAIR 303 STORAGE 116 KITCHEN 218 DAYROOM 216 IT 211 TOILET 208 MECH/ELEC 209 CORRIDOR 210 LIBRARY / REPORTS 215 CONFERENCE 214 OFFICE 212 STOR. 213 CORRIDOR 202 WAITING 201 OFFICE 203 OFFICE 204 OFFICE 205 FLEX 206 DINING 217 PANTRY 219 UNIFORM LOCKERS 221 SHOWER 227 STORAGE 228 BUNK RM 229 BUNK RM 230 BUNK RM 231 BUNK RM 232 CORRIDOR 224 CORRIDOR 220 MECH 223 LAUNDRY 222 SHOWER 226 DECK COVERED PATIO OPEN TO BELOW ELEVATOR DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: PROJECT NO: DATE: CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS 437 Main St. Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 T 970.242.6804 725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1 Rapid City, South Dakota 57701 T 605.355.6804 www.chamberlinarchitects.com E N H A N C I N G E V E R Y D A Y L I V I N G T H R O U G H D E S I G N C 2016 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTSBIM 360://1740 - Pitkin County Ambulance Facility/1740-PCAF_CLOUD.rvt12/28/2017 11:00:06 AMA002 12/22/2017 DRAFT 1740 CASTLE CREEK ROAD ASPEN, COLORADO CODE CHECKLIST PROJECT STATUS: 50% DD Author Checker ASPEN AMBULANCE DISTRICT FACILITY 0'4'8'0'4'8'A002 GROUND LEVEL LIFE SAFETY PLAN1 0'4'8'0'4'8'A002 UPPER LEVEL LIFE SAFETY PLAN2 NO: ISSUED FOR: DATE:P95VI.B. P96VI.B. Preliminary Engineering Report AMBULANCE FACILITY ASPEN, CO October 20th, 2017 Prepared by Richard Goulding, P.E. Roaring Fork Engineering 592 Highway 133 Carbondale, CO P97 VI.B. Ambulance Facility i Preliminary Engineering Report Preliminary Engineering Report AMBULANCE FACILITY ASPEN, CO Richard Goulding, P.E. RFE Project # 2017-44 P98 VI.B. Ambulance Facility ii Preliminary Engineering Report Table of Contents 1.0 Storm water ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Proposed Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Conveyance ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Water Quality Treatment .................................................................................................. 5 2.0 Potable Water ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Existing ............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Proposed ........................................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 Sanitary Sewer ........................................................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Existing ............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.2 Proposed ........................................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Electric.................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Existing ............................................................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Proposed ........................................................................................................................................... 6 5.0 Gas .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 5.1 Existing ............................................................................................................................................. 6 5.2 Proposed ........................................................................................................................................... 6 6.0 Communications ..................................................................................................................................... 7 6.1 Existing ............................................................................................................................................. 7 6.2 Proposed ........................................................................................................................................... 7 P99 VI.B. Ambulance Facility Preliminary Engineering Report 1.0 Storm water 1.1 Proposed Conditions The storm water runoff from the proposed Pitkin County Ambulance Facility is designed to be collected and treated using the existing storm water infrastructure for Aspen Valley Hospital. The civil design for Phase 2 of the Aspen Valley Hospital, dated December 21st, 2010, has been analyzed in this report to verify that the existing system has capacity for the additional runoff and treatment from the new facility. This new Facility is located on the hospital owned parcel south of the hospital and north of the Human Health Services Building. The design completed by Sopris Engineering displays a 100-year basin flow summary (Exhibit 5) of their drainage report, along with conveyance information on Exhibits 6-11. The existing system conveys the offsite basin, OS2, along with other basins, along Castle Creek Road and to a detention pond. The new ambulance facility is within basin OS2, which has been updated to represent the additional runoff. The city of Aspen has requested that a drainage easement be created through the property of the Hospital for the proposed site to use the existing infrastructure. 1.2 Proposed Conveyance The previous study contains the existing basin information used to calculate the maximum flow from the area. The following additional calculations completed by Roaring Fork Engineering meet the intensity requirements of the current 2014 City of Aspen URMP. The peak discharge from the basin including the proposed building has been updated and is shown below. The basin impervious area is increased by ~3833 ft2, resulting in a peak flow increase of 0.22 ft3/sec. Since the existing infrastructure was designed based on the previous City of Aspen Requirements, these maximum flow rates do not match the flow rates determined by Sopris Engineering in 2010. T o combine the two analyses, all of basin OS2 has been updated to the new 100-year storm requirements. Only OS2 has been updated in the calculations and has increased the maximum conveyance by 0.76 ft3/sec. The additional 0.76 ft3/sec was then applied to all existing conveyance infrastructure for OS2. The table below displays all basins that are conveyed in the pipe network that is affected by the proposed design. In this table, the flow rate shown in green is the only basin that has been adjusted. Information for this table was collected from Exhibit 5 of the Phase 2 Aspen Valley Hospital Drainage Report. 100 Year Peak Discharge Existing Calculations 1 Hour(P1)1.23 Return Period 100 Basin ID Total Area Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max See(D1)(Acres)(ft2)(ft2)(%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec) OS2 0.7 30492.00 17075.52 56.00%0.540 5 6.33 2.39 100 Year Peak Discharge Proposed Calculations 1 Hour(P1)1.23 Return Period 100 Basin ID Total Area Total Area Imp. Area Impervious C Value Time of C Intensity Q Max See(D1)(Acres)(ft2)(ft2)(%)From Table (Td)I=88.8P1/(10+Td)1.052 (ft3/sec) OS2 0.7 30492.00 20908.80 68.57%0.590 5 6.33 2.61 P100 VI.B. Ambulance Facility Preliminary Engineering Report Using the basins information above and information from Exhibits 6-11, the conveyance of these basins through the existing pipe network are summarized in the table below. These pipes are then analyzed for capacity in the following table. Proposed 100 Year Sub Basin Peak Discharge Sub Basin Imp. Area Total Area C Value Time of C Sub Basin Flow Rate (Name)Ai (Acre)At (ft2)From EX (Td)Qsub (ft3/sec) OS1 1.80 78408.00 0.510 5 2.89 OS2 0.70 30492.00 0.590 5 2.61 OS3 0.40 17424.00 0.710 5 1.47 C1 0.54 23522.40 0.610 5 1.76 C2 0.08 3484.80 0.640 5 0.30 C3 0.28 12196.80 0.760 5 1.22 C4 0.33 14374.80 0.710 5 1.20 B1 1.02 44431.20 0.950 5 5.59 B2 0.48 20908.80 0.630 5 1.74 B3 0.51 22215.60 0.950 5 2.80 B4 0.31 13503.60 0.770 5 1.38 B5 0.39 16988.40 0.770 5 1.62 B6 0.22 9583.20 0.950 5 1.21 B7 0.45 19602.00 0.790 5 2.06 D1 0.14 6098.40 0.570 5 0.47 D2 0.27 11761.20 0.950 5 1.48 D3 0.39 16988.40 0.560 5 1.24 D4 0.33 14374.80 0.500 5 0.57 D5 0.32 13939.20 0.950 5 1.76 D6 0.05 2178.00 0.520 5 0.15 D7 0.18 7840.80 0.950 5 0.99 D8 0.12 5227.20 0.840 5 0.58 E1 0.24 10454.40 0.780 5 1.10 E2 0.25 10890.00 0.580 5 0.74 J1 0.29 12632.40 0.500 5 0.81 Storm System Pipes Pipe System Pipe Contibuting Sub-Basins Inlet Bypass Design Flow Rate Qdes C C1-C2 OS1, OS2, C1 -1.61 5.65 C2-C3 OS1, OS2, C1, C2 -0.23 Overflows to Doolittle Pond 7.33 C3-C4 OS1, OS2, C1-C3 -0.02 8.53 C4-D1 OS1, OS2, C1-C4 9.73 D D1-D2 OS1, OS2, B1-B7, C1-C4, D1 26.60 D2-D4 OS1, OS2, B1-B7,C1-C4, D1, D2 28.08 D4-D7 OS1-OS3, B1-B7, C1-C4, D1-D4 0.02 31.38 D7-D8 OS1-OS3, B1-B7, C1-C4, D1-D7 34.28 D8-AE OS1-OS3, B1-B7, C1-C4, D1-D8 34.86 A-E OS1-OS3, B1-B7, C1-C4, D1-D8, E1, E2, J1 Hospital Detention 37.51 P101 VI.B. Ambulance Facility Preliminary Engineering Report The calculations above, given the existing information and the updated flow rates, determine that the conveyance pipes around Aspen Valley Hospital have capacity for the increase of 0.67 ft3/sec from the proposed Ambulance Facility. The next page of this analysis displays the capacity of the drainage swale from the pipe network to the detention pond. This verifies that the swale has the capacity to convey the additional 0.67 ft3/sec. Pipe Design Flow Rate Proposed Pipe Diameter Slope 80% of Proposed Pipe Diameter Manning Coefficient Full Pipe Cross Sectional Area Full Pipe Flow Rate Q Design / Q Full d/D Hydraulic Grade Line (Depth of Flow) Depth of Flow Less Than 80% of Pipe Diameter Qdes (ft3/sec) Dpro(in)S (%)Dpro*.8 (in)n A (ft) = π (Dpro/2)2 Qfull (ft3/s) = A(1.49/n)((Dpro/48)2/3)S1/2 Qdes/Qfull (from Chart)d (in) = (d/D)*Dpro (Yes/No) C1-C2 5.65 15.0 5.50%12.0 0.01 1.227 19.737 0.29 0.41 6.08 Yes C2-C3 7.33 15.0 5.00%12.0 0.01 1.227 18.819 0.39 0.49 7.28 Yes C3-C4 8.53 15.0 2.00%12.0 0.01 1.227 11.902 0.72 0.69 10.35 Yes C4-D1 9.73 15.0 3.50%12.0 0.01 1.227 15.745 0.62 0.63 9.45 Yes D1-D2 26.60 18.0 7.25%14.4 0.01 1.766 36.849 0.72 0.69 12.42 Yes D2-D4 28.08 24.0 4.00%19.2 0.01 3.140 58.947 0.48 0.55 13.20 Yes D4-D7 31.38 24.0 2.00%19.2 0.01 3.140 41.682 0.75 0.73 17.40 Yes D7-D8 34.28 24.0 2.00%19.2 0.01 3.140 41.682 0.82 0.75 18.00 Yes D8-AE 34.86 24.0 2.00%19.2 0.01 3.140 41.682 0.84 0.77 18.36 Yes A-E 37.51 30.0 1.60%24.0 0.01 4.906 67.595 0.55 0.60 18.00 Yes Hydraulic Grade Line and Pipe Capacity P102 VI.B. Ambulance Facility Preliminary Engineering Report P103 VI.B. Ambulance Facility Preliminary Engineering Report 1.3 Proposed Water Quality Treatment The existing system is going to be utilized for treatment for the new construction. The existing detention pond is designed for Water Quality Capture Volume. The basin OS2 was analyzed below to determine the increase in the required storage for the proposed design. From the tables above, the addition of the Ambulance Facility would require 66.1 ft 3 of additional WQCV. Exhibit 3 for the Phase 2 Aspen Valley Hospital Drainage Report states that the existing detention pond was designed for 7,048 ft3 of detention, but was only required to provide 6,276 ft3. Given this information, the pond is oversized by 772 ft3. This confirms that the pond has the capacity required to treat the proposed building. The City of Aspen Engineering Department has expressed that potential annual maintenance may be required for the hospital detention pond due to its use as a snow removal location ant the impact of the debris and salt from this use. The proposed Ambulance Facility increases the peak flow to the pond by 0.67 ft3/sec and will not exacerbate the need for pond maintenance. 2.0 Potable Water 2.1 Existing Within Hospital Loop Road there is an 8-inch ductile iron water line running in the street that is owned and operated by the Aspen Water Department. The location, size, and depth have not been confirmed by potholing, but can be done prior to final design. 2.2 Proposed The proposed water service to the new structure shall connect to the existing eight-inch ductile iron water line in Hospital Loop Road. Preliminary sizing of the service line indicates that a two-inch or four-inch ductile iron water service will be sufficient for the demand of the building and the multi-family housing. This line size would include the fire flow required for an in-building sprinkler system. The fire flows have not been calculated but will be done prior to final design. An ability to serve letter may be necessary due to the site not having a water service already provided. Existing Water Quality Capture Volume Storage Basin Total Area Total Area Impervious Area Impervious WQCV Table Value WQCV Storage F.O.S.Required Storage BMP (#)(Acres)(ft2)(ft2)(%)(in)(ft3)(ft3) OS2 0.70 30492.00 17075.52 56.00%0.107 271.89 1 271.9 Drywell 1 Proposed Water Quality Capture Volume Storage Basin Total Area Total Area Impervious Area Impervious WQCV Table Value WQCV Storage F.O.S.Required Storage BMP (#)(Acres)(ft2)(ft2)(%)(in)(ft3)(ft3) OS2 0.70 30492.00 20908.80 68.57%0.133 337.95 1 338.0 Drywell 1 P104 VI.B. Ambulance Facility Preliminary Engineering Report 3.0 Sanitary Sewer 3.1 Existing The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District owns a sanitary sewer main approximately 350 feet west of the site, located under Castle Creek Road. The neighboring HHS building to the south of the site is currently served by a six-inch PVC service that it shares with the neighbor to the east. There is no information on the condition of this existing service. 3.2 Proposed An extension of the sanitary sewer main under Castle Creek Road up Hospital Loop Road to the proposed site is recommended. A new six-inch SDR 35 sewer tap would then be made into the new main. The service from the HHS building would also connect to this extension. The other alternative would be to install a new six-inch sewer service down to the existing main under Castle Creek Road, however RFE does not recommend extending a service line for such a distance. 4.0 Electric 4.1 Existing Electric lines connecting to a vault to the west currently cut through the site. Multiple lines feed street lights and infrastructure around the walkways and parking. A transformer for the HHS building to the south is located just to the south of the building site, and the electric lines connecting to it also cut through the proposed building location. 4.2 Proposed The existing transformer located next to the HHS building will be relocated next to the new structure, and the electrical service will be connected from this location. The electric lines tied to the transformer will have to be relocated around the proposed structure. Electric lines through the building site will also have to be relocated into Hospital Loop Road. Electric lines around the site will have to be A will serve letter from Holly Cross is attached in Appendix A. 5.0 Gas 5.1 Existing Black Hills Energy owns and operates a gas main within Hospital Loop Road. The survey has located the gas line to be south of the right of way and within the construction limits of the proposed updates. This utility has not been potholed to verify size but will be prior to final design. 5.2 Proposed The gas line will be relocated into the right of way of Hospital Loop Road and a service connection will connect into the proposed structure. P105 VI.B. Ambulance Facility Preliminary Engineering Report 6.0 Communications 6.1 Existing Cable and telephone pedestals are located next to the location west of the site. There are no currently known communications services to the site. Communication lines are located within the site of the facility. 6.2 Proposed Cable and telephone service will be connected to the existing pedestals west of the site. The communication lines through the site will be relocated in a common utility trench with the gas line in the Hospital Loop Road right of way and away from the proposed building. P106 VI.B. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WAS PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) FOR ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, A COLORADO SPECIAL DISTRICT AND STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY. I FURTHERMORE STATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE, NOVEMBER 24, 2015, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES, EXCEPT AS INDICATED, AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT AS NOTED. I FURTHERMORE STATE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR IN PLACE. ______________________________________ MARK S. BECKLER L.S. #28643 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT 1, PARCEL A, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION ACCORDING THE AMENDED PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JULY 25, 1991 IN PLAT BOOK 27 AT PAGE 6 AS RECEPTION NO. 34489. COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 12/8/2015 - GRK #12060.18 - G:\2012\12060.18\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\ISP NO POINTS!\12060 ISP.dwg VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 2000' IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF: LOT 1, PARCEL A, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION SITUATED WITHIN THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 12 & NW1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. SHEET 1 OF 3 SOURCE DOCUMENTS: x PLAT-LOT 1 AND LOT 2 OF PARCEL "A" OF THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION (PLAT BOOK 27 PAGE 6) x PLAT-ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION (PLAT BOOK 23 PAGE 34) x PLAT-FIRST AMENDED PLAT OF PARCEL C, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION/P.U.D. (PLAT BOOK 106 PAGE 28) ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS-UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. NOTES 1) DATE OF FIELD WORK: AUGUST 13 AND SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 AND NOVEMBER 12, 13 AND 24, 2015. 2) DATE OF PREPARATION: AUGUST - SEPTEMBER, 2013 AND NOVEMBER DECEMBER, 2015 3) LINEAR UNITS: THE LINEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT IS THE U.S. SURVEY FOOT AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.  %$6,62)%($5,1*$%($5,1*2)1ƒ (%(7:((17+(6287+:(67&251(52)6(&7,2172:16+,36287+ RANGE 85 WEST, MONUMENTED BY A 1978 BLM BRASS CAP AND THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 12 TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST MONUMENTED BY A 1954 BLM BRASS CAP. 5) THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, SE RELIED UPON THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY STEWART TITLE - ASPEN., FILE NO. 01330-70665 AMENDMENT NO. C2, EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 20, 2015, AND DOCUMENTS AND PLATS OF RECORD AS SHOWN IN THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS, HEREON. 6) ADDRESS: 405 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, ASPEN 7) PITKIN COUNTY PARCEL NO. 2735-123-007-802 8) THE FOLLOWING NOTES HAVE BEEN TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE PLAT OF LOT 1 AND LOT 2 OF PARCEL "A" OF THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION, RECORDED JULY 25, 1991 IN PLAT BOOK 27 AT PAGE 6 AS RECEPTION NO. 34489: A."ALL SIDEWALKS, STREETS, ROADS AND PARKING AREAS CONTAINED WITHIN LOT 1 OF PARCEL "A" OF THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION ARE HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE PERPETUAL USE OF THE PUBLIC." B."AN EASEMENT EXISTS ACROSS THE REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT ("DISTRICT") FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASPEN/SNOWMASS NORDIC COUNCIL. THE EASEMENT MAY LIE ACROSS LOT 1 OR LOT 2 OF PARCEL "A" OF THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION, OR IT MAY LIE ACROSS OTHER PARTS OF THE REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DISTRICT. THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE EASEMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED ON A YEARLY BASIS, BY NO LATER THAN AUGUST 1 OF THE YEAR, UPON AGREEMENT BY THE DISTRICT, PITKIN COUNTY AND THE ASPEN/SNOWMASS NORDIC COUNCIL." CLERK & RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE FOR INFORMATIONAL LAND SURVEY PLATS DEPOSITED THIS _____ DAY OF _______________, 20__, AT________M., IN THE PITKIN COUNTY INDEX FOR INFORMATIONAL LAND SURVEY PLATS UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER ____________________. DATE:____________________________________ FILING INFORMATION: SECTIONS 12 & 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST, THE 6TH P.M.EϬϬΣϭϱΖϯϯΗ^/^K&Z/E'P107VI.B. 20' WIDE WATER LINE EASEMENT REC. NO. 321414, CENTERED UPON EXISTING WATER LINE AS DOC. INTENDS 10' WIDE EASEMENT FOR AS CONSTRUCTED POWER LINE FIELD LOCATED POWER LINE USED FOR PLACEMENT REC. NO. 341273 EϳϭΣϬ ϬΖ Ϭ Ϭ Η  ϱ Ϯ ϭ͘ Ϯ ϲΖ 10' WIDE EASEMENT FOR AS CONSTRUCTED POWER LINE FIELD LOCATED POWER LINE ON APRIL 21, 2006 USED FOR PLACEMENT REC. NO. 341273 426.27'125.49'40.00' 55.00'63.97'^ϰϳΣϬϲΖϯϱΗtϮϯϯ͘ϬϮΖ^ϮϭΣϮϯ Ζ ϬϬΗ        ϭϭϳ ͘Ϭϳ Ζ PARCEL C PLAT BOOK 106 PAGE 29 Eϲϲ Σ  ϭ ϵ Ζ  Ϭ Ϭ Η t         Ϯ ϯ ϳ ͘ ϴ ϯ Ζ ^ϮϯΣϰϭΖϬϬΗtϮϬϯ͘ϵϭΖRIGHT-OF-WAY DOOLITLE DRIVEPLAT BOOK 23 PAGE 3443.56'LOT 2, PARCEL A PLAT BOOK 27 PAGE 6 LOT 10 TWIN RIDGE SUBDIVISION PLAT BOOK 25 PAGE 41 TRACT F (RIGHT-OF-WAY) PLAT BOOK 95 PAGE 65 24' ROAD EASEMENT BOOK 304 PAGE 723 GRANTED BY PITKIN COUNTY TO ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 20' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT BOOK 617 PAGE 465 & PAGE 466 REC. NO. 321447 FOUND NO. 5 REBAR W/ALUMINUM CAP, L.S. 20632 Z^^ϮϵΣϱϱΖϮϮΗ͕ϳ͘ϰΖ 20' WIDE STRIP OF LAND DEEDED TO ROARING FORK ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER COMPANY BOOK 115 PAGE 65 LOT 9 TWIN RIDGE SUBDIVISION PLAT BOOK 25 PAGE 41 FOUND NO. 5 REBAR W/ALUMINUM CAP ILLEGIBLE 20' UTILITY EASEMENT PLAT BOOK 25 PAGE 41 35' SKI TRAIL EASEMENT PLAT BOOK 25 PAGE 41 LOT 14 (TOWNHOUSE PARCEL) TWIN RIDGE SUBDIVISION PLAT BOOK 25 PAGE 41EϭϵΣϬϬΖϬϬΗtϭϵϵ͘ϰϵΖSET NO. 5 REBAR W/PLASTIC CAP, L.S. 28643 1.5' WITNESS CORNER SET NO. 5 REBAR W/PLASTIC CAP, L.S. 28643 SET NO. 5 REBAR W/PLASTIC CAP L.S. 28643 SET NO. 5 REBAR W/PLASTIC CAP, L.S. 28643 30' WITNESS CORNER 10' WATER EASEMENT BOOK 218 PAGE 385 NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 12/8/2015 - GRK #12060.18 - G:\2012\12060.18\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\ISP NO POINTS!\12060 ISP.dwg 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 040 40 80 40 12020 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF: LOT 1, PARCEL A, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION SITUATED WITHIN THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 12 & NW1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. SHEET 2 OF 3 U.S. SURVEY FEET "RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF ASPEN" PLAT BOOK 27 PAGE 6. ACCESS & PARKING EASEMENT SCANNED FROM PLAT BOOK 27 PAGE 6. ENVELOPE NOT DIMENSIONED ON RECORD PLAT. POSITIONED PER PLAT'S GRAPHIC RELATIONSHIP TO BUILDING ENVELOPE. BUILDING ENVELOPE SCANNED FROM PLAT BOOK 27 PAGE 6. ENVELOPE NOT DIMENSIONED ON RECORD PLAT. POSITIONED PER PLAT'S GRAPHIC RELATIONSHIP TO BUILDING. ACCESS AGREEMENT GRANTED BY THE B.O.C.C. OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT BOOK 420 PAGE 552.P108VI.B. NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 12/8/2015 - GRK #12060.18 - G:\2012\12060.18\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\ISP NO POINTS!\12060 ISP.dwg SEWER MANHOLE MAIL BOX GUY WIRE SIGN LIGHT POLE POWER POLE IRRIGATION VALVE WIRE FENCE WOODEN FENCE GAS METER SEWER MANHOLE WATER HYDRANT WATER VALVE CURB STOP SEWER CLEANOUT ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER ELECTRIC PEDESTAL OR METER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL CATV PEDESTAL EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND UTILITY MANHOLE TELEPHONE MANHOLE DRYWELL WATER MANHOLE ELECTRIC MANHOLE 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 8010 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF: LOT 1, PARCEL A, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION SITUATED WITHIN THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 12 & NW1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. SHEET 3 OF 3 MONUMENT LEGEND CITY OF ASPEN SURVEY CONTROL PT. INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT-L.S. 9184 INDICATES SET MONUMENT-L.S. 28643 U.S. SURVEY FEET STOP SIGN STORM INLET UTILITY MARKING LEGEND (LOCATED APRIL 10 & 21, 2006) 6''W 6''WP109 VI.B. Aspen Ambulance District 2017 FTE Count Current 2017 FTE Count Aspen Ambulance District Director 1.00 Supervisor 2.40 Staff Paramedic/ EMT 10.56 13.96 Note: FTE associated with existing building and proposed project are the same. No additional staff is anticipated. P110 VI.B. P111 VI.B. 437 Main St. Grand Junction, CO 81501 970.242.6804 725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1 Rapid City, SD 57701 605.355.6804 11/01/2017 PITKIN COUNTY AMBULANCE FACILITY SITE P112 VI.B. 437 Main St. Grand Junction, CO 81501 970.242.6804 725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1 Rapid City, SD 57701 605.355.6804 11/01/2017 PITKIN COUNTY AMBULANCE FACILITY SITE P113 VI.B. P114 VI.B. MAIN FLOOR100' - 0"ROOF PLAN130' - 0"UPPER LEVEL116' - 0"ABCDEGHIJ1A5012A5011A5021A602FMAIN FLOOR FINISH100' - 0 1/4"11' - 7 1/2"4' - 4 1/4"3' - 4"8' - 2 3/4"106107108109110111101AFEGHIJKLDMA3' - 2"3' - 10"7' - 0"2' - 10 25/64"EGRESSEGRESSCMU BLOCKMETAL; TYPE 2LOUVERED VENTS; NON-VENTED AREAS WITH GRILLS TO MATCHCMU BLOCKWINDOWS; SEE SCHEDULEGARAGE DOORS; SEE SCHED.METAL; TYPE 1METAL; T YPE 111' - 11 3/4"4' - 0"LOUVERED VENTSMAIN FLOOR100' - 0"ROOF PLAN130' - 0"UPPER LEVEL116' - 0"ABCDEGHIJ1A5012A5011A5021A602F9' - 9"PCPR104B105STUX303C303BVWMETAL; TYPE 1WINDOWS; SEE SCHEDULEMETAL; TYPE 2CMU BLOCKMETAL; TYPE 1RAILING; TBDCMU BLOCKROOF MEMBRANESITE WALL; SEE LAND.SITE WALL; SEE LAND.FINISH GRADEDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET NO:PROJECT NO:DATE:CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS437 Main St.Grand Junction, Colorado 81501T 970.242.6804725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1Rapid City, South Dakota 57701T 605.355.6804www.chamberlinarchitects.comE N H A N C I N G E V E R Y D A Y L I V I N G T H R O U G H D E S I G NC 2016 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTSBIM 360://1740 - Pitkin County Ambulance Facility/1740-PCAF_CLOUD.rvt1/30/2018 9:59:29 AMA20101/17/20181740CASTLE CREEK ROADASPEN, COLORADOEXTERIORELEVATIONSPROJECT STATUS: 100% DDSHCheckerASPENAMBULANCEDISTRICT FACILITY0'4'8'0'4'8'A201NORTH10'4'8'0'4'8'A201SOUTH2NO: ISSUED FOR: DATE: P115 VI.B. MAIN FLOOR100' - 0"ROOF PLAN130' - 0"UPPER LEVEL116' - 0"12456732A602MAIN FLOOR FINISH100' - 0 1/4"8' - 2 3/4"3' - 4"BONQMETAL, TYPE 1CMU BLOCKWINDOWS; SEE SCHEDULEMETAL, TYPE 2GUARD RAILMETAL, TYPE 1SOFFIT; WOOD TYPE 1MAIN FLOOR100' - 0"ROOF PLAN130' - 0"UPPER LEVEL116' - 0"12456732A602MAIN FLOOR FINISH100' - 0 1/4"4' - 0"3' - 0"YZAAEGRESSEGRESSEGRESSMETAL; TYPE 1RAILING; TBDSITE WALL; SEE LAND.METAL; TYPE 2CMU BLOCKFINISH GRADEDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET NO:PROJECT NO:DATE:CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS437 Main St.Grand Junction, Colorado 81501T 970.242.6804725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1Rapid City, South Dakota 57701T 605.355.6804www.chamberlinarchitects.comE N H A N C I N G E V E R Y D A Y L I V I N G T H R O U G H D E S I G NC 2016 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTSBIM 360://1740 - Pitkin County Ambulance Facility/1740-PCAF_CLOUD.rvt1/30/2018 9:59:33 AMA20201/17/20181740CASTLE CREEK ROADASPEN, COLORADOEXTERIORELEVATIONSPROJECT STATUS: 100% DDAuthorCheckerASPENAMBULANCEDISTRICT FACILITYNO: ISSUED FOR: DATE:0'4'8'0'4'8'A202EAST10'4'8'0'4'8'A202WEST2P116 VI.B. P117 VI.B. UP..UPMAIN FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA: 6,923 SF UPPER LEVEL AREA: 6032 SFOPEN TO BELOW 248 sfDECK AREA 1031 SFAREA 6032- OPEN TO BELOW AREA 248BUILDING AREA 5784 sfDECK AREA 1031 sf exemptLOWER LEVEL 6923 sf12,707 SF FAR TOTAL DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET NO:PROJECT NO:DATE:CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS437 Main St.Grand Junction, Colorado 81501T 970.242.6804725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1Rapid City, South Dakota 57701T 605.355.6804www.chamberlinarchitects.comE N H A N C I N G E V E R Y D A Y L I V I N G T H R O U G H D E S I G NC 2016 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTSA360://1740 - Pitkin County Ambulance Facility/1740-PCAF_CLOUD.rvt2/26/2018 12:51:59 PMA00402/16/20181740CASTLE CREEK ROADASPEN, COLORADOFAR CALCULATIONPROJECT STATUS: 50% CD(DRAFT)AuthorCheckerASPENAMBULANCEDISTRICT FACILITYNO: ISSUED FOR: DATE:0'4'8'0'4'8'A004GROUND LEVEL FLOOR - FAR PLAN10'4'8'0'4'8'A004UPPER LEVEL - FAR PLAN2P118 VI.B. 8121 SFArea8233 SFAreaAIR LOCK 123 SF 100 SF EXEMPTENTRY ROOF BELOW EXEMPTENTRY ROOF BELOW EXEMPTWEST ELEVATION ~ ffe 8019SOUTH ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONupper flr~ ffe 8031upper flr~ ffe 8031upper flr~ ffe 80319' - 0"100' - 2 31/32"total wall 999 sf exposed wall 148 sftotal wall 902 sf exposed wall 782 sftotal wall 966 sf exposed wall 966 sfNORTH ELEVATIONtotal wall 905 sf exposed wall 796 sfexposed wall calculationN 905 966E 966 966S 902 782W 999 148TOTAL 3772 2862 75.87%FAR CALCULATIONMAIN LEVEL 8121 sf x 75.87% = 6161.4 sfair lock -100 sf 6061 sfUPPER LEVEL 8233 SFexterior stairs exempt total 14,394.4 sf437 Main St.Grand Junction, CO 81501970.242.6804725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1Rapid City, SD 57701605.355.6804Issue DateProject Name HHS BUILDING - AREASP119 VI.B. X X X X DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: PROJECT NO: DATE:C 2016 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTSNO:ISSUED FOR:DATE:P:\2017\44 - Pitkin Ambulance Facility\04-DWG\04-Sheetset\SS-AADF HHS Parking.dwg2/1/2018 4:25 PM592 HIGHWAY 133 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 PH 970.340.4130 F 866.876.5873 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS 437 Main St. Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 T 970.242.6804 725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1 Rapid City, South Dakota 57701 T 605.355.6804 www.chamberlinarchitects.com E N H A N C I N G E V E R Y D A Y L I V I N G T H R O U G H D E S I G N AADF HHS PARKING LOT CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, COLORADO LEGEND PROJECT STATUS: SD SWW RBG C-0012017-44 01/31/2018 ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############P120VI.B. 12.7' X 2 6 " DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: PROJECT NO: DATE:C 2016 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTSNO:ISSUED FOR:DATE:P:\2017\44 - Pitkin Ambulance Facility\04-DWG\04-Sheetset\SS-AADF HHS Parking.dwg1/31/2018 4:16 PM592 HIGHWAY 133 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 PH 970.340.4130 F 866.876.5873 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS 437 Main St. Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 T 970.242.6804 725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1 Rapid City, South Dakota 57701 T 605.355.6804 www.chamberlinarchitects.com E N H A N C I N G E V E R Y D A Y L I V I N G T H R O U G H D E S I G N AADF HHS PARKING LOT CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, COLORADO PARKING LOT DEMO PLAN PROJECT STATUS: SD SWW RBG C-1012017-44 01/31/2018 ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############P121VI.B. compact compact compact compact compact compact compact compact compact compact compact WRONGWAYWRONGWAYDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: PROJECT NO: DATE:C 2016 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTSNO:ISSUED FOR:DATE:P:\2017\44 - Pitkin Ambulance Facility\04-DWG\04-Sheetset\SS-AADF HHS Parking.dwg1/31/2018 4:16 PM592 HIGHWAY 133 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 PH 970.340.4130 F 866.876.5873 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS 437 Main St. Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 T 970.242.6804 725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1 Rapid City, South Dakota 57701 T 605.355.6804 www.chamberlinarchitects.com E N H A N C I N G E V E R Y D A Y L I V I N G T H R O U G H D E S I G N AADF HHS PARKING LOT CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, COLORADO PARKING LOT LAYOUT PROJECT STATUS: SD SWW RBG C-1022017-44 01/31/2018 ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############P122VI.B. 12.7' X 2 6 " compact compact compact compact compact compact compact compact compact compact compact DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: PROJECT NO: DATE:C 2016 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTSNO:ISSUED FOR:DATE:P:\2017\44 - Pitkin Ambulance Facility\04-DWG\04-Sheetset\SS-AADF HHS Parking.dwg1/31/2018 4:16 PM592 HIGHWAY 133 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 PH 970.340.4130 F 866.876.5873 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS 437 Main St. Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 T 970.242.6804 725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1 Rapid City, South Dakota 57701 T 605.355.6804 www.chamberlinarchitects.com E N H A N C I N G E V E R Y D A Y L I V I N G T H R O U G H D E S I G N AADF HHS PARKING LOT CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, COLORADO BUS TURNING AND SNOW STORAGE PROJECT STATUS: SD SWW RBG C-1032017-44 01/31/2018 ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############ ############P123VI.B. P124 VI.B. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director City of Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 405 Castle Creek Road Public Project Aspen Ambulance District Facility (AADF) Dear Jennifer, Please see below and attached our responses to the three missing submission items identified in your letter dated January 4, 2018 determining that the Land Use Application for the above- referenced project is incomplete. 1.A letter signed by the applicant, containing the applicant's name, address and telephone number and the name, address and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. The land owner is the applicant which is identified as the Aspen Valley Hospital District in the title report. Please submit a letter of consent from the district for the application. Response: See attached letter of consent (Exhibit A) from the Hospital District. 2.A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. The following items are needed to evaluate the application: a. b. c. Responses: a. Per Section 26.445.050 for Planned Developments, this project meets the following Project Review Standards. The underlying zone is Public (PUB), and therefore has no dimensional requirements. P125 VI.B. Aspen Ambulance District Facility – Planning Resubmittal February 12, 2018 Page 2 of 5 A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans The AADF is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Pitkin County is committed to this plan. By keeping the AADF as close as possible to its current location, this project maintains the goals of the AACP while improving this critical public facility. B. Development Suitability The AADF is being developed in the current employee parking lot of the County’s HHS building, immediately opposite the Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH). The site is largely flat and already developed, so it is very suitable for this development. C. Site Planning The AADF site plan responds to its context. It is built into the side of the hill behind the parking lot, tucking the building out of the line of sight for the neighbors. The building’s colors are dark and unobtrusive and the materials relate to the Hospital. The cut slope behind HHS will receive plantings due to this project, thereby restoring the context closer to its natural state. The development of this site will not adversely affect any historic, visual, or cultural identity. The AADF is oriented towards the adjacent Hospital Loop Road. D. Dimensions When the HHS building was developed in 1991, a Planned Development (PD) was established. The dimensional requirements for this PD are recorded on the Plat on Page 6, Book 27. All of these existing requirements are met with the AADF with the exception of the building height. The existing PD requirement of 28’ is exceeded in the proposed AADF, which is planned to be 33’ at its highest point. The reasons for this taller building include the high clearance required for the first floor to house the ambulances and sloping the roof for both rooftop photovoltaics (PV) and to make the architecture less boxy. The AADF will be lower than the adjacent HHS building, but the scale and massing are compatible with both HHS and AVH. Off-street parking will be increased from the current 57 to approximately 66 by redeveloping the HHS parking lot. E. Design Standards The AADF has been designed to be very compatible with the context and visual character of the area. There have been four public meetings to gain input from neighbors. The public’s preferred design option was selected at Meeting 2 and developed and re-presented back to the public at Meetings 3 and 4. The design was modified to reduce the overall building height. Proposed exterior materials are similar to what is used at the AVH – concrete block, metal panels, aluminum windows and wood accents. F. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities RFTA maintains a bus stop immediately east of the HHS parking lot. This transit facility reduces a significant amount of the vehicular P126 VI.B. Aspen Ambulance District Facility – Planning Resubmittal February 12, 2018 Page 3 of 5 traffic to both HHS and AVH. Very little traffic is expected to be coming to the AADF. No new curb cuts will be created. G. Engineering Design Standards The design of the proposed AADF will comply with applicable Engineering Design Standards as feasible. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities The proposed AADF will improve the existing infrastructure of the HHS building (sewer) and re-route some other utilities that are currently serving HHS. Other public infrastructure will be tapped as necessary to serve the new project. I. Access and Circulation The proposed development will have access to the Hospital Loop Road, just as the existing Ambulance Barn does now. An access gate is being considered for the HHS parking lot, which would be free for use with the validation of your ticket by personnel in either the HHS or AADF buildings. In addition, per Section 26.445.070, this project meets the following Detailed Review Standards: A. Compliance with Project Review Approval The project complies with the Project Review. B. Growth Management Growth Management criteria were addressed in the submitted letter dated December 27, 2017. Please note that a formal request was made to waive affordable housing mitigation requirements and the County’s rationale was presented. The Aspen Ambulance District’s FTE count was also included in the submittal. No additional personnel will be hired due to this project. C. Site Planning and Landscape Architecture The site plan and landscape plan for the AADF have been developed in compliance with the goals of this Section. The exterior spaces on the south side of the AADF will be developed to improve existing conditions at the HHS building, such as making the ramp to Detox accessible with a smooth, hard surface and handrails. Existing vegetation will be maintained as much as possible, and many new trees will be planted. At-grade doors will be provided at three building corners. Roofs will not shed snow, they will have internal drains that convey precipitation to the storm sewer system. Exterior lighting will be minimized and sensitive to glare and dark sky requirements. D. Design Standards and Architecture The project architecture provides for visual interest in a modern way, while using high-quality and appropriate materials. Rooftop PV panels will match the slope of the roof itself, and not protrude or be visible from the street. Entrances and lighting comply with criteria as indicated above. P127 VI.B. Aspen Ambulance District Facility – Planning Resubmittal February 12, 2018 Page 4 of 5 E. Common Parks, Open Space, Recreation Areas, or Facilities This project does not include open spaces, recreation areas or common facilities. F. Pedestrian, Bicycle & Transit Facilities RFTA maintains a bus stop immediately east of the HHS parking lot. This transit facility reduces a significant amount of the vehicular traffic to both HHS and AVH. Very little traffic is expected to be coming to the AADF. No new curb cuts will be created. G. Engineering Design Standards The design of the proposed AADF will comply with applicable Engineering Design Standards as feasible. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities The proposed AADF will improve the existing infrastructure of the HHS building (sewer) and re-route some other utilities that are currently serving HHS. Other public infrastructure will be tapped as necessary to serve the new project. I. Phasing of Development Plan The AADF will be constructed in one continuous effort, starting in mid-2018 and wrapping up in late 2018 or early 2019. b. Under the Special Review standards of Section 26.515.080 for parking impacts, the Ambulance Facility meets the criteria as follows: 1) The transportation, mobility and off-street parking needs of the guests and employees have been met and, in fact, will be improved under this development. The project proposes to increase parking from 57 off- street spaces to approximately 66 spaces by re-organizing the existing HHS parking lot. a) Given the HHS and Ambulance Facility, there are no other potential uses of the parcel. b) Since the Ambulance Facility is currently immediately adjacent to this site, no new traffic patterns will be generated. c) Parking is already being shared by HHS, the Hospital, and the Ambulance District and will continue to be shared, allowing the load to be shared. d) Parking demands currently peak in the HHS lot when it is being used by people who have no business at HHS, such as skiers and students who are using the lot for convenience. Increased enforcement is currently underway to alleviate this condition. e) There is currently no on-street parking in the neighborhood, so there will be no impacts to on-street parking. f) RFTA has a bus stop just east of the HHS parking lot, helping to reduce the parking needs in this area. 2) The area that is available for development on this parcel is used up by the AADF, so there is no room for additional on-site parking. 3) Existing Hospital parking adequately serves the needs of the Ambulance Facility and will continue to do so. P128 VI.B. Aspen Ambulance District Facility – Planning Resubmittal February 12, 2018 Page 5 of 5 c. Growth Management criteria were addressed in the submitted letter dated December 27, 2017. Please note that a formal request was made to waive affordable housing mitigation requirements and the County’s rationale was presented. The Aspen Ambulance District’s FTE count was also included in the submittal. No additional personnel will be hired due to this project. 3.Additional materials, documentation or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. The following items are needed to evaluate the application: a. b. c. d. Responses: Building Height: See attached Sheet A201 Exterior Elevations (Exhibit B) Setbacks: See attached Existing Conditions, showing a 10’ setback on all sides and also the dimensions from property lines to the proposed building (Exhibit C). Floor Area: See originally submitted Sheet A002 for a graphic depiction of the Floor Area. Parking: See attached: AADF HHS Parking Lot Drawings C-001, C-101, C-102 and C-103, for the proposed parking layout (Exhibit D). b. See attached Sheet EP01, Point to Point Lighting Plan (Exhibit E). c. See attached Sheet A201, Exterior Elevations (Exhibit B). d. See attached Excel spreadsheet for TIA (Exhibit F). P129 VI.B. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director City of Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 March 5, 2018 RE: 405 Castle Creek Road Public Project Aspen Ambulance District Facility (AADF) Resubmittal #2 Dear Jennifer, Please see below and attached our responses to the missing submission items identified in your letter dated February 16, 2018 determining that the Land Use Application for the above- referenced project is incomplete. 1.A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application.  Response: A. Sufficient Allotments Response: As an essential public facility, the AADF is eligible for an unlimited GMQS allotment per paragraph 26.470.030.D B. Development Conformance Response: The AADF complies with the limitations of the GMQS Title, the Public zone district, and all of the PD criteria that apply to Lot 1, Parcel A of the Aspen Valley Hospital Subdivision as shown on the 1991 recorded plat except for building height. We are proposing to increase the dimensional requirement for the property from 28 feet to 33 feet. The reasons for this taller building include the high clearance required for the first P130 VI.B. Aspen Ambulance District Facility – Planning Resubmittal March 5, 2018 Page 2 of 3 floor to house the ambulances and sloping the roof for both rooftop photovoltaics (PV) and to make the architecture less boxy. The AADF will be lower than the adjacent HHS building, but the scale and massing are compatible with both HHS and AVH. C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities Response: Public infrastructure adjacent to the project - including power (Holy Cross), gas (Black Hills Energy), sewer, and communications (Comcast, Century Link and City of Aspen) lines - will be re-routed to serve the Pitkin County HHS Building. A new sewer line will run out to the sewer main in Castle Creek Road. This new sewer line will serve both the AADF and the HHS buildings, replacing the existing HHS building sewer line that is not functioning well. Justin Forman with the City of Aspen Engineering Department has been involved in ongoing conversations and meetings to coordinate this work. All of these improvements will be paid for by the County. D. Affordable Housing Mitigation Response: The AADF is an essential public facility, so Paragraph 6) applies, stating that mitigation is determined based on Section 26.470.110.D. See below for responses to criteria: 1) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility. Response: The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed project is an essential public facility by virtue of the Pre-Application Conference Summary dated September 12, 2017. 2) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine the number of employees generated by the essential public facility pursuant to Section 26.470.050.C, Employee generation review. Response: The primary goal of this project is to adequately meet the current needs of the Ambulance District, not create space for additional employees. No new employees are being hired as a result of this project. Rather, existing employees will simply be shifted a few hundred feet down the road to the new facility. 3) 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. P131 VI.B. Aspen Ambulance District Facility – Planning Resubmittal March 5, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Response: Pitkin County formally requests the waiving of all affordable housing mitigation requirements for the Ambulance Facility project. This is not to say that Pitkin County does not support the effort to provide affordable housing. The opposite is true and this commitment is shown in other ways. Pitkin County has been a partner in APCHA since in its inception and will continue to do so. In addition, the County has in the past and will continue to develop affordable housing projects and provide land for AH projects as opportunities present themselves. Representing the County's commitment to affordable housing is the fact that the county continues to purchase existing units in order to house county employees. Moving forward, the County has pledged 50% of its AH funds to supply housing to County employees in addition to housing for the work force at large under APCHA authority. 2.Additional materials, documentation or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director.  Response: See attached FAR calculations, Roof Height and Area and building areas including both the HHS and AADF buildings, provided by Studio B, to comply with the Land Use Code requirements.  Response: We expect to be able to provide this draft plat to you within the next week or so. Sopris Engineering is in the process of determining exactly what is required. We are amenable to conditional acceptance of this application, pending a final acceptance of the draft plat, in order to begin the 60 day review process as soon as possible. P132 VI.B. P133VI.B. 12.7'X26"N71° 00 ' 00 "E 521 .26 ' S4 7 ° 0 6 ' 3 5 " W 2 3 3 . 0 2 'S21° 23' 00"E 117.07'N66° 19' 00"W 237.83'S23° 4 1 ' 0 0 " W 2 0 3 . 9 1 ' N19° 00' 00"W 199.49'N71° 00 ' 00 "E 521 .26 ' S4 7 ° 0 6 ' 3 5 " W 2 3 3 . 0 2 'S21° 23' 00"E 117.07'N66° 19' 00"W 237.83'S23° 4 1 ' 0 0 " W 2 0 3 . 9 1 ' N19° 00' 00"W 199.49'HOSPITAL LOOP ROADCASTLE CREEK ROADPARCEL CPLAT BOOK 106 PAGE 29TRACT F (RIGHT-OF-WAY)PLAT BOOK 95 PAGE 65DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET NO:PROJECT NO:DATE:C 2016 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS NO:ISSUED FOR:DATE:P:\2017\44 - Pitkin Ambulance Facility\04-DWG\04-Sheetset\SS-Aspen Ambulance Facility Existing Conditions.dwg 1/22/2018 10:40 AM 592 HIGHWAY 133Carbondale, Colorado 81623PH 970.340.4130F 866.876.5873CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS437 Main St.Grand Junction, Colorado 81501T 970.242.6804725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1Rapid City, South Dakota 57701T 605.355.6804www.chamberlinarchitects.comE N H A N C I N G E V E R Y D A Y L I V I N G T H R O U G H D E S I G NASPENAMBULANCEDISTRICT FACILITYCASTLE CREEK RDASPEN, COLORADOEXISTINGCONDITIONSPROJECT STATUS: 100% DDSWWRBGC-1012017-4401/22/2018                        P134VI.B. 12.7'X26"IVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVCASTLE CREEK ROADHOSPITAL LOOP ROADPROPOSEDASPEN AMBULANCEDISTR ICT FAC IL ITY DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET NO:PROJECT NO:DATE:C 2016 CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS NO:ISSUED FOR:DATE:P:\2017\44 - Pitkin Ambulance Facility\04-DWG\07-Exhibits\AADF Building Distances.dwg 2/12/2018 11:18 AM 592 HIGHWAY 133Carbondale, Colorado 81623PH 970.340.4130F 866.876.5873CHAMBERLIN ARCHITECTS437 Main St.Grand Junction, Colorado 81501T 970.242.6804725 Saint Joseph St., Suite B1Rapid City, South Dakota 57701T 605.355.6804www.chamberlinarchitects.comE N H A N C I N G E V E R Y D A Y L I V I N G T H R O U G H D E S I G NASPENAMBULANCEDISTRICT FACILITYCASTLE CREEK RDASPEN, COLORADOBUILDINGLOCATIONPROJECT STATUS:SWWRGBC-1012017-4402/12/2018                        P135VI.B. = input= calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Major Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Essential Public Facility (sf)12435.0 sf 6.63 4.06 10.69 8.26 12.39 20.64 6.63 4.06 10.69 8.26 12.39 20.64 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 405 Castle Creek Road Aspen Ambulance District Facility Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. Rich Englehart, Pitkin County Trip Generation 2/11/2018 Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center" category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings" category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be reduced put a negative number of units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense for Minor Development - Inside the Roundabout Major Development - Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions P136 VI.B. = input = calculation 21 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. No 0 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. Yes 5 5 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. Yes 5 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0 5 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 10Pedestrian Total* MMLOS Input Page Subtotal SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsP137 VI.B. Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?No 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?No 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 0 Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5 5 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?Yes 3 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?Yes 3 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0 6 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?No 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0 0 6 Bicycles Total* Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal P138 VI.B. Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? What is the company size? What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?No What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?No What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?No What is the extent of access improvements? Within Project Only 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented?No How many employee memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees are eligble? Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?No How many memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? What is the employer size? Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?No What percentage of employees/guests are eligible? 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% TDM Input Page 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions 11 12 13 14 15 21 16 17 18 19 20 Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. P139 VI.B. DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 20.6 21 0.00 21.00 0.00 A minimum of five TDM measures must be utilized for major projects. Please return to Sheet "3. TDM" and select a minimum of five measures. Rich Englehart, Pitkin County Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 2/11/2018 Aspen Ambulance District Facility 405 Castle Creek Road Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. The new Aspen Ambulance District Facility will be 12,435 gsf on two levels above grade. The ground floor is a total of 7,000, primarily occupied by four (4) ambulance bays and two (2) first responder vehicles (totaling 3,462 sf). The remainder of the ground floor is occupied by storage for ambulance supplies, a decontamination room, and a fitness room. This floor level also has a lobby with direct access to a training room, restrooms and vertical circulation. On the second floor (5,435 sf), the Ambulance District has offices, bunk rooms and living quarters MMLOS Explain the proposed improved crosswalk and how this improvement benefits the pedestian experience and the site as a whole. An improved crosswalk includes measures such as incorporating a corner bulb out or defining a crosswalk path with colored concrete. Simply re-striping a crosswalk will not recieve credit. This measure must be pre-approved by City staff. Crosswalks will be improved in several locations. A new crosswalk with accessible curb ramps will connect the Hospital Loop Road to the HHS Building. Also, a new sidewalk and crosswalk will connect HHS to the RFTA bus stop on the south side of the HHS driveway. Both of these improvements will make pedestrians better able to get to the HHS building. Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improve pedestrian access to the site from the ROW. It includes adding additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing a street, improvements to the project's ADA ramps in the ROW, and improvements to existing access points. Sidewalks will be improved in several locations. A new sidewalks will connect the Hospital Loop Road to the HHS Building, where before the walk was interrupted by the employee parking lot entry. Also, a new sidewalk and crosswalk will connect HHS to the RFTA bus stop on the south side of the HHS driveway. Both of these improvements will make pedestrians better able to get to the HHS building. Describe the proposed seating/bench and the bench location for which existing bus stop. P140 VI.B. There will be a new bench at the top of the nordic trail, which leads to the existing bus stop. Explain the proposed transit system information (signage). A new post-mounted sign will be provided in the improved parking lot, directing people to the bus stop. Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. Enter Text Here TDM Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. Enter Text Here MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk Crosswalk Improvement(s) 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Bicycle Parking Bus Stop Seating/Bench Transit System Information Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. Enter Text Here Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. Enter Text Here Monitoring and Reporting Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. P141 VI.B. Enter Text Here P142 VI.B. TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson MEETING DATE: April 3, 2018 At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re- elected. Skippy has been elected Chair while appointment of a vice-chair was delayed until addition board members were added. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion “I move to make a recommendation to elect ____________, as chairperson and _______________as vice-chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2018.” P143 VII.A. RESOLUTION NO. __ Series of 2018 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice- chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership-Appointment, removal, terms and vacancies of the land use code; and WHEREAS, the term of each position is for one (1) year; and WHEREAS, the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson on January 16, 2018; and WHEREAS, _______________was elected chairperson and __________________was elected vice-chairperson; and WHEREAS, both positions shall expire on January 15, 2019; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado, by this resolution that _______________be appointed as chairperson and _________________be appointed as vice-chairperson. DATED: April ____, 2018 ________________________________________, Chair ATTEST:_____________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager P144 VII.A. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: k0 S G'A.5ke Creek R ooL d ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUUBBLIIC HEARING DATE: �i—@ &.3� 20L STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the.Cjyy of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: l/ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials; which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height." Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15)days prior to the-public hearing on the_ day of , 201 to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. libi sof-notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304:060(E)(2,) of the;Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing,notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the V,n,�: ;AtpropertyeisubjectIto the development application. The names and addresses of G�ts:�-11 jcpropet y1owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they ��, ,appeared=no;more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A osas t y_ f a copy of theowriers and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method ofpublic notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the , date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners.shall be those.on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs That create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and, new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or test amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. - Signatfire The foregoing$"Affidavit of Notice" was acknowle ged before me this /(a day of ktadric-& 20L.Cj,� by 4Y1 _q e__ a ,y NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEA MRE:4()5 Castle Creelt,Partial ' ` Palo,Cm ly MW alas FadMy . WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PU lc NmN TuasEay,A«13.2016;e;3o PM - MrWcL= :City Na0 Sister Citta Root 130 S.GeIme SL.Awn CO 616,1 Prokcl Looadon: 1. Castle Creek RmC,Legally M commission expires: oea«tal Lol 1. Perat.A T e A.�n vaaey Y P Hospital oorrico S t9an ion, 989.in b Ne Plat) at ag rU as ecepal 3D,1989,8l Piet Book 23 al Page 3x m RecepBm W.1991 in and Mere roam V.6 a rec«ded Juh 25,1991, Rel Book 2J at Popo 6 at Reception No 33x885,CityW As9en, C«mly al Ptdn,Slate al Coloretb. Legal°earl11 1x:P ml av Notary Public Dwscmad 9e P0dn C«mty Anlbutrlre FarLry. Land Use Review:Major Public Projed Review Oecttn MaMN9 Body: %rum, and ZonM o«"rci' t a reaanananaatlan to Asper Dry KAREN REED PATTERSON Appltanl:R:Sdn Cwmy,w Rim Ergtlen,coo, NOTARY PUBLIC Pain Carmly 123 Emma Rind.1108;Baca.CO e51621 mmrmadom F«taM«im«nettn mtletl ATTACI3-MENTS AS APPLICABLE STATE OF COLORADO to Ina Project avntct Ilea An0«son at ma coy a NOTARY ID#19964002767 ' Ayen cPn""akty DOve'op�n1 Ovpannem.Im s.IUBLICA TION My Commission E>Ly12s FebNafy 15,2020 Gabre SL,Alden,co MM (9J0)429ZrW,aaera I . anOaryot `°a SOF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) Pte6ana0 it,Ve Aspm T1rea on M«an 15.MI& 000020B018j WNERSAND GOVERNVMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL y • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: AF12-1 .. 3� , 2018 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, {LGV I r-J HC--AT4. (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: F�Er 1 Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official ex-' 11' paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. V Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the 3 day of VwA Gti, , 2018 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice(sitgn)ns,Wlac�rhe&hereio. 1`0 1""I3U7 v r.lr"a i Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice ottaiggdVlrorr3�t e, Cp. mmunjty Development Department, which contains the inft)+rriigfi'on''diesMbdd,chi;Scttibn 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. Ahleastlafteen`(.1�'):days ptipn�to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) tJ/n, Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt Y requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral-estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. S'gnature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged befire me this /S day of Aee4 120L, by &&,2 fteNf�j JEFFREY-M.BOWMAN WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL . NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My commission expires: /0 NOTARY ID 1120024030898 /67 R,C* mm"EViresO*W18,2018 Notar Pub is ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THEPUBLICA TION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 v 1g;u, �� J I �I il ��� 17/11 ♦ j' Cd> > �r}e 2 ; �•� :: 11 X �� ac►. ��•iii ��� �lH 1�•I�{'s'#.5.�4y lb+, � r L :� '1 I . � ii' ' F ' / b�f� 1 rI)Q��alr ►_a11, I � F � .: ��1 y � �. Y I `.(' .-rJ �JT _PAM V111 �/• ;���� ��! � IN.��a•\cpm. ori * . 1�5���`��� ,ry } S.\ Y. / yl t t N r�liiTd P\�i�t0't D'1rr� A �,,3 ��,,77flr'vaya�y` .i "�— Iae'��HeWdli\ �A �ar��ry0�'�y7 1 $+�fwls` Ii IC�y�,,, 3:, ��/ t: ..\.� q ��`�J - . �c�i N& \ ; .FrAL v���r. �^•jy� . it v � se"/r. 3�C'�'1�� � - _ �' lfC.'�•`�T t - +,(�.(�k%I ti 91 ig�.i�r �� -faJ�s� �� `01/P•• �C r tr r" o t� .}'(.rI �a, I• �. t t 1. �—-•.s �`` 1' \V� r c �.� � �• w �0 r . � �.. r f lrf i ot��Q•�` M',� A ��`4.��'�Sjt!��L,E.A�`-, � - >��Ynf. I j44ff�ft �'n� p , :� 7 1'�s tFt'r` �„•, �1 ��th - i-'� .l,�a\►�� .� � ¢r,�r+4 �1�ZLv'3�as rrgq�� c f - •I���G�4+ \ I �->� � a �� i Se' i r t iii:...r r ,F.rpv 'L�15 'il •Ti><gNl i,_,_ \I ll�k 1lt• �•� F' -t vu'f't+"r��., t S \ :.1 b { .. tl•. wi �.�•� j>''S'i�'.i r. t S•" � c� r I I £4� r :� � � 'u Tt�!11 ,�7 slt .eT••L Y '1~Y 14 � I �# i ' S-'ttFt - t `Y111`itr lh r ��rYh' ��VW r ••, -t� .E � l � i t9��1 -,��, lef !-� :.•"1' ad 1, A 1 `'i�4 .. ;f- � 1 AADF mailings Mailings sent to people within 300' I � I� THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 phone: (970)920-5090 fax: (970) 920.5439 www.citvofaspen.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: RE: 405 Castle Creek Road Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Public Hearing: April 3, 2018, 4:30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Sister Cities Room 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: 405 Castle Creek Road, Adjacent to Pitkin County Health and Human Services Building. Legal Description: Legally Described as: Lot 1, Parcel A, The Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded August 30, 1989, in Plat Book 23 at Page 34 as Reception No. 314687 and Amendment thereto recorded July 25, 1991 in Plat Book 27 at Page 6 as Reception No. 334895, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. PID # 2735-123-007-802 Description: The applicant proposes the replacement of the Pitkin County Ambulance Facility. Land Use Review: Major Public Project Review Decision Making Body: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; for recommendation to Aspen City Council Applicant: Pitkin County, c/o Rich Englehart, COO, Pitkin County 123 Emma Road, #106; Basalt, CO 81621 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429:2765, ben.anderson@cityofaspen.com of • � 00'AINOOO NIHlId l U� ONIZ133NI9N3 NMOd ONNNOL gd ` 7g� AlIl17Vj 3JNbll19WV.LLNl100 NIHl/d 3 AApp@@Fp rcF � p � EE6E : Sp � 6 � GYYs !`� F § d F g g gg gg gg gg 2 c p F t i F a a 6 ° ° e 6 G E y F � t tF t � FF i6i@ ? FI SE lil II � i� ! i PI ! ' i 1i � 11 X1 � ( oo ©QQoQQ �gAMan am \ \ � , . i ui x 6 � I t Q ' ai �Irtcas3ltg � e"� ,_ L ,= 5> a •gel= �.. � =ice a ), wx 1 03 CL Wti ^ - hx-t ci.,vUkti�eci � ,' /��i� CASTLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES LTD RINTOUL AMY V KRET LORI A&COLE JEFFREY M PO BOX 95 161 GROVE CT 262 GROVE CT STANN,MO 63074 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ANGUS CRAIG M&KAREN S LEE BRUCE LANDON TWIN RIDGE HOA PO BOX 7965 141 GROVE CT 363 GROVE CT ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 WALLA JOHN D&JEAN D ALL VALLEY WOMENS CARE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT PO BOX 161 0401 CASTLE CREEK RD#24008 0401 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 _ KIERNAN MARC WEIL KIM&BETSY SCHEINKMAN- HARDER DEBORAH H 161 GROVE CT 77 TWIN RIDGE OR 109 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 MACLEAN ARCHIBALD JR&ANNE RYMAN KAREN L HOOD JEFFREY M 90 TWIN RIDGE DR 343 GROVE CT 121 GROVE CT ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 MOREHEAD RONALD L&ERLINDA M TWIN RIDGE HOA HEGER FRANK&CARLA 128 TWINRIDGE CT 363 GROVE CT 222 GROVE CT ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611-3139 PROCHASKA JUDITH ELLEN TWIN RIDGE TOWNHOMES ASSOC POLOVIN DAVID L 108 TWIN RIDGE LN 121 GROVE CT PO BOX 4382 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 LAHR DANIEL&RACHEL CROSS SUSAN K GIBSONE ALEXANDER S 323 GROVE CT 242 GROVE CT 303 GROVE CT#9 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611-3139 ASPEN,CO 81611 LYONS MICHAEL J&JENNIFER C ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT MTN OAKS EMPLOYEE HSING 74 TWIN RIDGE DR 0401 CASTLE CREEK RD 200 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 MERRITT ROBERT C DARNAUER JEANETTE R WEISS CLIFFORD A&STACEY L 51 TWIN RIDGE DR 51 TWIN RIDGE DR 202 GROVE CT ASPEN,CO 81611-3131 ASPEN,CO 816113131 ASPEN,CO 81611 LOBO DA CUNHA MARINA G ONEIL DENNIS&SHARON 121 GROVE CT 101 GROVE CT ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611-3134 4,1 1�r��' i� ��.►y1�. I,i �'n�`V�ra_1C i t• r•t � � f '.{{A7T t _ i T: ,, ; "' J -.r'J.I �1t-� �ti4P..y c 4=z� � i• `�. i li. .� S - it i K �. t. / r•, a CT 1� F Iy fslf �� � ji} 5�)q ff' r y-T rt (y ,•r f •� , Q *i • . i Ji(� r�! 1,1jl Zr '1.y le/ S T' >r } r �l: 1 � 1 �/ �) i •�j �ey� YI o rft err tCi�`�' • i.y ~�? ! !!./� a 1`r + l+ r�9 e, Y !,/•. F � � .:1`+)^r r i•,-,�S�e 'r � .� �+ t�(� 1�i` '�2'1 �f'.r ; ;7 r i ( 'I ��� ✓ „�7�4�1 al. 'l fl r�'�ST1�l 1L •. 1 � r ... •� k ) `l �d� .�r ��c'' i 1.ir. r.•}ayt :.�-y :..J, v tl r.'•'.i� t. 1�('.''t n•�. 7 n w>r �`S' moi+•f�r �t�� �,'9pm}'�^ t t,:: .r I � ' J tirr��[[ �i�✓'-e�r������? Si r� l'� � F'.:,'1 ,irk 1 I � •a 4 t� kn 7y`.s..� �r�yj��9�,�^°sr � f r • .y i -.2�� r�`e'�� '. .i ., �� ,- ���' �4, <' is�"�i•: ti o 11 \ r �r'.,1 ` \� ,r a .�� � r_ � f•U'7�' l i•Y ,r ryJ r . y �VVV3 � .t ( fi_ 4 I 1 • #'h. ;. � •��1"'i.`-. ~�'2}�Pir'e �ry�j ��ir�.. ?� � Y fyrl ky`� I! ��tq�!'�v�,..; rim .•r. � � ) . ,, t? , �) Iv • 7 w`,l/1(�Sy�`r e�,i � � /.` .'•na rl `r .' O - 5 f`� •�/�1. p+rl'AvI AADF neighborhood outreach Public meeting held 10-10-17 Public presentation and comments from public ' � .�r � �•vt�.3Ci� hln Z � / �i a '� �.f•r� Citi t ) �� ��}7 fE,.a.R ta. y�✓1 : �ar07 'Z�t. � 1£'S `f 'nil r � l i{at/rt`i"�.•Pti.i—ii c- � / ��i.r � -,��1.�2��1 tl: ) 1. . }„ ', y,\ a r r., '�,/Fee" �`��♦- y`Z.f������i�� "y'��� \ { � � � $ Y�i 1'r'" �r !. k___..c.. / . r 54•• ,tis' .N e-.. ._�w n� t - sk . r 1 r � r Al V ;L#{4J� '{\..�tx'-�\• ��ir`"''� �< 1 j �-•''iyY�€:��,, ('4' ;�L�+1-s�S� ya�,�e��A� �y W`,1� �����. r:� g•\��`',{�'l`�1��. ' i� G��� , C -.�� `,.'Ca 1' y`a V © . I U D 1 0 01 • I � ( � �' � �� � g _�_ �.YMM..- � �Oil � � ,^ root vrew Ski \ Yf� rl,.i.. • �SrY•�•q� i #� <���i�'Y'n'S.tiC`e• � 7��\bh{, _ :f 7"�.Fxr ^� 16ad vi=w ' r: r 01 Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Design Concept 01 • 31'-6-approximate building height,lower than HHS • 35'high monitor roof over clerestory windows(monitor portion of the roof approximately matches the height of the HHS rooftop mechanical unit) Flat roof No rooftop mechanical units Active side faces north towards hospital West end second floor will have sleeping rooms with blackout shades • Vertical fins and roof overhang block light from second floor heading southwest • Nordic trail continues In front of building • Landscaping will be primarily on west and south of building Concrete block base with metal skin above Place dots here if you like Design Concept 01 Comments 02 �k ! ill 1"I III��I I I1 CIL .�II I►III�I� }I r6%,illll llll ti �11�7.\4'it �.`' y.,� r I SII II +nln Ii1I,�I li�.! �^�t tir�.T 7;'♦ "�yl I � ' 2 •-.�11p I I Miff " I r ` , .+im'1I ,;! T � r r 1. � � Iplltr p ll') �, �i7I;"�Si�.. ■ I ( t •�p`ri- r.�,zxe�[k�' iJ II M 11 .!,111,1 ■t ■ moo . _ '- �_L It .c' Gr :�. . I li vew y- .r -� ��C , 54� 'S�'�' �,`S•t.,rp ��y. ."III .II "E ��. +� ti '• ��tt � II I I 11 fII� �I I �1 IIT I I I �Qe7�?'I _ �� �'�� ,i�li ' Ili , I ''''� �—J� " �•4- �'c��_> 02 Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Design Concept 02 32'-6'approximate builtling height,lower than HHS flat roof no rooftop mechanical units active side faces north towards hospital west end second floor will have sleeping rooms with blackout shades shades and roof overhang used to block light from south-facing windows nordic trail continues in front of building landscaping will be primarily on west and south of building • metal enclosure with wood infill.concrete block base on the south Place dots here If you like Design Concept 02 Comments 03 ♦♦i - i � ,••471. . � J 1. t `�F�S"YJ I iI A c �, l� d )- l r n bon view _� E •c,Sq�rr '�£� f � t� dpi�tl =� �S.q� s+�i��H�y 32r �$kYt•�� l _ __ _ - - - - �i� ��� nl 71 3 '}� f Z ����.s� � -r�-'�`'--•--.—mac _ �•-�t,� � ��fti nlyi��- �i � s 7,�f.�•1-Pav 112Cf.=V12N� I' f 03 Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Design Concept 03 • 33'-8'approximate building height.lower than HHS 21/2'in 12'roof slope • no rooftop mechanical units active side faces north towards hospital west and second floor will have sleeping rooms with blackout shades horizontal fins and roof overhang block light from second floor heading southwest nordic trail continues In front of building landscaping will be primarily on west and south of building exposed wood structure,brick.and metal/woad screen Place dots here if you like Design Concept 03 Comments tir H . tA it WMA I i •.X ,aye\)'t ~s '�J, 'F-�y'` ;T ° !. I r Jrai;.. $ ��r ]rt ! �n v �' SWI' - I .Cf,�a•� �,j , a ,�•- f �` �a �-'' - � fes-: � Ni � l!a-y ` y.Tl ,.�`5;d �� i 4-` w � _ ,HC. s•;r .yr �! - � ! + • f ata _, l.i �`-y >� ��� ®4t Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Design Concept 04 29'-0-approximate building height.lower than HHS • 7/2-per foot roof slope no rooftop mechanical units active side faces north towards hospital • west end second floor will have sleeping rooms with blackout shades shades and roof overhang used to block light from south-facing windows • nordic trail continues In front of building landscaping will be primarily on west and south of building exposed roof structure.brick.metal wall'panels.wood soffits.aluminum screen Place dots here if you like Design Concept 04 Comments 1 I B architecture + interiors Meeting minutes Project: Pitkin County Ambulance Facility Date: October 10, 2017 Attendees: Public, Rich, Daniel,Jonathan, Scott, From: Kevin Kevin CC: Team attendees Location: Health and Human Services Building Items: 1. We held an open house to get public commenton the exterior design of the Ambulance Facility. We showed 2 site plans and 4 exterior design concepts. This is a record of the public comments gathered at the open house. Additional comments will be collected by Pitkin County from the web site. 2. Site board 01. No comments 3. Site board 02 comments a. No homeless shelter in current ambulance barn b. Turn current ambulance barn into parking lot c. Old ambulance barn not appropriate for homeless overnight shelter. Too difficult to monitor old doors area around building with forest. Also Twin Ridge has common wooded area near there. d. The walking path on hospital property leading up to Mt. Oaks and Twin Ridge needs a permanent walkway that doesn't erode. Extremely icy in winter, but highly used. e. More landscaping needed to hillside behind building. f. Need outdoor space for first responders so they can relax and recover due to the stuff they see on the job. g. Twin Ridge HOA has an insurance policy covering the path in case someone is injured on it. . • h. Homeless shelter move to 3rd phase of hospital as in original plan. i. She would support whichever design has the least impact in terms of light and noise. 4. Design concept board 01 a. 4 dots were placed on this board b. No monitor. No light at night. Too tall with monitor c. Looks like a work shop. S. Design concept board 02 a. 20 dots were placed on this board b. Like form but too much light from garage door. West side should have no openings. c. Like because different than hospital. Too much light from garage doors. d. Love the shape, design and fa4ade. Would be favorite choice if a little lower. . e. Appealing and blending. 501 rio grande place suite 104 - aspen colorado 81611 _ 970.920.9428 phone - 970.920.7822fax www.studio b architects.net I I B architecture + interiors 6. Design concept board 03 a. 34 dots were placed on this board b. Looks like a fire house c. Less clear glass on garage doors. Use tinted glass it blend in with building. d. Like the subtle tones and the most simple lines and architecture. Also like the doors to be unobtrusive. e. Like but can we lower roof7 add landscaping. Add things to help the mental health of workers / first responders 7. Design concept board 04 a. 24 dots were placed on this board b. No steps bicycle access needed c. Look like an ambulance building. Looks like its use, a good thing. d. Favorite design main +'s low height and no roof top mechanicals. Don't like brick, stone would be better. Don't love red sign. e. All bay doors should be the same height. f. Sunscreen should be horizontal (not ladder design) g. Surprised so many people like this one. VO 501 rio grande place suite 104 - aspen Colorado 81611 970.920.9428 phone - 970.920.7822fax www,sludio b architects.net