HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Aspen Valley Hospital.2003.AI
A
482818
IIII �) I III�I III ill�l II1I III Page:2/24/2003 09:54A
!I III I I I 1 i 11 lllll I!I I I
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156.00 0 0.00
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 HOSPTTAL
DISTRCIT ANNEXATION."
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2002, the Chairman and President of the Aspen Valley
Hospital District on behalf of one -hundred percent (100%) of the owners of the property proposed
to be annexed did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory
to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been
reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the
information prescribed and set forth in §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area proposed to be annexed,
exclusive of streets and alleys, have consented 'in writing to the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 28, Series of 2002) at its regular
meeting on April 8, 2002, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial
compliance with the provisions of §31-12-107; C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 44, Series of 2002) at its regular
meeting on May 13, 2002, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for
Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the
annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
.N
IIIIII IIIII HIMIIII HE IIIIII IIIIII III Hill IIII IN Page
09:54A
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156.00 D 0.00
Section L ' That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation,
commonly referred to as the "Aspen Valley %ospital District Annexation", and as shown on the
annexation map, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Section 2. The City Clerk of fhe City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows:
(a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation
ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen.
(b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation
map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
(c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this
annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of the
Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado.
Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend
the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this
annexation ordinance.
Section 4. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue
of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
2
492818
Page: 3 of 31
12/24/2003 09:54A
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY GO R 156.00 D 0.00
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 14th day July, 2003, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 27�' day May, 2003.
<F
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 14' day of July 2003.
AT sr, ti
KathCity Clerk
3 0
—,. r",
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL
THIS ANNEXATION AGREEMENT,("Agreement") is entered into and
made on Na%ismbtr ILA , 2003', by and between the City of
Aspen, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation, which address
is 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (hereinafter
referred to as the "City"), and Aspen Valley Hospital District
and whose address is 0401 Castle Creek Road, Aspen, Colorado
81611 (hereinafter referred to as "AVH"). This Agreement shall
become effective following execution by AVH and upon approval by
the City Council of Aspen evidenced by a duly approved
resolution and by the execution of the Agreement by either the
City Manager, Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem.
RECITALS AND'REPRESENTATIONS:
a
v
�m
M m
OD �, m
r °mm
CDallo
N W
�N
0
U
Z
WHEREAS, AVH represents that it comprises 100 percent
(loot) of all owners a parcel of land commonly known as the
Aspen Valley Hospital Campus, which is more particularly
described in Exhibit "A" appended hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference ("Annexed Property"), and
WHEREAS, the City annexed the property at a public hearing
on July 14, 2003, pursuant to Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2003;
and
WHEREAS, AVH received approval from Pitkin County for the
1989 Aspen Valley Hospital District Master Plan pursuant to
Resolution 89-79 of the Pitkin'County Board of County
Commissioners, which is appended hereto as Exhibit "B"; and
WHEREAS, AVH received approvals for the Aspen Valley
Hospital Master Plan Amendments from Pitkin County pursuant to
Board of County Commissioner's Resolutions 96-285, 97-82 and 97-
194, which are appended hereto'as Exhibits "C", "D" and "E and -
WHEREAS, the Aspen Valley Hospital District Master Plan and
Amendments collectively constitute the "AVH Plan" which was
approved by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
pursuant to an extensive public land use review process; and
WHEREAS, portions of the AVH Plan have been developed by
AVH, and certain parts of the AVH Plan have not yet been
-1-
C)
developed; and
WHEREAS, the City is a home rule municipality of the State
+, of Colorado and is authorized to enter into this Agreement
pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-12 121.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. ZONING OF ANNEXED PROPERTY. The parties agree that the
a
0
Property annexed into the municipal boundaries will be zoned
M m
Public (PUB) and Residential Multi -Family (RMF) pursuant to
T-°m m
Section 26.710.250 of the Aspen Land Use Code ("Code"). Upon
1° N
N vN
annexation and zoning, AVH shall initiate a planning process and
a
submit a Planned Unit Development Plan pursuant to Section
26.445 of the Code. The Planned Unit Development Plan will
guide the long-term development of the AVH campus.
2. SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY PROGRAMS. If the citizens or
a majority of the full City Council of Aspen, in conjunction
, .�0
with the involvement of AVH, approve of the need, plan, and
�?
funding for a facility or program to address the community's
�0
substance abuse problems, AVH and the City of Aspen will be full
partners in developing, reviewing, and funding (to include in-
a
kind land donation) any substance abuse facility or program.
2
a
3. CASTLE CREEK ROAD/DOOLITTLE DRIVE INTERSECTION. AVH
will contribute a one-time capital expense to pay for one-half
+sue
of the actual cost of retrofitting the Castle Creek
Road/Doolittle Drive intersection, not to exceed $100,000.00.
Said sum shall be paid within thirty (30) days of the
substantial completion of the retrofit.
4. CITY EMPLOYEES HEALTH INSURANCE DISCOUNT. AVH agrees
to extend to City employees a discount equal to fifteen percent
(15!s) of AVH charges. This offer will be in effect for ten (10)
consecutive years subsequent to the effective date of
annexation.
S. HEALTH EDUCATION/SERVICES PROVIDED BY AVH.
(a) Health Fairs. AVH will commit to three (3)
health fairs per year. Two (2) health fairs will be in Aspen
(one dedicated entirely to citizens 55 and older), and one will
be in Basalt. The health fairs will offer a variety of
screening tests and educational information, all for free or at
-2-
9
492818
Page: 6 of 31
12/24/2003 09:54P
f
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156.00 D 0.00
a tremendous discount (examples include 15T boosters, blood
,�••, chemistries, CBCs, glaucoma checks, colorectal kits, bone
density tests, peak flow/oximetry, skin cancer checks, knee
exams, foot exams, blood pressure checks, vision and hearing
testing, and educational booths on topics such as nutrition,
breast health, heart health, and bike fitting).
(b) Educational Seminars. AVH will commit to at
least five (5) free educational seminars on general or specific
health topics (examples include facts about hormone replacement
therapy, living with asthma, joint disease, women's cancers, the
aging process, common ear, nose and throat problems, etc.).
6. APPROVED AVH PLAN. The AVH Plan approved by the
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners is based upon:
(a) 1989 Aspen Valley Hospital District Master Plan
approved pursuant to the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioner's Resolution 89-79, which is appended hereto as
Exhibit "B";
(b) 1996 Aspen Valley Hospital District Master Plan
Amendment approved pursuant to.Pitkin County Board of County
' Commissioner's Resolution 96-285, which is appended hereto as
Exhibit "C"; and
(c) 1997 Aspen Valley Hospital District Master Plan
Amendments approved pursuant to Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioner's Resolutions 97-82 and 97-194, which are appended
hereto as Exhibits "D" and "E".
7. APPROVED AVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS BASED ON
PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE APPROVALS. Portions of the AVH Plan have
been developed. The following AVH Plan components have not been
developed:
(a) Expansion of Cafeteria and Kitchen (1989 Plan);
(b) Development of Space for Business Functions (1989
Plan) ;
(c) Development of Additional Space for Shops,
Laundry, and Storage (1989 Plan);
(d) Relocation of Helipad (1989 Plan);
-3-
0
482818
1111111111111 Page: 7 of 31
1111111111111!
1111111111111111111111111111 2/24/1 2003 9.54A
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156.00 D 0.00
(e) Development of the majority of 5,500 square feet
of additional floor area planned for the expansion of the
Emergency Room, a new Operating Room, expanded Lab, and a new
Physical Therapy Wing (1996 Plan Amendment);
(f) Internal remodel of the Hospital (1996 Plan
Amendment);
(g) Development of a 22,800 square foot Medical
Office Building (1997 Plan Amendment); and
(h) Development of a 17,970 square foot Underground
Parking Structure (1997 Plan Amendment).
8. AVH INTERIM IMPROVEMENT PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY OF
ASPEN. The following construction projects may be developed by
AVH pursuant to and in compliance with the County approvals as
part of the AVH Interim Improvement Plan prior to the approval
of the new AVH Planned Unit Development Plan:
(a) Develop 4,100 square feet of additional floor
area for Physical Therapy and Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit and
2,000 square feet of additional floor area for a Patient Care
Unit (PCU) addition; and
(b) Internal remodel of hospital.
9. ZONING SCHEDULE. Upon execution by the parties of
this Agreement, the City shall'initiate and complete zoning of
the Annexed Property.
10. AVH OBLIGATION. AVH hereby agrees not to petition the
City to de -annex, provided all of the terms and conditions of
this Agreement are met. AVh will not seek relief as an
"essential public facility exemption" from City of Aspen
planning and building fees. AVH will be responsible for and pay
its City of Aspen planning and building fees.
11. CITY'S OBLIGATION. The parties acknowledge that
annexation and zoning are subject to the plenary legislative
discretion of the City Council of Aspen and the rights of
referendum and initiative reserved unto citizens. No assurance
of zoning has been made and relied on by AVH.
-4-
O
492818
Page: 8 of 31
SII.VIA OFlVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 158.00 /Z4003 D20 00 9 S4A
12. WAIVER. A waiver by any party to this Agreement of�
-� the breach of any term or provision of this Agreement shall not
operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by
either party.
13. BINDING EFFECT. The parties hereto agree that this
Agreement, by its terms, shall be binding upon the successors,
heirs, legal representatives, and assigns thereof, and shall
constitute covenants running with the Annexed Property. In the
event that all or part of the Annexed Property is sold,
transferred, or otherwise conveyed to additional or multiple
parties, all owners shall be jointly and severally responsible
for all terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in this
Agreement.
14. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. It is expressly
understood and agreed that enforcement of the terms and -
conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating
to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the City, and
AVH and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow
any such claim or right of action by any other third person on
such Agreement. It is the express intention of the City and AVH
that any person other than the City or AVH receiving services or
benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed to be an
incidental beneficiary only.
15. GOVERNING LAW AND ENFORCEMENT. This Agreement shall
be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. The parties
agree and acknowledge that this Agreement may be enforced at law
or in equity. In addition to any other available remedies, it
is understood and agreed that the City may withhold or revoke
any permits or certificates, including but not limited to
building permits and certificates of occupancy, for any lot
within the Annexed Property in the event of a breach of this
Agreement by the AVH.
16. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OR ACTION. The parties agree to
execute any additional documents or take any additional action
that is necessary to carry out this Agreement.
17. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be
executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
an original and all of which shall constitute.but one and the
same instrument.
-5-
492818
Page: 9 of 31
12/24/2003 09:54A
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156.00 D 0.00
I$. PARAGRAPH CAPTIONS. The captions of the paragraphs
C►�.,, are set forth only for the convenience and reference of the
parties and are not intended in any way to define, limit or
describe the scope or intent of this Agreement.
19. INTEGRATION AND AMENDMENT. This Agreement represents
the entire agreement between the parties and there are no oral
or collateral agreements or understandings. This Agreement may
be amended only by an instrument in writing signed by the
parties.
20. ASSIGNMENT. All or part of the obligations or
responsibilities set forth in this Agreement shall not be
assigned by AVH without the express written consent of the City.
21. SEVERABILITY. Invalidation of any of the provisions
of this Agreement or any paragraph sentence, clause, phrase, or
word herein or the application thereof in any given circumstance
shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this
Agreement.
22. RECORDATION OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be
recorded by the City with the Clerk and Recorder's office of
Pitkin County. AVH shall pay the reasonable cost of recordation
of this Agreement.
23. INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS. Unless otherwise stated in
this Agreement, exhibits referenced in this Agreement shall be
incorporated into this Agreement for all purposes.
24. ACTIONS AGAINST ANNEXATION. In the event that any
person, corporation, special district, municipal or county
government, or any other entity asserts any claim against the
City, its officials, or employees pursuant to the provisions of
the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act, C.R.S. §31-12-101 et.
gq., AVH acknowledges and understands that the City may, at its
sole discretion, voluntarily elect not to defend against such an
action, and may consent to and permit the entry by the court of
an order voiding the annexation or reach another means of
settlement of claims. In such an event, this Agreement shall
become null and void.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the date first above written.
-6-
492818
I II iilll iiliil III I Page: 10 f 12/24/200309154A
I I I IIIIII11iIIllll l I
SILVIP DAMS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156.00' D 0.00
Attest: CITY OF ASPEN, a
municinal co poration
- BY. BY
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL
DISTRICT
By E
City Attorney
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
r �he foregoing instrument was ac
-Z7" 3ay of 2003, by
before me this
� .
tam
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires. n a� .. Xl�
Notary Public,
✓...� ,4Y 4.
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) _
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
04 day of .A%w►ber , 2003, by m6!p6n 'BCLCua:ck
I
as C;44 boanchtpe _ of THE' CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado
municipal corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: •20 �.
Notary Public
SPRY •P&
.0
TARA L.I.
O'BRADOThCN: •
f 1 C:\clients\AvH\annexation agr.wpd
- 7 - Mr CWWM M W Expo
,.� .zoos
.. ....n_.. ......i.... _ �. .., .... .. _ ..:. .....;: ... .+. cis: 1. w.: �r+n•...r•... - ,- - - _. ' _ .t..
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A - Legal description of the Annexed Property
B - Resolution No. 89-79 Granting Approval for the Aspen
Valley Hospital Master Plan
C - Resolution No. 96-285 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
D - Resolution No. 97-82,Amending the Conditions of
Resolution No. 96-285 Regarding the Allowed Square
Footage for an Expansion of Aspen Valley Hospital
E - Resolution No. 97-194 Granting Approval to the Aspen
Valley Hospital Master Plan Amendment, GMQS Exemption,
Special Review, and 1041 Hazard
492818
Page: 11 of 31
12/03
SILVIA pRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO — R 156.00 /24pZ0000 9'54A
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A - Legal description of Aspen Valley Hospital proposed to
be annexed
B - Resolution No.
89-79 Granting Approval for the Aspen
Valley Hospital
Master Plan
C - Resolution No.
96-285 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,SOO Square Foot
Expansion to the
Existing Hospital Building
D - , Resolution No.
97-82 Amending the Conditions of
Resolution No.
96-285 Regarding the Allowed Square
Footage for an
Expansion of Aspen Valley Hospital
E - Resolution No.
97-I94 Granting Approval to the Aspen
Valley Hospital
Master Plan Amendment, GMQS Exemption,
Special Review,
and 1041 Hazard
492818
Page: 12 of 3
.SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN'COUNTY CO R 156.00 /24DZ@080@9154A
X
JVI -c'JVi ,r nr I'^LJ 1; ~.^. L; vieL
• F
_ f
r AtniPe ..31ifweys ffi c,
Post Office PDX 173n
Aspen, Colorado 81612
970 9252688
FEBRUARY 18, 2002
Exhibit A 7
482818
Page: 13 o
f 31I1
1
1
1
1
1
12,24,2003 09.54 fl_
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156.00 D 0.00
,TOR W). RA-47
ANNE2SA: ION IJESC RrPTION (Supersedes Page 1 of Descript_ion dated 02.05.02}
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SEC 7r-10 v 11, IN TnE SOt THWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12 AND
I''H THE 1ti1V2ti'WiF'S ;ji.ARTER OF SECTION 13, ALL IN -
TOi'Yi3SF�IY
$5 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL
ComiT1 , C OLORADO, MORE PARTICU-LARLY
tlL�aV^.Aiy EL nnr
r 0 r V:L J.Y
.►. a ta VRLLYLh +.�ii�uzvcv 1 L SECTIONS 11, 12 j 13
LNTS T G
TfjF.hTf_F. , ALONG TAF Ar1TT&1AA DV F A n •,,
•�% S.t F, iI vrsT.i.41 t2C'J Yi t:,1,
DISTRICT SUBDI ISTnu THE �anLT_w_I C
�I.aS ri1VL
DISTANCES:
NORTH 00°23'00" EAST 392.21, FEET,
NORTH 03000100" WEST 1211.74 .FEET, A?4D
NORTH 87"07' 00" E_AST 333. 97 FEET TO THE Wr,.qlr RTruT-.OF-
WAY LINE OF CASTLE CREEK ROAD;
THENCE NORTH 21052'00" WEST 625.12 FEET ALONG THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CASTLE CREEK ROAD TO THE
INTERSECTION WITH THE;SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OP
MAROON CREEK ROAD:
('HENCE NORTH WEST 95,79 FEET ACROSS MAROON
CRLLK ROAD TO T'r. Svi; i c�EAST C'.ORNZK Or THE CITY THOMAS
PROPERTY nwiwrt yr ON
mr/�i..
THENCE NORTH DO°13' :0" -EST 1'0.90 FzF:T ALONG THE
BOUNDARY OF SAID CITY THCUO SS n*+nnrnr"+• ATIO`, ,
�+ C'riVt-rarii2 Ya1Y1`t Eli
THE TNTEgSFCTION WITH THE c^L'TH . Ir ,.t-Or —'rYAZ `Liiv$ Or
COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO, 92;
THENCE 102.39 FEET A Ln;N_ G THE A nC OF A CURVE TO TIRE
RIGHT HAVING A RADTI?.q ' 'P 'li q-6_�Q ?��F.T, A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 04054119" AWL? WHOSE CHORD BEARS NORTH 53°1S'
10" WEST 102.36 FEET ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID CI'vY
THOMAS PROPERTY ANNEXATION AND ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY TO THE SllijTRERNMOST
CORNER OF THE CITY/ZOI INE OPEN SPACE AND COLOR__A_n_ o_
STATE HIGHWAY 82 ANNEXATION;
THENCE NORTH 39011'00"•EAST 100.00 FEET ALONG THE
BOUNDARY OF SAID ZOLIgt ANNEXATION TO THE
EASTERNMOST CORNER Or SAID -ZOLINE ANNEXATION, SAID
CORNER BEING ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF OPEN SPACE
v i _vv: _�,•i r^VL IrVUVIIC i19.4i 77 f v
FAUL 2
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
(Supersedes Page 2 o1 Description dated Feb. 5, 2002)
ANNEXATION Nu.1 IDENTICAL WITH THE NORTH RIGHT• -OF -WAY
LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY;
THENCE 104.33 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A R-kDIUS OF 1096-00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
10040'54" AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS SOUTH S6009'27" EAST
204.03 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE AND ALONG
SAID RIGHT--OF—WAY LINE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF OPEN
SPACE ANNEXATION NO.2;
THENCE SOUTH 28°30'06" WEST 100.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST
BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID'OPEN SPACE ANNEXATION NO.2 TO
a
THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY;
v
..1' THENCE ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID OPEN SPACE
m c"
cx) %. 0 ANNEXATION NO.2, IDENTICAL WITH THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY
°o o LINE OF CASTLE CREEK ROAD, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
r N m DISTANCES:
CD-- SOUTH i6°36'00" EAST 135.87 FEET
0) mN SOUTH 20054'00" EAST 1006.31 FEET, AND
SOUTH 32'10'00" EAST 67.10 FEET TO THE SOUTHERNMOST
CORNER OF SAID APNEXA1:1024;
'THENCE SOUTH 30029'38" WEST 68.32 FEET ACROSS CASTLE
�.� CREEK ROAD "TO THE EASTEY"OST-CORNER OF" PAR= A OF
SAID ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION., SAID
CORNER BEING IDENTICAL WITH TH9-POINT 6F'BEGINNING OF
CITY WATER PLANT ANNEXATION N0.2:
THENCE SOUTH 2.30411000 WEST 13.13 FEET ALONG THE WEST
BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION 10 CORNER NO.2 OF SAID
ANNEXATION;
`z THENCE DEPARTING SAID iWEST BOUNDARY SOUTH 25°52'53'
mm-m� WEST 0.99 FEET TO CORNER NO.5 OF SAID ANNEXATION;
�a THENCE SOUTH 22028'59"* WEST 584.06 FEET ALONG THE
WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID ANNEXATION TO THE INTEitSECTIQN
WITH THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF PARCEL A OF SAID ASPEN
VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT"SUBAIVI5ION;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH'BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL A
THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES:
NORTH 53"40136" WEST 12.70 FEET,
NORTH 23e41100" EAST 1.77.80 FEET,
NORTH 66019'00" WEST 330.47 FEET, AND
NORTH 19600.00" WEST 199.69 FEET TO THE WESTERNMOST
CORNER OF SAID PARCEL A, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE
SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF PARCEL C OF SAID ASPEN VALLEY
HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH'BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL C. THE
FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES:
SOUTH 71*00100" WEST 288.00 FEET, AND
SOUTH 23000'00" WEST 52.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
0
,ox 600 F= %70
:3. 1 4.4 5 7 r"� EXHIBIT ,,IB,,
` RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
e"N?0`55IIVIA DAVIS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO GRANTING APPROVAL FOR
. 1 .1 CHTY RECORDER THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN
puc Zq 10 iy 4X 83 Resolution No. 89-'
t WHEREAS, Aspen Valley Hospital, hereinafter "AVH" has
applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Colorado, hereinafter "Board" for approval of the Aspen Valley
Hospital Master Plan pursuant to Section 3-1.10(e) of the Land
Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the AVH Parcel is zoned Public Zone District (PUB)
and contains approximately 19.10 acres and located at 0200 Castle
Creek Road; (See Exhibit "A") and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that AVH represents an Essential
Community Facility and adoption of their Master Plan is
consistent with the state Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board is concerned about consumption of further
land area on this site until adoption of mu p lt_ party land use
plans and programs occurs; and
WBERFAS, said land use plans and programs shall address
unmet Community health needs such as an inpatient psychiatric
unit and holding facility and detoxification center; and
1
SEAS, said multi -party land use plans may meet such unmet
j Community health needs on or off of the Aspen Valley Hospital
J site; and
WHEREAS, the Board heard the AVH application at regularly
' scheduled meetings on July 11, 1989 at which time evidence and
49281$
Page: 15 of 31
12/24/2003 09:540
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156.00 D 0.00
111-101-1
Resolution No. 89-a
Page 2
i.
testimony was presented with respect to this application.
Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners that it hereby grants approval of the Aspen Valley
Hospital Master Plan subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicants shall meet with the Aspen Water
Department to develop an acceptable water service plan
as part of the Master Plan.
2.
The
Applicants shall meet with the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District to develop a sewage disposal
utility plan as part of the Master Plan. The utility
plan
shall include the following:
a
a.
The expansion of the cafeteria requires the
a
additional of a grease interceptor,
cc) o a�
OD ^"o
b.
Vehicle garages with floor drains require
A It
N
installation of a District approved oil and' sand
a
separator,
C.
Roof drains and outdoor floor drains will need to
be serviced by a dry well,
d.
Pathological' wastes must be disposed of in a
Hospital pathological waste incinerator or means
other than the sanitary sewer,
-- 5
e.
Thiosulfates and compounds of silver need to be
Z
recovered from spent x-ray developer and fixer
�a
prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer,
f.
Radioactive wastes such as iodine-131 and
w
phosphorus-32 must be rendered inactive, by
detention time, prior to discharge to the sanitary
sewer,
g.
Any potential sources for mercury discharges must
be eliminated,
h.
The District will require a manhole for sampling,
downstream of the facilities services, and prior
to the introduction of the Hospital's wasteload to
the Districts' collection system. The sampling
manhole must be available and accessible to
District personnel for sampling.
0
aoa+ 6�U PAuE?72
Resolution No. 89-Zf Page 3
3.
The Applicants shall develop a fire protection plan
that is acceptable to the Aspen Fire Protection
m
m
District as part of the Master Plan.
ao m
Co'"� 0 4.
The entrance drive to the Housing project shall be
ON
redesigned so that' it is directly across from the
tj a N a
driveway to Castle Ridge.
5.
The Applicant shall work with the Housing Authority to
develop appropriate employee deed restrictions as part
of the Master Plan.
6.
A detailed drainage' plan for the new addition shall be
---�
submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit
�?
0
Swith exception of the CT Scanner building addition).
7.
-_t
The Master Plan shall contain a landscaping program
which discusses plant species, number, size and
�U)
irrigation methods. This program shall also discuss
Q
the costs for the proposed landscaping. The above
�Q
information shall be provided in detail prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit (with exception of the CT
Scanner building addition) .
8.
Signs warning of heavy traffic during peak hours shall
be placed on the northbound lane of Castle Creek above
the Hospital to warn road users of the upcoming
congested intersection.
9. The Applicant shall take the lead in attempt_na to
formulate plans, and programs which address the unmet
Community health needs such as an inpatient psychiatric
unit and holding facility and detoxification center and
shall make recommendations within one year of Final
Plat approval to the Planning Commission and Board of
County Commissioners.
10. Proposed uses which are fully described can be shown as
"allowed without further review in the plan". Uses
which are only conceptual at this time shall be placed
in the "Special Review" category.
11. The Final Plat shall show an easement for. the "nordicn
trail acceptable to the County.
12. The existing 100 foot road easement within Aspen Valley
,1
Hospital property and along Castle Creek Road shall be
noted on the Final Plat as a pedestrian, bicycle and
road easement.
..--.& &I%J. C7��
Page ;4
coax 630 P,*273
I3- The Applicant shall construct
within the existingand maintain a paw.,
within two Pedestrn and bicycle easements
(2) years, to be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Office and County Land Use Engineer.
APPROVED by the Board at its regularly meeting on July 11,
1989.
M
ATTEST:
ie
j
tte Jon
eputy Count Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
X . sill
'42---5stcounty Attorney
MJL:das
bcccreso.avh
C
a
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By
Colette Penne, Chairman
l
APPROVED AS To CONTENT:
Thomas M. Baker,
':nterim Planning Director
IIPI 492818
111111111111111
Page: 18 of 31
IIpl
1111111111111111111111111111
1
z ,z42
SILVIR DAMS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156.00 D0 0009'S4R
v
1W
I
' EXHIBIT
Resolution No. 96- BIT "C"
OD o M m
T m
co " o RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM IISSIONERS
�N
a m OF PTTHIN COUN'�, CO
LORADO GRANTING
•�� APPROVAL TO THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL INLASTER PLAN
AMENDMENT, AND GMQS EM-APTION FOR 14,500 SQUARE FEET OF
�.- O
INTERIOR REMODELING
:. z AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,500 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO
H
THE EXISTING HOSPITAL BUILDING
Q -
�� o
Resolution No. 96- 285
1. -rhe Aspen Vallev Hospital District, hereinafter "Applicant", has apPlied to
the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter
"Board", for the following land use approvals: -
Master Plan Amendment; and
. Essential Community Facility GMQS Exemption For 14,500 square feet of
interior remodeling and construction of a 5,500 square foot expansion to the
existing hospital building.
2. Specifically, the applicant proposes to amend their Master Play to include
an expansion of approximately 5,504 square feet in additions and 14,500 square
feet in remodeling to the existing hospital building, which contains 64,616 square
feet_ The additional square footage will accommodate an expanded emergency
room, a new operating room and expanded lab, and a new physical therapy wing
to allow an expanded, in -hospital grogram.
IMF, pr I OF 6 REC vDOC NOT
0.00
COUNT! -_ERK & RECORDER
Resolutian No. 96-t2� �"1 -
?age 2
482818
I I I I I
Page: 20 of 31 12/24/2003 09:54P
sI',-VIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156.00 D 0.00
3. The applicants' parcel is zoned PUBLIC and contains appro?cimately 19
acres..
4. Said pamel is located at 0401 Castle Creek Road, more specifically descibed
in Exhibit "A," attached.
6. The BOCC has approved Resolution Nos. 87-81, 87-121, 89-79, 91-119, 91-
144, 92-11, and 92-379 with respect to Hospital land use reviews since 1987.
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this application at their
regularly scheduled meetings on Au'ust .6 and 13, A996 and recommended
conditional approval to the Board-
28 and
7. The Board heard this application at regular ah August
September 24, 1996 and at a Special Meeting on September 303,1996, at which time
evidence and testimony was presented with respect to the application.
g. The Board finds that the Applicant has complied with applicable Land Use
Code criteria.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does hereby g,m:l`
proposed Master Plan Ameadmeat
and Growth Management Exemption
approval of the to
the Aspen Valley Hospital subject w the following conditions:
ons made in the application
ant
1. The Applicshall adhere to all mateiial represeatati
and in the public meetings-
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the aPPhc= shall Prav'de the following:
a. A revised traffic generation analysis which will be.reviewed and approved by the
County Engineer,
0
.r-
Resolgdon No. 96-
Page 3
b. Payment of a pro -rasa share for improvements to the Castle Creels Road and
affected intersections (as determined by the County Engineer), including but not
limited to the Maroon Creek Road/Highway 82 intersection; Said share shall be
based on the traffic generation analysis approved by the County Engineer,
C. A fugitive dust control play and an air quality mitigation plan approved by the
Environmental Health Department; The air quality mitigation plan shall stipulate
at a minimum that the applicant shall:
1) work with the Highlands and the School District to create a new bus stop
-�n-the Ijighway 82/Maroon/Castle intersection that would allow up and
down <�- valley buses to stop and be intercepted by vans from each of the
entities - in order to make RFTA more accessible to those traveling to and
from Castle and Maroon Creek roads; and
2) provide incentives to employees to encourage bus ridership, including
discounted bus passes; and
;) provide incentives for employees to car-pool; and
4) continue to assist the County/City in the plowing of the current bike path on
_ _ Hospital property; and
5) provide company bicycles for those employees needing to run errands during
the day.
d. A staging plan indentifying parking for construction and hospital employees;
construction traffic plan; and location for topsoil storage and identification. of
destination for soil which may be removed from the hospital site. Said plan shall
be approved by the County Engineer.
e. A revised Landscaping Plan, identifying plant material by genus and species, and
identifying height and/or caliper. Said plan shall also address weed control,
irrigation, and be approved by Land Management. Financial security in a form
acceptable to the County Attorney shall be provided by the applicant to ensure the
success of the landscaping identified on the recorded landscaping plan. A cost
estimate for landscaping shall be provided by the applicant prior to issuance of a
building permit
£ A letter from the Aspen Water Department confirming their willingness to serve
the additional development. The applicant shall comply with all Water
Department requirements for upgrading service. The applicant shall also provide
a letter confirming that they have adequate water rights to use ditch water to
irrigate proposed landscaping. If water is not available via ditch rights, the
applicant shall provide documentation that an alternative water source has been
obtained for irrigation purposes.
g. An updated Water Service Agreement from the City of Aspen, unless the
applicant provides a letter from the CityAttorney confirming that no such update
is required;-
h. A letter from Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District confirming that all their
requirements have been met and confirming that concerns regarding pollutants in
the AVH collection system have been adequately addressed by the Hospital.
0
Cr
a
�m
00 0 M 0
oMm
N N O
0) v N
W
d aNm
ti B
z
BOA OF COUNTY r(�
COM.VIIMONERS
OF PrrX3 N COUNTY,
-- COLORADO
_ lames R. True, Chairman
Date /b— �. �' 9 C• ;
ATiTES'r: y
^� v
482818 ;i
.JOIIe3, Pag- ; 22 of 31 i�
Co:r erkll� 0 R 155.00 /24D0 00 9_5�
SIl VIP ITKIN COUNTY
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Cindy Houbea,
3o Community Development Dkector
County Attorney
PID# 2735-123-00-011
Case A P74-96
O
01:i=p PG 5 OF 6
A t=c t of land
in the SW 1/ 4 Of the -TA 1/ 4 and tha NW 1/ 4 of
the SW 1/4 of Section LZ, both of
Township 10 South, Ranga 85 West,
6th Principal Meridian, Cauntj of
Pitkin, Stata of Colorado, more
ful_y des=ibed as Follows:
Beginning at a
point which
is the corner c-.=on to Sec'=_ans
11. LZ, 13, and 14,
T.10 S., R.8'Slg-
, 6th P.M.;
1. Thence ff.
00'23'00" E.
392.Z1 feet:
Z. Thence N.
03*00100" W.
1211.74 fast;
3. Thence N.
87 * 07' 0011 E.,
32:1. 97 feet;
4. Thence S.
Z1'5Z'00" E.
134.98 feet;
S. Thence S.
Z1'Z3'00" M.
1269.1?. feet;
6.----7.annca S.
71' 00' 00" W.
809 . Z5 feet; '
7. Ttenca S.
Beginning.
23'00'00"
W. SZ.80 feet to the Pout of
Pa_*=21 C, as desc_il.,ed
less.
ahcve, ccntaizs 13.1QZ a=es mars or
ID
I
I
Is
298.3a 1
71
492818
I Page: 23 of 31
`I 1 12/24/2003 09:54A
II (I I
fl
` II
1
Illl�
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CC _ _R 166.00 D 0.00_
lo/^5/1996 J�1:15P PG 6
OF 6
EXHIBIT "Drr
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PTTKrN
COUNTY, COLORADO, AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION
NO. 96-285 REGARDING THE ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR AN
EXPANSION OF ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL
a
RESOLUTION NO. 97
�mm
CO O Me
RECITALS T q O
(X) N N�
v N
V
� a�a
1. Aspen Valley Hospital, hereinafter, "Applicant" has requested administrative approval
_
for a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit for a clarification to an approved
Master Plan amendment which allowed for a hospital expansion.
2. The Community Development Director has determined that this Minor Amendment
should be reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
3. Evidence and testimony were presented to the Board with respect to the requested
L)
Minor Amendment at a public meeting on April 23,1997.
Y
r
^�
�a
4. the Board determined that the proposed activities meet the applicable criteria in the
Land
Use code, provided the conditions listed in this resolution are adhered to.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that it does hereby grant Aspen Valley
Hospital approval for a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit to construct 3,782
square feet of basement storage space in addition to 5,604 square feet of above ground
space approved by Resolution No: 96-285 subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall adhere to the conditions of all previous approvals for the site
including BOCC Resolution No. 96-285 unless revised, and/ or supplemented by this
document. -
2. The Hospital expansion approved by Resolution No. 96-285 shall be for 5,604 square
feet instead of 5,504 square feet.
3. This expansion may include 3,782. square feet of basement "cold storage" as
represented on the plans submitted by the applicant in the Master Plan Amendment
document of June 14,1996. This storage space will not require mitigation. Any change
of use of this space will be subject to County review and approval. Change in use may
require mitigation of new impacts.
9
4. All material representations made b the applicant in the application shall be adhered
P Y aPP
to and considered conditions of approval unless amended by other conditions.
111111110 lilt 11111111111.1111111111 ill 1111111111111
�e4x>�s 00r0ars0e r 0:=39F REsoLerr
i of 3 R 0.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITkrN COUNTY CLERK
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 23rd day of April, 1997.
PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION ON THE DAY OF ,
Fi�1TiON OF
1997.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
J ette Jones,
Deputy County Cleric
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Ely,
County Attorney
avhminrs.doc
el'"'1.
g Cre -
Bill uite, Chairm .
Date:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Cindy Houben,
Community Development Director
E)=B fT "Et' �- -
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PPTKIN COUNTY, COLORADO GRANTING
APPROVAL TO THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN
HAZARD
AMENDMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND 1041
REVIEV G
Resolution No. 97- /7
1, The Aspen Valley Hospital District, hereinafter, "Applicant", has applied to the
Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter, "Board", for the
following land use approvals:
Master Plan Amendment; and
GMQS Exemption for a Medical Office Building; and
le Housing Units and Senior Housing Units; and
GMQS Exemption for Affordab
• Special Review for the proposed Office Use in1. the Public Zone District; and
1041 Review for encroachment on slopes exceeding IS% u-
2. Specifically, grade•
• ll the applicant proposes to amend their Master Plan to include a
y, pP
cal office building with 17,970 square feet of underground
22,778 square foot medi
parking, a 1,205 square foot detox facility, 12 units of affordable employee housing on a
floor above the medical office facility, I0 units of senior housing to be attached to the
existing Assisted Living Facility, and 7 for sale employee townhomes to be located
between the Assisted Living facility and the Administrator's residence. This is an overall
increase of 65,678 square feet to the Hospital campus which currently totals 70,219
square feet.
11111111111191111111111lit11i11111111111111111111111
i167s6 Os6.00 D 3.06 " "T"N •COURTY1Co1
�J
M Ql
co�MG'
O M O
T 10 O
co N N
N ' N
W N
CC
N
0
U
Z_
Y
a
r� w
a
r O
N
Resolution No. 97- Y
`
• Psgc 1
3. The applicants parcel is zoned PUBLIC and CBtiJpos approximately 19 acres..
4. Said parcel is located at 0401 Castle Creek Road, more specifically described in
a
a
m
Exhibit "A," attached.
CO 0Am
r r�mo
op n N o
5. The BOCC has approved Resolution Nos. 87-81, 87-121, 9-79 1-119, 91-144,
N
C N
ct a
92-11, 92-379, 96-285, and 97-82 with respect to Hospital land use reviews since 1987.
6. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this application at regularly scheduled
meetings on February 18, May 13, and June 10, 1997, and recommended conditional
r
approval to the Board.
� z
a
= Z
7. The Board heard this application at a regular meeting on August 13, 1997, at which
F-
N
time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to the application.
a
8. The Board finds that the Applicant has complied with applicable Land Use Code
►.�-►� - `�
criteria
PLOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does hereby grant a
Master Plan Amendment, Growth Management Exemption, Special Review and 1041 Hazard
Review approval to the Aspen Valley Hospital subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall adhere to ail material representations made in the application
materials and at public meetings.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the following:
• Payment of a pro -rasa share for improvements to Castle Creek Road and affected
intersections as determined by the County Engineer, including but not limited to the
Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road/Highway 82 intersection. Said share shall be
based on the traffic generation analysis approved by the County Engineer;
• Payment of a pro -rasa share for improvements to the Doolittle Drive intersection with
Castle Creek Road, if traffic generation merits such improvements, as determined by
the County Engineer.
1111111 III 11111111111111111111111111111111111 A IN
416707 03/13/1M 11: iSA 11113M !TI DAVIS SI LVY
2 of 8 R G. eO 0 8.00 N 0. 00 PITKIN CQ"' CO
Rtsolution No. 97•1f created at the
Page 3 ess to provide pro rats sham of any new bus stop
Assurance of willingness wa 82 intersection.
Maroon Creek/Castle Creek/ Highway qualitymitigation plan approved by the
. A fugitive dust control Plan an
Environmental Health Deping Parking for construction and hospital employees;
A staging Plan ident-
entifying p e and identification of
construction traffic plan; and location for topsoil stOmg site. Said plan shall be
destination for soil which may be removed from the hospital
approved by the County Engines
in Plan, identifying plant material by genus and species, and
A revised Landscaping, Said plan shall also address weed control and be
identifying height and/or caliper -in a form acceptable to the
approved by Land Management. Financial security ' � success of the
Attorney shall be provided by the applicant to ensure for the
County in plan. A cost estimate
4 in identified on the recorded landscap g P approval prior to
landscap g provided by the applicant for review and appro
landscaping shall be
i issuance of a building permit Department confirming their willingness to serve the
A letter from the Aspen Water 1 with all Water Department
additional development. The applicant shall come Y vide assurance that
service. The applicant shall also pro
requirements for upgrading is to use ditch water to irrigate proposed landscaping•
rights
they control adequate water gh applicant shall provide documentation
If water is not available via ditch rights, the
has been obtained for irrigation purposes.
that an alternative water source unless the applicant
rn a)w O m . An updated Water Service Agreement from the City of Aspen, is required;
m co a m providers a letter from the City Attorney confiuminB no such all their
Consolidated sanitation
itation District confirming llutants the
N a N . A letter from that concerns regarding po
� a requirements have been met and conaddressed by the Hospital.
AVK collection system have been adequately approved by the Housing Office;
Floor plans for affordable housing units, to be apPro affordable housing
o of units shall be adequate to mitigate lion (as
Number and Categ ry approved as part of this app
requirements relative to new development be rovided in a
Hoard); andlor apdditional u Wgation shall ce of a
_ determined by the Housinb onus. Prior to issuan
form to be approved by the Board of County C amble housing units, deed
—� certificate of occupancy for the office building enlPitkin
' units shall be recorded with the Asp
restrictions for the affordable housing by the Housing Office w qualified tenants in
Housing OfFice. Units shall be leas or 30 days or more.
a the event that they remain unoccupied val of the County Engineer.
. A drainage and erosion control plan which meets the apPro
applicant shall submit revised Master Plan Map
Within three months of appro aha11 identify building envelopes for areas of new
Exhibits for recording. Said map(s)
- -- -� those uses approved as part of this amendment (including
development, phasing, review. A revised doge Plan
additional parking) and uses which are Subject ceded ��ody Development shall be
approved by the County Engineer, shall
limited to the areas identified within the building envelopes on the recorded plans.
1U1111111111111
11111i1tit11111111i Hill 1111 At
416707 0%1 %3/ 1Q96 11' 11.
t<fsotusz DAVIS SILYI O
3 of g R O.00 D 0.00 N 0.09 PI'nQN COUNn Co
Resolution No. 97 '
Page 4
Exterior materials used for the Office Building shall blend in with the existing
surrounding built and natural environment. Roof materials shall be non -reflective.
4.
7.1
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
492818
it Page: 29 of 31
`ill li 12/24/2003 09:54R
IIII lit III
lit I
it
lilt
I
Ili/
III11110 l .0 I 0
SI�VIR DAVIS PI?KIN COUNTY CO _R 155.00 _ D
siteshall be reve etated with native grasses identified on the recorded
The building is) g elation shall occur
Ian to limit water consumption and additional runoff. deg paved areas
landscape P season of project completion. All drainage from roofs and pa
within one growing Pro Wells,
e as delineated on the recorded drainage
shall be detained on -site through the use of dry
plan.
outside illumination shall comply with County lighting stands effect at the time of
building permit issuance; Landscape lighting shallbe Prohibited.
13.
14.
New development shall be limited to natural slopes of 300/6 in grade or less.
Development on steeper slopes shall be subject to further review.
a Colorado registered professional
Building foundations shall be reviewed and certified by permit application.
engineer. Foundation plans shall be submitted at the time of building p
t that RFTA bus capacity exceeded on a consistent basis during peak periods
In the even assess the Hospital apro-rased share of
on the C�eNaroon Creek Routes,` RFTA May needed s transport passengers to
any additional costs RFTA incurs to provide capacity
and from the Hospital campus during peak hours.
permit issuance for the medical office building the Hospital
Within 12 of buildingthe Planning and Zoning Commission, Clean Air Board, and
shall presenntt for
or review
eview by Board of County Commissioners a plan to implement paid parking.
All utility extensions shall be buried and occur within the access roads and/or parking areas•
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction which
prohibits further development or subdivision of the meadow area identifiedexhas that pa
The Medical Office B��7
on the attached exhibiL A note shall also be placed on the master plan
shall be owned by Aspen Valley Hospital or a non-profit
thecorporation controlled by Hospital Board.
medical practitioners with hospital staff
The office Building shall be occupied only by oriented organizations, Patients, and
privileges or non-profit, non-commercial medically
support staff
15. There shall be no pharmacy as Part of this office building.
I IIIIII II@ IgIl %J11 1111111111� 111111 OR
CO
n
■
resoludon No. 97- /y y
Page 3
•.,,.,,� 16. The affordable housing townhouse units shall be subject to special review by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Special
review approval must be granted and the building permit must be issued for the
townhouses prior to the granting of a certificate of occupancy for the medical office
building.
I
I
■
17. The senior housing units shall be subject to special review by the PIanning and Zoning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Special review approval must be
granted and the senior housing units must receive a certificate of occupancy within 12
months of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the medical office building.
18. The Hospital will provide the capital costs for the construction of the detox facility and
will provide the facility to the County rent-free.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON 2TTH DAY F AUGUST,1997.
644'
BOARD OF `. COUNTY
OF
By_
Bel
492818
Page: 30 of 31
12/24/2003 09:54A
` 1 .00
1 0
SILVIA DAMS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156_00 D _
111111111111 llllll llllll 1I11 l 11 Illll III Hill fill IN
416787 03/13/2ft8 118184 RMUTI D$IVZS SILVI
0 of 8 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 AITKIN COURTY cc
L11
Y ,
oz
R,esolutim No. 97-
e6
.4
i
4
10
4
Ll
11
Ll
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Ely, .
County Attorney
PM# 2735-123-00-011
Case # P74-96
lavhlbcrs8132
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Cindy Houben,
Community Development Director
492818
I Page: 31 of 31
III I I1 II III 12/24/2003 09:54A
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 156.00 D 0.00
I Ili!!! ili! illlll i11i1111 li1llf 1 hill 11 Iml 1411IN
419747 0S/1%/1MM Ut R NESOL,UTI DAVIS
6 of 6 R 0.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 'ITKIN COLKTY CO
101
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
•
Memorandum
Mayor and Members of Council
John P. Worcester
July 14, 2003
VIII�
the City of Aspen
City AmorneY's Office
Aspen Valley Hospital District Annexation - Ordinance No. 30, Series
of 2003 — Second Reading and Public Hearing.
Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed ordinance which, if adopted, would annex
the Aspen Valley Hospital District Property into the City of Aspen. This matter is before you for
First Reading of the ordinance.
The property proposed to be annexed includes all of the hospital property and the portion of Castle
Creek road from the roundabout at Highway 82 to just past Doolittle Drive.
The petition for annexation was filed with the City Clerk on February 22. 2002. On April 8, 2002,
City Council adopted a resolution finding substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.
A public hearing was held on May 13, 2002, at which time Council determined that the proposed
annexation was in compliance with §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.
As you may be aware, staff has been in negotiations with the hospital for some time regarding
certain terms and conditions for inclusion in a pre -annexation agreement. Attached hereto please
find a memorandum from Steve Barwick that discusses the progress made to date on the pre -
annexation agreement. You will note that staff needs some guidance from Council on certain
outstanding issues before a final draft of the pre -annexation agreement can be presented for
approval. If agreement can be reached with the hospital administration, a pre -annexation agreement
will be finalized and presented to Council as part of its consideration of the annexation ordinance at
second reading.
The decision to annex property to the City is a legislative act and is entirely within your
discretionary powers. You may annex, or not, for any reason, or no reason at all.
ACTION REQUIRED: A rolp of Ordinance No. Series of 2003 on . Second Reading.
Q pp g
City Manager's Comments: (,cJ`.`�e 7' �►-t —may -Yra1Z1f -4 c s,
� h %�, � S /✓r�iBoi�
cria��eX�•+��
� T f� SnL�a-C I v✓��i� � � `ice(/
I S CC' ✓ / Q i �t /y.
Q /� b+�B
/h OS / r n� pp Ta+N. 7/12-
sf 7` �',�.�...� ; ,.,
G cu �.E' �e a j ,„ N
a S / 8 6 �f S ,o e,- j.�.-•-,
T w o .. s k�
s
�'y► .�..���; .�,o►�'�.�: ea
--c ly a �i`� ; 6N 7
a �, n �(a�, ey. � S 4-% �. J /
�/ 4 O a o a � yQ�-v►,
.L '7 ; j c.�/J 7`� �' �%
olGt n&
i nru r�'�Y► ,O.ro
v ,--A f 't
y m oc g T o K 1 7' 7-L4 # V lq S to $S o•►T -- 6 7'4lr-
/�io�trT
y
et N new Adop y
� �i Ty S ;it -e IYS -f/7, •,
nG-i r`�ls� �`t.
�S
�w.r opG.-
•� ��-y :rr, j�
� ` S �H � o rr� �-/: /i/D o %�- � � ���f' arr .�.9�c��
A le fit' GoS I � � C,77 . e,tJ rd *4 `r
cc: City Manager
Community Development Director
JPW-07/09/2003-G:\john\word\memos\avh-ann-ord.doc
2
bj ASPEN
VALLEY
HOSPITAL
ama 0401 Castle Creek Road • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 970/925-1120
July 5, 2003
Mayor and City Council
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Aspen Valley Hospital Annexation Request
Dear Mayor & City Council:
The Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH) has served the upper Roaring Fork
Valley in the present facility for approximately 25 years. There
have been significant changes in medical technology and services
provided at AVH since the existing facilities were developed. The
AVH staff and Board are initiating a master planning process to
develop a new master plan to address changing technology and
service demands and guide the growth and development of AVH for the
next 10 to 15 years.
Attachment 1 depicts the AVH 26.6 acre site which includes: the
hospital, Mountain Oaks affordable housing, the Piktin County
Health and Human Services Building, the Senior Center, the Castle
Creek Terraces Assisted Living Facility Center, ambulance barn, the
hospital administrator's house and approximately 8 acres of vacant
land. Attachment 2, the City of Aspen Three -Mile Annexation
Area, shows the AVH site is an enclave of unincorporated land,
surrounded by the City of Aspen. Inevitably, AVH will be annexed
during the implementation of the new hospital plan. It would be
beneficial to AVH and the City to involve the City of Aspen in the
master planning process instead of the City administering a County
approved Master Plan following annexation.
This letter addresses the City of Aspen's formally adopted
annexation policies. Annexation issues raised by the City Manager
in his May 20, 2002 Memorandum to City Council are also discussed.
The AVH proposal to mitigate impacts on the City of Aspen is
summarized as are the reasons for the City of Aspen to annex AVH.
•
E
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 2
CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION POLICY
The City of Aspen established a formal annexation policy in 1988
with the adoption of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Annexation
Element. The Annexation Element guided City of Aspen annexations
for many years. In 1993, the City adopted Resolutions 5 and 49
establishing water system policies affecting annexation. City
water policies require a water service agreement incorporating an
obligation on the part of the water user to annex property
benefitted by City water if the City determines annexation is
desirable. Aspen Valley Hospital has already entered into a water
service agreement with the City.
In 2002, the City adopted the City of Aspen Annexation Plan
updating the 1988 Annexation Element and responding to Colorado
State statutes and Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary established in the
Aspen Area Community Plan. Annexation areas and policies to guide
annexation contained in the Annexation Element and the Annexation
Plan are similar: there have not been significant changes made to
annexation policies. Attachment 2 depicts the City of Aspen Three
Mile Annexation Area and Attachment 3 shows AVH is located in the
Meadowood neighborhood, an unincorporated enclave, completely
surrounded by the City of Aspen.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan: Annexation Criteria
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan identifies "Annexation Criteria"
which "should be used to determine when annexation is appropriate,
which land should be annexed, and how it should be zoned." The
following section demonstrates that the AVH annexation is
substantially consistent with the applicable "Annexation Criteria."
Portions of the Annexation Criteria are directly quoted as noted.
AACP Compliance
Annexation requests should be reviewed for compliance with the
Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Annexation of AVH is consistent
with the AACP and is envisioned within the Plan.
Urban Growth Boundary
"Land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is expected to become
part of the City's urbanized area and should be considered
appropriate for annexation" (p.11). Attachment 2 shows the
hospital is within the UGB.
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 3
Significant Annexations
The Plan recognizes problems may arise from annexing significant
properties such as AVH which received land use entitlements from
the County and then are annexed by the City. This has been the
case with the Moore PUD and Aspen Highlands Village Annexations.
Annexation of AVH prior to the development of a new master plan is
intended to avoid similar problems. The AVH Board is seeking the
active involvement of the City staff, Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council in the development of a new Master
Plan.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
The City should project the capital improvments costs and operating
costs associated with annexation. The City Manager has projected
that the annual impact of annexation on the City's expenditure
budget to be at least $ 75,000.00. This is the only City of Aspen
Annexation Criterion addressed in the City Manager's memorandum to
the City Council. The AVH staff does not concur with the City's
fiscal impact analysis.
The fiscal impacts of annexation are just one of nine Annexation
Criteria in the City of Aspen Annexation Plan. Attachment 4 is a
list and Attachment 5 is a map identifying 27 properties the City
has annexed since 1987. Two parcels of vacant land have been
annexed, Zoline and Burlingame. Two parks/recreation/open space
properties have been annexed; Iselin and Rotary Parks and the Moore
Fields. One institutional property has been annexed, Hallam Lake.
The overwhelming reason for annexing the Iselin and Rotary Parks
and the Moore Fields was so the City of Aspen could control the
master planning process for these important civic facilities. The
same rational applies to the AVH annexation.
The remaining annexations were all developed residential
properties. Extensive nationally recognized planning studies of
annexations show the annexation of institutional/parks/cultural
facilities and developed residential areas rarely, if ever, result
in net positive fiscal impacts for annexing municipalities. This
is the case with the 24 City of Aspen residential annexations which
have occurred since 1987. While some of the annexations have
generated real estate transfer tax revenues, these funds are
earmarked for specific purposes and do not offset negative impacts
on the City of Aspen General Fund. In most cases, the overwhelming
justification for annexation was to enfranchise Aspen Area citizens
in the City of Aspen political process. Residential annexations
gave hundreds of Aspen Area citizens the right to vote in City
elections. Additionally, the past two City of Aspen Mayors lived
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 4
in the annexed areas.
The AVH annexation will include 38 new dwelling units into the City
limits including Mountain Oaks, the Castle Creek Terrace Assisted
Living Center and the Hospital Administrator's house.
Approximately 64 additional Aspen Area residents will become
eligible to vote and run for office in the City of Aspen.
Annexation of the AVH may result in net negative fiscal operating
impacts similar to every other property annexed by the City since
1987. The annexation serves the dual benefit of enfranchising
citizens and helping one of the most important community resources
in Aspen. The City Council must weigh the fiscal impacts of the
AVH annexation against all other adopted Annexation Criteria in
reaching an annexation decision.
A modern, state of the art hospital will indirectly benefit the
local economy. Due to changing population demographics, local
hospital facilities play a more important role in attracting
residents and visitors to the Aspen Area which benefits the local
economy and off -sets negative fiscal impacts which may result from
annexation.
Development Rights/Zoning
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan calls for development rights
associated with a property in the County to be considered in the
zoning of property after annexation into the City. The development
rights of newly annexed land should approximate development rights
prior to annexation (p.12).
Pitkin County has approved the 1989, 1996 and 1997 AVH Master
Plans. The City Community Development Department has reviewed the
land use entitlements in the approved plans. The approved AVH
Master Plans include an entitlement to build a 22,800 square foot
Medical Office Building which was opposed by the City of Aspen when
the Plan was approved in 1997. At the request of the City of Aspen
Community Development Department, AVH has agreed to eliminate the
Medical Office Building from the approved entitlements if AVH is
annexed.
Usefulness and Appropriateness of Each Jurisdiction's Regulations
The Aspen Land Use Regulations are different from the Piktin County
Land Use Code. The Aspen Land Use Regulations are designed to
address "intense use of land and urban development issues, such as
architectural character" (p. 12) while the County Land Use Code is
designed primarily to address rural land development issues.
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 5
The City of Aspen Land Use Regulations are better suited to
regulate the development of the AVH. Piktin County Land Use Code
amendments were required to address prior AVH master plans.
Multiple County Land Use Code amendments were required to address
the tourist oriented uses of the Aspen Highlands Village Planned
Unit Development. More County Code amendments may be necessary for
hospital related uses in the next master planning process. It is
unlikely that Code amendments would be necessary if the Aspen Land
Use Regulations are used to guide the preparation of the new AVH
Master Plan.
Infrastructure and Ability to Serve
"Cost, capacity and engineering issues related to extension of the
City's municipal water system to developing land on the urban
fringe is a significant annexation issue" (P. 13). The hospital is
already served with City of Aspen water.
The City Engineer has recommended urban improvments to the Castle
Creek Road/AVH intersection. The AVH Board has agreed to donate
up to $ 100,000 to the upgrading of the intersection which is more
than AVH's fair share.
Simplicity of City Boundary
"The City/County boundary has created confusion for citizens and
staff responsible for enforcing policy. A complex boundary can
complicate emergency service provision and, in extreme cases,
defeat efforts of City police officers. Annexations simplifying
the boundary should be encouraged while those further complicating
the division should be avoided" (p.13).
Attachment 2 shows AVH and Castle Creek Road are enclaves
completely surrounded by the City of Aspen. The AVH annexation
would significantly simplify the City boundary consistent with City
annexation policy.
CITY OF ASPEN ISSUES REGARDING ANNEXATION
The City Manager addresses annexation in a May 20, 2003 Memorandum
to Aspen City Council, "Annexation of Aspen Valley Hospital" (see
Attachment 6). The Memorandum notes that discussions between the
City staff and AVH have focused on three issues:
* Construction and operation of a Detox Center;
* Reconstruction of the Castle Creek Road/Doolittle Drive
intersection; and
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 6
* Fiscal Impact on the City of Aspen.
The Memorandum indicates the first two issues have been resolved.
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan contemplates the owners of
annexed property to contribute toward capital improvments such as
upgrading the Castle Creek Road/Doolittle Drive intersection. A
partnership between the City of Aspen and AVH to address and
resolve issues regarding a Detox Center goes beyond the annexation
criteria established in the Annexation Plan and reflects the desire
of the AVH Board of Directors to contribute to upgrading social
services in the Aspen Area.
The City analysis shows the AVH annexation will result in an annual
operating loss to the General Fund of between $ 50,000 and
$ 131,000 due to the proposed annexation. According to the City
Manager, the annual impact on the City's budget will be at least
$ 75,000. As previously noted, the AVH staff does not concur with
the City's fiscal impact analysis.
The City Manager's memorandum addresses only one of nine applicable
Annexation Criteria from the City of Aspen Annexation Plan. The
preceding section of this letter demonstrated substantial
consistency of the AVH annexation with the Annexation Criteria.
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL COMMITMENTS
TO
MITIGATE ANNEXATION IMPACTS
Attachment 7 is a copy of a May 16, 2003 letter from Randy
Middlebrook to the City Manager. This letter proposes AVH's
commitments to offset impacts from annexation. These commitments
are briefly summarized in this section.
Castle Creek Road/ Doolittle Drive Intersection
Aspen Valley Hospital will contribute the lesser half of the actual
cost of redeveloping the intersection or an amount not to exceed
$ 100,000.00.
City Health Insurance Discount
Aspen Valley Hospital will extend City of Aspen employees a
discount equal to 15 percent off AVH charges. This offer will
stand for 10 consecutive years after annexation.
•
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 7
Health Fairs
Aspen Valley Hospital will hold three health fairs per year. Two
will be in Aspen and one in Basalt. The health fairs will offer a
variety of screening tests and educational information for free or
at a significant discount. If there is an average attendance of
450 people at each fair and at least one-third of the participants
take advantage of the offerings, the "in -kind" value of the health
fairs exceeds $ 450,000 per year.
Health Educational Seminars
Aspen Valley Hospital will conduct at least five free educational
seminars on general health topics. If an average of 100 people
attended per seminar, the "in -kind" value exceeds $ 45,000 per
year.
Detox Center
Aspen Valley Hospital reached an agreement with City of Aspen
Police Chief, Loren Ryerson, regarding detox protocols (see
Attachment 8). Subsequent to signature of the detox agreement, the
AVH Board adopted a motion stating that "if at sometime in the
future, the City of Aspen determines the need for a detox unit, the
City of Aspen and Aspen Valley Hospital would consent to become
full partners in solving the issue" (see Attachment 7).
Private Security
Aspen Valley Hospital has contracted
company to provide full-time 24 hour
March 28, 2001 and March 27, 2002
office responded to 118 calls to the
private security at AVH should drast
of calls for public police serv:
Middlebrook's May 16, 2003 letter, d:
a private security force a AVH.
with a local private security
a day private security. From
the Pitkin County Sheriff's
AVH campus. The addition of
Lcally decrease the frequency
ces. Attachment 7, Randy
d not mention the addition of
SUMMARY OF REASONS WHY
THE CITY OF ASPEN SHOULD ANNEX ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL
This section summarizes the reasons why the City of Aspen should
annex the Aspen Valley Hospital.
•
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 8
1. Aspen Valley Hospital is initiating a new master planning
process to develop a Plan which will guide AVH's the growth
and development for 10 to 15 years.
2. AVH is an enclave of unincorporated land, surrounded by the
City the City of Aspen.
3. It would be beneficial to AVH and the community to involve the
City of Aspen in the master planning process instead of the
City administering a County approved Master Plan following
annexation.
4. The City of Aspen Annexation Plan identifies "Annexation
Criteria" which "should be used to determine when annexation
is appropriate, which land should be annexed, and how it
should be zoned." The AVH annexation is substantially
consistent with the City of Aspen Annexation Plan: Annexation
Criteria.
5. Aspen Valley Hospital is located within the City of Aspen
Urban Growth Boundary and within an area proposed to be
annexed in the City of Aspen Annexation Plan.
6. Problems may arise from annexing significant properties such
as AVH which have already received land use entitlements from
the County and then are annexed by the City. This has been
the case with the Moore PUD and Aspen Highlands Village
Annexations.
7. There is precedent for the City of Aspen to annex properties
which result in negative annual fiscal impacts on the City.
The City of Aspen has annexed 27 properties since 1987.
Twenty-four of the annexed properties were improved with
residential land uses which generate a re -occurring negative
fiscal impact on the City General Fund. The overwhelming
justification for annexation was to enfranchise Aspen Area
citizens in the City of Aspen political process. Residential
annexations gave hundreds of Aspen Area citizens the right to
vote in City elections. Additionally, Aspen's last two Mayors
lived in the annexed areas. The AVH annexation will enable
approximately 64 additional Aspen Area residents to vote and
run for office in the City of Aspen.
Three of the properties annexed were institutional/parks/
cultural facilities which result in a net negative fiscal
impacts. These annexations occurred because the City Council
sought land use control of the facilities and believed that
important institutional/parks/cultural facilities should be
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 9
located in the City limits.
8. Annexation of the AVH may result in net negative fiscal
operating impacts for the City of Aspen just as virtually
every property annexed by the City since 1987. However, a
modern state of the art hospital is an asset to the local
economy with significant indirect fiscal benefits which offset
potential negative fiscal impacts which may result from the
AVH annexation. Why should the City of Aspen select such an
important community resource such as AVH to be inappropriate
for annexation?
9. The approved AVH Master Plan includes an entitlement to build
a 22,800 square foot Medical Office Building which was opposed
by the City of Aspen when the Plan was approved in 1997. At
the request of the City of Aspen Community Development
Department, AVH has agreed to eliminate the Medical Office
Building from the approved entitlements if AVH is annexed.
10. The City of Aspen Land Use Regulations are better suited to
regulate the development of AVH than the Pitkin County Land
Use Code because the Regulations are intended to regulate
urban development, while the County Land Use Code is more
focused upon rural land planning issues.
11. The City Engineer has recommended urban improvments to the
Castle Creek Road/AVH intersection. The AVH Board has agreed
to donate up to $ 100,000 to the upgrading of the intersection
which is more than AVH's fair share.
12. The AVH annexation would significantly simplify the City
boundary consistent with City annexation policy.
13. If annexed, AVH will extend City of Aspen employees a discount
equal to 15 percent off AVH charges for 10 years following
annexation.
14. If annexed, AVH will hold three health fairs per year.
15. If annexed, AVH will conduct at least five free educational
seminars per year on general health topics.
16. If at sometime in the future, the City of Aspen determines the
need for a detox unit, AVH consents to become full partners
with the City of Aspen in resolving the issue.
17. Aspen Valley Hospital has contracted with a local private
security company to provide full-time 24 hour a day private
•
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 10
security. The addition of private security at AVH should
decrease the frequency of the City providing police services.
Please carefully consider these reasons for annexing AVH and vote
for the proposed annexation.
Thank you for your consideration of the issues addressed in the
letter.
Sincerely,
ohn Sarpa
Chairperson of Aspen Valley Hospital Board of Directors Signing
for:
Elaine Gerson
Morris Cohen
John Jellinek
Bob D'Alessio
•
E
Mayor and City Council
July 5, 2003
Page 11
List of Attachments
1. Aspen Valley Hospital Annexation Map
2. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, City of Aspen Three Mile
Annexation Area: Map A
3. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, City of Aspen Three Mile
Annexation Area: Map B
4. List of City of Aspen Annexation: 1987-2003
5. Map of City of Aspen Annexations: 1987-2003
6. May 20, 2003 Memorandum from Steve Barwick, City Manager to
the City Council, "Annexation of Aspen Valley Hospital"
7. May 16, 2003 Letter from Randy Middlebrook to Steve Barwick
regarding Annexation
8. Agreement between AVH and Loren Ryerson, City of Aspen Police
Chief regarding Detox Facility
CCAVH
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Memorandum
To: City Council Members
Thru: Steve Barwick, City Manager
From: Paul Menter, Director of Finance and Administrative Services
Date: 7/8/03
Re: Financial impact analysis, Proposed Aspen Valley Hospital Annexation
Summary:
Given current assumptions for the City's General Fund Long Range Financial Plan,
the proposed AVH annexation will increase City operating and capital expenses an
average of $186,648 per year (net of increased revenues and adjusted for inflation)
over the coming ten year period (see April 24, 2003 staff report included as
Attachment A). All of these costs are anticipated to affect the City's general fund.
Attachment B provides a graphical representation of the general fund long-range
plan to provide a baseline for comparison. Given current assumptions, the general
fund can absorb the additional cost and the City's general fund budget remains
sustainable (See Attachment C). However, the Council should be very cautious in
loading additional costs onto the general fund at this point in time. Moderate
reductions in the assumed growth and timing of sales tax, investment income, and
mitigation fee collections will result in a decline in general fund reserves of $6
million over the coming 10 years, all other assumptions remaining the same.
This dramatic sensitivity to fluctuations in consumption tax and fee revenue
illustrates the need for due care in assuming responsibility for additional fixed costs
of operations without identifying sufficient revenue to cover those costs on an
annual basis.
Background:
The City of Aspen and the Aspen Valley Hospital have been negotiating terms for
annexation of an area that includes the Hospital, the County Health and Human
Services facility, and a deed restricted attached housing development, into the City.
There are many policy considerations that must be evaluated as part of an
• July 8, 2003
annexation proposal. Financial impact to the affected municipality is one of those
considerations.
The Finance Department provided a financial impact analysis of the proposed
annexation on April 24, 2003. That analysis is shown here as Attachment A.
Attachment's B through E illustrate a sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of
this annexation on the City's general fund over the coming 10 years, using the City's
long range financial planning model to project potential impacts over that period.
Analysis:
The current general fund long-range financial plan makes the following basic
assumptions regarding future activity in the general fund:
Revenue Assumptions:
• 4% Average annual growth in sales tax revenue, 2004-2012
• 4% average annual growth in departmental fee revenue, 2003-2012
• 5% Average annual interest earnings on investment portfolio
• $4.1 million in one-time revenue from Hyatt -Grand Aspen Project, to be
received between 2005 and 2007.
Expenditure Assumptions:
• 4% average annual increase in operating costs (Labor, Commodities,
Contractual Services).
• Annual increase in Health Care costs of $100,000 per year (in addition to
inflationary costs) from 2004 through 2008.
• $300,000 per year subsidy for Aspen Recreation Center Operations in excess
of self generated revenues of that new facility.
Attachment A illustrates the projected financial condition of the General Fund. over
the coming 10 years with these assumptions in place.
Through the first 6 months of 2003, several of these assumptions are possible
candidates for reconsideration. Sales tax revenue growth, investment income rate of
return, and the timing of the Grand Hyatt mitigation fee revenues are the three most
likely assumptions that may require revision. Offsetting the potential impact of
reductions in these three areas is the possibility that the City will see additional one
time mitigation revenue from hotel to timeshare conversions.
Sales Tax Revenue: With five months of data in place for 2003, sales tax
revenues lag 2002 collections by approximately 2.2%. It is beginning to
appear as though 2003 will become the third consecutive year of reduced
sales tax revenue for the City of Aspen. In this tax collection environment, an
average annual increase of 4% over the coming 10 years is beginning to look
overly optimistic.
2
�1
U
• July 9, 2003
2. Investment Income: The City of Aspen is currently earning investment
income at an average annual rate of 4.33% (average coupon of current
investments). Fully half, or $17.5 million of the City's $37 million
investment portfolio will mature and therefore require reinvestment by the
end of 2005. Interest rates are at their lowest levels in history. The likelihood
that the City will be able to reinvest in instruments that will both meet the
City's operational needs and net a 5% average annual return over the coming
10 years is a very aggressive prediction given current market conditions and
the City' very short average duration on its portfolio of 1.77 years.
3. The Hyatt -Grand Aspen project has yet to begin construction. The current
General Fund Long Range Plan assumes that this project would begin
construction this summer, allowing for unit sales to start in late 2004 or early
2005 resulting in completed sales of 50% of available units by the end of
2005. This activity would generate mitigation revenue for the general fund in
the amount of 2.06 million in 2005, and just over $1 million in 2006 and
2007 respectively. It now appears as though it may be prudent for the City to
revise its assumptions with respect to this one time revenue source by
pushing back the anticipated collection years for this revenue to 2006 or
later.
4. One Time Revenue from Timeshare conversions: The City of Aspen will
receive in 2003 or 2004, approximately $450,000 in one-time mitigation fee
revenue from the St. Regis timeshare project, approved by Council in June of
this year. This revenue was not anticipated in the 2003 budget. Future years
may result in additional unanticipated mitigation fee collections as other
lodges and hotels seek to convert to fractional ownership. In the near term
this fee serves to offset some of the revenue erosion noted above, it also
represents the continued erosion of the City's bed base, which currently
generates 30% of total sales tax revenues to the City.
Attachments D and E illustrate the impact to the general fund if the following, very
reasonable, changes are made to the above noted assumptions:
• 3% Average annual increase in sales tax revenue, down from 4%
• 3.5% Average annual rate of return on investment portfolio, down
from 5%.
• Delay of Grand Aspen mitigation fee collections until 2006-2008.
With only these three changes, and no annexation, the projected ending excess cash
balance at the end of 2012 decreases almost $4 million, from $10,550,000 to
$6,868,000 (Attachment D). Assuming the annexation is approved and the cost
estimates are reasonably accurate, ending cash in excess of required reserves drops
to just over $5 million. More importantly, the cash curve turns negative after 2008
(Attachment E).
3
0 July 8, 2003
Findinpas and Recommendations:
Financial impact is one of many criteria that must be carefully evaluated in
consideration of a proposed annexation. In this case, the proposed annexation will
have a negative impact on the City's General fund. This impact is structural. That is,
it continues over time and is the result of increasing costs related to the annexation
that are embedded in the City's core service requirements.
The City of Aspen is facing the potential of some downward adjustments in its long-
range financial projections with respect to sales tax revenue, investment income, and
mitigation fee collection, among other possible negative impacts and unforeseen
costs that may be faced by the general fund. Small downward adjustments in key
financial indicators result in significant reductions in available resources in future
years irrespective of the proposed annexation.
This raises the question: Does increasing the City's annual general fund
expenditures through annexation, thereby reducing available resources to address
current service needs in other areas, at a time general fund revenues may be eroding
structurally over a sustained period make for sound policy?
The non -financial policy considerations must be substantial to supercede the
potential financial impacts of this decision, as approval of the proposed annexation
in the current economic environment will almost certainly lead to budget reductions
over the coming two to three years in established service areas that would not
otherwise have been necessary.
4
• •
Attachment A
Ca]
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Memorandum
To: Steve Barwick, City Manager
CC: Ed Sadler, Assistant City Manager
From: Paul Menter, Director of Finance and Administrative Services
Date: April 24, 2003
Re: Proposed Aspen Valley Hospital Annexation, Draft Financial Impact Analysis
Summarv:
The attached spreadsheet (Attachment A) summarizes the initial financial impact analysis of this
proposed annexation. The proposed annexation will generate no additional revenue to the City except
for a small amount of sales tax. Retail activity at the Hospital gift store and cafeteria constitute the
only taxable activity within the proposed annexation boundary. Precise taxable revenue information
has been requested from the hospital but as of this date not yet provided.
Overall, the annexation will generate additional revenue of $9,464 annually, almost exclusively from
sales tax proceeds. There will be no ongoing costs to any fund other than the general fund as a result
of this annexation. The estimated general fund cost impact resulting from this annexation is
$151,469. Assuming Hospital participation in upgrading the intersection accessing the hospital at
50% of estimated cost (see Attachment B), the one time cost impact to the City of Aspen of this
annexation comes to $117,500.
Over ten years, assuming an inflation rate of 3.5%, total additional ongoing costs to the City of Aspen
general fund comes to $1,748,981, plus $117,500 in one time costs equals $1,866,481.
Analysis:
Revenues: A review of Tax Assessor records indicates that the proposed annexation area is composed
exclusively of tax-exempt property. County Assessor's office officials have informed the Finance
Department that no parcels of land within this area are subject to property tax. Additionally, real
estate transfer taxes do no apply to sale transactions involving property owned by governmental
jurisdictions. As all of the parcels within the annexation area are apparently owned by the Hospital or
the County, sales within this area, if they were to occur, would not generate any real estate transfer
tax revenue
0
July 8, 2003
The hospital is currently planning a major renovation to its facilities. However, construction material
sales are exempt from sales taxation under state statute and will therefore not generate any one-time
tax revenues for the City of Aspen subsequent to an annexation that took place in advance of such a
project.
Therefore, the only estimated revenue to come from this annexation will result from retail sales at the
hospital's gift shop and cafeteria, and possibly a small increase in state allocated taxes whose
allocations are based upon municipal population. In total, $3,344 in general fund revenue, and $9,464
in total revenue are projected to result annually from this annexation. The largest single assumption in
this revenue forecast is an annual taxable revenue amount of $360,000 from retail sales at the
Hospital ($1,000 per day). The Hospital has been contacted and a more precise estimate of annual
taxable sales has been requested, but as of yet this information has not been provided.
Expenditures: This analysis projects annual and one-time expenses that will result from the proposed
annexation. While every effort has been made to capture direct expenses of this annexation, no
indirect expense component is included as part of this analysis. While such a component is almost
certainly merited, the overall impact of this component is likely to be small relative to the City's
overall financial picture. Therefore, this analysis addresses only actual direct costs that the City of
Aspen will incur.
Total annual ongoing expenses are summarized on Attachment A at $151,469 per year. These
expenses are all for general fund related activities. No non -general fund related expenses have been
identified as part of this analysis. These expenses are offset by an estimated $3,344 in annual general
fund revenue, for a next financial impact to the general fund of $148,125. Over a ten-year period,
assuming an inflation rate of 3.5% this comes to $1,855,210 in new general fund cost for which
revenue is not recovered.
Ongoing expenses are identified in two general fund departments, Police and Streets. While there will
certainly be financial impacts on other departments, a cursory evaluation indicates that these expenses
will be not require any additional ongoing resources to avoid degradation of service levels to other
customers.
Annual increased Police Department expenses come to $86,899 per year. This amount constitutes the
fully outfitted cost of a police officer for one year. Police expenses are justified in the memorandum
provided as Attachment C to this memo. Increased demand for services resulting from several issues
contributes to the Police department's request for an additional police officer. Therefore it may be
appropriate to apply only a portion of the cost of these services against the proposed annexation.
Annual increased Streets Department expenses come to $64,570, and are comprised of three separate
cost areas. The first is annual maintenance. The estimated increase in annual maintenance costs
associated with maintaining Castle Creek Road from the Roundabout to the Hospital is estimated at
$10,000.This would include the cost of materials and supplies, as well as personnel costs for sanding,
plowing and seasonal maintenance activities.
The second cost area is the depreciable basis of the proposed new intersection (see "One Time"
costs). The City Engineer estimates that reconstruction of this intersection will cost approximately
$200,000. Assuming a ten-year life expectancy, this translates into a depreciable cost of
approximately $26,000 per year.
The third cost area is the depreciable basis for an overlay of Castle Creek Road from the Roundabout
to the Hospital entrance. The City Engineer estimates the cost of this overlay to be $112,164 (see
Attachment D). The one time cost of such an overlay is not estimated as part of the analysis provided
in Attachment A. Based upon a life expectancy of five years, the depreciable basis of this
•
•
July 8, 2003
improvement comes to approximately $28,000 per year, and this amount is included as an estimated
increase in ongoing expenses for the Streets Department.
One time Expenses: Attachment A identifies $186,380 in one time expenses associated with this
annexation. $68,880 in development application review costs are shown as offset by permit fees. The
permit revenues received to offset the costs of development applications do not uniformly cover the
entire cost of the application review, however for modeling purposes and lacking information specific
to this permit application regarding actual review costs they are shown as offsetting.
Other one-time expenses include 50% of the estimated cost for renovation of the entrance to the
Hospital from Castle Creek Road, $100,000 (see Attachment B, page 3), and a total of $17,500 in
estimated annexation proposal review costs for the City Council ($5,000), Finance Department
($2,500), and Planning Department ($10,000).
In total, this analysis, which attempts to provide a very conservative estimate of the direct financial
impact of this proposed annexation to the City of Aspen, concludes that over a 10 year period,
increased costs to the City as a result of this annexation will be $1,855,210. This analysis only
attempts to estimate direct costs. No attempt has been made to estimate legitimate indirect expenses
that will be incurred by the City of Aspen, or to estimate in discreet detail direct expenses where there
may be some debate at to the actual level of impact to be incurred.
3
•
Attachment A
•
4/24/03 15 17
City of Aspen
Hospital and Surrounding Properties Annexation
Financial Summary
One Time
Ongoing Estim. Estimated Annual
REVENUE: Annual Amount Amount NOTES
General Fund:
All property in Annexation Area is tax
Property Tax
$0
$0 exempt
Franchise Tax
$0
$0 No impact
Specific Ownership
$0
$0 No impact
Assumes $250k in annual taxable sales.
at Hospital store & cafe per AVH
County Sales Tax
$2,184
$0 controller
Building Fees
$0
$68,880 Per Comm. Dev Fee Schedule
Highway Users Tax
$150
$0 No impact
Road & Bridge Tax
$50
$0 No impact
General Fund Total:
$2,384
$68,880
Wheeler Opera House - no cost impact:
.05 % Real Estate Transfer Tax
$0
$0 No taxable property in annexation area
Afford House/Daycare Fund - no cost impact:
1.0% Real Estate Transfer Tax
$0
$0 No taxable property in annexation area
Assumes $250k in annual taxable sales,
at Hospital store & cafe per AVH
45% City Sales Tax
$1,125
$0 controller
Afford House/Daycare Total:
$1,125
$0
Parks and Open Space - no cost impact:
Assumes $250k in annual taxable sales,
at Hospital store & cafe per AVH
1.0% City Sales Tax
$2,500
$0 controller
Parking Garage Fund- no cost impact
Assumes $250k in annual taxable sales,
at Hospital store & cafe per AVH
.25% City Sales Tax
$625
$0 controller
TOTAL REVENUES:
$6,634
$68,880
(EXPENDITURES
Fund:
Capital Improvements (AMP)
City Council
Finance
Dispatch
IStreets
I Health
One Time
General Ongoing Estim. Estimated Annual
Annual Amount Amount NOTES
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$86,899
$0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $151
1/2 of Estimated cost to rebuild
$100,000 intersection
Estimated Cost of reviewing Annexation
$5,000 proposal
Estimated Cost of reviewing Annexation
$2,500 proposal & preparing financial analysis
Estimated one time costs of reviewing
annexation proposal and preparing
$10,000 planning recommendation.
$0
Estimated cost of reviewing one time
development application valued at $10
$68,880 million (offset by revenues).
$0
Estimated cost of new police officer, fully
$0 funded including vehicle
$0
Estimated annual operating impact $101k,
Depreciable basis of intersection: $26k,
and Depreciable basis of road
186
Annual Over/(Short):-$149,086-$117,500
Ten Year Direct Cost at 3.5% inflation:-$1,748,981
Plus one time Hospital Contribution for �(
Capital Improvements: 117 500
'Total Costs Recommended for Recovery
over 10 year period:-$1,866,481
Operating Expenses estimated at 100% of actual cost
One time expenses estimated at one time hospital contribution amount
Benefit cost analysis completed on the basis of General Fund Revenues only - The small amount of revenue generated
from sales taxes for other funds cannot be used to offset general fund activity.
f 7 •
•
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Ed Sadler, Assistant City Manager
Through: Steve Barwick, City Manager
Subject: Castle Creek Road
RE: Hospital Annexation
Date: March 31, 2003
Overview:
Attached you will find a memo from Nick Adeh, City Engineer, regarding a possible
reconfiguration of the Castle Creek Road and Doolittle Drive intersection. This study was
done in response to the traffic mitigation required as part of the Waterplace development.
If you recall, there are several features of importance to this area of the road. Pulling out
of the hospital onto Castle Creek Road, there is a berm to the left which has a waterline
buried in it and looking right, Castle Creek Road curves to the left. These features make it
difficult to see oncoming traffic in either direction. For pedestrian traffic crossing Castle
Creek Road (especially from Marolt), the curve in Castle Creek Road and dense
vegetation up to the road hinder visibility when crossing. Driving south on Castle Creek
Road and desiring to pull onto Doolittle Drive, there is a slight right turn lane, but a
driver turning right can impede following traffic. There are also some drainage issues
present in the area as water attempts to move north along the road towards the
roundabout.
Solutions:
During the study and subsequent public meeting, numerous traffic related issues were
identified and the configuration of the proposed plan attempts to address those issues.
There are four main issues that this proposal attempts to address. They are:
1) RFTA's desire to have flexibility in how it's busses pick up and drop off passengers
and where they drop them off (the county health bldg., or the regular bus stop and
then depending on the direction the bus is heading).
2) The hospital and ambulance service desires to reduce the traffic conflicts (especially
emergency vehicles) as traffic approaches or leaves the hospital.
3) The County Heath Office wishing to reduce the bus traffic in front of their building
where elderly patrons and children are often located. The busses currently use this
drive as their turnaround.
4) Pedestrian traffic having difficulty seeing oncoming traffic as they cross Castle Creek
Road.
Nick (Engineering), Jerry (Streets), Phil (Water), Jeff (Parks) and I have made a couple
of field visits to the site to discuss options for dealing with the issues. We have
concluded that the plan put before you has addressed the issues, but that some of the
issues can be dealt with separately without the whole plan being adopted if needed. I
believe that if some of these issues are of true concern to these entities, that they should
help to bear the costs of these improvements. For example, the portion of the plan labeled
"Bus Lane" is there to help keep busses from turning in front of the County Health
Building while giving RFTA the flexibility to drop off passengers in either direction at
the bus stop or at the County Health Building. If this aspect of the plan isn't important
enough for either entity to help pay for it, this piece can be eliminated. This would still
leave separate entrances for the hospital and Doolittle Drive. If the hospital is unwilling
to help pay to create two separate turns off of Castle Creek Road, there are still
improvements that can be made relatively inexpensively to the intersection that will
improve visibility for drivers. Similarly, the pedestrian crossing can be improved for
relatively minimal costs outside of the rest of the project.
Specifically, to improve the current sight lines at the current intersection, the berm can be
shaved back slightly and the flare of asphalt as Doolittle enters Castle Creek can be
widened. A mirror can be added at the curve to increase visibility to the south. Vegetation
can also be trimmed back and thinned out. For the pedestrian crossing, the location of the
crosswalk can be changed slightly, new signs posted, the crosswalk repainted and the
vegetation thinned out and trimmed back.
Costs:
The memo from Nick sets the cost at about $200,000. I believe that when including all
the "little" associated costs that a more accurate figure is about $300,000, with things
such as signage, drainage, culverts, bus shelters and all added. My initial thoughts would
be to split the costs three ways with the City, County and Hospital. Castle Creek Road is
a County Road, the County Health Building is a County Building, and the trail crosses a
County road. Doolittle Drive is a City road that serves a City Housing project and the
City's water plant. The current road configuration serves the hospital and the new
configuration addresses the Hospital's concerns on traffic conflicts into and out of the
Hospital.
Memorandum 81-
TO: Ed Sadler, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
DATE: January 29, 2003
Reference: Castle Creek /Doolittle Dr./Entrance Rd. to Hospital
This report memorandum is intended to summarize the City staffs field and office
meetings and the Engineering Department's project planning and infrastructure
inspections of the existing street corridors referenced here. The following summary is a
result of our routine monitoring and evaluation of these corridors that started in July
1996.
During the past 7 years we have received numerous phone calls, mostly safety
complaints, concerning this unusually laid street intersection with different traffic
circulation patterns. Each individual comidor has developed a unique functional
classification that includes pedestrian trails, walkways and a bus stop gathering area.
Multiple uses of these road segments include the following movements:
Doolittle Drive
Performing as an industrial and residential street, is a route for:
- Industrial Plant chemical supplies including delivery of chlorine for water treatment.
- Emergency evacuations.
- Plant maintenance and construction.
- Residential traffic.
- Pedestrian traffic on walkways & Trails
Hospital Entrance Drive
Performs as a commercial and public facility access road and is a route to accommodate:
- Medical emergency traffic
- Facility visitor and user traffic (staff, patient, deliveries, etc.)
Castle Creek Road
Classifies as local/collector road and accommodates all traffic movements including:
- Recreational traffic
- Residential traffic
- Construction and maintenance traffic
- Bike traffic
- Public transportation (RFTA buses) traffic
Ed Sadler, Assistant City Manager
Page i
We retained a professional traffic consultant in 1999, to perform the following work on
intersection safety enhancements plan:
• Conduct a full traffic study and obtain daily traffic volumes and observe
pedestrian movements.
• Identify corridor operation problems associated with pedestrian and vehicular
movements.
• Recommend possible enhancement options to minimize the existing conflict
between cars, bikes and pedestrians.
In addition to individual phone calls made to Engineering Department, issues raised in
neighborhood meetings were primarily based on traffic patterns originating at the
following facilities:
1- Health & Human Services complex.
2- Aspen Valle} Hospital.
3- Music School student and bus operations.
4- Construction site activities in good weather seasons.
5- Surrounding hich-density residential developments including hospital housing
complex; Doolittle Circle apartments, Twin Ridge sub -division, Marolt Place
apartments and Water Place housing development.
6- Water Treatment Plant and distribution system operations.
7- RFTA bus operations.
Traffic study performed by our consultant was to address multiple corridor use and to
suggest solution(s) for traffic calming and safer movement throughout the intersections
and approaching streets.
This work was undertaken by the City Engineering Department as a mitigation project for
the City's employee housing development under construction at the upper end of the
Doolittle Drive. Recommended solutions were presented to area neighborhood residents
in meetings held by the City. Selection of the preferred alternative was based on majority
opinion given by the participating representatives from Ambulance Service, Health and
Human Services, hospital facility expansion and planning Architect (Ted Guy), Castle
Ridge and Doolittle Circle neighborhood residents, RFTA planning and operations staff,
County Public Works and Engineering, and City Department representatives. The
alternative "C" sketch plan attached to this memo was the preferred option for
intersection improvements at an estimated cost of $200,000 for all approaching streets
including pedestrian crossings, bus stop gathering areas and trailhead connections for
bikers. The preferred plan offers the following enhancements:
1. Designated pedestrian crosswalks, walkway area and trailhead connections to
accommodate pedestrians and bikers.
2. L-icreased bus pullout and passenger gathering area.
•
Ed Sadler, Assistant City Manager
Page 3
3. Integrated design for the intersection that will distribute traffic from hospital
complex and surrounding residential, commercial and industrial developments.
4. Practical traffic channelization to improve traffic calming and transit efficiency.
The City has completed several segments of the proposed improvements and has fulfilled
its obligations for this project. These improvements include:
1. Reconstruction of Doolittle Drive with special asphalt paving material to obtain a
longer wear life.
2. Construction of roadside drainage collection and conveyance system.
3. Construction of curb gutters and pedestrian soft path along Doolittle Drive.
The cost of improvements and engineering studies were well in excess of $100,000 paid
by the City, and all improvements are performing as expected.
County's obligation was to improve the Castle creek corridor as outlined below:
1. Reconstruct the pedestrian crosswalks and their steep approaches to trailheads to
increase the pedestrian and biker's visibility to motorists on Castle Creek Road.
This work also includes tree tr'mming and removal of redundant and obstructing
shrubs and bushes. Many roadside bushes impair driver's ability to see and
respond to pedestrians and bikers at road crossings.
2. Repair and reconstruct the existing roadside drainage collection system to
minimize road damage and install culvert under the entrance driveway at the
Senior Center to eliminate ponding and icing problems.
3. Install adequate and proper traffic sings to better inform motorists of pedestrian in
crosswalks and trail crossings. The existing trails accommodate commuter and
recreational bike traffic.
4. Pavement marking to delineate directional travel lanes, edge of road, and
pedestrian crosswalks for safety enhancement and traffic calming purposes.
The County has completed an asphalt overlay and has cleaned the roadside drainage
swales. All other items listed above including a culvert under the Senior Center entrance
drive remain unfinished.
The hospital would have to complete all remaining corrective construction segments
proposed for the intersection as shown in the geometric layout plan. The estimated
probable cost for this corrective work was $100,000 in 1999. Therefore, I am
recommending a contribution of at least equal to this amount plus the adjustment for
inflation as a condition of annexation.
ENG-NIEM02003-03
aoSplTAy �
G LpZ
Y�
8GSp1� �
gp p,D
CE
l T
g.li � LpT
BUS
Q:D
- H.H.S.
B UILD ING,.,
m
DOOLITTIB D
HOSPITAL AND
cowry H.H.S.
'1
Cl
L!Z
RI.a �-
UTILITY POST
RESIDENTL4L
A.REA
UTIUTY
BOX
Figure 7 Alternative C — Two Intersections CLcale: 1" = 60'
CASTLE CREEK ROAD
ro
•• -980.5 •• 76 / 49
96 / 117 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM Peak / PM Peak
r" Average Daily Traffic •' I
N I�
! DOOLITTLE DRIVE
2 / 5 ��� 1 1-- 68 / 68 68 / 39
a 1 0/0 14/63.��
0 / 0 ••� ire 2 / 0 3/2 �y .. 675 ..
HOSPITAL 5'
PARKING LOT
N O
O o CD z O \\ 0.
683 •• w W
Scale: 1" = 60' Figure 3 — Existing Traffic Volumes a001 ENGWEERINc INC.
CASTLE -CREEK ROAD
• - t26 / 1g4
nDOOLITTLE
11610 •• 152 / 98192 / 234 —yTRAFFIC VOLUMES
Peak PM:Peakerage Daily Traffic "N
RIVE
4 / 10 .�► 1 L �� 136 / 136 +— 136 / 78
0/2
�•� 0/0 28 / 124--+ �� 2/2
0/0 �y 1 i- 4 / 0 6/4 w-%J► •• 1350 ..
HOSPITAL 1 FEI-2
PARKING LOTo o ••1366
Scale: 1" = 60' Figure 4 - Adjusted Traffic Volumes 15OCK ENGINEExINc INC)
0
May 9, 2002
To: Mayor Helen Klanderud
Through Steve Barwick
From: Glenn Schaffer
Re: Hospital District Annexation Considerations
C
In regards to the forthcoming annexation of Aspen Valley Hospital, the Senior Services
Center, Health and Human Services building, Hospital Administrators residence, and the
Oak Ridge Condominium complex we would like the city to consider the following for
Police Department services in these areas.
In addition to the hospital district annexation the Police Department has also seen
impact from the newly re -aligned highway and traffic patterns west of town including the
Round -a -bout and new Truscott and Buttermilk intersections. We can also expect an
increase in calls for service with the new additions to the Truscott housing.
From March 28, 2001 to March 27, 2002 the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office responded to
106 calls for service at Aspen Valley Hospital. The actual number of call for the Sheriff's
Office were greater than 106, but some of the calls for service will statutorily remain the
responsibility of the Sheriff. In addition, 12 calls for service occurred during the same
timeframe at the Senior Service Center.
Currently, an Aspen Police Officer, on average responds to 40 calls for service each
month, or 480 per year. 118 calls for service equates to approximately one fourth of a
single officer yearly.
From May 9, 1999 through May 9, 2000 — Aspen Police officers made a total of 129
traffic contacts (citations and warnings) on Highway 82 West of the Cemetery Ln.
intersection. From May 9, 2000 through May 9, 2001 the number of traffic contacts in
the same area jumped to 227. The statistics for the current year are not up to date, and
presently unavailable. The average number of traffic contacts per officer in 2001 was
240. The annexation of the hospital district will also include approximately three
quarters of a mile of Castle Creek Road including the remainder of the round -a -bout
which presently is State Patrol's jurisdiction, adding further traffic enforcement areas for
the Aspen Police Department.
And finally, Truscott Place. The Aspen Police Department responded to 28 calls for
service at Truscott Place in 2001. The calls were criminal, incident and traffic accident
related. Currently Truscott has 97 units and 130 bedrooms, with a total of 121 parking
spaces available. By the completion of phase two, Truscott will have more than doubled
with 197 units, 253 bedrooms, and 203 parking spaces available. With the increase in
housing, and the new restaurant, the police department can expect call for service to at
least double in this area.
•
0
r Y
U
U CO
ca
N CZ O
b � "U
U U CJ
cn O .
U � U
C c U
� U
U U
� U
03
— U
a
'
Q
r En
U O
w
O
� �
U E
(+--+ Q
'n U
0�
cn 7)
OU
O U
U Y
�
ACC--!�
E
.T-i
O 0
O Y
r En
En
v
CJ^'
Y
o
•Iy7
C, .=- . —
. .
U
p�
""
NC;n
U
-C
14
N c
j
En -o '
r4
bQ
'C7 cz
0
0
O
�1
T
N
U�
r�
T
T
O
I
O
U
Z
:= E U=
c)
N fn
0
in -�=
C
(o
Y
_
Q
N
C
O�"
C
U
C i
w
O f. cn
O)
E
CDcu
O
- oM a)
m
E
> ,r,
N .L =C
>
I
O Lm
to "O C
U
O
E >
O N
.
I
F
O
O
Q
d
o
m
U
c
w
a
Cl-
a.
U
o
.�
UN
>_
°'
(D
�
-0
=
v
°'
`
Lu
U
c
U
/.cCU
Li.
a-
C
N
O
an
L
=3
Y
U
U
C
u
w
C,
U,
a�
V
c
N
O
m
OP
Z U)
U
L
O
>
O
>
c
coCO
0
\1/
m
U
N
Q
U
L
Q
--
00 03
p o
U
N
cu
in
0
v
X
L
v
fd
Cn
c
a�
En
aEi
o a
o
T
CU
Z co
__j
�cn
�C
(n N
L
C
(V U
C-)
s
N
v
H �
W
L.
E
Co
0
�nl z
�
Y
^W
W �
�
�
U
U)
0
a)
U
a
Q
M
4kAttachment B •
City of Aspen - General Fund Long Range Plan
Assuming AVH Annexation Beginning 2004
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009 1
2010
2011
2012
nues
$13,995.758
$12,905,354
$14,352,306
$15,751.925
$15,959,144
$16,502,278
518,433,38E
$17.031,422
S17.864.BM
$18,242.776
$18.M9.832
leitures
$11.219,342
$13,051,967
$13.943,493
$14.4802M
$14.470,730
$15,138.815
$15,833.625
$16.455.225
$17,103.731
517,777.137
SISA 7,479
over minimum Balance
$4,361,808
S2,998,897
$3,118.745
$4,288,175
$5,662.955
36,908.377
$7,385,515
$7.849,994
$8.296,005
$8,542.255
$8.870,533
• Attachment C 0
City of Aspen - General Fund Long Range Plan
With Annexation Beginning 2004
All Other Assumptions Unchanged
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
iIII�II�II''�'
i
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
2002
1 2963
2004
zoos
1 2008
1 2007
1zoos
2009 1
2010
2011
2012
Revenues
213,988,756
512,908.354
$1l,352.386
$15,751,925
515,959,114
518,502,278
518,433,385
517,031,422
517,884,802
218,242,776
832Expenoilures
$11.219,342
$13.051.907
$13.943.483
314,460,282
$14.470.730
$15,138.815
$15.833,625
$16.456225
517,103,731
$17,777,137
479
E
over minimum Balance
$4.361,806
$2,998,897
$3,118.745
$4,288,175
55.662.955
56,908,377
57,385,515
$7.849.994
58,298,066
$8,842,255
58,870,533
City of Aspen - General Fund Long Range Plan
No Annexation - 2003-2012
3% Sales Tax Growth,
3.5% Investment Income, 1
Year Delay in Grand Aspen Fee Revenue
All Other Assumptions Unchanged
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
2002
2003
zoos
zoos
2006
2007 12008
zoos
2010
2011
2012
Revenues
$13,966,758
$12,906.354
$14.138.801
$13,454,898
$16.711.0"
$16.160.613
$17.072.665
$16.%8,565
$17.122,094
$17,612.905
$18,110,870
Expenditures
$11.219,342
573,051,987
$13,755,835
$14,273,634
$14.284,082
$14,952.167
$15,"6,977
$16,M.578
$16,917.083
$17.590,489
$18,290,831
asn over Minimum Balance
$4.361,808
$2.998,897
53,167,322
$2,233.139
$4.553.423
$5.651.098
$5,961.344
$7,156,938
$7,254.420
$7,165,096
$8,868,832
•
City of Aspen - General Fund Long Range Plan
With Annexation - 2003-2012
3% Sales Tax Growth,
3.5% Investment Income
One -Year Delay in Grand Aspen Fee Revenue
All Other Assumptions Unchanged
$20,000,000 r ___-__
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$O
V2004
2002
2003
2005
2006
2001
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Revenues
$13,986.758
$12,906.354
$14,214.315
$13.461.664
$16.718,000
$16.167,883
$17.079,845
$16, 575,889
$17,129,564
E17,620,611
$18.118,642
Expenditures
$11,219.342
$13.051.987
$13,943,483
$14,480,282
$14,470.730
$15,138,815
E75,833,825
$18,458.228
$17,103,731
$17,777,137
$18.477.479
ash over minimum Balance
$4,381,808
$2.998.897
$2,980674
$1.859.843
$3.993,479
$4, 904, 506
$6.028, 104
$6,037.050
$5,947,884
E5671,912
b5.189.000
l0
C
y m
t o
cn c
o co
^
Q O
a o y
o' (D y Q_
O W CU
� (0 6J 0 a)X
L
a >, m
m`=or
11
n
M
C
E
r
W
a
o
N
N
C
N
Q E
z
oy
>CD
Ua)Q
3
T
E
E
E
0
U
O
cNT 01
T
•
•
Q C
O
W Qi i+
O ` x
L X
O
U ~ c
Q
�€ w E E F
m
5� ma
67N � n
m
U
0
• J J N
O (9 O
C E
3 3
• . X-��-1������}}�<< Sir;. s
'a.� r� _ _1. ,•n._ ,r�(;.1 , gin.
d a
E
c
m
d
C � N
N
O
ZQ aN
>
U O Q
41
E
E
0
r Z
i
�! I 1ACFiML'NT 3
w
N
GULL. I••Y17
•
•
Nc?'Wco'C 'wco'
G • N 9'J•l4'AO•W NJ2.71'
N4W-V o' W/20.XJ
N4!!JI'a7W &25.r
N2P52'�'w G17./2'
F
i
Alpine Surveys, Inc.
PAN 011ICe Bo• 1]]0
oi°o ass wo.rw eralz
99IMENI OF CONT►GANTY _.__ ___
Cf NMAOL)t, DIOTANCC• 3434. 1C. FEET
TOTAL PERIMETER• 722-54A MET
R�
VG x722�69-195 <'.�i3Ci.1(o
SWWMdRwlelelw
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT
ANNEXATION TQ,*rILY--Qlk�lR;F ASPEN
'J'Y1LV
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
nTRPF.T Q LAND OITU'.TCD IN'iNEp=EF6T QJAIVER OP'FLTION I I IN THE
��FLWL'J�T QYJVFJC#PION I� IRNW 05 WE7T�T�F-IE JI�IJ�
PRIrrlrni BALL INN, PITKAJ COUINTr, eaD& R:, WIORE rAXrwIIRLY
OMCMWID T��HEyNppCE�AgW.hl" T1-IE�D0.[A},JyDpWZT OF A^JPF]J �/AIlET HOJrIrAL DI'J'ThiGT
t-IUcTH Q7'4 THE E!'Jf '.�1'1. 21 MET U' NJD DY.YfA1JGC9
h�.gpRRTF1-{{ 09'07�J' WE7f 19 1.74 FELT N�IO
METH � �� , PEST TD THE wE7T fJCd-if•Of•WAY LINE Of
TH rLr NORTH 2Y.7i'G;r WEST (.2'S 1.2 -MT
-J {c WE'JT pGHf-q..WY
LINE OF CI.YfLE CRP!X KCNj'J TO THE INiClC7�.T1 W ITH THE JMH RK�I-IT' OF'
WAY LADE CF MAZCnI`I ICz�EK 7YY0
T]-Irwrr �.!')cn-1 Lid 'il Y, wrYi 95�7'1 FEETK� NVId7aJ C![EFIC RO+D'i0
A
A
ALONG THE WE7T =.>40AKY
TO THE tla I KIGF 'C)F• WAY
F.aV D OTJ� Jfi`GE
r RGHT•OF• WAY LINE OF C 7TLE
DItJTAr'rr tj+
4GRIJVKLR CC4114ffR Or tINP
^35-1 CAOTLE G'GEK RO^,D TO
qo' 7 J-! VA YHCLYITAL
4TIC/.L WITH THE R71NT DF
NO. 2
JG THLr' W T O0.t�IDAfCY Or
ANNEWI
/TH 25"3 'S'J� WE7i 0�99 FEET
NCJRTN 19.07'GO' WE•'A I`19 (n9 rECt TO THE WEY' TF1V�WedT CpIV�E1C OF.aND
P,4K� A y�ID CDKNEI'� CErhG ON THE 3QJfH B0.1RY LIIJE Or PAICLLG OF
L.�6rEN vvug.Y r�rlrAL oI•�nc�C_ jxxavlblON
THENCE A.1vprFD1" TNC bOITfN [%L1JDA1[Y OP SAID 1.6L G THE RL10 111,
JW�TH 417jgU WT*T�p PEEP Arco
.a7UfF1 2�'O7'CYY WE7T 92.G0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEC IN�fIN6.
CITY Of ASPEN APPROVAL
uTrCJTY n7PE1J VALLL' HxrIrAL DUTKICf nNNE%ATION WAS APrROJED F1r,HE
�au�c�LorrH�amaP.�-cal rlTrw�m;caac�araw�rr,E
ATTECIT•.UTYCIS.RK--------
.___-__.__ 1rIAYOR..----------
......._--- .__..__.
ACCEPTANCE TOR RECORDINr
THIS PLAT Gf THE A'�PQJ VN-LEYDI7r1OGr ANJEXATION W/!�
ACCEPTED FDIC F1uNG IN THE OFFCL Q`THE C1.EKKACIr KCLG>&P%FPITKM
C0>4M,, COLCKADO ON THE .__....__.. DAYOF.._._.._..._____,.3'X12 N PLAT eLOK
............. AT PAGE ...........
GLCIEK IJJfS RFfARDLR ......_..
ryA`SPEN VALLEY" tZ1,rAL DitrMIGT O*d
Aj�MJFXATY7N RJ THE CTY OP'AIVI N
City of Aspen Annexation: 1987 - 2003
SOURCE BOOK
SOURCE PAGE
NAME
YEAR
ACRES
ORD
DATE
MAP —NO
20
5
East Meadow/Jukati
1987
2.10
Ord 36, 1987
Aug 24, 1987
52
19
97
Aspen Grove, Eastwood, Kn
1987
73.44
Ord 28, 1987
July 13, 1987
51
22
7
Block 19
1988
0.17
Ord 54, 1988
Dec 19, 1988
53
22
46
Centennial/Hunter Creek
1989
60.63
Ord 15, 1989
March 29, 1989
55
32
46
Harbor Lane
1989
0.10
Ord 52, 1989
Aug 28, 1989
56
22
15
Williams Addition
1989
7.08
Ord 57, 1988
Jan 9, 1989 •
54
32
38
B.N. Berger
1993
1.18
Ord 23, 1993
March 22, 1993
57
35
50
Zoline
1994
58.76
Ord 40, 1994
Aug 22, 1994
58
37
77
Silverload-Williams Ranch
1995
12.80
Ord 61, 1994
March 13, 1995
59
41
77
Maroon Creek Club North A
1996
36.56
Ord 33, 1996
Sept 24, 1996
60
41
77
Maroon Creek Club North
1996
111.02
Ord 33, 1996
Sept 24, 1996
60
41
76
Maroon Creek Club South
1996
154.87
Ord 34, 1996
Sept 24, 1996
61
44
94
Hallam Lake
1997
21.18
Ord 7, 1997
Feb 24, 1997
62
43
35
Stillwater Ranch, Lot 5
1997
6.50
Ord 10, 1997
April 14, 1997
63
46
2
Snyder
1998
3.31
Ord 35, 1998
Aug 10, 1998
64
0
0
Burlingame Ranch
1999
192.67
Ord 16, 1999
May 10, 1999
67
48
75
Red House Enclave
1999
0.29
Ord 51, 1998
Jan 25, 1999
65
0
0
Moore
1999
216.69
Ord 24, 1999
June 28, 1999
0
0
0
Iselin and Rotary Parks
1999
21.55
Ord 53, 1998
Jan 25, 1999
66
0
0
Barbee
1999
5.72
Ord 12, 1999
Oct. 12, 1999
0
0
0
Witz
2000
1.78
Ord 33, 2000
Aug 28,2000
0
0
0
Sandunes L.P.
2000
1.26
Ord 28, 2000
Oct 23, 2000
0
0
0
Aspen Highlands Village
2000
13.32
Ord 8, 2000
April 24, 2000
0
0
0
Aspen Highlands Village
2000
69.78
Ord 8, 2000
April 24, 2000
0
0
0
Aspen Highlands Village
2000
0.51
Ord 8, 2000
April 24, 2000
0
0
0
Aspen Highlands Village
2000
0.04
Ord 8, 2000
April 24, 2000
0
0
0
Petrick
2001
4.72
Ord 44, 2000
Nov 12, 2001
0
Total =
1078.03
1. Does not include Maroon Creek Rd Annexation
Source: City of Aspen GIS Dept.: June 2003
ATTkCFNfE?IT 4
ATTACMENT 9
•
Land Use Key
Parks, Recreation and Openspace
Institutional
Residential
- Mixed Use
N 0 750 1,500
A I V.-
Thy maphfrawinyunage is a Waphkal represmuatlon
of the feahaes depictW is ri
ot t a ypel
representation. The --y may charge
OepeMirg an W.a iargernent or redreoon.
Copyright 2003 City of AsWiPilkln County
NOTE: Mep does not include
Maroon Creek Rd anmxatan
Burlingame Ranch
19"
North A
Zolim
1994
Maroon Creek dlub North
1998l
Maroon Creek C
1996
and Rotary
1999
BaIK lde
19"
Mpen Hqh n0a wi~r r9"
Aspen
Harbor L
1989
City of Aspen Annexations: 1987-2003
19"
Barb"
1999
Whit
Ranch
05-23-03 02:48pm From —Aspen Valley Hospital Administration 970 544 1565
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Steve Barwick— City Manager
SUBJECT: Annexation of Aspen Valley Hospital
DATE: 5-20-03
• T-438 P 003/004 F-084
ATTACMENT ro
SUI MARY, The Aspen Valley Hospital (AVID has requested annexation into the City
of Aspen. City staffs discussions with the AVH have centered on the following three
public policy issues:
■ Construction and operation of a Detox Center
■ Reconstruction of the Castle Creels Road/Doolittle Drive intersection
• Fiscal' impact to the City of Aspen
Staff has reached conceptual agreements with the AVH on the first two above issues
(although I would recommend the Detox Center agreement.eontain much more specific
language). However, our analysis shows the Chy's General Fund budget is likely to .
experience an annual loss of between $50,000 and $131,000 due to this proposed'
annexation.
Hospital Board members have told me they strongly prefer to redevelop the hospital
through the City's land use approval process and will state their reasoning at the public
hearing. City Council will have to decide if the stated advantage to the AVH is worth
the additional cost to the City's General Fund budget. Given the information currently
madc available to City staff, I am unable to recommend annexation of the Aspen Valley
Hospital.
If the City and the AVH are able to reach agreement on the above issues, we will draft a
pre -annexation agreement for the second reading of the ann=tion ordinance.
DISCUSSION: In their latest letter (attached), the AVH has proposed several "in -kind"
health education efforts. While it is apparent these services would be of substantial
value to the community as a whole, the City of Aspen would pontinue to experience a
large new net fiscal loss.
One way of looking at this loss would be that the City is purchasing a new service for
Aspen area residents. For an annual cost ofbetwemi $50,000 and $131,000 the City
�5-23-03 02:48pm From -Aspen Valley Hospital Administration 9T0 544 1585 • T-438 P 004/004 F-084
4r •
would ensure 3 health fairs and 5 health educational setnijrs would take place. .
Hospital board members will also discuss the advantages they believe will accrue to the
AVII through annexation.
FINANCIAL IIULICATIONS: The following is a summary of the best and worst
case financial implications of this annexation for the City of Aspen. Since there are
many unknowns about the Hospital's proposals and the arJtual impacts on the City's
budget, I felt it was appropriate to provide a range of possible financial impacts. Please
see Paul Menter's memo dated 4/24/03 (attached) for more detail.
Best C&se
Worst Case
Scenario
Scenario
ANNUAL REVENUES
$6,634
$6,634
Annual Expenses
75,000
151,469
Possible expense reductions
18,543
13,67
NET F"ENSES
56,457
137,793
NET ANNUAL 11VIPACT
$49,823
5131,159
ON CITY BUDGET
Please recognize that the annual impact on the City's expenditure budget is likely to be at
least 575,000. If City Council chooses to proceed with this amexation without
providing additional budget authority, the result will be a minor, but real, decrease in City
services to existing City residents.
RECOMMENDATION: While the City normally tries everything possible to
cooperate with the wishes of other important aon-profit orgazuZations serving the Aspen
community, I am unable to recommend annexation of the AVFI under the proposed
terms. I believe this difficult economic period is the wrong time to add permanent
expenses to the City's budget, especially when there is so little obvious public policy
benefit to be gained through this annexation. Perhaps AvH Board Members will bring
additional information to light during the public hearing on this matter. -
05-2M3 09:21am From -Aspen Valley Hospital Administration
•
ASPEN
VALLEY
i HOSPITAL
)tr 0401 Castic Creek Road
May 16, 2003
Steve Barwick, City Manager
CITY OF ASPEN
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Steve,
970 544 1595 0 1-414 1 1111115 1-011
• Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 970/925-1120
ATTACMENT
As promised, this letter represents the Aspen Valley Hospital (AVE) Board of Director's
written position and response to your letter of April 24, 2003. Your letter shared the City staff s
fiscal impact analysis for annexing AVH, provided analysis of the proposed cost of the Castle
Creek Road / Doolittle Drive entrance road intersection (and the staff proposal for AVH's share
of costs), and a list of "strategies and concepts" that AVH might consider offering the City as
part of the annexation approval_
There were a couple of suggestions in your letter for AVH consideration that we do not
have any ability to control. Specifically, in relation to AVH retail pharmacy discounts, a U.S.
Supreme Court decision restricts the resale of prescription drugs by a non-profit hospital
pharmacy to only their immediate employees and patients, therefore the City would not qualify.
As for the City requesting that "AVH require prohibiting medical providers treating City of
Aspen patients at AVH (or who treat patients referred to them by providers working at AV14) to
accept Sloans Lake contract termssor indemnify the City and its patients for the resulting higher
cost" we have no ability to dictate or control such ' agreements from separately incorporated
providers. I would point out that approximately 98% of medical providers affiliated with AVH
are contractually bound to Sloans Lake contract terms.
What follows are a number of "strategies and concepts" that AVH would like to propose*
1. astle Creek Road / Doolittle Drive Intersection — AVH is prepared to contribute a
one time capital expense to pay for the lesser of half the actual cost of retrofitting the
intersection or a not to exceed of S100,000.
2_ City Health Insurance Discount — AVH will agree to extend the City a discount equal
to 15% off AVH charges. This offer would stand for 10 consecutive years
subsequent to annexation. The impact of such a discount on the City's 2002
05-20-b3 09:21am From -Aspen Valley Hospital Administration
970 544 1585 0 7-424 1 1111105 F-011
ASPEN
VALLEY
HOSPITAL
0401 Castle Creek Road
- Aspen, Colorado 81611-970/925-1120
annualized AVH charges would be a direct savings of $13,676. Considering that only
59% of 2002 hospital charges for City employees were generated at AVH, the savings
would escalate to $18,543 if 80% of hospital charges were generated at AVH.
3_ "In -Kind" Value for Health Education Laseces Provided b AVH_
A. AVH will commit to three health fairs per year. Two will be in Aspen (one
dedicated entirely to citizens 55 and older), and one in Basalt. The health fair
will offer a variety of screening tests and educational information, all for free,
or at a tremendous discount (examples include dT boosters, blood
chemistries, CBC's, glaucoma checks, colorectal kits, bone density tests,
peak flow / oximetry, skin cancer checks, knee exams, foot exams, blood
pressure checks, vision and hearing testing and educational booths on topics
such as nutrition, breast health, heart health and bike fitting). Savings for a
health fair participant taking advantage of all offerings is over $1,000. If we
estimate an average attendance of 450 at each fair, and at least a third of the
participants do take advantage of all the offerings, the "in -kind" value
exceeds $450,000 / year.
* if the City were to require its employees to obtain their laboratory tests
normally accompanied with their annual physicals through the Health pair,
the annual savings to the City if only half of its employees presented
would be $43 634 / vear.
B. AVE will commit to at least five free educational seminars on general or
specific health topics (examples include facts about hormone replacement
therapy, living with asthma, joint disease, women's cariccrs, the aging
process, common ear, nose, and throat problems, etc.). People often attend
medical lectures for the purpose of obtaining information about symptoms,
diagnosis, and treatment of a particular disease. Frequently, this takes the
place of an initial doctor visit, saving the attendee the cost of an office visit
fee. If we estimate an average of 100 people per seminar, the "in -kind" value
exceeds $45 00, 0 / year.
4_ Detox — A letter memorializing an agreement on detox protocols between AVH and
local law enforcement was signed by Loren Ryerson, Chief of Police, and AVH on
April 26, 2003 (attached). Subsequently, Loren contacted AVH with an additional
request that AVH's commitment accelerate in the event that the current efforts of the
Chemical Dependency Task Force do not come up with an acceptable solution. At
the May 12 AVH Board meeting, the Board adopted a motion stating that if at
05-20.03 09:21am From -Aspen Valley Hospital Administration 970 544 1595 • 1-424 P 004/005 F-011
ASPEN
r VALLEY
HOSPITAL
t� 0401 Castle Crcek Road • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 970/925.1120
sometime in the future, the City of Aspen determines the need for a detox unit, the
City of Aspen and Aspen Valley Hospital would consent to become full partners in
solving the issue.
The opportunities proposed above represent a significant financial c ommitment to the City of
Aspen by Aspen Valley Hospital in conjunction with our process of annexation. We will be
prepared to discuss the above mentioned concepts as well as any other component of the City's
annexation packet dated April 24, 2003 including the Financial Impact Analysis when the agenda
item to discuss our annexation appears at the May 27, 2003 City Council Meeting. Please let me
know what time we will be on the agenda as soon as possible. Steve, thank you for the
opportunity to move forward with our annexation into the City of Aspen.
Sincerely
Randy MiddlIbrook
If.
05-20-03 09:21am From -Aspen Valley Hospital Administration 9T0 544 1595 • T-424 1 0151101 1-111
is
r� ASPEN
0e.: VALLEYA1-rac►�-� g
HOSPITAL
tr 0401 Castle Creek Road - Aspen Colorado 81611 - 970/925-1120
Loren Ryerson
Chief of Police
City of Aspen
March 21, 2003
Dear Loren,
Thank you for meeting with Dr. Gallagher, Steve Knowles and myself on March 10,
2003 to outline a process for addressing intoxicated clients. We discussed how these
clients are triaged to the jail versus the decision bylaw enforcement to bring them to the
Emergency Room at Aspen Valley Hospital (AVM for medical evaluation and
disposition.
We agreed upon a standard process to follow clarifying when law enforcement would
tape #hc client to the.jail,and when it would be appropriate to evaluate the client in the
Emergency Room. Dr. Gallagher outlined the process in a flow diagram that was handed
out at the meeting. It was agreed that this is the process that is used to address both social
and medical alcohol related problems.
AVH committed to organize a follow up meeting to discuss defining a clearer process for
addressing behavioral management clients. It was agreed that we would meet soon after
ski season. We will be in touch the week of 4/21/03 to set up that date.
Aspen Valley Hospital is committed to continue dialog with both of the above topics in
order to clearly delineate each agency's responsibility and more importantly provide the
best service to these clients in our community.
Please sign and return to verify you agree with the above plan..
Aspen Valley Hospital
Linda Karaus, Assistant Administrator, Aspen Valley Hospital
Cc ,Steve Barwick, Aspen Git
Randy Middlebrook,.y Manager
CEO Aspen Valley Hospital
unlled to Improve Americo': Heok6'
Fod ro Y W720309 ® S a ..
. Z&y
Date
03i/3 t
JUL 0 8 2003
cm anoRNEn OFFrE
1 \(
W A®X
.�� 6�
tt4 I'=2Q7' ,
/Onco,
L • /02.59' R • I / 9G.o'
N4G Jl'SCv' W 95.79'
N2/•52'�'w 6,25./2'
n
CIO
D
Cn
C%
a*[e-.awe.. r.�...•...•.. W .�_ —.—.
F--
Z
D
STATEMENT OF CONTIGUITY,.__---
CO-MGliO(-O DISTANCE* 3434.16 FEET
TCJI-AL PERIMETER = 72.23. &9 FEET
KFC;I)IK1w CONTIGUITY-
1/6 x 7223.(09 = 1203.115< N."�+.ICp'
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT
ANNEXATION TQx
Tj&&II-Y.QF ASPEN
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
ATK^CT OF LAND 51TLATED IN I HE IJTHFf�T CTFSt OF 3EGT10N I IN THE
50L11 HWFST OLWICTER OF �FLTION 12 AND IN THE NOIC71-I WEb- GJLV+RTEk OF
3FLTION 13 ALL IN TC TIP IO 7IJ1T,IC I�A1�K>E Fj5 y/E�jT OF THE51XTH
PRIT�CJPALNIERIDIAIJ FITIGIN CO-4-ATY c..Of.OgAC70, WAKE FAfZIK.uLIWILY
DERIDED AS FOLLLWS =
Tl-ID-- ALOE -6 THE
5UP>DIVIt40tJ THE
NORTH Q72VOQ'
NORTH 03'C39W'
NORTH D77.07'CXJ'
CA�rL_E (372a iza4D
T HEt� NORTH 21'5s '
LINE OF CA!5TLE CrEEi<
MrWAY ►Jt�II- OF WIA�I-I
- -VIE, NORII-I A&31
THE SCU HEA�r CORN
THE1-K E NOI 1 OO' I
UTY T1-10VAg PKOPE�
KIGHT-C)F-v✓AY LINE OF
THEI-CE 102.�1 FEET
RADR JS OF I I1(o.00 FEf
SAID CJTYTHOMAS PIS
WAY UNE OF SAID `JTA
GI f`(/ZOLINE OPEN 5
TH tl IR 39' 1 1
CCIJNDWr OF ^5FE-N VALLEY 1-10� ITAL DISTRICT
FAIOWIN3 GOUR�� AND DIaiTA - G
EA5T�12.21 FEET,
WEgT 121 1.7.4 FEET AND
F��`7r —3.9-I FEET TO THE WEST %IGF fT OF'WAY LINE OF
GO' WE57 62-5.12 FEET ALOE THE W bT nG �T OF WAY
90AP TO THE INTErt>ECTIQJ W ITH THE 5a1TH MK-+f%Of-
Cr.TIE K TtOtiD
'5Co' WEST LM Fr-z `5 MAe�N C ftz � To
EiK OF THE CITY THOrMS PKDMIf,IY ANNEXATION
3' CO' WEST ab -l0 F EET ALONG THE 56U1 t F-Y 6=
TrANNEXAT1011-ITOT14EtNTEFt)ECI-ION W17HTHF�V
A CENTRAL A�
ICo' 10' WEgT 102.3(p
EAST
5°dD CORNEf� 6EJt�IG Cm1
1TION NO. I IDENTICAL WI
Hl(9HWAY
33 FEET ALONG THE ARC
�P.00 FT=ET, AnCE1JTRAL /
4E KIGHT HAVIt,6 A
19' AND wHCi5E
JG THE [�WNDARY OF
E SOL1Tl-4 izr, -fT OF-
EiC CF9ND ZOUINI-
JDAfCf LINE OF OPE1-
f GHT• OF- WAY LINE
A CLrVE TO THE LEFT HAWINC- A
LE. OF IO'40' 54' AND WT-I(DbE
)3 FEET ALOI-� SAID 50UTW
WAY LINE. TOTHE-NORTt-iWlEfDT
CORNER OF OPEN SPiCZ ANNEXATION NQ 2
THEXIGE ICO-60 FaTALOWG THE WE-;,T ba>,40ARY
UNE OF S°JD OPPJ�I SFPCE ANNEXATION 1-,10. 2 TO THE ibaJ KrlG 'OF• WAY
LINE OF SAID SATE. HIGHWAY
THENCE ALONGTHE WEST LANE OF, -,AID OPEN gP/'GE
ANNEXATION NO,2 IDENTICAL WITH THE EASTgr4I1"OF-WA° rLINE OFCA.9-fLE
Cf?�E IV> O THE 0"OLLOWING COLS AND D15TAr-rC- -,
�UFH ICo'3CarCL7 EPvT 135.b7 FEET
50UfA` TH W54'QO' Tr 2CCXo.31 FEET AND
lTlAKJOIE1;Fr OF ` AID
ANIJEXAIION -
THEN�E. `J� 30'29'35° WEST Cob.32 FEET CASTLE Crff G FO',D TO
THE E.Aczxeei-m t70T COFVJER OF FAf`;Z L A OF 3AD ASPEN VALJEYHCX_PITAL
DISTfICT-�0I0510N bli10 CORNER CCJ--IG IDQJTICAL WITH THE FONT OF
t3Ef�1tJNItNG OF CITY 1✓�TEK PLATJT ANNEXATION NO. 2
H TENC E --jLJ OTH 23'41 CXf WEST I3.13 FEET ALONG Trgi - WEaT Da)NDAry OF
'AID ANNEXATION To CORhEr- NO. 2 OF SAID A1JtJEXATI0`1
THEj-ICF- DEPART Af- SAID WEgT 130L"pA) --CL)TH 25' 52'5?Y WEST 0.99 FEET
TO Cf RNEI1, h10.5 OF SAID ANNEXATION
THE3.�E.-cUTH 22'25'59' WEST .5tX.CXp FEETALL7hKGTHE: WE!t?r r-,o YOF
51<il D ANNE XATON TOTI--IE INT£}C .l WITH THE Sa-)TH nal- VARY LINE OF
PARCEL A OF 5AJO/A tPEN VALLEY HC -GAL Dr",K75l)f5DIVL C)N -
TI-IEN E ALOh-GTHE D ►-1D°.fZYOF 5"JD MME•LA THE FOLIONIh-& C&rbE5 AND
015t-At<.ES -
hIOR7H 531+0'3l�° WE"T 12.70 FEET
r- P H 23*4 I' C V EAR 177 bO f T
r-OKTH Coca' IT00' WEST'
FED A-40
NORTI--1 19"CO'CI0' WEST I-M.6 FEEfTOT-HEWETEMNWICLfr CgC,lEfzOF--AD
PAK�L A, --),AD 60"E1-- bEltJG ON THE --O- H DaiNQNZY LINE OF PAMILI-C OF
SKID ASPEN VALIEY HOSPITAL DISTfiICT 5l�'dDlvl`JIC7N
THENCE A1..01- THE SOUTH 500NDAfZ( OF SAID FAMCel- G TI-IE FOLLOWING
DOUR--E5 AND 015TAI-GES=
OOUTH 71'C)0'O0' WEST 2-M.CO FEET AND
'.OL.JTi-I 23'67'CXY WEST 52.30 FEET TnTHE FOr-4-rOF DEGINHIN(&
CITY OF ASPEN APPROVAL
THIt) At)PEN VALLEY H PITAL.DI5MCT ANNEXATION WAS AFPK0✓ED f5YTHE
U TY CDIJNKJ L OFTI-IE CiTY OF AJ` PEN PITKIN CL�PubTY, COLOFf�LL7 eyY Of�DA�lA1�E
NO --------- / OF 2002, PAS THE---------------L74YOF - - - - - -- 2 3[7.2.
ATTEgT-------------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------
UTY CL Kt<, WI)IOR
ACCEPTANCE FOR RECORDING
TH 15 PLAT OF TH E Ar::PEN VALLEY F 405FITAL 017TieK-T ANNEXATION WAg
A CEF =D FOP-FIUNG IN THE OFFICE OFTHE.CLEKKAI-ID MI55 _F OF PITKIN
C-OO ,, COLON OIJ 7HE----------- D4YOF-------------- _230Z IN PLAT 1300Y-
---- ---- AT PAGE - -
Aipme JUrveys, Inc. Surveyed Ravhiars Td* Job No e)&,&7
Post Office Box 1730 °iftad ASPEN VALLEY HCL MA- DISTTZICT awt VALLEY' Aspen, Colorado 81612 ANNEXATION 70 THE CJTY Of ASPEN
970 925 2688 HO--)FATAL
I715TRK-T
•
•
Pitkin County Board of Commissioners
530 East Main
Aspen, CO 81611
Gentlemen
THE CITY OF ASPEN
April 17, 2002
The City of Aspen Council has scheduled a public hearing Monday, May 13, 2002, at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, on the Aspen Valley Hospital Annexation petition
The purpose of the hearing is to determine and make a finding whether the' area
proposed for annexation is eligible for annexation. Please call the City Clerk's office at 920-
5060 if you have any questions.
Sincerely
Kathryn_ S. Koch
City Clerk
Enclosure
Resolution #28, 2002
Petition for Annexation
By certified mail
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303.920.5000 • FAx 303.920.5197
Primed m reryded P'PK
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Department
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
John Worcester, City Attorney
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE: February 25, 2002
RE: Petition for Annexation - Aspen Valley Hospital District
Attached is a petition for annexation and blue print as well as a letter
from Paul Taddune requesting processing as promptly as practicable.
LAW OFFICES OF
PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C.
PAUL J. TADDUNE
323 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (970) 925-9190
TELEFAX (970) 925-9199
INTERNET: taddune@compuserve.com
WILLIAM GUEST, OF COUNSEL
February 22, 2002
Via Hand Delivery
Ms. Kathryn Koch
Aspen City Clerk
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Kathryn:
AFFILIATED OFFICE
FOWLER, SCHIMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.C.
1640 GRANT STREET, SUITE 300
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
TELEPHONE (303) 298-8603
TELEFAX (303) 298-8748
Submitted herewith on behalf of the Aspen Valley Hospital District pursuant to
Section 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., please find a Petition for Annexation of Territory
to the City of Aspen (Aspen Valley Hospital District).
Please refer the Petition to the City Council for processing as promptly as
practicable.
Very truly yours,
PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.C.
Paul J. Taddune
Attorney for Aspen Valley Hospital District
c: AVH Board of Directors
Randy Middlebrook
PJT: ac
C - P\PJT\1,ei—',K—h 2 I8.02 w,.J
•
•
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
(ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT)
The Aspen Valley Hospital District, being the landowner of one hundred (100%) percent
of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, meeting the requirements of Sections 31-12-104
and 31-12-105, C.R.S., alleges as follows:
It is desirable and necessary that the area hereinafter described be annexed to the
City of Aspen.
The requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., exist or have
been met.
3. Aspen Valley Hospital District, the signor of the petition, comprises the
landowners of more than 50% of the territory included in the area proposed to be annexed,
exclusive of streets and alleys.
4. The legal description of the area to be annexed is as follows:
A tract of land situated in the Southeast quarter of Section 11, in the Southwest
quarter of Section 12 and in the Northwest quarter of Section 13, all in Township
10 South, range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County,
Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the corner common to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14;
thence along the boundary of Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision the
following courses and distances:
North 00' 23' 00" East 392.21 feet,
North 03 ° 00' 00" West 1211.74 feet, and
North 87' 07' 00" East 333.97 feet to the West right-of-way line of Castle Creek
Road;
thence North 21 ° 52' 00" West 625.12 feet along the West right-of-way line of
Castle Creek Road to the intersection with the South right-of-way line of Maroon
Creek Road;
thence North 46 ° 3 F 56" West 95.79 feet across Maroon Creek Road to the
Southeast corner of the City Thomas Property Annexation;
thence North 000 13' 00" West 120.90 feet along the boundary of said City
Thomas Property Annexation to the intersection with the South right-of-way line
of Colorado State Highway No. 82;
thence 102.39 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 1196.00
feet, a central angle of 04' 54' 19" and whose chord bears North 53' 16' 10" West
102.36 feet along the boundary of said City Thomas Property Annexation and
along the South right-of-way line of said State Highway to the southernmost
corner of the City/Zoline Open Space and Colorado State Highway 82
Annexation;
thence North 39' 11' 00" East 100.00 feet along the boundary of said Zoline
Annexation to the easternmost corner of said Zoline Annexation, said corner
being on the South Boundary Line of Open Space Annexation No. 1 identical
with the North right-of-way line of said State Highway;
thence 204.33 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 1096.00
feet, a central angle of 10' 40' 54" and whose chord bears South 560 09' 27" East
204.03 feet along said South boundary line and along said right-of-way line to the
Northwest corner of Open Space Annexation No. 2;
thence South 28 ° 30' 06" West 100.00 feet along the West boundary line of said
Open Space Annexation No. 2 to the South right-of-way line of said State
Highway;
thence along the West boundary of said Open Space Annexation No. 2, identical
with the East right-of-way line of Castle Creek Road, the following courses and
distances:
South 16' 36' 00" East 135.87 feet,
South 20 ° 54' 00" East 2006.31 feet, and
South 32' 10' 00" East 67.10 feet to the southernmost comer of said annexation;
thence south 300 29' 38" West 68.32 feet across Castle Creek Road to the
easternmost corner of Parcel A of said Aspen Valley Hospital District
Subdivision, said corner being identical with the point of beginning of City Water
Plant Annexation No. 2;
thence South 23 ° 4P 00" West 13.13 feet along the West boundary of said
Annexation to corner No. 2 of said Annexation;
thence departing said West boundary South 25 ° 52' 53" West 0.99 feet to corner
No. 5 of said Annexation;
thence South 22 ° 28' 59" West 584.06 feet along the West boundary of said
Annexation to the intersection with the South boundary line of Parcel A of said
Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision;
thence along the south boundary line of said Parcel A the following courses and
distances:
North 53 ° 40' 36" West 12.70 feet,
North 23 ° 41' 00" East 177.80 feet,
North 66' 19' 00" West 330.47 feet, and
North 19' 00' 00" West 199.69 feet to the westernmost corner of said Parcel A,
said corner being on the South boundary line of Parcel C of said Aspen Valley
Hospital District Subdivision;
thence along the South boundary of said Parcel C the following courses and
distances:
South 71 ° 00' 00" West 288.00 feet, and
South 23 ° 00' 00" West 52.80 feet to the point of beginning.
5. A proposed annexation map is attached as Exhibit "A".
6. The Aspen Valley Hospital District requests that the City of Aspen approve the
•
0
annexation of the area proposed to be annexed.
Aspen Valley Hospital District
By:
Meg flaynes, Chainnin & President
N39 ° l / ,G0 "E /Go. co,
L=102,39'g-1/9(0.0'
G ` N 53 °/Co'10" W
A100013'0011W /20. 90
N 4Cn°3/'5�v" W 95.79'
/V2/°52'CZ�)"W 625.12'
I I �
O't %
� t f
r
o
I
I
---------t
I
1
1
,
I
N
- - SECTION I
0 -'-�
`
I
O
{ I
, t
O
I I I I
I
I 1 I
/1/4X l'G�"k177•
N.5I3'�iv 31b."b✓'12
0
m
y
i
/
7
'l- (c-
><�
-t U TL V T=
Ft� akJ
UJ �v n
STATEMENT OF CONTIGUITY
CQNTIGI,OLX-:) DISTAiNCE , 3434.1Co FEET
TOTAL PERI METER - 7223. Cog FEET
IZEQC� I f�ED CONTIGUITY
1/6 x 72 2 3, (o`l' = 1203. 9 5' < 34 34. I Co'
EXHIBIT
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
RTK,4\CT OF LAND 51- UATF-D INI T HE ,:)C�HM_�=
OF SECTION I I IN THE
50UTHWF�T QUA�TE.I, OF SECTION 12 AN ID WEST QUAKTEA OF
SECTION 13, ALL IN TG ,1f:) IIP 10 �TF=1 iZAC� NE (55 WEST OF THESIXTH
MI -OPAL i� EfPIDIAIN, PI TtG1N COUT Nr �OLOi�ADIO, of,- E. PARTLAf LY
DE5Cj-_1)ED A5 FOLLSL =
T1-IENGE ALONG THE EO_ NPAf;Y OF VAL.L,E•r HOT ITAL DIST t-,fGT
SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING COURSES A1N0 D15TANGES"-
NOP?,TH C0023' CO " EAST 392. 21 FEET,
NOfKTH 05° Cam' 00" W E5T 121 1. 7-4 FEET AN D
NORTH n7°O 'GO" EAST 2051-1 FEET TO THE WEST �GT� HOF-\WAY LIME OF
CAS L� CKEE.� ;
THEN E NOt�TH 2-I'a'C0" WEST 625. 12 FEET ALOW THE WEST FIGHT Or V/A-I'
LINM OF CA5TL-E Cleff G KOAD TO THE IN7 SECTION W ITH THE NGHT7- OF
-
WAY L- Nl= OF Cjt ,EJ< 1; Cz h
THf-�,E -I WEST 95 �79
THE 50LTTI--IEA:5T COKN EIE�1, OF THE CITY 1 fffq E f`r ANNEXATION
T-H E-I` 1 t- r T_ -I GO' 13' CO If WEST 120. 90 F E ET ALOW, TH E Y dF _A1 ID
CITY THOIVIA5 PROPERTY ANNE>CAT1C 1 TO THE 11--,ITEK'SECTIONI WITH THE C-a -
f;�,'I6HT'OF'WAY UNE. OF COLO"00 STATE HIGHWAY N0. E)2
THEtJCE 102.3`1 FEET ,AL -4CG THE AfzC OF A GLIICVE TO: 174E RIGHT HAV1NIG A
fzA010b OF I I16P.00 FEET A GENTr\AL AISLE OF 04° 5Lj' 19 If AND WHOSE_
CHOKD EF1= 5(Y ICo' 10" Wfff)T 102.3CD FEET ALOi-* THE 60UNDAF�`- OF
SAI D 0 TY THOMAS FFOPEI-,TY AH N EXATIOH ALONG THE SCXJT iz1GHT' OF -
WAY LJ iJ E OF 5A1 D STATE H IGHWAY TO THE �Ef -,NKIL)5T C01;;E,H F-K OF TH E
GITY/ZOLINE OPI=N 5P/�GE AND COLOKA00 STATE HGiIF-WAY82ANNEXATION•
THENIG1= 1-IOf`,TH 39° 1 I'00" EAST 100.00 FEET ALONNGTHE 130UN1)Af,-r OF �
SAID ZOLINE ANNEXATION TO THE EA5TEj-,,Nt✓lCr�:DT COlzj_lEt�, OF -,)ND ZOUNE
ANI N EXATI ON AID COZNE� P)EI t-G ON THE _JTI-I L JN DAISY UNE OF OPEN
SPADE ANNbZE ATOM NIO. I 1DEtNTICAL VVIT}-1 T4--IE -I OX �T --I MIGHT, OF- \n/.gY UNE
OF SAID STATE. HIGH WAY•
TH 1=NGE aO-4.3 3 FEET' X LOi,IG THE ARC OF A CL)rV E TO THE LEFT HAVING A
KApICn OF 10 1Co• CO FEET, A CE1--ITM4q_ ANGLE OF 10.40' 5L1" AND WHCCDE
CHOf�D �5 SOUTH -VO9' 2-7" EAST 204, 03 FEET ALOIJG SAID SOOT-H
JNDAY UNE Af-ID ALONG SAIO BIGHT OF' WAY LINE TOTHE. NORTHWEST
GOi-NEF, OF OPEN 5FACF_ ANNEXATION N0. 2
-TH D-1GE 2n ° 30' CYO It WEST 1(30. (�30 F [FhT ALONG THE WEST DO)N DARY
LINE OF SAID OPEN 5P/ CE ANNEXATION NrJ. 2 TO THE C-) T I KI&HT'oF, WAY
LINE OF SAID tDTATE. HIGHWAY•
TI-IENCE ALONG THE WEST [�UNI�Ai�Y L._INE OFSAID OPEN �P�E
ANNEXATION NO. 2 I D ENT ICAL WITH THE EAR gr-_4- IT1 OF- WAi r UNE OF C^_':�TLE
GREED t�1°�l'� THE i'OLIOWING ClJLK5E_D /-AND DISTANC"�E5
H I Co` 3Co/C�7" EA-�)T' 135. n j FEET
30UTH 20`54' c0" EAST 2oExa 3 I FEET AND
NTH 32° 10' CO" EAtT 07. 10 FEET TO THE ,f)0JTHEK1N}✓lCt)T OF SAI D
At--11-lEx,,,�,,TION
Tt--IENc,E ) - 30°2�1' M WEST Cat)-32 FEET �f�.� CASTLE Gt�EEt� IUD TO
I HE EA5TEizNIv T- COfZNEfzOF PAfZELL /'\ OF SAID ASPEN VALLI=YHC.--PITAL
D15Tr-,ICT- ,c3UbDIVISION AID COI`;�,INEP, LING IDENJTICAL WITH THE FOINT OF
[3EGINNING OF CITY V✓ TEK PLAINT- ANNEXATIOIN NO. 2
�-I TI=_NGESOUTH 23°-41 Col' WEST 13.1'J FEET ALONG TI--IE W/EST 150Q�D)A1 ,-r Of -
SAID A1N4-4ExATION TO COf e4 E Na 2 OF iL- ID ANNI=X,47/ N
1-HEINCE DEPAZTfNG 5AID WE5T C 00k IPAFz - �aTH 25° 52°59' WEST O.-I-I FEET
TO C0;;zNE1f*,: NO.5 OF SAID fANHEXATIOH •
THENCE -)aJTH 22° 2it)' 59 " W E5T 554 • CXo FE E.T- A LOIN- G TH E WF,ST nOU NDARY OF
SAID ANNEXATION TO THE IN mcTCN WITi--i THE SOUTH OF
FARCE-L A OF SADASPEN V7&,LLf-Y H�PITAL D15Tf�1C5U13DIV15�ON
n--IEF<:E THE 00UN1DAf'Y OF _0>ND PA e4_=A THE. FOL LUNIt C�F_1-2D AID
.D 15TAtNCF2S =
1IOf,'TH 53°.40'-o-,cn" WET 12.70 FEET
NOf�TH 23°41' CYO" E?"\ 177, 80 FAT
NC?RT+d loCn° I T 00 i 1n/EST{ A'NT 330.47 FEED
NO�TI-I 19 C000" WEt)T 199.&9 FEP TO THE \n/ESTEMN"Ot )_F CCrI-IEfz OFSAID
PAF' , L )`\, SAID 60"Efz I)EING ON THE ° f H OF PAf1iZCE.LC OF
- �I D ASPEN VALIEY H05PITAL D It)7"KI CT SUC�DI VI SI ON
THENCE ALONG THE,_ UTH 5CX)NOAf� O F 5AI D PAS E/L C T+-IE FOLLOWING
CIDUIZSES AND D15TAIES'-
,�)OUTH 71 000'00" WEST 2�!)b.CO FEET' AND
1Tf-I 23°(00' 00" W EST 52. t)O FEET TO THE ISO INT OF
CITY OF ASPEN APPROVAL
THIS ASPEN \/ALLff-Y HCCPITAL 0I5TM(!C ANI-IEXATION WAS AFrf?,OVF.D 54-THE
U TY ClJUNG L OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PI TI<IN COUNTY, COLON Po`r O��DINAtNGE_
ND•--------/ OF 2CD21 PA�-:D5E% THE: --------------- YOF--------------------- 2c3D2.
ATTEST -_CITY GLEI�K----------------------- M•°�YOf--------------------------------------------
ACCEPTANCE FOR RECORDING
TT -I 15 PLAT OF THE A5FEN VALLEY H05FITAL IDISTIIE�ICT- AN—NEXATION WAAS
AC�EP TES FOi\ F I U NG IN THE CUFF ICE OF TH E C.LE F',K AJ U P I TKINI
C)OUINTY, COLOKA00 ON THE ------____-- �4YOF-------------------, M2 IN PLAT G�',
------------- AT P/4GE-----------
____________—_____--_______________________ ____---___—_---
GLF_P AND �:EC1Jf�DE
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 the certification shown hereon.
Alpine Surveys, Inc.
Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81612
970 925 2688
Drafted
Revisions
,Title Job No 8(o ,Co-7
ASPEN VALLEY HiOte-)PITAL D15T1zIGT Client�ffj'�
ANNEXATION TO Tf--IE CITY OFASPEN VALLEY
F UC DFITAL
DISTRICT"
Land Use Key
Parks, Recreation and Openspace
Institutional
Residential
- Mixed Use
N 0 750 1,500
A l I 1
Feet
This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation
of the features depicted and is not a legal
representation. The accuracy may change
depending on the enlargement or reduction.
Copyright 2003 City of Aspen/Pitkin County
NOTE' Map does not include
Maroon Creek Rd annexation
Aspen
Aspen
Burlingame Ranch
1999
Creek Club North A
Zoline
1994
Maroon Creek Club North
19961
Maroon Creek (
1996
and Rotary
1999
Ballfields
1999
Moore
1999
Petrick
Harbor La
1989
L.P.
City of Aspen Annexations: 1987-2003
1988
Barbee
1999
Witz
ms Ranch
1997
ATT-Ac;NT r
unt
Eastwood,
1987