Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20100607CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 7, 2010 5:00 P.M. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #43 - 2010 — Contract Amendment — Duroux Ditch VII. First Reading of Ordinances Vill. Public Hearings a) Resolution #41 - 2010 —Aspen Institute Parking, Temporary Use b) Resolution #42 - 2010 — Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design Direction c) Ordinance #9, 2010 — Land Use Code Amendments d) Ordinance #12, 2010 — AVH Master Plan Phase II e) Ordinance #13, 2010 — Urban Runoff Management Plan IX. Action Items X. Executive Session XI. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting June 28, 2010 COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES ✓ Stick to top priorities ✓ Foster a safe, supportive, innovative work environment that encourages creativity and acceptable risk -taking ✓ Create structure and allow adequate time & resources for citizen processes COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. ALPERSTEIN & COVELL, P.C. .A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W DON.ALD W. ALPERSTEIN CYNTHIA F. COVELL NEIL E. AYERVAIS ANDREA L. BENSON GI LBERTY. MARCH AN D,JR. Of Counsel TO: Aspen City Council vla 1600 BROADWAY, SUITE 2350 dwaCalpersteincovell.com DEN V ER, COLOR A DO 80202-4921 efeCalpersteincovell.com neaC al perstei ncove I I.co m alb Ca I perstei ncovel I. co m TELEPHONE (303) 894-8191 FAX (303) 861-0420 MEMORANDUM CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager FROM: Phil Overeynder, Utilities Director Cynthia F. Covell, water counsel RE: Amendment to Operating Agreement with Duroux Ditch Company DATE: June 1, 2010 Backeround Duroux Ditch Company diverts its water rights at the City's Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline. The City does not divert its Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline water right, as it is being left in Hunter Creek to protect instream flows. The CWCB may call for up to the entire 15 cfs of the Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline water right to be used for instream flow protection. Duroux Ditch Company holds two water rights totaling 5.5 cfs. The City and Duroux are parties to a 1996 Operating Agreement that allocates between them the costs of operation, maintenance and repair of the Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline. Duroux remains responsible for all costs associated with its own ditch infrastructure from the point at which the water is delivered to Duroux Ditch. So long as the City is not diverting its own water rights through the Hunter Creek Flume, Duroux is responsible for all operation, maintenance and minor repair costs. When the Operating Agreement was executed, the parties contemplated making some major repairs, and sharing in the cost. Those repairs were ultimately not made, and are not currently being planned. Staff has negotiated with the Duroux Ditch Company an amendment to the Operating Agreement to address changed circumstances since the original Operating Agreement, and operation of a Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline call by the CWCB. Proposed Amendment The proposed amendment updates the Operating Agreement by confirming that the contemplated major repairs were not undertaken, and are not presently being planned. Some other clarifications are made regarding notice and reimbursement payments. The proposed amendment also sets forth an operational protocol to be followed when CWCB calls for the Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline Water Right for instream flow uses. When this call is made, the City will simultaneously call for 1.0 cfs to be delivered to Duroux Ditch via the Hunter Creek Flume. This delivery to Duroux is within the City's municipal use decree for the Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline right, and is authorized by the City's License Agreement with CWCB. CWCB would then have 14 cfs for instream flow protection. If the CWCB's call yields less than 7.5 cfs at the Hunter Creek Flume, the City's call would be reduced. A copy of the proposed Amendment is attached. The Amendment, in substantially the form attached, was unanimously approved by the shareholders of the Duroux Ditch Company at its meeting on May 6, 2010. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve this amendment. 2 RESOLUTION NO. "I (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE OPERATING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND DUROUX DITCH COMPANY DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1996, AND PRESCRIBING DETAILS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the City entered into an Operating Agreement with Duroux Ditch Company on November 1, 1996, to provide for the operation, maintenance and repair of the City's Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline, through which the Duroux Ditch Company water rights are diverted from Hunter Creek; and WHEREAS, the original Operating Agreement contemplates some major repairs to the Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline which have not been made and are not now presently contemplated; and WHEREAS, the City's 15 cfs Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline water right may be used by the Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB") for instream flow purposes, pursuant to a License Agreement between the City and the CWCB; and WHEREAS, the City and Duroux Ditch Company wish to amend the Operating Agreement to address operations during a CWCB call; and WHEREAS, the City and Duroux Ditch Company have negotiated an Amendment to Operating Agreement in the form attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City's staff and water rights consultants have recommended that the City Council approve the amendment to the Operating Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN as follows: Section One. Approval of Amendment. The City Council hereby approves the Amendment to Operating Agreement, in the form attached hereto, subject to final approval by the City Attorney. Section Two. Execution of Documents. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Amendment to Operating Agreement, in substantially the form attached, and the Utilities Director is authorized to execute any other documents necessary or desirable to effectuate the consummation of the Operating Agreement as amended by the Amendment to Operating Agreement. RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2010. CITY OF ASPEN LN ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor (SEAL) AMENDMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT This Amendment to Operating Agreement ("Amendment') is entered into as of January 1, 2010, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado ("the City"), the Duroux Ditch Company ("the Company"), a mutual ditch company organized and existing under the laws of Colorado, and its shareholders ("Shareholders"), and amends the Operating Agreement entered into November 1, 1996, among the foregoing parties ("Original Agreement'). Recitals WHEREAS, the parties entered into the Original Agreement for purposes of allocating among themselves the duties of operation, maintenance, and repair of the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline; and WHEREAS, the parties have determined that some provisions of the Original Agreement should be revised or corrected, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows. 1. Exhibit A to the Original Agreement is hereby replaced with a revised map of the Duroux Ditch, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 is a demonstrative exhibit for purposes of implementing this Amendment and the Original Agreement. The parties acknowledge that Exhibit 1 may not accurately depict existing or historical conditions, and agree that it does not modify or supplement any of the terms and conditions of the Original Agreement or this Amendment. 2. Paragraph 5.17 is deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following paragraph 5.F: 51 Billing and Payment of Costs. Operation, maintenance, minor repair and project management costs will be itemized, and will be billed to the Company on an annual basis, during June of the following year. The Company shall pay its share of the operation, maintenance, minor repair and project management costs (not to exceed $10,000 per calendar year, adjusted as described above for changes in the Consumer Price Index) in any one annual invoice period) within ninety (90) days after delivery to the Company of the invoice. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, the City represents that, in its judgment, the Company's share of operation, maintenance, minor repair, and project management costs will not exceed $5,000 per calendar year (adjusted as described above for changes in the Consumer Price Index) during years in which no major repairs, rehabilitation, or replacement are undertaken. The parties will cooperate and negotiate in good faith in resolving any differences regarding the propriety of maintenance, minor repair and project management costs, and shall, at the request of either party, submit to mediation of any disagreement in this regard before taking other remedy under this Agreement. If payment is not made when due, the outstanding balance shall bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum, and the City may, at its election, terminate carriage of the Company Water Rights until payment in full is received by the City. If payment in full is not received within 60 days after delivery to the Company of written notice of default, the City may, at its election, terminate this Agreement. 3. The parties acknowledge that the major repairs, rehabilitation and replacement projects to be undertaken in the years 1996 - 1999, and after 1999, as described in paragraphs 6.A and 6.13 of the Original Agreement were not completed as described in those paragraphs, and are not presently contemplated. Paragraph 6 is therefore deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following paragraph 6: 6. Cost Allocation for Major Repairs A. Definition. A "major repair" is defined as any repair, rehabilitation project or replacement expected to cost $1,500.00 or more, provided, however, that for each calendar year commencing January 1, 1997, the $1,500.00 threshold for a "major repair" will be adjusted by the percentage increase or decrease over the preceding year in the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. B. Procedure for City -Initiated Major Repairs. The City will advise the Company in advance of its intention to undertake any major repair of the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline, and the Company may provide input to the City regarding such major repair. The City shall, in its reasonable discretion, determine the scope, extent, cost and timing of all major repairs of the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline. The Company will reimburse the City for 26.83% of the costs, if any, incurred by the City during each calendar year for major repairs of the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline, provided, however, that the City shall not undertake any major repairs in one calendar year in excess of a total of $10,000 (adjusted as described above for changes in the Consumer Price Index), without first obtaining the prior written consent of the Company. The parties will cooperate and negotiate in good faith in resolving any differences regarding the propriety of repairs in excess of $10,000 (adjusted as described above for changes in the Consumer Price Index), and shall, at the request of either party, submit to mediation of any disagreement in this regard before taking other remedy under this Agreement. C. Major Repairs Requested by the Company. In the event the Company desires that major repairs be made, but the City is unwilling or unable to make such major repairs, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith to resolve their differences regarding such Company -requested major repairs, and shall, at the request of either party, submit to mediation of any disagreement in this regard before taking other remedy under this Agreement. If they are unable to resolve their differences through mediation if undertaken, or otherwise within a reasonable time, this Agreement shall terminate, and each party shall have whatever rights and obligations it would otherwise have under Colorado law with respect to the use, operation, maintenance, and repair of the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline. D. Billing and Payment. During June of each year, the City shall provide to the Company an invoice setting forth an itemization of all repair costs incurred since the previous annual invoice, and setting forth the Company's proportionate share, which shall not exceed $2,683 (adjusted for changes as described above in the Consumer Price Index) in any one annual invoice period without the prior written consent of the Company. The Company shall pay its share of the repair costs within 90 days after delivery to the Company of the invoice. If payment is not made when due, the outstanding balance shall bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum, and the City may, at its election, terminate carriage of the Company Water Rights until payment in full is received by the City. If payment in full is not received within 60 days after delivery to the Company of written notice of default, the City may, at its election, terminate this Agreement. 4. Paragraph 11 of the Original Agreement is deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following paragraph 11: 11. Operation and Administration of Water Rights. A. Instream Flow Call. The City's Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline water right may be used for instream flows by the Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB") pursuant to the decree in Case No. 80CW061 (Water Division No. 5) ("Change Decree"). The parties acknowledge that the CWCB may place a call for said water right, as authorized by the Change Decree. The parties further acknowledge that differences have arisen between them regarding the effect on the Company's water rights of a CWCB call under the Change Decree. While neither party hereby waives or intends to waive any legal rights or legal positions in the event this Agreement is terminated, the parties have agreed to the following procedure during the term of this Agreement if the CWCB places a call for the Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline water right for instream flow purposes pursuant to the Change Decree. When such a call is placed by the CWCB, the City will also place a call for 1.0 cfs of its Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline water right to be used for municipal purposes, with said water being delivered to the Company. If, when the call is administered, there is less than 15 cfs in Hunter Creek at the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline, the City will advise the state administrative officials that the City and the CWCB should be allocated the available water as follows: i. the City will receive and divert to the Company 1.0 cfs of the legally and physically available supply at the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline at such times when the flow in Hunter Creek is 15.0 cfs or less but at least 7.5 cfs, with the remaining flow being allocated to the CWCB's call pursuant to the Change Decree; 3 ii. the City will receive and divert to the Company 0.75 cfs of the legally and physically available supply at the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline at such times when the flow in Hunter Creek is less than 7.5 cfs but at least 1.5 cfs, with the remaining flow being allocated to the CWCB's call pursuant to the Change Decree; and iii. the City will receive and divert to the Company 50 percent of the legally and physically available supply at the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline at such times when the flow in Hunter Creek is less than 1.5 cfs, with the remaining flow being allocated to the CWCB's call pursuant to the Change Decree; iv. The Company will accept cessation of delivery of water during any period when the amount diverted by the City for delivery to Company under this paragraph is insufficient to physically deliver water to Company shareholders on Placer Lane, as measured at the "Check Point" located at the inlet of a splitter box dividing the Duroux Ditch into two ditches separately delivering water to the West and Bluhm parcels on Placer Lane, as shown on Exhibit 1. The parties will cooperate in determining when such conditions are present. V. The parties agree that the Company's performance hereunder, and payment of the City's operation and maintenance costs associated with delivery of water by the City pursuant to this paragraph I LA, is full and adequate consideration for delivery of water by the City pursuant to this paragraph 11.A. vi. The parties acknowledge that neither of them is responsible for any decisions by state administrative officials regarding the administration of any call the City places pursuant to this paragraph, and they agree to cooperate to encourage such officials to administer the City's Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline water rights as provided herein. If the City and the Company are unsuccessful in such efforts, neither one of them shall be deemed to have waived any rights it may have to seek administration of their respective water rights. B. Measurement and Administration of the Parties' Water Rights. Neither party shall have responsibility for administration of the water rights belonging to the other. Each party is responsible, at its own cost, for compliance with any applicable State of Colorado administrative requirements regarding measurement, accounting and reporting in connection with its own water rights and water use. Upon the City's request, the Company will provide the City with access to its flume in order to allow the City to install, calibrate, operate and maintain telemetry for the automation of operations and to measure flows in the Company flume. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall have no obligation to install any such telemetry, or to install, operate, or maintain any measurement or recording devices required by the state administrative officials for administration of the Company Water Rights. C. Water Court Action or Other Proceeding. If any water court action or other proceeding is required to confirm or change the Company Water Rights or the City Water Rights, such actions or proceedings shall be the sole responsibility of the party seeking such confirmation or change. 5. Paragraph 12 is amended by deletion of the last sentence. 6. Paragraph 17 is deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following paragraph 17: 17. Delivery of Notice. All notices hereunder shall be given in writing, delivered either in person or by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, properly addressed to the party to whom directed at its address shown below or at such other address as may be given by notice pursuant to this paragraph. Delivery of any notice hereunder shall be effective upon receipt by the person to whom personal delivery is made or upon posting in the United States mail as provided herein. City of Aspen c/o City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 cc: Cynthia F. Covell, Esq. Alperstein & Covell, P.C. 1600 Broadway #2350 Denver, Colorado 80202-4923 Duroux Ditch Company Duroux Ditch Company P.O. Box 10542 Aspen, Colorado 81612 cc: Christopher Geiger, Esq. Balcomb & Green, P.C. P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 7. The description of the City Water Right contained in the third recital in the Original Agreement is amended to read as follows: "That water right evidenced by decree to the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline, Ditch No. 203, Priority No. 284, decreed on August 25, 1936 and August 25, 1949 in CA 3723, for 15 cfs from Hunter Creek, with a priority date of June 10, 1886, for the purposes of supplying water to the town of Aspen and environs for domestic purposes." 8. The Original Agreement defines and distinguishes between "maintenance and minor repair costs" and "major repairs" by reference to specific dollar amounts. The Original Agreement also establishes specific limits for the parties' financial obligations in connection with operation, maintenance and minor repairs, and also major repairs, by reference to specific dollar amounts. In every instance, those specified dollar amounts are subject to adjustment for changes in the United State Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI) as provided within the Original Agreement. Within this Amendment, paragraphs 5.F and 6 modify and replace portions of the Original Agreement that contain some of those specific dollar amounts that are subject to CPI adjustment. The specific dollar amounts contained in paragraphs 5.17 and 6 of this Amendment are unchanged from the Original Agreement; this Amendment does not reflect the CPI adjustments effective since execution of the Original Agreement. Therefore, the specific dollar amounts specified in paragraphs 5.17 and 6 of this amendment, and any specific dollar amount specified in the Original Agreement and subject to CPI adjustment, will be adjusted for CPI as provided in the Original Agreement from January 1, 1997 to the date of determination. 9. This Amendment, together with the Original Agreement and Exhibit 1, will be recorded by the Company, at its cost, promptly following execution of this Amendment by all parties. 10. Except as herein amended the Original Agreement remains in full force and effect. 11. Authority of Signatories. By signing this Amendment, the parties acknowledge and represent to one another that all procedures necessary to validly contract and execute this Agreement have been performed and that the persons signing for each party have been duly authorized to do so ; the Company shareholders voted to authorize the Company to enter this Amendment during a special meeting held May 6, 2010. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above written. 0 CITY OF ASPEN Mayor DUROUX DITCH COMPANY President Attest: City Clerk Attest: Vice -President, acting as Secretary TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: villa MEMORANDUM Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Directors IAIAA May 31, 2010 June 7, 2010 RE: Temporary Use for Overflow Parking at Aspen Institute Tennis Courts on Meadows Road Resolution No. 41 / 41A, Series of 2010 APPLICANT /OWNER: Aspen Institute REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis LOCATION: 1000 N. Third Street CURRENT ZONING &c USE Specially Planned Area (SPA) PROPOSED LAND USE: Applicant seeks a Temporary Use permit allowing for the use of two tennis courts on Meadows Road for 46 parking spaces to accommodate special events. These new parking spaces would be limited to High -Occupancy - Vehicles (HOV) with two or more occupants. As part of its transportation strategy, the applicant also proposes to eliminate 23 parking spaces on Meadows Road, and expand existing shuttle service. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There are three options for City Council: 1) Approve the application without requiring a traffic study. This option is reflected in Resolution No. 41; 2) Approve the application, including a required traffic study. This option is reflected in Resolution No. 41 A; 3) Deny the application. Staff recommends that Council approve the application, including a condition requiring a professional traffic study. The outcome of this study would allow staff to properly evaluate whether the Institute's proposal meets public policy goals of limiting vehicle traffic, and encouraging alternative methods of travel. This study would also form the basis for a future decision on whether to make the tennis court parking permanent, via a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment to the Aspen Meadows Master Plan. SUMMARY: Applicant requests that City Council determine that the Temporary Use application meets applicable criteria. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from City Council: • Temporary Use — An application for Temporary Use, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.450, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the applicable criteria. The City Council is the final decision - making body. BACKGROUND: The topic of using some of the tennis courts on Meadows Road for overflow parking was first mentioned in The Aspen Institute's 2004 application for the development of the Doerr -Hosier Center. The 2004 application requested 46 "overflow parking spaces" on two tennis courts to handle 5-7 events a year. The City Council did not grant this request as part of the development approval, preferring a `wait and see' approach. DISCUSSION: The current Temporary Use application request to "experiment with overflow parking" in 2010 and 2011, including summer season events, as well as specific events such as weekly Rotary meetings and Christmas parties — not to exceed 180 days per year, as limited by the Land Use Code. The application states that after 2011, the Institute would "evaluate the experiment and decide how to proceed on a longer term basis." 2 Staff agreed that a Temporary Use process was appropriate because it would allow a period of time to experiment with changes to the Institute's transportation strategies, followed by an evaluation and an informed decision for the long-term. However, staff expressed concern that the application did not include some kind of formal study that could be used to properly evaluate the proposed overflow parking. Staff suggested a study should include data gathering of existing conditions (without any changes to current operations), as well as data gathering following the implementation of the tennis court parking. Staff suggested that a formal study would provide reliable information so that a long-term strategy could be adopted through an amendment to the SPA. At a May 14 meeting with Aspen Institute representative Jim Curtis and Institute President Amy Margerum, City staff said the Institute has done an excellent overall job in implementing a variety of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures over the years, but remained concerned that the proposed overflow tennis court parking would make it easier for people to drive to events. Making parking more convenient appears to be in conflict with the city's public policy goal of limiting vehicle trips and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. On this subject, the Institute's April 19 Supplemental Memorandum (see Exhibit B) had stated: " ... overflow parking is a convenience for the event user and is not an incentive to increase automobile traffic to the events ... overflow parking is simply trying to better manage the traffic which is already occurring." Staff also cited two policies contained in the 1991 Aspen Meadows Master Plan, which continues to serve as the governing document for this Specially Planned Area: • Policy: Limit, to the maximum degree feasible, the use of the automobile on the campus. Provide parking, as needed, either underground or at the periphery of the campus. • Policy: Require improved transit service to be provided for all significant functions on the campus and create improved opportunities for non -auto access. At the May 14 meeting, staff requested that the Institute come back with ideas to limit vehicle trips and encourage the use of alternative transportation in other ways — to offset the impact of additional parking. On May 18, the Institute submitted a memo with the following new proposals: • Eliminate 23 parking spaces along Meadows Road in order to offset overall vehicle trips. • Restrict the tennis courts to HOV parking, requiring at least two occupants, to be verified by an attendant posted at Meadows Road and 81" Street. • A shuttle reservation option for any large group attending an event, including Rotary. At a follow-up meeting with Institute representative Jim Curtis on May 21, staff expressed interest in the new proposals. The City Engineer agreed that the parking spaces should be eliminated, but based her agreement more on issues of fire truck access on the 3 23-foot wide Meadows formalized traffic study measure. Road. However, staff remained concerned that without a the effectiveness of the proposals would be impossible to It was the consensus of staff, including representatives from Community Development, Engineering, Transportation and Environmental Health, that the Institute should engage a professional traffic planner. A formalized study would gather data points on existing conditions, prior to any changes, as well as gathering data once the new proposals are in place. City staff would have to evaluate and approve the study before it is launched, including an exact determination of the number of parking spaces to be eliminated in cooperation with the Parking Department. Ultimately, city staff would be in a position to evaluate the outcome of the study, and be able to make well-informed judgments on a permanent amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA. There are three options for City Council: 1) Approve the application without requiring a traffic study. This option is reflected in Resolution No. 41. 2) Approve the application, including a required traffic study. This option is reflected in Resolution No. 41 A. 3) Deny the application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the application, including a condition requiring a professional traffic study. The outcome of this study would allow staff to properly evaluate whether the Institute's proposal meets public policy goals of limiting vehicle traffic, and encouraging alternative methods of travel. This study would also form the basis for a future decision on whether to make the tennis court parking permanent, via a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment to the Aspen Meadows Master Plan. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move adoption of Resolution No. 41 A, Series of 2010, on Second Reading." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Aspen Institute's initial application Exhibit B — Aspen Institute's Supplemental Memorandum Exhibit C — Aspen Institute's "Parking & Traffic Mitigation Measures" Exhibit D — Staff findings for Temporary Use El Option #1 RESOLUTION NO. 41 (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF TWO TENNIS COURTS ON MEADOWS ROAD FOR OVERFLOW PARKING FOR HIGH - OCCUPANCY VEHICLES IN 2010 AND 2011 AT THE ASPEN INSTITUTE, 1000 NORTH THIRD STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID 2735-121-29-809 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.450 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant, The Aspen Institute, has submitted an application for a Temporary Use Permit to use two tennis courts on Meadows Road for overflow parking for various events during 2010 and 2011, not to exceed 180 days in either calendar year; and, WHEREAS, after further discussion, the applicant revised its application to restrict the tennis courts to High -Occupancy -Vehicles (HOV) of two or more occupants; proposed the elimination of 23 parking spaces on Meadows Road and expanding its shuttle service to respond to on -demand reservations from large groups; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the temporary use application, the revised application and referral comments from the Environmental Health Department, the Engineering Department and the Transportation Department, and recommends that the City Council approve the temporary use permit with conditions, including a formalized professional traffic study; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that the applicant's proposed temporary use is consistent with an experimental study and the character and existing land uses of the surrounding parcels and neighborhood and that granting the temporary use will not adversely impact the neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 7, 2010; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed and considered the temporary use request under the applicable provisions in the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that the temporary use permit, with conditions, meets or exceed all applicable development standards; and, Resolution No. 41, Series of 2010 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO,THAT: Section 1: In accordance with Section 26.450 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, does hereby grant the Aspen Institute a Temporary Use Permit to use two tennis courts on Meadows Road for HOV overflow parking (two or more vehicle occupants), with the following conditions: 1. The temporary use is valid from June 8, 2010 to December 31, 2011; not to exceed 180 days in 2010, and not to exceed 180 days in 2011. 2. The Applicant should gather data on the use of the tennis courts as HOV parking, and other Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures utilized at the Aspen Meadows as applicant deems necessary in anticipation of the potential application for a substantial amendment to the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area (SPA), which may seek to convert the tennis courts to overflow parking as a permanently allowed use. Applicant is encouraged to consult with the City Transportation Department in this effort. 3. The Applicant shall obtain approval from the City of Aspen Parking Department to determine the number and location of existing parking spaces to be eliminated on Meadows Road, to an upper limit of 23. 4. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit from the City of Aspen Building Department before constructing any necessary improvements to provide safe vehicular access to the two tennis courts. 5. The Applicant shall obtain approval from the Aspen Fire Protection District prior to the use of the tennis courts for parking to ensure adequate access to the parking lot for fire suppression. 6. All material representations made in the application and in the hearing by the Applicant and the Applicant's representative shall be considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. Section 2• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Resolution No. 41, Series of 2010 Page 3 Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED at a public hearing before the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, on 2010. Michael C Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk City Attorney Option #2 RESOLUTION NO. 41A (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF TWO TENNIS COURTS ON MEADOWS ROAD FOR OVERFLOW PARKING FOR HIGH - OCCUPANCY VEHICLES IN 2010 AND 2011, WITH CONDITIONS, AT THE ASPEN INSTITUTE, 1000 NORTH THIRD STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID 2735-121-29-809 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.450 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant, The Aspen Institute, has submitted an application for a Temporary Use Permit to use two tennis courts on Meadows Road for overflow parking for various events during 2010 and 2011, not to exceed 180 days in either calendar year; and, WHEREAS, after further discussion, the applicant revised its application to restrict the tennis courts to High -Occupancy -Vehicles (HOV) of two or more occupants; proposed the elimination of 23 parking spaces on Meadows Road and expanding its shuttle service to respond to on -demand reservations from large groups; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the temporary use application, the revised application and referral comments from the Environmental Health Department, the Engineering Department and the Transportation Department, and recommends that the City Council approve the temporary use permit with conditions, including a formalized professional traffic study; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that a formalized traffic study is needed to professionally gauge the impacts of the proposal, including baseline data gathering prior to implementation of the proposal; in which case the proposed temporary use is consistent with an experimental study and the character and existing land uses of the surrounding parcels and neighborhood and that granting the temporary use will not adversely impact the neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 7, 2010; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed and considered the temporary use request under the applicable provisions in the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, Resolution No. 41A, Series of 2010 Page 2 WHEREAS, City Council finds that the temporary use permit, with conditions, meets or exceed all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: In accordance with Section 26.450 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, does hereby grant the Aspen Institute a Temporary Use Permit to use two tennis courts on Meadows Road for HOV parking (two or more vehicle occupants), with the following conditions: 1. The temporary use is valid only subsequent to the City of Aspen Transportation Department approving the scope of a traffic study to be conducted by the Applicant. The traffic study will include: Data gathering to be conducted prior to the implementation of HOV parking, the elimination of parking spaces on Meadows Road and expansion of shuttle service for on -demand use by large groups. • Data gathering to be conducted after the implementation of HOV parking, elimination of parking spaces on Meadows Road and expansion of shuttle service for on -demand use by large groups. 2. The Applicant shall obtain approval from the City of Aspen Parking Department to determine the number and location of existing parking spaces to be eliminated on Meadows Road, up to 23. 3. Applicant shall obtain a permit from the City of Aspen Building Department before constructing any necessary improvements to provide safe vehicular access to the two tennis courts. 4. The Applicant shall obtain approval from the Aspen Fire Protection District prior to the use of the tennis courts for parking to ensure adequate access to the parking lot for fire suppression. 5. The use of the tennis courts for HOV parking will be limited to 180 days for each of the calendar years 2010 and 2011. 6. An application to amend the Aspen Meadows SPA to allow this expansion of parking on a permanent basis shall only be accepted as complete if accompanied by a report showing the results of the traffic study. Resolution No. 41A, Series of 2010 Page 3 7. All material representations made in the application and in the hearing by the Applicant and the Applicant's representative shall be considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. Section 2: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED at a public hearing before the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, on .2010. Michael C Ireland, Mayor City Attorney ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk -oj luadsy's.wopuaw uadsy 2ulKaed jjnoj smua,L se+opeaN uadsV ayy - alnl!lsul uadsV agjL w n s o 3 J 1 n 1 , 9: ............. I (((fff s o I 40 �11 w I N 'I z w 3 G w i rn p � Q 3 i j UIm \ N' lv L � I� ra ❑ R.I � i. n N Z Wwft 4N� Ex kitJ A ASPEN INSTITUTE PROPERTY CONVERSION OF TWO TENNIS COURTS TO OVERFLOW PARKING TEMPORARY & SEASONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Aspen Institute Property RFCFi �� 845 Meadows Road MAR 3 O Lot I -A, Aspen Meadows Subdivis' C�z op Q1QJQ Parcel # 2735-121-29008 -1,9, N Submitted To: Jennifer Phelan City of Aspen Community Development Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-920-5095 Owner/Applicant: The Aspen Institute c/o Amy Margerum Executive Vice -President 1000 North Third Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-544-7906 Architect: n/a Planner: Mr. Jim Curtis Curtis & Associates 300 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-920-1395 Date: March 30, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Application Summary Il. Temporary & Seasonal Use Permit - Sec. 26.450 LIST OF DRAWINGS 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan & Parking Plan Detail 3. Photograph of Existing Conditions EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Land Use Application Form Exhibit 2 - Dimensional Requirements Form Exhibit 3 - Owner's Consent & Authorization Letter Exhibit 4 - Proof of Ownership Exhibit 5 - Fee Agreement Exhibit 6 - Adjacent Property Owners Exhibit 7 - Pre -Application Conference Summary I. APPLICATION SUMMARY This proposal is for an OVERFLOW PARKING EXPERIMENT: 1. To test the proposal to see how well it works, 2. To be a straight forward, relatively low-cost parking experiment, 3. To test the impacts and benefits both to the Aspen Institute and the neighborhood. This application is to covert 2 of 6 tennis courts to overflow parking as shown on the attached plans. The 2 tennis courts are the southern most courts above the parking garage and would add approximately 46 parking spaces for overflow parking. The 4 remaining tennis courts would remain "as is" and the Aspen Institute feels the 4 courts are sufficient to meet their tennis demands. The existing cyclone fencing and green tennis netting enclosing the 2 tennis courts would remain "as is" to screen the overflow parking. Converting the 2 tennis courts to parking is easily accomplished by adding stripping and mobile barriers/curb stops, and a small ramp into the parking. Structural engineers have confirmed the parking garage can handle the proposal. The request is to experiment with overflow parking for the summer season and specific events, like weekly Rotary meetings or large Christmas parties, but not to exceed 180 days in the calendar year. The Aspen Institute would like to start the experiment this Summer, 2010, by around mid -June, and continue with the experiment next year, 2011. Then it can evaluate the experiment and decide how to proceed on a longer term basis. The Aspen Institute will also experiment with the operations of the overflow parking. The parking will be signed, but for larger events, the Aspen Institute will likely place an attendant at Meadows Road to direct guests to the parking, and/or the Aspen Institute could also use valet parking for the overflow parking for the largest events. Realistically, it will be a mix of various options based on the specifics of the event. With the success of the Doerr -Hosier Center, which opened in June, 2007, and other Aspen Institute activities it is felt the overflow parking is necessary. Overflow parking currently occurs along Meadows Road, a public road, and the Aspen Institute feels adding additional parking will not only benefit its operations, but also the neighborhood. During the City's review of the Doerr -Hosier Center in 2004 and 2005, the Aspen Institute requested that two tennis courts be converted to overflow parking at that time. The City directed the Aspen Institute not to convert the two tennis courts to overflow parking and to evaluate the situation once the Doerr -Hosier Center was opened and operating. The Doerr -Hosier Center opened in June, 2007, and has proven to be very successful for meetings, seminars, conferences and events, and the Aspen Institute is also hosting more "locally" oriented events in the Reception Center. Temp& Se as P erm itA ppTenn i sC ts03 290 As expected, the overflow parking problem is mainly "locals" who drive to the events and overflow park in the neighborhood. The overflow parking problem is not guests or groups lodging at the Aspen Meadows. Surveys have shown most guests arrive by plane and are shuttled to the Aspen Meadows, or when guests drive, they park in the parking garage. The Aspen Institute/Aspen Meadows handles parking in several ways as follows: 1. The Aspen Meadows parking garage contains 97 spaces and is adequate for most day to day operations. Expanding the parking garage to accommodate overflow parking, estimated for only 20 — 30 times a summer and for limited non -summer events, would be very expensive. On a very preliminary basis, the Aspen Institute estimates $30,000 - $40,000/per car to expand the parking garage or $1,380,000 - $1,840,000 total to accommodate the 46 spaces which could be provided by converting the two tennis courts. 2. In the past, the Aspen Meadows has experimented with valet parking by parking cars off -site in the MAA big lot (257f spaces). This is workable, but has several problems, i.e. the MAA big lot is not always available due to MAA events, the cost of hiring a valet service, the turnaround time and distance to shuttle cars back and forth from Doerr -Hosier to the MAA big lot, and the "line-up and wait -time" for guests to get their cars on leaving an event. The Aspen Meadows has never experimented with valet parking using the Paepcke parking lot (96f spaces) because it would have even greater turnaround time and distance problems than using the MAA big lot. 3. The Aspen Meadows also follows the "Traffic Mitigation Plan" approved as part of the 1991 Specially Planned Area Plan (SPA Plan) for the Meadows Campus recorded in Book 667 at Page 731. The 1991 Traffic Mitigation Plan for the Aspen Meadows facilities deals almost exclusively with mitigating the impacts of guests and groups using the lodging facilities of the Aspen Meadows. The 1991 Plan does not address the "locals" problem of locals driving to events. Temp&SeasPermitAppTennisCts03290 2 II. TEMPORARY & SEASONAL USE PERMIT, CODE SECTION 26.450.030 Code Section 26.450.030 is addressed below. A. The location, size, design, operating characteristics and visual impacts of the proposed use. As described herein. Applicant feels this is a straight forward, relatively low-cost experiment to test the effectiveness, operations and impacts of providing overflow parking for the Aspen Institute and the neighborhood. B. The compatibility of the proposed temporary use with the character, density and use of structures and uses in the immediate vicinity. Applicant feels the proposed temporary use is compatible with the immediate vicinity and is an experiment to test the impacts and benefits both to the Aspen Institute and the neighborhood. C. The impacts of the proposed temporary use on pedestrian and vehicular traffic and traffic patterns, municipal services, noise levels, and neighborhood character. Applicant feels the proposed temporary use is an experiment to test the impacts and benefits both to the Aspen Institute and the neighborhood. D. The duration of the proposed temporary use and whether a temporary use has previously been approved for the structure, parcel, property or location as proposed in the application. As described herein, the duration of the proposed temporary use is not to exceed 180 days either in 2010 or 2011. No temporary use has previously been approved for overflow parking. E. The purposes and intent of the zone district in which the temporary use is proposed. The zone district is set by the 1991 SPA Plan and all uses are site specifically approved by the 1991 SPA Plan and amendments thereto. Temp&SemPerm itAppTenn i sCts03290 F. The relation of the temporary use to conditions and character changes which may have occurred in the area and zone district in which the use is proposed. As described herein, with the success of the Doerr -Hosier Center and other Aspen Institute activities, the need for limited overflow parking has grown. As noted, the Aspen Institute proposed adding overflow parking during the City's review of the Doerr -Hosier Center, but the City directed the Aspen Institute to take a "wait and see" approach. G. How the proposed Temporary Use will enhance or diminish the general public health, safety or welfare. Applicant feels the Temporary Use will enhance the general public, health, safety or welfare by creating additional parking to handle overflow events.. At a minimum, applicant feels the experiment should be tested to evaluate its effectiveness and impacts. Temp& seasPenn itAppTenn i sCts03290 2 W%l T.,,.be .......... LOT 4 )A Ad&d. Hidith,clu lot' M101 S"w&A� MMM, I I ME opd� aA To, L U- P-kini 7ip,�.Wrl I QT . .. . .... /10 ki, 11b S),It EXhtL 11 +3 To From: Date: Re: SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM Ben Gagnon, Aspen Community Development Department Jim Curtis, Owner Representative The Aspen Institute April 19, 2010 Parking & Traffic Management Memo Overflow Parking Temporary Use Permit Application The Aspen Institute Comm. Deve. Case # 0009.2010.ASLU I. OVERVIEW & SUMMARY RECEIVED APR 19 2010 CjTY OFcwwASPEN Due to the success of the Doerr -Hosier Center, which opened in June, 2007, The Aspen Institute feels it needs to provide overflow parking for the larger events. As part of the Doerr -Hosier Center SPA Application in 2004, The Aspen Institute proposed overflow parking, at that time, but the City directed The Aspen Institute to take a "wait & see approach" after the opening and operation of the Doerr -Hosier Center. The Aspen Institute has had 2 '/2 years to evaluate the situation in addition to its on -going mitigation measures described herein & illustrated in the Exhibits. Based on the need for overflow parking, The Aspen Institute proposes to experiment with converting 2 of 6 tennis courts to overflow parking which would add approximately 46 spaces for overflow parking. This is the same overflow parking proposal requested in 2004 as part of the Doerr -Hosier Center SPA Application. The existing cyclone fencing and green tennis net screening the 2 tennis courts would remain "as is" to screen the overflow parking. The overflow parking experiment is requested for the 2010 & 2011 Summer Seasons (mid -June to mid -September) and other non -summer larger events (ex. weekly Rotary, Aspen Environmental Forum, Christmas parties, etc.) Park&Traf6cMgntSuppMemo04120 1 of 3 4. Overflow parking presently occurs along Meadows Road, which is a public road. The Aspen Institute feels parking should continue along Meadows Road. 5. The overflow parking is predominately needed for the "locals & valley residents" attending the larger events at the Doerr -Hosier Center. The Aspen Meadows parking garage contains 97 spaces and is adequate for most day to day operations and for the guests and groups staying at the 98 lodge rooms of The Aspen Meadows. 6. The larger events at the Doerr -Hosier Center typically range from 150-300 people with 3-5 events being 300+ people. Typical larger events are Aspen Ideas Festival, Aspen Environmental Forum, Food & Wine Hospitality Night, AREDAY Forum, Rocky Mtn. Institute Forums, etc. Other events would be weekly Rotary, Challenge Aspen Benefit, Duck Unlimited Benefit, etc. The number, type & size of larger events vary from season to season. The Aspen Institute has experimented with valet parking by parking cars off -site in the MAA big lot (257f spaces). This is workable, but has several problems, i.e. the MAA big lot is not always available, the turnaround time and distance to shuttle cars back and forth is longer than desired, the `line- up and wait -time" for guests to get their car on leaving an event is longer than desired, and the cost of the valet service. 8. The Aspen Institute feels providing overflow parking is a convenience for the event user and is not an incentive to increase automobile traffic to the events. The traffic to the events is governed by the size of the event and the capacity of the Doerr -Hosier Center to handle the event. Providing overflow parking is simply trying to better manage the traffic which is already occurring. 9. In summary, The Aspen Institute proposes to experiment with providing overflow parking on the tennis courts for 2 years, evaluate the impacts and benefits of the overflow parking, and then decide how to proceed thereafter with review by the City. Park&TrafficMgnlSuppMemo04120 2 of 3 II. PARKING AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES The Aspen Institute shall designate Staff Personnel to coordinate traffic mitigation communications and plans with the MAA & City. The 3 parties will prepare a Master Calendar of Events for the Summer Season and will prepare mitigation plans for the major events. This coordination meeting is scheduled for April 28 for this season. This coordination will continue annually and a post -season meeting will occur each fall to review the previous season and discuss potential improvements. 2. The Aspen Institute in coordination with the MAA & City will strive to schedule to minimize overlapping events and especially overlapping larger events. The Aspen Institute will continue its on -going mitigation measures for larger events as illustrated in the Exhibits attached. Mitigation measures include information packages describing alternative transit to events, information on free shuttle services to events, providing shuttle services in addition to RFTA services, coordinating shuttle services with other lodges, experimenting with fun rickshaw services, etc. The Aspen Institute examples from the 2009 Summer Season are given in the Exhibits. The Aspen Institute will experiment with the operations of the overflow parking. The overflow parking will be signed, and for larger events The Aspen Institute will place attendants at Meadows Road and the tennis courts to direct the parking operations and/or use valet parking. The operations of the overflow parking will vary based on the type & size of the event. 5. The Aspen Institute will continue to direct employees to take alternative transportation to get to work during the larger events as illustrated in the Memo to Staff in the Exhibits. Park&TrafficMgntSuppMerno04120 3of3 _W SUS SCHEDULE provided by RFTA is available throughout Aspen Every 30 minutes, the RRA Cross Town Shuttle provides FREE transportation to and from downtown Aspen to the Aspen Im stitute campus and Music Tent. The bus stop is under the blue awning at the main Music Tent parking lot. from Rubey Park (downtown Aspen) to Harris Hall at the Aspen Institute campus at :06 and :36 past each hour. From Harris Hall atThe Aspen Institute campus to Rubey Park at :15 and :45 past each hour. Running on a continuous loop to the Aspen Institute campus each morning starting across the street from Rubey Park Bus Terminal with pick ups at Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, and Annabelle Iran. From the Aspen Institute Campus each evening returning to hotels and Rubey Park. See transportation flyer for more detailed information. FESTIVAL BOOKSTORE is your on -campus bookstore for the Aspen Ideas Festival. 0 EM 4 In the library in the Paepcke Building (Aspen Meadows Campus) Books authored by presenters, books recommended by presenters, and book signings UPS Shipping available; major credit cards accepted HOTLINE (970) 5444960 Please call If you have any questions during the Aspen Ideas Festival, ................................. _ Robert lot the W.Wvr. �� tou ib OR tank a Tent } YBBBBw IIIEBL Fest $hblllk '!• v[ FF41uI trYsi< lint O YL!pikn i1.011..r1Ju L J 1!y.r; I Ceelel + toa!le t Br -A 4kYM ie; I'J �O 'W" !'.ttl!A1lIeM1 A ,t "' eebeXO lnn ID GENERAL I FORMATMN BUSSCHEDULE FREE CROSS-TOWN SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE provided by RFTA is available throughout Aspen. 7:24 AM - 11,06 PM DAILY Every 30 minutes, the RFTA Cross -Town Shuttle provides FREE transportation to and from downtown Aspen to the Aspen Institute campus and Music Tent. The bus stop is under the blue awning at the main Music Tent parking lot. OUTBOUND From Rubey Park (downtown Aspen) to Harris Hall at the Aspen Institute campus at :06 and :36 past each hour. INBOUND From Harris Hall at The Aspen Institute campus to Rubey Park at :15 and:45 past each hour. HEALTH FORUM SHUTTLE Running on a continuous loop to the Aspen Institute campus each morning starting across the street from Rubey Park Bus Terminal with pick ups at Limelight Lodge. Hotel Jerome. and Annabelle Inn. From the Aspen Institute Campus each evening returning to hotels and Rubey Park. See transportation flyer for more detailed information. 40101 ,qe Wa6u; +• royna ia<keac Im n S P t ` , ., . .. ; - I. FORUM BOOKSTORE Explore Booksellers is your on-carnpUs bookstore for the Aspen Health Forum. LOCATION poen-FlosierCenter, Murdock Lounge SERVICES Books authored by presenters, books recommended by presenters, and book signings HOURS: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM HIKE: DAILY 7:00 7:45 AM Join us for a morning hike on July 25, 26 or 27. Meet your hike leader, Beth Slater, in front of the Aspen Meadows Reception Center at lam for a hike on the Walking Trail to Castle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. The trail connects via a bridge to the Rio Grande Trail along the Roaring Fork River. ....... ..... ..... .......................... .._................ ...... HOTLINE (970) 544-7960 Please call if you have any questions during the Aspen Health Forum. e F2, 'tn F. ks'VEm 11;At In roausr 61 GENERAL INFORMATION Forum Bookstore by Explore Booksellers Books authored by presenters and books recommended by presenters will be available for purchase at Explore Booksellers' on -campus book store in the Doerr -Hosier Center. Book signings will take place throughout the Forum. SHUTTLE CARS GM has provided Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid vehicles as shuttle cars throughout the Forum. Maps Aspen Environment Forum Shuttle Transportation WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25 To and From Aspen and Doerr Hosier 2:00 pm — 6:00 pm continuously Departing Rubey Park and Doerr Hosier with stops at Little Nell, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome and the Annabelle Inn. Additional stops at the Gondola Plaza for uploading to the Sundeck. Uploading begins at 6:00pm. OUTBOUND from Gondola Plaza to Hotels 9:00 pm —11:00 pm THURSDAY, MARCH 26 INBOUND from Aspen Morning Service 7:30 am — 9:30 am continuously Departing Rubey Park with stops at Little Nell, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome and the Annabelle Inn. OUTBOUND from Doerr Hosier 4:15 pm — 6:15 pm continuously Service from the Doerr Hosier building to Rubey Park with stops at the Annabelle Inn, Hotel Jerome, Limelight Lodge, and the Little Nell. EVENING EXCHANGE SHUTTLE TO: 8:00 pm — 9:00 pm continuously Aspen Meadows to Wheeler Opera House FROM: 9:30 pm —10:00 pm Wheeler Opera House to Aspen Meadows FRI.DAY, MARCH 27 INBOUND from Aspen Morning Service 7:30 am — 9:30 am continuously Departing Rubey Park with stops at Little Nell, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome and the Annabelle Inn. OUTBOUND from Doerr Hosier 4:15 pm — 6:15 pm continuously Service from the Doerr Hosier building to Rubey Park with stops at the Annabelle Inn, Hotel Jerome, Limelight Lodge, and the Little Nell. EVENING EXCHANGE SHUTTLE TO: 8:00 pm — 8:30 pm continuously Doerr Hosier to Wheeler Opera House FROM: 9:45 pm — 10:00 pm continuously Wheeler Opera House to Aspen Meadows/Hotels SATURDAY, MARCH 28 INBOUND from Aspen Morning Service 7:30 am — 9:30am continuously Departing Rubey Park with stops at Little Nell, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome and the Annabelle Inn. OUTBOUND from Doerr Hosier 4:45 pm — 8:45 pm continuously Service from the Doerr Hosier building to Rubey Park continuously with stops at the Annabelle Inn, Hotel Jerome, Limelight Lodge, and the Little Nell. Free RFTA Cross -Town Shuttle 7:24 am — 9:00 pm dnily Every 30 minutes, the RFTA Cross -Town Sputtle provides free transportation to and from downtown Aspen to the Aspen Institute Campus. The bus stop is in the Music Tent parking lot at the Aspen Institute. OUTBOUND — from Rubey Park to Music Tent parking lot at :06 and :36 past each hour. INBOUND — from Music Tent to Rubey Park at :15 and :45 putt each hour. ^see map on back ASPEN J MEADOWS RESORT HOME OF THE ASPEN INSTITUTE A DOLL@ RESORT" To: ALL ASPEN MEADOWS ASSOCIATES There will be NO employee parking in the parking garage on Wednesday, Apri )rior to 2pm We encourage you to take public transportation (RFTA) to and from work or park in the Boettcher parking lot. Thank you for your cooperation. SL N1JAYA1.:L.`, Morning Service: 7:15am — 9:15am loop Departing Sky Hotel with stops at Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, Annabelle Inn, and the Paepcke building at the Aspen Institute. Mid -day Service: 12:00pm — 3:00pm continuous loop Departing from the Paepcke building with stops at the Limelight Lodge, Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, and the Annabelle Inn. *Free RFTA Cross -Town Shuttle: 7:24 am — 11:06 pm daily Every 30 minutes, free transportation to/from downtown Aspen to the Aspen Institute Campus. Call 970.925.8484 for more information. OUTBOUND — fiom Rubey Park to Music Tent parking lot at :06 and :36 past each hour. INBOUND — from Music Tent io Rubey Park at :15 and :45 past each hour. Aspen Meadows Shuttle (for guests staying at the Meadows): lam — 11pm daily OUTBOUND — Departs from the Aspen Meadows every 30 minutes, on the ]Tour and half hour. INBOUND - Departs Rubey Park at :05 and :35 past each hour. Departs Gondola Plaza at :08 and :38 past each hour. TAXI: Aspen High Mountain Taxi: 970.925.8294 ,ASPEN IDEAS FESTIVAL TEL 970.5447960 FAX 970.541.7989 %V%k W.AIFESTIFAL.ORG cXhi b► f C PARKING & TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES TO: Ben Gagon, Aspen Community Development Department FROM: Jim Curtis, Owner Representative The Aspen Institute DATE: May 18, 2010 RE: Parking & Traffic Mitigation Measures Overflow Parking Temporary Use Permit Application, Dated March 30 The Aspen Institute I. OVERVIEW On March 30 The Aspen Institute submitted an application for overflow parking using 2 tennis courts for overflow parking on an as needed basis. This would add 46 parking spaces for overflow events. The objective of the overflow parking is: 1. To provide closer and move convenient parking for people attending larger events, primarily at the Doerr -Hosier Center, when overflow parking is needed. 2. To better consolidate and manage the overflow parking for larger events on The Aspen Institute property and reduce the parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 3. To concurrently experiment with traffic mitigation measures to balance overflow parking needs and traffic management in the surrounding neighborhood. II. TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES At a May 14 meeting with City Staff, it was requested The Aspen Institute outline traffic mitigation measures the Institute would experiment with as part of the overflow parking proposal. These measures are outlined below and are in addition to the extensive mitigation measures The Aspen Institute already undertake: The Aspen Institute recommends the City eliminate on -street parking on the east side of the lower portion of Meadows Road from the speed bump at the Meadows Tennis Center to the Meadows entrance sign (see attached drawing). Approximately 10 cars would be eliminated from Meadows Road parking. On - street parking on the west side would continue as is. 2. The Aspen Institute recommends continuing the existing "2 Hour Parking" on both sides of Meadows Road from the Meadows entrance sign to the stop sign at the intersection of Meadows Road & 81h Street. Approximately 19 cars per side or 38 cars total would continue with the existing "2 Hour Parking." The Aspen Institute recommends "No Parking (Except D Permits)" along the northeast side of Meadows Road from the intersection of Meadows Road at 81h Street to the intersection at 7`h Street. Approximately 13 cars of on -street parking would be eliminated from Meadows Road parking. On -street parking on the southwest side would continue as is. The proposed 46 overflow parking spaces on the tennis courts would be restricted to HOV parking of 2 or more occupants per car to encourage car pooling. The 2 or more occupancy standard is consistent with the HOV standard used elsewhere in the City and Highway 82. An Aspen Meadows guest service employee would be posted at the intersection of Meadows Road and 8`h Street to control the HOV parking. The Aspen Institute — Aspen Meadows will expand its existing shuttle bus service as follows: a. Establish an on -demand shuttle reservation option for Rotary. b. Establish an -demand shuttle reservation option for any large group attending an event. The above measures are in addition to the extensive mitigation measures The Aspen Institute —Aspen Meadows already undertake as follows: An extensive shuttle bus service "Transit" promotional & informational materials for its larger events Employee bus passes and restrictive employee parking policy Free bicycle fleet for guests Bicycle racks located throughout the campus. SUMMARY The Aspen Institute is proposing adding 46 spaces of overflow parking at the tennis courts while recommending eliminating approximately 23 spaces of on - street parking on Meadows Road. The 46 spaces of overflow parking at the tennis courts will be restricted to HOV 2 or more occupants per car resulting in potentially a 23 cars or less parking reduction. Additional shuttle service will be provided. The Aspen Institute feels the benefit of the overflow parking is consolidating parking on its own property while trying to reduce the parking and traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The Aspen Institute feels the net impact will be better or even with the current status. 2 Exhibit D Staff Findings for Temporary Use Sec, 26.450.030. Criteria applicable to all temporary uses. When considering a development application for a temporary use or an insubstantial temporary use, the Community Development Director or City Council shall consider, among other pertinent factors, the following criteria as they or any of them, relate thereto: A. The location, size, design, operating characteristics and visual impacts of the proposed use. Staff Finding: Staff finds there are no significant visual impacts, as the tennis court fencing shields the proposed overflow parking from view. However, the location and operating characteristics of the proposed overflow parking appears in conflict with the 1991 Aspen Meadows Master Plan, which includes a policy as follows: "Limit, to the maximum degree feasible, the use of the automobile on the campus. Provide parking, as needed, either underground or at the periphery of the campus." B. The compatibility of the proposed temporary use with the character, density and use of structures and uses in the immediate vicinity. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposed temporary use is generally compatible with the character density and use of structures in the vicinity. However, it appears in conflict with the 1991 Aspen Meadows Master Plan, which includes a policy to provide parking "either underground or at the periphery of the campus." C. The impacts of the proposed temporary use on pedestrian and vehicular traffic and traffic patterns, municipal services, noise levels and neighborhood character. Staff Finding: Staff does not have the data necessary to draw a conclusion regarding this criteria. In order to determine how the proposed overflow parking would affect "pedestrian and vehicular travel and traffic patterns," staff recommends that Council adopt a condition of the temporary use permit, requiring that the Aspen Institute hire a professional traffic engineering firm in order to propose a formal traffic study. This study would include baseline data gathering for a range of events at the Institute without the use of the tennis courts for overflow parking, as well as subsequent data gathering with HOV parking for 46 spaces at the tennis courts, the elimination of 23 parking spaces on Meadows Road and expanded shuttle service. The outcome of this study would allow staff to properly evaluate whether the Institute's proposal meets public policy goals of limiting vehicle traffic, and encouraging alternative methods of travel. D. The duration of the proposed temporary use and whether a temporary use has previously been approved for the structure, parcel, property or location as proposed in the application. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the duration of the temporary use, including the 2010 and 2011 summer seasons, is appropriate only if the conditions suggested by staff is adopted by Council (please see staff finding for criteria C, above). E. The purposes and intent of the zone district in which the temporary use is proposed. Staff Finding: Aspen Meadows is governed by the 1991 Aspen Meadows Master Plan, in the form of a Specially Planned Area (SPA). The 1991 Aspen Meadows Master Plan includes two policies that are relevant to this application: • Policy: Limit, to the maximum degree feasible, the use of the automobile on the campus. Provide parking, as needed, either underground or at the periphery of the campus. • Policy: Require improved transit service to be provided for all significant functions on the campus and create improved opportunities for non -auto access. While staff wants to be clear that The Aspen Institute has done an excellent job over the years of implementing a variety of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, the proposal for overflow parking appears in conflict with the policy to limit parking to "the periphery of the campus." For this reason, staff is requesting a formal traffic study that can help provide information on whether this proposal will ultimately meet the city's public policy goals of limiting vehicle trips and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. There has been no previous temporary use application for the tennis courts. F. The relation of the temporary use to conditions and character changes which may have occurred in the area and zone district in which the use is proposed. Staff Finding: The applicant's request for a temporary use relates to the increased use of the Aspen Meadows campus after the construction of the Doerr -Hosier Center. Due to this changed condition, staff believes it is reasonable to require a traffic study that will evaluate substantial changes to the Aspen Meadows transportation strategies. G. How the proposed temporary use will enhance or diminish the general public health, safety or welfare. Staff Finding: Staff finds that including a condition requiring a traffic study will help the city meet its public policy goals of limiting vehicle trips and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. #34993; 01/24/92 16:13 $400.00 BK 667 F6 781 Silvia Davis. Fitkin Cnty Cleat::. Doc $-pC� RX-HIBI-�'B" THE ASPEN MEADOWS TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN February, 1991 #340937 01/24/92 16:13 iec $400.00 Etl< 667 PS 782 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk. Doc $-00 THE ASPEN MEADOWS TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN This plan has been prepared by the following individuals: Qmmittee Members: King Woodward, The Aspen Institute Kim Johnson, Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office Dan Blankenship, Roaring Fork Transit Agency George Vicenzi, West End Resident Robert Harth, Ed Sweeney, Music Associates of Aspen Don Swales, West End Resident Roger Hunt, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and West End Resident Perry Harvey, R.J. Gallagher, Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc. Bob Felsburg, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Other Participants John Goodwin, Aspen Police Chief Chuck Roth, Aspen Public Works Department Jan Collins, West End Resident Amy Margerum, Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office #340937 1:11/24/92 16:13 Rec $400.00 BK 667 PS 783 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cleric, Doc $.00 I. Introduction During the late summer of 1989 the City of Aspen began the preparation of a Master Plan for the Aspen Meadows property. This plan, completed in January 1990, was formulated within the framework of four goals. Two of the goals, which are directly related to the traffic and transportation aspects of the plan, were stated as follows: Goal 3: Mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, the effects of the devel- opment on neighboring properties. Goal 4: Mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible, the project's impacts on the overall community. From a transportation standpoint, the Master Plan included a number of physical elements in the site plan which were directed at achieving these goals. These included creating a new primary access point to the West Meadows via Seventh Street, constructing a new trail system linking both the East Meadows and the West Meadows to the City's trail system, and improving the MAA parking lots to better serve automobiles and transit interface. However, the Master Plan went even further and identified a number of mitigation measures, many of which are operational in nature, which should be explored. These included such measures as controls on delivery vehicles; plans for smaller, non -diesel transit vehicles; shuttle service to/from the Meadows; parking controls; and emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle access. To respond to this concern, in October 1990 the Consortium formed a committee to further evaluate mitigation measures and to develop a traffic mitigation plan for the Aspen Meadows project. This committee was comprised of representatives of the owners and users of the property, West End residents, the manager of the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA), representatives of the Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office, a member of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, and a professional transportation consul- tant. The committee held seven meetings between October 30, 1990 and February 5, 1991 to discuss mitigation measures and to prepare this plan. In addition to committee mem- bers, other residents and City employees participated in these meetings. Early in the process, the committee formulated the following goal statement which directed the committee's efforts: "To develop mitigation measures for the Aspen Meadows facilities to reduce automobile use and it's impact on the West End neighborhood and the community at large, and to make the Meadows facilities more accessible to residents and guests in environmentally sound ways." The resulting plan has been developed in two components. Because the characteristics associated with the lodge, restaurant, and health club facilities on the western portion of the property differ significantly from those of the MAA facilities on the eastern portion, the mitigation measures appropriate to each portion also differ. Therefore, the following sections provide a series of mitigation measures for each of the areas of the property. With each measure are provided a brief description of the action, the suggested phasing for implementation of the measure, and identification of the responsible party. #340937 01/24/92 16.1. Rec $400.00 Bl; 667 PC 784 Silvia Davis, Pitt. -An Cnty Clerk., Doc $.00 In developing and implementing this or any mitigation plan, it is important to understand that the plan must be evolutionary. While the goal of the plan must remain steadfast, the mitigation measures and the details of their implementation must be flexible, requiring monitoring and fine tuning over the years. It is recommended that the City undertake a program to review the effectiveness of the mitigation measures on a regular basis and to work with the Consortium to modify the details of the measures to ensure effective, yet efficient, implementation. #3409.37 01/24/92 16:13 Kec $404.00 &I; 667 PG 785 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.40 11. Mitigation Plan for West Meadows Facilities A. Background Currently, the residential units on the western portion of the Aspen Meadows property include 60 lodge units and eight townhouses. The conceptual SPA approval included the addition of four single family residences, ten new three - bedroom townhomes, and 50 lodge units. The purpose of these additional facilities is primarily to better serve the group activities sponsored by the members of the Consortium. During the summer months, use will be almost exclusively by these groups. During the winter season, it is anticipated that the lodge may be operated for public use. Furthermore, the restaurant will be renovated, but will not be expanded. Finally, the health club, used primarily by guests of the West Meadows, will be enlarged slightly. In developing the mitigation plan, the committee considered measures that ad- dressed each of the primary user groups of the West Meadows facilities: guests, employees, and users of the restaurant or health club who are not staying on the grounds. Furthermore, a mitigation plan usually includes auto disincentives and incentives to use other modes of transportation. Auto disincentives are restrictive measures that discourage individuals from using their automobiles. The second element is comprised of measures that make it attractive and convenient to use alternatives to the automobile. As will be highlighted by the list of measures described in the following section, this mitigation plan includes a wide range of both auto disincentives and alternative mode incentives. How effective will this plan be? While it is very difficult to project exactly how much trip reduction will occur as a result of this plan, the committee believes that it has the potential to significantly mitigate the effects of additional traffic due to the new development. The following table presents a summary of trip generation which might be expected from the West Meadows based on trip rates typical of the Aspen area if no specific mitigation program is implemented. As shown, the existing residential and restaurant facilities could generate about 750 vehicle trips per day. The proposed additional residential units could generate another 340 trips per day, bringing the total trip estimate to nearly 1,100 vehicles per day. Thus, a 30 percent trip reduction would result in total traffic generation with the expanded facilities equal to that which could be generated by the existing facilities without a mitigation plan. Because of the nature of the users of the West Meadows and the broad -based character of the mitigation plan, it is believed that, when properly implemented, the proposed plan will achieve these results. k #340937 01/24/92 16:13 = €400.00 BK 667 PS 786 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc €.C,o m e n 0 0 C u V W o O a O �o V :•, N � OI v o O eo F e •e e m VJ T S C QQ� C Y_ 'a c n N N Q d w 0 p, H N o o oI n �,� I cl r� c � d � O V1 t O O a0 O O O1 I 10 " O E c c� d0' ^ � N P a O 0 E T E °o v w V G Y O = T 7 T C N O F o N �C o d e N •?6i Y y M y O d 4. u a+ a� p vl Q a s F. ., 4 4340T37 01 /24/92 16: 13 Rem p400. U6 Bl: 667 PG 787 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.6) B. Elements of Mitigation Plan The following elements of a traffic mitigation plan directed at West Meadows related traffic have been identified. 1. Airport Van Service Description: A free van service to and from the airport will be provided for guests and residents of the West Meadows. Because it is antici- pated that most of the guest visits will be prearranged, the lodge will dispatch the van (a vehicle with an approximate capacity of 12 -I6 passengers)to pick up guests based on their flight schedule. Similarly, departures will also be able to be prearranged. All guests will be encouraged to use this convenient, yet efficient, service. Phasing: This service will be initiated upon opening of the renovated lodge. Responsible Party Lodge operator through agreement with Aspen Institute. 2. Van Service to/from Town Description: A free van service will be operated between the West Meadows and downtown Aspen. This service will be available to all guests, residents, and employees of the West Meadows, including users of the restaurant, tennis courts, and health center. The ser- vice will utilize a relatively small vehicle, seating approximately 12- 16 passengers. The service will be a regularly scheduled service with frequent headways. During the high season, this route will run from early morning to late evening on one-half hour headways. The schedule will be adjusted for applicability to each season, and may be provided on an "on demand" basis during certain seasons. Phasing; The basic service described above will be initiated with the opening of the renovated lodge. Its usage will be monitored, and the service will be adjusted as necessary to meet the demand of the patrons. Responsible Party: Lodge operator through agreement with Aspen Institute. 3. Chartered Vehicles for Group Activities Description When appropriate, group activities either leaving or coming to the West Meadows will be served by chartered vehicles arranged by the management of the West Meadows. By providing this service, management will be better able to control the number and/or size of vehicles serving the participants in such activities. Furthermore, encouragement of the use of this service will discourage the use of private automobiles by participants. 340937 01/24/92 16:13 Rec 400.00 Pi: 667 PG 788 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk. Doc $.00 Phasing: This service will be provided with the first organized groups using the West Meadows. Responsible Party Lodge operator. 4. Guest Parking Description: No parking for the lodge units will be provided adjacent to the units. Instead, parking for these units will be located in a parking structure under the tennis courts. Thus, even if guests bring vehi- cles to the campus, their vehicles will not be immediately available to them. Furthermore, guests will need to walk past the van service in order to get to their vehicles. It is hoped that this concept will encourage guests to use the van service rather than their private automobiles. P]asin See construction schedule. Responsible Partr. Aspen Institute 5. Trail System Description: Site planning has provided for on -campus traits that connect to the extensive city-wide pedestrian and bike trail system adjacent to the Meadows property. Thus, the Meadows trail system has been designed to complement the City's efforts in developing pedestrian and bicycle trails, thus encouraging guests of the Meadows to use these modes of transportation. Phasina: The on -site trail systems will be phased through the City's trail construction program. Responsible Party: City and the Consortium. 6. Bicycle Facilities Description: Bicycles will be made available for use by guests of the lodge at a minimal fee designed to cover maintenance, replacement, and administrative costs. Furthermore, bicycle racks will be provided at those facilities which may be used by persons not lodged at the West Meadows (for example, at the health center and at the tennis courts). asina: It is expected that this program will begin with 25-30 bicycles available. The program will be monitored and the supply of bicy- cles will be increased accordingly. Responsible Party: Lodge operator. ll #340937 01/24/92 16:13 Fec $400.00 BK 667 PG 789 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk., Doc $.00 7. Promotional Materials Description; All promotional materials for the West Meadows lodge will emphasize the availability of the van service, will encourage walk- ing and bicycle use, and will discourage the need for personal automobiles. The focus of this mitigation measure is to precondi- tion the guest so that he or she chooses not to even rent a car upon arrival in Aspen. Phasine This message will be included in all promotional materials published for the renovated lodge. Responsible Party Lodge operator and Aspen Institute. 8. Employee Parking Description: Limited employee parking will be provided on -site. This parking will be available only for employees for whom vehicles are essential for the execution of their jobs and for employee carpools of 3 or more persons. A ride matching service will be available through management to encourage the formation of carpools. Furthermore, employees will be provided with their choice of subsidized transit passes or subsidized parking at the Rio Grande parking garage. A shuttle service will be provided for employees from the Rio Grande garage either in conjunction with the regular- ly scheduled van service to Town or as a separate operation. Phasln¢: This measure will be implemented with the opening of the renovated lodge. Resnonsible Party: Lodge operator and Aspen institute. 9. Coordination with Potential Rail Service Description: If passenger -rail service does materialize on the Rio Grande right-of-way, a transit stop will be encouraged in a location which would allow access to the Meadows via the pedestrian bridge on the Roaring Fork River. Phasinr. To be implemented with the initiation of rail service. Resnonsible Party: Applicant and Rail Service Operator 340937 01/24/92 16:13 Rec 400.00 BK 667 PG 790 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc COO 10. Delivery Truck Restrictions Descrintlon: Because of the expected infrequency of large vehicle deliveries to the West Meadows property (approximately 4 to 5 per day), it is recommended that truck restrictions be focused on time of day and route restrictions. It is recommended that deliveries will be limited to the hours of 9:00 - 11:00 A.M. and 2:00 - 4:00 P.M. Thus, the noise impacts of delivery vehicles will not occur during the most sensitive time periods. Furthermore, all deliveries to the West Meadows will be restricted to use of Seventh Street only between the Meadows and SH 82. These restrictions will be implemented through operator agreements. Phasine The time of day and route restrictions will be implemented upon opening of the renovated lodge. Responsible Party: Lodge operator and Aspen Institute. #340937 01/24/92 16:13 Rec $400.00 BIG 667 PS 791 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.00 III. Mitigation Plan for MAA Facilities A. Background The MAA facilities, located on the eastern portion of the property, will include rearranged seating in the tent and a new rehearsal facility to accommodate rehears- als and small performances. it is important to note that the modifications to the performance tent will not increase the size of the audiences; they will simply improve the seating conditions for the audiences. Although there are students and faculty associated with traffic related to the MAA facilities, the majority of concerns expressed by neighbors are related to the impacts created by concert -goers. Therefore, most of the mitigation measures included in this plan are focused on these users. Principally, these measures are directed at encouraging concert -goers to walk, bike, or ride the transit system rather than driving their automobiles to the concert. This part of the plan particularly will be evolutionary in nature. Efforts to reduce auto use have already been undertaken in recent years by the MAA in conjunction with West End residents. The elements discussed in the following section are a further expansion of these earlier efforts. As the program is implemented and evaluated, it is expected that even further refinements will be appropriate. B. Elements of Mitigation Plan In developing a mitigation plan to address MAA traffic, the program focuses on several measures. 1. Promotional Materials Description: Promotional materials (including maps distributed by MAA will encourage use of transit, bicycles, or walkways to access the concert site. Phasing : These efforts have already been initiated and will be continued. Responsible Party: MAA 2. Pedestrian/Bicycle Ways Description: An enhanced system of routes exclusively designated for use by pedestrians and bicyclists to access the concert area will be implemented. This system will include: Continued designation of the Lake Avenue pedestrian/bicycle way. #340937 01/24/92 16:13 Re. $400.00 SK 667 F'S 792 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 o Fourth Street will be closed to automobile traffic from Gillespie Street to Main Street for approximately one hour before and one hour after major concerts. Prior to concerts, the street will be for pedestrian/bicycle use only. After the concerts, it will used for pedestrian/bicycle traffic and for buses leaving the MAA grounds. Allowing buses to use this route after concerts will separate the buses from automobile traffic, thereby decreasing the delay experienced by the buses and thus providing an incentive for using the transit service. This closure will include barricades and appropriate signing at both ends of Fourth Street and will require tem- porary warning signs at each cross street to ensure the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Furthermore, the proposed design of the MAA parking lot provides for a continuation of the pedestrianway from Fourth Street to the music tent. o Facilities for bicycle storage during concerts will be pro- vided in the vicinity of the tent. Implementatlon: It is anticipated that the Fourth Street closure will be implemented during the next concert season. The bicycle storage facilities will be provided with the improvements to the MAA parking lot. Responsible Partv. MAA and City. 3. Enhanced Transit Service Description: Transit service to the MAA grounds will continue to be improved and emphasized. This includes elements affecting the city-wide system, circulation through the neighborhood, and on -site operation: All city-wide RFTA bus routes serving the West End, as well as the special MAA bus runs, will continue to provide service. Enhanced signing and bus service information will be provided at the Rio Grande parking garage to direct patrons to the bus stop on Main Street. Prior to a scheduled concert, large buses (unless carrying a greater number of passengers than can be accommodated by the circulating shuttle or during inclement weather) will unload all passengers at the intersection of Fourth/Main. Concert goers will then be en- couraged to walk on Fourth Street to the tent or to use the smaller vehicle shuttle which will be circulating on Main, Fifth, Gillespie, and Third Streets. This vehicle will be a compressed natural gas powered vehicle and will operate for approximately one-half to one hour before the concert. Following concerts, buses will stand by on Fourth Street or at the transit stop in the parking lot to transport concert goers back to the center of town. 10 40937 01/24/92 16.13 ReC $,00.00 BK 667 FCa 793 Silvia Davis, Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 The MAA parking lot has been designed to provide a location for buses to load and unload passengers while removed from Gillespie Street. This location is on the south end of the parking lot and would allow good clockwise circulation of the buses from Fifth Street into the parking lot and back out onto the street system at Fourth and Gillespie. Phasing: It is anticipated that this improved transit service will be provided during the next concert season. The program will be monitored and the service will be adjusted accordingly. Responsible Party: The transit service will be the responsibility of RFTA. The transit improvements in the parking lot will be the responsibility of the MAA. 4. Truck Restricllons Description: Although the number of large vehicle deliveries to the MAA facilities is very limited, it is recommended that all such vehicles will be restricted to using Third Street only between the MAA grounds and Main Street. MAA will enforce this limitation with their vehicle drivers. Phasing: These restrictions will be implemented during the next concert season. Responsible Party: MAA S. Residential Parking Permit Program Description: A residential parking permit program is still under consideration. This program would prohibit all parking on streets from Mill Street to Eighth Street and from Main Street to the Roaring Fork River other than for residents or their guests during the concert season. The MAA would institute p,allgarkin g in their lots in connection with this plan. Permit parking may require issuance of vehicle stickers for a fee, installation of appropriate signage, and City enforcement. Phasine; It is recommended that the residential parking permit program be instituted after the effectiveness of the remainder of the mitigation plan has been evaluated. Because of the significant impacts of such a program on the residents of the West End, further input from the residents should be incorporated into an implementation plan for this program. Responsible Party: MAA, City and West End residents. 11 ASPEN IDEAS FESSIV AE GENERAL SHUTTLE TRANSPORTATION MOND.AY, JUNE; 29 Afternoon Service: 3:00pm — 5:00pm continuous loop Departing Sky Hotel with stops at Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, Annabelle Inn, and Paepcke building at the Aspen Institute for Registration. Evening Service: 6:45pm — 10:30pm continuous loop Departing Doerr Hosier Center and traveling to Aspen District Theatre. Return transportation from Aspen District Theatre to the Limelight Lodge, Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Sky Hotel, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, Annabelle Inn, and Meadows Resort. Morning Service 7:15am — 9:15am continuous loop Departing Sky Hotel with stops at Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, Annabelle Inn, and Paepcke building at the Aspen Institute. Off -site Lunch Service: 1 1:30pm — 1:30am loop Departing in front of Paepcke building with service to the Hotel Jerome and back. Afternoon Service: 5:30pm — 7:30pm continuous loop Departing in front of the Paepcke building with stops at Limelight Lodge, Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Sky Hotel, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, and the Annabelle Inn. Evening Service: 7:30pm — 10:30pm continuous loop Departing from the Sky Hotel with stops at Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, Annabelle Inn, Paepcke Auditorium, and the Doerr Hosier Center. WEDNESDAY, A LY I Morning Service: 7:15am — 9:15am loop Departing Sky Hotel with stops at Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, Annabelle Inn, and the Paepcke building at the Aspen Institute. Off -site Lunch Service: 1 1:30am — 1:1 5pm loop Departing in front of the Paepcke building with service to and from the Limelight Lodge and the Hotel Jerome. Afternoon Service: 5:30pm — 7:30pm continuous loop Departing in front of the Paepcke building with stops at Limelight Lodge, Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Sky Hotel, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, and the Annabelle Inn. Evening Service: 7:30pm — 10:30pm continuous loop Departing from the Sky Hotel with stops at Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, Annabelle Inn, and the Paepcke Auditorium. ASPEN IDEAS FESTIVAL TEL 970,544,7960 FAX 970.544.7999 W W W.AIMTIVAL.ORO ASPEN IDEAS FESj,V AE 4 HURSDAY, KLi Morning Service: 7:15am — 9:15am loop Departing Sky Hotel with stops at Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, Annabelle Inn, and the Paepcke building at the Aspen Institute. Mid -day Service: 1 1:30am — 2:00pm continuous loop Departing from the Paepcke building with stops at the Limelight Lodge, Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, and the Annabelle Inn. Afternoon Service: 5:30pm — 8:00pm continuous loop Departing in front of the Paepcke building with stops at Limelight Lodge, Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Sky Hotel, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, and the Annabelle Inn. Evening Service: 8:45pm — 11:45pm continuous loop Departing from the Sky Hotel with stops at Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, Annabelle Inn, and Meadows Resort with service to and from the Aspen District Theatre. FRIDAY, JULY 3 Morning Service: 7:15am — 9:15am loop Departing Sky Hotel with stops at Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, Annabelle Inn, and the Paepcke building at the Aspen Institute. Off -site Lunch Service: 1 1:30am — 1:15pm loop Departing in front of the Paepcke building with service to and from the Hotel Jerome. Afternoon Service: 5:30pm — 7:30pm continuous loop Departing in front of the Paepcke building with stops at Limelight Lodge, Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Sky Hotel, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, and the Annabelle Inn. Evening Service: 7:30pm — 10:30pm continuous loop Departing from the Doerr Hosier Center with stops at Limelight Lodge, Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Sky Hotel, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, and the Annabelle Inn. SA'T'T)RDAN" .JI;J. u` 4 Morning Service: 7:15am — 9:15am loop Departing Sky Hotel with stops at Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, Annabelle Inn. and the Paeocke buildine at the Aspen Institute. Afternoon Service: 5:30pm — 7:30pm continuous loop Departing in front of the Paepcke building with stops at Limelight Lodge, Rubey Park Bus Terminal, Sky Hotel, Hotel Jerome, Hotel Aspen, and the Annabelle Inn. Evening Service: 8:30pm — 10:30pm continuous loop Departing from the Meadows Reception Center with service to the Hotel Jerome and back. ASPEN IDEAS FESTIVAL TEL 970,544.7960 FAX 970.544.7989 WW\P.AIFESTIVAL.ORG t. u g¢� ;�'A S P E N1 ATE! FRW General Shuttle Transportation FRIDAY, JULY 24 Afternoon Service: 2:OOpm-4:OOpm continuous loop Departing Rubey Park Bus Terminal with stops at Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Annabelle Inn, and Doerr Hosier Center at the Aspen Meadows for Registration Evening Service: 8:45pm— 9:45pm continuous loop Departing Doerr Hosier Center with stops at Annabelle Inn, Molly Gibson, Hotel Jerome, Limelight Lodge, Rubey Park Bus Terminal, and Sky Hotel. SATURDAY, JULY 25 Morning Service: 7:30am — 9:30am continuous loop Departing Rubey Park Bus Terminal with stops at Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Annabelle Inn, and Meadows Reception, Early Evening Service: 5:30pm — 6:30pm continuous loop Departing Doerr Hosier Center with stops at Annabelle Inn, Hotel Jerome, Limelight Lodge, and Rubey Park Bus Terminal. Evening Service: 7:45pm— 8:45pm continuous loop Departing Rubey Park Bus Terminal with stops at the Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Annabelle Inn, and Doerr Hosier Center. Late Evening Service: 9:30pm—10:30pm continuous loop Departing Doerr Hosier Center with stops at Annabelle Inn, Hotel Jerome, Limelight Lodge, and Rubey Park Bus Terminal. SUNDAY, JULY 26 Morning Service: 7:30am — 9:30am continuous loop Departing Rubey Park Bus Terminal with stops at Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Annabelle Inn, and Meadows Reception Evening Service: 5:30pm — 8:30pm continuous loop Departing Doerr Hosier Center with stops at Annabelle Inn, Hotel Jerome, Limelight Lodge, and Rubey Park Bus Terminal and to Paepcke building. (Continued on reverse) Late Evening Service: 9:30pm—10:30pm continuous loop Departing Paepcke building with stops at Annabelle Inn, Hotel Jerome, Limelight Lodge, and Rubey Park Bus Terminal. MONDAY, JULY 27 Morning Service: 7:30am — 9:30am continuous loop Departing Rubey Park Bus Terminal with stops at Limelight Lodge, Hotel Jerome, Annabelle Inn, and Meadows Reception Afternoon Service: 1:30pm— 2:30pm continuous loop Departing Doerr Hosier Center with stops at Annabelle Inn, Hotel Jerome, Limelight Lodge, and Rubey Park Bus Terminal. OTHER TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION Free RFTA Cross -Town Shuttle: 7:24 am —11:06 pm daily Every 30 minutes, free transportation to/from downtown Aspen to the Aspen Institute Campus. OUTBOUND — from Rubey Park to Music Tent parking lot at :06 and :36 past each hour. INBOUND — from Music Tent to Rubey Park at :15 and :45 past each hour. Call 970.925.8484 for more information. Aspen Meadows Shuttle (for guests staying at the Meadows): lam — 11pm daily OUTBOUND — Departs from the Aspen Meadows every 30 minutes, on the hour and half hour. INBOUND - Departs Rubey Park at :05 and :35 past each hour. Departs Gondola Plaza at :08 and :38 past each hour. TAXI: Aspen High Mountain Taxi: 970.925.8294 i.SF[S GtUR i;a-A �. Y ey U OIYf :GT CU6v[3 Q Route for the Walking EivrnAN N,,gg,s Tour to the Music Tcnl : - EIUPgns 7,N. po 1 1:O6 Cc dta I, S OUTBOUND INBOUND U 970925881 Irv. 0r.r—1 .11' Benedict Mllsr Trnl O Paepcke AOdilorium Q OE(v, St Doer, lime, center 4 Aayen MeadWds RECWWn Wier 0 0 Limelight Lodge 155 AY M1 o MAIN = Rubey Page, Bus Terminal O x. v.. 4+. cnl�.to'valnei f 41:` f LEERER e,ALLAh1 .. The Nate'Ivrom[ kP t IS aj Sky Hotel O x :95tou» n SMUGGLER 2 v x Annabelle Inc !i nGRTP a7We>m e. R7 Il iTH V O ® o AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRE})D BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ♦ii n"Vee nc UDnVW0TV• a1V I/y' ez-� ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: STATE OFCOLORADO ) ss. Countv ofPitkin ) ('d(IQiVI �VY7�/�fndme, please print) 14� representing an Applic t to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted in a conspicuous place on the subject property at least fifteen (15) days prior t the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of � , 2001OW and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted /notice (sign) is attached hereto. ✓ v Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. ✓ (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on sucl The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this / 'day of 200!l , by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Notary Public ALLISON K. PERRY ATTACHMENTS: 1:h; ^emmk wn ExOres 0112112012 COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ASPEN INSTITUTE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 7, 2010, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Jim Curtis, on behalf of The Aspen Institute, requesting a Temporary Use Permit to allow for the use of two tennis courts on Meadows Road to allow for 46 overflow parking spaces during various events in the summer of 2010 and 2011. The subject property is located at 1000 N Third Street, Aspen, CO 81611. For further information, contact Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970.429.2755, (or by email beng@ci.aspen.co.us). s/Michael Ireland Mavor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times_ on May 23, 2010 City of Aspen Account 630 MEADOWS COLORADO TRUST 650 MEADOWS ROAD LLC 675 MEADOWS RD KKC C/O GOULD & RATNER/JXC 101 FIRST ST #508 0124 TOTTERDOWN RD 222 N LASALLE ST SUITE 800 LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60601 SMUGGLER LLC 810 W SMUGGLER LLC 8TH ONE LLC 810 W SMUG 411 E MAIN ER LLC C/O WALDEN CAPITAL CORP 98 SAN JACINTO BLVD ASPEN, CO 81611 4040 NE 2ND AVE #414 AUSTIN, TX 78701 MIAMI, FL 33137 ANTHONY JULIE KATHLEEN ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS ASPEN THIRD ST INC 655 MEADOWS RD 700 E GILLESPIE 1000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 AULD ROBERT H & CAROL C BAIRD STEPHEN W & SUSAN MERRITT BARABE CAROLYN SMUGGLER AVE TRUSTEES 790 CASTLE CREEK DR 730 W S ASPEN, MU GLE 120 S LASALLE ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60603 BEAR ALLEY LLC CERISE JAMES M CHOUMAS JOHN JAMES & PATRICIA G C/O BENJAMIN HARRIS 790 CASTLE CREEK DR BLDG 300 BAYS 3 13-314 160 RIVERSIDE DR., APT. 14-A ASPEN, CO 81611 1601 E OLYMPIC BLVD NEW YORK, NY 10024 LOS ANGELES, CA 90021 CITY OF ASPEN COLGATE S A & R W TRST DIGIGLIA LE RAY ATTN FINANCE DEPT 422 ESTANTE DIGIGLIA JOHN WILLIAM 130 S GALENA ST LOS ALAMOS, NM 87544 PO BOX 4305 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 DITTMER THOMAS H TRST DML REALTY LLC FELDER RICHARD & DEBORAH LIV C/O STEVEN SPECTOR LLC PO BOX 305 TRUST 150 S WACKER DR #1200 CHAVIES, KY 41727 11498E CAROL WAY SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85259-2620 CHICAGO, IL 60606 FERGUSON JAMES & ESTHER FORD MERRILL M GANTZEL STEEN GIFFORD QPRT PO BOX 895 51 MEADOWS RD #5 705 MEADOWS RD CHARLESTON, SC 29402 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GOLDRICH REV TRUST MELINDA 630 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1173 HARRIS JOAN W REV TRUST 50% HARRIS JOAN W QPR TRUST 50% 209 E LAKE SHORE DR CHICAGO, IL 60611 GOLDSBURY CHRISTOPHER JR REV HANSEN SALLY TRUST PO BOX 9343 C/O ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES LTD ASPEN, CO 81612 121 INTERPARK BLVD STE 308 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78216 HOFFMAN LARRY J & DEBORAH HOLMES ROBERT & AUDREY 1221 BRICKELL AVE 45 BERMUDA RD MIAMI, FL 33131 WESTPORT, CT 00880 ROSS JACKSON LAND COMPANY JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER W C/O HANK LUX S A OLT C/O FRANNIE DITTMER & STEVEN 834 5TH AVE 376 HANK CHAMPION SPECTOR LLC NEW YORK, NY 10065 3765 CHAMPION WINSTON-SALEMNC , NC 27115 150 S WACKER DR STE 1200 CHICAGO, IL 60606 ICHARD D OPRT 1/2 LPRP RIVER LLC 50% LRM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LAMM RLPRP MILL LLC 50%8540 SOUTHWEST 52ND AVE 5401 E ICHARD D DENVER, CO A #20 1100 BLACK BIRCH DR MIAMI, FL 33143 ASPEN, CO 8161.1 MARKALUNAS JAMES J & RAMONA I MEADOWS NORTH LLC MORRIS JOHN S JR 624 W NORTH ST 675 MEADOWS RD PO BOX 8991 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN INC NICHOLS ROBERT & BEVERLY PARELMAN ALLEN G REV TRUST 2 MUSIC SCHOOL RD 3318 BEVERLY DR 734 W SMUGGLER ASPEN, CO 81611-8500 DALLAS, TX 75205 ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY REED PRESLEY 0 & PATRICIA RIVER ONE LLC 530 E MAIN ST #302 375 BELLEVUE DR PO BOX 19019 ASPEN, CO 81611 BOULDER, CO 80302 ATLANTA, GA 31126 ROSE ALLAN V SARPA JOHN G & JAN JONES SARPA SHERMAN HARRIS D 1/2 ONE EXECUTIVE BLVD 71 MEADOWS #7 685 S WILLIAMS ST YONKERS, NY 10701 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80209 SMITH VICTORIA LEA SMOOKE BARRY ASPEN TRUST 50% STRICKLAND MARCIA D SMI SMI PARK AVE SMOOKE JULIE ASPEN TRUST 50% 1991 E ALAMEDA AVE #9 1160 NEW YORK, 10128 155 5TH ANITA DR DENVER, CO 80209 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 VEST AMERICA INC WALDECK VIVIAN G WESTVIEW HOLDINGS LLC 3102 N OAKLAND ZION RD 915 W NORTH ST PO BOX 460567 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 ASPEN, CO 81611-1171 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78266 WF CASTLE CREEK LLC WING KAREN J WRIGLEY WILLIAM JR RES TRST PO BOX 1444 PO BOX 3303 400 N MICHIGAN AVE #1100 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 SPRING, TX 77383 CHICAGO, IL 60611 Colorado Mountain O College Aspen Campus 02SS sage way Aspen Colorado 81611 970.925.7740 June 3, 2010 To Whorn It May Concern: 1 have overseen the Colorado Mountain College Aspen Meadows tennis classes for more than 20 years. My records indicate a dramatic and consistent increase in enrollment over the past five years. We have served over 50% more students since 2005. Gasses have tilled with substantial waiting lists. Please consider these local, working folks who are able to enjoy this activity at a reasonable price. You can call me at your convenience if you want any more information. you for Eileen Division Director LEADING nrwoucn LEARNING cc ?.�� LS diecc S"O-zOdpZ,,- ,tC7-e2 e e-opopl`� ��4 i 71 �i2e�Jco,2 .J�2s /)Ro> ,elql-7 � s ji-F-e- r4�Jee� i c �rN Ces r3c�rf}-ST c��sc.s�1 �'ZY �jr �^EC. CJt ilk r4 I-C-10 v-4 Coca 2 fS �%7✓zC�t c.�(teSLe / �2jcJ✓J C-- I3©o�c� Co�S�sT.�Ji� `7 r�c�,er�us VIR b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Burlingame Ranch Phase II — Design Direction — Public Hearing Resolution No.!t . eries of 2010. DATE: June 7, 2010 SUMMARY: This public hearing is to consider a resolution summarizing Council's direction on a few key design parameters for Phase II of Burlingame Ranch. Gaining Council direction on these important parameters will allow the design team to transition from the listening phase to the designing phase of the project. Clarity at this stage of the project can minimize costly design changes later down the road. Tonight's meeting is intended to provide an overview of the project, a description of each key decision point, an opportunity for the public to comment, and opportunity for Council to provide direction to staff. Staff expects Council to continue this hearing to June 28t' at the conclusion of tonight's discussion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council receive the presentation, take public comment, and provide staff with direction before continuing the public hearing to June 28t'. This will allow time for additional public feedback at the outreach events scheduled for June 10 and June 17. On the 28th, staff will present project updates along with a draft resolution summarizing Council's direction. If needed, staff has reserved time on the July 12a' Council agenda. APPLICANT: The City of Aspen. REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Everson, Project Manager. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue Resolution No.-! L14 Series of 2010, regarding Burlingame Ranch Phase II to June 28a', 2010." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: � �� SL■r 'w r � � r 1 �1 O 1,let r"rr3& N i+i p rs..r 1 �.r 4 , 0044 a Fit9 ��y1% l L YY a OD v:> «r1`a�4�` i 1 �4�rw n rn 1U Z�Tt 4��k 4'tT��.�n �r��P r..� iN y ii ey � � "o _1 • O��'�. 1 u r o •�woo* 1 • 5 r 4( 4yiV.7 '• h r r Oel V'8: ^ a r kd i «.x-.�.� vy 4 77 of r ,i,,� r \`` s • /,l 1 nr ♦1 i Yt s y a � s• it y p�ytw S y 55 1 � � n' �; e r r L r('� 1► � l tY' �r�'rV' s rI a � DO �,: ♦ i : , j MI q , 7< • ��� r w a co a� 0 V O am .0 0 V V CL a 0 N ti w 00 O a M O � C L, r' N Cc d m L Q d � a) a c o U > Y 0 m L 4.0 m c J9 L a 0 N Q =� � Q y� T CL L V O O a V 0 r v d z m >> C d V 4 ® W E c-- 1, - , H m � c 0 t1♦ pal C .. N■ , yam. .. ■� Q c m 4) L AMA E E O V 0 N O c LA 0 .0 CL C L ,C c._ro=a 11 ro cu N m vn C 47 E v 7 N o w = x o T c u a = a) a) a) N O N a; aaaaaac N u tV/1 � v 1 Ln v VVf 0 0 e ro rco� ro rco� 9 m �u°io�nE�°ONL X O O N Q > 22ap. LC a! 'C 'n �+ a .— 4 0 ogs o� o >° c u0.z¢� on on cn cn un on on a C C C C C C C C �G:2YYYYY 1 ro � b ro rt $ Q v y y 4-1 erg 8 ro p y ^ G 0ov�. �'Sc XLA u u u u .1 CL CL v�i cn 16n Lro N +L 0 N a o.a CL aao, 19 m Aa AW W LL E E O V ME 3 E E O u a c 0 0 m za ro c a .G N c c � m 42 `o c w " co 2 a c 6q a t] N O N O yO F d ro , n a or a 0 o -0 o � `9 N XM +C-� In N.O C L U C E 0 O o NL a C v v ro C C = .5E pNq E Y O. C O � +.. ,2 ++ np V O L di a =CU ,u a v _ N =m,,� a`` G � men=caaa E m �M � o ar"_ a o w _ a `q " 0 w 00 ti N p) 8 Z- L N �. r .0 m' -0 c a> O .0 OG v_ s n r v E 3 + 0 0 ° 0 0° 0 c i a v' a V w a N, a r c 27 N C Qa1 it gi ,1 j ri L7. G qp�11 C m w +t V U H 2 m Q in = to Z L t2 m L L C70 O 0 N (� a , v � do '= O c O c C G qj to m O C c 0 V '7 u ro a w m L ct. m d ao c cu c a u m 0. N L m c w 0 C 1. u G O V Fi c m v 9 S U a E U) U) (1) (M) 0 am rm tm .� � � a _m � Lm (1) AMA U) m 2 | OL IL § § ( K J<ed3 2E;\ Q u : N O o ca .. aM a O ,o •� 'a ._ ■� i 3 o_= d> E v O N O v E Q a d W N v) vCL ai O C O O c a N N t) s 4) t� A.+ c M 0 3 0 C p) •- c� 4-1 a C y _ CD 4)E i = L. .r 'M M O •- N i O V O i L CL a ,L O Q. 0) O= = v L d oU) Eou.t��� O �'� ._ V TOOo �°>>>>>>>ma�to�c�n 0 N ❖ ;. G) 0 o EIEWP AEEI LEE.� C� C CIELEEd Q. C y t LEE .- d y y Q. ._ •� ._ _ MEEEE0 C y 0 y E .� y i v d a O a L 3 n m •- J s N c m M 4 a L _ wo m c •- E M — r. _ �o •- 0 LEE ca •— O •— m m y LEE L mr. LEE " = y>•> G� per; L•> O L LEE y m i= d •O = y O i C ,� d G LEE .Q s m N C �+ L y > i O •a y .N .� a- y C O p O O p p •� ._ p m= ca o t� 0 cA 0 S= UL w c M� • Y 1 1 r f: i r' EL CL a� 0 t) l • • JIB ' 1, r AMR a LM 0 U) c� G CL V 0 ra- 1 Ilq#.N �jB�� u�l'� •4F • r I � �I, I i S I � I t^. ,II �� i��'�. <n. mill♦ o CD xk .a r` • I tm r�.. 0 IPA• �ii: �i • � gl ut �41 • o- a a � —._ 7. CD ry 1 • C �4 11' � a �� ._�,j `F,r�l i 1 i•fld�� • �''sL "pis �,,,, r , � /f � �. SLR. pt I FL LM (1) L t x i IF t x 11 � zY T ei S!A•NI061q � � ..0 w . � '�• t td y�45 4 5 d Div"';A+ti >t t Q ki 'Q 4c 1, �La r `u M L. 4) 4F+ U) Cm C AW o. 4) V c O An m c Ni e 'ia 2 0 3 , LO O j �g 4 O V � L ., Z S xi ftka e Y �N 1It /(� Y l b� { LM Q fa e � b t`4 3 tF ti r ftftftft LO a O O = V Q L •� AMA Q > 0 (1) W C� E ''` Ma 0 > ff- Cl) O - - L O � W r LC� _ O _ O = V Q ■- LM �•+ CL > (1) 4) AMAW G� ^ E > Vn O Ll � •s E _ co O = o ea � W 1s 51 irk All 3 w 4� � Y L z T. pt �*t S •. t! 4 ti. t v. 'cat T z j Y a i u'� AtiT3� 1 c V Q I11111191ill f �c s Np(D F2 _ �t i �0 i a N T •� L O' is 0 = N d L _m �+ � 0) Q c� to O L L. Q 0 0 �+ N •L in m _ O ELOO Y = d O. r N o0U)o oo c� LO CO •E n o 0 m0LQ. M Y � w V �co+° d ea Q, O cm U) 040 w CL is Lo L 3 �o D Im 0 cY�E •- R CLY O L ++ L J 0. Q Q cC `� V 0 �a L a m L 0 -6 L m am t om LM r 1m V 3NI7 UW:AdOifd ., ���Y� :.� � ����������i» 5 � • 'r,r,I�iI���Iti►GYM �� � '` � . IIMt�1i���I�I�IM l 6 °n� �; Lt ~ i 0 i + u'i P` t0 N r; o r` w 00 to of w Ci N O r-I CP O r-I r-1 -tiV rl 0 tD rl M 00 ri P% O N to u1 N r-7 M M i i • i 1 N N N N • • ' "amMr C '� F -= a V OOmC m m m O 'a to i a V I= C m N i boo N V O a U = C m 'O O ►- O E u O 4 O u N C d= a, O s do 4j Y N Lbb +O+ 2 vOi N Cie m i 1= O R LL 8° wy � a 3 s n 9 ^f X gg[ S mkt N me r�1 L_J L O O LL ps, 00 00 Q1 `j. 00 Ln +-+ ui tt�m � rn 00 m N S M st' .- i r' C ■N C o N 00Ln n �--I N", Ch .Q •w .�.� LM M N h N CO \ N N m 0G'1 T o V4 Ln N 0 r� W � •N L N iv �+ O. C U a z W y CT N C +? Q v w Q ,CL m = 06 z a) Q C 'Cs O " a �- A. v Q O m ua }i � to CC G co Q CL _ 6 m E o I_ co 0 CO Lm (.7 U-cc Li. Q y Q 0 0 2b +`� nq ba w z `S *e4tQ 0Q ►°< to 20 > Q..�..r C Q •_ a= pLM �j a r Q N CL V =O N = O V /Q E C =°'� No ♦ ♦ L L U a �F 0 E G V- 0 C4 AN+ CD r .r C o � ❖ N O 0 H N � � � a o � ca . o � O = L o C C •- V o CO J m M Q , O on % e a � f Ib ' , �,rw S i MEMORANDUM V111C09W TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Drew Alexander, Interim Zoning Officer p.A. THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Land Use Code Amendments — Ordinance No. 9, Series 2010 — Second Readine Temporary Outdoor Food Vending Signage Public Amenity Space MEETING DATE: June 7, 2010 SUMMARY: The City of Aspen Community Development Department has initiated amendments to the Aspen Land Use Code in the areas of outdoor merchandising, temporary food vending, and signage in response to a work session held with City Council in September of 2009. Prior to the May 2e City Council hearing, Staff met with ACRA to discuss these Code amendments. ComDev received feedback on Temporary Outdoor Food Vending very rapidly, but little feedback was granted for the Outdoor Merchandising portion of the Code changes. As requested, Staff has done some additional outreach through ACRA. For the June 7`s meeting, Staff will be prepared to discuss any additional feedback that has been given. For this Ordinance, Staff has left the Temporary Outdoor Food Vending language intact. Based on last meeting, Staff suggests this section of the Ordinance be deleted. This would maintain the existing program with no changes. Staff recommends the Council adopt the proposed code amendments. MAIN ISSUES: 1.) Temporary Food Vending on Private Property: City Council and, Community Development Staff were in agreement that more flexibility and choices for individuals pursuing a food vending cart permit would aid in adding vitality to the downtown. The proposed changes add to the existing program and maintain market fairness in the community between outdoor food vendors and those that pay interior rents. The changes to code include location, duration and signage revisions. Location: The proposed code language allows for food vending carts to operate in new locations. The first of these areas is the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone district and Gondola Plaza. These areas occupy a portion of the base of Aspen Mountain and include properties such as Aspen Square, Residences at Little Nell, and the North of Nell. The second proposed location includes the interior arcade malls within properties in the Commercial Core (CC) and the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone districts. Vending carts located in arcades must obtain property owner consent and from all businesses who have access along the arcade. The proposed location language additionally states that the operator is limited to one location and the cart shall be installed and not intended to move on a day-to-day basis. Duration: Currently, temporary food vending permits are allowed to operate on a six month basis. The code does not specify whether or not this is within an annual year, or if the operator can stop vending for one day and then begin operating again for another six months. The proposed code language allows for vendors to receive a yearlong permit, starting May 15 and ending May 14. When the year duration has expired, the operator is subject to review and resubmittal of fees. If the vendor is deemed noncompliant with the code the permit may be revoked. Signage: The proposed code language exempts food vending cart signage from those requirements found within Land Use Code Section 26.510, Signs. This exemption does not include the section on Prohibited Signs found within that Chapter. The size of the sign shall be the lesser of fifty percent (50%) of the surface area of the front of the cart, or eight (8) square feet. The sign shall be painted on or affixed to the cart. Any logos, lettering, or signage on umbrellas or canopies counts towards this calculation. Food carts in locations that have no visibility along the public right-of-way shall be allowed one sandwich board sign in accordance with the regulations found within Section 26.510.130.D.e. 2.) Outdoor Merchandising: The main concern with outdoor merchandising is that the code prohibits it from occurring, yet it is commonplace throughout town. Most of the activity includes clothing, sportswear, bicycles, or artwork. City Council informed staff that they believed the current amount of outdoor merchandising was acceptable, but that the code needs to match existing conditions and to have some level of control. The proposed code language now allows for outdoor merchandising in public amenity space or private property. Additionally, this language requires that outdoor merchandising be in front of or proximate to the storefront it is associated with. The merchandising must be associated with a commercial use on the same parcel. The code language also prohibits the installation of umbrellas, retractable canopies, or similar devices in conjunction with outdoor merchandising displays. 3.) Signage: This code language change to the sign code refers to signs (banners and flags) on Main Street light posts. The proposed language addresses some repetition that existed between the Purpose and Eligibility portions of this Section. This revision would give the City Clerk more confidence in granting sign approvals, and would also greatly reduce the number of banner or flag sign proposals being presented to the City Council. No requirements or review standards have been altered. Staff would like to create a separate Land Use Code chapter for Signs on Public Property. A more comprehensive re -write of the Sign Code will be presented to Council at a later date. Page 2 of 3 APPLICANT: City of Aspen PREVIOUS ACTION: Work sessions were held with CCLC and City Council in addition to a survey that was distributed by ACRA to local retailers. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. City Council is the final review authority. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the City -initiated amendments to Temporary Food Vending, Public Amenity, Signage, as described in Ordinance 9, Series of 2010. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2010." ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 9, 2010, for Outdoor Merchandising, Outdoor Vending, and Main Street Banners (All exhibits have been previously submitted) Exhibit A.1 — Existing text for Outdoor Vending Exhibit A.2 — Redlined text for Outdoor Vending Exhibit B.1 — Existing text for Main Street banners Exhibit B.2 — Redlined text for Main Street banners Exhibit C.1 — Existing text for Pedestrian Amenity Exhibit C.2 — Redlined text for Pedestrian Amenity Exhibit D — Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO.9 (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS FO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE: 26.470.060.7, 26.510.110.B.4, AND 26.575.030.F WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of Aspen initiated an application proposing amendments to the Land Use Code, pursuant to Chapter 26.210; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Section 26.470.060.7, 26.510.110.13.4, and 26.575.030.F of the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Director recommended approval of amendments to the above listed Sections as further described herein; and, WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on December 15, 2009, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued a hearing to consider the proposed amendments as described herein to January 5, 2010. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendments described herein on January 5, 2010, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Director and recommended, by a 7 - 0 vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 24u, the City Council took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, referral agencies, Planning and Zoning Commission, and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2010 Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1• Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City of Aspen City Council hereby approves the amendments to Section 26.470.060.7, Temporary Outdoor Food Vending, which section defines, describes, authorizes, and regulates the process for establishing a food vending cart within the City of Aspen to read as follows: 7. Temporary Food Vending. Temporary Food Vending on private property or public property that is subject to a mall lease for food vending or outdoor restaurant seating in the Gondola Plaza, Commercial Core (CC) or Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone Districts shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria: a) Location: All food vending shall be located in the upper and lower Gondola Plaza, Commercial Core (CC) or Commercial Lodge (CL) zone districts. The temporary operation shall under no circumstance be located in or along the public right-of-way in a manner that inhibits the movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Temporary food vending may operate in interior arcades of buildings within the Commercial Core and Commercial Lodge zone districts only if the approval of the property owner and of all businesses that have access in the arcade has been granted. Other criteria that applications must be in compliance with: 1. Multiple vending sites shall not be allowed for any single owner or entity. 2. The food cart shall be in a consistent location as is practically reasonable and not intended to move on a daily basis throughout the duration of the permit. 3. The food vending cart shall be placed in a location that does not interfere with required emergency egress or pose a threat to public health, safety and welfare. A minimum of six (6) foot ingress/egress shall be maintained for building entrances and exits. 4. Before a food vending cart can begin operating, it must receive approval from the property owner and all adjacent businesses. b) Duration: The temporary food vending operation shall be permitted to operate for a period of one year, beginning May 15 and ending May 14. At the end of this period, the operation shall be subject to review by the City Clerk and the Community Development Department. If all criteria are still met then the operator may receive a permit renewal. City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2010 Page 2 c) Fee: The permit fee for a food vending cart shall be the current fee listed in Land Use Code Section 26.104.070, Land use application fees. d) Size: The area of outdoor food vending activities does not exceed fifty (50) square feet. The area of outdoor food vending activities shall be defined as a counter area, equipment needed for the food vending activities (e.g. cooler with drinks, snow cone machine, popcom machine, etc.), and the space needed by employees to work the food vending activity. e) Signage: Signage for temporary food vending carts shall be exempt from those requirements found within Land Use Code Section 26.510, Signs, but not excluding Prohibited Signs. The total amount of signage shall be the lesser of fifty percent (50%) of the surface area of the front of the cart, or six (6) square feet. Sign(s) shall be painted on or affixed to the cart. Any logos, lettering, or signage on umbrellas or canopies counts towards this calculation. Food carts may have a sandwich board sign in accordance with the regulations found within Chapter 26.510. f) An application to the Community Development Director for temporary outdoor food vending shall only be submitted and approved subsequent to submitting and obtaining approval of a food service plan from the Environmental Health Department. The area of outdoor food vending activities shall include recycling bins and a waste disposal container that shall be emptied daily and stored inside at night and when the outdoor food vending activities are not in operation. Additionally, no outdoor, open -flame char -broiling shall be permitted pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13.08.100, Restaurant Grills. g) Affordable Housing Waiver: The Community Development Director shall waive affordable housing mitigation fees associated with the temporary new net leasable square footage being created by outdoor food vending activities. h) The outdoor food vending activities may occur year-round. An application for an approval of temporary outdoor vending activities shall not constitute nor be interpreted by any property owner, developer, vendor, or court as a site specific development plan entitled to vesting under Article 68 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes or Chapter 26.308 of this Title. Approvals granted in this subsection are subject to revocation by the City Manager or Community Development Director without requiring prior notice. i) An application for temporary outdoor food vending activities shall not diminish the general public health, safety or welfare and shall abide by applicable City regulations, including but not limited to building codes, health safety codes, fire codes, liquor laws, sign and lighting codes, and sales tax license regulations. City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2010 Page 3 Section 2• Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City of Aspen City Council hereby approves the amendments to Section 26.510.110.B.4, Banners and Flags on Main St. Light Posts, which section defines, describes, authorizes, and regulates the availability to installed banners and flags on Main Street light posts, to read as follows: 4. Banners and flags on Main Street light posts. a. Purpose. Banners and flags hung from light posts on Main Street have traditionally been permitted to celebrate special events of community interest. The purpose of these policies and regulations is to clarify which events may be celebrated and advertised through the use of banners or flags hung from the City -owned light posts on Main Street. b. Eligibility. Banners hung from the Main Street light posts shall be permitted for anniversaries of local nonprofit organizations beginning at the organization's tenth (loth) year and for events that are considered relevant to a large segment of the local community. The United States, Colorado, Aspen or foreign country flags shall be permitted at the discretion of the City Manager. c. Size/number/material. All proposed banners or flags should meet the City's specifications for size, mounting and material. Banners shall be two feet wide and four feet high (2' x 4') to be compatible with mounting system on the light posts. Banners and flags must be made of nylon, plastic or similar material. Paper is not allowed. d. Content. Banners shall only contain information identifying the event, the date and time or a simple graphic/logo related to the event. Any commercial advertising shall be minimized so that any commercial content is not the most prominent information conveyed on the banner or flag and shall be limited to no more than thirty percent (30%) of the area of the sign. The City reserves the right to request changes to the design, color or content in order to assist the applicant to comply with this requirement. e. Cost/fees/procedures. The cost of installation is outlined in the current fee schedule set forth at Chapter 2.12, Miscellaneous fee schedules, of this Code. A refundable security deposit as outlined in the current fee schedule shall be required to assure replacement of damaged banners and retrieval of the banners from the City (see Section g below for maintenance requirements). The applicant shall be required to submit an application to the City Manager's office showing the dimensions, design and colors of the proposed banners or flags at least three (3) months prior to the event. Flags are required to be delivered to the City Parks Department one (1) week prior to the event. Banners shall City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2010 Page 4 be delivered to the Utility Department on Fridays at least two (2) weeks prior to their installation. f. Duration. The display of banners and flags on the Main Street light posts shall not exceed fourteen (14) days or the duration of the event, whichever is less. g. Maintenance. Prior to the placement of banners or flags on City street light posts, the applicant shall provide to the City a number of replacement flags or banners to be determined by the City. These replacement flags or banners shall be used by the City to replace banners or flags that are stolen or damaged. The cost of replacing banners or flags shall be deducted from the security deposit. Once banners have been removed, the applicant shall be required to pick up the banners from the City within three (3) days. Section 3• Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City of Aspen City Council hereby approves the amendments to Section 26.575.030.F, Public Amenity — Design and Operational Standards for Public Amenity, which section defines, describes, authorizes, and regulates the City of Aspen's required public amenity areas, included those operations that can occur within, to read as follows: F. Design and operational standards for public amenity. Public amenity, on all privately owned land in which public amenity is required, shall comply with the following provisions and limitations: 1. Open to view. Public amenity areas shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, which view need not be measured at right angles. 2. Open to sky. Public amenity areas shall be open to the sky. Temporary and seasonal coverings, such as umbrellas and retractable canopies, are permitted. Such nonpermanent structures shall not be considered as floor area or a reduction in public amenity on the parcel. Trellis structures shall only be permitted in conjunction with commercial restaurant uses on a designated historic landmark or within H, Historic Overlay Zones, and must be approved pursuant to review requirements contained in Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development within an H, Historic Overlay District. Such approved structures shall not be considered as floor area or a reduction in public space on the parcel. 3. No walls/enclosures. Public amenity areas shall not be enclosed. Temporary structures, tents, air exchange entries, plastic canopy walls and similar devices designed to enclose the space are prohibited, unless approved as a temporary use, City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2010 Page 5 pursuant to Chapter 26.450. Low fences or walls shall only be permitted within or around the perimeter of public space if such structures shall permit views from the street into and throughout the public space. 4. Prohibited uses. Public amenity areas shall not be used as storage areas, utility/trash service areas, delivery areas or parking areas or contain structures of any type, except as specifically provided for herein. Vacated rights -of -way shall be excluded from public amenity calculations. 5. Grade limitations. Required public amenity shall not be more than four (4) feet above or two (2) feet below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the public space, unless the public amenity space shall follow undisturbed natural grade, in which case there shall be no limit on the extent to which it is above or below the existing grade of the street, or if a second level public amenity space is approved by the Commission. 6. Pedestrian links. In the event that the City shall have adopted a trail plan incorporating mid -block pedestrian links, any required public space must, if the City shall so elect, be applied and dedicated for such use. 7. Landscaping plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Community Development Director shall require site plans and drawings of any required public amenity area, including a landscaping plan and a bond in a satisfactory form and amount to ensure compliance with any public amenity requirements under this Title. 8. Maintenance of landscaping. Whenever the landscaping required herein is not maintained, the Chief Building Official, after thirty (30) days' written notice to the owner or occupant of the property, may revoke the certificate of occupancy until said party complies with the landscaping requirements of this Section. 9. Outdoor Merchandising on Private Property. Private property may be utilized for merchandising purposes by those businesses located adjacent to and on the same parcel as the outdoor space. This shall not grant transient sales from peddlers who are not associated with an adjacent commercial operation. In addition, outdoor merchandising must meet the following requirements: a) Merchandise must be maintained, orderly and located in front of or proximate to the storefront related to the sales. b) The display of merchandise shall in no way inhibit the movement of pedestrian traffic along the public right-of-way. All merchandising shall be located on private property. A minimum of six (6) foot ingress/egress shall be maintained for building entrances and exits. c) The size and amount of merchandise allowed is under the discretion of the property owner. City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2010 Page 6 d) Umbrellas, retractable canopies, and similar devices are not permitted for outdoor merchandising. See Section 26.304.070.F.2. e) Merchandise shall be displayed for sale with the ability for pedestrians to view the item(s). Outdoor areas shall not be used solely for storage. The prohibition of storage shall be limited to merchandising on private property and shall not apply to permitted commercial activity on an abutting right-of-way or otherwise permitted by the City. 10. Outdoor Restaurant Seating on Private Property. Private Property may be used for commercial restaurant use if adequate pedestrian and emergency vehicle access is maintained. Umbrellas, retractable canopies, and similar devices are permitted for commercial restaurant uses. For outdoor food vending in the Commercial Core District, also see Paragraph 26.470.040.B.3, Administrative growth management 11. Design guideline compliance. The design of the public amenity shall meet the parameters of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, (Ord. No. 55-2000, §15; Ord. No. 1-2002, §16; Ord. No. 23-2004, §3; Ord. No. 2-2005, §2; Ord. No. 5, 2005, §2; Ord. No. 13, 2007, §2) Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 20 day of May, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 5• This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6- 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 (Signatures on following page) City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2010 Page 7 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of April, 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2010 Page 8 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor 2010. MEMORANDUM Vitt d TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 4 FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Aspen Valley Hospital — Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road) Final Planned Unit Development, Phase II 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 12 (Series 2010) — Public Hearing MEETING DATE: June 7, 2010 GENERAL BACKGROUND: The hospital received conceptual approval for their master plan in 2009. This approval included their overall program, massing, and their phasing plan. The phasing plan anticipated four phases of redevelopment and requires each phase to receive final approval. The Applicant is requesting Final PUD approval and associated land use approvals for Phase II with the application consistent with the conceptual approval. SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report addresses the questions raised at the May lOth first reading. It contains the following: • A summary of the issues raised from the first reading with additional information provided by Staff and the Applicant; • Staff recommendation & motion; • A revised ordinance; and • The bulk of the memo from May 10t6 for reference. RESPONSE TO FIRST READING QUESTIONS: At the May 1 Oth first reading on Phase II of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan, the City Council raised a number of issues that they asked be addressed in further detail at second reading and the public hearing. Staff has addressed some of the questions raised at the previous hearing and the Applicant has provided additional information included as Exhibit M of this memo. Some questions will be addressed at the hearing and a written response is not provided in those instances. Additionally, the latest memo from the Applicant includes updated renderings of the affordable housing component and staff comments are provided below. 1. Reconcile number discrepancies between the staff memo and the ordinance. Staff Response: The numbers have been reviewed and reconciled throughout the memo and ordinance. 2. Elaborate on the two dissenting votes of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Page 1 of 14 Staff Response: On April 6, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission passed a resolution granting certain approvals and recommendations of approval for the redevelopment and expansion of the hospital campus by a five to two (5 to 2) vote. Staff's perspective of the concerns raised by Commissioners Wampler and Myrin can be summarized as follows: concern on the size of the facility, potential duplication of services, financial cost (Wampler) and the amount of medical office space proposed for the site (Myrin). 3. Elaborate on the public outreach effort conducted by the Applicant. Staff Response: The Applicant has included an overview of the public outreach that has been undertaken and included as part of Exhibit M within this memo. 4. Elaborate on why the applicant is asking for impact fees to be waived. Staff Response: The Applicant has included additional information on the reasons for asking for a waiver of certain impact fees as part of Exhibit M. 5. How has AVH addressed Meadowood concerns? Staff Response: The Applicant will be addressing this question at the June 7`h presentation. 6. Why are the affordable housing units a mix of 1 bedroom and studio? Staff Response: The Applicant will be addressing this question at the June 7`h presentation. 7. Why the effort to screen the affordable housing? What is being hidden? Staff Response: The Applicant will be addressing this question at the June 7`h presentation. 8. How will the expansion impact the costs to patients including the provision of Medicaid and Medicare? 9. Is Mr. Goodwyne's letter accurate concerning doubling of cost to taxpayers? 10. How will the expansion be funded? Staff Response: During first reading, the above mentioned questions were raised. These issues are outside the scope of the City Council's adopted standards of review within the Land Use Code. Although these issues may deserve some public vetting, a more appropriate forum to discuss these matters would be through public meetings conducted by the Hospital Board.Please be aware that by broaching these topics, City Council could potentially exceed its jurisdiction and meet the definition of an abuse of authority by debating these issues. Even if the final decision references the review standards, the discussion will create a record that implies the decision was based on factors other than the standards of review and will significantly impair the City's position if the matter is ever subjected to legal scrutiny. Staff recommends City Council limit their review of the Hospital's land use application to the standards of review to which the application is subject and not focus upon issues outside of their purview. 11. What is AVH doing to address noise concerns? Staff Response: The Applicant will be addressing this question at the June 7`h presentation. Additionally, the city does have maximum noise levels that are required to be met. Affordable Housing. The latest design of the affordable housing is included in Exhibit M. The current iteration is quite different from the original submission (shown below) included in the Final PUD Page 2 of 14 Application (Exhibit K) but is similar to changes to the design that were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission during their review of the subject application. The buildings include roof line variation and are more articulated with the deck and window treatments. Windows under the raised roof line are more expansive, as suggested to be incorporated by the Planning Commission. The proposed color scheme helps break up the fagade and is somewhat muted and natural which also incorporates another suggestion of the Commission. Staff Comment: The current design of the affordable housing is a vast improvement over the original application's design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP in providing an essential public facility within the city near transit and trails and provides affordable housing. The refined design of the project uses a palette of materials and provides a good design for the institutional use. The overall size and design of the hospital is consistent with the conceptual approval granted. Staff recommends approval of the Final PUD application for Phase II although the waiver of the impact fees will need to be resolved. Staff anticipates the need for an additional meeting on this application and recommends June 28`n as the next date for continuing the public hearing. Council may use the following motion to continue the hearing, "I move to continue the public hearing on Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2010, related to Phase II of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 3 of 14 ATTACHMENTS: (ANY EXHIBITS INCLUDED WITH THIS MEMO ARE IN BOLD FONT) EXHIBIT A —Planned Unit Development Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10 & 6/7/10) EXHIBIT B —Growth Management Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10 & 6/7/10) EXHIBIT C—Amendment to the Official Zone District Map Review Criteria (provided 5110110 & 6/7/10) EXHIBIT D—Subdivision Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10 & 6/7/10) EXHIBIT E —Referral Agency Comments (provided 5110110) EXHIBIT F — P&Z Resolution No. 8 (Series of 2010) (provided 5/10/10) EXHIBITG—P&Z minutes (3/2/10, 3/16/10 and 4/6/10) (provided 5/10/10) EXHIBIT H — Letter from Resource Engineering Group dated April 6, 2010 (provided 5110110) EXHIBIT I —Updated Transportation Demand Management plan (April 2010) (provided 5110110) EXHIBIT J - Public comment from: Peter Yang (4/5/10), Nancy Hall (3/31/10), John Goodwyne (3/31/10), Dorothy and Harold Thau (3/31/10), and David Ducote (4/4/10) (provided 5/10/10) EXHIBITK— Application (provided 5/10/10) EXHIBIT L—Public comment from Bob Purvis (5/26/10), Aspen Orthopaedic Associates (5/26/10) EXHIBIT M — Supplemental letter from Applicant's representative: Leslie Lamont (5/25/10) Body of the May 10, 2010 staff memo: GENERAL BACKGROUND: Aspen Valley Hospital received Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for the redevelopment of the hospital campus via Resolution No. 3 (Series of 2009) in May of 2009. Conceptually, the approval provided for the redevelopment and expansion of the hospital, the addition of medical office space, site improvements including a parking garage and, at the urging of Council, on -site affordable housing. The master facilities plan anticipated four phases of redevelopment and each phase is required to receive final PUD approval prior to commencement of the subject phase. The first phase was completed under previous approvals and encompassed the remodel and expansion of the birthing center while Phase II includes: an expansion of the hospital, development of medical office space, construction of a parking garage, building of affordable housing and extensive site work. For the review of Phase 11, staff is recommending the following meeting schedule and discussion: May 10, 2010: Approve ordinance on first reading and schedule second reading (the public hearing) for June 7, 2010 June 7, 2010: Project Overview: Recap of operational needs, program, industry trends, phasing, conceptual approval granted, provide opportunity for council to ask questions or for additional information June 28, 2010: Phase II Detail: site improvements, hospital expansion, medical office space, employee housing, housekeeping items, conditions of approval July 12, 2010: Additional meeting if necessary Page 4 of 14 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals of City Council to undertake Phase II of the redevelopment and expansion of the hospital site: • Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility with the development of the hospital pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.090 (4). (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the development of a site specific development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the designation of a PUD overlay on the parcel, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed the application on March 2"', March 14`h and April 6`h. The minutes from these meetings are attached as Exhibit G. The Applicant received the following approvals from the Commission: Growth Management Review approval for Affordable Housing, Growth Management Review approval for Expansion or New Commercial Development, Conditional Use Review approval for the development of affordable housing on the site, pursuant to Resolution 8, Series 2010 (Exhibit F). Additionally, the Commission made recommendations on the Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, Subdivision, and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD). Final PUD review before the City Council is the fourth step in a four step review process. Conceptual PUD review for the entire proposal, steps one and two, was granted via Resolution No. 3 (series of 2009) by City Council. Once Final PUD review is undertaken by the Planning Commission (step 3), the City Council conducts a final review of the application at a public hearing. As noted in the application, the Applicant is proposing redevelopment in four (4) phases to maintain existing operations throughout the redevelopment and will be requesting Final PUD approval for each phase prior to the start of the subject phase. The Applicant is taking into account a twenty year program life cycle with an anticipated 2016 build -out timeline. PHASE II PROJECT SUMMARY: The focus of the proposal is on Parcel C of the campus, where the hospital, senior center/assisted living (Whitcomb Terrace), ambulance barn, heli-pad and the hospital CEO's residence is located. Parcel A of the campus includes the Schultz building and Mountain Oaks employee housing. Parcel C contains approximately 19.1 acres or 832,085 square feet. Page 5 of 14 The Applicant is requesting approval for Phase II of the master facilities plan in which specific improvements are proposed on the site. Phase II includes a two story addition to the existing hospital, development of the on -site affordable housing, a three level parking garage, partial construction of the loop service road as well as access improvements to the site, drainage and utility improvements, trail realignment, and RFTA bus stop improvements. Specific programming improvements are also itemized below: Basement programming — a second loading and receiving area as well as food service receiving. First floor programming — 27 patient care rooms, nuclear medicine, relocated food service (including dining area), reception area, central plant additions, gift shop, 4 intensive care unit rooms, cardiopulmonary, and same day surgery. Second floor programming — cardiac rehabilitation and physical therapy, specialty clinics, oncology, administration offices, and medical offices. Phase II also includes — construction of 22 affordable housing units, a preliminary consideration for the expansion of Whitcomb Terrace, a three level parking garage (capacity 210 spaces), partial construction of the loop service road, water line expansion, access improvements to the site, meadow/drainage improvements, realignment of the Nordic trail, partial reconfiguration of the visitor parking lot and RFTA bus stop improvements. Figure 1: Subject Site, Existing Conditions Figure 2: Subject Site, Phase II Conditions The following table compares the conceptual approval and the proposed development for the site and the buildings on the campus. Page 6 of 14 Table 1: Conceptual Approval and Gross Square Feet of Development w/New Square Footaee as Pronose in Phase II Conceptual Phase I Phase II - Phase Phase IV New Total at Approval (proposed in III build out (sq. ft.) Final PUD) Existing 75,700 75,700 75,700 Sq. Ft. Sub -basement 1,489 1,489 Basement 24,55,8 0 10,094 10,671 3,813 24,578 Level(Hospital) Level One 63,194'` 5,721 18,856 32,715 6,128 63,420 (Hospital) Level Two 28,043 0 20,977 4,724 0 25,701 (Hospital) Level Two 22,600 0 12,000 15,000 0 27,000 (Medical Office Sub -Total 214,M 81,421 63,416 1 63,110 9,941 217,888 Affordable 18-22 Units 0 22 units 0 0 22 Units Housing (riti aq. i$ 20,500 sq. ft. 20,500 sq. ft. defined) Whitcomb 10 units 0 8,000 8,000 Terrace (no sq. ft. defuaed); Total 214il)" 81,421 91,916 63,110 9,941 246,388 Notes: 1) According to Conceptual PUD approval, Full Build -out Building Footprint Approximate Area 130,750 sq. ft. 2) According to Conceptual PUD approval, Proposed Parking Structure Approximate Area of Footprint 26,233 sq. ft. 3) The net increase to gross square footage due to final Phase 11 - 3,793 square feet. Which includes the following areas of increase (in square feet): • 1,489 - sub -basement was missed in conceptual review 2,058 - level two increase • 226 - level one increase in Phase II • 20 - basement in Phase II CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL: Following are conditions of approval within the Conceptual PUD approval that involve requested revision and consideration. How the Applicant is incorporating the request into Phase II is outlined after the condition. Certain topics are covered in greater detail under subsequent sections of the memo that discuss the land use reviews applicable to the proposal. Page 7 of 14 Overall Building Size Uses Architecture and Site Design. The Conceptual PUD approval requested that the aesthetic of the parking garage be further evaluated and that the affordable housing design be less auto -centric. Staff Comment: The overall building size, uses, architecture and site design are similar to those conceptually approved. To minimize the visual impact of the parking garage it is sunk into the topography and the precast concrete that is exposed is wrapped with a wood composite screen to soften its visual impact. The garage will be further screened from Castle Creek Road by the affordable housing. The original affordable housing conceptually showed the units facing a parking lot. To move away from an auto -centric design, the 22 affordable housing units now face an open green area with vehicular access proposed along the perimeter of the housing and some parking provided in the parking garage and adjacent to the green. Both the lattice work on the garage and additional landscaping will assist in screening the structure. The amended design of the affordable housing presented to the Commission is a significant improvement from the initial conceptual renderings and meet the expectations of the conceptual approval. Green Technologies. The Conceptual PUD approval requested continued collaboration to explore ways to incorporate "green technologies" into the project and to encourage transit usage by employees of the facility. Staff Comment: The Applicant is intending to seek LEED certification and has hired Resource Engineering Group (REG) to work with city departments on ways to incorporate "green" technologies into the project. AVH team members, including REG, met with city staff to discuss what utility and mechanical techniques are being proposed The energy measures discussed thus far are included as Exhibit H. Overall, the hospital anticipates meeting adopted development codes and improving the efficiency of the building, resulting in a slight decrease in overall energy use. It is important to note that the hospital's requirement is to work in collaboration with the city and is not to achieve a specific energy usage. AVH has met this condition. Employee Generation and Mitigation. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined the employee generation rate to be used for the medical office space and also permitted the use of employee credits for voluntary housing that the hospital owns. It also required each application for a phase of development to include actual generation rates from the completion of the previous phase. Staff Comment: As outlined in the application, existing affordable housing (Beaumont, Mountain Oaks, and CEO residence) provide housing for 57 employees. This number was confirmed at conceptual approval. The twenty-two new on -site affordable housing units house thirty-four (34.5) employees with a mix of studio and one bedroom units. According to the Applicant Phase I did not generate any new employees. The Applicant has provided the required information for Phase 11. Nordic Trail Location. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that any final realignment needed to be in conjunction with adjacent neighbors and the Parks department. Staff Comment: The Applicant has been working with the Parks Department, as well as close neighbors to minimize any rerouting of the existing Nordic Trail and is meeting this condition. Page 8 of 14 Drainage and Snow Storage. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that continued work on resolving drainage and snow storage issues should be worked out with city departments to minimize operational conflicts with trail users. Staff Comment: Since Conceptual PUD approval, the Applicant has been working with the Parks and Engineering Departments to design a snow and drainage retention system that meets city standards and minimizes any conflicts between snow moving vehicles and trail users. The Applicant is meeting this condition. RFTA Bus Stop Refinements. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that certain improvements with regard to bus queuing and turning radiuses be refined as well as improvements occur during Phase IL Staff Comment: Phase H will include improvements to the RFTA bus stop. The Applicant has been working with representatives from RFTA, the Transportation department, and Engineering department to develop an improvement plan that addresses bus and pedestrian needs/safety. Recently, the groups met and agreed on certain improvements for the bus stop outlined under Planned Unit Development. The improvements will occur during Phase II. The Applicant is meeting this condition. Trail Improvements. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that trail improvements should be proposed during Phase 11 to minimize multi -modal conflicts and that the Parks department be involved. Staff Comment: The Applicant has been working with the Parks Department on minimizing pedestrian/auto conflict on the Castle Creek trail. Some rerouting has been proposed to minimize crossing conflicts. The Applicant is meeting this condition. Castle Creek Road Trail Crossing Improvements. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that the Applicant work with city departments on trail crossing improvements and be responsible for a proportionate share of the improvements. Staff Comment: The Applicant is proposing speed tables on either side of the crossing with a slight change in alignment of the crossing. Enhanced lighting and signage will be installed. With the realignment of the street crossing, some realignment of the trail from Castle Creek Road to the bus stop is necessary. Additionally, an easement from the property owner of Castle Ridge is necessary to accommodate the proposed realignment. If an easement is not acquired, the crossing will not be realigned; however, speed tables and a hand operated crossing signal will be installed. The Applicant is meeting this condition. Highway 82/Roundabout and Cemetery Lane Intersections. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that the Applicant provide a proportionate financial contribution to any projects at these two intersections. Staff Comment: Staff and the Applicant are currently discussing resolution of this requirement and intend to have a proposal for council to consider during their review of the project. Currently, there are no capital improvements proposed for either the Cemetery Lane intersection Page 9 of 14 or the roundabout, so language will be included in the approving ordinance with regard to a future financial contribution. Castle Creek Road Elevation. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that the Applicant research less impactful measures compared to raising the elevation of Castle Creek Road. Staff Comment: With additional study and refinement, the Applicant has designed the site so that the raising the elevation of Castle Creek is no longer necessary. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that the Applicant develop a TDM program. Staff Comment: The Applicant has provided a detailed Transportation Demand Management plan that has been reviewed by the Transportation department and deemed acceptable. The plan is included as Exhibit I. The Applicant currently has a number of existing programs in place but commits to expand the TDM plan in Phase H by adding an additional van, providing a Car To Go parking space, adding bicycle racks, as well as other infrastructure improvements. The Applicant is meeting this condition. Subdivision Platting and PUD Documents. The Conceptual PUD approval outlined that the Applicant will remove some outdated easements and placeholders on the original subdivision plat with the recordation of a new plat. Staff Comment: During the plat recordation process for Phase 11, the plats will remove the 100 foot wide pedestrian, bicycle and road easement along Castle Creek. Appropriately sized snow storage/drainage and trail easements will be recorded. Also, the placeholder for the affordable housing will be removed and replaced with an accurate footprint of the proposed affordable housing. In the same vein, a conceptual placeholder for the Whitcomb Terrace expansion will be recorded on the plat. Finally, a discrepancy in the boundary survey will be resolved to the benefit of adjacent neighbors in the Meadowood subdivision. The Applicant will meet this condition. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Development within the Public zone district requires approval of a conceptual and final PUD through the PUD process. The Applicant is requesting final PUD approval for Phase II of the hospital's master facilities plan. Phase II is proposed with certain specific improvements and reflects additional refinement in the site planning and programming of the lot. As noted previously in the memo, Phase II includes: expansion and remodel of the hospital function, development of medical office space, development of affordable housing as well as site improvements such the a parking garage, trail improvements, bus stop improvements, drainage improvements and partial construction of the loop service road. PUD Review covers a broad spectrum of criteria that are used in considering the application including consistency with the AACP, consistency with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area, site design, landscape design, architectural character, etcetera. Staff Comment: Overall the massing, expansion and site improvements of the hospital facility proposed for Phase II are similar to the Conceptual PUD approval. Minor changes have occurred in some of the numbers that have been granted from Conceptual PUD approval. Page 10 of 14 Specifically, a gross increase of 3,793 sq. ft. is proposed or an approximate .06 increase in size. Approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of this is sub -grade space. Additionally, the hospital was approved for 22,600 sq. ft. of net leasable space in the Conceptual approval; however, upon further refinement of the design the Applicant is requesting 27,000 sq. ft. or an increase of 4,400 square feet. The hospital facility's architecture and design fits within the neighborhood characteristics and overall, the site plan focuses the redevelopment on the southerly portion of the parcel. The following comments, as they relate site planning are provided. RFTA bus stop: The Applicant has proposed certain improvements to the bus stop to improve circulation for both the busses and pedestrians. Additional direction for these improvements has been agreed upon by the Applicant and a number of referral agencies. These refinements include: • Change the angle of the taper coming into the bus stop to accommodate the 18 "-24" overhang so that buses are not encroaching on the sidewalk. • Have the traffic engineer review the reduced length of the deceleration lane along Castle Creek at the entry to AVH to make sure that this is acceptable from a vehicle safety perspective. • Soften the radius from Castle Creek into the hospital to reduce vehicular conflict at this intersection — consider removing additional trees to ensure that site lines are adequate and safe. • Add a shoulder on the south side of the AVH road between Doolittle Drive and Castle Creek — hold all planting in this area back to provide for site distances. • Evaluate impacts to the existing detention basin between Doolittle Drive and Castle Creek and redesign as required to accommodate drainage/snow storage in this area. As noted earlier, certain improvements are proposed for the actual crossing within Castle Creek Road. There are two design options proposed: one design anticipates an easement being granted by the property owner of Castle Ridge while the other does not. Work is ongoing in trying to secure an easement. On -site affordable housing units: The Applicant is proposing twenty-two affordable housing units that are studio and one bedroom units These buildings are clustered around an open green with a service drive around the housing to accommodate parking (12 spaces) and access to the garages. Additional parking is comprised of 8 parking garage stalls as well as some surface short term parking. The cluster of buildings appear as two story or three story elements as viewed from Castle Creek Road or from the interior of the lot and the heights range from 24 to 36 feet depending on the location of the measurement. To minimize potential visual impacts, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the exterior siding and trim of the affordable housing units be finished in a color palette dominated by neutral and/or natural tones. Additionally, the P&Z recommended that the hospital install landscape screening of the Affordable Housing (AH) buildings from Castle Creek Road. With regard to design, the Commission stated that the building orientation is appropriate for the site. Garage location along the "rear" of the units meets the intent of the residential design standards. The covered porch elements and entryways facing the "greenspace" are appropriate and meet the residential design standards with regard to providing a street oriented entrance, principal window and first story element. The Commission did request that the ceiling and Page 1 I of 14 window heights of the living area of the upper units be designed for high volume space allowing for multiple non -orthogonal windows resulting in nicer views and livability. Parkinggarage: Conceptual PUD approval provided parking for 339 spaces, this included a mix of garage and surface parking; however it did not consider any future expansion of Whitcomb Terrace or the affordable housing units. The current proposal includes a parking garage capacity of 210 spaces. This is less than originally proposed but with additional on -site parking for the housing component the overall number of parking spaces on the site has increased to an expected total of 361 at the end of Phase IV. The parking garage takes advantage of the natural sloping topography and is mostly sunken into the site. Screening of the concrete by a lattice material and landscaping is proposed. In reviewing the PUD portion of the application, Staff finds that the proposal meets the applicable PUD review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.445.050, Review Standards, Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD. Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan as outlined in Exhibit A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS: The Applicant is requesting of City Council one Growth Management approval for the Development of an Essential Public Facility. City Council approves this review based upon a recommendation of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Community Development Director. The hospital function on the campus meets the definition of an Essential Public Facility, which is "a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by or benefit of the general public and serves the needs of the community." City Council has the authority to "assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation" of the Essential Public Facility; however, the hospital is not requesting a waiver of affordable housing mitigation. During Conceptual PUD approval, City Council granted an affordable housing credit of 57 Full -Time Equivalents (FTEs) by assessing the actual people housed in affordable housing the hospital owns and operates (Mountain Oaks, Beaumont, CEO residence). The proposed on -site affordable housing will house 34.5 employees for a total number of employees housed equaling 91.5. As noted in the Application, Phase I of the hospital redevelopment did not generate any employees. It is estimated that with Phase II, 19.7 new employees will be generated. The 12,000 sq. ft. of new medical office space in Phase II is calculated to generate 19.98 employees. As the largest amount of required mitigation of either the new commercial development or essential public facility is required to be met if on -site housing is provided, the greater employees to be mitigated for is 19.98 employees. The on -site housing exceeds this requirement. Staff Comment: In reviewing the Growth Management portion of the application, Staff finds that the proposal does meet the applicable standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.470.090 (4), Essential Public Facilities. SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council approve the request for subdivision. Subdivision review is triggered with the development of multiple dwelling units, in this case the proposed affordable housing units. Page 12 of 14 Staff Comment: In reviewing the request, staff finds the Applicant meets the review criteria (Exhibit D) for Subdivision and recommends approval. AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP: Development within the Public zone district is required to be memorialized through the adoption of a final PUD. To designate the parcel with a PUD overlay, an amendment to the Official Zone District Map is required. Staff Comment: In reviewing the request, staff finds the Map Amendment request meets the review standards outlined in Exhibit C and meets the requirements of the Public zone district by memorializing a Final PUD plan for the expansion and redevelopment of the hospital district. SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATION: Given that the, proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for school function or pay a cash -in -lieu payment. The Applicant has proposed to pay a cash -in -lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.620 for the on - site affordable housing but is interested in a waiver for any future development of Whitcomb Terrace. The School Lands Dedication is essentially a pass -through fee that the city collects on behalf of the school district. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that the Applicant pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development unless a waiver is granted by the school district. IMPACT FEES: The Applicant is required to pay a Parks Development Impact Fee and a Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site and additional net leasable created, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees. The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee for the development of the affordable housing and the Park Development Impact Fee for the medical office space. 16V1G L. 1unpaVl 1 \.\. t �Ju.JJ..av• Parks Development Impact Fee TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee Medical office space 49,200.00 Waived per Conceptual approval Affordable housing 90,351.60 10,159.20 Total $139,551.60 $10,159.20 Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that a Parks Development Impact Fee and a TDM/Air Qualityfee be paid. Unless the Applicant is paying for trail/park improvements that are not associated with the redevelopment of the site Staff does not believe the fee should be waived. Staff does not believe the TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee should be waived. Both of the impact fees represent the Applicant's proportionate share of impacts to maintain city infrastructure at its current level of service. Page 13 of 14 REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Utilities Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Canary Initiative, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. Page 14 of 14 ORDINANCENO. 12 (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A GOWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, SUBDIVISION, AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PHASE 11 OF THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN, LOCATED ON PARCEL C, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 401 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-121-29-809 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Valley Hospital District (Applicant), represented by Leslie Lamont of Lamont Planning Services, requesting approval of a Final Development Plan and associated land use reviews for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Phase II the Aspen Valley Hospital District Facilities Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Conceptual PUD approval (via Resolution No. 3, Series of 2009) conceptually approved a redeveloped and expanded multi -story hospital building and parking garage, affordable housing and site improvements on Parcel C of the Aspen Valley Hospital Subdivision, to be developed in four phases; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Fire Protection District, Pitkin County Commissioners, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, the Transportation Department, and the City Utilities Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Final PUD and associated land use reviews for Phase II and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Final PUD approval and associated reviews may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, prior to City Council approval, Final PUD and associated land use reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at multiple public hearings where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 16, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to March 2, 2010 for further discussion. At the March 2, 2010 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the hearing until March 16, 2010 for further discussion. At the March 16, 2010 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 1 of 11 consider the project and continued the. public hearing to April 6, 2010 for further discussion. At the April 6, 2010 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and approved certain growth management quota system reviews, a conditional use review and recommended City Council approve the Final Planned Unit Development application and associated reviews for Phase II by a five to two (5-2) vote, with the findings and conditions listed within the resolution; and, WHEREAS, once the land use approvals and recommendation of approval were granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requested Subdivision approval, Growth Management approval, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map approval and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed Final PUD request and associated land use reviews; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 7, 2010, the City Council opened the hearing and after an initial review of the application continued the hearing to June 28`h; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application at the June 28`h continuance, the City Council took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, referral agencies and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein adopted Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2010, approving with conditions, Final PUD and associated land use reviews; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, Subdivision, Final Planned Unit Development, and Amendment to the Zone District Map for Phase II of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan. Specifically, these approvals and recommendations of approval permit the Applicant to develop Phase II of a four phase master facilities plan inclusive of 12,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial and office space for the development of medical offices, twenty-two affordable housing units, an expansion and redevelopment of the existing hospital facility to 63,416 gross square feet (including the medical office space but excluding the parking garage) and site improvements as shown in the site plans of Exhibit A of this ordinance. The exterior design of the hospital building and affordable housing units shall be constructed as represented to the City Council and shown in Exhibit A of this ordinance. City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 2 of I 1 Section 2: Rezoning The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the subdivision plat and Final PUD plans, amended by the Community Development Director to reflect a Planned Unit Development Overlay on all portions of land described as: Parcel C, Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision. Section 3: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision/PUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, and Section 26.445.070, Recording a Final PUD Development Plan, within 180 days of approval by City Council. As a result of minor and non material discrepancies in survey boundaries for the area in and around the property of Applicant, there appears to be overlap between the Applicant's property boundary and the adjacent property boundary for Meadowood Subdivision. The Applicant agrees with the Meadowood plat. The final plat recorded pursuant to this development shall reflect the boundaries set forth in the Meadowood plat. A plat note shall reflect the basis of the change. Section 4: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which meets adopted city standards. e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. 1) As part of the construction management plan for Phase II improvements, provisions shall be made to ensure that parking for Aspen Valley Hospital visitors, staff and construction workers will be accommodated to prevent overflow in the Health and Human Services lot. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. A detailed excavation plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. h. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 5: Dimensional Requirements of Phase 11 The following approved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD plans for Phase II: City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 3 of 11 Minimum Lot Size As represented on the Final PUD plans Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Minimum Side Yard Minimum Rear Yard Maximum Site Coverage Minimum Distance between Buildings Maximum Height a. Hospital/Medical Office Space a. As noted by the spot elevations depicted above grade on the "Overall Roof Plan" detail numbered AS-103 b. Affordable Housing b. 33'6" c. Other c. Antennas, chimneys, flues, vents or similar structures may project a maximum of ten (10) feet above the roof location the structure protrudes from and water towers, solar panels, and mechanical equipment may project a maximum of five (5) feet above the roof location the structure is placed upon. Minimum off-street spaces allocated by use: a. Hospital/medical office space use a. 105 surface and 202 parking garage b. Whitcomb Terrace spaces* c. Affordable Housing b. 32 surface parking spaces c. 12 tuck under and 8 parking garage spaces d. 2 short term parking surface parking spaces to be shared between Whitcomb Terrace and the affordable housing Total Gross enclosed hospital/medical office 63,416 square feet space Maximum Net Leasable Commercial and 12,000 square feet Offices ace medical office Total gross affordable housing space 20,500 square feet Note: * See section 8 for further requirements. Section 6• Desien elements to be incorporated into Phase II Based upon recommendations of the Planning Commission, City Council requires the following recommendations be incorporated into the Final PUD approval. a. The exterior siding and trim of the affordable housing units will be finished in a color palette dominated by neutral and/or natural tones. b. The proposed building orientation is appropriate for the site. Garage location along the "rear" of the units meets the intent of the residential design standards. The covered porch elements and City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 4 of 11 entryways facing the greenspace are appropriate and meet the residential design standards with regard to providing a street oriented entrance, principal window and first story element. The ceiling and window heights of the living area of the upper units will be designed for high volume space allowing for multiple non -orthogonal windows. c. The loop service road will only be used for service traffic related to the function of the hospital and signs installed along that route will state that condition. d. The hospital will install landscape screening of the Affordable Housing (AH) buildings from Castle Creek Road pursuant to the intent depicted on Sheets L-104 and L-105 (Landscape Plans) of Appendix A of the Final PUD submittal. It is the applicant's intent to preserve views of Highlands ski area from Castle Creek Road while screening the AH buildings with landscape that is installed close to the buildings as well as along the Castle Creek Road. However, it will be necessary to field locate the landscape due to the utility easements, drainage swale, and traffic sight lines required along this corridor as well as adhere to the Parks Department comments that have been received throughout the review process. Final landscaping shall be approved by the Parks Department. e. Incorporate landscaping along Castle Creek Road, the loop service road, and the affordable housing component to screen the improvements and minimize visual impacts to neighbors and the community. Section 7: Growth Management Annual Allotments The Applicant requested of the Planning and Zoning Commision 27,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial and office space from the 2010 annual allotment allowance for commercial development, which was granted by the Commission. This allotment represents the total net leasable square feet necessary to construct the entire master facilities plan over the course of the proposed four phases of development. For Phase II, only 12,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial and office space is proposed leaving a balance of 15,000 sq. ft. to be used in subsequent phases in subsequent years. Required affordable housing mitigation shall be based on the amount of net leasable commercial and office space proposed and entitled in each phase of development. Section 8: Excess Parking With the completion of Phase II, the number of parking spaces on the site will exceed the amount required to support Phase II. In the event that the Applicant does not withdraw the conceptual application for the master facilities, does not seek an amendment to the conceptual approval for the master facilities plan or does not complete Phase III within 10 years of city council approval of Phase II, the hospital will be required to remove the 71 parking spaces located along the western side of the hospital and detailed in Exhibit B of the ordinance. Any existing paving in this area that is not necessary to use as a connection for the service loop road shall be removed. Section 9: Engineering The conceptual drainage design anticipates shows that the proposed design can meet city drainage standards. Final design and analysis shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department prior to recordation of the final plat. If the conceptual drainage design City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 5 of 11 cannot meet city standards, the design will need to be amended and may require review and approval by city council. Adequate handling of snow storage and drainage capacity along Castle Creek Road is required. Pedestrianibicycle access though the site must be maintained during construction via the construction management plan. Additional detailed comments are included in the Development Review Committee minutes of February 8, 2010 and shall be incorporated into the final drainage plan. Section 10-: Affordable Housine a. The affordable housing provided in Phase Il of the project shall be eight (8) studios and fourteen (14) one -bedroom dwelling units meeting the size and rental rates of Category 3 and 4 affordable housing units of the APCHA guidelines. b. Rental units area allowed with the following conditions: 1) The deed restriction shall state that the hospital has a priority to rent the units for hospital employees; however, if a unit is unoccupied for forty-five (45) days, the hospital shall rent the unit to another qualified employee of Pitkin County. 2) All tenants shall be approved through APCHA prior to occupancy. 3) The owner shall convey an undivided 1/10`s of 1% ownership interest in the deed restricted units to APCHA. The APCHA ownership interest shall be in perpetuity or until such time as the units are converted to ownership units. 4) If the owner elects to sell the units, the hospital shall condominiumize the units by forming a condominium association for the deed restricted units only. All documents associated with creating an HOA shall be approved by APCHA 5) A deed restriction shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. All units require a lease for a minimum of six months. c. Affordable Housing Credit Balance : As required by City Council Resolution No.3 (Series of 2009), each final application for a phase of development shall verify the number of employees generated in the previous phase of development as well as project the anticipated number of employees generated in the current phase of development proposed. Employees Housed Employees Generated Balance Available Beaumont, Mountain 57 0 Oaks & CEO House Credit (council Resolution No. 3, 2009) Phase I 0 0 Phase II 34.5 19.98 Total 91.5 19.98 71.52 City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 6 of I 1 Section 11: Fire Mitigation NFPA 13 needs to be applied to the residential component of the project. Final configuration of the fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems needs to be approved prior to installation. Adequate turning radii need to be provided at the main entrance of the hospital and the grade level parking. Fire hydrant locations must be approved prior to installation. The top level of the parking structure must accept the superimposed weight of fire department apparatus. Section 12: Utilities Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Additional detailed comments are included in the Development Review Committee minutes of February 2, 2010 and shall be incorporated or addressed in the construction documents associated with Phase II. Section 13: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. b. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. d. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor. e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. f. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. h. Any glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. i. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. j. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 7 of 11 k. Easements for the main sanitary sewer line as well as access easements, dedicated to the district, will be required. 1. Applicant will be required to deposit funds with the district for construction costs, engineering fees, construction observation fees, and fees to clean and televise the new main sewer line extension into the project. m. The sewer service line from the ambulance barn shall be connected to the proposed new sanitary sewer service line in the access road loop. n. Both the sewer service line from the hospital and the ambulance barn shall be excavated and capped off adjacent to Meadowood Road in the Meadowood subdivision, and the corresponding easements shall be properly and legally abandoned. o. The applicant shall provide the district with proper representation that will show all means and methods to preclude any and all pathological, radioactive, heavy metals, and any other hazardous material on the list of EPA prohibited toxic discharges. Section 14: Environmental Health This development will increase vehicular trips resulting in a negative effect on air quality if mitigation measures are not implemented. To provide such mitigation, the Applicant may pay the City of Aspen's Air Quality Impact Fee. The Applicant should design the parking garage to ensure ventilation is adequate to prevent carbon monoxide from reaching high levels and exhaust ventilation should not be placed near any windows or doors. Adequate recycling space needs to be provided as well as wildlife proof trash containers. Section 15: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 16: Parks A. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. The overall mitigation for removals during this phase of improvements already has a carry-over from the construction of the Obstetrics Unit. B. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees on site. The vegetation fence shall be installed at the edge of the construction impact as depicted on page P101, Master Site Phasing Diagram. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. C. General Landscaping notes: 1) New landscape along the paved trail should be no closer than 2-feet when the species reaches maturity. A 2-foot fall zone should be maintained along both sides of the paved City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 8 of I I trail. Locations will be reviewed approved during building permit submission and field verified. 2) The drip lines of the new landscaping along the proposed Nordic alignment should not encroach over the edge of the trail easement. Mature landscaping should not grow into the trail easement requiring maintenance or interfere with the grooming equipment. Locations will be reviewed approved during building permit submission and field verified. 3) New landscaping at the trail intersections for the Terrace and the Hospital entrance, pages L-105 and L-106, needs to be reconsidered. Site lines are required to be maintained. D. Parks reserves the right to field locate the Nordic trail in an effort to decrease some of the proposed slopes. Once a final alignment for the Nordic trail is determined and approved by the Parks Department the alignment and use shall be memorialized with a trail easement granted by the Hospital to the City of Aspen for use as a trail easement. This should be identified (called out) on the site plans and in a signed easement document. Support of the proposed Master Plan Facility is contingent on acquiring an easement. E. Staff will review in more detail the proposed culvert crossing for the summer trail and the proposed Grasscrete access the paved trail for snow removal with the construction drawings. Warning signs will need to be installed at the snow dump entry, "driveway crossing" F. The current proposed Nordic alignment should align with the connection to the existing trail located across Castle Creek Road. The connections and turns have to be able to allow for the operation of a snow cat based on the machines specifications and capabilities to properly groom. G. It is critical that that the construction of the detention ponds and the trail alignments are completed prior to the start of the winter seasons. No construction activities of any kind shall take place within the Nordic alignments, or around the Nordic alignments. Construction impacts to these areas will greatly reduce the skiers experience and more importantly viability of the snowpack. H. A trail detour plan shall be developed as part of the construction management plan during the construction project in order to allow for the continued public access along the south side of Castle Creek Road. Section 17: Transportation A transportation demand management (tdm) plan has been submitted with the Final PUD application for Phase II of the AVH master facilities plan. The Applicant shall be required to meet the standards of the Win plan. As part of the Conceptual PUD approval, AVH agreed to financially contribute to improvements to the roundabout and Cemetery Lane intersections to improve capacity. The proportionate financial contribution for capacity improvements to either of these two intersections is .3% (.003) of funds the City of Aspen spends on the project(s.) As no projects have been identified, the Applicant will City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 9 of 11 be required to outline in the subdivision improvements agreement its ability to contribute to any projects that occur to the two intersections within seven years of approval of this ordinance. Section 18: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance unless a waiver is granted by the school district. If a waiver is not granted, the City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 19: Impact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development impact fee and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality impact fee assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 20: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 8, Series of 2010 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 201 N Mill Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No. 25 Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council. Section 21: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 22: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 23• City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page 10 of 1 I 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. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 24: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the7s' day of June, 2010, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 100' day of May, 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _Tn day of , 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor List of Exhibits Exhibit A AVII Master Facility Plan, Phase II Exhibit B - Proposed parking to be removed City Council Ordinance No. 12, Series 2010 Page I I of I 1 EXHIBIT A Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The redevelopment and expansion of the hospital campus implements goals and policies of the AACP. • By providing affordable housing, it contributes towards a critical mass of permanent local residents with the Aspen Community Boundary — Managing Growth, Goal B, pg 18. • The redevelopment of the campus contains development within the urban growth boundary to contain and limit sprawl— Managing Growth, Goal D, pg 19. • The site has multi modal transportation options through the trail system and bus service, promoting transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles — Managing Growth, Goal E, pg 19. • The Applicant is proposing a Transportation Demand Management plan to reduce the impacts of automobiles and promote alternative modes of transportation —Transportation, Goals E and G, pg 23. • By making improvements to the trail and bus stop the Applicant is able to "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking... by adding sidewalk connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where appropriate... " (Goal C, pg 22) • By using a palette of materials and range of building forms the design "Makes every public project a model of good development, on all levels, from quality design to positive contributions to the community fabric. " (Goal B, pg 43) • The provision of affordable housing on the site helps "Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods... " (Intent, pg 25) 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is on a large tract of land that acts as a campus setting for the hospital, senior housing, ambulance barn, and health and human services building. The property is close to open space and some dense residential neighborhoods. The development is an expansion of an existing use with the addition of affordable housing. The site is adjacent to other residential and affordable housing developments as well as institutional uses. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: The Applicant has made a Growth Management Application as part of the Final PUD application of Phase II. Under the current proposal, the application will be reviewed as an essential public facility (for the hospital operation) which has no cap on the square footage granted in a calendar year, require growth management approval for the development of new commercial space/medical clinics (net leasable) where the 27, 000 sq. ft. requested (for all phases of development) is available from the 2010 growth management year and the development of affordable housing is not capped. The planning and Zoning Commission has granted growth management approvals for the medical office space and the and affordable housing units. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The dimensional requirements allow for the expansion of the hospital while minimizing the footprint of the hospital and maintaining open space. At a final review level, the proposed building expansion and its location on the site, as well as the affordable housing location, is compatible with the character of the area. b. Natural or man-made hazards. Staff Finding: No known natural hazards exist on the lot. The relocation of the hell pad will reduce a potential man-made hazard. c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. Staff Finding: Most of the development proposed is within areas of the site that have already been impacted by development. The applicant is proposing to maintain a large percentage of open space and natural vegetation on the site. d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing a service loop road with certain improvements to separate circulation by use. Improvements with regard to vehicular circulation are appropriate as well as pedestrian improvements. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing to concentrate the redevelopment to an area that is already developed with both the hospital and Whitcomb Terrace, minimizing the impact of the new development and maintaining a large amount of undeveloped land on the site. As noted earlier, a large portion of the site is undeveloped and the proposal will maintain that feeling of openness. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding: The current on -site parking totals 201 spaces. The Applicant provided a summary of the parking needs analysis in the Conceptual PUD application. The analysis considered alternative modes of transportation that can be used to get to the hospital and reduced the estimated number of of parking spaces needed for the redevelopment by approximately 20% from the originally estimated need of 350-400. For Whitcomb Terrace, the hospital and the medical office space. The conceptual PUD application approved 339 spaces without considering the impacts of an expansion of Whitcomb terrace or new affordable housing units. Twenty-four additional parking spaces are proposed currently for a total of 363 361 spaces. Staff finds the minor expansion in parking a reasonable accommodation to the additional development on the site approved by council. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: Sufficient infrastructure exists to service the development although some upgrading is required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing to mitigate for stormwater impacts as well as incorporate Transportation Demand Management techniques to mitigate potential impacts. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing housing on -site as approved by council and not requesting an increase in density. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: A large portion of the site is undeveloped and in a natural state. The redevelopment is proposed to maintain that feel and limit the developed area of the 19 acre site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: As mentioned previously, a large portion of the site is undeveloped and in a natural state. The redevelopment is proposed so as to maintain that feel and limit the developed area of the 19 acre site. Stafff nds this criterion to be met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: The proposed building is generally oriented towards the public street but is set back from the street which contributes to the more open feel of Castle Creek Road. Existing vegetation currently screens the hospital. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: The City of Aspen Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal, and has noted that final details on the service loop road will be necessary in the future. The Fire department has also discussed necessary turning radius for the ground level parking. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding: According to the Application, the project will comply with all applicable requirements. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be handled with retention ponds in the more natural, undeveloped area of the site. Additional work and information is currently being handled with the City Engineer. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: The Application has developed the master plan to accommodate the multiple functions at the site: helicopter access, ambulance and service access, as well as patient access. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: The Applicant has provided landscaping on the site plan in the application and has developed the landscaping to correspond with the two development zones of the project: developed and natural. A number of new plantings are proposed with a more intensive/traditional landscaping near the hospital and natural grasses, serviceberry and gambel oak in the natural areas. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: The undeveloped area of the site provides a natural open setting. Enhancements in this area preserve these features. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan in with the Final PUD. This will ensure existing landscaping is preserved or mitigated for if it is to be removed. Parks has reviewed the plan and has some minor comments. E. Architectural Character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding. A variety of materials are being proposed for the redevelopment of the hospital: glass, masonry, and stone. As an institutional type of use, the conceptual design reflects the use of the building with a palette of materials that ftt well on the site. With regard to the affordable housing, a simple palette of materials is proposed. Since the submission of the application, additional massing and articulation options to vary the massing of the affordable housing have been considered and incorporated into the current design before city council. The current design provides appropriate massing and architecturefor the site. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non - or less -intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding: The Applicant has noted that the building is expected to be designed to achieve GEED certification and that it is anticipated that the building is designed and constructed in an environmentally sustainable way. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: Snow storage is anticipated to be handled by removal and relocation in the drainage basin. F. Lighting. 1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: The Applicant will comply with all lighting regulations in place. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding: There is no specific common open space for the benefit of the development; however, two trails on the site are for the benefit of the public and will be provided appropriate easements. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: The Water, Sanitation, and Electric Departments reviewed this application and determined there is adequate service for this development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding: At this time no adverse impacts on the public infrastructure are anticipated. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: The Applicant has been working with a number of city departments to ensure that adequate utilities/facilities are provided on -site. 1. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding: Staff believes that all structures and uses will have appropriate access to a public street. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: Staff believes the adding a service access road, improvements the access drives for both the hospital and Whitcomb Terrace will improve circulation on the site. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding: The Applicant will provide specific easements for both the Nordic trail and the Castle Creek trail. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: The Parks department has reviewed the application and found that the proposed improvements are adequate. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding.• There are no internal streets proposed as part of this PUD. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: There are no gates or guard posts proposed as part of this PUD. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. Staff Finding: As required by the Conceptual PUD each phase of development is required to be memorialized and mitigated for prior to development of the subject phase. EXHIBIT B Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System 26.470.090 (4), Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. Staff Finding: In Phase 11, the applicant is requesting 51,416 4-7-,868 of new in gross square footage to develop and expand the hospital function of the parcel. The director has found the hospital function of the property to be considered an Essential Public Facility. City council is allowing a credit for affordable housing to be used and the applicant is building additional on - site affordable housing. No waiver is requested Exhibit C Sec. 26.310.040.Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code and simply memorializes the site specific development plan proposed by the hospital and required by the Public zone district by designating it with a PUD overlay. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The redevelopment and expansion of the hospital campus implements goals and policies of the AACP. • By providing affordable housing, it contributes towards a critical mass of permanent local residents with the Aspen Community Boundary — Managing Growth, Goal B, pg 18. • The redevelopment of the campus contains development within the urban growth boundary to contain and limit sprawl— Managing Growth, Goal D, pg 19. • The site has multi modal transportation options through the trail system and bus service, promoting transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles — Managing Growth, Goal E, pg 19. • The Applicant is proposing a Transportation Demand Management plan to reduce the impacts of automobiles and promote alternative modes of transportation — Transportation, Goals E and G, pg 23. • By making improvements to the trail and bus stop the Applicant is able to "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking... by adding sidewalk connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where appropriate... " (Goal C, pg 22) • By using a palette of materials and range of building forms the design "Makes every public project a model of' good development, on all levels, from quality design to positive contributions to the communityfabric. " (Goal B, pg 43) • The provision of affordable housing on the site helps "Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods... " (Intent, pg 25) C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment memorializes the proposed expansion and redevelopment of the hospital campus including affordable housing units and the essential public facility. Both uses are compatible with surrounding land uses that include other residential and essential public facility uses. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The proposed PUD overlay will not affect traffic generation; however, the expansion of the existing hospital facility and addition of affordable housing will increase traffic generation. The applicant is responsible for a proportionate share of the impacts (as outlined in the Conceptual PUD approval) and is proposing other measures to mitigate traffic impacts. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: Demands on public facilities can be met, for example water supply and sewage service, and additional mitigation measures are proposed to limit the impacts the redevelopment will cause. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The application proposes to structure the expansion and redevelopment on the southerly portion of the property, where development currently exists. The northerly portion is proposed to remain in essentially a natural state. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The hospital use of the property and proposed affordable housing is consistent with the existing use of the property and surrounding uses that include residential and public services. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The proposed PUD overlay is consistent with the existing uses of the parcel (hospital) and adds residential housing which surrounds much of the hospital campus. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment of the campus is not in conflict with the public interest and meets the purpose and intent of the land use code. Exhibit D Sec. 26.480.050.Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment and expansion of the hospital is consistent with the character of the neighborhood that includes a mix of housing types as well as social services, is consistent with policies of the AACP, will not impact future development ofsurrounding areas and will meet required adopted standards. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment and expansion of the hospital is located on land suitable for development and the redevelopment is proposed on an area of the site that already contains development minimizing the impact of development of the meadow area on the northerly end of the parcel. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment and expansion of the hospital site are proposed to meet adopted subdivision design standards. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment and expansion of the hospital site provides for on - site affordable housing and is in compliance with Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Staff Finding: The proposed redevelopment and expansion of the hospital site provides affordable housing and a placeholder for the future development of senior housing. The application notes that the school land dedication fee -in -lieu shall be paid for the affordable housing units but requests that the future development of senior housing not be subject to the fee - in -lieu. The applicant will need to be granted an exemption, in the future, from the school district. F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH- PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §§29, 30) Stafffinding: The proposed redevelopment has requested and received growth management allotments as required. F_:�Wsvv L_ Jennifer Phelan From: Bcspurvis@cs.com Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:32 AM To: Mick Ireland forward; Steve Skadron forward; Dwayne Romero; djohnson@aspensnowmass.com; Torre Cc: Jennifer Phelan Subject: AVH Master Facilities Plan Mayor and Council Members, I am writing in support of Aspen Valley Hospital's Master Facilities Plan Proposal. As a member of the Hospital's Citizen's Advisory Committee, I have increasingly appreciated the AVH Staff and Board's thorough, thoughtful and consultative approach to this project. I believe the basis for the proposal includes appropriate projections of future community needs, comparative analysis of accepted, current standards for quality patient care and prudent consideration of financial requirements. It is clear that our current facility, while serving this community well over the years, is stretched beyond its capabilities physically. Obviously, it was not designed to provide today's standards of care as viewed from the patients and their families' perspective. As most agree that our community prefers, and deserves, quality health and human services, how might otherwise unwelcomed impacts be avoided and/or mitigated? I would not wish to prescribe your answer, but to suggest an approach. You should consider avoiding an incremental analysis of impacts, but take a more strategic, holistic approach. In the case of the round -about impact, total traffic at peak times including existing traffic as well as that which might come from new development would be considered. Otherwise, one can imagine an outcome where pre-existing traffic, of all kinds and degrees of benefit, is sustained at the expense of future projects such as schools, recreation facilities and/or hospitals. As a former Snowmass Village Council Member and currently the Chair of the Planning Commission, I am keenly aware of the responsibilities which each of you shoulder under the requirements of Land Use Review. While the "public facilities" halo of a health and human services project deserves appreciation, the usual elements of Land Use Review must be addressed. I understand that issues such as compatibility with adjacent development, mitigation and off -site impacts are properly for your consideration. The current Plan's inclusion of employee housing and the expansion of Whitcomb Terrace are positive outcomes of the your review to date. In the end, I hope you will agree that the AVH Master Facilities Plan Proposal warrants your approval and future support. Regards, Bob Purvis 1 A S P E N ORTHOPAEDIC Robert'. Dukash. MD herdmm{II]tlaa,Mr) N. Lmday Han'i% NI 1ohnP, eman, h7D A S S O C I A T E S Mack L.4umell, N1D Rob t F. Admns, MD Noel E. Amw ong, DPN.' Stanley D. c rt ,Ir, VI, Tomas Pevnv_MID 'I hotnas A. St. john, MD Stdi, MD Robert F Mazk, N1D ASPEN I CLENWOOD BASA1.3", RIFLE May 26, 2010 RE: Aspen Valley Hospital — Phase 11 Dear Mayor Mick Ireland and City Council Members: We support the Aspen Valley Hospital's Master Facilities Plan and respectfully request your support for the second phase expansion. The hospital administration has involved us in the planning process and we are convinced that the facilities as designed will greatly improve the patient experience at the hospital. The expansion will also improve our ability to practice in the most effective and efficient facility possible to the benefit of patients in the Emergency Department and hospital. As you know, our current office is adequate, but an AVH facility will enhance the patient experience and clinical outcomes. Our group is very interested in the medical office space that is planned for the 2" floor of the expansion to improve patient care efficiency and patient satisfaction. we respectfully request you support the medical office space plan based upon the following: Co -locating our offices on the hospital campus improves patient care, because proximity to physical therapy, emergency department and patient care units enhances communication and coordination. • The co -location of medical offices on the hospital campus has become the standard approach to coordinating care for good reason — it facilitates timely physician response to hospital needs, it provides easy access to a range of diagnostic services and it creates a one - stop -shop for the community. As surgeons, we are called to the Emergency Department for trauma patients. • Healthcare Reform encourages the co -location of medical office space on a hospital campus as part of the Medicare Demonstration projects and Accountable Care Organizations. • Aspen lacks accessible and affordable medical office space in the core due to competition and a general lack of parking. Most medical facilities are outdated and cannot be renovated to meet current patient privacy and comfort expectations. This includes our office. • The space will serve a critical role in our physician recruitment plans. Physicians are keenly aware that patient expectations have risen with consumerism. In order to recruit and retain both physicians and patients we must have quality facilities. • Our patient satisfaction scores indicate that our current facilities and parking are detractors from patient satisfaction. I00 laat Mato St. sll I W 1906 Blake A t a. r]0 1450 East Valley Rd, Str.201 AsFen,CG 4lrll 19?Q925:IIAi Glenv ..dsnt,4I'COHIWI I970.14�.36R3 Basalt COM621 H'0.9'_7.R(il Rifk,CO)8F5�] a•0 ^'Sb6"0 w ww.or t hop. ca ,, Page 2 Aspen Valley Hospital — Phase II We appreciate the hospital's efforts to improve quality and access by providing medical office space on the hospital campus, and we believe the community will be better served in the long run as a result. Sincerely 11 Mark Purnell, MD Tomas Pevny, MD Thomas St. John, Leelee von Stade, MD G Jbhn Freeman, MD c C =C IIIIIII IIIIII C I^ I :C 1L I I : WE I : ■ E :I t t� ■ OIOZ/co DNIN33NIDN3 SINdOS - N91S30 WH(I 9NINNtlId 1NOWVI AN33H A 3 I d A N 3 d S d I , 1N3W30VNVW ..IVMWNOIS / ) ♦ ♦ IayON �j d 3NOFiV3N i w c y o ZT $ Q Z r Lu • W� W Z r tg € a � 8 R .ls f sPo —i €t�.e a ! a � � fmm ) O N �n q o� a �s{F�S sI,Y{fcY3�. z k ° U Z ` y�o pp8 Q W q n�3�3� �F! 0�`�Eitlta°es'�@@ W ! H H x: r = E n p�Q >� r ; § oa ��t8 -8 6� 8 lPe �=4 e4ep�i!:�saiF a CO) ° °LU a m R R S �8 aaaR f �i m g, 6i �� - E 00 0i . Ala 82 § ax8� a� 3s a a m aka oil Io�i,11 Yfll a - � d � — �s Y.Z€ j�, Y Oo�R i i wl _ 00 too ' Jmm CR6A'F /YPID Mft co$ co 8 a CO 0 Q Z om; •'o `e7 a 0. X 3$ E 2 e 3 B 8 x x Il. ex{'x x W W /f� j I Lmx° Q 8 SIP°f 3gi f��°xxap 14 Z _ o Z_ c J I Nam a x >"�g Ey°j�� '� 5ai`�� ill il'aifas`3��y'fe w 0 o $@ $8 R a e I se rn t 4 n gg i gg Imp 3ik *� � a ggxls€4�`f�gg gi`�g�ggix w� d :coo {{e f .0, S �d d�� I &R R 1,919 € m' 8f I�E�fslPtaiflsl��sPl1 d - a tL 6 C/SnE CpEE1t ROM � � loom" ` r, Memo To: Jennifer Phelan, Assistant Director, Aspen Community Development Department From: Leslie Lamont Date- May 25, 2010 Re: Aspen Valley Hospital MFP - Supplemental Memo for June 7 City Council Meeting The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information to the Council based upon revisions to the proposal as well as to respond to questions asked by Council at the May 10, 2010 meeting. Attached to this memo are elevations and a perspective of the affordable housing. Since the application submittal in December 2009, the design of the housing has been refined in response to staff input, discussions with the Planning and Zoning Commission, and working with adjacent neighbors. Additional details of the affordable housing will be presented at the June 7 meeting - Attachment A. A revised site plan is also attached indicating site improvements within the boundary of Phase II site improvements. Revisions were made as site development details were reviewed and refined with adjacent neighbors and City staff - Attachment B. A site lighting plan is attached to clarify site lighting impacts. With regard to potential light spill from the buildings and off site impacts, details of mitigation tools will be presented to City Council at the June 7 meeting - Attachment C. Before submittal of the conceptual land use application, the Hospital began an active public outreach process. An outline of that activity is attached to this memo -Attachment D. Attachment E further explains the request for a partial waiver of impacts fees. The Hospital has contracted with Engineering Dynamics Inc. to evaluate the level of noise anticipated to be generated with the expanded facility. Attachment F is the scope of services from EDI. At the May 10, 2010 City Council meeting, the Council requested additional information on the following items: 1. Reconcile the numbers between staffs memo and the ordinance. 2. Provide deeper comment regarding P&Z dissenting votes. 3. Elaborate on the public outreach effort. 4. Why is the applicant asking for impact fees to be waived? 5. How has AVH addressed Meadowood concerns? p:970-963-8434 e:llamont@sopds.net c:970-948-1357 6. Why are the AH units a mix of 1 bedroom and studio? 7. Why the effort to screen the AH? What are we trying to hide? 8. How will the expansion impact the cost to patients? The provision of Medicaid and Medicare? 9. Is Mr. Goodwyne's letter accurate concerning a doubling of the cost to taxpayers? 10. How will the expansion be funded? 11. What is AVH doing to address noise concerns? Items #1-#2 will be addressed by planning staff. Item #3 has been elaborated via Attachment D. Item #4 has been addressed via Attachment E. Items #5-10 will be addressed by the applicant at the June 7 Council meeting. Item #11 is introduced via Attachment F and will be further elaborated upon at the June 7 Council meeting. Attachments: A. Revised Elevations of the Affordable Housing B. Revised Site Plan C. Revised Site Lighting Plan with Photometric Isolines D. Public Outreach Schedule E. Waiver of Impact Fees F. EDI Noise Analysis Scope p:970-963-8434 e:llamont@sopds.net c:970-948-1357 2 Attachment D- PUBLIC OUTREACH SCHEDULE — June 7, 2010 Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan Conceptual Application was submitted in February 2008 Final PUD for Phase 11 was submitted December 2009 1. AVH Community Advisory Committee formed May 2006 - The committee is comprised of a diverse cross section of the community that has had the opportunity to review and comment on the MFP at various phases of its development; specifically, the committee's role is to provide feedback on the plan and its impacts and benefits to the community. • 17 meetings 2. Meadowood Homeowners Association Board of Directors • April 18, 2007 - meeting prior to the submittal of the conceptual application • March 18, 2009 - meeting to review potential employee housing sites on the Hospital's campus per Council's directive • March 17, 2010 -meeting to review the Final PUD Phase II submittal 3. Castle Creek/Meadowood Residents � r • May 15, 2008 - neighborhood presentation at Hospital: emails, public announcements and phone calls were used to solicit neighbors' participation • January 27, 2009 - meeting with immediate neighbors to discuss Council's condition of approval to add on -site employee housing • January 20, 2010 - public presentation at Hospital: notice was inserted in local newspapers (via a press release and paid advertising), public service announcements and interviews were aired on local radio stations, neighbors were notified of the meeting via homeowner associations and emails, and the meeting date was posted on community calendars. Please see attached flyer and press release. Neighborhoods that were noticed include: Castle Ridge, Water Place, Twin Ridge, Meadowood HOA, Mountain Oaks, Schultz Building staff and clients, Marolt Housing, and Whitcomb Terrace staff, residents and senior center staff and members. In addition, phone calls were made and emails were sent to Castle Creek residents as an accurate community email was unavailable. Attachment D AVH - Phase 11 Final PUD Public Outreach Effort Page 1 • May 27 and May 28, 2010 - community presentation meetings (3 total): emails, p flyers and phone calls were used to solicit neighbors similar to the outreach effort for the January 20, 2010 presentation. 4. Twin Ridge/Castle Ridge/Water Place/Marolt Housing • May 8, 2008 - neighborhood presentation at Hospital: emails, public announcements and phone calls were used to solicit neighbors' participation • January 20, 2010- public presentation combined with Meadowood and Castle Creek • May 27 and May 28, 2010 - community presentation meetings (3 total): emails, flyers and phone calls were used to solicit neighbors similar to the outreach effort for the January 20, 2010 presentation. 5. Whitcomb Terrace/Senior Center/Senior Council June 4, 2008 - meeting held on -site • April 27, 2009 - meeting held on -site • January 6, 2010 - meeting held on -site • May 27 and May 28, 2010 - community presentation meetings (3 total): emails, public announcements and phone calls were used to solicit neighbors' participation similar to the outreach effort for the January 20, 2010 presentation. 6. Community At -Large Meetings January 20, 2010 - public presentation at Hospital: notice was inserted in local newspapers (via a press release and paid advertising), public service announcements and interviews were aired on local radio stations, neighbors were noted of the meeting via homeowner associations and emails, and the meeting date was posted on community calendars. Please see attached flyer and press release. May 27 and May 28, 2010 - community presentation meetings (3 total): emails, public announcements, calendar listings, advertisements, flyers and phone calls were used to solicit neighbors similar to the outreach effort for the January 20, 2010 presentation. 7. Pitkin County Health and Human Services Staff and Clients • May 8, 2008 - neighborhood presentation at Hospital: emails, public announcements and phone calls were used to solicit neighbors' participation • January 20, 2010 -public presentation combined with Meadowood and Castle Creek Attachment D AVH - Phase 11 Final PUD Public Outreach Effort Page 2 • May 27 and May 28, 2010 — community presentation meetings (3 total): emails, public announcements and phone calls were used to solicit neighbors' participation similar to the outreach effort for the January 20, 2010 presentation. 8. Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners • February 24, 2009 - meeting 9. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board • February 17, 2010 - meeting • May 19, 2010- meeting 10. Planning and Zoning Commission • June 17. 2008 — site visit • July 1, 2008 — public hearing • July 15, 2008 — public hearing • August 5, 2008 — public hearing • August 19, 2008 — public hearing and recommendation to Council for conceptual approval • January 19, 2010 — site visit h 1 • March 2, 2010 — public hearing Final PUD Phase II • March 16, 2010 — public hearing • April 6, 2010 — public hearing 11. CityCouncil • January 9, 2009 — site visit • January 12, 2009 —first reading • January 26, 2009 — public hearing • February 9, 2009 — public hearing • April 13, 2009 — public hearing • April 27, 2009— public hearing • May 11, 2009— public hearing and conceptual approval `• Attachment D AVH - Phase 11 Final PUD Public Outreach Effort Page 3 • May 10, 2010 -site visit • May 10, 2010 -first reading Final PUD Phase II • June 7 2010 -public hearing and second reading Final PUD Phase 11 12. Other • Rotary of Snowmass Presentation -April 21, 2010 • Aspen Chamber Resort Association Presentation -February 23, 2010 • Rotary of Aspen Presentation - February 11, 2010 • Constituent groups within the Hospital have been consulted related to the Master Facilities Plan, conceptual submittal and now Phase 11: physicians, general staff, Cardiac Rehab program participants, Aspen Valley Medical Foundation, etc. • Hospital newsletters are mailed to everyone in the Hospital's Special District and this project has been described in multiple issues. • Hospital Health Fairs - June 4, 2010 at Basalt Clinic and June 5 and 6 2010 at the Hospital. All presentation boards related to the MFP, Phase II will be on display, and staff will be on -hand to explain the improvements and answer questions. Attachments: Meeting Announcement Flyers and Press Releases Attachment D AVH - Phase 11 Final PUD Public Outreach Effort Page 4 join us for an update Aspen Valley Hospital Tfaster Facilities Plano Wednesday, January 20 6:30-7:30pm , Aspen Valley Hospital Oden Conference Center Dave Ressler, Aspen Valley Hospital CEO, and Russ Sedmak, architect, will show building and site plans, architectural renderings, and answer your questions. A SVEN VALLEY H O S P IT A L wwwivhaspen.org 1970.925.1120 di;,j.,,,Qkmr,.yL�semVim "� Attachment D AVH — Phase 11 Final PUD Public Outreach Effort Page 5 Attachment D AVH — Phase 11 Final PUD Public Outreach Effort Page 6 On FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE From: Ginny Dyche, Community Relations, 544-1296 Subject: Community meeting regarding AVH master plan Date: May 19, 2010 Community Invited to View AVH Master Facilities Plan Community members are invited to attend informational meetings on the Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH) master facilities plan on Thursday, May 27 at 5:30 p.m.; Friday, May 28 at 7:30 a.m.; and Friday, May 28 at 12 noon at AVH. The hospital has been developing the plan for several years and hopes to break ground in the fall. All meetings will take place in the Oden Conference Center at AVH. Today's hospital was completed in 1977, and healthcare delivery has changed significantly since that time. Most notable is the shift from inpatient to outpatient care, the addition of a number of services, and a focus throughout the healthcare industry on privacy. "The hospital is in need of an expansion and renovation to accommodate these changes and to have sufficient space to meet the needs of the services we currently provide," explained Dave Ressler, AVH CEO. Phase I of the master facilities plan expanded and renovated the hospital's obstetrical unit and was4 completed in 2008. The Aspen City Council gave conceptual approval of the remaining three phases of the plan in May 2009 after an extensive review. Final approval of Phase 11 was granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in April of this year, and now Phase 11 is before the Aspen City Council for their final review. Phase II includes an expansion and renovation of other inpatient areas (PCU and ICU), physical therapy, and cardiopulmonary rehabilitation. The cafeteria will be relocated to the front of the hospital, and medical office space will be added. "Phase II is a critical component of the four -phase project," said Ressler. "We address many of the patient privacy and comfort issues that challenge us on a daily basis in our 1970s building." At completion, all inpatient rooms will be single occupancy, two of the hospital's busiest outpatient departments will be expanded, and many of the problems associated with traffic flow and the inappropriate mix of inpatients, outpatients, staff, and visitors will be resolved. The medical office space to be added in Phase II will enable physicians with active hospital practices to move to the hospital campus and better serve their patients. Medical offices will be leased to physicians at fair market prices. "` Attachment D AVH - Phase 11 Final PUD Public Outreach Effort Page 7 ►as "This phase of the project is moving from concept to reality, and we really want to encourage members of the community to come out and see what is planned," said Ressler. In the meetings, building and site plans and architectural renderings will be shown, and a question and answer session will be led by Ressler and healthcare architect, Russ Sedmak, of Heery and Associates. A light breakfast, lunch, or dinner will be served at the meetings, so those planning to attend should RSVP to 544-1296. Aspen Valley Hospital hosts meetings on expansion Aspen Times staff report Aspen, CO Colorado ENLARGE An artist's rendering shows the entrance to Aspen Valley Hospital following a planned expansion of the facility. The plans will be the focus of public informational meetings next week. Courtesy Aspen Valley Hospital ASPEN — Aspen Valley Hospital will host three public meetings next week on a planned expansion that would roughly triple the size of the existing facility by the time it's complete. Hospital officials hope to begin construction of phase 2 of the expansion this fall; that part of the project will go before the Aspen City Council on June 7. The expansion is outlined in a master facilities plan that will be the focus of the informational meetings, scheduled Thursday, May 27, at 5:30 p.m., and Friday, May 28, at 7:30 a.m. and again at noon. All of the sessions will take place in the Oden Conference Center at AVH. Attachment D AVH - Phase 11 Final PUD Public Outreach Effort Page 8 Phase 1 of the facilities plan, the expansion and renovation of the AVH obstetrical unit, was completed in 2008. Final approval of phase 2 won Planning and Zoning Commission approval in April, advancing to City Council review next month. The second phase of the expansion is the largest of the three remaining phases. It includes creating a new wing of patient rooms, plus office space for physicians, providing new space for cardiac rehabilitation and physical therapy, and relocating the cafeteria. Construction of a parking garage and 22 employee units to the north of the existing hospital is also part of phase 2. A new, east -side entrance would access the patient rooms, medical offices and relocated cafeteria, among other areas. The existing one-story building would be expanded both outward and upward, to two stories, with the planned expansion. It would also go from about 70,000 square feet to roughly 210,000 square feet, plus a separate, 80,000-square-foot parking garage, by the time the final phase is complete. In all, the remaining phases are expected to cost in excess of $100 million. No cost estimate for phase 2 specifically is yet available. The present hospital was built in 1977. Health care delivery has changed since then, with a shift from inpatient to outpatient care, additional services and a focus on privacy, noted CEO David Ressler. The Aspen hospital's shared patient rooms are out of date, say hospital officials. With the next phase, the 25-bed hospital will gain the capability for 39 patient rooms — all of them private. In addition, two of the hospital's busiest outpatient departments will be expanded. "Phase 2 is a critical component of the four -phase project," said Ressler in a hospital press release. "We address many of the patient privacy and comfort issues that challenge us on a daily basis in our 1970s building." The medical office space will allow physicians with active hospital practices to move to the hospital campus; offices will be leased at fair market prices, according to AVH. "This phase of the project is moving from concept to reality, and we really want to encourage members of the community to come out and see what is planned," Ressler said. Building and site plans, and architectural renderings will be shown at the informational meetings, and Ressler and architect Russ Sedmak of Heery and Associates will lead a question -and -answer session. A light meal will be served at the sessions, so those planning to attend should RSVP by calling 544-1296. Attachment D AVH - Phase 11 Final PUD Public Outreach Effort Page 9 Attachment E - Impact Fees Throughout the land use application review process the applicant has requested a waiver of some of the impact fees related to the various aspects of the proposal. Following is a review of the various fees and the Hospital's rationale for requesting a waiver. In addition, Resolution 3, Series of 2009, the conceptual PUD approval, provided some basis for fee waivers. Language for Resolution 3 is also provided. 1. School Land Dedication School Land Dedication fees only pertain to residential development. Therefore this fee does not apply to the hospital facility expansion or the medical office space. The Hospital respectfully requests a waiver of the fee for the Whitcomb Terrace addition as this is housing for senior citizens of the community. The applicant has been advised by the Community Development staff to seek a waiver from the Aspen Valley School District. 2. TDM/Air Quality Impact Fees The conceptual PUD Resolution waived the TDM/Air Quality Impact Fees for the hospital facilities and medical office space in recognition of the proposed capital improvements to the RFTA bus stop and the proposed TDM Program. However, city staff is recommending that the TDM/Air Quality Impact Fees be assessed on the development of residential units. The Hospital respectfully requests that the TDM/Air Quality Impact fee is waived for the employee dwelling units as well as the senior housing due to the location of the housing on the RFTA route with 20 minute headways that connect residents with most services via RFTA. The Hospital employee dwelling units are within close proximity of the residents' primary place of employment as well as directly adjacent to a primary pedestrian/bike routes with direct connections to downtown Aspen. Finally, although the Hospital has already committed to the capital improvements to the RFTA bus stop, the Hospital is also committed to pay for all of the pedestrian safety improvements for the Castle Creek Road pedestriag crossing between the RFTA bus stop and the Marolt Housigg. Those al grade improvements, as reviewed and approved by the city staff, include: a concrete inlay pedestrian crosswalk, two asphalt speed humps on both sides of the crossing, proper pedestrian crosswalk and traffic calming warning signs, relocation of existing pedestrian crosswalk warning signs at appropriate spots, relocation of an existing power pole mounted light fixture closer to the intersection of Castle Creek Road and the crosswalk (this increases visibility of pedestrians in the crosswalk), reconstruction of the trailhead connector to RFTA bus/transit stop, reconstruction of the sidewalk on the west side of Doolittle Drive to an 8 ft. wide concrete sidewalk/trail, and associated traffic signage at Doolittle Drive crosswalks. If a trail easement across Castle Ridge apartments is necessary to realign the trail, the Hospital will pave the new pedestrian trail and install a sidewalk from the bus stop to the Castle Ridge parking lot. 3. Parks Development Impact Fees Resolution #3 states that the Parks Development Impact Fees shall not be assessed on the hospital facilities. However, Parks fees shall be assessed on the medical office space and on any residential development, unless otherwise waived by City Council during the review of that phase. The Parks fee may be reduced commensurate with on- and off -site improvements to the trail system. AVH - Phase 11 Final PUD Supplemental Memo Attachment E Page 1 The Hospital will work with City staff to determine the amount of this fee for the residential units. However, the Hospital respectfully requests a waiver of Park Development Impact fees for the medical office space for several reasons: • The Hospital has agreed to pay for the piping and metering of the raw water irrigation line a that begins at the water plant's reservoir, passes through Twin Ridge and is used to irrigate the Hospital's landscaping. The water ultimately flows to the Marolt open space. The Water Department has requested this action because it is required to account for water usage and water loss. • The Hospital's improved irrigation system will ensure consistent and reliable irrigation of the trees in Castle Creek Road ROW. • The Hospital campus provides open space and outdoor seating for community members staying at or visiting the Hospital as well as for users of the trail through the Hospital. The MOS space is integral to the provision of quality patient care for the community. Co - location of doctor's offices will increase the efficiency of the delivery of care. The overall improvements to Aspen Valley Hospital as proposed in the Master Facilities is an enormous community amenity similar to the community benefit derived from Aspen's open space and trails system and local parks. `` AVH - Phase 11 Final PUD Supplemental Memo Attachment E Page 2 A April 13, 2010 Mr. Stephen Selby Assistant Director of Facilities Aspen Valley Hospital 0401 Castle Creek Road Aspen, Colorado Re: Community Noise Approach Dear Mr. Selby: O'engineering dynamics incorporated Page 1 of 1 (v) 970-544-1379 selsteasoenhosoital.org Existing Noise Environment A. Noise levels at property line have recently been measured and reported by Tom Dunlop of Dunlop Environmental Consulting. These measurements showed that the noise levels at the hospital property line are in compliance with the requirements set forth in the City of Aspen Regulation, Chapter 18.04, titled Noise Abatement. In 2007. a Bell Tectron Model 412 helicopter performed approaches, departures and hovering maneuvers at the location of the planned helicopter pad. Noise measurements were taken at nine sites in the surrounding community during the helicopter maneuvers and also without the helicopter when the noise environment was that of a typical day. B. These data will be referenced to and compared with the noise emission levels that will occur when the Phase 2 expansion is completed. II. Noise Assessment A. The Mechanical Engineer's layout of heating, ventilation, and cooling equipment (HVAC) will be reviewed and an inventory of mechanical equipment and associated noise emission levels for each will be determined. The noise level data will include the frequency distribution of the noise emission so that it can be determined if any specific piece of equipment is producing noise that contains tonal components, humming sound, that are less than 50 dB(A) at the property line but still audible in the surrounding community. B. Determine noise contours at property line and in surrounding community taking into effect terrain and existing noise barriers (the green noise wall). C. If the analysis of the Phase 2 (HVAC) equipment shows that the new noise environment is greater than the existing levels then, noise control methods and design will be implemented. D. Repeat of I -A, above, to verify compliance and document. Sincerely, ENGINEERING DYNAMICS, INC. Howard N. McGregor President 3925 south kalamath street • englewood, colorado 80110 * 303.761.4367 • Fax 303.761.4379 Ville, MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: April Barker, Stormwater Manager, Engineering THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: May 28, 2010 MEETING DATE: June 7, 2010 RE: 2od Reading: Urban Runoff Management Plan Update, Establishment of Title 28 — Stormwater SUMMARY: Staff has prepared the final draft of the updated Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual). This Manual contains design criteria and technical guidance for addressing stormwater drainage in development and redevelopment in Aspen. As a result of this update, Title 28 of the Municipal Code has been established (ordinance attached, Manual can be downloaded at http://www.aspopitkin.com/Departments/Engineerin . BACKGROUND: In December 2008, Council approved a professional services contract with AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for the development of an updated Urban Runoff Management Plan aimed at improving stormwater management in the City. The Urban Runoff Management Plan was originally adopted as the drainage design guidance document in 1973. The City's stormwater drainage requirements and design criteria have been periodically modified since then but never officially accepted through ordinance. Staff felt this criteria was outdated and inadequate to efficiently and consistently review development plans and to meet the goals of the Clean River Initiative. The goal of the Clean River Initiative is to significantly reduce the amount of urban stormwater pollutants reaching the Roaring Fork River. Council has stated that staff should place focus on mitigating the impacts of development and construction on the environment. Also, one of Council's Best Year Yet goals in 2009 was to implement a development review and building permitting process that enables the City Council to act as environmental stewards. There are currently no standards or requirements to address water quality in the City's drainage criteria. ' In April and August of 2009, staff and consultants presented an update on the manual's progress. The major topic of discussion was the new water quality design standards. The new criteria requires development and redevelopment to design and implement permanent best management practices (BMPs) that can remove pollutants from their site's runoff before it leaves their site. The pollutant of focus in Aspen and the Roaring Fork River is TSS (total suspended solids). TSS can be removed from stormwater by filtration, infiltration, and settling. Council supported this approach to improving the quality of stormwater runoff in the City. DISCUSSION: First Reading was held in Council Chambers on May 24, 2010. The memo for First Reading is included as Attachment A. During first reading, Council asked several questions regarding the issues that garnered the most discussion and scrutiny during the development of the URMP. A list of the most significant comments from staff, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and public and the staff s response to those comments has been included as Attachment B. Council also requested a summary of the public meetings, which has been included as Attachment C. Staff received a public comment via email since the first reading. That email is included in Attachment D. Derek Johnson requested explanation of the statement that "LID practices are highly recommended." That explanation is provided here: Low Impact Development (LID) describes land planning and engineering design approaches to managing stormwater in ways that emphasize conservation and the use of on - site natural features to protect water quality. These planning and design approaches include preserving green space, reducing impervious surfaces as much as possible, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to green spaces, and using alternative pervious materials where hard surfaces are needed. In the URMP, using LID practices helps to reduce the volume required for water quality treatment (WQCV). Because the volume is based on impervious area, any reduction in impervious area or use of pervious materials benefits the designer by reducing the area needed for stormwater management. Additionally, credit is given to the calculation through different "levels" of drainage to green space, see Figure 8.14. Because of these benefits to the designer, the URMP encourages the designer to use LID practices. Council requested public outreach between First Reading and Second Reading. Staff posted a notice on the City's website, sent an email to the TAC and other architectural and engineering firms, and posted a press release about the second reading of the URMP. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Adoption of this ordinance does not impact the Stormwater Fund's budget. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: By adopting this ordinance, an update to the design criteria for drainage from developed and redeveloped sites, the quality of stormwater runoff will be improved from developed and redeveloped sites. Sites developed following this adoption will be encouraged to reduce runoff, thereby reducing stormwater pollutants, and will be required to capture a volume of runoff from their site for removal of stormwater pollutants. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Ordinance be adopted on Second Reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ORDINANCE NO. 13 Series of 2010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW TITLE 28 CODE REGARDING STORMWATER. WHEREAS, Title 28 establishes stormwater management policies to provide reasonable guidance for the regulation of stormwater runoff for the purpose of minimizing damage to public and private property and infrastructure and protecting and enhancing local water resources, and WHEREAS, the Urban Runoff Management Plan was developed as the guidance manual for stormwater management on developing and redeveloping lots in the City of Aspen in August, 1973, and WHEREAS, Section 26.580.020.B.6.a of the City of Aspen Municipal Code states that "the drainage plan for the proposed subdivision shall comply with the criteria in the City's "Urban Runoff Management Plan," and WHEREAS, the Urban Runoff Management Plan was updated in 2009 by staff and consultants, with input from a Technical Advisory Group comprised of local interested parties, to provide stormwater design guidance that reflects more recent science and data, that provides a more efficient development review process, and that assists in meeting the goals of the Clean River Initiative. WHEREAS, Title 28 adopts the updated Urban Runoff Management Plan as the design criteria and guiding document for stormwater management for construction and development activities within the City of Aspen. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by adding a new title, Title 28, Stormwater and Mudflow, which said Title shall read as follows: TITLE 28. STORMWATER AND MUDFLOW Chapter 28.01 INTRODUCTION Sec. 28.01.010 Introduction It is hereby determined that: Construction and development activities, and their associated changes to land cover, alter the hydrologic response of local watersheds and increase stormwater runoff rates and volumes, which in turn increase flooding, stream channel erosion, and sediment transport and deposition; Construction and development activities also contribute to increased nonpoint source pollution and degradation of receiving waters; The impacts of development -related stormwater runoff quantity and quality can adversely affect public safety, public and private property, drinking water supplies, recreation, fish and other aquatic life, property values and other uses of lands and waters; These adverse impacts can be controlled and minimized through the regulation of stormwater runoff quantity and quality from new development and redevelopment, by the use of both structural facilities as well as nonstructural measures; Localities in the State of Colorado are required to comply with a number of both State and Federal laws, regulations and permits which require a locality to address the impacts of stormwater runoff quality and nonpoint source pollution these include the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Federal Water Quality Act, and the Colorado State Water Quality Standards; Therefore, the City of Aspen establishes this set of stormwater management policies to provide reasonable guidance for the regulation of stormwater runoff for the purpose of protecting local water resources from degradation. It is determined that the regulation of stormwater runoff discharges from construction and development activities and other construction activities in order to control and minimize increases in stormwater runoff rates and volumes, soil erosion, stream channel erosion, and nonpoint source pollution associated with stormwater runoff is in the public interest and will prevent threats to public health and safety. Sec.28.01.020 Purpose The purpose of this Title is to protect, maintain and enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the watersheds and public residing in watersheds within this jurisdiction by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse effects mudflow and of increased effects of post -development stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution associated with new development and redevelopment. It has been determined that proper management of stormwater runoff and mudflow will minimize damage to public and private property and infrastructure, safeguard the public health, safety, environment and general welfare of the public, and protect water and aquatic resources. This Title seeks to meet that purpose through the following objectives: (1) Minimize increases in stormwater runoff from any development in order to reduce flooding, erosion, non -point source pollution and increases in stream temperature, and maintain the integrity of stream channels and aquatic habitats; (2) Minimize increases in nonpoint source pollution caused by stormwater runoff from development which would otherwise degrade local water quality; (3) Minimize the total annual volume of surface water runoff which flows from any specific site during and following development to not exceed the pre -development hydrologic regime to the maximum extent practicable; and (4) Reduce stormwater runoff rates and volumes, soil erosion and nonpoint source pollution, wherever possible, through stormwater management controls and to ensure that these management controls are properly maintained and pose no threat to public safety. (5) Minimize the impact of a mudflow event to the maximum extent practicable. See.28.01.030 Applicability This Title shall be applicable to all construction or development activity, including but not limited to subdivision, building permit, or site plan applications, unless eligible for an exemption or granted a waiver by the City of Aspen. The Title also applies to construction or development activities that are smaller than the minimum applicability criteria if such activities are part of a larger common plan of development that meets the following applicability criteria, even though multiple separate and distinct construction or development activities may take place at different times on different schedules. In addition, all plans must also be reviewed by City staff to ensure that stormwater management measures and controls will be maintained during and after development of the site. Sec.28.01.040 Compatibility with Other Permit and Code Requirements This Title is not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any other municipal code, rule or regulation, stature, or other provision of law. The requirements of this Title should be considered minimum requirements, and where any provision of this Title imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other ordinance, rule or regulation, or other provision of law, whichever provisions are more restrictive or impose higher protective standards for human health or the environment shall be considered to take precedence. Chapter 28.02 STORMWATER AND MUDFLOW DESIGN MANUAL Sec. 28.02.010. Adoption of Urban Runoff Management Plan. Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the Charter of the City, there is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth those regulations contained in the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual), as may be amended from time to time by the City Engineer. At least one (1) copy of the aforementioned Manual shall be available for public inspection at the Community Development Department and Engineering Department. Sec. 28.02.020. Use of Urban Runoff Management Plan The City of Aspen shall use the policies, criteria and information including specifications and standards in the latest edition of the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual) for the proper implementation of the requirements of this Title. The Manual may be updated and expanded periodically, based on improvements in science, engineering, monitoring, and local maintenance experience. The Manual shall include a list of acceptable stormwater treatment practices, including the specific design criteria for each stormwater practice. The Manual also includes criteria for managing mudflows. The Manual may be updated and expanded from time to time, at the discretion of the local review authority, based on improvements in engineering, science, monitoring and local maintenance experience. Stormwater treatment practices that are designed and constructed in accordance with these design and sizing criteria shall be presumed to meet the minimum water quality performance standards. Sec.28.02.030. Applicability. The Urban Runoff Management Plan, as adopted pursuant to Section 28.02.010, shall apply to all construction, development or redevelopment activity within the City; provided, however, that the City Engineer may waive one (1) or more specific provisions of the Urban Runoff Management Plan. Requests for waivers and any waivers granted by the City Engineers shall be in writing. Section 2. That Section 26.580.020(3)(6)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: a. Drainage Plan. The drainage plan for the proposed subdivision shall comply with the criteria in the City's "Urban Runoff Management Plan" set forth in Title 28. Section 3. This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4. 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. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of 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 day of Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved, this day of Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Attachment A MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: April Barker, Stormwater Manager, Engineering THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: May 17, 2010 MEETING DATE: May 24, 2010 RE: Urban Runoff Management Plan Update Establishment of Title 28 — Stormwater SUMMARY: Staff has prepared the final draft of the updated Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual). This Manual contains design criteria and technical guidance for addressing stormwater drainage in development and redevelopment in Aspen. As a result of this update, Title 28 of the Municipal Code has been established (ordinance attached, Manual can be downloaded at http://www.aspgnpitkin.com/Dgparttnents/Enizineering). BACKGROUND: In December 2008, Council approved a professional services contract with AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for the development of an updated Urban Runoff Management Plan aimed at improving stormwater management in the City. The Urban Runoff Management Plan was originally adopted as the drainage design guidance document in 1973. The City's stormwater drainage requirements and design criteria have been periodically modified since then but never officially accepted through ordinance. Staff felt this criteria was outdated and inadequate to efficiently and consistently review development plans and to meet the goals of the Clean River Initiative. The goal of the Clean River Initiative is to significantly reduce the amount of urban stormwater pollutants reaching the Roaring Fork River. Council has stated that staff should place focus on mitigating the impacts of development and construction on the environment. Also, one of Council's Best Year Yet goals in 2009 is to implement a development review and building permitting process that enables the City Council to act as environmental stewards. There are currently no standards or requirements to address water quality in the City's drainage criteria. In April and August of 2009, staff and consultants presented an update on the manual's progress. The major topic of discussion was the new water quality design standards. The new criteria requires development and redevelopment to design and implement permanent best management practices (BMPs) that can remove pollutants from their site's runoff before it leaves their site. The pollutant of focus in Aspen and the Roaring Fork River is TSS (total suspended solids). TSS can be removed from stormwater by filtration, infiltration, and settling. Council supported this approach to improving the quality of stormwater runoff in the City. DISCUSSION: The Urban Runoff Management Plan is referenced in the Land Use Code 26.580.020.B.6.a as the guidance document for drainage design criteria. Since January 2009, the consulting team, staff, and a Technical Advisory Committee have been working to update the Urban Runoff Management Plan, a draft of which is attached. The goals of this update were to: • Acquire Aspen -specific rainfall and snowmelt data for the development of equations and standards used in Aspen's design criteria. • Provide technical guidance on the latest and most relevant stormwater management strategies and practices in the nation. • Develop a water quality design standard for development and redevelopment. • Clarify and standardized to the maximum extent practicable the minimum standards required to meet the City's goals. • Provide a menu of options and effective tools for designers and engineers to reduce both stormwater quality and quantity impacts, and protect downstream areas and receiving waters. The most significant changes to the design criteria include: • An improved submittal process. Projects that must be reviewed by the engineering department will be required to complete a sufficiency checklist and review this checklist in a Pre -Application Meeting with the Development Engineer prior to submission for a Building Permit. • Exceptions made for smaller projects. Projects adding or disturbing less than 1000 square feet will be required to meet less strict standards and allowed to submit a modified drainage plan and report that does not require a professional engineer's review. • Aspen specific rainfall and snowmelt data. • Treatment for water quality. Sites will be required to capture and treat a certain volume of runoff, the water quality capture volume (WQCV), to remove pollutants from runoff before it leaves the site. • Low Impact Development (LID). It is highly recommended that sites implement LID or better site design practices. LID encourages the use of natural features on the site (versus hard infrastructure), the reduction of impervious area, and increased infiltration of runoff to reduce water quantity and quality impacts. • Detention. Above the WQCV, sites that drain to the City's stormwater infrastructure will be required to provide detention only if the proposed development will increase peak runoff or volume from the site in the 10- or 100-year events. (Detention was required for these events previously.) • New floodplain requirements. o The lowest floor of structures built or improved in the 100-year floodplain must be located 1 foot above the base flood elevation. o New or improved critical facilities must be protected from the 500-year flood. o In addition to sites located in the FEMA floodplain, sites located in areas that drain greater than 130 acres will now be required to generate the 100-year floodplain and will be required to meet standard FEMA floodplain regulations in those areas. Sites located south of Durant and within 200 ft of a steep slope (>30%) or a two -foot depth of mud during the 100-year mudflow event will be required to do a mudflow analysis for their property. Mudflow impacts must be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Staff engaged the assistance of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), composed of local designers, planners, architects, contractors, developers, engineers, environmental experts, and citizens, for review and discussion of this updated manual. The TAC met three times throughout the process to discuss the goals of the update and the new design criteria and technical guidance. Their comments and suggestions have been incorporated into this draft. Overall, the TAC is supportive of the updated manual. Staff also held two public meetings to discuss the updated manual — October 27, 2009 and March 3, 2010. Their comments and suggestions have been incorporated into this draft. Overall, the public that attended these meetings is supportive of the updated manual. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Adoption of this ordinance does not impact the Stormwater Fund's budget. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: By adopting this ordinance, an update to the design criteria for drainage from developed and redeveloped sites, the quality of stormwater runoff will be improved from developed and redeveloped sites. Sites developed following this adoption will be encouraged to reduce runoff, thereby reducing stormwater pollutants, and will be required to capture a volume of runoff from their site for removal of stormwater pollutants. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that a second reading and public hearing for this ordinance be set for June 7, 2010. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachment B Urban Runoff Management Plan Major Comments and Resolutions January 2009 — March 2010 The following table summarizes the topics, issues, comments, and questions that received the most discussion during meetings with staff, the Technical Advisory Committee, and the public during the development of the updated Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These comments and questions were received during staff, TAC, and public meetings and via email. Comments and discussions have been combined by similarity and resolution. Those comments highlighted in yellow received the most discussion. It should be noted that many other comments, corrections, and issues were resolved during the development of the URMP but were not included in this document for brevity. Comments Resolution General Reasons, goals, objectives,and strategies for this manual should be clearly stated and easily locatable and understandable by the general public, residential homeowners and Developed "Introduction" chapter. Will develop developers, architects, landscape architects, brochures that will be located at Building Dept, etc. Comm Dev, and Engineering Dept front desks. Developed "Introduction" chapter. Chapter 1 also Need a chapter for "layperson." provides fairly simple guidance. Rewrote several chapters to be more readable. Manual reads like a textbook. Needs to be Moved theory, example problems, and other more user friendly. technical narrative to appendices. Chapter 1 - Policy and Permit Requirements Projects under 1000 square feet - minor - must only treat for water quality. The calculation for this is simple and does not require a professional Small projects, remodels, should not be engineer. Additionally, a "minor" checklist for subject to the same depth and breadth of submittal requirements was created that is much review as larger projects. Concern about time shorter and less technical than the typical submittal and costs. checklist. Engineering dept should spend time and energy on projects that get more bang for the buck instead of spending energy on small projects See comment/resolution above. Simple landscaping projects should not count Added sentence: "Land disturbed is not intended at "disturbance" and should not require permit to include simple landscaping that does not alter from City. grading or drainage on the site." Attachment B Revised conceptual checklist - Removed Conceptual review, which occurs during DRC, requirements for much of the hydraulic analysis, requires too much engineering detail, costs including routing of hydrographs. The detailed too much up front for the developer that has engineering design will now be submitted after not received approval from Council yet. Council approval but before final plat. Too many designs are not being followed in the field, projects are not built quite as designed. What's on file in the engineering dept (the design submitted at permit Added requirement for as-builts. Must be certified application) is not what is actually found in the by a surveyor if no changes have been made during field, making it difficult to find accurate installation or the development engineer if changes information, to start a design from. were made before CO is issued. Drainage improvements are often changed, not maintained, or eliminated after CO is issued. Added requirement for Maintenance agreements. Chapter 2 - Rainfall Too many tables specific to CUHP modeling. OF curve should provide information needed for most designs. Moved extra tables to Appendix. Adjustment included for steep slopes (mountain CUHP not appropriate for steep slopes. town). Chapter 3 - Runoff Need spreadsheet for consistency in calculating Time of Concentration, inputing Using the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Rational Method. District spreadsheets. Runoff coefficients based on land use is not Changed - runoff coefficients based on soil group always correct and is too cubersome. and imperviousness. Chapter.4 - Street Drainage System Design Need spreadsheets for calculating inlet, Using the Urban Drainage and Flood Control culvert, and gutter design. District spreadsheets. Need flexibility, to be able to use swales (for water quality) curb -cuts, and other approaches different than curb and gutter. Accommodated in Chapter 8. Chapter 5 - Detention Should not have to do detention beyond what is necessary for conveyance since system Detention required to pre -developed rates as long development fee pays for ability to convey. as no known drainage problems in area. Will review on case -by -case basis. Downstream analysis is necessary in known drainage problem areas to prevent downstream flooding. Do not want to analyze downstream structures. Attachment B Chapter 6 - Floodplains No major comments. Chapter 7 - Mudflow Analysis Do not want to mudflow requirements to be Manual requires mitigation to the "maximum so stringent to restrict development to "mud extent practicable" and the designer has options buildings". for meeting this requirement. Do not think all buildings in town are at same hazard level, therefore should not all be required to design for mudflow. Need a Established "mudflow zones" indicating those areas balance between nuisance mudflows and in town believed to be in the highest mudflow safety hazards. hazard areas. FLO-2D is preferred method, though City will FLO-21) should not be only acceptable accept comparable geotechnical engineering mudflow analysis model. analysis and models. Chapter 8 - Water Quality Much of information in Chapter 8 would be Created Introduction chapter, cutting some of helpful in an introductory chapter. chapter 8 and put into Intro chapter. Added:Underground,subsurface Need more BMP options for downtown - treatmentPotential use of ROW for treatmentWill surface treatment might require too much consider green roofs, potentially adding a section valuable land. to address design of green roofs in Aspen Proprietary BMPs will be accepted with documentation and testing that demonstrates ability to meet our minimum standards and Would like proprietary BMPs to be addressed. perform in our climate. Added note in Chapter 8 and will consider this Careful draining roofs near foundation. during review. Planting options in bioretention/landscaped areas should allow for "pretty" plants, not just Parks dept developed planting list that includes native "weeds". "pretty", flowering plants, appendix E. Pavers should be an option for alleys. Pavers are an option for alleys. Pavers may pose problem with fire Fire department will review plans that include department requirements. pavers in fire lanes/access areas. Attachment C Urban Runoff Management Plan Public Meetings - SUMMARY Public Meeting #1— October 27, 2009 Attending: Jay Hammond, SGM Nick Adeh, Sopris Eng, Civil Consultants Paul Rutledge, Sopris Eng Helen Klanderud, public Mark Fuller, Reudi Water and Power Authority, Roaring Fork Watershed Plan CJ Oliver, COA April Barker, COA Larry Doble, COA Trish Aragon, COA While several small corrections, adjustments, and questions to specific pieces of the manual were pointed out, much of the discussion revolved around what might be required of small projects. Comments heard from the attendees: - Small projects should not have to submit a full drainage plan - Small projects should not have to incur the cost of a hiring a professional engineer - Small projects should not be expected to "shoulder the sins of our fathers' (meaning small projects shouldn't have to solve the water quality problems alone) - The engineering department should not spend much time reviewing small projects, "splitting hairs", and should spend more time and money focusing on projects that will provide more water quality benefit, "more bang for the buck". During this meeting we spent some time discussing what constitutes a "small project", how to separate small projects from large projects, and what should be required of each. There was also discussion during this meeting of the need for as -built drawings and the request from engineers in the audience that those drawings be stamped by the engineer that developed them to insure proper drainage design and function. Public Meeting #2 — March 3, 2010 Attending: Jay Hammond, SGM Nick Adeh, Sopris Eng, Civil Consultants Paul Rutledge, Sopris Eng Chris Bendon, COA April Barker, COA Larry Doble, COA During this meeting, staff presented some solutions for handling "small projects." The attendees found the solutions and new requirements very agreeable. There were again several small suggestions, comments, and questions, but the major discussion centered on the conceptual checklist used for submittals during the DRC process. The attendees felt Attachment C that City staff required too much detail at a point in the design where the developer had not yet received Council approval to move forward with the project — this presents the following problem: - If staff doesn't get enough information to show that drainage requirements can be met, staff cannot support the project. - The design engineer could spend time/money producing an acceptable drainage plan, but the entire site design could change during Council approval process, thereby negating some pieces of the design engineers work and wasting time/money. - If design engineer doesn't complete enough drainage design, the project could receive Council approval, but then the site plan might need to change to meet drainage requirements, causing the entire project to need Council approval again. Staff agreed to review the conceptual checklist and the DRC process to find a solution. Attendees agreed to research other local government requirements for conceptual review and to submit their ideas for conceptual review (note: no ideas were receive from attendees). ATTACHMENT D From: Stan Clauson [mailto:stan@scaplanning.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 1:11 PM To: Mick Ireland Cc: April Barker Subject: RE: Stormwater Manual at Council Hi Mick, please distribute to Council — The new Urban Runoff Management Plan represents a significant effort by staff and consultants to manage this aspect of our community infrastructure. While it does impose some burdens on larger developments, we recently used its provisions for a small County -related project located in the City and found the requirements to be appropriately commensurate with project size. Over the long run, implementation of these policies and procedures should result in enhanced water quality and reduced imposition on municipal infrastructure. I appreciate being asked to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee, and offer kudos to April Barker for seeing this through a long process. Best regards, Stan Clauson Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture . planning . resort design 412 N. Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.970/925.2323 f.970/920.1628 stan@scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. SPECIAL MEETING CALLED FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION Date June 7, 2010 Councilmembers present: ❑ Mick Ireland `,g Steve Skadron Dwayne Romero Torre Derek Johnson w Call to order at: (� Mtn. ncilmembers not present: Mick Ireland Steve Skadron Dwayne Romero Torre Derek Johnson II. Motion to go into executive session by 71L { Ye ; seconded by L6j'Y1 e-Q Other persons present: AGAINST: FOR: ❑ Mick Ireland %USteve Skadron ff-Dwayne Romero one Derek Johnson ❑ Mick Ireland ❑ Steve Skadron ❑ Dwayne Romero ❑ Torre ❑ Derek Johnson in. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF: C.R.s. 24-6-402(4) 0 d d-4y ,® (a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal ques s. or p Z (c) Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations. (d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law; e) etermining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and tructing negotiators; dt (f) (1) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting. IV. ATTESTATION: The undersigned attorney, representing the Council and being present at the executive session, attests that the subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney -client communication: The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the discussio to the topic(s) described in Section III, above. Adjourned at: ke e limited