HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.702 W Main St.A56-96CASFT 7AD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY OF = iPEN
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID #
EI IRE0
2735- 124-45 -006
CASE # A56 -96
STAFF: Suzanne Wolff
PROJECT NAME: Aspen Veterinary Clinic Conditional Use & Text Amendment
Project Address: 702 W. Main Street
APPLICANT: John Rappaport
Address/Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE: Joseph Wells
Address/Phone: 602 Midland Park Place
925 -8080
FEES: PLANNING $2100
# APPS RECEIVED 3
ENGINEER $0
# PLATS RECEIVED 3
HOUSING $0
GIS DISK RECEIVED: No
ENV HEALTH $65
TOTAL $2165.
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Two Step
AMT. RECEIVED $2165.
lags i�
❑ City Attorney
❑ City Engineer
❑ Zoning
❑ Housing
❑ Environmental Health
❑ Parks
DATE REFERRED:
❑ Aspen Fire Marshal
❑
City Water
❑ City Electric
❑ Clean Air Board
❑ Open Space Board
❑ Other:
APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution #
Staff Approval
Plat Recorded:
❑ CDOT
❑ ACSD
❑ Holy Cross Electric
❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
❑ Aspen School District
❑ Other:
DATE DUE:
Date:
Date:
Book
, Page
CLOSED/FILED DATE:
ROUTE TO:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AMENDING
CHAPTER 26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO WIT:
SECTION 26.04.100 DEFINITION OF "VETERINARY CLINIC";
SECTION 26.28.130, RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT
SECTION 26.28.160, SERVICE /COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT
ORDINANCE 37, SERIES OF 1996
WHEREAS, Section 26.92.020 of the Municipal Code provides that amendments to
Chapter 26 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use Regulations ", shall be reviewed and recommended for
approval by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at public
hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, "veterinary clinic is not specifically listed in Chapter 26 as a permitted or
conditional use in any zone district, and is, therefore, currently a prohibited use within the City of Aspen
WHEREAS, John Rappaport requested approval of text amendments to add a definition of
"veterinary clinic' and to allow "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in the Office zone district;
WHEREAS, staff also proposed to allow "veterinary clinic' as a conditional use in the
Service/Commercial/Industrial and the Rural Residential zone districts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments at
a public hearing on August 20, 1996; and
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the text amendments, agency and public
comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Municipal
Code, to wit, Division 92 (Text Amendments), the Planning and Zoning Commission has
recommended approval of the text amendments by a vote of 4 -3, pursuant to procedure as
authorized by Section 26.92.030 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the text amendments
under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and
considered those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendment for the Office zone district
does not meet the applicable development standards, specifically the standard which states,
"whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses,
considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics "; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendments for the S /C/1 and Rural
Residential zone districts meet or exceed all applicable development standards and are consistent
with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the S /C/l and Rural Residential text amendments
will allow a currently prohibited use to operate in certain zone districts, if the Planning Commission
determines that the use would be compatible with surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, the'City Council finds that the S /C/1 and Rural Residential text amendments
are consistent with the public welfare and the purposes and intent of Chapter 26 of the Municipal
Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN COLORADO:
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.92.020 (Standards of Review) of the Municipal Code, the City
Council finds as follows in regard to the text amendments to add a definition of "veterinary clinic'
and to add "veterinary clinic' as a conditional use in the Service /Commercial/Industrial and Rural
Residential zone districts:
The proposed text amendments are not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 26 of the
Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan.
2. The proposed text amendments are compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses.
3. The proposed text amendments will promote the public interest and character of the City of
Aspen.
Section 2: Section 26.04. 100 of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code is amended to add a
definition of "Veterinary Clinic', which text shall read as follows:
Veterinary Clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or portion thereoffor the care and
treatment of animals, where boarding of healthy animals is prohibited and adequate provisions are
made to avoid any and all adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood which might
otherwise resultfrom noise, odors, waste, and the like.
Section 3: Section 26.28.130 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Rural Residential Zone District,
subsection "C ", Conditional Uses, is hereby amended to add the following use:
12. Veterinary Clinic
Section 4: Section 26.28.160 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Service /Commercial/Industrial
Zone District, subsection "C ", Conditional Uses, is hereby amended to add the following use:
9. Veterinary Clinic
Section 6: 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 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 8: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 15th day of October, 1996 at
5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) 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 24th day of September, 1996.
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 15th day of October, 1996.
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
File Location: C:\ HOMEISUZANNEV ACASES \TXrAMEND \VET�ORD.DOC
vu tP
u uI .:►II Nu
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ✓
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner DM ram �l
RE: Veterinary Clinic Text Amendments, Second Reading and Public Hearing - Ordinance 37,
Series of 1996
DATE: October 15, 1996
SUMMARY: The Aspen Land Use Regulations do not include "veterinary clinic" as an allowed or
conditional use in any zone district. The applicant is requesting approval of a text amendment to add a
definition of a "veterinary clinic" to the Land Use Regulations and to allow "veterinary clinic" as a
conditional use in the Office zone district. Staff is also proposing to include "veterinary clinic" as a
conditional use in the Service/ Commercial/Industrial and the Rural Residential zone districts.
APPLICANT: Jon Rappaport, represented by Joe Wells
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission approved the proposed text amendments by a 4 -3 vote on
August 20. The Commissioners who voted against the amendment were in favor of allowing the use in the
S /C /I and Rural Residential zone districts, but were opposed to allowing the use in the Office zone district,
where it was considered not to be compatible with surrounding uses. The applicant concurrently requested
conditional use approval to establish a veterinary clinic within the office building that was previously
approved at 702 W. Main St. The Planning Commission tabled this request on August 20, and the applicant
has chosen to delay further review of the conditional use request until after Council's consideration of the
proposed text amendment.
Council approved first reading of Ordinance 37 by a vote of 3 -1 on September 24. The staff memorandum
from September 24 is attached for reference.
ISSUES: At the September 24 meeting, Council expressed support for staffs recommendation to add
"veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in the Service /Commercial/Industrial and Rural Residential zone
districts. However, Council was hesitant to support "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in the Office
zone district and questioned whether the use would be compatible with the surrounding residential and
office uses.
Waste: One of the main issues of concern was waste disposal. The Aspen Municipal Code does not
address disposal of infectious waste or sharps, whether for a medical clinic or a veterinary clinic.
Colorado House Bill No. 1328 (1989) defines infectious waste, requires all generators to establish a
management plan, encourages, but does not require treatment, and provides for civil penalties for
untreated and unidentified infectious waste that is improperly disposed. The waste management plan
would address segregation and decontamination of infectious waste and sharps, and packaging of waste
and sharps for disposal.
Staff agrees with Council that waste should be addressed in the definition of "veterinary clinic'
Regulation/Enforcement Another concern was regulation of a veterinary clinic since neither the State
nor the City regulate veterinary clinics. The proposed text amendments would allow "veterinary clinic'
as a conditional use, which requires review of a specific application by the Planning Commission. One
of the review standards for a conditional use is, "The location, size, design and operating characteristics
of the proposed conditional use minimize adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on
pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
surrounding properties." The Commission may impose conditions to mitigate these impacts, including
specific standards for noise, odors, sanitation, waste disposal, etc., and may require enforcement of
specific conditions by City departments. Council suggested that the Environmental Health Department
could be designated by the Commission to oversee a clinic and to enforce specific conditions.
Small Animals Council suggested that staff consider amending the proposed "veterinary clinic'
definition to allow only treatment of "small' animals. However, a clinic that treated larger animals such
as horses could potentially be accommodated in the Rural Residential zone district, therefore, staff feels
it would be more appropriate for such a restriction to be included as part of a conditional use approval,
rather than as part of the definition.
24 Hour Emergency Service Council questioned whether prohibiting 24 hour emergency service would
lessen impacts on the neighbors.
Based on the concerns noted above, staff has amended the proposed definition as follows:
"Veterinary Clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or portion thereof for the care and
treatment of animals, where boarding of healthy animals is prohibited and adequate provisions are
made to avoid any and all adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood which might
otherwise result from noise, andodors, waste, and the like."
Office Zone District - Neighborhood Com atp ibility To approve the text amendments, the Council shall
find that "the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses,
considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics."
The areas zoned Office include and /or are adjacent to commercial, lodge, and single and multi- family
residential uses. This commingling of uses is appropriate as long as a specific use does not create
detrimental impacts on the adjacent uses. The density of the zone does not allow distance to be used as a
mitigating factor in terms of impacts from noise and odors. The Planning Commission could consider
site specific factors in order to determine if a veterinary clinic would be compatible with the various
surrounding uses and if the impacts could be adequately mitigated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments, based on
the finding that the text amendments:
• meet or exceed all applicable development standards and are consistent with the goals and elements of
the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
• will allow a currently prohibited use to operate in certain zone districts, if the Planning Commission
determines that the use would be compatible with surrounding uses; and
• are consistent with the public welfare and the purposes and intent of Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 37, Series of 1996, amending the text of
the Land Use Regulations to add a definition of "veterinary clinic" and to add "veterinary clinic" as a
conditional use in the Office, Service /Commercial/ Industrial and Rural Residential zone districts."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
A - Application Packet
B - Referral Comments
C - Rural Residential, Service /Commercial/Industrial and Office Zone Districts: Purpose, Permitted and
Conditional Uses
D - Public comment
Exhibit A
I. INTRODUCTION
This application is filed on behalf of Dr. John Rappaport, who is under contract to
purchase the 4,000 square foot parcel located at 702 West Main Street presently
owned by Stape Limited Liability Company. The site includes the east 10 feet of Lot
R and all of Lot S, Block 18, Aspen Townsite, a total of 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Located
on the northwest corner of Main and Sixth, the site is within the Main Street
Historic District.
Dr. Rappaport is requesting approval of an amendment to the text of the land -use
code to add a veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the O- Office zone and is also
requestng approval of the conditional use in order to build the structure as
previously approved for use as a veterinary clinic. The new building will also
include two deed - restricted housing units on the lower level, as called for under the
prior approvals. No changes to the exterior architecture of the structure or the
architectural program are anticipated.
In 1994, under Resolution 3, Series of 1994, City Council awarded a commercial
GMQS allocation of 2,423 sq.ft. of net leasable commercial space for the project (see
Exhibit 6). The project received Final Development Plan approval from the HPC in
1995. The HPC also approved demolition of the existing non - contributing structures
on the site. In addition, separate applications for variances from the minimum lot
area of 6,000 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 60 feet in the Office zone district to
permit the construction of the office project and a reversal in the side yard setbacks
as later recommended by HPC have been approved by the Board of Adjustment.
Finally, owners also received Special Review approval for bonus square footage, as
permitted up to 1.0:1. The FAR square footage of the project is 3,457 sq.ft., an FAR of
0.86 :1. Total area approved for the project is 5,350 sq. ft., including 1615 sq.ft. of
affordable housing.
The approved structure is a simple rectangular building with the gable end of the
rectangle facing Main Street. A one -story roof element is attached to the front gable
which extends out over the front porch to protect the entry and reduce the scale of
the facade fronting on Main Street. The building has been raised up on a stone base
- a common design feature in many historic residential buildings.
Il
The site will be maintained in the traditional pattern of simple lawn areas around
the building. New cottonless cottonwood street trees will be planted to reinforce the
existing trees but no elaborate landscaping is planned. A new sidewalk will be built
along Main Street. Sidewalks are not encouraged into the residential area to the
north, but a simple pathway will be maintained.
The new building is intended to complement the historic structures in the area.
Careful attention has been given, however, to avoiding the imitation or
compromising of the established character of the historic landmarks in the area.
The new building is a clean and quiet structure which will be viewed as a
complement to the adjacent structures.
Dr. Rappaport recently met with the Planning Office to discuss the proposed use of
the building approved for the site as a veterinary clinic. Because "professional
offices" are a permitted use in the office zone, Dr. Rappaport believed that the use of
a building in the Office zone for a veterinary clinic would be an allowed use. The
definition of "Office, professional" means a building for use by those such as
physicians, dentists... and other professionals who primarily provide services rather
than products."
The Planning Director acknowledged that medical offices are an allowed use in the
zone but felt that there may be special impacts on the neighborhood resulting from a
veterinary clinic which should be considered (See, July 9, 1996 letter, Exhibit 9). He
recommended requesting a code amendment to provide for a veterinary clinic as a
conditional use in the Office zone and then pursue approval of the use as a
conditional use.
Dr. Rappaport has elected to follow the Planning Director's recommended course of
action rather than appealing the Planning Director's interpretation to City Council,
as provided for under the Code. The issues of concern specifically raised by the
Planning Office - noise and odors - are addressed in a letter from Dr. Rappaport's
architect, Mark Hafen of the Boulder architectural firm of Gates Hafen Cochrane (see
Exhibit 10).
04
II. AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE REGULATIONS (CHAPTER 26.92)
The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the text of the land -use code to add a
veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the O -Office zone.
A. Purpose. (Sec. 26.92.010):
The purpose of Chapter 26.92 is to provide a means for amending the text of
Chapter 26.
B. Standards of Review. (Sec. 26.92.020):
In reviewing an amendment to the text of Chapter 26, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider the following standards:
1. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this chapter." (Sec. 26.92.020.A):
Response:
The proposed amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of
Chapter 26. The purpose of the Office zone district is to provide for the
establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to
preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that are
now adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along
Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares.
2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." (Sec. 26.92.020.11):
Response:
The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Aspen
Area Community Plan. The intent of the Commercial /Retail Action Plan of
the Aspen Area Community Master Plan dated January 1993 is to "provide
incentives for managed strategic growth by locally - serving commercial and
office uses..." The proposed use will provide services to locals which are
presently unavailable within the city limits.
t�l
3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone
Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics." (Sec. 26.92.020.C):
Response:
There are presently a number of medical facilities located along Main Street.
Such uses are an allowed use in the zone, in part because of the carrying
capacity of Main Street as well as the lack of affordable sites for such locally -
serving uses elsewhere in the Community. The proposed code amendment
language addresses the perceived concerns associated with the medical care of
animals.
4. "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety." (Sec. 26.92.020.D):
Response:
The proposed amendment will not increase traffic generation nor worsen
road safety over that of the office use previously approved for the site.
5. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities,
including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water
supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities." (Sec.
26.92.020.E):
Response:
The impacts on public facilities is unchanged from those of the prior
approvals. The purposed conditional use is itself a "medical facility", so the
impacts in this regard are positive.
6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment."
(Sec. 26.92.020.F):
Response:
No additional adverse impacts on the natural environment will result from
the proposed text amendment to allow veterinary clinics in the office zone.
The amendments provide the City with the means to approve a locally-
0
serving use which is no longer available within Aspen and which therefore
requires pet owners to drive to and from Aspen to seek medical treatment for
their pets.
7. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen." (Sec. 26.92.020.G):
Response:
The Community Vision statement of the Aspen Area Community Plan
includes the following statements:
"The spirit that is Aspen draws its vitality from a unique patchwork of
miners, entrepreneurs, ranchers, artists, intellectuals, sports - minded
people, free spirits and visionaries. It is this unique balance between all
sectors of the community that we are striving to retain and enhance. We
believe that Aspen's diverse mix of people is still its most important
resource.... We are seeking to create a community of a .... diversity that
encourages interaction, involvement and vitality among its people .... The
image of Aspen as an organized facade needs to be injected with a "messy
vitality" that originally created Aspen's renowned cultural and
sociological diversity ...."
It is interesting to note that the group which drafted this document chose to
incorporate a sketch in this section of the Plan which includes a dog off -leash
in the middle of Cooper Street at the Hunter Street intersection. Pets have
long been a visible presence in the community - a part of the "messy vitality"
envisioned by the Plan. Providing for a facility to care for these animals in a
location within the community is consistent with the Vision Statement of
the Plan.
S. "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment."
(Sec. 26.92.020.H):
Response:
Many locally - serving businesses are no longer in operation in Aspen. There
is presently only one listing for a veterinary clinic in the Aspen Metro Area
and that facility is located at the Airport Business Center. The proposed
amendment will provide an opportunity to re- establish a veterinary facility
within the city limits when legitimate concerns are addressed.
5
9. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter."
(Sec. 26.92.020.I):
Response:
The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest and is in
harmony with the intent of the land -use regulations.
C. Procedure for Amendment. (Sec. 26.92.030):
A Development Application for an amendment to the text of Chapter 26 shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions or
disapproval by the Planning Director and then by the Commission at a public
hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the
City Council at a public hearing, in accordance with the procedure established in
Common Procedures, Chapter 26.32. A Development Application for an
amendment to the text of this chapter may be submitted at any time during the
year.
D. Application. (Sec. 26.92.040):
A Development Application for amendment to the text of Chapter 26 shall
include the following information:
1. The general application information required in Sec. 26.52.030.
(Sec. 26.92.040.A):
a. Application Form is attached as Exhibit 1.
b. A Letter of Consent from both the Applicant and the Owner are
attached as Exhibit 2.
c. The street address of the project is 702 West Main Street. The legal
description of the parcel is the east 10 feet of Lot R and Lot S, Block 18, City
and Townsite of Aspen.
d. Disclosure of Ownership in the form of a Title Commitment from
Stewart Title is attached as Exhibit 3.
e. The Vicinity Map, attached as Exhibit 4, locates the subject parcel.
0
f. As required for Public Notice, a list of all owners of property within 300
feet, originally prepared by Pitkin County Title and updated by Coates,
Reid and Waldron, is attached as Exhibit 5.
2. If the application requests an amendment to the text of Chapter 26, the
precise wording of any proposed amendment. (Sec. 26.92.040.B):
Response:
The Applicant proposes to amend Sec. 26.28.180.C, Conditional Uses, in the 0-
Office zone with the addition of a new conditional use (Number 10) as
follows:
"C. Conditional uses.
The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Office (0)
Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in
Chapter 26.60:
(Conditional Uses numbered 1 through 9 are unchanged.)
10. Veterinary clinic.
In addition, the Applicant proposes to amend Sec. 26.04.100, Definitions, with
the addition of a new definition for veterinary clinic, as follows:
Veterinary clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or
portion thereof for the care and treatment of animals, where boarding
of healthy animals is prohibited and adequate provisions are made to
avoid adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood which might
otherwise result from noise and odors.
7
III. CONDITIONAL USES (CHAPTER 26.60):
The Applicant is requesting conditional use approval in order to build the structure
as previously approved for use as a veterinary clinic.
A. Purpose. (Sec. 26.60.010):
Conditional uses are those land uses which are generally compatible with the
other permitted uses in a Zone District, but which require individual review of
their location, design, configuration, intensity and density in order to ensure the
appropriateness of the land use in the Zone District.
B. Authority. (Sec. 26.60.020):
The Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations
of this division, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a
Development Application for a conditional use, after recommendation by the
Planning Director.
C. Authorized conditional uses. (Sec. 26.60.030):
Only those uses which are authorized as a conditional use for each Zone District
in Chapter 26.28, may be approved as a conditional use. The designation of a
land use as a conditional use in a Zone District does not constitute an
authorization of such land use or act as an assurance that such land use will be
approved as a conditional use; rather, each proposed conditional use shall be
evaluated by the Commission for compliance with the standards and conditions
set forth in this chapter.
I
D. Standards applicable to all conditional uses. (Sec. 26.60.040):
A Development Application for a conditional use must address the following
standards:
1. 'The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the
Zone District in which it is proposed to be located." (Sec. 26.60.040.A):
Response:
The intent of the Commercial/ Retail Action Plan of the AACP is "to provide
incentives for managed strategic growth by locally - serving commercial and
office uses..." The Plan recognizes that as a result of high office space rents,
many locally - serving businesses have been forced out of the community. The
proposed conditional use is consistent with the intent of the Plan.
2. 'The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding
land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in
the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development"
(Sec. 26.60.040.B):
Response:
Medical clinics are a permitted use in the Office zone district and there are a
number of such facilities in the zone. It has been the interpretation of the
Planning Office, however, that veterinary clinics pose potential issues which
should be addressed through a conditional use review.
3. 'The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts
on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery,
noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties." (Sec. 26.60.040.C):
Response:
The above characteristics of the project were the subject of extensive
discussions during the various reviews required to achieve approvals. The
majority of these issues are unaffected by the proposed conditional use. Trash
service will be affected to the extent that separate pick up of biological waste
will be required, as discussed in the letter from Gates Hafen Cochrane,
W
Architects (see Exhibit 10). The alley in Block 18 is adequate to accommodate
such additional pick ups. The letter from the architects also addresses noise
and oder impacts which are also of concern.
4. 'There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional
use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste,
parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and
medical services, drainage systems, and schools." (Sec. 26.60.040.D):
Response:
The proposed conditional use for veterinary services for pets should be
considered a new public service within the community. Other public
facilities and services, which were deemed adequate to serve the project as
approved, are unaffected by the proposed conditional use.
5. 'The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use."
(Sec. 26.60.040.E):
Response:
The Applicant intends to provide the affordable housing as required under
the prior approval. Employee generation, which was previously calculated as
3.0 employees per 1000 sq.ft. of net leasable for the project is no greater and is
likely to be reduced under the proposed conditional use. By maintaining the
prior commitment, the flexibility to convert the building to more intensive
office uses in the future is retained.
6. "The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards
imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other
applicable requirements of this chapter." (Sec. 26.60.040.F):
Response:
To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, the proposed conditional use is in
conformance with the AACP and all other applicable requirements of the
Land -Use code.
10
E. Application for Conditional Use (Sec. 26.60.060):
A Development Application for a conditional use shall include the following
information:
1. The general application information required in Sec. 26.52.030.
(Sec. 26.60.060.A):
Response:
These requirements are addressed above on page 6 and in the Exhibits.
2. A sketch plan of the site showing existing and proposed features which are
relevant to the review of the conditional use application. (Sec. 26.60.060.B):
Response:
The site plan of the project as previously approved is unchanged from prior
approvals. No changes to the footprint of the building are proposed at this
time.
3. If the application involves development of a new structure or expansion or
exterior remodeling of an existing structure, proposed elevations of the
structure. (Sec. 26.60.060.C):
Response:
The application involves the development of a new structure which was
previously approved. No changes to the elevations of the approved structure
are proposed at this time.
11
IV. EXHIBITS
ATID(�S 1
1 M CSE APPfMM'T U FLFM
,1) Project Name ,�S <Y/ /(HCGC,
2) Project Iocation li eSf S�
(indicate street address: lot & block number I egal deception ub o�
appropria
3) Present Zoning /1z�� 4) Znt Size --
S) Appli is Name, Address & Phone #
y �e��f, ✓/if /vim X02 /
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # j,
92T- pa�o
EXHIBIT 1
7) Type of Appliratiai (please deck all that apply) :
�- .. .
8040 Gceenline
Conoapb SPA
F tiral SPA
Conceptual PUD
Final PUD
Mdun a,n View Plane _ Subdivision
/oGr
Sist— Dev.
X Final Fiit�c Dev. � ✓mod
Minor FFistoric Dev.
X
fTlSfol?c�l�G�i"(.�a,
igna 4m 7dUJw/ %
C,,ao.ni Tex 'ap Amendment X aIZG Allotment �✓
Lot Split/Int Line. a E= - � ;,-tGUI�
Adjustmentp'��7+
8) Descripti of E i t g Uses (comber and type of existing st* t u
appL rcrdmata sq. ft.; number of bedrooms: any previous approvals granted tO the
Ply)
,f%vG S - `1 6 /'� /�G� /"�' �°� �� :•�CG �1lir /�Gti•
9)
10)
Fave you attadied the following?
✓ I se to Attadment 2, Mini= an Submi cs icil Coa�.,ents
Reese to Attadment 3, Specific SkIbL )—Cn OaitentS
r/ Response to Attadment 4, Review Standard; for Yo= Application
Descripti of Development Application
1:
July 29, 1996
Mr. Stan Clauson
Director of Community Development, City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Clauson:
I am writing to you to confirm that I am presently under contract to purchase
the parcel at 702 West Main Street from Stape Limited Liability Company.
I have authorized the preparation and submittal by Joseph Wells Land
Planning, Inc. of the attached text amendment and conditional use request for
this lot.
During the processing of this application, I will be represented by Joe Wells.
Please contact Joe at 925 -8080 on my behalf if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Sincerely yours,
Wm. C. Stapleton Agency, Inc. Insuror
400 West Main • Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-925-7230 • Fax 970 -920 -1582. 1 -800- 329 -1230
4
l
July 26, 1996
Mr. Stan Clauson
Director of Community Development
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Clauson:
I am writing to you on behalf of Stape Limited Liability Company, current owner
of the 4,000 sq.ft. parcel located at 702 West Main Street, Aspen. My letter is
intended to acknowledge the parcel is presently under contract for purchase by
John Rappaport. Stape LLC consents to the filing by Joseph Wells Land
Planning, Inc. on behalf of Mr. Rappaport of an application for a text amendment
to the City's land use regulations ( to permit veterinary clinics as a conditional
use in the office zone) as well as a Conditional Use application for this use.
During the processing of this application, I will represent Stape LLC. Please
contact me at 925 -1230 if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely yours,
Don Stapleton
SCHEDULE A EXHIBTf 3
Order Number: 00022980
1. Effecttwdate: Jvne 12, 5996 at 7;30 A.H.
2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount of Insurance
(a) A.L. T.A. Owner's (Standard) $
Proposed Insured:
JON J. RAPPAPORT
(b) A.L. T.A. Mortgagee's (Standard) S
Proposed Insured:
(c) Leasehold S
Proposed Insured:
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is
fee simple
4. Title to the tee estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in:
STATE LSMSTED LSA87LSTY COMPANY
S. The land referred to in this Commitment is described =follows:
THE EAST 10 FEET OF LOT R AND ALL OF LOT S,
BLOCK 18
CITY AND TOWNSSTE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITICIN, STATE OF COLORADO
STATEHIENT OF CHARGES
these duages are due and payable before a
Potiey can be issued.
1992 Owners Premium $
Tax Certificate $
MWART MLE OF ASPEN, INC.
620 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Co, 81611
Autha ze Co r
SCREDULE B
Section 1
Order Number: 00022980
REQUIREMENTS
The following are the requirements to be complied with;
Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the fu11 consideration for the estate or
interest to be insured.
Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be ezectued and duty filed for
record, to wit:
1. Release of Deed of Trust dated June 15, 1990, executed by David E. Stapleton
and Don N. Stapleton, to the public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an
indebtedness of $243,700.00, in favor of Pitkin County Bank and Trust Company,
recorded June 29, 1990 in Book 624 at Page 204 as Reception No. 324049
NOTE: Asai.gnment of Rents recorded June 29, 1990
in Book 624 at Page 206 as Reception No. 324050 , given in connection with the
above Deed of Trust.
2. Release of Deed of Trust dated June 29, 1990, executed by David B. Stapleton
and Don N. Stapleton, to the public Trustee of Pi.tkin County, to secure an
indebtedness of $81,250.00, in favor of Segrid Stapleton, recorded July 3, 1990
in Book 624 at Page 311 as Reception No. 324109
3. ReZeass of Deed of Trust dated April 24, 1995, executed by Stape Limited
Liability Company, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an
indebtedness of $50,000.o0, in favor of Pitkin County Bank and Trust Company,
recorded April 27, 1995 in Book 779 at Page 472 as Reception No. 380822
NOTE: Assignment of Rents recorded April 27, 1995
In Book 779 at Page 469 as Reception No. 380811 , given in connection with the
above Deed of Trust.
NOTE: Loan Modification Agreement recorded February 6 1996 as Reception No.
389708, given in connection with the above Deed of Trust.
4. A Deed of Trust dated June 6, 1996, executed by Stape Limited Liability
Company, to the public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of
$20,000.00, in favor of Pitkin County Bank and Trust Company, recorded June 11,
1996 as Reception No. 393551.
5. The following is required with respect to stape Limited Liability Company, a
Limited Liability Company;
a. Certificate issued by the Secretary of State in which said Certificate is
filed, evidencing that said Limited Liability Company is in good standing.
b. Copy of the Operating Agreement of said Limited Liability Company.
c. copy of the Articles of organization of said Limited Liability Company.
NOTE: Sf any Managers are themselves partnerships trusts, limited liability
companies Or corporations, additional requirements will be necessary.
Continued on next page
Continuation of Schedule B - Section 1
Order Number: 00022980
NOTE. Additional requirements may be necessary based upon review of the
Operating Agreement.
6. A. Certificate of non - foreign status, duly executed by the sell er (s), pursuant
to Section 1445 of the Znternal Revenue code AND
B. Satisfactory evidence of the sellers) Colorado residency or
incorporation) pursuant to Colorado House Bill 92 -1270.
NOT&: Section 1445 of the internal Revenue Code requires withholding of tax
from sales proceeds if the transferor (seller) is a foreign person or entity.
Colorado House Bill 92 -1270 may require withholding of tax from sales proceeds
if the seller(a) is not a Colorado resident. Detailed information and Farms
are available from Stewart Title.
7. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty company, furh.ishad by the
office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following taxes have
been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes:
(1) The ^wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20
(Series of 1979) and (2) The 'Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax• pursuant to
ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990).
8. Deed executed by all current Managers of Stape Ltimitsd Liability Company, a
Limited Liability company, vesting fee title in purchaser(s).
-2-
.5C.ffED ULE S
Section 2
Order Number; 00022980
EXCEP77O rS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the
satisfaction of the Company;
L Rights or claims of parries in possession, nor shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage to area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct
survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or nu erial heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public recardr,
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other r. rcr ers, if any, created, ferst appearing in the public
records or attaching subsequent to the e date hereo but prior ro the date the proposed insured acquires
of record far value the estate or interest or mortgage r..ereon covered by this commiwwnr.
6. Unparenred mining claims; reservations or exceptions in parents, or an act authorizing the issuance thereof,-
water rights claims or title to water,
7. Any and all_unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales.
8. Exceptions and reservations as set forth %.hO Act authorizing the issuance of
the Patent for the City and Townsite of ;zpe recorded March 1, 1897 in Book
139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156.
9. Terms, conditions, obligations and restr'_ct_ -� as set forth in City of Aspen
Ordinance No. 60 (Series of 1976) deisgnati. :g an historic district, recorded
Book December 9, 1976 in 321 at Page 51 as Reception No. 189906.
10. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth 1n City of Aspen
ordinance No.3 (series of 1994) granting a CixQ5 exemption for development of
affordable housing and vested rights status, recorded March 16, 1994 in Book
744 at Page 614 as Reception No. 367932.
NOTE: Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. records the documents of
conveyance in the proposed transaction the status of title will be updated from
the time of this commitment to the time of said recording. Sf said update
reveals intervening liens or changes in the status of said title appropriate
actions) will be taken to disclose or elia_ate said change prior to the
recording of said documents.
NOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subvact to the terms, conditions, and
exclusions set forth in the ALTA 1992 Policy form. Copies of the 1992 fore
Policy Jacket, setting forth said terms, cor_d_°tions and exclusions, wi11 be
made available upon request.
•
s
a
l an
a
s
r �
i �
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FT OF SITE
UPDATED 7/31/96 BY COATES, REID & WALDRON
FROM 7/1/93 LIST BY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE
617 MAIN STREET PROFESSIONAL
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
C/O CLAIRE KRAUS
617 MAIN STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
COMMON AREA
700 WEST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC.
C/O RESORT MANAGEMENT
ATTN: JOHN CAHILL
P.O. BOX 7026
ASPEN CO 81612
ALFRED P. WEST, JR.
LORALEE S. WEST
12 GREENBRIAR LANE
PAOLI PA 19301
ANN R. CROCKETT
TRUSTEE OF PRICE LIVING TRUST
10898 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS CA 94024
ANNE S. FELD
1700 PACIFIC AVENUE
SUITE 1400
DALLAS TX 75201
ARTHUR S. LAZARUS
KATRINA D. LAZARUS
C/O LAZARUS COMMUNITIES, INC.
PO BOX 33097
COCONUT GROVE FL 33233
ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY
620 W. BLEEKER
ASPEN CO 81611
AUGUSTUS F. HALLUM
MARGERY L. HALLUM
410 SOUTH ASPEN STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
SUSAN SCOTT KRABACHER
201 NORTH MILL
SUITE 201
ASPEN CO 81611
COMMON AREA
LOTS K & L, BLOCK 25
LOTS Q -S, BLOCK 24
LOTS D -F, BLOCK 24
VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 6
LOTS A -G, K -S, BLOCK 23
LOTS G -I, BLOCK 24
LOT Q, W 20' LOT R, BLOCK
18
1
BRIAN & SUZANNE O'NEIL
11995 SW 222 STREET
MIAMI FL 33170
BURTON D. OLSHAN 1/2
KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 1/2
5408 OLD LEEDS ROAD
BRIMINGHAM AL 35210
BURTON D. OLSHAN 1/2
KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 1/2
5408 OLD LEEDS ROAD
BRIMINGHAM AL 35210
BURTON D. OLSHAN 1/2
KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 1/2
5408 OLD LEEDS ROAD
BRIMINGHAM AL
BURTON D. OLSHAN 1/2
KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 1/2
5408 OLD LEEDS ROAD
BIRMINGHAM AL
HUNTINGTON TRUST CO.
NA TRUSTEE
REAL ESTATE DEPT. HC -1011
P.O. BOX 1558
COLUMBUS OH
HUNTINGTON TRUST CO.
NA TRUSTEE
REAL ESTATE DEPT. HC -1011
P.O. BOX 1558
COLUMBUS OH
HUNTINGTON TRUST CO.
NA TRUSTEE
REAL ESTATE DEPT. HC -1011
P.O. BOX 1558
COLUMBUS OH
ANDREW C. DOLAN
170 SANCY POND ROAD
LINCOLN MA
CHARLES L. HALL
NANCY W. TATE
P.O. BOX 1819
ASPEN CO
CHERYL BARKER SHONK
710 W. HOPKINS AVE #8
ASPEN CO
35210
35210
43216
43216
43216
01773
81612
81611
700 WEST HOPKINS, #11
LITTLE VICTORIAN, #3
c
LITTLE VICTORIAN, #4
LITTLE VICTORIAN, #5
LITTLE VICTORIAN, #7
SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #101
SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #102
SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #4
LOTS A & B, BLOCK 18
LOTS G —I, BLOCK 18
700 WEST HOPKINS, #8
2
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY
C/O ASPEN /SNOWMASS, INC.
734 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN CO
BETSY M. REID
59 FALLON DRIVE
NORTH HAVEN CT
CITY OF ASPEN
120 S. GALENA
ASPEN CO
LINDA LEE BLOMQUIST
KURT IAN BEEREBOOM
724 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
NIKIFOR BUDSEY, II
SUSAN WABISZEWSKI
728 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
JEFFREY T. HANLE
KELLEY J. HANLE
126 S. 7TH STREET
ASPEN CO
MARK L. PEARSON
LAURA B. HOLMES
732 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
MIA VALLEY
740 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
MARY E. WOLFER
130 S. 7TH STREET
ASPEN CO
BENJAMIN H. DODGE
NANCEE L. HOLOBAUGH
134 S. 7TH STREET
ASPEN CO
DANNY ABBOTT
PO BOX 2265
ASPEN CO
ROBERT M. NEVINS
WENDY S. NEVINS
PO BOX 11482
ASPEN CO
81611
06473
81611
81611
LOTS K & L, BLOCK 18
700 WEST HOPKINS, #6
WEST HOPKINS TOWNHOMES
(EMPLOYEE HOUSING)
A -1
ME
81611 ,
81611
B -4
81612
A -4
81612
3
B -1
81611
A -3
81611
C -1
81611
B -2
81611
B -3
81611
B -4
81612
A -4
81612
3
TONYA M. TERRY
C -2
PO BOX 5633
SNOWMASS VILLAGE
CO
81615
DAN B. LEVINSON
LOTS E -G,
BLOCK 25
LYNNE LEVINSON
P.O. BOX 2012
ASPEN
CO
81612
DAVID KRUIDENIER
LOTS A -C,
BLOCK 24
ELIZABETH S. KRUIDENIER
3409 SOUTHERN HILLS
DRIVE
DES MOINES
IA
50321
DEBBIE KLEIN
617 MAIN
ST. PROF., #A
A COLORADO CORPORATION
546 MCSKIMMING ROAD
ASPEN
CO
81611
DONALD R. MCGILL
LOTS M &
N, BLOCK 25
11800 OLD KATY ROAD
HOUSTON
TX
77079
DONALD L. YOUNG
617 MAIN
ST. PROF., #E
617 W. MAIN
ASPEN
CO
81611
SANDRA K. ALLEN
617 MAIN
ST. PROF., #H
1570 SILVER KING
ASPEN
CO
81611
EDGAR F. BARBER
700 WEST
HOPKINS, #15
P.O. BOX 9678
ASPEN
CO
81612
GALE M. PARKER
700 WEST
HOPKINS, #9
P.O. BOX 1490
ASPEN
CO
81612
MANGONE PARTNERSHIP
LP
VICTORIA
SQUARE, LOT 1
COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
12687 W. CEDAR DRIVE,
#100
LAKEWOOD
CO
80228
GRAEME MEANS
LOTS E &
F, BLOCK 18
210 S. GALENA
ASPEN
CO
81611
HISPATEL CORPORATION
SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #E
A DELAWARE CORPORATION
550 BILTMORE WAY
CORAL GABLES
FL
33134
rd
J. ROBERT WEIEN LOT G, BLOCK 19
709 W. MAIN STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
ROBERT COSCARELLO LOT B, BLOCK 25
ELIZABETH COSCARELLO
515 E. LAS OLAS, #800
FORT LAUDERDALE FL 33301
ELIZABETH EVANS HAHN 700 WEST HOPKINS, #12
PO BOX 9679
ASPEN CO 81612
GEORGE BAYOUD VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 3
JOAN BAYOUD
3525 TURTLE CREEK BLVD
DALLAS TX 75219
JAY WEINBERG VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 7
55 NE 1ST STREET
SUITE 1
MIAMI FL 33132
JIM IGLEHART 617 MAIN ST. PROF., #B
610 WEST HALLAM
ASPEN CO 81611
JOHN W. TAYLOR 700 WEST HOPKINS, #4 ,
31050 W. THOMPSON LANE
HARTLAND WI 53029
LINDA VIEIRA 1/3 & TERESA HALL 1/3 SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #103
KAREN OWNES & MALLORY T. HARLING 1/3
605 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
LINDA VIEIRA 1/3 & TERESA HALL 1/3 SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #104
KAREN OWNES & MALLORY T. HARLING 1/3
605 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
MARGARET MANSON LITTLE VICTORIAN, #1
CONSTANCE MORGENSON
355 N. MILL STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
LITTLE VICTORIAN COMMON AREA
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
C/O COATES, REID & WALDRON
720 EAST HYMAN
ASPEN CO 81611
5
MARY LOU SABATASSO
VICTORIA SQUARE,
LOT 4
225 NORTH 6TH STREET
ASPEN CO
81611
JOAN SHAPIRO - HYKES
700 WEST HOPKINS,
#2
205 S. MILL STREET
ASPEN CO
81611
MARIDEE CHRISTOPHER
SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #A
8957 E, PERSHING AVENUE
SCOTTSDALE AZ
85260 -7612
ROBERT PIPER
SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #B
LYNN B. PIPER
200 DAVID THOMPSON ROAD
HOPE ID
83836
TODD THOMAS
SMB CONDOMINIUMS,
#A
605 W. MAIN ST., #OOA
ASPEN CO
81611
MARTHA W. MADSEN
LOT S, BLOCK 25
APARTMENT 9
608 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
MARTHA W. MADSEN
LOTS Q & R, BLOCK
25
APARTMENT 9
608 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
MARY E. HAYES
LITTLE VICTORIAN,
#6
209 EAST BLEEKER STREET
ASPEN CO
81611
M &B COMPANY
VICTORIA SQUARE,
LOT 5
C/O GARFIELD & HECHT, ATTORNEYS
601 E. HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
MERLE ELLEN JABLIN
700 WEST HOPKINS,
#14
P.O. BOX 778
ASPEN CO
81612
NANCY J HADDAD
700 WEST HOPKINS,
#3
P.O. BOX 11453
ASPEN CO
81612
NANCY JANE MANGHAM
LOTS C & D, BLOCK
18
5333 COLLINWOOD
FORT WORTH TX
76107
rl
ALICE KOELLE
617 MAIN
ST. PROF.,
#I
P.O. BOX 2871
ASPEN
CO
81612
ALICE KOELLE
617 MAIN
ST. PROF.,
#L
P.O. BOX 2871
ASPEN
CO
81612
HELENA WOOD
LITTLE VICTORIAN,
#8
C/O AMBIANCE LTD
PO BOX 420315
DALLAS
TX
75342
RICHARD E. LONG
LOTS Q -S,
BLOCK 12
LOIS N. LONG
P.O. BOX 1314
ASPEN
CO
81612
RICHARD E. RUDOLPH
617 MAIN
ST. PROF.,
#F
P.O. BOX 3080
CAREFREE
AZ
85377
RICHARD E. RUDOLPH
617 MAIN
ST. PROF.,
#G
P.O. BOX 3080
CAREFREE
AZ
85377
GAIL GAROFANI
SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #B
39 PALMERSTAN STREET
WATSON'S BAY
SYDNEY NSW AUSTRALIA
2030
RICHARD HUTCHESON
VICTORIA
SQUARE, LOT
2
DELORES A. HUTCHESON
PO BOX 161930
AUSTIN
TX
78716 -1930
RICHARD S. FLEISHER,
1/2
LOT A, BLOCK
25
I.F. ASSOCIATES 1/2
SUITE 1505
111 WEST WASHINGTON
CHICAGO
IL
60602
ROBERT H. THROM
617 MAIN
ST. PROF.,
#C
PHYLISS A. THROM
617 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
RYANCO PARTNERS XXX
1
LOTS D -F,
BLOCK 19
715 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
7
S. MICHELLE DUNSDON
DAVID A. BORKENHAGEN
P.O. BOX 2225
ASPEN CO 81612
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BAVARIAN INN
515 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
SEVENTH & MAIN VENTURE
A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
P.O. BOX 10147
ASPEN CO 81612
SHADOW MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES 1989
SUITE 201
121 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
SHADOW MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES 1989
SUITE 201
121 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
SHEILAH JUDITH BRYAN
P.O. BOX 976
ASPEN CO 81612
SHERIE MATILDA LE BLANC
SUITE 2
634 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
SKANDIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
C/O CASTLE CREEK MANAGEMENT
ATTN: RON KINNELL
P.O. BOX 542
ASPEN CO 81612
SMB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
(NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE)
SUSAN TAN
1340 GATEWAY
SNOWMASS CO 81654
KIMBERLY DAWN DAILY
P.O. BOX 10898
LOS ANGELES CA 90034 -0385
SUZANAH V.K. REID
P.O. BOX 10443
ASPEN CO 81612
617 MAIN ST. PROF., #D
LOTS D -I, BLOCK 12
LOTS A -C, BLOCK 19
m
, #2
SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #3
700 WEST HOPKINS, #13
LITTLE VICTORIAN, #2
COMMON AREA
SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #C
700 WEST HOPKINS, #5
700 WEST HOPKINS, #1
[3
TED LENIO
700 WEST HOPKINS,
#10
P.O. BOX 9854
ASPEN CO
81612
TERRY END
SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #D
PO BOX 747
.ASPEN CO
81612
TETSUJI AOYAMA
SMB CONDOMINIUMS,
#1
AKIKO AOYAMA
6105 NE KESWICK DRIVE
SEATTLE WA
98105
TETSUJI AOYAMA
SMB CONDOMINIUMS,
#A
AKIKO AOYAMA
6105 NE KESWICK DRIVE
SEATTLE WA
98105
MARC L. EPSTEIN
VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 8
REVOCABLE TRUST #1
19986 NE 36TH PL
AVENTURA FL
33180
THOMAS MARSHALL
700 WEST HOPKINS,
#7
300 RIVERSIDE AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
VICTORIA SQUARE PUD
COMMON AREA
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
C/O ASPEN SNOWMASS CARE
P.O. BOX 6028
SNOWMASS VILLAGE CO
81615
LUU INVESTMENTS LLC
LOTS M -P, BLOCK 18
435 E. MAIN STREET
ASPEN CO
81611
ROBERT WEIN
LOTS H & I, BLOCK
19
PO BOX 8472
SAN DIEGO CA
92038
WILLIAM A. LEVIN
LOTS 0 & P, BLOCK
24
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
575 LEXINGTON AVENUE
SUITE 2605
NEW YORK NY
10022
JEFFREY CRAIG AARONSON
LOT N, BLOCK 24
P.O. BOX 10131
ASPEN CO
81612
ROBERT HIRSCHFIELD LOTS O & P, BLOCK 25
SHERI HIRSCHFIELD
5895 SW 91ST STREET
MIAMI FL 33196
IN
EXHIBIT 6
RESOLUTION NO. 3
(Series of 1994)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
GRANTING COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS IN THE OFFICE
ZONE DISTRICT FOR 1993 UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM
WHEREAS, Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code
sets forth a growth management quota system governing new
development within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24- 8- 103.A.3.a. of the Aspen
Municipal Code, four (4,000) thousand square feet of new leasable
space is available for development allotment within the Office zone
district of the City on an annual basis; and
WHEREAS, Caps Auto Supply and Stape Limited Liability Company
have submitted applications requesting 810 square feet of net
leasable and 2,423 square feet of net leasable space respectively,
from the 1993 commerical quota for the Office zone district; and
WHEREAS, both applications were reviewed by the Planning
Director and forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a duly noticed
public hearing on December 21, 1993, did evaluate the proposals and
accepted staff's score finding that the development proposals
exceeded the minimum score thresholds for combined and individual
score categories as required by Section 24- 8- 106.F. of the Aspen
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Caps Auto Supply scored 32.25 points, and Stape
Limited Liability Company scored 27.91 points; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended
that the Caps Auto Supply project be allocated a development
allotment of 810 square feet of net leasable area pursuant to
Commission Resolution #93 -33; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended
that the Stape Limited Liability Company project be allocated a
i
development allotment of 2,423 square feet of net leasable area
pursuant to Commission Resolution #93 -32; and
WHEREAS, no challenges to the Planning and Zoning Commission's
scoring have been submitted to the City Council as allowed Under
Section 24- 8- 106.I. of the Aspen Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:
In accordance with Section 24- 8- 106.J. of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Aspen City Council does hereby grant to the Caps Auto Supply
project a development allotment of 810 square feet of net leasable
space from the 1993 commerical growth management quota.
Section 2•
In accordance with Section 24- 8- 106.J. of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Aspen City Council does hereby grant to the Stape Limited
Liability Company project a development allotment of 2,423 square
feet of net leasable space from the 1993 commerical growth
management quota.
Section 3•
In accordance with Section 24 -8 -108 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the development allotments as awarded herein shall expire on the
day after the third anniversary of the date of approval of a site
specific development plan for the project as identified herein,
unless a building permit is obtained and the project is developed,
or unless an exemption from or an extension to the approval is
obtained.
Date: 1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify
that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution
adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado at a
meeting held 2t/� Q!�� ¢ 1994.
Kathryn Sly Koch, City Clerk
367932 5 -744 F -624 03/16/94 11:06A PG 1 OF 5 REC DOC
SILVIA DAVIS FITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 25.00
ORDINANCE 3 EXHIBrr 7
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
GRANTING A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND VESTED RIGHTS STATUS FOP THE STAPLETON OFFICE BUILDING, 702
WEST MAIN STREET, EAST 10 .FEET OF LOTS R AND ALL OF LOT S, BLOCK
18 ASPEN TOWNSITE, ASPEN COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Stape Limited Liability Company, has
proposed to develop an office building located at 702 West Main
Street; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Growth Management
allocation for the 1993 commerical /office quota; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to develop two on -site
affordable dwelling units to mitigate employee generation impacts;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24- 8- 104.C.1.c. and 24- 8- 109.J.
of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council shall approve the method
by which an applicant proposes to provide affordable housing upon
recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission (herein
"Commission ") ; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 1993, the Commission reviewed the
affordable housing proposal and recommended that the applicant
increase the size of the three - bedroom unit; and
WHEREAS, the applicant committed to increase the size of the
three - bedroom unit to 1,200 square feet of net liveable space to
meet the Housing office guidelines for a three - bedroom, category
3 dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, the Commission recommends to Council approval of the
on -site affordable housing with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also requests vested rights status for
367932 9 -744 F -625 07/16/94 11:06A PG 2 OF 5
a site specific development plan as represented in the GMQS
application; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning
Office's recommendation for the GMQS Exemption does wish to grant
the exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1•
Pursuant to Sections 24- 8- 104.C.1.c. and 24- 8- 109.J. of the
Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant a GMQS Exemption for
the development of two on -site affordable dwelling units located
in the proposed Stapleton office building at 702 West Main Street
with the following conditions:
1. The three - bedroom dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to
category 2 with the provision that it may be rented to a qualified
category 3 household, if a member of that household is employed by
the owner of the building. If the unit is made available to the
general public rather than an employee of the owner of the
building, it would be rented under the category 2 guidelines for
household income and rent. The owner of the building has the
ability to select a qualified occupant to rent both of the deed
restricted units.
2. The three - bedroom dwelling unit shall be increased to a total.
of 1,200 square feet of net liveable space to the Housing
minimum size guidelines.
3. The one - bedroom 615 square foot net liveable dwelling unit
shall be deed restricted to category 2 Housing guidelines.
4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall record the deed restrictions, with a copy to the Housing
Office, restricting the 2 dwelling units to the Housing Office
guidelines.
5. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and at the public hearings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other
conditions.
I ,
367932 B -744 F -626 03/16/94 11:Q6A F - G 3 OF 5
Section 2•
Pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal Code, City Council
does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for 702 West Main,
East 10 feet of Lot R and all of Lot S, Block 13, Aspen Townsite
as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3)
years from the date of final adoption specified below.
However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record
all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the
Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approvals granted and vested herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including,
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and
all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 3
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published
in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof.
Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
.o�
367932 B -744 P -627 03/16/94 11:O6A PG 4 OF 5
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following -
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 4•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 5•
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending
under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
:.rior ordinances.
Section 6•
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 4
day of Atul h7, ?/ 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hail, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one 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 a5 day of
r
1994.
r
�\ fq John Bennett, Mayor
thryn 5:," h, City Clerk
(;j•0Ak4
FINALLY, adopted, passed and appro ed this c;�U day of
1994.
Johil Bennett, Mayor
SEAL
i
City C
36793 B -744 P -628 G3/16/9'4 11:06A PG 5 OF 5
5
ASPENTITKIN
CONMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and �* &Z��2L
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 53 (Series of 199) establishes a fee structure For Planning applications and
the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of
application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size. nature or
_ scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be
benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full
costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further a_ree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and /or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and /or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
W
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver of its ri ght to collect frill fees prior to a determination of application o0
completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of
which is for /Z hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed
the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to
reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above,
including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall, be made within 30
days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such
accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN
$ 1..� 1.+�
S lauson
Community Development Director
APPLICANT
Mailing Address:
2
t:
9 July 1996
Ms. Cathi J. Rowley
Broker Associate
Coates Reid & Waldron
720 E. Hyman Street
:Aspen, CO 81611
CERTIFIED MAIL
77
ASPEN - PITKLN
Cowmu \m DEVELo"E \T DEP.iRI Lw
Re:
Dear Ms. Rowley:
Request for interpretation — Veterinary Clinic
Subject property-702 W. Main Street .
I am responding to your request for a planning director's interpretation of the zoning code with
respect to the subject property for the installation of a veterinary clinic. Your request is
determined to be complete, and staff is familiar with the subject property and the approved plans
for the site.
As I understand the request, the property would be redeveloped in accordance with the approved
plans, and would be used to house a veterinary clinic. The animals brought to the facility would
be enclosed within the structure and there would not be any kenneling. The property is within the
Office (0) Zone which permits "professional business offices" as a use permitted of right.
"Office, professional" is defined within the Aspen code as "a building for use by those such as
physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, accountants, and other professionals who primarily
provide services rather than products."
The question is whether this permitted use and its associated definition includes a veterinary clinic.
I believe that it does not, for the reason that a veterinary clinic, because of its association with
animals, includes impacts greater than those normally associated with the list of professional
offices included in the definition. While there is no question that a veterinarian is a professional in
a manner similar to physicians, dentists, lawyers, etc., it is the nature of the clinic itself which
places special impacts on abutting properties and the neighborhood in general.
Although the Aspen code does not specifically define or designate a location for a veterinary
clinic, this use is most appropriately lodged within the Service /CommerciaUtndustrial (S /C/I)
district under the generalized Est of "limited commercial and industrial uses" permitted as of
right. I do believe that a veterinary clinic would be a supportable use within this district.
A code amendment may be applied for to permit a veterinary clinic in another zone district such as
the Office Zone. I would recommend that such an amendment provide for a veterinary clinic as a
conditional use, to include development review and the setting of applicable conditions by the
Planning & Zoning Commission prior to the establishment of this use in any specific location.
Staff can assist in developing a code amendment for the Office Zone as part of a development
application. There is, however, no assurance that such an amendment would be approved by the
Planning & Zoning Commission or the City Council, as required by the amendment process.
130 �OL-H GALEke STREET ASPEy, COLOFAX 81611 -19,: - NONE 970.920.5090 R\9,0.920.:439
Ms. Cathi J. Rowley
Coates Reid & Waldron
9 July 1996
Page 2
I am sorry that this interpretation does not support your intention to house a veterinary clinic at
the subject property. Chapter 26.112 of the Zoning Code provides for an appeal to City Council
by filing a petition within thirty (30) days of the planning director's decision. Please let me know
if I may offer any additional information or assistance.
Very truly yours,
Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
Community Development Director
CITY OF ASPEN
Encl.
cc: Suzanne Wolff, Staff Planner
John Worcester, City Attorney
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CODE INTERPRETATION
JURISDICTION: City of Aspen
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION(S): Section 26.28.180, Office zone district, Permitted Use
of "Professional business offices" and Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Office ".
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1996
WRITTEN BY: Suzanne Wolff er
APPROVED BY: DATE: V) 1 t
BACKGROUND: Dr. John Rappaport is under contract to purchase the Stapleton property at
702 W. Main St. and proposes to operate a veterinary clinic in the new office building that was
approved by Council pursuant to Ordinance 3, Series of 1994. Dr. Rappaport contends that a
veterinary clinic should be considered a "professional business office" and, therefore, would be
an allowed use in the Office zone district.
INTERPRETATION: "Office, professional" is defined in the Code as "a building for use by
those such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects. accountants, and other professionals who
primarily provide services rather than products." A veterinary clinic. because of its association
with animals, includes impacts greater than those normally associated with the list of -
professional offices included in the definition. While there is no question that a veterinarian is a
professional in a manner similar to physicians, dentists, lawyers, etc., it is the nature of the clinic
itself which places special impacts on abutting properties and the neighborhood in general.
Therefore, the definition of `office, professional" is interpreted not to include a veterinary clinic,
therefore, a veterinary clinic would not be an allowed use in the Office zone district.
7 -31 -1996 11 :23AM FRC'''AATES HAFEN COCHRANE 3034441; p_1
July 31. 1996
MEMO: Joe Wells
Joseph Wells Land Planning, Inc.
FROM: Mark R. Hafen AIA
Gates Hafen Cochrane Architects, P.C.
RE: Aspen Veterinary Clinic
702 West Main Street
Aspen, Colorado
As design experts specializing in the design of veterinary medical and
boarding facilities, we have often encountered neighborhood opposition to
proposed projects based on the perception that veterinary facilities are
noisy and smelly. This is a real concern, but this perception 16 often based
on the experiences some people have had living adjacent to open -air and
outdated facilities.
Fortunately, the new facilities that we have been constructing around the
country, including the proposed Aspen Veterinary Clinic on Main Street, are
of a new generation. The practice of veterinary medicine has undergone
significant changes in the last ten years. Driven by advances in medical
technology and more stringent client expectations, the present -day
veterinary facility is a dramatic departure from the facilities of the past.
In the following text, we. will discuss in more detail the design techniques we
use for controlling noise and odor.
NOISE ABATEMENT
In looking at the issue of noise, one has to look at the source of the. noise,
the ways that noise can be mitigated, and lastly, the context of the
surrounding environment in which the noise will be perceived.
Gates
Hafen
Cochrane
Inventive. Personable.
Archicecmm.
�\
1245 Narl Serve:
Boulder, CO 80302
1- 800 - 332 -4413
Local 303.444-4413
Fax 303 -444 -1759'
Gans Hafcn Cochrane
Architects, P.C.
X11
7 -31 -1996 11:23AM FRO` "'RTES HAFEN COCHRANE 30344417 P.2
The Noise Source
In the study of an existing, enclosed facility in Lafayette, Indiana, there were
approximately 30 dogs present, and the staff intentionally attempted to
Incite the dogs to bark. The maximum sound level was 95 d5A, and the
average sound level within the facility was 65,15A. As a point of
comparison, the level of normal conversation is between Ar and 50 d6A.
The facility for the Aspen Veterinary Clinic would actually be smaller than the
one in Lafayette. so the sound level would be less than that of the Lafayette
facility.
Noise Mitigation
in contrast to past open -air facilities, we have two very effective design
technictues that can be used to mitigate noise in the newer, enclosed
facilities: sound absorption and sound isolation.
In the newly- designed facilities, we typically specify the installation of sound -
absorbing ceiling materials. Most of the acoustic ceiling tiles and baffles we
use have a .75 NRC (Noise Reduction Coefficient) or better. This means that
75% of the reverberant noise that strikes the material is absorbed. In the
case of the Aspen Veterinary Clinic, we are investigating the use of fabric -
wrapped, wall- mounted and ceiling -hung acoustic absorption panels with a
NRC of 1.0. 6a5ed on preliminary sound absorption studies using both wall
and ceiling panels, we, anticipate a reduction in the sound level of
approximately 10 to 12 decibels measured in the actual animal holding space.
Additionally, because the facilities are enclosed, the surrounding walls and
roof can be used to encapsulate and isolate the sound from the surrounding
areas. On past projects, exterior walls with Sound Transmission Coefficients
(5TC) of 47 to 5.3 have routinely been constructed. T'nis means that the wall
was able to screen out 47 to 56 decibels of the sound that was attempting
to pass through.
7 -31 -1996 11 :24AM FROI'" HAFEN COCHRANE 30344417 P.3
Turning back to the project in Lafayette, sound measurements taken 10 feet
from the outside wall of the facility gave a maximum reading of 65 d6A,
primarily because of outside noise from traffic. If the majority of outside
noise sources could be excluded, it was estimated that the level from the
barking dogs was 40 d6A. This means that the specific wall construction,
which was a metal "6utler'type building, was able to attenuate (reduce) the
average noise level from the barking dogs by 35 0A. In contrast, we have
been investigating exterior wall construction assemblies in the animal areas
of the proposed facility with a much higher 5TC, in the range of 58 d5A.
These assemblies would combine concrete block, multiple layers of drywall,
and a barium - loaded vinyl sound barrier. An 5TC rating of 28 is possible
through the use of the vinyl barrier alone. Therefore, we anticipate that the
sound level caused by dogs that could be. heard outside the facility, exclusive
of outside noise sources, would be virtually eliminated.
Context
Lastly, it is important to look at the context or surrounding levels of noise
created by activity in the immediate vicinity. Sound is not "additive ", i.e.
when you combine the sound of passing traffic at 65 d6A and a barking dog
at 40 d6A, you do not get 105 d6A. Therefore, it is possible to use
background sound to mask other incidental sounds. This is why Muzak is
often used in office environments to mask the cacophony of office equipment
noises and voices.
In our Lafayette example, the facility was located on a busy highway where
the outside average background noise was 60 d5A, and the noise from the
barking dogs by themselves was 40 d6A, similar to a quiet conversational
level of speech. As would be expected, the traffic noise masked the barking
dogs. In fact, the sound engineers standing 10 feet away from the building
reported "the barking dogs could barely be heard ". Lastly, in the Lafayette
example, the sound of barking dogs became "Inaudible 20 feet from the
building wall, totally masked by traffic noise ". In the proposed facility, we
anticipate that any sound there might be will be masked by traffic noise on
south and east sides. On the north and west sides, we are anticipating
designing a total sound barrier that will not allow sound to encroach on
adjacent residential structures.
7 -31 -1996 11 :25AM FROM' RTES HAFEN COCHRANE 30344417 P.4
ODOR ABATEMENT
The key to controlling odor in veterinary facilities is in both the day -to -day
operation and the long -term maintenance of the facility. If the facility can
be designed to streamline the day -to -day care of the animals and the
disposal of wastes, odors can, for the most part, be eliminated. Likewise, if
The technical design of the facility makes use of durable and easily - cleaned
surfaces and materials, bacteria or wastes will not be able to collect and
cause odors.
Animal Housing
As i5 typical of all of our state -of- the -art veterinary facilities, the animal
housing for the Aspen Veterinary Clinic will be individual stainless steel cages
with high - performance epoxy- painted walls and acrylic resin flooring. In this
type of housing, the materials arc virtually indestructible. Hot and cold
water is provided for dally cleaning.
Disposal of Wastes
Proper waste disposal also minimizes odors. This includes a system of
regularly scheduled pick -ups for "hazardous biological" wastes such as
"sharps ", disposable items, and tissue.
Lastly, the facility includes a screened, trash collection area adjacent to the
service entrance. Routine non -toxic wastes will be collected in covered
containers and stored here prior to being picked up by a trash service.
CONCLU510N
In sharing this information with you, I hope I have been able to dispel some of
the myths that have surrounded veterinary medicine. Today's veterinary
medicine is very comparable to human medicine, utilizing many of the same
procedures and equipment. In addition, the clients of today expect and
demand the best possible. care for their pets. For that reason, the facility
must provide the best possible environment for the successful care and
treatment of the patient. Frankly, the modern veterinary facility cannot
afford to be. noisy or smelly. For the patient, the client, and even the medical
staff, the facility has to be, and is, a modern environment.
Exhibit B
To: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department
From: Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health officer
Date: August 14, 1996
Re: Rappaport request to add a veterinary clinic as a
conditional use at 702 West Main Street
Parcel ID# 2735- 124 -45 -006
The Aspen /Pi *_kin Environmental Health I'epartment has reviewed the
Rappaport land use submittal under authority of the Municipa- Code
of the Cit ;4 of Aspe_- , and has the following comments.
N L QfS ARA=NT • Sects on -8 "The c_cy count_'_ =ends and declares =sac noise -s a significant
source of environmental eoliuccon =rat represents a present and increasing m..reac no --he pun Lc peace and no
mhe 'nealtn, safety add '.+elfare of tae residents of - he Ci cy of .Aston and -. its nsrcors. .....dccoadiagly, it
cs mhe polio/ cf touncii no provide standards =or permissible :.se :eveis in : areas and nanaers and at
venous mines and no pronibic noase in axcess of chose levels." -
Attached are sections from the City of Aspen Municipal Code book
relating to =Prohibited Noises from animals and to the maximum
permissible sound levels in different Use Districts of the City
which cannot be exceeded.
During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound
level standards, and construction cannot be done except between
the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction
phase of this project, will have some negative impact on the
neighborhood. The applicant should he aware of this and take
measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels.
1
Othe- Tgsues:
veterinary clinics are not regulated by this Department. They are
regulated by the State only if they board or groom animals, then
they will need to contact the State veterinary Office to be sure
they comply with the State's requirements for levels of sanitation
and for facility construction standards.
2
26.8.130 Rwal Residential (RR).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Rural Residential (RR) zone district is to allow utilization of
land for low density, long term residential purposes with the recreational, institutional, public and other
compatible uses customarily found in proximity to those uses allowed as permitted uses or conditional
uses.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Rural Residential
(RR) zone district
I. Detached residential dwelling;
2 . Farm building and use, provided that all such buildings and storage areas are located at
least 100 feet from pre- existing dwellings on other lots;
3. Nursery;
4. Greenhouse;
Home occupations; and
6. Accessory buildings and uses.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Rural
Residential (RR) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60.
1. Public building;
'_. Public and private academic school;
J. Church;
4. Radio tower,
5. Recreation club;
6. Dav care center,
7. Open use recreation site including ski runs, ski lifts and other skiing facilities and
structures:
S. Sewage disposal:
9. Water storage and reservoir.
10. Electric substation or gas regulator station (not including building for offices, repair or
storage); and
11. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section '_6.40.090.
26.8.160 Service/Commercial/ladustrial (S /C/I).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S /C11) zone district is to
allow for the use of land for the preservation or development of limited commercial and industrial uses
which do not require or generate high customer traffic volumes, and to permit customary accessory uses,
including residential dwelling units.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Service/Commercial/
Industrial (S /C/I) zone district.
L Limited commercial and industrial uses including the following and similar uses:
Vehicle sales; appliance and equipment rental, storage and repair, automobile repair, automobile
washing facilities; electrical and plumbing service shops; commercial bakery; computer product sales
and services; limited industrial uses including: Builder's supply, industrial dry cleaning plant and
laundry , uue , fabrication and repair of building materials and components, lumberyards, manufac and
repair of electronics or sporting goods, printing and publishing plants, telecommunications supply,
typesetting, warehousing and storage, shop -craft industry and similar uses, artists' studios with optional
accessory dwellings. All of these uses are permitted provided they do not create unusual traffic hazard,
noise, dust, fumes, odors, smoke, vapor, vibration, glare or industrial waste disposal problems, and
provided that no permitted uses principally sell daily or frequently bought items to the general public;
2. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines;
3. Home occupations; and
4. Accessory buildings and uses.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Service/Commercial/ Industrial (S /C/I) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established
in Chapter 26.60.
1. Full- service gas station;
2. Dance studio;
3. Martial arts studio;
4. Dwelling unit accessory to permitted uses other than artists studio;
5. Catalogue sales store;
6. Laundromat:
7. Photography studio; and
8. Above -ground fuel storage tanks.
26.28.180 Office (0).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide for the establishment
of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of
former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses
along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Office (0) zone
district.
1. Detached residential dwellings and multi- family dwellings;
2. Professional business offices;
3. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines;
4. Home occupations;
5. Group homes;
6. Accessory buildings and uses;
7. Dormitory; and
8. A mixed -use building(s) comprised of a residential dwelling unit and permitted and
conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional use has been approved subject
to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60.
.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as in the Office (0) zone district,
subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60.
1. Only for those structures that have received historic landmark designation: antique store,
art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting station, church, dance
studio, florist, &atemal lodge, titrnitme store, mortuary, music store (for the sale of musical instruments),
music studio, restaurant, shop craft industry, visual arts gallery; provided, however, that (a) no more than
two (2) such conditional uses shall be allowed in each structure, and (b) off- street parking is provided,
with alley access for those conditional uses along Main Street;
2. Duplex residential dwelling, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing
to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall comprise a
minimum of one -third (1/3) of the total floor area of the duplex. In the alternative, both may be free
market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit;
3. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic
landmark a minimum area of 6,000 square feet, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable
housing to the middle income price and occupancy guidelines. The affordable housing unit shall
comprise a minimum of one -third (1/3) of the total floor area of the two dwellings. In the alternative,
both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided for each unit;
3. Day care center.
Commercial parking lot or parking structure that is independent of required off-street
parking, provided that it is not located abutting Main Street:
6. Reserved;
7. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.40.090;
8. Health and fitness facility; and
9. Lodge units and lodge units with kitchens.
#Wkumis
Exhibit D
"DO f*01PER $691 L006E APTS.
THREE 9l.00KS FROM DOWNTOWN ASPEN
Too BLOCKS FRoM #j CHAIRLIFT ow
ALL AREA $KI BUSES STOP FORTY FEET
Sept. 10, 1996
Suzanne Wolff
Pitkin/ Aspen Commuuity Development
Pr
FROM LODOE.
I would like to object to the proposed Veterinary
Clinic to be installed at the corner of West Main Street and Sixth Street.
I live one block away on the same alley at 121 N. 5th Street, and my
wife, Marge, and I feel that such an operation should be in a Comrercial
Zone, where the barking of dogs, the oders, etc. would not become as
much of a nuisance as in the "prestigeous West End" of Aspen. A new rouse
at 5th and Bleeker has a price tag of $2,695,000.00 - while unbelievable,
it points up the fact that the Zoning must be uniformly consistant to
uphold the total effect of the neighborhood. At one time, Aspen was being
considered as an "Historic District ", but it never happened. Still, it
shows that there is a jot here worth preserving.
Thanks for your consideration.
Best regards,
FOR RESERVATIONS:
U Gus and Marge Hallum rh i f P4 eSe
PHONE 925 -2 2 90Aspen, Colo. 81611
WRITE ASPEN, CO40. 81611
AKIN, Gump, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
August 26, 1996
Ms. Suzanne Wolff, Staff Planner
Aspen /Pitkin County
Community Development Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ms. Wolff:
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
MOSCOW, RUSSIA
Reference is made to the application by John Rappaport for a veterinary clinic to be
located at 702 W. Main Street. I represent my wife, Anne, owner of the residence at 617 W.
Bleeker St. in Aspen. We strongly object to the construction of a veterinary clinic on that
property because it would constitute, in our view, a nuisance and would interfere with our rights
to peacefully enjoy our residence.
I understand that a Hearing was held on August 20, but due to the fact that the notice was
mailed to us at my office address and we were at our residence in Aspen at the time we were
not aware of the Hearing; but we wish to add our objection to the many others which you have
received.
Sincerely,
Al D. Feld., P. C.
ADF /msp
CC: B. Joseph Krabacher
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
1700 PACIFIC AVENUE
AUSTIN, TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SU 4100
HOUSTON, TEX 5 D
,II
��''�JI i[.�I�i
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 -4675
NEW YORK, NEW Y R�k
(214) 969 -2800
SEP 1 JJ�
FAX (214) 969 -4343
August 26, 1996
Ms. Suzanne Wolff, Staff Planner
Aspen /Pitkin County
Community Development Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ms. Wolff:
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
MOSCOW, RUSSIA
Reference is made to the application by John Rappaport for a veterinary clinic to be
located at 702 W. Main Street. I represent my wife, Anne, owner of the residence at 617 W.
Bleeker St. in Aspen. We strongly object to the construction of a veterinary clinic on that
property because it would constitute, in our view, a nuisance and would interfere with our rights
to peacefully enjoy our residence.
I understand that a Hearing was held on August 20, but due to the fact that the notice was
mailed to us at my office address and we were at our residence in Aspen at the time we were
not aware of the Hearing; but we wish to add our objection to the many others which you have
received.
Sincerely,
Al D. Feld., P. C.
ADF /msp
CC: B. Joseph Krabacher
August 19, 1996
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
Staff Planner
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
AUG 7 , 1995
re: Proposal to allow a
Veterinary Clinic
@ 702 W. Main Street
Ms. Wolff:
My wife and I have heard that a code amendment may be sought on property at 702 W.
Main St. We urge that the Community Development Department not allow a veterinary clinic at
Sixth and Main. Of course we already have more than enough traffic and congestion proximous
to that location, but our principal objection is the impact that this would have on the residential
neighborhood nearby. Although we live two to three blocks away, we feel that this is the type of
encroachment that, when added to others, move us in a direction that will not serve us well in
years to come.
To us the neighborhood impact of an office for accountants, for example, versus a
veterinary clinic are substantial. This particular area is already "very busy" and adding more
traffic of people and animals would adversely impact a neighborhood that many residents have
worked very hard to keep as an attractive place to live and enjoy.
Thank you for your attention to our thoughts on this.
Sincerely,
PGM /eld
Aspen, Colorado
1U11055 • ...
t u
thought
Y7��Mil
oa
`,w,rt Eano1yg�p
To
c
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
J�
As noted in the interpretation from the Planning Office, the
ccrrcc zone stri f ^Y _ a veterinary clinic ., _ the
service /commercial /industrial zone district. I urge you to oppose
this inappropriate use of a veterinary clinic kenneling pets.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
AND ASgGe=ES P.C.
By:
B. Joseph acher
Enclosure as recited
bjk \1702.1
5408 Old Leeds Road
Birmingham, AL 35210
(205) 252 -8187
(205) 95&2476
Date
Subject
Burton D. Olshan
KARLIN AND FLEISHER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 1505
III WEST WASHINGTON STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602
LEO S. KARLIN (1933-1974)
RICHARD S. FLEISHER
ARTHUR L. BERMAN
CHARLES V. FALKENSERO, III
JONATHAN B. FLEISHER
RONALD G. FLEISHER
THEODORE A. GILBERT
JOEL M. KAPLAN
JEFFREY E. MARTIN
CHARLES E. TANNEN
August 20, 1996
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ms. Wolff:
TELEPHONE
(312) 346 -6020
FAX
(312) 346 -6743
Please be advised that my home is at 633 Main Street. I have
been told that application is pending to build a veterinary clinic
on the corner of Sixth and Main Street. I believe that a
veterinary clinic would create substantial noise from animals,
pungent odors from animals and animal waste that would be a health
hazard to the residents of the area.
I do not understand how an animal hospital can be interpreted
as a professional medical office and would hope you would continue
with the rejection of this application and not allow a veterinary
clinic at this location.
Sincerely,
X rd S. Fleisher
RSF:DB
AUG 2 6 1�y6
Don McGill Toyota
11800 Old Katy Road
Houston, Texas 77079
(713) 588 -2600
August 20, 1996
Suzanne Wolff
Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Wolff,
It has come to my attention that an application to build a 4000
square foot veterinary clinic on the corner of Main Street and
Sixth near the West End has been submitted for your approval. I
would like to inform you that I am adamantly against such a
proposal.
I have had my Aspen residence at
as a homeowner, I feel as though
detriment to the office district
be built.
630 West Hopkins for 8 years and
this veterinary clinic would be a
in which you have proposed it to
Please understand that I am not against a veterinary clinic wanting
to conduct business in Aspen, however I feel it would be more
appropriately suited for the service /commercial /industrial zone
district.
I would appreciate your efforts in trying to get this proposal
denied.
Sincerely,
Homeowner
!1
i
PARRISH KRUIDENIER MOSS DUNN & MONT rmcE wr 1
LAWYERS AUG 2 b 196 I
ALFREDO PARRISH
ELIZABETH KRUIDENIER
ANDREW J. DUNN
MAGGIMOSS
ROBERT P. MONTGOMERY
MATTHEW M. BOLES
MATTHEW S. SHEELEY
MARGARET R. STUARTt
PAIGE E. FIEDLER
W. PATRICK WEGMAN
HENRY HAMILTON III
August 20, 1996
2910 GRAND AVENUE
DEB MOINES, IOWA 50312 -4297
(515) 284 -5737
222T
(800) 532 -1405
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52401
FAX (515) 284 -1704
(319) 298 9392
FAX(319)298 -9394
tALSO LICENSEO IN PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ms. Wolff:
I am writing to oppose the building of a veterinary clinic at the corner of Sixth and Main
Streets. Such a clinic would not fit into the office (0) zone, and there is no provision in the
code for such a structure. I own the home at 635 West Bleeker, and I believe a veterinary
clinic at the specified site would generate noise and waste incompatible with a primarily
residential neighborhood.
I am a dog lover, but I also love the peace and quiet of our westend neighborhood.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter.
Sinc rely,
Elizabeth S. Kruidenier
ESK/rd
Christian Science Soci
734 W. Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
August 22, 1996
Suzanne Wolff
Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Wolff,
AUG 2 6 1996
On behalf of the members of the Christian Science Society of
Aspen /Snowmass, I am writing to oppose the location of a veterinary
clinic on the property at 702 W. Main Street.
The members of our church feel that this use will generate
noise, odors and wastes, and the barking of dogs will disturb our
church services which are held twice during the week. It was also
be a disturbance to the quiet needed when our Reading Room is open
to the public on Monday, Wednesday and Friday afternoons, where
people come to read and study in peace.
We have looked up the correct zoning for a veterinary clinic,
and found that to be in a service /commercial /industrial zone. We
do not approve a conditional use to change the present zoning.
This would not be in keeping with other uses on the block, as a
veterinary clinic is not a suitable neighbor for a restaurant or a
church.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
/
Jane G. Ledd
Y
Clerk
S0'd - 1b701
JAMES ]DAGGS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Ce of ed PubhcAccomrmts
715 W. Main Street. Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tel: (970) 925 -4290
cm Mintemet address:
d9Zp@x £net
(970) 920 -4801
Ms- Suzanne Wolff
Aspen/Piitkin Commututy Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
August 22, 1996
RE: 702 W. Main St
Proposed Veterinary Clinic
Dear Me, Wolff
In response to the proposal to aher the zoning restrictions related to the at
location, I wish to express my most emphatic opposition. 702 W_ Main St. is will
zone district (a residential district). The proposed conversion of this building to a
facility is not appropriate within a residential district.
re referenced
an office
My office is immediately across from the proposed site. The noise and odo generated by
the proposed facility is certainly less than compatible (and unacceptable) with the p fessional
etiviromneln in which the office zone district has established. Additionally, I live within one block
of this proposed facility and am concerned with the hazardous wastes that it will geperate.
Please recognize that as a true ammnal ]over and owner, I am also concerned "with what is
best for both the animals and residents. A veterinary clinic within 25 feet of the mo vehicularly
voluminous corridor in the valley will be quite dangerous for both animals and driv s.
Very truly yours,
Todd L. Bossart
AUG 2 g 1996
August 23, 1996
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
Staff Planner
Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena Street
Third Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611 -1975
Dear Ms. Wolff:
We are homeowners of the residence at 627 W. Main Street in Aspen. We are opposed to the
possibility of the installation of a veterinary clinic at 702 W. Main Street. We believe that such a
clinic, because of the nature of its work and the presence of a large number of animals would
result in several end products such as increased noise, traffic, "soiling" of the neighborhood,
odors, a hospital -like ambience, and others that are inappropriate and undesirable in the Office
Zone.
Please keep me informed of any proceedings related to this process as we are adamantly
opposed to the housing of a veterinary clinic at 702 W. Main Street. Our mailing address is:
Robert A. Coscarello
515 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 800
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Robert A. Coscarello
SENT BY -MRACM & ASSOCIATES; 8 -15 -96 ; 9.92 ;
LAW OITI OIL
E3. JOSEPH KRAHACHER
A,ul Assuduks P.G
JTUmc 1 feaalarcag Building
201 N. Mll J. STRECT, SUITE 201
ASPEN, C41DRADO 816li -3206
B. 3meph Krnla Cher'
Cuttis B. Sendams
MWtoW e. Topak" ^
Ni knW V. PffA4 ov
TN: (470) 925 4300
ko B. P�hkin^
Pu ('Yf0) 925 -7161
• A&Au d in U4 Anil
�nil/bemrr eAdw:
^Adn mlaw..a,. 1,
August 15, 1996
Suzanne Wolff
Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 702 West Main Street
Proposed 'Veterinary Clinic
Dear Suzanne:
1 970 920 5V9;ft 2
IItVR.ew OBSO,
4 Kraulopmlelenkays
suite No. 3
103030 MOSWw
RUSSIA
I want to go on record to oppose any change in the zoning that
would allow a veterinary clinic on Main Street. Specifically, the
property located on the corner of Main Street and Sixth Street is
a 4,000 square foot office building with below grade affordable
housing. it was intended and approved as an office building, but
now they want to change the use to a veterinary clinic.
It seems there are a number of deficiencies in the application
as well as the concept:
1. vet Facility Not Appropriate Use within a Residential
District. Main Street is and remains a residential zone district.
See City of Aspen municipal Code Sec. 15.04.010 et seq. regarding
Noise Abatement whercin the Office Zone district is classified as
a residential district. Sec. 19.04.020(cc). Industrial uses are
simply not compatible with the intensive activities associated
with a vet clinic.
2. Insufficient Employee Generation Mitigation. The office
building was approved as an office. The employee generation
figures for office use are the lowest of any use. There has been
no study of the number of employees generated by a vet clinic.
but undoubtedly there will be more than an office. How does the
applicant propose to mitigate these impacts?
3. Insufficient Parking. The parking is critical in this
area. The office building had a number of parking spaces waived,
and only provides for four parking spaces, even though there will
SENT BY;KRABACM & ASSOCIATFS; 8 -15 -36 9:32 ; 1970 320 5435;9 3
be commercial use as well as three employee units on sitel The
change of use to a vet clinic will increase the vehicle traffic,
as people generally need to drivee a car to bring a pet to a
clinic. How will the increased traffic impacts be mitigated?
4. Hazardous Wastes. The Application Itself acknowledges
that there "is a real concern" regarding noise, smells and
°hazardous biological waste generated by the facility. However
there are no specifics on these issues. What types of "hazardous
biological" waste are tc be generated and in what quantities? How
will "hazardous biological waste be disposed of? why does the
Applicant believe it is appropriate to locate a facility
producing hazardous wastes in a residential zone district?
5. Missing Report. The Application includes a letter from an
architect on how the facility will be sound - proofed and odor -
proofed. However, there are no specifics and the report is based
on hearsay. He report purports to tell the staff what the study
of a facility in Lafayette, Indiana concluded, but does not
include a copy of the Lafayette report for analysis, fails to
describe the neighborhood conditions in Lafayette, Indiana (was
it a residential zone district. ?) or what specific measures were
taken?
6. Noise Abatement. The analysis of the sound levels from
the facility are misleading. First staff should appreciate that a
dB or decibel scale is a logarithmic scale and is not a linear
function. Therefore, when the report discusses an increase from
50dBA (the sound level of a normal conversation) to 65dBA (the
average sound level within the Lafayette facility), or an
increase of 15dB, the sound is about 3 times louder! when the
level goes from 50dBA to MEA (the purported maximum sound level
within the facility) the increase is 45dB or over 16 times louder
than a normal convarsationl[1 By comparison, a 95dBA sound is
equivalent to the sound of as air compressor at 20 feet. ft seems
highly unlikely that the sound of an air compressor could be
completely muffled and all sound eliminated, as the Applicant
proposes. It is well documented that sound levels over 40dBA
cause sleep interference. See ABC's of our Noise Codes published
by Citizens Against Noise, Honolulu, Hawaii.
The proposed setback for the vet facility is five feet from
my property line. The stadies cited by the Applicant discuss the
noise impacts at 10 feet! Therefore, the noise would be generated
within my building site, and within the very walls of my home.
Therefore, the staff and City should very carefully analyze the
information on sound levels before subjecting the neighborhood to
such an impactive use as a vet facility. The City of Aspen
Environmental Health Department was not even notified of this
Application, and before any Code amendment is adopted the health
issues must be carefully scrutinized.
7. Attractive Nuisance. The facility will attract other dogs
and animals throughout the neighborhood. Barking dogs and howling
SENT BY :KRABACHER & ASSOCIATES; 8 -15 -96 9:33 t970 920 5439;k 4
cats will only serve to create a circus atmosphere around and
adjacent to the property, as it is common knowledge that other
animals are drawn to seunds generated by a vet facility. In fact
my own dogs will likely bark all night if there are any sounds
reaching my property at all, which seems highly likely since
there properties will be only ten feet apart.
8. Odors. The Applicant's own report acknowledges that odors
cannot be completely eliminated. Bacteria and wastes are
acknowledged to be created and there is no specific proposal to
eliminate these items. The disposal facility is located right an
my property line and poses health and safety threats to the well-
being of my family. The Application does not oven describe the
types of animals to he housed at the facility, making it
impossible to evaluate the entire proposal.
9. Znapproprzate Use. The office zone district is a
residential district, and this use is not appropriate in a
residential district. The Planning office has already given
their opinion that the use would be allowed in the SCI or
service /commercial /industrial zone district but not in the office
zone district. The impacts of living on Main street are already
substantial, and there is no need to further burden the residents
of Main street with this industrial use. I urge you to protect
the remaining residential uses on Main Street and deny any Code
Amendment. There is a great vet clinic at the AABC, and there is
no demonstrated need for this clinic.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF B. JOSRPH KRABACHBR
AND AS I ES P.0
Sy:
B. Joseph Krabacher
BJK \ch
bjk \1wo1.ff.1
WARREN E RYAN
PRESIDENT
SUSAN BRUCKER
CONTROLLER
SHERRY RYAN
PROreRTI Mn,V(P,t 15, 1996
R Il A L°I l o y 1 LV 1.
715 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE 970
FACSIMILE 970
Via Fax 920 -5439
8i U.S. Mail
Suzanne Wolff
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Proposed Veterinary Clinic
702 West Main Street
Dear Ms. Wolff:
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to any change in zoning that would
allow a veterinary clinic on Main Street.
As a businessman who has maintained an office in the 700 block of Main Street for
approximately six years I would oppose the suggested use. It was intended and
approved for use as an office building which I feel would me more in character with
the overall nature of the neighborhood.
The office zone district is a residential district, this use is not appropriate in a
residential district.
The clinic would kennel pets with the attendant noise, odors and waste. This is
unsuitable for an office/residential district.
Sincerely,
G yt 0A
Warren F. Ryan
President
WFR/fh
Dictated but not read.
06/06/1996 16:22 2145068641 WOOD HELENA " PAGE 02
Helena Wood
9071 World Trade Center
Dallas, TX 75258
Suzanne Wolff
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
,Aspen, CO 81611
8/19/96
Dear Ms. Wolff,
I am contacting you in response to the proposed application to build a
4000 square foot buildi °1g to house a veterinary clinic on the comer of Main
Street and Sixth near the west end. I am totally opposed to the amendment
to add a veterinary clinic as a conditional use of the office building at 702
W. Main Street.
Sincerely,
Helena Wood
�3
Joan Shapiro-Hykes (700 W. Hopkins) QUG 1 9 1996
m iliug address: 205 S. Mill Street
Aspen, CO., 81611
--------- - - - - --
(970) 920 -3364
August 15, 1996
Suzanne Wolff
Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Wolff,
I understand there is a proposed application to build a 4000 sq. ft., building
that would house a veterinary clinic servicing pets on the corner of main-&
6th in the west end of Aspen.
We are very much opposed to this type of establishment in our area. It is
zoned "professional /medical', however, A veterinary clinic does not fit this
description. Dog, cats, etc are not the same as humans given medical
attention or needing overnight care. People as a rule do not disturb the
neighborhood when they are being attended to or staying overnight as a
guest. Every animal clinic and kennel I have been in brings in a lot of noise,
odors, etc., which is probably the reason they are found in the outskirts of
most areas, or in commercial, service, or industrial zones.
Thank you for your attention and consideration in this matter.
Sincerel ,
o n Shapiro!s Allan A. Hykes
08 -16 -1996 12:29PM FROM,,
i
t..
TO 9205439 P.01
ifs i ice.. ��oaxaf Aytri..'WA..6".rr
970 9859890
August 6,1996
VIA FAX 920 -5439
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
Aspen(Pitkin Community Development'
130 south Cralena, `'Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 702 West Main Street
Proposed Veterinary Ciirric
Dear Ms. Wolff:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed change of zoning that
would allow the office building at corner of Main Street and Sixth Street to become a
veterinary clinic. The office zone district is a residential district and use as a veterinary
clinic is not appropriate in a residential district.
My office is across the street and noise generated by the clinic, the odors
generated by the clinic, and the hazardous wastes generated by the clinic are not
compatible with office use.
Very truly yours,
C�Iames / K. y Da / s
Bg
TOTAL P.01
fl-. 11"N
"T HE ASPE EQUITY GROU
AN INV[ 17MFNT COL,1111 IN" MA,'ncF'IF NT COMPANY
R E CG!- '\\,q 77-
AU6 1 1996
August 15, 1996
Suzanne Wolff
Aspen/Pitken Community Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 702 West Main Street Proposed Veterinary Clinic
Dear Ms. Wolff,
I would like to express my deep concern over the proposed veterinary clinic directly
across the street from my office building. Is this the most appropriate use of space
originally zoned for commercial office use? The current proposal is a far cry from
generally quiet, odorless, and sanitary office tenants. I already have several dogs around
my current office, and they are a constant nuisance. I cannot imagine what the overall
environment would be like with scores of additional animals in the same area.
Please maintain a sense of continuity in our business climate. The West End
professional and residential community have integrated over the years into a tolerable
partnership, so lets make every effort to maintain the peace.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
l t�
Robert L. Cluck
President
RLC/bc 70801
715 WEST 1VIAIN STKEE1, Sulu: 101 AsPl N, CO, onnnn 81611 - Puunr: 990925,2133 - 81)U 538, ;139 Fns 9711.915.7326
5 u... . n11—d rhro u,ph Brooksn ti r , Ce I . •, A 1 06u ,1L95D and SIP(. A'Pi, 11A
C11fupuud -1 BraWr: reoJond Fln... -4 Sarni Cury...... a P h 1j, �lnvayenrent Grwip
CUNNINGHAM BROKERAGE COMPANY°'
121 SOUTH GALENA STREET, SUITE 201 AUb a n )SJ96
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
OFFICE (970) 925 -8803
August 16, 1996
Susanne Wolff
Aspen /Pitkin County Development
130 S. Galena St., Third Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Request for Variance
702 W. Main Street
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Susanne:
We are owners of property located at 605 W. Main Street, Aspen,
Colorado. Additionally, our company is responsible for
management of the building for all of the homeowners. Though we
have not been able to reach the majority of the owners to discuss
the variance request for a veterinary clinic at the above
address, we believe, based upon past actions and concerns
expressed by the Board regarding existing dogs in the area, that
the owners, in general, are not in favor of a variance being
granted on the aforementioned property. Specific to our
ownership in the property, we can state that we do have concerns
over any increase in "animal traffic" in the area and do not
believe that such a variance is appropriate.
We would like to be clear that we support free enterprise in
almost every instance. However, such a use in this area, we feel
is inappropriate, specifically as this is a use that is only
appropriate in the service /commercial /industrial district. The
605 W. Main building has a specific concern to this type of use,
as the building is used for medical purposes and specifically for
obstetrics. We feel too that the use as contemplated is
incompatible with the immediate neighborhood.
Sincerely,
i
3 unningham, P esi nt
for
had Mountain Asso fates 1989
and as Managing Ag nt
for S.M.B. Condom n Association
IMC:ljh
y rcumciaiGn 'a , u`cct
Watson's Bay 2030
Sydney Australia
PO Box 8033
Aspen CO 81612
28th August 1996
Ms Suzanne Wolft
Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen CO 81611
Dear Ma'am
As the owner /resident of B 605 West Main, Aspen, 1 wish to strongly object to the
possibility of a veterinary clinic being given permission to build on the corner of Main and
Sixth.
The character and beauty of the West End would surely be impinged upon, not to mention
the odour and noise that inevitably accompany kennels. How could the serene beauty of
the West End be so besmirched! Horrors! And l love dogs.
With thanks for the opportunity to express my views, and trusting that with good will all
around, another site can be found for such a purpose, 1 am
Yours faithfully
Gail Abrahams (formerly Garofani)
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996
two months. Councilwoman Richards said she would like this to become
effective after the first notice. Councilwoman Waggaman agreed with the
warning. Councilwoman Waggaman said the city is not a credit company but is a
service to the people. Councilwoman Waggaman said she prefers 12 percent
rather than 18 percent. Mayor Bennett agreed about 12 percent but said he is
bothered by the $3 charge.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #36, Series of 1996, on
second reading with 12 percent for past due balance and deleting the $3 minimum
charge and having staff produce adequate notice about the change in policy;
seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Marolt, yes;
Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #37 SERIES OF 1996 - Code Amendment - Veterinarian Clinic
Stan Clauson, community development director, told Council the current land use
code does not include veterinary clinic as an allowed use in any of the zones.
The applicant is requesting a text amendment to add definition of a veterinary
clinic and to allow this as a conditional use in the office zone district. Staff
proposes to include this use in S /C /I and RR zones. Clauson reminded Council
when they approved this at first reading, they were concerned about the
conditional use in the office zone. One concern was waste disposal. The city
code does not address the disposal of infectious waste. The state health code
covers disposal. Clauson said waste should be addressed in the definition of a
veterinary clinic and that has been added to the definition.
Clauson said neither the state nor city regulate medical or veterinary clinics. The
proposed text amendments would allow veterinary clinics as a conditional use and
requires review of a specific application by P & Z. One review standard is, "the
location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional
use minimize adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise vibrations, odor on
surrounding properties. The Commission may impose conditions to mitigate
these impacts including specific standards for noise, odor, sanita,+.iori and so forth,
and may require enforcement of specific conditions by city departments."
F....
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996
Clauson reminded Council they requested considering an amendment of the
definition to allow only treatment of small animals. Clauson said a clinic that
treated large animals, like horses, could be accommodated in RR zone, which has
animal husbandry among its permitted uses. Clauson said this should be part of
the conditional use approval rather than the definition. Clauson said Council
questioned whether prohibiting 24 -hour emergency service would lessen the
impact on neighbors. Clauson said staff amended the proposed definition to: "A
veterinary clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or portion thereof
for the care of treatment of animal, where boarding of healthy animals is
prohibited and adequate provisions are made to avoid any and all adverse impacts
on the surrounding neighborhood which might otherwise result from noise,
odors, waste and the like ".
Clauson said in order to approve the text amendment, Council must find the
amendment is compatible with the surrounding zone districts considering existing
landuse and neighborhood characteristics. The office zone includes and abuts
commercial, lodge, single and multi - family and residential uses. Clauson noted P
& Z could consider site specific factors in order to determine if a veterinary
clinic is compatible with surrounding uses and if the impacts could be adequately
mitigated.
Clauson recommended approval of the text amendments based on the finds that
these meet or exceed all applicable development standards and are consistent with
goals and elements of the AACP, that they will allow a prohibited use to operate
in certain zone districts but only if P & Z determines that the use would be
compatible with surrounding uses and are consistent with public welfare.
Clauson said approving this ordinance would give P & Z the ability to have a
conditional use review of a veterinary clinic in office, S /C /I or RR zones at
which time they would assess the impacts of a specific location. If Council does
not believe there are any circumstances that would warrant a veterinary clinic in
the office zone, they should not approve or amend the ordinance by deleting the
office zone.
Joe Wells, representing the applicant, showed Council a map of the 3 proposed
zones for a veterinary clinic. Wells noted tha the RR zone is only the Aspen
club and Benedict office building. The S /C /I is the post office and 10 or 12
privately owned sites, typically rental sites. Wells said the office zone is
generally located along Main street, a large volume corridor, which is bordered
N
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996
on both sides by residential zones. Wells said a conditional use review with
conditions is the appropriate way to allow this veterinary clinic.
Wells said the applicants feel they can build a structure that will not allow noise
to seep out. This may not be affordable; however, the point is the city should set
the standard and the applicant can determine whether they can meet that standard.
Wells said ordinary office waste will be handled the same as everyone else.
Medical waste is kept inside the building at all times, never let inside a dumpster,
and picked up by a waste management company that handles the hospital's waste.
Wells said he feels there is a venting solution. The hours of operation should be
addressed in the conditional use hearing as parking should be addressed.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing.
Joe Krabacher, adjacent property owner, stated this property is no longer under
contract to the applicant. Krabacher said the land use code, Section 26.52.030,
requires demonstration of an owners right to apply for the development
application. Krabacher said it may not be proper for Council to review this
amendment. If Council does want to adopt this, they need to send any
amendments back to P & Z.
Wells stated this is a code amendment request filed jointly by the property owner
and the applicant. Clauson said this is a code amendment. A development
application that would follow would need to be signed by the owner of the
property. This code amendment has been approved by P & Z and forwarded to
Council. John Worcester, city attorney, said this ordinance is not directed
towards any specific property and is a legislative act. Worcester said the sections
referred to by Krabacher allow an applicant to do what the staff normally does
and does not preclude Council from passing an ordinance to rezone if it otherwise
meets the standards for rezoning.
Councilwoman Waggaman pointed out the city has to have services people need
available where they can get to them. Councilwoman Waggaman said if a
veterinary clinic is allowed in the offid-- zone, there should be stricter conditions
for this use. These type of condi±ioris would be small animals only, not 24 -hour
emergency service, tell how many overnight kennels on premises, how large the
practice is anticipated to be (i.e. numbers of veterinarians), show the ventilation
for kennels and observation rooms, appropriate parking to be available, the
10
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15. 1996
owner would be required to clean up litter on their property and adjacent
grounds. These conditions would allow someone to apply for a conditional use
for a specific site and to be reviewed.
Krabacher reiterated that under the submission standards, a development
application may be initiated only be 50 percent of the owners of the property.
The application originally submitted was filed for Dr. Rappaport, not the owner
of the property. Mayor Bennett said he has heard the legislative ability of
Council cannot be limited. Worcester said the code does not cut off the ability
for staff and Council to consider rezoning portions of the city.
Krabacher reminded Council the Stapleton office building was approved by
granting a variances on the minimum lot size, the minimum width of the lot, and
the parking. The applicants also received a special review bonus to increase the
FAR. Krabacher said he is concerned about having 24 hour emergency service in
the office zone. Krabacher said there should be standards in the ordinance to
address the waste issue. Krabacher said there are diseases spread through feces
that may be left outside and waste regulations may not apply to this. Krabacher
said he does not think a building can be soundproofed. There will be noise
whenever the doors are opened. Krabacher reminded Council there are two
employee units located in the basement of this building and no one has addressed
the impacts on these units. Krabacher said the key standard in the code is
whether this is compatible with the adjacent zone districts. Krabacher said he
does not feel this is compatible with the R -6 zone district.
Joan Bayeaux, Victoria Square, stated she and her husband are against this
amendment. Mrs. Bayeaux said this should not be in a residential area. Aspen
is very protective about the environment and putting a veterinary clinic in a
residential area is not environmental. There will not be adequate parking.
Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Richards agreed this is not an appropriate use for the office zone
district. Councilwoman Richards said she would support a text amendment in the
S /C /I. Councilman Marolt agreed he could support this in the S /C /I zone.
Councilwoman Richards said the conditions outlined by Councilwoman
Waggaman should be added to the code amendment. Councilman Paulson said
he has not heard anything to convince him to change his vote from first reading.
11
Councilwoman Waggaman said she feels a person has a right to prove that they
can operate a clinic with the conditions listed above.
Mayor Bennett said this is a difficult issue. Mayor Bennett pointed out the
definition of veterinary clinic includes "avoid any and all adverse impacts of any
type ". However serious concerns have been expressed by many letters. Clauson
noted that P & Z members favored S /C /I and RR; those members who voted no
indicated they could support the use in the S /C /I and RR zones.
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #37, Series of 1996,
amended to add veterinary clinic as a conditional use S /C /I and RR zone districts
only with the conditions regarding odors, waste and noise as outlined by the
planning office; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote;
Councilmembers Richards, yes; Marolt, yes; Paulson, no; Waggaman, yes;
Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to direct staff to draft an ordinance allowing
veterinary clinics in the office zone with a list of specific conditions; seconded by
Councilwoman Richards. Mayor Bennett and Councilwoman Waggaman yes;
Councilmembers Richards, Paulson and Marolt no. Motion NOT carried.
WON"
Stan Clauson, community development director, told Council this project is the
Day subdivision which proposes to demolish buildings with 24 bedrooms. Staff
was concerned whether the applicant was meeting the provision of the resident
multi - family housing replacement program. Clauson cited the requirements of
this section for minimum replacement, "In the event of the demolition of resident
multi - family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement
housing consisting of no less than 50 percent of the square footage of net
residential area demolished or converted. The replacement housing shall be
configured in such a way as to replace 50 percent of the bedrooms that are lost of
working resident housing by demolition and a minimum of 50 percent of the
replacement housing shall be above natural grade ". Clauson noted the emphasis
on construct replacement housing of 50 percent of both the bedrooms and square
footage.
12
-�D c�
10-130GT ::.n to
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner
RE: Veterinary Clinic Text Amendments, First Reading
DATE: September 23, 1996
CW) kL 1/l-7 r ift
Z
SUMMARY: The Aspen Land Use Regulations do not include "veterinary clinic" as an allowed or
conditional use in any zone district. The applicant is requesting approval of a text amendment to allow
; clinic" as a conditional use in the Office zone district. The application packet is attached as
Exhibit A. Staff is also proposing to include "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in the Service/
Commercial/Industrial and the Rural Residential zone districts. The Planning Commission approved the
proposed text amendments by a 4-3 vote on August 20. The Commissioners who voted against the
amendment were in favor of allowing the use in the S /CA and Rural Residential zone districts, but were
opposed to allowing the use in the Office zone district, where it was considered not to be compatible with
surrounding uses.
The applicant concurrently requested conditional use approval to establish a veterinary clinic within the
office building that was previously approved at 702 W. Main St. The Planning Commission tabled this
request on August 20, and the applicant has chosen to delay further review of the conditional use request
until after Council's consideration of the proposed text amendment.
APPLICANT: Jon Rappaport, represented by Joe Wells
BACKGROUND: "Office, professional" is an allowed use in the Office zone district, and is defined in
Section 26.04. 100 of the Aspen Municipal Code as "a building for use by those such as physicians, dentists,
lawyers, architects, engineers, accountants and other professionals who primarily provide services rather
than products." The applicant requested an interpretation from the Community Development Director as to
whether a veterinary clinic would be considered a professional office, and, therefore, an allowed use in the
Office zone. Stan Clauson determined that the impacts of a veterinary clinic were different than those of the
other professional offices included in the definition, and suggested that a veterinary clinic might be
appropriate as a conditional use in the Office zone, which would allow the Planning Commission to review
the impacts and allow neighbors to provide input at a public hearing. Mr. Clauson also suggested that a
veterinary clinic might be appropriate as a conditional use in other zone districts.
REQUEST: The applicant proposes to add a definition of a "veterinary clinic" to the Land Use
Regulations (Section 26.04.100), and to add "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in the Office zone
district (Section 26.28.180). Staff also proposes to add "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in the
Service /Commercial&dustrial (Section 26.28.160) and the Rural Residential (Section 26.28.130) zone
districts.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see comments from the Environmental Health Department (Exhibit
B). Veterinary clinics which board or groom animals must comply with the State's sanitation requirements
and facility construction standards. A clinic would have to comply with the noise levels established in
Section 18.04.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The allowed noise levels for each of the zone districts in
which veterinary clinics are proposed to be allowed are shown below:
• The Office zone district is categorized as a residential district and a commercial district in the definitions
used in the Noise Abatement chapter of the Code. In such cases, the noise limits of the most restrictive use
shall apply, therefore, the noise levels allowed for residential districts are shown.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Text Amendment Adding a definition of "veterinary clinic" and including `veterinary clinic" as a
conditional use in the Office, Service /Commercial/Industrial and Rural Residential zone districts,
requires amending the Land Use Regulations. The proposed definition is:
"Veterinary Clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or portion thereof for the care and
treatment of animals, where boarding of healthy animals is prohibited and adequate provisions are
made to avoid adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood which might otherwise result
from noise and odors. "
The proposed definition is acceptable to staff and the Planning Commission. Only enclosed facilities are
allowed. Kenneling of animals is not allowed; overnight stays would only be allowed for animals
requiring intravenous medication or other in -house treatment. The definition acknowledges that noise,
odors and other adverse impacts must be addressed, but leaves "adequate provisions" to be determined
during a site specific review.
Pursuant to Section 26.92.020, in reviewing an amendment to the text of the land use regulations, the
City Council and Commission shall consider the following standards.
Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
Response: The proposed amendments are consistent with applicable provisions of the Land Use
Regulations.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP).
Use District (Noise Level)
Night
10:00 pm - 7:00 am
Day
7:00 am -10:00 pm
Office
Residential/Commercial'
50 dBA
55 dBA
Service/Commercial/
Industrial
Commercial
55 dBA
65 dBA
Rural Residential
Residential
50 dBA
55 dBA
• The Office zone district is categorized as a residential district and a commercial district in the definitions
used in the Noise Abatement chapter of the Code. In such cases, the noise limits of the most restrictive use
shall apply, therefore, the noise levels allowed for residential districts are shown.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Text Amendment Adding a definition of "veterinary clinic" and including `veterinary clinic" as a
conditional use in the Office, Service /Commercial/Industrial and Rural Residential zone districts,
requires amending the Land Use Regulations. The proposed definition is:
"Veterinary Clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or portion thereof for the care and
treatment of animals, where boarding of healthy animals is prohibited and adequate provisions are
made to avoid adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood which might otherwise result
from noise and odors. "
The proposed definition is acceptable to staff and the Planning Commission. Only enclosed facilities are
allowed. Kenneling of animals is not allowed; overnight stays would only be allowed for animals
requiring intravenous medication or other in -house treatment. The definition acknowledges that noise,
odors and other adverse impacts must be addressed, but leaves "adequate provisions" to be determined
during a site specific review.
Pursuant to Section 26.92.020, in reviewing an amendment to the text of the land use regulations, the
City Council and Commission shall consider the following standards.
Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
Response: The proposed amendments are consistent with applicable provisions of the Land Use
Regulations.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP).
Response: One of the goals of the AACP is to revitalize the permanent community by providing
incentives for local serving commercial uses. A veterinary clinic is a use that would benefit local
residents, and which is currently not permitted and not available within the City of Aspen.
3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses,
considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The purpose, permitted uses and conditional uses for the Rural Residential S /C/I and Office
zone districts are included as Exhibit C.
Service /Commercial/Indugdal (S /C/I): The S /C/I zone district allows a variety of "limited commercial
and industrial uses that do not require or generate high customer traffic volumes." A veterinary clinic
would not conflict with any of the existing or allowed uses in this zone, and would not generate a higher
traffic volume than other allowed uses.
Rural Residential (RR): The RR zone district allows low density residential use and compatible
accessory uses such as farm buildings and use, nursery and greenhouse. A veterinary clinic would be
compatible with the other uses in this zone district, and would have less impact on surrounding uses due
to the lower density.
Office (0): The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is "to provide for the establishment of offices and
associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former
residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along
Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares." The purpose emphasizes commercial and office uses
in this zone district, though single and multi - family residential dwellings and lodges are also located in
this zone and are listed as permitted or conditional uses. The portion of Main Street that is zoned Office
extends to the alleys to the north and south of Main Street with mostly single - family residential use on
the other half of the block. The other areas zoned Office are adjacent to lodge, and single
and multi - family residential uses. This commingling of uses is appropriate as long as a specific use does
not create detrimental impacts on the adjacent uses. Including "veterinary clinic' as a conditional use in
the Office zone district allows the Planning Commission to consider site specific factors in order to
determine if a veterinary clinic would be compatible with the various surrounding uses and if the impacts
could be adequately mitigated.
"Veterinary clinic" is not proposed to be added as a use in other commercial zone districts, such as the
Commercial Core or Commercial (C -1), because they are more tourist- oriented. Staff decided that a
veterinary clinic would be more appropriate in areas that accommodate locally serving businesses, such
as Office and S /C/I.
4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Response: A veterinary clinic in either the Office, S /C/I or Rural Residential zone districts would not
generate traffic beyond that generated by other uses in those zones, and would not affect road safety. An
in -town veterinary clinic might not reduce vehicle trips, but could reduce highway trips since the closest
veterinary clinic is currently located at the AABC.
5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public
facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, water
supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: A veterinary clinic in the Office, S /C/I or Rural Residential zone districts would not create
additional demands on public facilities.
6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse
impacts in the natural environment.
Response: An enclosed veterinary clinic will not adversely affect the natural environment.
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
Response: Pets are a part of the Aspen community character, therefore, allowing for medical treatment
of pets within the City limits is compatible with the community and a benefit to the City's pet - owning
residents.
8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Response: Section 26.28.010 of the Code states, "Any use which is not specifically listed in this chapter
as a permitted or conditional use in a zone district shall be considered prohibited." A veterinary clinic is,
therefore, currently prohibited within the City of Aspen. Staff feels that this prohibition is not intentional
and that it is appropriate to allow "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in certain zone districts that
could accommodate such a use.
9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in
harmony with the intent of the City of Aspen Lard Use Code.
Response: The proposed amendments would not be in conflict with the public interest or the intent of
the Code. Allowing `veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in the Office, S /C/I and Rural Residential
zone districts would require review of a specific application by the Planning Commission to ensure that
the use is compatible with the neighborhood and with adjacent uses and does not create adverse impacts.
Letters submitted by neighbors of 702 W. Main Street have been included as Exhibit D, though these
letters, for the most part, are specific to the conditional use request, and do not address the more general
issue of whether it would be appropriate to include "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in the Office,
S /C/I or Rural Residential zone districts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments, based on
the finding that the text amendments:
meet or exceed all applicable development standards and are consistent with the goals and elements of
the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
will allow a currently prohibited use to operate in certain zone districts, if the Planning Commission
determines that the use would be compatible with surrounding uses; and
are consistent with the public welfare and the purposes and intent of Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve fast reading of Ordinance , Series of 1996,
amending the text of the Land Use Regulations to add a definition of "veterinary clinic" and to add
"veterinary clinic' as a conditional use in the Office, Service/Commercial/ Industrial and Rural Residential
zone districts."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
A - Application Packet
B - Referral Comments
C - Rural Residential, Service/CommerciaUlndustrial and Office Zone Districts: Purpose, Permitted and
Conditional Uses
D - Public comment
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AMENDING
CHAPTER 26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO WIT:
SECTION 26.04.100 DEFINITION OF "VETERINARY CLINIC";
SECTION 26.28.130, RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT
SECTION 26.28.160, SERVICE /COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT
SECTION 26.28.180, OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT
ORDINANCE , SERIES OF 1996
WHEREAS, Section 26.92.020 of the Municipal Code provides that amendments to
Chapter 26 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use Regulations ", shall be reviewed and recommended for
approval by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at public
hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, "veterinary clinic" is not specifically listed in Chapter 26 as a permitted or
conditional use in any zone district, and is, therefore, currently a prohibited use within the City of Aspen
WHEREAS, John Rappaport is requesting approval of text amendments to add a definition of
"veterinary clinic" and to allow "veterinary clinic' as a conditional use in the Office zone district; and
WHEREAS, staff also proposes to allow "veterinary clinic' as a conditional use in the Service/
Commercial/Industrial and the Rural Residential zone districts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments at
a public heating on August 20, 1996; and
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the text amendments, agency and public
comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Municipal
Code, to wit, Division 92 (Text Amendments), the Planning and Zoning Commission has
1
recommended approval of the text amendments by a vote of 43, pursuant to procedure as
authorized by Section 26.92.030 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the text amendments
under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and
considered those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendments meet or exceed all applicable
development standards and are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments will allow a
currently prohibited use to operate in certain zone districts, if the Planning Commission determines
that the use would be compatible with surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments are consistent with
the public welfare and the purposes and intent of Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN COLORADO:
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.92.020 (Standards of Review) of the Municipal Code, the City
Council finds as follows in regard to the text amendments:
The proposed text amendments are not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 26 of the
Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan.
2
2. The proposed text amendments are compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses.
The proposed text amendments will promote the public interest and character of the City of
Section 2: Section 26.04. 100 of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code is amended to add a
definition of "Veterinary Clinic", which text shall read as follows:
Veterinary Clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or portion thereof for the care and
treatment of animals, where boarding of healthy animals is prohibited and adequate provisions are
made to avoid adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood which might otherwise result
from noise and odors.
Section 3: Section 26.28.130 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Rural Residential Zone District,
subsection "C ", Conditional Uses, is hereby amended to add the following use:
12. Veterinary Clinic
Section 4 : Section 26.28.160 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Service/Commercial/Industrial
Zone District, subsection "C ", Conditional Uses, is hereby amended to add the following use:
9. Veterinary Clinic
Section 5: Section 26.28.180 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Office Zone District, subsection
"C ", Conditional Uses, is hereby amended to add the following use:
10. Veterinary Clinic
Section 10: 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 11: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 12: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 15th day of October, 1996 at
5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) 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 day of . 1996.
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
File Location: C:\HOME\SUZANNEW \CASES \TXTAMEND \VEnORD.DOC
day of 1996.
4
Proposed Vet Clinic definition:
"Veterinary Clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or portion thereof for the care and
treatment of animals, where boarding of healthy animals is prohibited and adequate provisions are made to
avoid adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood which might otherwise result from noise and
odors."
John Bennett's suggested amendment:
"Veterinary Clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or portion thereof for the care and
treatment of small animals, where boarding of healthy animals is prohibited and adequate provisions are
made to avoid any and all adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood which might otherwise result
from noise, and odors, waste, and the like."
Other concerns:
• Addition of "small" may not be appropriate because clinic in Rural Residential could handle larger
animals
• 24 hour emergency service
• Enforcement/compliance with conditions
• Standards for waste disposal
• "oversight" by Environmental Health
• Through Conditional Use Review, P &Z should consider: # of employees, # of doctors, # & type of
animals, where the animal holding spaces will be located within the building
• Office is a dense zone - minimal setbacks, can't use distance to mitigate
• Venting of odors out of building - impact on adjacent buildings
• Impacts of animals coming & going from clinic
• Not enough parking in Office zone
• Noise - soundproofing; is residential noise level adequate - could P &Z require lower noise level for this
use?
V.,p ct" 9 I z y — � C6-, �
ti
c��
C t4
Lk
PL
Er� V W c"PL-C /t c
q L-n
U � _rte _ d
.�
- OL- P - �t-� CLA c T
Clt-Lo
- It 8 dJl S 6 ( ov, d u - O- d- �� 7
C T --, CIL
- - e�7, -C
d q
fo
9 2 _
at) w
6c��-
LAW OFFICES OF
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
and Associates P.C.
B. Joseph Krabacher'
Curtis B. Sanders'
Michael G. Topalov ^
Nickolai V. Prokhorov
Igor B. Porohkin ^
Jerome Professional Building
201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 201
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -3206
Tel: (970) 925 -6300
Fax: (970) 925 -1181
Moscow office
9 Krasnoproletatskaya
Suite No. 3
103330 MOSCOW
RUSSIA
• Admitted in US only
- Admitted in Russia only
John Bennett
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
emailgntemet address:
lusbadser @igcapcorg
September 24, 1996
Re: Proposed Text Amendment for Veterinary Clinics
in the Office, SCI and RR Zone Districts
Dear Mr. Bennett:
I wanted to contact you directly to provide some comments
regarding the proposed text amendment to the City of Aspen Land Use
Code that would allow veterinary clinics in the Office Zone
District. I am not opposed to the Code amendment in the SCI zone
district.
However, I live and reside in the Office Zone District, next
door to the proposed veterinary hospital and clinic. For the
reasons set forth below, I believe that a veterinary clinic should
never be a conditional use in the Office zone, but with appropriate
standards included it might be used in the SCI zone district. As
written, the Code Amendment is seriously deficient and needs
substantial reworking if it is to utilized as an effective
"measuring stick" for the Planning and Zoning Commission to decide
whether approval should be given for a specific location.
1. Background I understand that the proposed text
amendment would add a veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the
Office, SCI and RR zone districts. If the text amendment were
approved by City Council, the Applicant would be required to obtain
approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission for a specific
location, and would need to address any Code standards before the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The City Council will not address
any site specific application, as the Planning and Zoning
Commission is the final reviewing body. it is exceedingly
important to include standards by which the Planning and Zoning
Commission will review a site specific application.
2. Incentives for Historic Preservation You will note when
reviewing the current zone district regulations for the Office zone
district that primarily all of the uses allowed in the Office zone
district as "conditional uses are only permitted in an historic
structure. There are a couple of exceptions, but 18 of the uses
require an historic structure, whereas all the other uses (ADU's,
health and fitness facilities, lodges, daycare center and
commercial parking lot) are intended to address existing conditions
on Main Street.
Overall, it is my understanding that conditional uses in the
Office zone district are allowed as an incentive to historic
preservation. In the proposed Code amendment, the conditional use
would be allowed regardless of whether it is conducted in an
historic structure. In my opinion, this is inconsistent with the
historic incentives provided for the Office zone district.
In addition, the proposal is inconsistent with the Master Plan
for the Aspen area, which is intended to preserve residential uses
as well as the scale of structures in Aspen. If adopted, the Code
amendment would allow a 4,000 square foot structure to be built on
a 4,000 square foot lot and will serious impact the neighborhood,
and will likely prompt redevelopment of adjacent sites for
commercial purposes.
Located across the alley from the R -6 zone district, the
Office zone is not appropriate because it is too close to adjacent
residential uses, and incompatible with those uses.
3. Operation of Vet Hospital and Clinic The Applicant has
argued that it was simply an oversight not to include a veterinary
clinic when medical offices are allowed in the Office zone
district. However, you should consider the differences between a
medical office and an emergency facility such as a veterinary
clinic and hospital. Medical offices are open specific hours,
typically 9:00 through 5:00 and are closed during the evenings. In
this regard they are much more compatible with residential uses,
which are primarily used at night when the residents are home.
The Applicant has acknowledged that the facility will provide
24 hour on -call service. Thus, there will be a 24 hour a day use
which is inconsistent with both the office as well as the adjacent
R -6 zone district.
4. Medical wastes Perhaps the most serious flaw with the
proposed Code amendment is its lack of any standards to address the
disposal of solid wastes. Under the current language of the City
of Aspen Land Use Code, a proposed conditional use is reviewed
under the provision of Chapter P 26.60 by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
i
The general standards applicable to all conditional uses do
not adequately address the disposal of biological wastes. The only
standard is contained in Section 26.60.040.D which requires that
there be adequate public facilities and services for solid waste
disposal.
I have researched the issue of the regulation of veterinary
clinics at both the state and local level. According to the State
of Colorado Department of Health and Department of Agriculture,
there is no state regulation of the disposal of biological wastes
for the project as proposed.
I also contacted Tom Dunlop at the City of Aspen Environmental
Health Department, and he acknowledged that there is no specific
regulation of medical waste generated by a veterinary facility.
Therefore, a proposed veterinary clinic would essentially be
regulated as to the disposal of solid wastes by the standards
generally applicable to any solid wastes (e.g., disposal by BFI or
Pak'M, or the County landfill) , unless conditions are imposed by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Under the existing language of the Land Use Code, the
conditional use standards are insufficient to provide guidance to
the Planning and Zoning Commission as to the types of issues that
should be addressed with the disposal of biological solid waste.
I have attempted to locate an expert witness to testify as to
the hazards of a veterinary clinic, and I hope to have an expert
available to testify at the public hearing. However, I have
conducted extensive research and interviews with local
veterinarians to determine the types of problems that they
regularly face. These problems include the following:
a) People always bring their animals to hospitals as
emergencies. The emergencies can occur at any time of
night. Whenever people come to a veterinary clinic, it
tends to wake up the sleeping animals and they start
making noise.
b) There is no state regulation of biological waste, and
there is no specific local regulation either, except
under standards applicable to solid waste in general.
Accordingly, waste is typically disposed of in a regular
dumpster, including needles and other "sharps" that can
cause injury. Indeed, one of the local vets that I
interviewed (who was unwilling to use his name) confirmed
that BFI has complained about their employees being stuck
by needles in the waste.
c) There are a variety of diseases and viruses that are
spread by the stools of animals. It is my understanding
that the City of Aspen was recently sued as a result of
animal wastes on the playing field that had apparently
infected a person. This is particularly true around
veterinary hospitals and clinics. The typical veterinary
hospital takes the pets out to walk them at least two
times a day, seven days a week. In addition, whenever
customers arrive at the clinic, they typically allow
their pet to defecate before or after taking them into
the clinic. The local veterinary clinics have had a
variety of complaints regarding dogs defecating on
adjacent properties.
d) There are a variety of diseases that are spread by the
stools of dogs. In particular, the "parvo virus" is a
life threatening disease. Dogs that have parvo virus
typically vomit and have diarrhea. The virus is shed in
the stool of the animal for up to ten days after
treatment. It is easily spread by other animals,
children or adults coming in contact with the stools.
e) Puppies frequently have worms and as a result have
diarrhea. This is a source of infection for any other
animal. The puppies also shed the worms in their stools
and this can cause it to be picked up by other animals.
The proposed Code Amendment is deficient because it does not
provide a framework for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
address these issues.
The proposed clinic will be located on the corner of Sixth and
Main, which is a very busy traffic spot as people frequently walk
from Sixth over to the Hickory House and back. It would seem
inconceivable to me that a veterinary clinic would be approved
virtually next door to a restaurant, and there is no assurance that
the Planning and Zoning Commission will properly exercise its
discretion when there are insufficient standards set forth in the
proposed Code Amendment to address the disposal of biological solid
wastes.
S. Other Zone Districts I believe that it may be
appropriate to adopt the Code Amendment limited to the SCI zone
district since this is a much more intensive zone district and
prohibits free market residential uses. Overall, I believe that
the Code Amendment has been very poorly thought out and contains
insufficient standards that would permit the Planning and Zoning
Commission to exercise its discretion in a manner that will protect
the adjacent property owners and residential uses.
Thank you for your consideration of this information, and I
look forward to seeing you at the public hearing at which time I
will address these and other issues regarding the failure of the
Code Amendment to satisfy the applicable standards for a code
amendment.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
AND ASSOCIATES P.C.
B. Joseph Krabacher
bjk \1counci1.1
,-•
�5 °avow w
PARRIFSH KRUIDENIER Moss DUNN & MONTGOMERY
LAWYERS
ALFREDO PARRISH
ELIZABETH KRUIDENIER
ANDREW J. DUNN
MAGGI MOSS
ROBERT P. MONTGOMERY
MATTHEW M, BOLES
MATTHEW S. SHEELEY
MARGARET R. STUARTt
PAIGE E. FIEDLER
W. PATRICK WEGMAN
HENRY HAMILTON III
September 19, 1996
2910 GRAND AVENUE
DES MOINES, IOWA 50312 -4297
(515)284 -5737
(800) 532-1405
FAX (515) 284 -1704
Rpcp p
SEP 2 3
"faea9er /Mayor's off
My
222 THIRD AVENUE SE, SUITE 299
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52401
(319) 298 -9392
FAX (319) 298 9394
tALSO LICENSED IN PENNSYLVANIA
The Honorable Mayor John Bennett
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mayor Bennett:
pI� ?RiBUTED TO:
L
C, �sponse By:
Fay OBCe'
I am writing to oppose the building of a veterinary clinic at the corner of Sixth and Main
Streets. Such a clinic would not fit into the office (0) zone, and there is no provision in the
code for such a structure. I own the home at 635 West Bleeker, and I believe a veterinary
clinic at the specified site would generate noise and waste incompatible with a primarily
residential neighborhood.
I am a dog lover, but I also love the peace and quiet of our westend neighborhood.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Eli�S. Kruidenier
ESK/rd
FOR DEPOQ'T ONLY
SEP 2 6 i�96
Cgm. Utiv." I..-- ._. -..
v
O
�i
O
O
W
N
n �
L
e
g
v�
E
N
6=
N B.EFN
ro 0 mo o 3 v R o..
�+ ,c OO •� � � � "� � ,n .�e d '� � � � 3 '� `ai' on n.
W u^ U V T q
B ^^�w° ° T _ y c y � ya ' p S Q �',��' B ° ❑ � ' 3 °tb
a o
0!
> � .c. � B�N�.5�Eo��a
�� a m z °" w T�•� o�E a3... >,� �` w v
B •° �1 h C :? 4 A ro a
•oc 3 v 3 � 4 372�J
f o ro O d Q ro B
.5 .E -0 b � d
r3 5 g Q d O .'.9 0 C
d�_roE Q aJO;tl
�Tp G O C 1il -• d d p 'O �y C
O
p q i�i U Cl N c�.0 .O 0.
_ . >
cx� c = W = ? o
5 v ,a *' p• O C7 �� � � E
•p 7 C . T,8 U �
2 ID
7 °'"�
O �
> o "'3 O r+ a t a
boa' �O o
r3 '�.Uq�C N .I. O NT
O E A
g � g 8��yv'8oE�3a�uo = =L% 3
91. ro
m 5"
� E
r� •o .J d T'G
ro o oa C ;'$ �3 °B m •O as a N„ o
aNi o nE o.
3C��x
Ln
N
�3 °Ed
.5 mvd =oc d ��r OT
3 � 3 F3w � a�� �t ^_ >`.c. °,� gF" S a ° E a
d as o as N ai
ag, a. ° q' ° o�mo sN mEcg mo3 :c�
y • ro 6 r 7 c$ � 3 o anA i
eta a 'E��A� s a3: Ed o_ w
32 a
3 on � -u >
N Tao. •� v y � y� 0.� a3i o C> ��• as V� C .5 d N_ y •o ci
rF�� NN�Eg ,��X� �o ❑ ov�c� a.�a
e5°ca�. Couroa �.4��$aa 3Ea�•N
a N�83
4.9 >aoroau a�3 •vn &'m �.'a� T �• OCk o �,2
m�` 82 1 a
Neighbors concerr �d about health
CLINIC from page 1
Building neighbor. "Most people are
shocked that they would even consid-
er it for this location."
He argued it would be near impossi-
ble for the city to regulate smells, and
while the clinic may not violate sound
ordinances, constant barking could
irritate neighbors.
Animal feces and the lack of regu-
lations for the disposal of biological
wastes also could present a slew of
health risks, especially next to a
restaurant, the Hickory House, he
wrote in a Sept. 24 letter to the Daily
News.
"There is no state regulation of bio-
logical waste, and there is no specific
local regulation either, except under
standards applicable to solid waste in
general," Krabacher wrote.
Accordingly, waste is typically dis-
posed of in a regular dumpster, includ-
ing needles and other 'sharps' that can
cause injury. Indeed, one of the local
vets that I interviewed (who was
unwilling to use his name) confirmed
that BFI has complained about their
employees being stuck by needles in
the waste."
Neighbor Graeme Means said air
from the clinic could be pumped out
less than 10 feet from where people
are sleeping and feces could carry dis-
eases.
Joe Wells, Rappaport's attorney,
said his client has wanted to start an
Aspen clinic for many years, but
declined to go into specifics.
The city's planning staff supports
the zoning amendments that would
allow veterinary clinics in areas zoned
for service /commercial /industrial,
rural /residential and office, city plan-
ner Suzanne Wolff said.
She said that any clinic would be
subject to conditional use approval by
the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission to insure it was compati-
ble with the surrounding neighbor-
hood.
Council members didn't go into
great detail on their opinions on the
clinic, but each said they would have a
hard time supporting it because of the
possible problems outlined by
Krabacher and Means.
Mayor John Bennett said he once
had an office by the AABC pet clinic
and didn't hear a "peep of noise."
But he acknowledged that biologi-
cal wastes and the air pumped out of
the clinic could present a series of real
health questions.
Both Krabacher and Means said
they support amendments that would
allow clinics in service /commercial/
industrial zones and mraUresidential
zones, but having a clinic in an office
zone is not appropriate.
Since plans for the clinic have been
announced, a group of 15 residents
and businesses have written letters to
the city requesting that a clinic not put
in their neighborhood.
The Christian Science Society, 734
W. Main St., also objected to having a
pet clinic on its block.
"The members of our church feel
that this use will generate noise, odors,
and wastes, and the barking of the
dogs will disturb our church services
which are held twice during the
week," clerk Jane G. Liddy wrote. "It
will also be a disturbance to the quiet
needed when our Reading Room is
open to the public on Monday,
Wednesday and Friday afternoons,
where people come to read and study
in peace."
Wells said Rappaport will attend the
next meeting and hopefully will
address both the council's and neigh-
bors' concems.
I
517 E. H(
When nature calls
Group barks out
against vet clinic
By Jon Burstein
A s Da ly Naws SWff Wrier
Zoning amendments that would allow a vetei
nary clinic on Main Street didn't gather much su
port from the Aspen City Council on Tuesday, afl
West Side residents argued the proposal would se
their neighborhood to the dogs.
Each of the four attending council members sz
they weren't against the idea of having a clinic
town, but allowing it in an area with both offices a
homes may not be appropriate. Councilwom
Rachel Richards was absent.
"I probably have a hard time supporting this
the end analysis," Councilman Max Marolt said.
If the council votes on Oct. 15 against conditi(
ally allowing pet clinics in office zone districts.
would kill plans by veterinarian Jon Rappaport
open a clinic in the old Stapleton Building at 702
Main St.
That would be fine with a group of 15 neighbc
who have argued that the clinic would not only p
duce unwanted noises and odors, but could con,
rate a potential health hazard.
"Everyone I've talked to in the neighborhooc
against this," said Joe Krabacher, a Staple
Please see CLINIC on pac
LAW OFFICES OF
B. JOSEPH KRABACH R
and Associates P.C. -
Jerome Professional Building
201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 201
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -3206
B. Joseph Krabacher-
Moscow Office
Curtis B. Sanders*
9 Krasnoproletarskaya
Michael G. Topalov^
Suite No. 3
Nickolai V. Prokhorov^
Tel: (970) 925 -6300
103330 MOSCOW
Igor B. Porohkin ^
Fax: (970) 925 -1181
RUSSIA
• Admitted in US only
mail/lntemet addren:
"Admitted in Ravin only
kmloacher @igcapcorg
September 5, 1996
Re: Veterinary Clinic and Hospital
702 West Main Street
Dear Neighbor:
I previously wrote to you regarding the proposed vet clinic
and hospital to be located at 702 West Main Street. On August 20,
1996, I appeared to oppose the Planning and Zoning Commission's
approval of the text amendment. I was unsuccessful, although the
Planning and Zoning Commission narrowly voted in favor of the text
amendment by a 4 to 3 vote.
The project now will go to the City Council on October 21,
1996 at 5:00 P.M. for a second reading of the Ordinance. This will
be the only public hearing on this matter before City Council. I
urge you to contact your City Council Members directly or to appear
at the hearing to oppose this project.
In a related matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission has
postponed the public hearing on the site specific portion of the
application until November 5, 1996 at 4:30 P.M.. This will be the
last public hearing on this matter. I urge you to attend this
public hearing as well in order to oppose this project.
I have extensive materials in my office which are available to
anyone by simply phoning us at 970 - 925 -6300.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
AND,ASSO
By: \
B. Joseph Krabacher
BJK \ch
bjk \1702.3
2m
a6
Na
W y
C) W
sf
w o
J�
0w
om
2
,6
r-
0
0
U
a
a
U
z
E
n
z
2
w
f
w
a
m
a
W
m
O
2
(gg) Sound pressure level. Twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio of I
of a sound to the reference pressure of twenty (20) micronewtons per square meter (20 x 10 New,
and is expressed in decibels (dB).
(hh) Steady noise. A sound pressure level which remains essentially constant during the period a,
i.e., does not vary more than six (6) dB(A) when measured with the "slow" meter characteri
level meter.
(ii) Use district. Those districts established by the City of Aspen Zoning Ordinance (Title 2
established by this chapter. (Ord. No. 2 -1981, § 1; Ord. No. 36 -1989, § 1: Code 1971, § 16.2)
18.04.030 Noises prohibited.
(a) General prohibitions. In addition to the specific prohibitions outlined in subsection (b)
sections 18.04.040 and 18.04. 100 of this chapter, it shall be unlawful, with penalties provided I
Municipal Code, section 1.04.080, for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or Coto
noise, as defined in this chapter, within the Aspen city limits.
(b) Specific prohibitions. The following acts are declared to be in violation of this Oil
(1) Horns and signaling devices. Sounding of any horn or signaling device on any tmdc, gi
motorcycle, emergency vehicle or other vehicle on any street or public place within the City of Atpj
as a danger warning signal, or the sounding of any such signaling device for an unnecessary and t
period of time, which period is deemed herein to be any time after which the danger being wri0
is clearly passed.
(2) Radios, television sets, musical instruments, tape players, record players and similar d
(a) Using, operating or permitting the use or operation of any radio receiving set, musical i
television, phonograph, tape player or other machine or device for the production or repmducdW
except as provided for in section 18.04.030(b)(3) below, in such a manner to violate section 191
(b) The operating of any such device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 am. in sod
as to be plainly audible at twenty-five (25) feet from such device when operated within a vehl*
a public right -of -way.
(3) Public loudspeakers.
(a) Using or operating a loudspeaker or sound amplifying equipment in a fixed or movat
or mounted upon any vehicle in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, mall, park, place or publie p
the purpose of commercial advertising, giving instructions, directions, talks, addresses, lectures or t
music to any persons or assemblages of persons in such a manner as to violate section 18.04.0
permit as provided in section 18.04.070 is first obtained.
(b) This subsection does not apply to any person who is participating in a parade for whM
permit has been issued by the city.
(4) Animals. Owning, keeping, possessing or harboring any animal or animals, including t
by frequent or habitual noisemaking, violate(s) section 18.04.040. The provisions of this sectioQ
to all public and private facilities, including any animal pounds, which hold or treat animals-
(5) Engine idling.
272
m
18.04.040 Use district noise levels.
Maximum permissible sound levels. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any j
permit to be operated any stationary source of sound in such a manner as to create - 1
a ninetieth percentile sound pressure level (1.0 of any measurement period (which shall
(10) minutes unless otherwise provided in this chapter) which exceeds the limits set foal
receiving land use districts when measured at the boundary or at any point within the'p
the noise:
Use District Night Day
10:00 p.m. -7:00 a.m. 7:00 a-m. -10:00 p.m. t
Residential 50 dB(A) 55 dB(A)
Lodge 55 dB(A) 60 dB(A)
Commercial 55 dB(A) 65 dB(A)
Industrial Not Applicable 80 dB(A)
When a noise source can be identified and its noise measured in more than one us
of the most restrictive use shall apply at the boundaries between the land use categories.'
not apply when the least restrictive use is a floating industrial district, in which case the
the industrial district shall apply, notwithstanding the boundaries of the more restrictive
temporary nature of the industrial use. If an area is zoned SPA, the use category will b
d predominant existing uses within that area. (Ord. No. 2 -1981, § 1; Ord. No. 36 -1989, § 1:
Won" 18.04.050 Sound level measurement.
Sound level measurements shall be made with a sound level meter using the "
accordance with standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute or of
tested and adopted by the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Departrent. (Ord. No. 2
§ 16 -5)
18.04.060 Exemptions.
The following uses and activities shall be exempt from noise level regulations:
(a) Noise of safety signals, warring devices and emergency pressure relief valves, a
for in section 18.04.030(b)(1).
(b) Noise resulting from any authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an e
acting in time of emergency.
(c) Noise resulting from emergency work, as further provided for in section 18.04.
(d) Noise resulting from activities of a temporary duration for which a permit has t
the director of the AsperMtkin Environmental Health Department in accordance with seclion
(Ord. No. 2 -1981, § 1: Code 1971, § 16 -6)
18.04.070 Permits.
Applications for a permit for relief from noise restrictions in this chapter on the basis
r , F or special circumstances may be made to the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health DePar
li m granted by the director of the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department or an author
j w shall contain all conditions upon which said permit has been granted, including, but not limi
1 m
SENT BY =Id aACM & ASSOCIATES; 8 -29 -98 ; 8:92 ;
'970 920 5489;# 2/ 2
LAW OFFICES OF
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
unJ Amnciakes P.C.
hrome P, fexxwnef B"adiv
201 N. MILL SIRHHC, SUM 281
ASPRN, COLORADO 81611 -3206
13. ]wept Krabaehm
Cuc1L a. Sandms'
bfichuel G' T4Pklw'
NU.w V. Prokbu�'
lye[ B Purohlie ^
AA*" h us ay
^Adm dkKwu)-*
Yet: (970) 9256700
Fax (970) 9254181
kre6adi0kpippap�.at5
August 29, 1996
Via Telefax to 920 -5439
Suzanne Wolff
Aspen /pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Re 702 West Main Street
proposed veterinary Clinic
Dear Suzanne_
Mas 00we
9 K,y, tnopralclwskxyA
S.uie Nn 3
100. MOSCOW
RUSSIA
As a member of the public, I request that you advise me
whenever the Applicant submits any additional materials with
respect to the veterinary clinic and hospital proposed for 7o2 West
is a
Main Street, Aspen Colorado 81611. As you know, t and it was
conditional use hearing scheduled for September 3,
my understanding from the prior hearing that the applicant plans to
submit some additional materials.
In order to be prepared for the hearing and to provide the
most effective public comment, I request that you send me copies,
or make copies available at my coat, as soon as they are received.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
if you have any questions, please let me know.
very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
AND ASSOCIATES P.C.
By.
B.eph ether
BJK \ch
bjk\wolff.2
RI
u1 000D'A ►101051
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner
RE: Veterinary Clinic Text Amendments and Conditional Use Review for 702 W. Main St. -
Public Hearing
DATE: August 20, 1996
SUMMARY: The Aspen Land Use Regulations do not include "veterinary clinic" as an allowed or
conditional use in any zone district. The applicant is requesting approval of a text amendment to allow a
veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the Office zone district, and conditional use approval to establish a
veterinary clinic within the office building that was previously approved for this lot. The application packet
is attached as Exhibit A. Staff is also proposing to include veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the
Service /Commercial/Industrial and the Rural Residential zone districts. Staff recommends approval of the
text amendments and the conditional use review with conditions.
APPLICANT: Jon Rappaport, represented by Joe Wells
LOCATION: 702 W. Main St.; east 10' of Lot R and all of Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen
ZONING: Office (0)
LOT SIZE: 4,000 square feet
BACKGROUND: The proposed office building at 702 W. Main Street has received the following
approvals:
• September 9, 1993: Board of Adjustment approved variances from the minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet and the minimum lot width of 60 feet in the Office zone district.
• Resolution No. 93 -32: Planning Commission granted Special Review approval to reduce the required
number of parking spaces (four on -site spaces and a payment -in -lieu of $15,000 /space for five spaces)
and granted an increase in the allowed floor area from 0.75:1 to 0.86:1.
• Resolution No. 3, Series of 1994: City Council granted a commercial GMQS allotment of 2,423 square
feet of net leasable space to the proposed Stapleton office building at 702 W. Main St.
• Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1994: Council granted a GMQS Exemption to develop two on -site
affordable dwelling units to mitigate employee generation impacts.
• February 22, 1995: Historic Preservation Commission approved the Final Development Plan and
demolition of the existing non - contributing structures on the property.
• August 3, 1995: Board of Adjustment reversed the required side yard setbacks as recommended by
HPC.
"Office, professional" is an allowed use in the Office zone district, and is defined in Section 26.04. 100 of
the Aspen Municipal Code as "a building for use by those such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects,
engineers, accountants and other professionals who primarily provide services rather than products." The
applicant requested an interpretation from the Community Development Director as to whether a veterinary
clinic would be considered a professional office, and, therefore, an allowed use in the Office zone. Stan
Clauson determined that the impacts of a veterinary clinic were greater than those of the other professional
offices included in the definition, and suggested that a veterinary clinic might be appropriate as a
conditional use in the Office zone, which would allow the Planning Commission to review the impacts and
allow for input from the neighbors at a public hearing. Mr. Clauson also suggested that a veterinary clinic
might be appropriate as a conditional use in other zone districts.
REQUEST: The applicant proposes to add a definition of a "veterinary clinic" to the Land Use
Regulations (Section 26.04.100), and to add "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in the Office zone
district (Section 26.28.180). Staff also proposes to add "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in the
Service /Commercial/Industrial (Section 26.28.160) and the Rural Residential (Section 26.28.130) zone
districts. The applicant is also requesting conditional use approval to allow a veterinary clinic in the
previously approved office building at 702 W. Main St.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see comments from the Environmental Health Department (Exhibit
B). Veterinary clinics which board or groom animals must comply with the State's sanitation requirements
and facility construction standards. The allowed noise levels in a commercial use district are 55dB(A)
between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am and 65 dB(A) between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. Any noise from the clinic
must comply with these levels.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Text Amendment Adding a definition of "veterinary clinic" and including "veterinary clinic" as a
conditional use in the Office, Service /Commercial/Industrial and Rural Residential zone districts,
requires amending the Land Use Regulations. The proposed definition is:
"Veterinary Clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or portion thereoffor the care and
treatment of animals, where boarding of healthy animals is prohibited and adequate provisions are
made to avoid adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood which might otherwise result
from noise and odors. "
Pursuant to Section 26.92.020, in reviewing an amendment to the text of the land use regulations, the
City Council and Commission shall consider the following standards.
1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
Response: The proposed amendments are consistent with applicable provisions of the Land Use
Regulations.
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP).
2
Response: One of the goals of the AACP is to revitalize the permanent community by providing
incentives for local serving commercial uses. A veterinary clinic is a use which would benefit local
residents, and which is currently not permitted and not available within the City of Aspen.
3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses,
considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The Office zone district allows "professional business offices ", which includes offices for
"physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, accountants and other professionals who primarily
provide services rather than products." Numerous medical offices are located within the Office zone,
along with residential and other office uses. Staff feels that a veterinary clinic could be appropriate in
this zone district, if noise, odor and other impacts can be considered through a conditional use review
and adequately mitigated.
The Service /Commercial/Industrial (S /C/1) zone district allows a variety of "limited commercial and
industrial uses which do not require or generate high customer traffic volumes." A veterinary clinic
would not conflict with any of the existing or allowed uses in this zone, and would not generate a higher
traffic volume than other allowed uses.
The Rural Residential zone district allows low density residential use and compatible accessory uses
such as farm buildings and use, nursery and greenhouse. A veterinary clinic would be compatible with
the other uses in this zone district, and would have less impact than in more densely developed zone
districts.
The proposed definition of "veterinary clinic' is acceptable to staff, in that it addresses kenneling of
animals, noise and odors, which are the most important issues with regard to the compatibility of a
veterinary clinic with the surrounding area.
4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Response: A veterinary clinic in either the Office, S /C/1 or Rural Residential zone districts would not
generate traffic beyond that generated by other uses in those zones, and would not affect road safety.
5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public
facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, water
supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: The demand for public facilities would be the same for a veterinary clinic as for other uses in
the Office, S /C/1 and Rural Residential zone districts.
6 Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse
impacts in the natural environment.
Response: A veterinary clinic will not adversely affect the natural environment.
7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
3
Response: Pets are a part of the Aspen community character, therefore, allowing for the treatment of
pets within the City limits is compatible with the community character. and a benefit to the City's pet -
owning residents.
8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Response: Section 26.28.010 of the Code states, "Any use which is not specifically listed in this chapter
as a permitted or conditional use in a zone district shall be considered prohibited." A veterinary clinic is,
therefore, currently prohibited within the City of Aspen. Staff feels that this prohibition is not intentional
and that it is appropriate to allow a veterinary clinic as a conditional use in certain zone districts which
could accommodate such a use.
9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in
harmony with the intent of the City of Aspen Land Use Code.
Response: The proposed amendments would not be in conflict with the public interest or the intent of
the Code. Allowing a veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the Office zone district would require
review of a specific application by the Planning Commission in order to ensure that the use is compatible
with the neighborhood and with adjacent, including residential, uses.
Conditional Use Review Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, the criteria for a conditional use review are as
follows:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is purposed to be
located,
RESPONSE: As noted above, one of the goals of the AACP is to revitalize the permanent community by
providing incentives for local serving commercial uses. A veterinary clinic is a use which would benefit
local residents, and which is currently not permitted and not available within the City of Aspen. A
veterinary clinic is consistent with the intent of the Office zone district, which is to "provide for the
establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve... commercial uses
along Main Street...."
R The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of
complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development,
RESPONSE: The previous approvals established the compatibility of the proposed office building with the
surrounding area and uses. Due to the clinic's proximity to existing residences (to the west, to the north
across the alley and to the east across Sixth St.), the clinic must not have any impacts above and beyond
those associated with any other professional office which would be permitted in this location. The issues of
noise and odors are addressed below.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes
adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking,
trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties;
RESPONSE: Many of these issues, such as visual impacts, parking, and circulation were addressed during
the original review, and are unaffected by the proposed conditional use. The issues of noise and odors
associated with a veterinary clinic are addressed in a letter from the applicant's architect, which is included
as Exhibit 10 of the application. The facility will be fully enclosed, and to mitigate noise from the facility,
sound absorption and sound isolation techniques will be utilized. It is anticipated that these techniques
would eliminate practically any sounds caused by animals which could be heard outside of the facility. A
total sound barrier is proposed on the north and west sides so sound will not impact the adjacent residential
structures, and sound on the south and east sides will be masked by traffic noise. Odors will be controlled
through proper waste disposal, daily cleaning of animal housing, and use of durable and easily - cleaned
surfaces. A screened trash collection area will be provided adjacent to the service entrance off of the alley.
The proposed definition of "veterinary clinic" prohibits kenneling of healthy animals, therefore, animal
boarding will not be permitted in this facility.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not
limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency
medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools;
RESPONSE: The adequacy of public facilities and services to serve the proposed office building was
established during the original review in 1994. A veterinary clinic will not create additional impacts.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased
employees generated by the conditional use;
RESPONSE: Two employee dwelling units (a one - bedroom unit and a three- bedroom unit) will be
provided on -site to mitigate employee generation impacts, as required by Ordinance 3, Series of 1994.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposed veterinary clinic complies with all applicable requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments and the
conditional use for a veterinary clinic at 702 W. Main St., subject to the following conditions:
Conditional use approval of the veterinary clinic is subject to approval by the City Council of the
proposed text amendment to allow a veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the Office zone
district. Denial of the text by Council will also constitute a denial of the conditional use approval.
2. The veterinary clinic shall be fully enclosed, and to mitigate noise from the facility, sound
absorption and sound isolation techniques shall be utilized, as described in the Gates, Hafen,
Cochrane letter dated July 31, 1996. A total sound barrier shall be provided on the north and west
sides of the structure.
5
3. Odors shall be controlled through proper waste disposal, daily cleaning of animal housing, and use
of durable and easily- cleaned surfaces.
4. Kenneling of healthy animals is prohibited.
All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings
shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
ALTERNATIVES: The Commission may accept the "veterinary clinic" definition, but may determine
that it is not appropriate as a conditional use in all of the proposed zone districts. If it is determined that a
veterinary clinic would not be an appropriate use in the Office zone district, review of the conditional use
for the proposed clinic at 702 W. Main St. will be unnecessary.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the proposed text amendments to add a definition of a
"veterinary clinic" and to add "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use in the Office, Service /Commercial/
Industrial and Rural Residential zone districts, and to approve the conditional use for a veterinary clinic at
/ 702 W. Main St. with the conditions as outlined in the Community Development Department Memo dated
August 20, 1996 ".
Exhibits:
j '"A- Application Packet
- Referral Comments
C� , TACT 1D
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20.1996
transportation department to view the intent? She added that the
administration could be a problem, but it is the applicant's problem.
Garton asked if someone was prepared to make a motion.
MOTION: Blaich moved to approve the conditional use
review to allow short -term rental of six existing residential
units at 305 South Galena Street with the conditions as
outlined in the Community Development Department
Memo dated August 20, 1996 with the additional condition
that Hunt just made to work out a parking plan with
Transportation Dept.
Seconded by Chaikovska.
In favor: Garton, Hunt, Robert, Chaikovska, Johnston.
Opposed: Tygre, Buettow.
There was no Public Comment.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Vet Text Amendment and Conditional Use Review
Garton opened the public hearing and asked for proof of notification.
Hoefer stated that proof of notification is legally correct and Commission
has jurisdiction to proceed.
Suzanne Wolff, Planner, explained that there are two parts to this
application. She stated the text Amendments related to the definition of a
Veterinary clinic and adding a veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the
Service /Commercial /Industrial and Rural and Remote zone districts. She
said the conditional use review for the specific request to allow a veterinary
clinic to Main Street. She asked the if the commission wanted the text
amendment to go first and proceed with the conditional use.
9
PLANNING & MNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20,1996
Hoefer explained the text amendment must be approved by council first
before that conditional use amendment can be approved. He said
bifurcating the issues was fine.
Garton reiterated that the text amendment must be first approved by council.
Krabacher asked the City Attorney to introduce his letter into the record
stating his objection.
Hoefer stated that for the record that he and John Worcester reviewed the
letter from Mr. Krabacher. Krabacher maintains that text amendment needs
to go to City Council before the conditional use can be considered. Hoefer
explained to the applicant that litigation could occur if P & Z proceeds
tonight. He said they might take the safer approach and present to Council
first but it would take a longer period of time. He stated this is up to the
applicant on how he wishes to proceed.
Joe Wells, representative for applicant, introduced the applicant Dr. Jon
Rappaport. Wells stated that any approval by P & Z was contingent upon
approval by Council of the text amendment. The applicant said that he
wanted to go ahead with the text amendment and Conditional Use Review.
Garton said that they will proceed with the text amendment.
Suzanne Wolff, Planner, explained that the specific text Amendment
requested to add the definition of a Veterinary clinic to the Land Use Code
and to add veterinary clinic as a conditional use in the Office zone district
and staff is proposing to add the use to a Service /Commercial/ Industrial
and Rural Residential zone districts. The definition is as follows:
Veterinary Clinic means an enclosed facility within a
building or portion thereof for the care and treatment of
animals, where boarding of healthy animals is prohibited
and adequate provisions are made to avoid adverse impacts
on the surrounding neighborhood which might otherwise
result from noise or odors.
10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20.1996
Hunt noted that he had a problem with the vet clinic being in a residential
neighborhood because of the noise. He hasn't seen a plan of how they
would deal with this issue and the odor issue.
Garton stated that the criteria is different for the text amendment and the
conditional use. She asked Hunt if criteria 3 was not met on the text
amendment.
Hunt said that in the close proximity of a residential district he did not want
to see it but he was supportive of vet clinic in SCI and Rural Residential
because the residences would be farther apart.
Chaikovska noted that there is no boarding of healthy animals, which would
seem to reduce the noise factor. She asked Dr. Rappaport if there are only
sick or animals that have had surgery or just come in for a visit, would seem
to create less noise than boarding healthy animals.
Rappaport stated that 90% of veterinary hospitals board healthy animals,
which accounts for 95% of the noise. He is only hospitalizing sick animals
that need intravenous medication and these animals are not making any
noise. Also the number of animals that would be in the hospital in this area
would not be significant. He said that in other areas where there are 20,000
to 30,000 people in a three mile radius, it is possible to have 3 -4 animals in
the hospital at one time. Rappaport stated that he hired the top veterinary
architect to design the space. He said that he has other clinics, even ones in
the same building with other offices, and he has never had a complaint
about noise or odor.
Joe Wells wanted to focus on the generic mitigation measures that the
Commission considers crucial before approving a conditional use for a vet
clinic in the residential or office zone district.
Garton asked to pmll the Commission to decide if a vet clinic was
appropriate a,s a'conditional use in this zone district, 702 West Main Street.
Garton opened the public hearing.
12
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20,1996
Wolff stated that in relation to the specific standards of the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP), one of the goals of the AACP is to revitalize the
permanent community by providing incentives for locals serving
commercial uses. A veterinary clinic is a use which would benefit local
residents, and which is currently not permitted and not available within the
City of Aspen.
Wolff said that the Office zone district allows "professional business
offices ", which includes offices for "physicians, dentists, etc. professionals
who primarily provide services rather than products." The majority of those
services are for the resident population and not for the tourist population.
She said many other medical offices are located within the Office zone
district, along with residential and other office uses. Staff recognizes that a
veterinary clinic has different impacts than other medical offices which can
be considered through the conditional use review.
Wolff noted that the Service /Commercial /Industrial (S /C /I) district allows
"limited commercial use and industrial uses which do not require high or
generate high customer traffic volumes." A veterinary clinic would not
conflict with any of the existing or allowed uses. She also stated that the
Rural Residential zone district allows low density residential use and
compatible accessory uses such as farm buildings and use, nursery and
greenhouse. A veterinary clinic would be compatible with the other uses in
this zone district and have less impact than in more dense zone districts.
Wolff said that they have not proposed a vet clinic in any other commercial
districts in the City because most of the C 1 zone districts are tourist
orientated.
Hunt stated that there was a vet clinic in the old Obermeyer building which
is SCI. How was it allowed.
Wolff said that they looked through the code and couldn't find veterinary
clinic addressed anywhere. t
I
Garton asked Wolff if she wanted to respond to any of the letters.
Wolff said that the letters were specific to the conditional use.
11
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20,1996
Joe Krabacher commented on the text amendment issue with respect to
procedure. He said the Commission makes the recommendation to Council
and Council adopts the code amendment (the text amendment). He said that
this is not an appropriate use for this zone district, it is in direct conflict
with the AACP. He stated that there is a significant difference between a
vet clinic and a medical clinic. He asked the Commission to take a look at
the code criteria and examine each district for this text amendment.
Garton reiterated that they are looking for the definition for the text
amendment and not conditional use at this point.
Krabacher asked to look for the appropriate zone district for this conditional
use. In the office zone district the conditional use relates to historic
structures. He further stated these conditional uses have been allowed as an
incentive for the preservation of historic structures. He said that by
allowing this clinic in the office zone district, it would be displacing
residents which is against the AACP.
Graham Means, Public, lives in an R -6 zone, and has real concerns about
this use. His concern is odor and that there will be a vent in which noxious
gases will be pumped from this building. He said that the noise can't be
controlled when the animal comes to and leaves the clinic. He stated that
staff has not responded to the issues.
Don Stapleton, Public, stated that he spent two years trying to put in an
office building on that lot and the different committees had so many rules
that thev were not allowed to do it. He said that they have put the property
up for sale because of all of the legal hassles.
Garton asked the question to the Commission for a text amendment
"Is a vet clinic appropriate as a conditional use in this zone
district, 702 West Main Street."
Chaikov ska said that since there is no overnight boarding and there are
prnviSions for noise and odor, she has no problem with it.
Tygre stated that separating the text amendment was a good plan. She said
that it is hard to take an animal that may not like to travel to the AABC for
13
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20,1996
treatment. She said that the definition of a veterinary clinic is appropriate
and is a local serving business. She said that she supports the text
amendment.
Hunt responded that he supports the text amendment for SCI and Rural
Residential. He said that he has a problem with the Office zone and the
noise that is associated with vet clinics. He stated that he cannot support the
veterinary clinic in the Office zone.
Suzanne Wolff noted that there are noise levels within the code. The Office
zone district is included in the Residential use which is what would be
allowed.
Blaich replied that Tygre took care of all of his concerns and he does
support the text amendment. Blaich asked Dr. Rappaport if he had any
other clinic in an area like this one. He further said that the conditions must
be met.
Rappaport stated that he has one that is adjacent to a residential house. He
said that they did special landscaping, and worked with the neighbor.
Buettow stated that he cannot support the text amendment because of # 1,
92, 83, 44, 47 & #9. He would support it for the SCI areas but not here.
Johnston stated that he will support the text amendment based upon prior
comments.
Garton said that she will not support the text amendment in the office zone.
Garton asked for a motion from the original proposal from staff.
MOTION: Tygre moved to approve the proposed text
amendment to add the definition of veterinary clinic as a
t conditional use in the Office, Service /Commercial/
Industrial and Rural Residential zone districts. Seconded
by Chaikovska. Motion passes 4 to 3.
Garton stated that the text amendment will be forwarded to Council.
14
PLANNING & ZO i ING COMMISSION AUGUST 20,1996
Hunt asked if the conditional use could be limited to a certain amount of
time.
Michaelson said that the ability is there in the conditional use permit. There
are limitations to the code.
Wolff stated that there is a public nuisance ordinance for a barking dog.
Garton said that now they need to consider this application as a conditional
use.
Joe Wells asked if this discussion could be opened at later date and get
some feed back from the Commission for what they would need to do.
Hoefer stated that the only concern that he had was that if it is opened for
comments by the Commission, then the Public Hearing has to be opened.
Garton said that it would be preferable to table to a date certain. The
applicant agreed.
Krabacher stated that this notice was sent out for public hearing and it
should be held.
Hunt said that he doesn't have sufficient information to proceed tonight.
MOTION: Hunt moved to table action and continue the
public hearing on the conditional use of veterinary clinic at
702 West Main Street at the developer's request and to
provide additional information on September 3, 1996.
Seconded by Johnston. All in favor, motion carries.
PUBLIC MEETING:
Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site) - Conceptual Review
Continued Public Meeting
Garton opened the Public Hearing.
15
SVC
6 LU
j a - w f vz� d e d e-l-,
a �? V'
=5; LG cW1
SENT BY :KRABACHER & ASSOCIATES; 8 -19 -96 ; 14:21 ;
B. lcaeph Kralvrher-
Cunt B. Sendone
Michael O. Tupaluv
Nichow V. Pmkhorov
Igor B. Potoekin ^
• AdnkW to 1u my
�Aia,d is avw, my
Via Telefax to 920 -5219
David Hoefer
Assistant City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
I Aw omcz -s Op
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
and Aaatciataa P.G
Jerome Profysioro! DailJlnF
201 N. MIIS. STRP.FT, SURE 201
ASPL'N, COLORADO 91611.3206
Td (97o) 92$.6300
Fox (970) 975 -1191
303 920 5119 ;# 2
mvx w Ogee
9 Krawoprola srsUpe
Stile No. 3
103310 MOSCOW
RUSSIA
—il4 emct mdd.:
k n h •dar (ViF.p�S
August 19, 1996
Re: Proposed Text Amendment and Conditional Use Application
For 702 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Hoefer:
I understand that you are the City Attorney who handles
matters for the Planning and Zoning Commission. I am writing to
you in connection with the proposed veterinary clinic text
amendments and conditional use review for 702 West Main Street,
Aspen, Colorado 81611 which is scheduled for public hearing before
the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 20, 1996.
It appears that the planning staff and Applicant have
improperly combined applications. First, they are seeking a text
amendment that would authorize a veterinary clinic as a conditional
use in the office /zone district. Second, they are requesting
conditional use approval for the veterinary clinic.
Under Land Use Code Section 26.60.030 it is not proper to
apply for a conditional use before that conditional use has been
approved:
"Only those uses, which are authorized as a conditional
use for each zone district in Chapter 26.28 may be
approved as a conditional use." Land Use Code Section
26.60.030
SENT BY ;KRABACHR & ASSOCIATES" 8 -19 -96 ; 14 :22 ;
`° 303 920 51194 3
It would seem very clear to me that an Applicant could not
apply for a conditional use approval when that conditional use is
not authorized. Only after the text amendment has been approved,
if it is approved at all, would the Applicant be entitled to apply
for the conditional use that was authorized by the text amendment.
Indeed, the City Council could modify the proposed language of the
text amendment in a fashion that would require the Applicant to
address additional concerns, which puts the Applicant and P &Z in an
untenable position having already ruled on the conditional use
application.
In addition, any decision on the merits of the conditional use
application will taint the subsequent hearings before City Council
on the text amendments. City Council should have the ability to
review the text amendments without facing a specific application,
or the City Council will not be able to conduct a fair and
impartial review of the proposed text amendments. On the other
hand, City Council certainly should know what the proposed use is,
but there should not be any final P &Z approval before City Council
amends the text of the land use code.
As you know, text amendments are conceptual in nature,
particularly the one proposed, which would apply across the Office,
SCI and RR zone districts. How can the City Council give a full and
fair review, and afford neighbors such as me, the due process
required by law, when the ultimate approval has already been ruled
upon by the P &Z?
If the Planning and Zoning Commission proceeds to make a
determination as to the merits of Lhe conditional use application,
this will be an incorrect and prejudicial procedure, and will
result in the Planning and Zoning Commission exceeding its
jurisdiction and abusing its discretion.
I appreciate your attention to this matter. If you have any
questions, please feel free to give me a call.
very truly yours,
LAW OFFTCRS OF B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
AND ASSOCIATES P.C.
By:
B. JosetKacher
cc: Stan Clauson
BJK \ch
krabmche \1hoefer.1
SENT BY :KRABACHER & ASSOCIATE` 8 -19 -96 ; 14 :21 ;
w
LAW OFFICES OF
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
and Aaa data P.C.
Jerome Projess6nal Building
701 N. MILL SIREBT. SUFLE 201
ASPEN, COLORADO 91611 -32W
B. Jowph Kraba6ere
Curtis B. Sandra•
Mlahael Cr. Toln4
Nicknki V. P okho,
Igor B. Powbkin
• Adakd in US only
^ AAduad It lRwls wV
Tel: (970) 925.63W
I.= (970) 921 -11aI
—3 1 1 jaM.d,4a
krabWwQiWwau
COVER SHEET
Date: August 19, 1996 FAX: 920 -5119
PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO:
Name: David Hoefer
Assistant City Attorney
From: a. Joseph Krabacher
mawcowr OB;"
9 Knuwlaokunkaya
Suite No. 3
103330 MOSCOW
RUSSIA
Re: 702 West Main Street
Total number of pages (including this cover sheet) . If you do
not receive all of the pages, please call Cheryl at (970) 925 -6300
as soon as possible.
IMPORTANT: THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF
THE PERSON NAMED ABOVE OR OTHERS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE IT. THIS
COMMUNICATION MAY INCLUDE PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
AND ANY USE, DISSEMINATION OR REPRODUCTION BY UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS
IS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY.
303 920 51194 1
Documents Transmitted: Letter of today's date.
9709207723 ° NBER *RFID ARCH'TS
LAW OFFICNS OF
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
and Assoriatm P.G.
Jerome Professional Building
201 N. MILL STREET, SIJn'E 703
ASPEN, COLORADO 82611-3206
S. Joseph Kabadsee
Ontb IL Sander*•
-
Nkkd 0. Tepalov^
Nkk" V. Pn*ho -
Tel: (470) 925 -700
Tor 11 p
Feu« (970) V4.1381
• Adm om USody
oeaaAsa®t ad&i
Aanitwd'a 2 _.... ady
kaabubv07/.aP• 3
August 13, 1996
Dear Neighbor:
•343 F01 PLG 16 '96 10:31
Moroo r Office
9 Krssaoprolacsr*lnya
Suite Na 3
193330 MOSCOW
RUSSIA
I wanted to alert you to a proposed application to build a
4000 square foot building that would house a veterinary clinic on
the corner of Main Street and Sixth near the West End.
The clinic would kennel pets and I anticipate that it will
generate substantial noise, odors and wastes. I am opposed to this
project, and I am trying to garner additional support in
opposition.
if you need any additional information regarding the
application, please contact my office and we will get you a copy of
the complete application_ I urge you to write a letter to the
Planning office staff member who is handling this application. For
your information, I am enclosing the Planning Officers rejection of
an interpretation that a veterinary clinic would constitute a
"professional medical office ".
Please write directly to:
Suzanne Wolff
Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
As noted in the interpretation from the Planning Office, the —
correct zone district for a veterinary clinic is the
service /commercial /industrial zone district. I urge you to oppose
this inappropriate use of a veterinary clinic kenneling pets.
very truly yours,
0
Enclosure as recited
bjk \1902.3
LAW OFFICES OF S. JOSEPH KRABACHER
AND As ES P.0
B.�seph acher
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Suzanne Wolff
From: Nancy MacKenzie
Postmark: Aug 15,96 12:36 PM
Subject: Reply to: Vet
Reply text:
From Nancy MacKenzie:
I asked Tom and he suggested that a condition could be to have them
show how they will handle medical waste generated from the clinic. He
doesn't know if it is considered 'red bag waste' like from AVH and
the clinics, which BFI does a special pick up on. * The holding of
dogs overnight for medical purposes is not comsidered "kenneling"
(FYI inspections of kennels is now done by the Dept of Ag). My
contact was Dr. John Maulsby, Sate Dept of Ag 303 - 239 -4158.
Preceding message:
From Suzanne Wolff:
Thanks for the referral comments. Any regulations for disposal of
"biological waste "?
Slk
�YV�
V .P, -
REC EKED
AUG 2 7 1996
4 nh r ll ---------
COLORADO VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
July 20, 1990
Infectious Waste Management -
It's the Law
To: Members of the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA)
From: CVMA University & Legislative Affairs Commission
John Young, DVM, Chairman
In this mailing you will find the following three things:
1) Correspondence from Mr. Glenn Mallory, Industrial Hygienist, Colorado Department of
Health (CDH), regarding the infectious waste disposal law and regulations, and a description
of what needs to be included in your management plan.
2) Sample management plan forms, created by the CVMA's University & Legislative Affairs
Commission, that should be adequate for a veterinary clinic's compliance with the law.
Glenn Mallory has reviewed these infectious waste management forms, and has indicated
that they will comply with his department's regulations.
3) A copy of House Bill 1328.
1) Correspondence from Glenn Mallory, Industrial Hygienist, Colorado Department of
Health. Phone him at (303) 331 -4859 with any questions regarding infectious waste.
"On April 23, 1989, Governor Romer signed into law House Bill 1328 on infectious waste.
HB 1328, in short, defines infectious waste, requires all generators to establish a
management plan, encourages, but does not require treatment, and provides for civil
penalties for untreated and unidentified infectious waste that is improperly disposed.
In defining infectious waste, HB 1328 references the "EPA Guide for Infectious Waste
Management ", May 1986, in establishing infectious waste categories. Further, HB 1328
recognizes that four factors are necessary for induction of disease, namely:
1) presence of a pathogen of sufficient virulence
2) dose
3) portal of entry
4) resistance of host
Telephone 303- 759.1251: Suite 701; 1 South Bellaire: Denver. Colorado 80222
In Colorado 1-800-228-54:9
The intent is for the generator of infectious waste to use the definition of infectious waste
in developing his management plan. The implication is that the generator can best identify
infectious materials from his waste stream.
The aforementioned management plan is required to be a written, generator specific
document. The plan is to include items designated as infectious; details on handling,
storage and treatment, or disposal; incident contingency planning and staff training are also
required elements of the plan. The management plan is to be a written document available
for inspection by waste haulers and licensing and regulatory personnel.
BB 1328 strongly encourages appropriate treatment of infectious waste prior to disposal.
It does not, however, mandate treatment. Again, the aforementioned "EPA Guideline to
Infectious Waste Management" is referred to for appropriate treatment. Appropriate
treatment includes incineration, autoclaving, certain chemical disinfection process (e.g.,
chlorine bleach solutions) as examples. Infectious waste that has been appropriately treated
and so documented is considered noninfectious and may be disposed of with the regular
trash. Proof of treatment may be required by a waste hauler.
Any generator that knowingly disposes of untreated infectious waste without either proper
treatment or without identifying it as untreated infectious waste is subject to civil penalties.
Civil penalties are up to $3,000 per day to a $15,000 maximum for the first offense and to
a $25,000 maximum for subsequent offenses.
In summary, the bill requires each generator to take a proactive posture in identifying and
handling his infectious waste. However, you, the generator, are not required to hire a special
firm to handle or treat your infectious waste. You may choose to treat your own waste on-
site, you may choose a firm to pick up, treat and dispose of your properly identified
infectious waste, you may also dispose of properly packaged and labeled infectious waste
in the trash. However, waste haulers may choose not to haul untreated infectious waste
and you face a potential liability if individuals picking through the trash come in contact
with untreated infectious waste. The intent of FIB 1328 is to put the burden of infectious
waste care onto the generator.
In addition to BB 1328, the Colorado
Regulations under the Solid Waste
commercial and quasi - commercial
transportation and record keeping r
individual generators.
Department of Health has drafted Infectious Waste
Act. The regulations
reatment and disposal
:quirements. They are
are designed to regulate
facilities, including their
not designed to regulate
Admittedly, there is no easy answer to the general question "what are the handling
practices" for infectious waste. Each generator will have to use professional judgment on
the definition in HB 1328 to establish a practice specific infectious waste management plan.
A copy of HB 1328 is enclosed for.your use. Copies of the "EPA Guideline for Infectious
Waste Management" may be ordered through the EPA library, 999 18th Street, Denver,
CO 80202 -2405, (303) 293 -1444. Copies of the Colorado Department of Health's Infectious
Waste Regulations can be obtained from the CVMA office.
I hope that this helps to clarify the responsibilities for infectious waste generators."
-1-
2) The Management Plan and Sample Forms.
The CDH regulations have been interpreted to state that any material infectious to humans and posing
a reasonable risk to humans must be either 1) properly packaged and marked as infectious waste and
then tracked to its final disposal site, or 2) must be rendered non - infectious (via autoclave or chemical
disinfection) before disposal with other trash. These regulations also strongly recommend that all "sharps"
must be disinfected and disposed of in tough plastic puncture -proof containers.
There are basically four steps needed for proper Infectious Waste Management. (Blank forms and
completed samples are attached. You are welcome to duplicate these blank forms, or create your own.)
1) The Infectious Waste Management Plan This plan, which must be kept on file at your practice,
states how you will handle your infectious waste, and should list any potential waste material
infectious to humans (Strain 19 Brucella was the only material the CVMA Commission could
determine would apply. Rabies vaccine does not apply.) The rest of this form is self explanatory.
2) Operational Manual for Decontamination. This form states specific information on how you
decontaminate the infectious waste. You can use either method or both (autoclave or chemical
disinfection) as applicable.
3) Letter to Waste Management Service. Your trash hauler must be made aware of your infectious
waste disposal plan, and this letter should be sent on your clinic letterhead stationary.
4) Record or Log. The log is your record of when and how you have disposed of infectious waste,
and should be kept in your files, available for inspection by the CDH.
-3-
(SAMPLE)
Infectious 'Waste Management Plan
Implemented
(Date)
1)
Infectious waste generated by this veterinary clinic/hospital /practice (which is infectious to
humans):
2) Infectious waste generated by this veterinary clinic /hospital /practice is kept segregated from waste
by placing infectious waste into _ . Infectious waste is held
in such containers until decontamination, which is done by
Sharps are decontaminated by and packaged separately in plastic
containers. The disinfectant used is at a concentrate of
3) Any spills or losses of containment are dealt with immediately by
4) All staff members have been trained regarding infectious waste containment and disposal. The
persons responsible for implementation of this Infectious Waste Management Plan are:
5) All biomedical waste is treated on -site.
6) The Waste Management pick -up service has been notified of this plan. (Letter attached.)
(SAMPLE)
Infectious Waste Management Plan
Implemented July 1. 1990
1) Infectious waste generated by this veterinary clinic /hospital /practice (which is infectious to
humans):
Strain 19 Brucella abortus vaccine vials
2) Infectious waste generated by this veterinary clinic /hospital /practice is kept segregated from waste
by placing infectious waste into —properly labeled containers . Infectious waste is held in such
containers until decontamination, which is done by autoclaving
Sharps are decontaminated by chemical disinfectants and packaged separately in plastic
containers. The disinfectant used is Chlorhe -adine diacetate. at 3oz /gallon of water
3) Any spills or losses of containment are dealt with immediately by disinfection of contaminated
surfaces or materials which are too large to autoclave or by autoclaving contaminated materials
4) All staff members have been trained regarding infectious waste containment and disposal. The
persons responsible for implementation of this Infectious Waste Management Plan are:
John Doe, DVM Jane Smith, DVM
Nancy Johnson
5) All biomedical waste is treated on -site.
6) The Waste Management pick -up service has been notified of this plan. (Letter attached.)
(SAMPLE)
Letter to Waste Management Service
Date
XYZ Trash Hauler
Address
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to Colorado House Bill 1328, we must notify our waste management
service provider that we do occasionally have medical waste, that has been
pronerjy disinfected /decontaminated in our waste containers. We follow all
recommendations of the Colorado Department of Health as they apply to a
Veterinary Medical facility.
Please consider this letter your notification. Records of decontamination
procedures will be available in our office for inspection.
Sincerely,
John Doe, DVM
(SAMPLE)
Operational Manual for Decontamination
Date of Implementation:
1) By Autocave:
a. Material is placed in an appropriate container and sealed with heat sensitive tape.
b. Autoclave operated at 30 psi /265° F for 15 minutes.
c. A spore test (or other appropriate indicator test) is conducted on a monthly basis to
check for proper operation of the autoclave.
2) By Chemical:
a. Sharps are placed in a thick - walled one -gallon plastic container.
b. When full, these containers are decontaminated with a solution of Chlorhexidine
diacetate at 3oz /gallon of water.
c. Containers are allowed to soak 24 hours, then drained.
d. Containers are appropriately marked and placed in regular waste containers.
- -- Med_ W aste Dis posaY Log -- - - - - -
2
6�
7
1,
a I
9
i I
12 i
13
I
t! I
I`.
16 I -
17 L
ti
� I
20 j
21
22
23
1!
19 i
26
77
16 I
29
30
31
32
33 t
i
34
is
I I
36
37
361
39
40
- - M Was te Di sposal Log -- - - --
A A - -�- - - - - - -- - - -- -
/100 1989
t ))
HOUSE BILL NO. 1329.
BY REPRESENTATIVES Band, Adkins, Anderson, Bledsoe, OeHerrera,
Fleming, Gillis, P. Hernandez, Jerke, Johnson, Jones, Kopel,
Martin, Masson, Owen, Pankey, Pierson, Prinster, Reeser,
Reeves, Romero, Ruddick, Rupert, Shoemaker, Tanner,
Taylor - Little, Trujillo, Ulvang, Webb, and S. Williams;
also SENATORS Traylor, Gallagher, Mendez, Pascoe, and Pastore.
CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF INFECTIOUS WASTE BY THE
GENERATOR THEREOF, AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SUCH
WASTE.
Be it enacted 11X the General Assembly of the State of Colorado
SECTION 1. Article 15 of title 25, Colorado Revised
Statutes, 1992 Repl. Val., as amended, is amended BY THE
ADDITION OF A NEW PART to read:
PART 4
INFECTIOUS WASTE
25 -15 -401. Legislative declaration (1) The general
assembly hereby finds that there is a need for more clarity
and uniformity regarding the definition of infectious waste
and in the requirements for the handling, treatment, and
disposal thereof and that the absence of such clarity and the
inappropriate designation of general waste as infectious waste
will result in further substantial and unnecessary costs,
disparity, and confusion in the management of infectious
waste, ultimately affecting many business and residential
operations and facilities, including the operations and
quality of care rendered by health care providers.
(2) For the purposes set forth in subsection (1) of this
section, the provisions of this part 4 are enacted as a matter
of statewide concern. The provisions of this part 4 shall not
apply to infectious waste which is also deemed to be hazardous
Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes;
dashes through wards indicate deletions from existing statutes and
such material not part of act.
waste pursuant to section 25 -15 -101 (9), nor shall infectious
waste be deemed hazardous waste solely because it is
characterized as infectious waste.
(3) The general assembly further finds that, because of
the nature of infectious waste and the manner of its
designation as provided in this part 4 and because this part 4
recommends portions of the guidelines of the United States
environmental protection agency, no rules or regulations
governing the generators of infectious waste are necessary for
nor shall be applicable to the implementation of this part 4.
This limitation shall not be construed to limit any other
rule- making which is permitted under other authorizing
statutes.
25 -15 -402. Infectious waste - definitions (1) For the
purposes of this part 4 and statewide applicability:
(a) 'Infectious waste" means waste capable of producing
an infectious disease and requires the consideration of
certain factors necessary for induction of disease. These
factors include:
(I) Presence of a pathogen of sufficient virulence;
(II) Dose;
(III) Portal of entry;
(IV) Resistance of host.
(b) For a waste to be infectious, it must contain
pathogens with sufficient virulence and quantity so that
exposure to the waste by a susceptible host could result in
disease. All the factors specified in paragraph (a) of this
subsection (1) must be present simultaneously for disease
transnission to occur and must be present in a manner which
constitutes a substantial risk of infection to humans.
(2) (a) Infecticus waste shall be designated as such by
the generator in accordance with this part 4. Such
designation shall net be based solely upon any source or type
of waste but shall be based upon the factors specified in
subsection, (1) of this section.
(b) it is recuirccnded by the general assembly that the
following categories of waste,'as published in the "EPA Guide
for Infectious WastF Manaeement ", May 1986, by the United
States enviror^:entai Ir.otection agency, be designated as
infectious:
(I) lz is:. 11 :'Fo frcm persons diagnosed as htvinc a
PAGC 2 -14 CU SF ', i`.1 i" .
disease caused by an organism requiring, pursuant to
recommendations by the centers for disease control in the 1988
publication " Biosafety in the Microbiological and Biomedical
Laboratory" (second edition), biosafety level IV containment;
(II) Cultures and stocks of infectious agents and
associated biologicals;
(III) Human blood and blood products and body fluids
consisting of serum, plasma and other blood components,
cerebrospinal fluid, synovial fluid, pleural fluid. peritoneal
fluid, pericardial fluid, and amniotic fluid;
(IV) Human pathological /anatomical waste consisting of
tissues and body parts that are discarded from surgical,
obstetrical, autopsy, and laboratory procedures;
(V) Contaminated sharps;
(VI) Contaminated laboratory or research animal
carcasses, body parts, and bedding.
25 -15 -403. Generator management plan (1) Each
generator of infectious waste snall develop and implement an
on -site infectious waste management plan which is appropriate
for the particular facility. Such plan shall include:
(a) The designation of infectious waste generated by the
facility;
(b) The handling of infectious waste which includes
segregation, identification, packaging, storage,
transportation, treatment techniques for each waste type, if
applicable, and disposal;
(c) Contingency planning for spills or loss of
containment;
(d) Staff training and the designation of a person
responsible for implementation of the management plan;
(e) If on -site treatment is not available, the
management plan shall provide for appropriate off -site
treatment or disposal.
(2) The management plan, including the documentation
provided in section 25 -15 -404 (2), shall be available for
inspection to the hauler of any waste, to the disposal
facility, and to the licensing or regulatory agency, if
applicable, of the generator.
25 -15 -404. On -site disinfection (1) Any infectious
PAGE 3 -HOUSE BILL NO. 1328
25 -15 -406. Penalty (1) (a) Any generator who
knowingly removes, causes to be removed, or allows to be
removed from the site of generation any infectious waste which
he knew was not appropriately treated and not identified as
untreated when such infectious waste was so removed from the
site of generation shall be subject to the civil penalties set
forth in paragraph (b) of this subsection (1).
(b) Upon conviction of a first offense, a generator
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than three
thousand dollars per day for each day of violation, not to
exceed fifteen thousand dollars. Upon conviction of a second
or subsequent offense which occurs within five years of a
previous conviction, a generator shall be subject to a civil
penalty of three thousand dollars per day for each day of
violation, not to exceed twenty -five thousand dollars.
(2) (a) Any person who knowingly hauls untreated
infectious waste and recklessly spills or loses such waste or
knowingly disposes of such waste at an unlawful site or
disposal or treatment facility shall be subject to the civil
penalties se*_ forth in paragraph (b) of this subsection (2).
(b) Upon conviction of a first offense, a person shall
be subject to a civil penalty of not more than three thousand
dollars per day for each day of violation, not to exceed
fifteen thousand dollars. Upon conviction of a second or
subsequent offense which occurs within five years of a
previous conviction, a person shall be subject to a civil
penalty of three thousand dollars per day, not to exceed
twenty -five thousand dollars.
(3) All civil penalties se*_ forth in this section shall
be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction upon action
instituted by the department of health.
25 -15 -407. Presumption of noninfectiousness It is
conclusively presumed that any infectious waste which has been
appropriately treated and documented in section 25 -15 -404 (2)
either on the site or off the site is not infectious after it
has been so treated.
SECTION 2. The introductory portion to 25 -15 -101 (9)
(a), Colorado Revised Statutes, 1982 Repl. Vol., is amended to
read:
25 -15 -101. Definitions (9) (a) "Hazardous waste"
means any material, alone or mixed with *other materials, which
has no commercial use or value or which is discarded or is to
be discarded by the possessor thereof, either of which because
of its quantity, concentration, or physical OR chemical er
Weet4ews characteristics may:
PAGE 5-HOUSE @ILL NO. 1328
waste which has been appropriately treated at the site of
generation by the generator so as to render it noninfectious
shall not thereafter be deemed infectious for purposes of
handling or disposal.
(2) Appropriate treatment shall include any method of
treatment which renders the infectious waste noninfectious.
Use of a treatment method recommended by the United States
environmental protection agency, as published in the "EPA
Guide for Infectious Waste Management ", May 1966, shall be
conclusively presumed to be an appropriate treatment method.
Any method of treatment shall include:
(a) Documentation by the generator that the method of
treatment utilized for his operation is effective in rendering
infectious waste noninfectious in such operation;
(b) Written standard operating procedures for the use of
or implementation of the treatment method;
(c) Regular monitoring of the standard operating
procedures and the effectiveness of such disinfective method.
(3) Upon request of the chairman of either the senate or
house of representatives committees on health, environment,
welfare, and institutions, the department of health shall make
a report to the senate and house of representatives committees
on health, environment, welfare, and institutions on the
current status, in view of scientific knowledge and
technology, of the recommendations contained in the "EPA Guide
for Infectious Waste Management ", May 1986, and may make any
additional recommendations it deems necessary.
25 -15 -405. Aoorooriate treatment and disposal -
nonliability ( A generator of infectious waste using an
appropriate treatment method with appropriate documentation as
provided in section 25 -15 -404 (2) and, in good faith,
utilizing disposal facilities for such waste shall not be
civilly or criminally liable for injuries or damages allegedly
resulting from the infectious character of such waste; -except
that any generator who does not use an appropriate treatment
method or any generator who fails to utilize disposal
facilities in good faith shall not be relieved of civil ^r
crir.inal liability.
(2) When any infectious waste has been appropria
treated,. the yenerr..ci shall either identify it as such or
provide the haule7 bnd disposal facility with a written
statement that its- cIe!eral waste includes infectious wait -e
which has bLCr, ap;.repriately treated to r =_r.Cer it
noninfecticu:.
PAG_ �_ a�
SECTION 3. No aoorooriation The general assembly has
determined that this act can be implemented within existing
appropriations, and therefore no separate appropriation of
state moneys is necessary to carry out the purposes of this
act.
SECTION 4. Safety clause The general assembly hereby
finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for
the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and
safety.
Carl S. Bledsoe
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ted L. Stricklbnd
PRESIDENT OF
THE SENATE
�? lit -L.:
e Bahrycn �— Joan M. Albi
HIEF CLERK OF THE HO "c SECRETARY OF
OF REPRESENTATIVES THE.SENATE
APPROVED N4�
Roy r
GOV OR OF THE STATE OF COLORA.00
PAG'c c- ^_ 1329
.-.
Mmtpaliar Zoauq and Suhd'ivisian Reaalations
ARTICLE 2 DeMdons
PAGE 8
Janwry 1, 1894
ANIMAL REHABILITATION CENTER:
Any structure or property used in part or in its entirety for the short term care of any domesticated or wild
animal.
ANIMAL SHELTER:
Any accessory structure or property which is used for housing or sheltering fern (4) or fewer common
household pets over three (3) months of age, outside of the principal permitted structures.
ANTENNA. TOWER, SATELLITE DISH:
Any device erected and designed to transmit or accept any type of radio, television, telephone or other -
electronic signals.
APARTMENT UNIT:
One or more rooms with private bath and kitchen facilities comprising an independent, self-contained dwelling
unit in a building containing other dwelling units.
ART GALLERYIMUSEUM:
A public or private cultural facility which provides for the display of art, artifacts or interactive exhibits,
including children's or science museums, art display spaces, and other facilities of a natural, historic,
educational, or cultural interest.
ARTISAN STUDIO:
An enclosed space limited to 1,000 square feet gross floor area and employing six (6) or fewer persons
(including proprietors) that is generally used for the purpose of assembling finished goods which may or may
not be retailed on the site.
BANK:
Any financial institution involved in the direct deposit or withdrawal of funds or a structure which houses
facilities to deposit or withdraw funds electronically.
BANK. DRIVE THROUGH:
Any bank facility which provides services to customers within vehicles.
BED AND BREAKFAST:
Residential dwelling which allows the use of up to three (3) sleeping rooms for rent for transient occupancy
in exchange for compensation; including the serving of breakfast to guests only. The sale of alcoholic
beverages is prohibited.
BOARDING HOUSE:
See Rooming House
CASI ')AD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY O: A SPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 8/12/96
CASE # A56 -96
DATE COMPLETE:
STAFF: Suzanne Wolff
PARCEL ID # 2735- 124-45 -006
PROJECT NAME: Aspen Veterinary Clinic Conditional Use & Text Amendment
Project Address: 702 W. Main Street
APPLICANT: John Rappaport
Address/Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE: Joseph Wells
Address/Phone: 602 Midland Park Place
925 -8080
FEES: PLANNING $2100
# APPS RECEIVED 3
ENGINEER $0
# PLATS RECEIVED 3
HOUSING $0
GIS DISK RECEIVED: No
ENV HEALTH $65
TOTAL $2165.
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Two Step
AMT. RECEIVED $2165.
❑ City Attorney
❑ City Engineer
❑ Zoning
❑ Housing
❑ Environmental Health
❑ Parks
DATE REFERRED:
❑ Aspen Fire Marshal
❑ City Water
❑ City Electric
❑ Clean Air Board
❑ Open Space Board
❑ Other:
INITIALS:
❑ CDOT
❑ ACSD
❑ Holy Cross Electric
❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
❑ Aspen School District
❑ Other:
DATE DUE:
Ordinance/Resolution #
Staff Approval
Plat Recorded:
Date:
Date:
Book
, Page
CLOSED/FILED DATE: INITIALS:
ROUTE TO:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
He requested roll call.
Present at the meeting were: Remo Lavagnino, Rick Head, Ron
Erickson, Jim Iglehart, and Howard DeLuca. Excused were: Charlie
Paterson and David Schott.
CASE #95 -8
STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY CO., DAVID STAPLETON
Lavagnino stated, it is requested, the property is located in the
"O" Office Zoning Category. Corner lot rule requires that the side
yard on the corner be reduced by 1/3 of the front yard required.
Sec. 3 -101 Yard (c) Aspen Land Use Code front yard required setback
is 10 ft., therefore, the yard required on the side is 6'8"
Applicant appears to be requesting a 1 setback variance for the
side yard bordering a street.
Lavagnino stated to the applicant, please identify yourself for the
record, and do you have an Affidavit of Posting? (The Affidavit
of Posting is attached in record.)
Don Stapleton, the applicant, stated, David is not here, but I'm
part of the family. Dick Fallin, of Baker Fallin Associates,
introduced himself.
Lavagnino stated, would you like to expand on why you want this
variance?
Stapleton stated, when we were going through HPC, after several
meetings, it was discussed at one particular meeting, the Krabacher
house, next door to us on the west side, is a small miner's
cottage, and during the conversations at a couple of those meetings
we talked about, maybe, if we could move our house east a little
bit it would open the corridor up between our house and Krabacher's
cottage.
Lavagnino stated, they meet setback requirements between the two
of you, as they exist right now? Stapleton answered, that is
correct.
Lavagnino asked, why do you want to spred it out a little bit
further, for what reasons? Stapleton replied, just to make the
alleyway between our house and Krabacher's house a little bit more
space so that it would give a bigger viewplane through there.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995
Fallin stated, one of the things that happened during the HPC
approval process was, that Krabacher's building was historically
designated and it is a small cottage with an addition that is put
on the rear of it toward the alley. Amy (Amidon) and the Board
were very concerned that the Stapleton building would cut the view
off to the cottage from the corner, and they were trying to
maintain as much distance between, and open up as much of the view,
of the corridor as we could. So, we are here, really, at the
request of HPC; they are the ones who asked us to go before your
Board and see if we could get the encroachment to move it over
about 16 inches.
Lavagnino asked, do you have a letter from HPC? Fallin replied,
we requested a letter several months ago, Amy told me that she had
written one, but I never got a copy, and Bill (Drueding) just said
he didn't have a copy either. Lavagnino stated, and Amy isn't
here, right?
Drueding stated, no, it is not historically designated. It is in
the historic overlay zone along Main Street.
Head stated, but does not HPC have the right to vary variances?
Drueding replied, only if it is historically designated. This is
not designated. Head asked, if it is not designated, why are they
referring it to us? Drueding answered, it is on the historic
overlay. All Main Street requires HPC approval, designated or not.
Lavagnino stated, and it affects the house that they have this be
designated. It affects that house.
Drueding stated, we can always get the letter later. Lavagnino
stated, yes, I understand, I was going to suggest that.
Drueding continued stating, this is from a September 9, 1993
meeting where Amy does say, here, that they would prefer an
easterly sideyard corner setback, 5; and then, 6.660 on the
westerly side (referring to a document) . Drueding passed the
document to Lavagnino. It was noted that the document stated 6
ft., 8 on the western side.
Lavagnino asked, how does the Planning Office view the aspect of
traffic and the usual need for a 6 corner lot? Drueding stated,
I feel it is still an important consideration. Lavagnino asked,
in this particular area, is that why? Drueding explained the
importance of the corner.
E
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995
Fallin stated, the west setback, which is the common property line
between Krabacher and Stapleton, is a 5 foot required setback. The
easterly side, since it is a corner lot, you can pick which one is
front; Main Street is front or he can reduce the side yard which
is a 10 foot requirement, 1/3 down to 6'8. So, that's an existing
required side yard setback on that street. So, what you �may want
us to do is move the building over to the east, 1 foot, 4, so the
west setback now becomes 6 foot, 4, and the easterly becomes 6
foot, 8, minus 1 foot, 4, that's 5 foot, 4, I guess. That's not
for the entire building, as you can see on the plan, the rear half
of the building, I think, does not encroach, just the front half
of the building does, on that side yard.
Drueding asked, what would the westerly setback be, again? It was
answered, 6 foot, 4.
Lavagnino asked, show me on this plan here what you are talking
about. Fallin showed the Board on the plan and there was
discussion at random.
Head asked, Dick, has this plan changed at all from the last time
we granted the variance? Fallin stated, I think there was a
conceptual on that in 1993; there have been some minor changes
through the design process.
Drueding stated, on the paper I gave Remo that says there is a
continuation of that hearing because Krabacher had not been
properly noticed. The minutes from that original meeting are not
available. It states in the paper that they know that they have to
come back for the side yard setback.
Lavagnino asked, were the minor changes on the exterior, or did you
expand the envelope?
Fallin stated, it was mainly windows, the roof lines, gables, that
type of thing.
Iglehart asked, this whole thing was written by HPC to move it 16 ",
for the purpose of being able to get a better view?
Fallin replied, they want to maximize the impact to Krabacher's
building which is an historic structure.
Iglehart stated, you "guys" don't necessarily need this to happen
or want this to happen.
191
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 3, 1995
Fallin stated, we'd like for it to happen. Iglehart stated, you
would? Fallin replied, it is a new structure and there is no real
benefit to us one way or the other. A little more room they were
very interested in achieving because of the smallness of that
little cottage, and that's the issue before us.
Head stated, what interests me, is that, if they think it is tight
now, wait until whoever gets Krabacher's house builds out to their
setbacks. It's going to come over another 5 feet.
There was discussion at random and Lavagnino stated, they are
getting other considerations in some areas, maybe they can because
it is historically designated. You see, they can manipulate
whatever they want and they can have covenants to say, on this side
you can't come to whatever it is.
Drueding stated, Krabacher has been talking to the Planning
Department about expansion of his existing house. Lavagnino asked,
towards the west? Drueding replied, I don't know that. There is
a possibility that they may be expanded to the 5 foot setback.
Lavagnino stated, but it is under HPC control. Drueding stated,
but HPC would have difficulty telling them they couldn't do it to
their setback. Lavagnino stated, they would? Drueding replied,
I believe so. I think with this particular building they are
concerned more with the front, I believe most of the construction .
is going to be more in the rear, they want to preserve more of this
front area. On the rear they would be going out to the setbacks,
on the rear portion of that easterly lot.
Fallin stated, I think you are right, I think the reason that they
are talking about the two issues, is that Krabacher seems on having
intentions on moving his building a little bit closer to the front
and closer to the Hickory House in order to feature it more from
a longer distance on Main Street. So, they felt then, that
Stapleton's Building was shifted over as much as they comfortably
felt it could be, the 16 inches, and then, in the future, if he
does, in fact, develop that property and move that building away
from Stapleton, then they were getting the kind of the niceness of
all that little cottage construction.
Lavagnino stated, so, in affect, you're saying they wouldn't
benefit then if they went to the west, they wouldn't want to use
that 5 foot setback.
Fallin stated, it is the cottage structure itself, they want to get
away from the Stapleton building as far as they can, I think, that
is probably their intent. So, we're trying to help the process,
we don't have a real problem by moving over the 16 inches to really
maximize all that. We do not object to the HPCs request.
M
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 3, 1995
Erickson asked, it was a request? Fallin stated, yes. Erickson
stated, a wish, a hope, a desire?
Erickson asked, do you have a picture of the building? Fallin
showed Erickson the drawing and there was discussion at random
between the Board regarding the porch and where it could encroach
and where it could not encroach.
Lavagnino stated, my concern is, that we just don't know what is
going to happen to the Krabacher property.
Erickson stated, I don't think it is our concern.
Lavagnino stated, it would be if they moved it, for instance, 5
feet off to the setback. The reason we are giving it to them, is
that they wanted that open space.
DeLuca stated, our concern has to be whether this is going to
obstruct the vision at the corner of people looking up the street.
Lavagnino stated, I don't have any problem with this from a safety
standpoint, which is why it is written in the ordinance that it
should be 6 feet, 8 inches for a corner lot. I don't see a problem
there. What I have difficulty with is why are we granting this
variance?
Head stated, in the past we have weighed heavily on the
recommendations of HPC. Lavagnino stated, that's right, and the
recommendation is that they want this space. How far away is the
side yard from within the Krabacher property? It was answered, 10
feet. Lavagnino stated, my concern is the size.
Lavagnino stated, we are giving them a side yard, we're pushing the
side yard away, not the front. So, my concern is that the existing
structure or any addition would go to that 5 foot setback, and I
would think that HPC would have enough control to say, no, we don't
want you to go there. Can they do that?
Drueding stated, they can do that, but they are not inclined. I
don't think they've ever restricted someone's setback.
Lavagnino stated, well, I guess I want to know the intent of why
we a, i granting the variance, here. That's the problem that we are
havin<J. Maybe, if we grant this variance, put in the form of a
resolution. Lavagnino closed the public portion of the meeting.
5
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 3, 1995
Iglehart stated, usually we follow HPCs recommendation and try to
accommodate what they have in mind. I don't want to second guess
Amy and HPC on this, I sometimes don't understand how they work,
but they seem to do an O.K. job. So, I would be in favor of
granting it, based on the fact that HPC has recommended this for
some reason.
Lavagnino stated, would you add to that it would not jeopardize the
viewplane of the traffic patterns from a safety standpoint by
granting this variance. I want to tie it into a practical
difficulty or some excuse that we might have, not just rely on HPCs
recommendation since we don't have it and since we don't know the
intent. We are talking about opening the space here so he can get
a better view. But, you know, who cares.
Iglehart stated, I don't know how I can call it a hardship based
on them, but on the other hand, I'm going with HPC.
Erickson stated, I think the HPC state is a wish. I wish HPC would
say, I wish you would make your house 1,000 feet smaller, then we
wouldn't have any problems. I don't hear any of those things from
HPC, all I hear is grant variances for this and that. This is a
brand new building, they can build it anyway they want. I like
what they have done here in terms of porch and everything like
that, but they could do all that without a variance. I would
probably not grant a variance because I can't find a hardship here,
and I don't think HPCs request is based on a hardship. I heard
what you were trying to say to tie it in. I don't know how to make
that work. If we could come up with a hardship or a practical
difficulty here, I would grant the variance, it is a minimum
variance, I don't have a problem with it, but I just can't find
one.
Lavagnino stated, In affect, what we have been told was the reason
for moving it, is to get a better view of the historic building.
Erickson stated, I think that's the same thing as, I'll respect you
in the morning; who knows what's going to happen tomorrow from that
structure. I don't know. We've had cases in the past where people
have come to us and sworn on their mother's grave that they were
going to do such and such, and the next thing is they are doing
something else.
Lavagnino stated, but HPC has control over that. Erickson stated,
but we don't know what kind of control. I think their objective
in their criteria is different from ours. Their's is to promote
and highlight historically significant buildings and they have a
lot of powers to do that. They can grant a variance to move that
house to a 5 foot front yard setback if they want, I'm not saying
they will, but they have the power to do that with an historically
6
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995
significant building. We can't, can we? So, they have the power
to do with whatever they want with an historical structure, I just
want to let them deal with it, and if they need our help they can
come back in front of us.
Erickson continued stating, I am really opposed to any type of
conditional variance, after what happened two weeks ago, a month
ago, the Gary Moore thing. I thought it was a conditional variance
and nobody understood it, we had to have another meeting on it.
Lavagnino stated, understanding is one thing, but being specific
about something that we know, is another.
Drueding stated, resolutions will solve that.
Head stated, I am prepared to grant this variance subject to two
things. They don't get to build on the west side up to the setback
and two, provide us with a letter from HPC confirming those
discussions and what they're recommending.
DeLuca stated, I just wish HPC wouldn't do this to us all the time.
I have to agree with Ron, there's no practical difficulty, there's
no hardship, however, looking at the situation like this, even if
the next door neighbor or whoever it may be in the future, decides
to build to the setback; if we move that building over that much,
it is going to give us that much more space in between, even if
they do build over the setback. If we don't allow them to move the
building over, then, all of a sudden it going to look like this,
and the problem with setbacks on this street is that 10 feet
between two buildings is ridiculous. The thing of HPC wanting a
better view of the historic structure is probably true, I don't
think 16 inches is going to give them a whole lot. I'm not afraid
of them building up to the front setback line because that's not
going to make a difference in anybody's view from the street
turning the corner, the rear isn't going to make a difference, the
side is going to make a difference as to how much distance we have
in between the two buildings. We don't have any control as to what
they are going to do with the next door neighbor's house,
unfortunately. If we did, we could say, O.K., you keep your
structure I foot 4 on this side, and you keep your 1 foot 4 that
side, then, we have the lesser of two evils.
DeLuca stated, another thing that concerns me, we're talking about
a section that's probably 25 or 30 feet long of actual office space
or living space or whatever you want to call it. The problem is
if we don't move the building over they are obviously going to
build right on the setback line, because they have no other
alternative.
Drueding stated, the hardship is HPC.
7
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Lavagnino stated, it isn't fair to them
They have built this thing according to
place where they were allowed to put it.
AUGUST 3, 1995
(referring to applicants).
code and put in into the
Lavagnino stated, I'm going to open up the public hearing just to
ask you one question? How imminent is this in your building plans?
The reason I'm asking the question is, from my particular purpose
I would like to table this for either a week, or for as long as we
can get a more definitive letter or recommendation, or Amy being
here, so we can actually hear or record what her reasoning is, and
that we can question her and be satisfied. There is just this
nebulous area that arbitrarily granting you a variance because of
something that they might or might not do, is doesn't stand well
with me, particularly. I can make a decision, but when I don't
have enough information on the facts of what might happen, I would
probably vote against it, right now, but if I had some sufficient
reasons for granting it, through a letter or a recommendation and
where we could question Amy, I think I would be more in favor of,
at least, looking at it. So, I'm asking you, is this an imminent
building problem for you, can you wait a week?
Fallin stated, waiting a week wouldn't hurt, but I would like to
point out to you that the real issue here is the historic resource
that we are losing in the town. That's the real issue, it's not
Stapleton's Building and what it is going to do, it is the visual
loss of part of the historic aspects of Aspen that HPC is really
concerned about. This little cottage is one of the last cottages
in town that is really well- defined and is one of the original
structures. They really want to showcase that piece. I've heard
arguments with HPC about 6 inches, you and I have had arguments
over 9 inch setbacks. This is big -time "stuff" in the historical
"stuff "; it is not an insignificant request. So, I think that's
a good basis for a hardship.
Lavagnino stated, we don't want them to negate what you are talking
about by using their right to meet the setback. I want to make
sure that Amy knows, out of our considerations, that we don't want
them to move it. If we are going to give you space between the
buildings we want to keep it there.
DeLuca asked, how far back does the cottage go back on this
footprint? There was much discussion at random and Fallin showed
on the blueprint where the cottage was.
MOTION
Head stated, I move
August 7, 1995 at
unanimous in favor,
that we table this applicant until Monday,
4:00 p.m. Motion was seconded, vote was
motion carried.
[]
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 7, 1995
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
Present at the meeting were: Remo Lavagnino, Rick Head, Charlie
Paterson, Ron Erickson, Jim Iglehart, and Howard DeLuca. Excused
was David Schott.
CASE #95 -8
STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY CO.
(TABLED FROM AUGUST 3, 1995)
Lavagnino stated, this is a tabled case, #95 -8, Stape Limited
Liability Company, David Stapleton. We reviewed this on Thursday
(August 3, 1995) and we had some questions as to the meaning for
granting you the variance based on something that HPC said they
wanted you to do, but we were unaware of the specifics of the
nature of that request. So, we have got Amy ( Amidon) here now, and
I think the Board would like to ask her some questions.
Lavagnino continued stating, right off the bat, as I looked at the
plans last Thursday, in the existing house itself, on the Krabacher
property, they were 10 ft. away from their side yard setback.
Since we are moving the Stapleton house into the setbacks on the
corner street 1 ft. 4 in., and the need for that that was
discussed, was to open up the area between the two parcels so that
people coming down Main Street might have a better view of the
historical house. Our concern was, since we are not dealing with
the Krabacher house, can we be assured that at some time that that
house isn't going to move over to their setbacks, their legal
setbacks. Why should we give 1 ft. 4 in. if they are going to move
a house closer than what it is now, or what exists now, which is
10 ft. and they can go another 5 ft?
Amy Amidon, representing staff stated, well, I don't know if this
was discussed at your last meeting, but this project came to HPC
in 1993, I guess, and they reviewed it, and this building next
door, the Krabacher house, is an historic landmark. The
Preservation Commission, as one of their conditions of approval,
asked the applicants to come to the Board of Adjustment and be able
to move this house a little bit further, feeling that this area can
handle it; it is a corner, and there's a larger right -of -way
(showing on drawings). The reasoning was because this is a much
smaller structure and this one is going to block most of the light
and visual access to this. So, that was their condition of
approval and that is why they are here. Subsequent to this
approval, Joe Krabacher decided to redevelop his property because
he felt this had negatively impacted the use of his site. So, they
do have approval to move the historic structure, which is only this
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 7, 1995
portion (showing on the drawing) , forward to this corner, and a new
building will be built here. I believe it is near the 5 ft.
setback. When the Stapleton's got their final review, the
Preservation Commission still wanted them to try to win this
variance to make this portion of the historic landmark as visible
as possible. So, this is going to be redeveloped and the plans are
already in, and it's within its setbacks, it's up here.
Lavagnino asked, so, at what point, where is the old structure, is
that that little jog that's shown there?
Amidon replied, I think the only part of the Krabacher house that
we are keeping an historic part, is pretty much straight across.
Lavagnino stated, where that jog is. So, anything that is south
below that would go to the 5 ft. setback.
DeLuca stated, if they move that cabin out, that means that they
are going to be able to build to the 5 ft. setback and all away
around to the front of that house.
Amidon stated, well, but they are not doing it. They are moving
the cabin forward to the front corners here. They are moving this
building to the setback (showing on drawing) , with a big open space
here, before you get to the new building, which probably starts
about here.
DeLuca asked, are they going to be required to maintain that open
space, because if they come around later and decide to build all
the way to the setback?
Amidon stated, I will be going on the assumption that they won't
have any FAR left, they really won't have the ability to expand,
and it would sort of defeat the idea of their design, right now.
Lavagnino stated, and do they have to come to HPC again for
approval if they do something like that? Amidon stated, yes.
Lavagnino asked, and do they have to abide by HPC rules? Amidon
answered, yes. One of the things that continues to be important,
even though this is being redeveloped, is having as much space as
possible between there. They thought maybe this could be a benefit
to the two buildings.
Lavagnino stated, well, the applicant has felt that, you know, if
he had done a little bit more side yard variance, not that much.
Dick Fallin, representing the applicant, stated, well, it is a
safety factor in between.
2
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 7, 1995
Lavagnino stated, well, the safety factor has always been taken
into account because of the setbacks; there should always be a
minimum of 10 ft. The other safety factor is making sure that when
people drive their ears up to Main Street that they can look around
the corner. Now;' you are moving a little closer to their view, and
the only "savir1g grace" was your design of an open collage, as I
remember, there, being a porch so that people can sort of look that
way, and also, it is a right hand turn, so the traffic would
actually be coming from the other way. If they cross the street
they would be so far up ahead to the stop point.
Stapleton stated, the visual affect would be more through the
building, in between the two buildings, probably not any more than
there is right now, but if he brings his thing right over to this,
I would clearly like to be over a little bit further, and he would
have the right to do that. I would just like to be a little bit
further away from him from a construction standpoint, as we'll.
He is in excess of egress, because we have all kinds of people
living in the basement in employee housing.
Head asked, Amy, are we to assume that you are officially giving
a recommendation from HPC to us that this what your pleasure would
be? Amidon answered, yes, that was their condition of approval.
Head stated, well, that's pretty much what we wanted to hear.
Erickson asked, what happens if we turn down the variance, what
happens, do they still get approval?
Amidon answered, yes.
Lavagnino asked, what is the basis that you can apply to us
according to our guidelines, and it is really hard to talk about
practical difficulties and hardships, when we are really talking
about some historic benefit to the City, and showcasing a piece of
their historic property that might benefit us all. But, we have
such limited guidelines in this affect, it is going to be tough to
grant the variance on the basis that it is going to increase
somebody else's viewplane. Can you give us an excuse?
Amidon stated, well, let me think about it. I mean, the crux of
the issue really is that we are trying to allow one story, a very
small, historic structure to be as visible as possible. That's
really the reason.
Lavagnino stated, we understand, but if someone outside the City
came to us and said that, we wouldn't have any problem not granting
that variance, because it would be to their own benefit. The only
thing I can think of is then, this is for the benefit of the
citizenry, rather than individual, and somehow the public is
served. That's the closest thing I can think of.
3
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 7, 1995
DeLuca asked, what about the fact that there is employee housing
in the basement and there's egress type of situation, etc., etc.
i
Lavagnino stated, it sounds I good to me. Is there egress from that
side yard?
Stapleton stated, yes. Lavagnino asked, on that side? Stapleton
replied, there is.
Erickson stated, he built window wells in the setback?
Bill Drueding of staff stated, you can put window wells in setbacks
greater than 30 inches in depth if they are required by the chief
building official for window egress, yes. Can't put stairs in.
There was discussion at random between Drueding and Erickson
regarding egress, safety factors, and setback measurement.
Lavagnino stated, part of the setbacks is not only light in there,
but for trucks to also get through there, originally it was meant
for firetrucks to get through there.
MOTION
Head stated, I move that we approve Case 95 -8, based not only on
the arguments that have been herefore described in our last
meeting, but with strong recommendation from HPC to grant
approval. Paterson seconded. Roll call vote was requested; vote
commenced, Remo, yes; Head, yes; Paterson, yes; Erickson, no,
DeLuca, yes. Vote was four in favor, one opposed, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Erickson stated, I would just like to go on record as dissenting
because I think the purpose of HPC's original request has been
pretty well fabricated by the new plans for an historic structure.
By moving that structure up there, improving the visibility of that
structure from Main Street, what we are giving up is a possible
safety aspect on North 6th Street. So, when I think HPC originally
requested this and made it a condition, it was an existing
structure that they didn't have any idea it was going to be moved.
Now, in their plans, they are going to move it about 10 ft.
further, closer to Main Street, thereby, making it much more
visible, which is what the purpose of the request was in the first
place. Second of all, we don't know exactly how that is going to
impact the side yard setback, and I don't want to grant a variance
based on supposition.
Lavagnino stated, the only other thing I would question is, I think
E
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 7, 1995
we are mitigating any safety factor on the street side because of
the porch in front. Have you taken that into consideration?
Erickson stated, however, it is like people 'who can only build 6
ft. fences can have 12 ft. hedges. I don't know in the future,
we don't have any condition on that, to prevent the closing off of
that porch in the future.
Lavagnino stated, Bill, what if they put a big Blue Spruce in
front?
Drueding stated, the code was re- written a few months ago that
says, 42 inches on the corner, that includes foliage.
DeLuca stated, plus the fact, the deck of the porch is undoubtedly
less than 42 inches. So, the theory is that you put a fence there,
42 inches around this corner, and it really wouldn't matter how
high that was, as long as it wasn't above it.
Fallin stated, it would be against the reason we built that deck
on there in the first place, for a visual thing, I mean, it would
be ridiculous to plant 6 ft. trees around there and block the whole
building off.
Lavagnino stated, we will dispense with the minutes until the next
meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
-Ty .
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
5
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A REDUCTION OF PARKING AND A FLOOR AREA BONUS,
A COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE OF 27.91 POINTS, AND
RECOMMENDING A GMQS EXEMPTION TO COUNCIL FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING
MITIGATION FOR THE STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY APPLICATION, 702
WEST MAIN STREET (EAST 10 FEET OF LOT R AND ALL OF LOT S, BLOCK 18)
ASPEN, COLORADO.
Resolution No. 93-3d
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on
December 21, 1993 to consider the GMQS Application submitted by
Stape Limited Liability Company (herein the applicant); and -
WHEREAS, there were two GMQS Applications submitted, Cap's Auto
Supply and Stape Limited Liability Company, requesting allocations
from the 1993 commercial quota in the Office zone district; and
WHEREAS, the applicant requested an allocation of 2,423 square feet
of net leasable space to development a new office building; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also requested special review for a
reduction of on -site parking and an increase in floor area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also proposed to provide two on -site
affordable dwelling units to mitigate employee generation impacts
of the new development; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -7 -404 B., the Commission approved
four on -site parking spaces with a payment -in -lieu ($15,000 per
space) for five parking spaces that will not be provided on -site;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -7 -404 A., the Commission approved
the floor area bonus for an increase from .75:1 to .86:1; and
WHEREAS, the Commission accepted the Planning Office recommended
score of 27.91 points and found that the project exceeded the
minimum score thresholds of Section 24 -8 -106 F.; and
WHEREAS, the Commission recommends to City Council a GMQS Exemption
approval for the development of two fully deed restricted dwelling
units, one one - bedroom category 2 unit and one three - bedroom
category 3 unit.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it
approves special review for parking and a floor area bonus as
represented by the applicant with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall make a one -time payment to the Building Department for
transfer to the City Finance Department for 5 parking spaces
($75,000) .
2. Two of the on -site parking spaces shall be signed and reserved
for the on -site dwelling units.
3. All material representation made by the applicant in the
application and at the public hearing with the Planning and Zoning
commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless amended by other conditions.
Prior to issuance of any building permits:
4. The applicant shall receive final approval from the HPC.
5. A tree removal permit shall be reviewed before any trees over
6 in caliper are removed or relocated.
6. Trees that are to be preserved on -site shall be protected by
fencing at the drip lines and debris and excavation material shall
not be stockpiled against the trees.
7. A storm run -off mitigation plan, consistent with the submitted
application, shall be submitted for review to the Engineering
Department.
S. A curb, gutter and sidewalk plan shall be submitted to the
Engineering Department for review and shall include an accessible
ramp on the corner, a five foot wide "sidewalk" area on Sixth
Street, and a street light on the corner of the alley.
9. Ice and snow shed protection shall be indicated on the final
plans.
10. The applicant shall review detailed plans with the Sanitation
District and shall contribute $5000, payable to the ACSD, for
collection system improvements.
11. A housing mitigation plan fot(4.75'employees must be approved
by the City Council and appropriate_"ed restrictions filed.
12. The applicant shall submit an application for electric service
providing load information for review by the Electric Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commission that it
recommends to Council a GMQS Exemption for the development of two
on -site affordable dwelling units with the following conditiona-:
1. The three - bedroom dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to
category 3 and be increased to 1,200 square feet of net liveable
space to meet the Housing Office minimum size guidelines.
`A
2. The one - bedroom, 615 square foot net liveable dwelling unit,
shall be deed restricted to category 2 Housing guidelines.
3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall record the deed restrictions, with a copy to the Housing
Office, restricting the two dwelling units to the Housing office
guidelines.
APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on December 21,
1993.
ATTEST:
Jan Parney, Deputy ity Clerk
DATE SIGNED• (�
ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING /_ ON
Bra r/n{/% 1 e Kerr, Chairperson
DATE SIGNED• �O 9
b I
A \
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CODE INTERPRETATION
JURISDICTION: City of Aspen
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION(S): Section 26.28.180, Office zone district, Permitted Use
of "Professional business offices" and Section 26.04.100, Definition of "Office ".
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1996
WRITTEN BY:
APPROVED BY �L1 DATE: `v I U � q (a
BACKGROUND: Dr. John Rappaport is under contract to purchase the Stapleton property at
702 W. Main St. and proposes to operate a veterinary clinic in the new office building that was
approved by Council pursuant to Ordinance 3, Series of 1994. Dr. Rappaport contends that a
veterinary clinic should be considered a "professional business office" and, therefore, would be
an allowed use in the Office zone district.
INTERPRETATION: "Office, professional' is defined in the Code as "a building for use by
those such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, accountants, and other professionals who
primarily provide services rather than products." A veterinary clinic, because of its association
with animals, includes impacts greater than those normally associated with the list of
professional offices included in the definition. While there is no question that a veterinarian is a
professional in a manner similar to physicians, dentists, lawyers, etc., it is the nature of the clinic
itself which places special impacts on abutting properties and the neighborhood in general.
Therefore, the definition of `office, professional' is interpreted not to include a veterinary clinic,
therefore, a veterinary clinic would not be an allowed use in the Office zone district.
9 July 1996
Ms. Cathi J. Rowley
Broker Associate
Coates Reid & Waldron
720 E. Hyman Street
Aspen, CO 81611
CERTIFIED MAIL
Re: Request for interpretation — Veterinary Clinic
Subject property- 402 W. Main Street .
Dear Ms. Rowley:
ASPEN - PITKIN
COMMUNm DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
I am responding to your request for a planning director's interpretation of the zoning code with
respect to the subject property for the installation of a veterinary clinic. Your request is
determined to be complete, and staff is familiar with the subject property and the approved plans
for the site.
As I understand the request, the property would be redeveloped in accordance with the approved
plans, and would be used to house a veterinary clinic. The animals brought to the facility would
be enclosed within the structure and there would not be any kenneling. The property is within the
Office (0) Zone which permits "professional business offices" as a use permitted of right.
"Office, professional" is defined within the Aspen code as "a building for use by those such as
physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, accountants, and other professionals who primarily
provide services rather than products."
The question is whether this permitted use and its associated definition includes a veterinary clinic.
I believe that it does not, for the reason that a veterinary clinic, because of its association with
animals, includes impacts greater than those normally associated with the list of professional
offices included in the definition. While there is no question that a veterinarian is a professional in
a manner similar to physicians, dentists, lawyers, etc., it is the nature of the clinic itself which
places special impacts on abutting properties and the neighborhood in general.
Although the Aspen code does not specifically define or designate a location for a veterinary
clinic, this use is most appropriately lodged within the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S /C/I)
district under the generalized list of `limited commercial and industrial uses" permitted as of
right. I do believe that a veterinary clinic would be a supportable use within this district.
A code amendment may be applied for to permit a veterinary clinic in another zone district such as
the Office Zone. I would recommend that such an amendment provide for a veterinary clinic as a
conditional use, to include development review and the setting of applicable conditions by the
Planning & Zoning Commission prior to the establishment of this use in any specific location.
Staff can assist in developing a code amendment for the Office Zone as part of a development
application. There is, however, no assurance that such an amendment would be approved by the
Planning & Zoning Commission or the City Council, as required by the amendment process.
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 FAA 970.920.5434-...
i
Ms. Cathi J. Rowley
Coates Reid & Waldron
9 July 1996
Page 2
I am sorry that this interpretation does not support your intention to house a veterinary clinic at
the subject property. Chapter 26.112 of the Zoning Code provides for an appeal to City Council
by filing a petition within thirty (30) days of the planning director's decision. Please let me know
if I may offer any additional information or assistance.
Very truly yours,
Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
Community Development Director
CITY OF ASPEN
Encl.
cc: Suzanne Wolff, Staff Planner
John Worcester, City Attorney
COATES
REID &WALDRON lx
Real Estate • Rentals • Property Management _ SMU
REALTY
Jut 0 Q 1996
July 8, 1996
Stan Clauson, City Director
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920 -5099
Dear Mr. Clauson,
My name is Cathi Rowley, I am a real estate broker with Coates Reid & Waldron's office.
I have placed the Stapleton property, (NW comer lot on 6th & Main) located at 702 W.
Main Street under contract with the buyer, Dr. John Rappaport.
Dr. Rappaport wishes to build an office building for the intended use of a veterinarian
clinic. The patients would be enclosed with no kennefm The subject property is located
in a residential/ office zone. Under the city of Aspen code; 26.28.180 Office (0).B.
permitted uses. This use would be within item #2. Professional business offices; "means
a building for use by those such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers,
accountants and other professionals who primarily provide services rather than products."
Please see the following city material I am referencing.
It is our sincere desire to go forward with Dr. Rappaport's goal. However, we need to
determine if this is an allowable business use within the property, as it is currently zoned.
The purchase contract - inspection deadline is July 27, 1996, so time is of the essence in
performing Dr. Rappaports purchase contract - due diligence. At this time, we have not
found any information to the contrary after meeting with Suzanne Wolff, the
administrative assistant. So we look forward to receiving your support and guidance in
this matter.
Dr. Rappaport chose this location due to the office zoning, low residential impact and the
convenient access to this location. In addition, the sellers; Dave & Don Stapleton have
city approved office building plans that Dr. Rappaport would like to use, thus enhancing
that side of Main Street within the cities guidelines. Please let me know if you would like
to see the plans?
continued next page...
Aspen Office: 720 East Hyman Avenue • Aspen. Colorado 81611 • (970) 925 -1400 • Fax (970) 925 -2895
Snowmass Office: P.O. Box 6450 • Suite 113, Snowmass Center • Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 (970) 923 -4700 • FAX (970) 923 -3335
...continued
Dr. John Rappaport has opened and operated as many as six different animal hospitals in
the South Florida area. He is very experienced in addressing any and all public concerns
regarding sanitation, safety and the professional business practices required by his
industry.
Dr. Rappaport is currently in Aspen until Saturday, July 13th. We would be more than
happy to meet with you and/or any other city officials that would have any questions or
concerns regarding his business interest. In addition, Dr. Rappaport can provide
references, licenses, etc. as requested.
Thank you for your consideration, we look forward to your assistance and response to this
timely situation.
Respectfully,
Cathi J. Rowley
Broker Associate
(970) 920 -0573 direct line
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE
REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 15, 1996 at
a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by John Rappaport, requesting an
amendment to Section 26.04. 100 to add a definition of "veterinary clinic', and Section 26.28.180,
Office zone district, to add "veterinary clinic' as a conditional use. Staff is also requesting to
amend Section 26.28.160, Service/Commercial/Industrial zone district, and Section 26.28.130,
Rural Residential zone district, to add "veterinary clinic' as a conditional use. For finther
information, contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130
S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920 -5093.
s/ o n Bennett, Mavor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on September 28, 1996
City of Aspen Account
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE
REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, AND
CONDITIONAL USE REV)EW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 20, 1996 at
a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by John
Rappaport, requesting an amendment to Section 26.04. 100 to add a definition of "veterinary clinic ",
and Section 26.28.180 (Office zone district) to add "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use. The
applicant is also requesting Conditional Use Review approval for a veterinary clinic within the
office building to be constructed at 702 W. Main Street. The property is described as East 10' of
Lot R and all of Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. For finther information, contact
Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO (970) 920 -5093.
s /Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on August 3, 1996
City of Aspen Account
�"� \ 1�,
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE
REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, AND
CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 6, 1996 at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by John
Rappaport, requesting an amendment to Section 26.04. 100 to add a definition of "veterinary clinic ",
and Section 26.28.180 (Office zone district) to add "veterinary clinic" as a conditional use. The
applicant is also requesting Conditional Use Review approval for a veterinary clinic within the
office building to be constructed at 702 W. Main Street. The property is described as East 10' of
Lot R and all of Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact
Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO (970) 920 -5093.
s /Sara Garton. Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 20, 1996
City of Aspen Account
LO
go CP
4 g �'aY YSy Dx> � �
o ,• � C. V ° C �. n' a A$ .7 T a C g 3 w G T Y O Va r CNp
a e C. a F ex� y e w r T 5� 8 .H�8aY" •
Y � J � 'f•U � TS i e3F u "' x� -5 E $n5 � fe man 6e a & abaaBr � :y
Z i •5 .a m eY,. ° Y � g pa ii�FSSg goo
g � +{ o ,'. �q�1` �y �.�# � 6 °:a ova
S" 5 i v c+ +� ( �e 3 O ° °8 nL y y jJ $ e n aam • - '+ S e p u�m.
< w... 3 0O (q 88 Z Y _ r 9 O Q r�V m qn�' bY�C.9C VsyVV.;L Y' 3N n � L � ' � 59 C ,V ( • a S Y��
jIffl � y 6S �"_�E3e e r a as' • egwo
3 A Fbu ..a_ i q ME ' s
L m 8 > < i m Y „3 1 � b +^�, 3m. w 8om
� i�: D ZS •. a e'� II'um
n fi ` l Sm +3 e
T § g • PP33 m ntt ' J a °n V Z $V
j V� OA C Q'1w O V y
v� � .CRI Vww II OrC Oq'.j i '� e
e 8o V L O� gga 'a < .. II. ga 5YR e `s } 'Y § BT.n V RR.. ''OO 5 m uo�a9
2 6u'dubt u m 1 i ' [. e� ° +e 9. o Q a x s Y ��j e Q u = II , . L _
w 6 p. ° �e,� q� CtiC. O 4y p4 S aC Y O TO °T YnH a V f'A m° 9
aQ Uy 1 `L e . 3d a O p �.H �° n L � Y g P °re!' g II 'S:E V CO °Y�L b.Y YY N
g al
b' u. ElW 3•g' yS. =y° < » «�+e5� f.3a w E
. Y ar Sog aut
r V e e_H Ze:SF n_ ° a - V
Y HOO Y ' jy ,.: eem eaoYS - ebew ° Y = -Frog � � 52A3w
oi„G ei OT "m ! :'e.� . -C"a e.Sm oT oeL •Y 3 �,'a aY a SL..y °Se u e°q »..
CV NC it. -4a Z a O wF0 N 330go >
To .`a5 we pp °e < Y. E•Y u °.. nY5 n ua 3° Dmn u Y s t7n' - Y 3 a - Yy.re
'w E -
'a ie: cu.
V(J ° mZ `YO y YO ^V Y. 6. Y 3 {� F gY.. Y b
7 'xR 3j w � 6 E n ° �aH ea5 p En. O S. m y�c m °�w5"'a p
m e_ r L n 5 eii oa e5_ UAp�LI�m mU O°' :a <n S'w eo w ea u8 °m c. Evi y� «. O nrf:emYaB :$ GG \
LY 9 T C3 OO OO 6 We'6 .'S.w,m p ° �C �btlw 6. ZOa° fil FOOrp $ sr
G5 O 3 ° -° Z q Y LJ rOpSU U LL y ° i Un O 3 J
Yt °' Q a fQY L <: U wi w5."aC b8 O•YL O m� Gm y C� = Oe4 S_ C
VL° i��� � >O :CN O ° a ° Y�' g N_'J w.r rte. EE �u ��b C� H
FF }g�3.° Y E' - •d -�. p °'�u }fie g agne TC Y 5g 5F z�, FSDy d
p o•'d9�
V II +1 Y'S 4x G m O �'° �j� Q3� OY. C 030 OO
oq tL n Y� II na V. G F C NaV ° O'Y VV AZ 1� C E n g r
xg - c� x�. j �
E T
& °6 o xi �Yr
uYE._ L 7 tZ.;° _ 5c.,o u o
ycE }•- II'. <E ay�B y 3�EY..Y ae9 X0.8x moe�a 35 y fY -_ >o°g C n
<o�krr. --a e. ¢, F- z °o 3 - 3`y Z m'3 $Y ee nu &:ui°N - a u 3w5 Ea Y 3„
v ..'w•�"a° irr4Y,_..? �.TaNR t� <$.,ae .. 8eme5 + Y=. .5 �x -mr _u ..:;B eFO>
F 9 '11' EFtm
e.N V) L 4Y S
dam . W ee g �$_ $ wig
wO9L. E�SH T' �II q Y. °
J
F O.
e. eF7 9 ° � 6 Uo 5 u a
R9uE a�s3°
a .
Sg
5II �p�$Q ,!Oq II- XS
bfart!(
Y y T� d ° ie #A{•y$ly. y a y 5 = Y ` p LeK S L
f. C,O $TJQ II y e° ^+j a =
� °VY 8 w L 5a� SVVV Y yyp, ,v
OY L�IV'°SO9
9 °�a °�rv +waS ° 2a�v -Eg8`o
arL�_L CQ CyV.y Y�BeL
GGy�( g e C ° G y. e
V1 Ua �m Od f° EU6 � V�n3NVVY
CW 6 N � �C
Q On l lfa��Y ° c� �II
93 gs ga$ e. b
B ,ex �55�99� h
g m — o
$t;m
< •m Y = �'YS.Y.r�C Y. U � 1
N • t
3S gz - ; e arl
w II
Y9 I
w5 eLSw. I a eor E -o ° �
SEwm $ s
0 0 <V Y. E"� � Y Og a $»
SwL�VS� Y.y`y TOY° a�
°
si € �3 ]
n k ,°
< 4V OO b
Qg39 u �¢ u �¢pp ••�� a
L rr u� g < wbo
t
F 3 + a5
5 � �Q_
GGaa �II'O1 a Dd3 v _
°s a;gs= 5geo
1 ° y �� • .1 i J1 � 3 F'pf r y > O p ..
C C• T$Y C y
SZ ,Y, r�j
Ob5 °M w
°a tr °_54
YZj V-irA JY' F&��� 5 0yY W U
n�r L »Uy9 » V