Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.401 Castle Creek Rd.0045.2011.ASLU THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0045.2001.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735 12 3 30 7 801 PROJECTS ADDRESS 401 CASTLE CREEK RD PLANNER JEN PHELAN CASE DESCRIPTION ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL FINAL PUD REPRESENTATIVE LESLIE LAMONT DATE OF FINAL ACTION 8.10.11 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 8.10.11 r Lo I PUBLIC NOTICE Of I DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice Is hereby given to the general public of the AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 the Land Use Gode of Cy A ad Title 24. Article 68, Colorado the it Rev ised spen Statutes pertaining to the following described property: ASPEN LAND USE CODE Parcel C, the Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision, also known as 401 Castle Creek Road, Aspen. Colorado, 81611, by order of the Community Development Director on June 27. 2011. The Applicant. the Aspen Valley Hospital /l Disct reei approval an substant PUD (As' 1 \ € ` V W � p a trie heig a ved allow anof ica rival equipment n In ial height, ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 0 I C f ( panel w for a height and mechanical of parking t a iag allow for a reconfiguration of parking garage e spaces, a correction to the surface parking and Aspen, CO minor lighting allowances. For fudher information contact Jennifer Phelan, at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena 5t, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920 -5090. S/ Cib of Aspen Publish in The Aspen Times'AeekTy dd July 17, STATE OF COLORADO ) 2011. [6761784) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I t v6 " — hAy__wes - '° - (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official Paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A co of ' publication is attached hereto. / Signature The foregssing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 1 (d of vl.oti ., , 201_, by NI C V4t o f tmai . %` a YojAi i isc l l l i if I WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL • ti ; _ 75 t • . � My commission e :: ' " "s� O FCO $_ Notary Public SGdmmirkeEigYN ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION i- . DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order ", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders ", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights ", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three -year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Aspen Valley Hospital District, Dave Ressler CEO, 401 Castle Creek Road, Aspen, CO 81611. Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Parcel C, the Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision, also known as 401 Castle Creek Road, Aspen, Colorado, 81611 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Insubstantial PUD Amendment - Misc. site amendments Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Administrative approval (6/27/2011 — reception number 580971) Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) July 17, 2011 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) July 18, 2014 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 18 day of July, 2011, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RECEPTION #: 5809" 07/05/2011 at 11:05:31 AM, J 1 OF 7, R $41.00 Doc Code APPROVAL Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO NOTICE OF APPROVAL INSUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO PHASE II OF THE MASTER FACILITIES PLAN FOR ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL, LOCATED AT 401 CASTLE CREEK ROAD. Parcel Ill No. 273512307801 APPLICANT: Aspen Valley I lospital, David Ressler, CEO REPRESENTATIVE: Leslie Lamont SUBJECT & SITE OF APPROVAL: Aspen Valley Hospital, 401 Castle Creek Road, involving the approval of changes to Phase II of the Aspen Valley Hopsital master facilities plan approved via Ordinance No. 12 (Series 2010). SUMMARY: The Applicant has requested five amendments to the PUD: 1) greater height allowance for solar panels than approved through the ordinance, 2) greater height allowance for the mechanical than approved via the ordinance, 3) an increase in parking spaces in the parking garage, 4) a clarification of surface parking counts associated with the hospital /medical office function of the campus, and 5) reduced spacing between lamp posts than what the land use code permits. 1) Solar panel height. Solar panels are being proposed on part of the hospital's roof. For maximum solar efficiency, the top of the panels are positioned so they are approximately 9 feet above the roof. When Phase 11 was entitled, the land use code permitted solar panels to extend a maximum of 5 feet above the roof and this requirement was memorialized in Ordinance No. 12 (Series of 2010). Subsequently, the height allowance has been increased to 10 feet for solar panels conditioned on the panels being affixed at least 15 feet back from the building's street facing facade. 2) Mechanical equipment. As part of Ordinance No. 12, a roof plan was memorialized as part of the ordinance. The plan outlined clusters of mechanical equipment to be located on the roof and the height above the roof that the equipment will project. As noted in the Insubstantial PUD application. the equipment heights have changed. Of the five HVAC units shown associated with Phase Il, two are increasing in height while three are being reduced in height. 3) Parking garage spaces. A parking garage was approved for construction during the approval of Phase II. As part of the approval a certain number of spaces (70) are required to be decommissioned as there will be an overabundance of parking at the end of Phase II. Since the approval of Phase II by City Council, the hospital's architects have developed detailed construction drawings for the parking garage. Due to proposed Page I of 3 ti 1 construction techniques, additional space has been freed up resulting in 15 additional proposed spaces within the approved dimensions of the garage. The applicant is proposing to decommission the 15 additional spaces recognizing that parking numbers were heavily discussed during the entitlement process. 4) Surface parking spaces. Since approval of Phase II, it has come to light that the surface parking number with regard to the hospital /medical office function memorialized in the ordinance is incorrect and does not reflect the exhibits and discussion on the record. Essentially, it was discussed that at the end of Phase II more surface parking would be present than what is anticipated at the end of the final phase of the project. As the subsequent two phases of development occur. more surface parking will be removed. Although exhibits were provided during the entitlement process that showed that the applicant anticipated 170 parking spaces to be available for surface parking at the end of Phase II associated for the hospital /medical office function, the ordinance reflected a smaller number, more in line with anticipated counts at the end of Phase IV. 5) Outdoor lighting, As part of the ordinance approving Phase II, compliance with the city's outdoor lighting standards was required. With construction documents being generated, the Applicant is requesting that a number of light poles be permitted at reduced spacing distances. The land use code requires security and parking lot light fixtures to be a minimum of seventy -five (75) feet apart. STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to section 26.445.100 (A), Insubstantial PUD Amendments, of the City of Aspen Land Use Code administrative approvals are permitted when specific review criteria are met. With regard to the five requests for amendment staff has determined that they meet the criteria for an amendment as outlined in Exhibit B. Additionally, the intent of the outdoor lighting code is to prevent excessive use of illumination by providing standards for the design of outdoor lighting; however, the Community Development Director may exempt a lighting plan that does not meet code if a demonstrable benefit is shown. The hospital is asking for an exemption from the spacing requirements for a number of light fixtures due to a number of reasons. Specifically, the reasons include maintaining existing mature landscaping to screen the hospital from neighbors, the need to illuminate curb -cuts and cross walks, as well as exiting requirements. DECISION: Staff finds that the Insubstantial PUD application provided by the Applicant should be granted with conditions. The request requirements of section 26.445.100 (A), PUD Insubstantial Amendments, of the land use code. Following are the approvals and conditions approved with each request: 1) Solar panel height. The proposed solar panels may meet the allowed exception to height limitations, sub - section 26.575(F)(4)(f), permitting solar panels to be a Page 2of 3 maximum of ten feet above the height of the building as long as certain setbacks from the street facing facade are met. 2) Mechanical equipment. As the hospital has specific requirements for HVAC systems, the minor increases and decreases in height are approved as shown in Exhibit A. No HVAC equipment shall be increased more than four feet. 3) Parking garage spaces. The parking garage parking spaces may be increased by 15 spaces to accommodate 225 spaces as the approved size of the parking garage has not increased; however certain conditions apply: A) The 15 spaces shall be decommissioned in addition to the 70 garage spaces that are required to be decommissioned creating a total of 85 spaces to be decommissioned with completion of Phase 11 of the master facilities plan. B) The 15 additional parking spaces shall be addressed and memorialized during the entitlement process for Phase 111 of the master facilities plan or, in the alternative, an amendment to the conceptual approval will be required. 4) Surface parking spaces. As noted previously, the ordinance was written with a clerical error and does not reflect the record presented at the hearing with regard to the number of surface parking spaces related to the hospitaUmedical office space use that will be present at the end of Phase II. Rather than 105 spaces the number should be 170 spaces. 5) Outdoor lighting. The reduced separation between some fixtures is approved as identified in the application and on Exhibit A of this approval. The hospital provides a community benefit and the minor alterations assist in appropriately illumination the site for customers. APPROVED BY: Ail -- Tuwz ion is Benson Date Community Development Director Attachments: Exhibit A — Overall Roof Plan (A -1), Site Lighting Placement (A -2) Exhibit B — Review Criteria Exhibit C — Application Page 3of 3 tl i a I 1 e a m Z P it 0 o o 1 7 l re Ca p a 1 il d �- f ' x ti 1 i i$ ; = 3iia8fp t}t 1 { ! it pit 3( yp ill ' 3 ®� i pp a Ski 1 i lid 9oie fe3d 7d 4� Oa .I i I iii /Jm Mill 11 41!''' . -. e e 111 11i1 .,/ _ l 1 1 1 R (1111 'I N 1 1 1 11 pgg @y !.6i .:: WI . e e ° • Op AI $� [l .4 II ail V/04 i° 1 it I i P : :1 In 1 � q 4 Y � 1 y • rte �„ �� w e m 1 vm si - �, ,a �� _atr 7/ k r r i ,...fiAk+. 17 � Lc asH .4.. i g LCr ! ' ' r Mirm ,. NI n 4 i WI 111 h 4 nr .; ,, g4 0°' ., .4- i a .,-.. . - „,, -zit 1. a I 4 R iti 1 .w , : i ;i. ...,„,.... , ® ,, oliiim . i •... :.%_. Izi ppm E , 1 Ilk " 1 , IIIII _; 8:ii lad - 1 / , . ,i„. 1411 k h N ak 9 I� ma n Z z W s y p iF' mg a .. 2 Z . 9� 9' 1 8 o y < i U ' 4 Ii- o Z U' 2 W P j I u u'1 £'i3' [ Qe a LLw l J b! lin � `0 Et <4 d'a 0 s § q . s 1 L4 1 I tall?. Wy 3 11 0 :L $ e s ill I - Seal II H g I4 S p x g gi 1 15.1 igi p p4 • W g e Z . �Ygy; zIr g•a" wl _ . — _ _ _ :l _ _ ^���� ems. a---=r^ a ! i ___es—tryill.: ?y] ' Y t 1 ! 1 Y Y r _.,-/ S 4 Xi o a i V �4 `4�4`�4 s §` : ° oo .� X 1 ' 1 ; : s a 6,3\ S i. � . A {. /� -1 i bt y� �r 1 j " R / '� / ° 1 0 r C I t x ` o s l i a g ( - L - -0- •tea . 1 ( W t........___ 9_ i ‘‘ y ` , \ t - � e -- ' — . . — -.. /y am \ . W aw ° Z $ \�. 1. / ,w i \ p I 84 i a I T s 3 sr/ Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Findings Insubstantial PUD Amendment. 1. A change in the use or character of the development. Staff Finding: The proposed amendments will not change the use or character of the development. The uses permitted within the property are not changing. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. Staff Finding: The proposed improvements will not change the overall coverage of structures on land. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. Staff Finding: Trip generation and demand for public infrastructure are not affected by this amendment. The 15 additional parking spaces within the garage are required to be decommissioned. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. Staff Finding: The amount of open space will not he reduced by the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off - street parking and loading space. Staff Finding: The Applicant is not reducing the number of parking spaces. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. Staff Finding: The Applicant is not proposing changes to right -of -way widths. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 1 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. Staff Finding: The Applicant is not proposing to increase the gross leasable floor area of a commercial building. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. Staff Finding: The Applicant is not proposing a change in the residential density. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe that the proposed amendments are inconsistent with a condition of approval or representation made in the property's original approval. The approved building dimensions such as footprint or roof height are not changing; however some minor interior changes are being approved. With further design minor changes to the HVAC systems are necessary. excess capacity now exists within the parking garage, a technical error is being corrected and the outdoor lighting is designed to meet the intent of the lighting standards while taking into account the practical challenges of the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2 EN*cr" Lamont Planning Services, LLC 725 Melissa Lane Carbondale, CO 81623R June S, 2011 Cit Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Assistant Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan Phase II — Insubstantial Amendment Dear Jennifer, On behalf of my client, Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH), please accept this request for an insubstantial amendment to Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2010 and the recorded Subdivision/Planned Unit Development Agreement (Agreement) and Plat/Plan for Phase II of the Aspen Valley Hospital District Master Facilities Plan. A. Requested Amendments. There are five areas in which the Ordinance, Agreement and Plat/Plan should be amended: 1. The height of the solar panels: Section 6: Dimensional Requirements of Phase H in both the Ordinance and the Agreement state that the height of solar panels may project a maximum of five (5) feet above the roof location the structure is placed upon. There are three rows of solar panels that are proposed to be mounted on a sloped roof. The panels, at their maximum height, above the sloped roof are eight (8) feet. This grouping of three rows of seven panels is positioned for maximum solar efficiency and is part of a response to snowmelt mitigation. The location of this solar panel site is on the interior of the overall broad roofscape and will only be seen when viewed from the hillside to the south, a vantage point where the height issue will be undetectable. If the whole array of panels were relocated south to the flat roof they would have to sit 12 feet above the flat roof to be effective and be at least if not more visually obvious. Positioning them on the sloped roof is a step towards blending them in with the roof forms. Please refer to Attachment 1 for an elevation of the panels. Subsequent to the approval of the Ordinance the Land Use Code (LUC) has been amended relative to the maximum height of solar panels: On any structure other than a single - family or duplex residential building or an accessory building, these systems may extend up to ten (10) feet above height of the building at the point the equipment is attached if set back from any street facing facade of the building a minimum of fifteen (15) feet and the footprint of the equipment is minimized and combined to the greatest p: 970-963-8434 e:llamont@sopris.net c: 970-918-1357 Page 1 parking structure has increased the number of active spaces will remain the same - 140 spaces of which 10 will be dedicated to residents of the affordable housing. Rather than decommissioning or eliminating 70 spaces, AVH will eliminate 85 spaces (210 -7 = 140; 225 -85 =140). Please see Attachment 3 for a parking structure layout that identifies the number and location of the spaces to be decommissioned or spaces that will be eliminated due to stripping which will increase the width of the bays. In summary, AVH seeks an amendment to the Phase II PUD Agreement and Ordinance 12, Series of 2010 to accurately reflect the number of parking spaces in the structure (225) and decommission 85 spaces verses 70 until Phase III begins construction or the final approval for Phase II is amended. 4. The number of surface parking spaces only related to the Hospital and Medical Office Facility: the number of surface parking spaces identified in the Ordinance and the SIA/PUD Agreement is 105 spaces (Section 6: Dimensional Requirements of Phase II). This is incorrect. That number should be 170. Please refer to Attachment 4 which is a supplement memo from AVH drafted in June of 2010 that outlines the number of surface parking spaces and their location throughout the campus. In addition, there is a staff memo to City Council dated June 28, 2010 that identifies 425 total parking spaces on the entire Hospital campus (which includes Whitcomb Terrace and the affordable housing) at the end of Phase II. Of those 425, roughly 170 surface parking spaces were associated with the Hospital and Medical Office facility. The surface parking layout has fluctuated throughout the review process depending upon various site design iterations. Most recently the total amount of surface parking spaces was adjusted again based upon the requirement to satisfy ADA standards for accessible parking spaces and the ramps and curbs necessary to support those spaces; but it has always been close to 170 surface spaces. It is believed that the discrepancy between 105 and 170 spaces may reflect earlier discussions related to full build out, after Phase IV, when the number of surface spaces will be reduced. Sheet L -103 of the recorded Subdivision/PUD Plat and Plan outlines the number of surface parking spaces and where they are located. The only change from that recordation and today's count is 78 spaces for the reconfigured east lot. Today that number is 77 due to changes related to ADA standards. Please refer to Attachment 5 for a Parking Summation Chart and Attachment 6 for Sheet L -103 (this has not and will not be amended to reflect the change in one parking space from 78 to 77 in the east lot). Please note: For purposes of this insubstantial amendment, surface parking associated with Whitcomb Terrace and the affordable housing are not included in the counts. 5. Outdoor Lighting: There are six areas of the exterior lighting plan that do not comply with particular criteria of the City's LUC Outdoor Lighting section 26.575.150. Please refer to Attachment 7 for a site plan of the exterior lighting plan and identification of the particular lights that are out of compliance. a. According to the LUC light poles must be spaced a minimum of 75 feet apart. Along the western side of the loop road there are two poles (pole #2 and pole #3) that are only 65 feet apart. Both poles are p: 970-963-8434 e:llamont@sopris.net c: 970-918-1357 Page 3 B. Request: Aspen Valley Hospital respectfully requests that Ordinance No. 12 (Series of 2010) and the Subdivision/Planned Unit Development Agreement and Plat/Plan for Phase II of the Aspen Valley Hospital District Master Facilities Plan be amended to: 1. increase the height of the solar panels and air handling units (as identified in amended sheet AS- 103); 2. increase the number of parking spaces in the parking structure from 210 to 225 and decommission or eliminate 85 spaces, for a total of 140 active spaces, until Phase III begins construction or Phase II is amended; 3. clarify that the amount of surface parking spaces, excluding surface parking related to Whitcomb Terrace and the affordable housing units, shall be 170; and 4. vary the LUC exterior lighting standards as described above in section A.S. of this letter and indicated on attachment 6. We look forward to working with you on these proposed amendments. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need more information or clarification of this request. Sincerely, 'Leslie Lamont, Project Planner Aspen Valley Hospital Attachments: 1. Elevation of Solar Panels 2. Amended Roof Plan Sheet AS -103 3. Parking Structure Plan for Parking Space Decommission/Eliminate 4. Supplement Memos Dated June 2010 5. Surface Parking Summation Chart 6. Recorded Plat/Plan Sheet L -103 7. Exterior Lighting Plans: Sheet ES -101 (photometric without light pole & wall mount numbers); ES- 103 (lighting legend, schedule & cut sheets); ES -104 (site lighting placement plan) 8. Land Use Code standards for an Insubstantial PUD Amendment Section 26.445.100 9. Application Submittal Material p: 970-963-8434 cllamont@sopris.net c: 970-918-1357 Page 5 AtIoiclitiroads Lamont Planning Services, LLC Memo To Jennifer Phelan, Assistant Director, Aspen Community Development Department Front Leslie Lamont Data June 21, 2010 Rae Aspen Valley Hospital MFP - Supplemental Memo for June 28 City Council Meeting The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information to the Council based upon the review and comments from City Council at the June t meeting. Attached to this memo are a revised parking count chart and a landscape plan with notations that clarify the landscape additions as well as berming for Phase II. The following items will be presented at the June 28'" City Council meeting: • Revisions to All related to mass/scale and lighting impacts • Further detail of the MOS space: what physicians will be moving into the MOS in Phase II, a sampling of the sizes of current physician office space • Greater detail related to the noise analysis and a list of mechanicals • Additional Phase II perspectives Parking: The attached parking chart outlines the amount of parking proposed for the site per phase. It also includes changes to the parking for the residents of the affordable housing based upon proposed revisions to the AH strictures. Attachment A. The chart also includes a column indicating the number of on -site parking spaces as recommended and updated by LSC Transportation Consultants. Alex Aruhielb will attend the June 28' Council meeting to answer any questions related to patting or traffic. It is the intent to provide at least one parking space per affordable housing unit and based upon the recent revisions they are located as follows: • 6 tuck under parking spaces, • 2 surface spaces • 10 dedicated spaces in the garage p:970- 96348434 e:llamont@SOpris.nef c:970-948-1357 With regard to the Whitcomb Terrace assisted living and community senior center, the number of parking spaces provided will remain at existing levels with an additional two spaces provided as flex spaces for visitors of either the AH units or Whitcomb Terrace. When Phase II is complete it appears that the total number of parking spaces on site exceeds what is recommended because of the parking garage. However, the garage must be constructed in Phase 1I because of its location in relation to Phase II improvements. In addition, when Phase III is built the large surface parking lot behind the Hospital becomes the footprint of Phase III and construction staging; therefore the parking garage becomes critical in supporting Hospital functions during Phase III and Phase IV construction. Whether the Hospital has bonus parking spaces or available parking is deficient, it is important to discourage daily vehicular traffic to the campus. The Hospital's design/development team has waked hard with the City's Transportation Department to develop a Transportation Demand Management plan that creates transit incentives that support alternative modes of travel. The TDM plan also includes bench marks in order to gauge the plan's effectiveness. This will be important as Phases III and IV are developed and the number of parking spaces is diminished. Illustrative Landscape Plan: The landscape plan for Phase II has been clarified with notes so the new plantings, transplant locations, and new Iandforms (as relate to the screening of off -site views) are more clearly identified. Attachment B. Attachments: A. Parking Count B. Illustrative Landscape Plan p:970- 963.8434 e:Ilamont@sopris.net c:970-948 -1357 2 , i t_ i Parking Counts Per Phase Existing Phase II Phase III Phase Proposed LSC Parking Count Parking Parking Parking Total @ Changes w /out AK or Phase I Build -Out to AH Whitcomb Terrace EXISTING PARKING Hospital 173 Whitcomb Terrace 28 Total 201 PARKING COUNT PHASE 11 210 New Parking Structure 210 New Phase II Surface Parking 78 78 Existing Surface Parking (ad Helipad 24 24 Existing Surface Parking @ Staff Parking 69 69 New Surface Parking © Whitcomb 32 32 New Tuck -Under at Employee Hsg 12 6 *10 spaces in the parking garage will be devoted to AH and 2 spaces in the Whitcomb surface parking area will be devoted to AH 419 **322 Total 425 PARKING COUNT PHASE III 210 210 Existing Parking Structure 0 Existing Surface Parking a Helipad (remaining) 14 78 1 14 Existing Surface Parking (Phase II) 32 32 Existing Surface Parking @ Whitcomb 12 6 Existing Tuck -Under at Employee Hsg *10 spaces in the parking garage will be devoted to AH and 2 spaces in the Whitcomb surface parking area will be devoted to AH Total 346 340 **407 PARKING COUNT PHASE IV - BUILD OUT 210 21 Existing Parking Structure 210 10 1 Existing Surface Parking 1 8 13 78 New West Side Employee Parking 23 23 New Main Entry Parking 3 32 Existing Surface Parking @ Whitcomb 3 3 2 6 Existing Tuck -Under at Employee Hsg *10 spaces in the parking garage will be devoted to AH and 2 spaces in the Whitcomb surface parking area will be devoted to AH Total Parking at Project Build -Out 368 362 " 422 * *Updated, recommended parking counts per LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc: includes MOS but not Whitcomb or Emp Hsg ATTACHMENT 4 (The rest of the memo was not included due to the length of the full memo. Parking data is highlighted in yellow on page 2.) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Aspen Valley Hospital — Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road) Final Planned Unit Development, Phase H 2 Reading of Ordinance No. 12 (Series 2010) — Public Hearing MEETING DATE: June 28, 2010 General Background: The hospital received conceptual approval for their master plan in 2009. This approval included their overall program, massing, and their phasing plan. The phasing plan anticipated four phases of redevelopment and requires each phase to receive final approval. The Applicant is requesting Final PUD approval and associated land use approvals for Phase II of the subject application, consistent with the conceptual approval. SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report addresses the questions raised at the June 7 second reading. It contains the following: • A summary of the issues raised from the second reading with additional information provided by Staff and the Applicant; • Staff recommendation & motion; • A revised ordinance; and • The bulk of the memo from May 10 for reference. Reminder: During first reading, certain issues were raised that are outside the scope of the City Council's adopted standards of review within the Land Use Code. Although these issues may deserve some public vetting, a more appropriate forum to discuss these matters would be through public meetings conducted by the Hospital Board. Please be aware that by broaching these topics, City Council could potentially exceed its jurisdiction and meet the definition of an abuse of authority by debating these issues. Even if the final decision references the review standards, the discussion will create a record that implies the decision was based on factors other than the standards of review and will significantly impair the City's position if the matter is ever subjected to legal scrutiny. Staff recommends City 1 Council limit their review of the Hospital's land use application to the standards of review to which the application is subject and not focus upon issues outside of their purview. Response to Second Reading Questions: At the June 7 second reading on Phase II of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan, the City Council raised a number of issues that they asked be addressed in further detail at the continued public hearing on June 28 1. Lighting. Staff Response: At the last meeting on the hospital application, part of the discussion focused on lighting issues. The hospital discussed strategies that it proposes to mitigate the impacts of lighting inclusive of automated shades on hospital windows, using opaque glass in some areas of the hospital and screening exterior decks as well as adding elements above windows on the affordable housing component to limit the impacts of interior lighting. With regard to lighting standards, the city has adopted regulations that limit outdoor lighting, not interior lighting so the Applicant is currently exceeding the city's adopted lighting standards by addressing interior lighting impacts. Essentially the city's standards focus on full- cut -off light fixtures, parking area standards, and less restrictive lighting for light fixtures that are less than twelve feet in height. 2. Noise. Staff Response: The Applicant will be discussing the noise analysis that it has undertaken as well as provide a list of mechanicals at the hearing. The city has a noise ordinance in place that is administered by the Environmental Health department. The hospital is required not to exceed maximum noise levels adopted for residential zone districts as the hospital campus is adjacent to residential uses. From 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. generated sound may not exceed 60 dBA and drops to 55 dBA at all other hours. 3. Parking. Staff Response: The Applicant has provided a table as part of Exhibit 0 of this memo. Essentially, a traffic study conducted by consultants for the Applicant determined that the hospital/medical office space, not including affordable housing or Whitcomb Terrace, needs approximately 422 parking spaces to support these functions. However, the consultant also took into account multi -modal transportation opportunities and reduced this projection. The Applicant is currently proposing a total of 362 parking spaces at the end of Phase IV, inclusive of parking for Whitcomb Terrace and the affordable housing. At the end of Phase I1, the campus will be over parked with a total of 425 spaces but this number will be reduced at the completion of each subsequent phase of development. 4) Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). Staff Response: There has been some discussion and assessment as to whether there is an opportunity to locate a CCRC in the valley. According to Frank Mandy of New Life Management and Development, Inc., a 10 -12 acre site is ideal. With regard to using the existing Whitcomb Terrace facility, Mr. Mandy does not believe that it is suitable for redevelopment. Even with demolition of the existing facility, he does not believe there is enough buildable ground for a CCRC. 2 5. Affordable Housing. Staff Response: The Applicant will be discussing mass and scale issues and any changes to the affordable housing component since the June 7` hearing at the June 28` hearing. With regard to rental requirements, most of the affordable housing units are required to be rented under Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority's ( APCHA) guidelines: six month minimum leases and if a unit is vacant for 45 days, the unit shall be opened up to the general public. APCHA has granted the hospital an exemption from these requirements for six of the units, recognizing that the hospital often hires employees for a thirteen week rotation. 6. Medical Office. Staff Response: The Applicant will go into greater detail on the medical office at the June 28 hearing. 7. Landscaping. Staff Response: The Applicant has included an updated landscape plan as part of Exhibit 0 and will go into greater detail on these proposed features at the June 28` hearing. Waiver of Impact Fees. The Applicant has requested waiver of certain impact fees associated with the project. Based on the 22 units of affordable housing that was originally proposed the fees that should be assessed are outlined in the following table with the bold numbers being the requested waiver: Parks Development Impact Fee TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee Medical office space 49,200.00 Waived per Conceptual approval Affordable housing 90,351.60 10,159.20 Total $139,551.60 $10,159.20 Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that a Parks Development Impact Fee and a TDM/Air Quality fee be paid. Unless the Applicant is paying for trail/park improvements that are not associated with the redevelopment of the site Staff does not believe the fee should be waived. Staff does not believe the TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee should be waived Both of the impact fees represent the Applicant's proportionate share of impacts to maintain city infrastructure at its current level of service. Staff recommendation: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP in providing an essential public facility within the city near transit and trails and provides affordable housing. The refined design of the project uses a palette of materials and provides a good design for the institutional use. The overall size and design of the hospital is consistent with the conceptual approval granted. Staff recommends approval of the Final P110 application for Phase II although the waiver of the impact fees will need to be resolved. 3 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): Council may use the following motion to approve Phase II, "I move to approve Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2010, with conditions, Final PUD and related land use reviews associated with Phase II of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: (ANY EXHIBITS INCLUDED WITH THIS MEMO ARE IN BOLL) FONT) EXHIBrr A — Planned Unit Development Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10, 6/7/10 & 6/28/10) EXHIBIT B — Growth Management Review Criteria (provided 5/10/10, 6/7/10 & 6/28/10) 4 y k ATTACHMENT 5 a 1 Aspen Valley Hospital Phase 2 PARKING SUMMATION 225 Parking Structure spaces 170 Surface spaces 395 Total Phase 2 spaces -85 Decommissioned /Eliminated structured spaces 310 Total Phase 2 usable parking spaces 170 Surface Spaces 69 Existing west lot 24 Existing front lot 77 Reconfigured east lot Accessible Spaces, 77 Space East Lot 33 for Physical therapy x 20%= 7 accessible spaces 34 for Medical Office Space x 10% = 4 accessible spaces Accessble Spaces, Overall 395 spaces per IBC 1106.1 requires 8 accessible spaces Total Required Accessible spaces = 19 accessible spaces Accessible Spaces Provided Existing surface parking at front 3 accessible spaces Reconfigured surface parking at east 10 accessible spaces Parking Structure 6 accessible spaces Total Provided 19 accessible spaces ATTACHMENT 8 Land Use Code Standards Insubstantial PUD Amendment Sec. 26.445.100. Amendment of PUD development order. A. PUD Insubstantial Amendments. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment: 1. A change in the use or character of the development. 2. An increase by greater than three percent (3 %) in the overall coverage of structures on the land. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development or the demand for public facilities. 4. A reduction by greater than three percent (3 %) of the approved open space. 5. A reduction by greater than one percent (1 %) of the off-street parking and loading space. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. 7. An increase of greater than two percent (2 %) in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. 8. An increase by greater than one percent (1 %) in the approved residential density of the development. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. Response: the proposed amendments are very technical in nature and primarily are necessary to reflect manufacturing standards related to the equipment. For example the size of the solar panels and the air handling units cannot be reduced to lower their height. The increase in height of the AHUs is related to structural elements that are necessary to ensure that the equipment can function at full capacity. The spacing of the exterior light poles is directly related to the constraints of the site however, other factors have been used to reduce as much as possible the impacts of light pollution while still complying with safety standards. The overall density of the project, the footprint of the project, the leasable floor area, and the intensity of the land use has not changed by these proposed amendments. Although the number of parking spaces in the parking structure has increased, the size and footprint of the structure has not. And those additional spaces will be decommissioned or eliminated in addition to the 70 spaces in Phase II until Phase III construction has started or the final approval for Phase II is amended. The percentage of open space is not decreased by these amendments. The solar panels and AHUs are on the Hospital's roof, the number of light poles will not increase, and the size of the parking structure remains the same. The size of the surface parking lot has not increased and the number of surface parking spaces is similar to the amount that has been indentified on site plans throughout the review process for Phase II. The proposed amendments do not change the representations made during the review of Phase II and because of their locations the amendments will not be perceptible to the general public. .. Page I of 3 Attachment 9 Pitkin County Assessor :. . Parcel Detail Information Assessor Property Search 1 Assessor Subset Query 1 Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search 1 Treasurer Tax Search Search . Basic Building Characteristics 1 Value Summary Parcel Detail 1 Value Detail 1 Sales Detail 1 Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Land Detail 1 Photographs Parcel Ntunber Tax Area Ii Account Number II 2010 Mid Levy If II I I 001 I R013928 — 273512307801 i 26.708 Owner Name and Address (ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 10401 CASTLE CREEK RD (ASPEN, CO 81611 • Legal Description Subdivision: ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL SUB Section: 12 II Township: 10 Range: 85 DESC: PARCEL C Location Physical Address: 11 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL Subdivision: SUB Land Acres: 1[19.10000038146 I Land Sy Ft: Ik Section CTli"' I 12 II 10 II 85 I 2011 Property Value Summary I Actual Value Assessed Value ��I 4,500,00011 1,305,000 1 http:// pi0; ittassessor.orglassessorlParcel .asp ?Accoun tNttmber— R013928 6/2/2011 Attachment 9 May 27, 2011 Mr. Chris Bendon, Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan Phase II PUD Amendment Dear Chris, For the purposes of pursuing land use review or any communication with the City of Aspen, Leslie Lamont of Lamont Planning Services, LLC, and Gideon Kaufman of Kaufman Peterson & Dishier PC, will act as authorized representatives on behalf of the Aspen Valley Hospital. Leslie Lamont Gideon Kaufman Lamont Planning Services, LLC Kaufman Peterson & Dishier PC 725 Melissa Lane 315 East Hyman Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 Aspen, CO 81611 970 - 963 -8434 970 -925 -8166 �t.r•.fr Mr. ave Ressler C.E.O./Administrator Aspen Valley Hospital 0401 Castle Creek Road Aspen, CO 81611 5644 -1261 ATTACHMENT 9 CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 970.429.2759 DATE: 5/16/11 PROJECT: 401 Castle Creek, Aspen Valley Hospital REPRESENTATIVE: Leslie Lamont TYPE OF APPLICATION: Insubstantial PUD Amendment DESCRIPTION: The hospital is interested in amending its PUD to accomplish two items: 1) permit solar panels on the roof of the hospital and 2) memorialize some discrepancies with regard to on -site parking. Ordinance No. 4 (Series of 2010) permits solar panels to be a maximum of five feet above the roof location that the structure is placed upon. This language is based upon the adopted land use code language that has recently been modified. As constructions drawings have been developed the architects have realized that the proposed solar panels will be slightly higher than the five feet for optimal solar access. Changes in the code have resulted in the following language change: "On any structure other than a single - family or duplex residential building or an accessory building, these systems may extend up to ten (10) feet above height of the building at the point the equipment is attached if set back from any Street facing facade of the building a minimum of fifteen (15) feet and the footprint of the equipment is minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable. Certain additional restrictions may apply pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review." Staff recommends complying with the new language via an Insubstantial PUD amendment. Additionally, Ordinance No. 4 memorializes the minimum parking permitted in the PUD at the end of Phase II. Further refinement of the design of the parking garage allows the same footprint of the garage that is approved; however 15 additional spaces are now included in the design for a total of 225. Additionally, 105 surface spaces associated with the hospital/medical office function are memorialized in the ordinance; however, staff incorrectly included that number rather than a larger number as provided in the staff memo and certain exhibits submitted by the applicant during the review of the application. Staff recommends that both discrepancies be memorialized with this PUD Amendment with the caveat that parking needs to reviewed anew during the land use entitlement process for Phase III. Below is a Zink to the Land Use Application Form for your convenience. http: / /www. aspenpitkin.com/ Departments / Community- Development/Planninq- and- Zoninq/Title -26- Land- Use -Code/ Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.445.100 (A) Planned Unit Development —PUD Insubstantial Amendment Follow link below to view the City of Aspen Land Use Code http: / /www. aspenpitkin. com/ Departments / Community- Development/Planninq- and- Zonine/Title- 26- Land - Use -Code/ Otis Review by: Community Development Staff for Completeness Public Hearing: No Planning Fees: $735.00 for minor review & three (3) hours of work. Additional time over will be billed at $245 per hour. Total Deposit: $735.00 (this will be added to the billing for an existing case) Total Number of Application Copies: 2 sets To apply, submit the following information: Q Total Deposit for review of application. CI Pre - application Conference Summary. Cl Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Q Proof of ownership 0 Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 0 A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. O List of adjacent property owners within 300 feet for public hearing =Completed Land Use application 0 Signed fee agreement Cl An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. n 2 copies of the complete application packet and maps. CI A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. co4 - 2c1 -X-Li1 :,,fil::.. ;Aida File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help 1 S. iX 1 ki=A-IiiifYitJ.Ii. 7 ilj A lump 1 s J_ P Rouen Status ;Fees ' Fee Summ ary Man Actions Attachments Rooting History Valuation Arch /Eng Custom Fields Silo Permits Parcels 9 - c Pert type aslu Aspen Land Use pad # C045.2011.ASLU 0 y Adk'es 401 CASTLE CREEK RD ktj5ute o Cty ASPEN StatelCO Tlp 81611 Q .. Permit Inforrnatim - . - - ..... .. c Master permt Routing gnus aslu07 Applied 611412011 c n' 7 1 . z Project Status pending Approved 0 o - 1 ° Desaipton ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL MASTER FACUTES PLAN PHASE II FINAL PUD - Issued INSTUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL I'PLEASE BILL AGAINST OLD CASE FILE 0084.2009.ASLU - PER JEN Final Submitted 'LESLIE LAMONT 963 8434 rd (Running I Da n Wires 61812012 Submitted via Owner Last name ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL First name 401 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN CO 81611 Phone (970) 544 -1379 Address • 711 7 — ricant p Owner applicant? 0 Contactor is applicant? Last name ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL Fist name 401 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN CO 51611 • Phone (970) 544.1379 Cust # 29050 Address Lender Last name First name Phone ( ) - Address Ill • l I Iiii Displays the pea lender's address AspenGold5 (sewer] angelas ;. 1 of 1 `� S z i9—LL ck.°-ac`.A'`� 0---k_ Ok CccS -e - 00 .2009. ,1---1-1\-