HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19960820
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1996, 4:30 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 305 S. Galena Conditional Use Review, Suzanne Wolff
B. Vet Text Amendment and Conditional Use Review, SU7.anne Wolff
C. Aspen Mountain PUD (cont. from 8/7), Dave Michaelson
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan Amendment Referral, Ellen S"s':cmo
V. WORKSESSION
A. Viewplanes, Dave Michaelson (Discussion)
VI. ADJOURN
.{L'I cL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Rhonda Harris, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: August 15, 1996
September 3 - Regular Meeting (4:30 PM)
Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline and Conditional Use for ADU (SW)
Orbe Conditional Use for ADU (BN)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Senior Planner
RE: Referral: Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan Amendment/Special
Review/GMQS Exemption for a Medical Office Building and Affordable
Housing and 1041 Hazard Review
DATE: August 20, 1996
SUMMARY: At the meeting, Planning Staff will provide a summary of the Aspen
Valley Hospital land use proposal currently in process in the County. Referral comments
from the Aspen Planning Commission with respect to the application will be forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners,who are scheduled to review the proposal on August
281 1996. A Staff memorandum is attached for reference.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Senior Planner
RE: Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan Amendment/Special Review/GMQS
Exemption for a Medical Office Building and Affordable Housing/1041
Review and Rezoning
DATE: August 6, 1996
REQUEST: Aspen Valley Hospital proposes to amend their Master Plan to include a
programmed expansion of approximately 5,504 square feet in additions and 14,500
square feet in remodeling to the existing hospital building which contains 64,616 square
feet. The additional square footage will accommodate an expanded Emergency Room,
new Operating Room and expanded lab, a new Physical Therapy wing to allow an
expanded, in -hospital program and elimination of the morgue.
A 27,320 square foot medical office building is proposed for development on the
Hospital campus.The Office building will meet the needs for non -hospital medical -care
and will be financially self-sufficient. Hospital funds will not be used to build the
medical office building. Fifteen one -bedroom affordable housing units (10,283 square
feet) will be built on the upper floor of the proposed medical office building. The
following approvals are requested: -
• Master Plan Amendment; and
• Special Review for the proposed Office Use in the Public zone District and
• 1041 Review for encroachment on slopes exceeding 15% in grade; and
• GMQS Exemption for the Medical Office Building (which the applicant believes
should be exempted as an Essential Community Facility); and
• GMQS Exemption for the 15 affordable Housing Units located above the Office
space; and
• Rezoning of the small area identified for affordable housing in the 1992 Master Plan
from AH back to PUB. (The "rezoning" is not necessary, as the Hospital never
followed through with the affordable housing development and it was never formally
rezoned to AH).
t
In the event that the GMQS Exemption for the Medical Office, Building is not
granted, development of the office use will be subject to Commercial Growth
Management Competition. The submittal date for commercial GMQS applications is
November I5th, annually.
PROCESS: A two-step Review requires Planning and Zoning. Commission review and
a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners.
APPLICANT: Aspen Valley Hospital District
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: John Young
LOCATION: 0401 Castle Creek Road
ZONING: The parcel is zoned PUB (Public) and contains approximately 19'acres.
• Pursuant to Resolution No. 87-81, the BOCC approved the following requests:
l .Rezoning of the 19 acre hospital campus from AF-2 PUD to Public; and
2. Growth Management Exemption for Essential Community Facilities and
Special Review approval for the construction of a 3,000 square foot Physical
Therapy Expansion to the Hospital Building.
• Pursuant to Resolution No. 87-121, the BOCC approved the following requests:
I.. Special Review and Growth Management Exemption for a 24 unit Assisted
Living Facility, one Manager's Unit and a 4,000 square foot Senior Center.
• Pursuant to Resolution No. 89-79, the BOCC approved a Master Plan for the
Hospital.
• Pursuant to Resolution No. 91-119, the BOCC approved a Master Plan Amendment
and GMQS Exemption for construction of a 4,000 square foot ambulance barn and an
attached 2,000 sq.ft. living quarters.
• Pursuant to Resolution No. 91-144, the BOCC granted one residential GMQS-
allocation for the Hospital Administrator's Residence.
• Pursuant to Resolution No. 92-11, the BOCC approved a Master Plan Amendment to
accommodate:
1. The Administrator's Residence.; and
2. Helipad relocation; and
3. A nordic trail connection through the Hospital campus to the Maroon Creek
Trail; and
4. Expanded Parking; and
5. A revised Service Plan.
• Pursuant to Resolution No. 92-3797 the BOCC approved a Master Plan Amendment
to accommodate:
1. An expanded Emergency Room, new operating rooms, and an expanded
lab; and
2. A new space for the Aspen Orthopedic Institute; and
3. An Outpatient Clinic Space; and
4. Physical Therapy Wing; and
5. Morgue; and
6. A 12 unit Employee Housing Project
The 92-379 Amendment requested a 52,150 square foot expansion to the existing 63,900
square feet of approved floor area on the campus.
• The Hospital went to the voters in 1992 to request additional tax dollars to fund the
proposed improvements and was unsuccessful. Consequently, few of the
improvements were made. Within the last year the Hospital was successful in
obtaining a mil levy increase. They have revised their Master Plan to be more up to
date with respect to Health care trends, and to respond to public input they've received
with respect to service needs and fiscal responsibility.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following agencies have been referred on this case:
1. County Attorney*
2. County Engineer
3. Zoning
4. Environmental Health
5. Land Management* _
6. Maroon/Castle Caucus*
7. Meadowood Homeowner's Association*
8. Twin Ridge Homeowner's Association
9. RFTA*
10. Aspen Fire
11. Aspen Water*
12. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission*
13. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
14. Housing
* no comments received
Comments of the agencies listed above are referred to as necessary in the appropriate
sections of this memo. Referral memos received have been attached for your reference.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL: The following is a summary review and
analysis of the applicant's proposal relative to the most applicable policies and standards
of the Land Use Code.
Gi�1S�� E EMPTI DN. - Section 3-150.140 - The applicant requests a GMQS exemption
for the proposed 27,320 square foot Office building which will also contain
approximately 10,280 square feet of employee housing. The total structure will contain
approximately 37,600 square feet of floor area. The purpose of the building will be to
provide for the relocation of all medical practitioners and doctors who have privileges at
Aspen Valley Hospital. The building will be financed by revenue bonds and/or a bank
loan and is expected to be self-supporting. The Hospital will contract with someone to
operate the facility which will contain approximately 21,856 square feet of net leaseable
space.
The Land Use Code stipulates that development must comply with the following criteria
in order to be exempted from Growth Management:
• It must provide a basic service upon which the public is dependent;
• It must be available to the general public;
• It must serve primarily the local community; and
• It must be in response to growth and must not itself be a growth generator.
Staff Response - The proposed office/affordable housing building Generally complies
with the first three criteria. However, Staff questions compliance with the fourth criteria
regarding the issue of growth generation.
Traffic generation - The applicant assumes that up to 90% of doctors will office on
campus and that in turn, a large percentage of medical offices in town will be eliminated.
As a result, the applicant assumes that there will be a decrease in traffic between town
and the hospital by those who go from their doctor to the hospital for testing; and a
decrease in traffic resulting from doctors walking to the hospital (instead of driving) to
visit their patients and to perform emergency operation procedures. Staffs concerns with
respect to traffic generation are that the following scenarios may just as easily occur:
• If in fact 90% of the doctors are located on the hospital campus, those who live and/or
work in town will no longer have in -town doctor services and additional traffic will
be created by those driving out to the hospital campus, though they have no need of
the hospital;
• If the new office space assists the hospital in "the recruitment of new physicians as
the need arises," and existing office space in town remains in town, there may be an
incremental increase in traffic resulting from the additional office space at the
hospital.
4
Lower Castle Creek Road and the Highway 82/Maroon Creek Road intersection are
currently functioning at an over -capacity level of service. Consequently, traffic
generation is a critical issue in this neighborhood Staff questions the assumption that a
27,320 square foot office building will result in a "significant reduction in traffic impact
to the City. of Aspen." In fact, the County Engineer believes that the proposed
improvements to the Hospital, including the new office/affordable housing building, will
result in a 20% increase in vehicle trips on Castle Creek Road. They may also have a
noticeable effect on the intersection capacity of both the Hospital Road and the Maroon
Creek Road intersections.
Impacts of traffic resulting from the proposed office building may be perceived as a
"growth generator" in that increased traffic will increase the required service level in this
neighborhood.
Office Space - In the event that.a large percentage of the medical offices in Aspen move
out to the Hospital Campus, more office space in town will become available, creating an
influx of new tenants. The result will be an increase in overall growth, resulting from the
addition of the Office building on the Hospital campus.
Housing in - The applicant proposes to provide 15 one bedroom dwelling units within the
office building to mitigate affordable housing requirements. There will be a benefit, in
that there will be no increase in traffic resulting from work -to -home trips generated by the
increased number of employees on campus. However, the potential down -side is that
there will be fifteen new households driving to seek services located in -town or down -
valley, as no services exist on the Campus or in the immediate_ vicinity. Employee
generation may result in another incremental increase in traffic, and/or the need for more
services in the immediate vicinity.
Staff questions the applicant's assumption that the proposed office/affordable housing use
is not a growth generator and should be exempted from Growth Management as an
essential Community Facility. Moreover, Staff believes that this for -profit office building
will be in direct competition with office space in Aspen. If this development is exempted
from GMQ S, . perhaps all medical office space in Aspen should be exempted. Staff sees
no distinction between this office building and medical office buildings/space elsewhere
in the City and the County.
SPECIAL REVIEW
Special Review Uses - In the Public zone district, the proposed office and multi -family
affordable dwelling unit uses are subject to Special Review approval pursuant to Section
3-210.10 of the Land Use. Code. The intent of the review is primarily to determine
whether the proposed uses are compatible with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Specific Land Use Code criteria addresses consistency with:
• Applicable master plans;
* Land use policies; and
• The intent of the zone district.
In addition, there must be a finding that the proposed uses are in harmony with the
surrounding area, and minimize adverse effects. Adverse effects include visual impacts,
impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, noise, vibrations and odor
on surrounding properties. There must also be a finding that proposed development does
not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, or substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property.
Compliance with Applicable Land Use Policies
Compatibility with Existing Adjacent Neighborhoods - No written comments have been
received from the Castle/Maroon Caucus. However, the Caucus president has informed
Staff by telephone that the Caucus has no objections to the proposed Master Plan
Amendment with the exception of the concern they have expressed historically with
respect to traffic impacts associated with increased development on the Hospital Campus.
The Twin Ridge Homeowner's Association generally supports the proposed amendments
but has the following comments:
• The increased square footage on the south side of the hospital may increase traffic
impacts on the Doolittle Drive entrance which is presently over capacity and poorly
designed. The Hospital should contribute a pro-rata share for improvements to this
intersection.
• Additional vehicle trips generated by the Medical Office Building will have a
negative impact on Castle Creek Road and the Maroon Creek Road/Highway 82
intersection. The Hospital should be required to pay a pro-rata share for
improvements to the Road and intersection.
• As additional employees and patients will be generated by the Medical Office
Building (MOB), an efficient and convenient way of accessing RFTA should be
provided. The RFTA bus stop on Doolittle Drive is too far from the MOB and
Assisted Living Facility (ALF) to assure maximum use of RFTA. The proposed
Driveway and circulation plan have not been designed to allow a RFTA bus the.
ability to directly access the MOB and the ALF. The applicant should be required to
provide a new sheltered RFTA bus stop as close as possible to the MOB and ALF.
(The applicant identifies a "future bus stop" on Castle Creek Road approximately 300
feet from the MOB entrance.) 1
Staff concurs with recommendations made by the Twin Ridge Homeowner's Association.
Drainage - The applicant proposes to improve existing drywells and retention ponds to
accommodate the proposed development. The County Engineer notes that the drainage
0
study submitted by the applicant is based on several "assumptions." Mr. Eylar
recommends that a thorough analysis of new drainage patterns be prepared to address
major changes in the amount of impervious surfaces which will result from the increased
parking and building construction.
Scenic Quality - The most significant visual impact associated with the proposed
amendment relates to the MOB. The three story structure will contain approximately
37,603 square feet of floor area. By way of contrast, the existing hospital building
contains 64,616 square feet of floor area. The applicant proposes to use brick, lead
coated copper shingles, synthetic stucco and an ashlar stone base to "provide an eclectic
palette of materials to enrich the "hillside village" concept for the building." Roofing
will be a metal or fiberglass shingle material to "harmonize with the Assisted Living
Facility." The building will be built to comply with County height standards (28 feet to
the midpoint of the roof).
In 1992, the same general area was approved for an affordable housing building
containing several units. In. contrast, that building was proposed to be approximately
7,000 square feet in size, and a much smaller above ground parking area was
contemplated. No below ground parking was proposed.
Staff has the following concerns and comments with respect to visual impacts of this
building on the public viewpianes along Castle Creek Road and Highway 82:
• The grading plan is difficult to read in that it does not compare existing
g grade with
proposed grade. Consequently it is difficult to evaluate the effect of grade changes on
various viewplanes; The applicant indicates that there is an average grade of
approximately 19% across the building site. However the existing grade adjacent to
= the building on the south side is approximately 27%.
• As the basement level is cut into the slope and the building is stepped down the slope,
all three stories of the building are daylighted and exposed to' the public viewplane.
From the Castle Creek Road and Highway 82 viewplane, the building will appear to
be one large mass. When viewed in the context of the existing hospital and ALF
buildings, they may all blend into one large mass, though the developer hopes to
achieve a "hillside village" concept. The massive effect might be slightly lessened if
the basement level was subgrade rather than daylighted.
• Staff recommends that the applicant consider using materials that may blend in with
what is left of the natural surrounding environment, as well as with the materials in
surrounding structures. The proposed eclectic palette may stand out rather than blend
in. It is recommended that the materials used be as unobtrusive as possible. ►� Staff
does not believe that the existing hospital campus can realistically be 'Iransformed into
a "hillside village" concept.
• The Landscaping Plan primarily consists of cottonwood and aspen trees on the Castle
Creek Road and Highway 82 sides of the property. While these will provide limited
screening during the non -winter months, it will be difficult to screen the building with
7
landscaping due to its location on somewhat of a plateau. Consequently it is
imperative to preserve the existing cottonwood stand and vegetation below the
building on the east side/Castle Creek Road side of the structure. Existing vegetation
should be salvaged and retained wherever possible on site. Staff also recommends
that the Landscaping Plan be revised to identify all proposed plant material by genus
and species, and that height and caliper be identified on the Plan.
• A cursory review of the proposed elevations indicate that the proposed building is too
tall in several areas. Limiting the height to something less than the County standard,
in addition to breaking up the mass of the building, may help to limit visual impacts.
• A new intersection is proposed to be constructed at the entrance to the Assisted
Living Facility and proposed Office building. The site plan indicates that retaining
walls will be used on the up -valley side of the improved road and at the intersection.
Staff recommends that the applicant provide sections of what these retaining walls
will look like from Castle Creek Road (how high, what material, etc.)
Air Duality - The Environmental Health Department provides the following comments
with respect to air quality:
• The applicant must provide a plan for offsetting the traffic impacts generated by the
new office building. 3 3 5 traffic trips must be offset ' in order to address air quality
standards established in the nonattainment area. Measures may include (but are not
limited to) plowing of, or payment for plowing of bike paths from the site into town
in winter, paving of unpaved parking lots, driveways or shoulders, or similar
measures unique to this specific application.
• A fugitive dust plan must be approved prior to commencement of construction.
• As represented in the application, the approval should be conditioned to prohibit the
installation of any fireplaces other than decorative gas fireplace appliances in the
newly constructed areas.
• A registered engineer specializing in ventilation system design should be consulted to
ensure that ventilation is adequate to prevent carbon monoxide from reaching high
levels inside the proposed underground parking garage or in the nearby areas around
it.
Adequate Provision for Water - Water is provided to the Hospital by the City of Aspen.
The applicant's engineer indicates that the existing service line is adequate to meet the
demands resulting from the proposed expansion of the Hospital facilities. The applicant
commits to provide adequate water information prior to issuance of a building permit.
While no comments have been*received from the Water Department, Staff will attempt to
obtain comments prior to the meeting. Staff notes that the Hospital will be required to
comply with any water service agreement requirements of the City prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Sewage Treatment - The Hospital is and will continue to be served by the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District: The District has provided the following comments:
• There is sufficient capacity to serve the proposed improvements;
• AVH should be required to pay all connection charges and prorated impact costs prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
• A condition of the 1992 BOCC Master Plan Amendment approval was that the
Hospital would provide an analysis of the capacity of the on -site collection system.
The District does not believe they were provided with such an analysis by the
Hospital. The on -site collection system must be upgraded in order to be dedicated to
the District for maintenance. The applicant's engineer recommends that treatment
and/or separation of effluent from the campus be addressed by the District and the
applicant prior to issuance of building permits. At a minimum, grease interceptors are
needed for the cafe, health and human services building, and assisted living center.
An oil and sand separator is needed for the ambulance garage.
• There is a concern that pathological wastes are being disposed of in the sanitary sewer
system. Line crews have recently reported red colored wastewater from the AVH
collection system. Pollutants that individually, or in reaction with other pollutants,
may pose a health hazard to workers in the collection system or treatment plant are
prohibited by District regulations.
Utilities - The applicant's engineer indicates that there is sufficient capacity available to
provide gas, electric and telephone service for the proposed Hospital expansion.
However, due to the number of offices proposed, a main feed telephone cable extension
from the Castle Creek/Maroon Creek intersection will be required to provide sufficient
telephone service. As this is an already developed area, Staff does not perceive the need
to upgrade telephone service as an issue, though it is noted that the proposed development
requires an 'increased service level. Staff recommends that the proposed extension be -
located underground within the road right-of-way.
Impacts on Road System - The County Engineer indicates that the applicant's engineer
based his traffic analysis on the 1990 Pitkin County Road Standards and Specifications.
Current standards were adopted in June of 1995 as part of the Road Maintenance and
Management Plan. Based on the current standards, the proposed development would
generate a 20% increase in vehicle trips on Castle Creek Road, rather than the 6-9%
increase indicated by the applicant's engineer. Past approvals of development in this area
have been conditioned upon payment of. a pro-rata share for the cost of improvements to
the Castle Creek Road and the Maroon/Castle Creek Road intersection. Staff
recommends that the Hospital be required to pay a pro rata share for improvements prior
to issuance of a building permit.
The County Engineer also notes that the proposed improvements will have a noticeable
eIrfect on the intersection capacity of both the Doolittle Road and the Maroon Creek Road
intersections. Mr. Eylar recommends that the applicant provide an intersection analysis
to determine if there is adequate room to accommodate all of the required movements
without additional improvements to the intersection of Doolittle and Castle Creek Roads.
Gi
If improvements are necessary, Staff recommends that the applicant provide a pro-rata
share for such improvements if they are deemed to be necessary, and/or be required to
construct the improvements.
The applicant also proposes to make significant changes to the intersection of Castle
Creek Road and the access road into the Assisted Living Center. A substantial amount of
additional traffic will be entering and leaving via this access. Mr. Eylar recommends that
the applicant provide a thorough analysis of traffic movements, site distances and other
safety issues. One safety issue identified by Mr. Eylar is the potential for traffic. backing
up across the bike/pedestrian trail; resulting in the movement of bikes and pedestrians
between cars waiting to turn.
With respect to the proposed bus pullout on Castle .Creek Road„ Mr. Eylar recommends
that it be designed with a greater taper length than that identified on the site plan, and that
there be a sidewalk/path connection from the campus to the bus stop.
Transportation -
• The applicant proposes to provide new underground parking on the west side of the
MOB as well as additional above ground parking on the east side of the Assisted
Living Facility and on the east side of the existing Hospital building. Based on his
traffic generation figures, the County Engineer believes that the applicant is providing
adequate parking for proposed development.
• Comments from RFTA have not been received. Staff -will attempt to get comments
prior to the meeting. Staff recommends that consideration be given to designing the
proposed driveway and circulation in the area of the Assisted Living Facility and the
MOB to allow for direct R.FTA access. At a minimum it is recommended that the
applicant provide a sheltered bus stop as close as possible to the MOB and the ALF.
Pedestrian access to RFTA-service should be better accommodated than it is as
currently shown on the proposed site plan.
Housing - This application will be taken to the Housing Board on August 7th for their
comments. Their comments will be forwarded to the BOCC. In the mean time, the
Housing Office has provided the following preliminary comments with respect to the
application:
• In 1992, the applicant was asked to provide an update and summary of the number of
employees that have been generated since 1989 when the first Master Plan was
approved, and an update of the number of bedrooms that have been provided to
mitigate the employee generation. This information was provided by the applicant as
part of the current application. Planning Staff will forward Housing Board comments
with respect to the adequacy of the existing and proposed affordable housing in terms
of mitigation, to the Board of County Commissioners.
H
• The Housing Office perceives the applicant's proposal to make the new deed
restricted units available to hospital_ employees only, as a potential issue. The Housing
Board will comment on this aspect of the application on August 7th.
• Affordable Housing Units are proposed to be approximately 575 square feet each.
Current Housing Guidelines stipulate that Category 1 and 2 units must contain at least
600 square feet of net livable square footage and Category 3 and 4 units _must contain
a minimum of 700 square feet. This issue has obvious implications' on building size
and/or # of units which can be accommodated in the currently proposed building.
1
The area in which the MOB is proposed. contains slopes exceeding 15% in grade. Based
on the information provided by the applicant, slopes do not appear to exceed 30% in this
area. Based on this information, the only mitigation for encroaching on such slopes is
review and approval of the building foundation by a Colorado registered Professional
Engineer. Staff recommends that prior to review by the BOCC the applicant provide a
plan identifying existing grade at two foot contours in the area to be encroached upon by
the MOB and new parking. (Existing grade beneath the MOB and parking is not currently
shown.) In the event that slopes exceeding.30% in grade are impacted by proposed
construction, the application will have to be re-evaluated.
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
• Several standards established in the Land Use Code for Public Master Plans.
(specifically compliance with County policies and neighborhood compatibility) are
addressed under the Special Review section of this memorandum.
• Staff recommends that a listing of those uses permitted on the Hospital Campus as a
result of this review be listed in the Resolution approving the Plan Amendment. Uses
subject to further review (physical therapy pool expansion, future parking lot
expansion, and expansion to the Assisted Living Facility) should also be listed in the
Resolution as such.
• The Master Plan is proposed to be a five year plan. Additions to the existing Hospital
building are proposed as the first phase of development. The Medical Office -
Building/Affordable Housing and underground parking are proposed as the second
phase. Staff recommends that the phasing plan be revised to indicate in which phase
the exterior parking and access road improvements are proposed to be constructed.
• The Plan exhibits submitted with the application must also be recorded to document
the approved Master Plan.
Annexation - It is noted that the Hospital Campus is identified in the City of Aspen
Annexation Plan as an area which may be considered for future annexation.
11
Staging -_Staff recommends that the applicant prepare a preliminary staging plan as part
of the Master Plan approval to address the following concerns:
• Parking for construction and hospital employees;
• Construction traffic plan;
• Location for topsoil storage and identification of destination for soil which may be
removed from site.
Weeds - Prior to commencement of Construction, the applicant will be required to submit
a weed management plan to the County Land Management for review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on a finding that the proposed for -profit medical office building will generate
growth, Staff recommends denial of the request for a GMQS Exemption for this
development as an Essential Community Facility. Staff recommends that the applicant
submit a Commercial Growth Management application on November 15th if they wish to
compete for Commercial Office space. 'Special Review and 1041 Review will be
processed concurrently with the GMQS application, based on the specific site plan
submitted with the application.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Master Plan Amendment to allow for the
expansion of approximately 5,504 square feet in additions and '14,500 square feet in
remodeling to the existing hospital building The additional square footage will
accommodate an expanded Emergency Room, new Operating Room and expanded lab, a
new Physical Therapy wing to allow an expanded, in -hospital program and elimination of
the morgue. Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions:
I. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the following:
• A revised traffic generation analysis which will be reviewed and approved by
the County Engineer;
• Payment of a pro-rata share for improvements to the Castle Creek Road and
the Maroon Creek Road/Highway 82 intersection; Said share shall be based
on the traffic generation analysis approved by the County Engineer;
• Payment of a pro-rata share for improvements to the Doolittle Road
intersection with Castle Creek Road, if traffic generation merits such
improvements, as determined by the County Engineer.
• A fugitive dust control plan and an air quality mitigation plan approved by the
Environmental Health Department;
• A staging plan indentifying parking for construction and hospital' employees;
construction traffic plan; and location for topsoil storage and identification of
destination for soil which may be removed from the hospital site. Said plan
shall be approved by the County Engineer.
12
• A letter from the Aspen Water Department confirming their willingness to
serve the additional development. The applicant shall comply with all Water
Department requirements for upgrading service.
• An updated Water Service Agreement from the City of Aspen, unless the
applicant provides a letter from the CityAttorney confirming that no such
updated is required;
• A letter from Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District confirming that all their
requirements have been met and confirming that concerns regarding pollutants
in the AVH collection system have been adequately addressed by the Hospital.
?. Prior to review by the BOCC, the applicant shall provide a proposal for housing
mitigation to accommodate employees generated by the existing Hospital building
expansion, as deemed necessary by the Pitkin County ,Land Use Code and the
Aspen/Pitkin Housing Guidelines.
3. Within three months of approval, the applicant shall submit revised Master Plan Map
Exhibits for recording. Said map shall identify phasing, those uses approved as part of
this amendment (including additional parking) and uses which are subject to further
review. A revised drainage plan approved by the County Engineer, shall be recorded
concurrently.
4. Exterior materials used for the Hospital building addition shall blend in with the
existing building. Roof materials shall. be non -reflective.
5. New development shall be limited to slopes of 15% in grade or less. Development on
steeper slopes shall be subject to further review.
6. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and in public
meetings shall be adhered to.
EXHIBITS
A HOUSING COMMENTS
B TWIN RIDGE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION COMMENTS
C COUNTY ENGINEER COMMENTS
D LAND MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
E ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT COMMENTS
F ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMENTS
G ASPEN FIRE DISTRICT COMMENTS
H ZONING COMMENTS
13
r.�
E, A-.q
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ellen Sassano, Planning Once
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
GATE: August 1, 1996
RE: Aspen Valley Hospital District !Master Plan Amendment
Parcel ID No, 2735-123-OM11
A more formal comment and recommendation will be forwarded before going to the Board
of County Commissioners. This referral states some concems the Staff has with this
application and the ability to calculate the mitigation required.
The applicant is proposing an expansion to the existing hospital of 5,604 square
feet, plus a medical office building Complete with employee housing.
BA ZKGMUND: Aspen Valley Hospital completed an employee housing project to the
south of the hospital on land deeded to the hospital by the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County. This project provides housing for up to 38 employees in 23 apartments.
1-he employee housing issue is a major concern to the applicant. The applicant would
like to, provide an additional employee project to be built on top of a proposed medical
dice building located off of the parking circle of the Assisted diving Facility. --
61t Ely ATtQ : This application will be taken to the Housing Board on August 7
for their comments and=recommendations. During my preiiminary review, I have some
concerns that will be also raised by the Housing Board.
1. In Resolution 92-11, paragraph 12a, and 92-379, paragraph 9, the applicant was
to provide the following:
Prior to issuance of s building permit, the original 1988 employee
generation numbers prepared for the applicant shall be updated to
determine the true number of employees generated by this proposal and
the ability of the Aspen Valley Hospital to mitigate for employee
generation."
To my knowledge, this information has still not been provided by the applicant.
2. The appliar.,nt is requesting that the new units being dedicated to employee
housing be deed restricted rental units available to hospital employees only.
i
AUG 01 '96 10:17AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
P.2,
With regards to 1 above, a true mitigation number cannot be derived until this information
is provided. Also, in the memo dated July 23, 1992, from Team Baker, the decision for
using Mountain Oaks for credits for future development was to be decided upon by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. I cannot find
any reference to this item, therefore, it is not clear on whether Mountain Oaks can be
used for mitigation for any future development This also needs to be decided upon
before any calculations can be done as to what is truly needed by the applicant -
According to the Aspen/Pitkin Cpunty 1995 Affordable Housing Guidelines, the
occupancy standard for a one bedroom unit is 1.75 employees. Therefore, the applicant
is proposing to house 1.75 X 15 = 25,25 employees with the new development This
calculation is correct. --
In my preliminary review, I did not find the square footage of the employee housing units.
In order to meet the minimum net livable square lbotage stated in the 1995- Affordable
Housing Guidelines, the units. MUST be at lest 500 square feet fear Category 1 and 2, or
700 square feet for Category 3 and 4. This is also a concem of the Housing Board as to
minimum square footage. The Housing Board will also raise some concern restricting
these units to hospital employees only.
Again, a formal recommendation will be forthcoming before going to the SOCC.
2
July 25, 1996
Ellen Sassano, Senior Planner
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Aspen Valley Hospital District Master Plan Amendment
Dear Ellen,
Please accept the following comments of the Twin Ridge
Homeowner's Association Board of Directors (Board) with
respect to the proposed amendments to the AVH Master Plan.
The Board generally is in support of the proposed medical
office building and affordable housing development. The
Board feels that locating medical office buildings and
housing for employees adjacent to a major medical facility
will improve the efficiency of hospital operations and be -
more convenient for the public.
The proposed additions to the south side of the existing
hospital facilities appear to be minimal and should not add
significantly to the visual and noise impacts already borne
by the residential=neighborhoods to the south (including
Twin Ridge). We would point out, however, that the increased
square footage on the south side of the hospital may
increase the number of employees and patients that access
the hospital from the Doolittle Drive entrance and that this
will load additional vehicles into an intersection that is
presently over capacity and poorly designed. The Board would
suggest that the hospital contribute to the funding of
necessary improvements to this intersection, while
acknowledging that Pitkin County and the City of Aspen
should also contribute to said improvements.
The Board believes that some of the off -site impacts that
will generated by the proposed commercial development (MOB)
have not been adequately addressed by the applicant.
Specifically, the additional vehicle trips generated by the
MOB and the resultant negative effects on Castle Creek Road
and the Maroon Creek Road/Highway 82 intersection must be
mitigated and included in the development costs borne by the
applicant. The hospital should be required to pay a pro rata
share of any improvements to Castle Creek Road: and the
Maroon/SH 82 intersection. This is consistent with the
conditions applied to other recent commercial/residential
proposals (Highlands, Moore, City of Aspen Water Plant
project) in the area.
In addition, the MOB will increase the number of employees
and patients in this area and these people must be provided
an efficient .and convenient way of accessing the RFTA
transit system. The Board feels that the RFTA bus stop on
Doolittle Drive is too far from the MOB and the Assisted
Living Facility (ALF) to assure maximum use of mass transit.
Although the application does indicate a "future bus stop"
on Castle Creek Road (approx. 300 feet from the MOB
entrance), it appears that the proposed driveway and
internal_ circulation plan has not been designed to allow a
RFTA bus the ability to directly access the MOB and the ALF.
Given the needs of the users of both of these facilities,
the Board feels that the design of the driveway -and.parking
area should be revised to provide this level of service to
this side of the medical "campus". The Board also believes
that the applicant should be recuired to provide a new
sheltered RFTA bus stop as close as possible to the MOB and
ALF. -
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
Twin Ridge Homeowner's Association Board of Directors
Richard J",Magi 1, president
�rflr�i i
Ta: E1l en`Seasim
From: Biu`1`E
Dom:-..7� j96
Re: A VH District Master flan Amendment
Eller4
I have reviewed the application and have the fbilowing comments:
In Exhibit B, the applicant snakes wte that the traI& analysis is rased upon the PiWn
County Road Standards and Specification adopted in 1990. The current standards were
adopted in June of 1995 as part of the Road and Management An The traffic
generation numbers come from the Trip Generation manual of the Institute of Traffic -
Engk em. The rates of traffic generation for the dffmv t land uses based upon some
interpretation are as th1lows: Affordable flvusing ITE calls for 6.59 trips per person. Tiros
comes for the table relating to low rise,apwtment. Since these are to be one bedroom units,
I have aasuined only one person per unit, Medlical Dental' Office -Building (applicant's
Business offices) - ITE has this specific category evaluated on the basis of trips generated
per 1000 sf. gross floor area, This trip. generation is 34.17 vehicle trips per I000sfon a
'weekday. Hospital- Once again there is a specific rM category winch states a traffic
generation rate. For Hospitals it is 16.78 trips per 1000 sf of gross floor area. Based in the
ITE nuuuud the trip generation should be:
Land Use Category Gmmr on .Rate Reduction for Transit Rate/ Total Trips
A# ardable I�ausing 6.59trip/pesson 2.0 trip/person 4.59! 69
Medical -Dental 34.17trip/1000sf 3.5 trips 30.67/ 685
Hospital Addition 16. 78trip/1000sf 1.68 trip 15.101 _ 85
Total Trips: 339 tripsida.y
if this traffic number is comset, then the amount of additional traffic generated would cause
a 20% increase in vehicle trips on Castle Creek Road. It would also have a noticeable etrect
on the intersection rapacity of both the Hospital Road and the Maroon Creek Load
imersectiona.
• Parking: %file a detailed analysis was not undertaken to detemine how the applicant
arrived at the parking requirement rates, it is apparent that they took a conservative
approach to the spaces they were ,required to provide. Generally they did the
calcuiatians and rounded up to provide for excess capacity for each land use evaluated.
If their traffic generation numbers are correct it scem9 that they are creating too much
parking for their needs. However, if our analysis is correct or reasonably close, I believe
that the parking the applicant is proposing is or will be adequate.
• Drainage: The applicant proposes to redo the drywells and retention ponds, The report
seenm w be predicated on a number of assumptions that things wdl work and that the
L tee; 1l be acceptable. Additional backup in#ormation should be provided based
a thorough, analysis of the ziew drnafiiage patterns,, accounting for the major c1anges in
amount on impervious suribm due to the increased prldng and building constwtion. .
This will need to be accounted for so that we am be poartive that the historic dminage
will wr be chaaga
Access: It appea rthat the existing access to the Hospbl and Heakh and Hun=
Services Center could be ai y impacted, pardcuEmriy if the trWEc analysis is close
to that for a Medical -Dental Clinic. Once the =tubers are agreed upon the applicant
needs to undertake an. analysis to determine if there is adequate room to
accommodate all of the requited im without addrtiosAl eo to t�
intersection. The new intersection at the ALF will change drsmaticaIly. Subs
additional traffic wi l be entering and leaving trough this access. A thorough analysis of
traffic =vements, *ht distances and other safety ism should be address Le;, will
traffic back up wwss the bike/gcdostrian, trail is 8 the tmvement of b&u and.
pedestrians to cross between cars vn&ing to turn. Further, the bus pullout in this area
reeds to have a greater taper length to make it workable. There should also be ax
sid�path co=cction to the bus srtwp.
EA� � +5;-- IT'_D
TO s ELLEN SASSANO
FROX s STE" ANTHONY
RE: AV}I XAST R PLAN
DATE; SLILY 3 o ,, 1996
I have reviewed the proposed amendment and offer the following
comments:
1. Vegetation
Salvage and retain existing vegetation where possible. T
question the planting of crabapple trees in this area. The
landscaping plan states that "pine" will be planted, please
ask that they speclfY the species of pine to be used. For all
proposed plant material, phase state the scientific name by
genus and species.
Submit Weed management plan.
2. Topsoil -Minimize use of offsita topsoij
�; 7sPen Consol olrQfeorcSantfdflon DtsZrt& �F> (T-
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (970)•925-3601
Sy Kelly • Chairman
Albert Bishop Treas.
Louis Popish Secy.
July 18..1996
Ellen Sassano
Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: AVH District Master Plan
Dear Ellen:
FAX #(970) 925-2537
Michael Kelly
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has
sufficient treatment capacity to serve the improvements suggested
in this master plan. There are downstream line constraints in
this drainage area of our collection system that will need to be
eliminated. The costs of eliminating the line problems have been
and will continue to be prorated among new development in this
area. We would request that AVH be required to pay all connection
charges and prorated impact costs prior to the issuance of
building permits for any of the improvements contemplated.
The 1992 BOCC resolution listed a condition requiring AVH to
investigate the capacity of the on -site collection.system. We are
not sure that the study was completed. The on -site collection
system should be upgraded with the addit-ion of short line
extensions of our mains so that most of the on -site system could
be'dedicated to the District for maintenance. As part of the on
site improvements, grease interceptors are needed for the cafe,
health & human services building, and assisted living center. An
oil and sand separator is needed for the ambulance garage.
We continue to have concerns about the disposal of pathological
wastes in the sanitary sewer system. Our line crews have recently
reported observing red colored wastewater from the AVH collection
system. Pollutants that individually, or in reaction with other
pollutants. may pose a health hazard to workers in the collection
system or treatment plant are strictly. prohibited by our
regulations.
Please call if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976 • 1986 • 1990
Regional and National
I�X� li�;� IT -:P
MEMORANDUM
To: Ellen Sassano, Community Development Department
From: Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health Officer-�'
Date: July 23, 1996
Re: Aspen Valley Hospital District Master Plan Amendment
Parcel ID # 2735-123-00-011
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
The Aspen/ Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the details of the
Aspen Valley Hospital District application under the authority of the Pitkin County
Land Use Code and has the following comments.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-170 and 3-110.40:
"It is the policy of the County to insure the availability of a water supply of adequate quality, quantity, pressure and dependability
for fire protection and support of a proposed land use prior to approval of the use. The County shall require land uses to hook up to
existing public systems if service is available."
The applicant has agreed to serve. the project with water provided by the Aspen Water
Department and failed to provide a "...letter of intent to service the proposal..." as
defined in the Pitkin County Code for the amended uses. -
A condition of approval for this application is the receipt of the letter of
intent to service the proposal from the Aspen Water Department. Without
meeting this requirement a building permit cannot be issued.
SEWAGE TREATMENT -AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-18 and 3-1105: "It is the policy of the
County to ensure that adequate sewage treatment facilities are available to serve existing and new developments. Public and private
sewage disposal systems and connections to such systems shall comply with the sewage disposal guidelines of Pitkin County's
Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulation."
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as provided by the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) and failed to provide documentation
"...that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and
that the service agency is of serving the development..." as defined in the Pitkin
County Code.
Printed on Recycled Paper 1
A condition of approval for this application is the receipt of the letter of
intent from ACSD by the Environmental Health Department before a
building permit can be issued.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Sections 2-14 and 3-705 and 3-710:
"It is the policy of the County to preserve and protect its present water resources. To this end it is the policy of the County that no
land use be initiated which would adversely affect the quantity, quality, or accessibility of the County's water resources; or which
would occur at the expense of established water -dependent agricultural activities; or which would result in increased salinization of
water resources, loss of minimum stream flows, further destruction of wildlife habitat, or major expenditures to reacquire or
redistribute major water resources. It is also the policy of the County to maintain a natural vegetative buffer along its surface waters
such that the surface and groundwaters of the area are not encroached upon by land uses or other human activities which could
cause deterioration of water quality or impair the natural treatment processes provided by meadows and wetlands."
The Environmental Health Department will be addressing water quality impacts on
down stream water quality. Banner Associates, Inc. recommends that the proposed
1996 Masterplan Amendment will require modifications to the existing drainage
system. This application is not expected to impact down stream water quality if the
mitigations recommended by Banner are implemented.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-13 and 3-602:
"Only that development is permitted which will not contribute significantly to degradation of air quality in Pitkin County.
Developments may not constitute an indirect or direct air pollution source under Federal, State or County regulations."
The applicant must ensure that traffic increases do not occur, by specific mitigation
measures. Sufficient measures to offset all traffic increases should be a condition of
approval and should be approved by the EHD prior to issuance of any building
permits. - -
There are details of the analysis with which we agree, including the fact that bringing
employees from downvalley commuting locations to where they work will reduce the
traffic impacts of these affordable housing units. While there will still be associated
trips (from shopping in town, service workers, visitors, etc.), the number will be
significantly reduced. Therefore, these units do not have to be mitigated. However,
providing any more parking spaces than is required by code should not. be permitted.
Whether the doctors are located at the hospital or in town, the location is still in the
nonattainment area, and people will be driving about the same distance in either case.
Presently, people may go to the doctor's office and then walk downstairs to fill a
prescription or get labwork done. People will still be driving to the hospital the next
day for physical therapy. In_ addition, unless there is a condition of approval that the
existing offices be vacated permanently, these trips will be added to trips to the existing
offices, and/or doctors may use two facilities. In summary, there is no evidence
presented to document the contention that adding office space -will result in fewer trips.
Printed on Recyded Paper 2
Missing from the transportation/traffic analysis is any description of how -the applicant
plans to offset the traffic impacts generated. Measures may include, and are not limited
to, plowing. of, or payment for plowing of bike paths from the site into town in winter,
paving of unpaved parking lots, roads, driveways or shoulders, removal of existing
fireplaces, or similar measures unique to the specific application. The existence of RFTA
bus service alone does not cause people to take the bus into town or for errands, or for
service workers or visitors to use the bus. While ped trails exist in the area and connect
with downtown and the AABC, the trails are not plowed in winter when pollution is a
concern, and are a longer walk than many people want to take
Our calculations indicate. that 335 trips need to be offset, compared to the applicant's
estimate of 371. The application is incomplete in that it does not provide an enforceable
mitigation plan for these trips.
Traffic impacts can be lessened from what will occur with the current application. In
particular, if the applicant really intends that people use mass transit, very few parking
spaces are needed. Providing more parking spaces than required under the county
code, for the hospital expansion, office building, and affordable housing, as well as
using Assisted Living Facility spaces, will accommodate additional cars, instead of
encourage use of RFTA instead. Limiting the number of parking spaces as much as
possible is essential to any effort to minimize or mitigate traffic impacts. We
recommend that the number of parking spaces be based on using the minimum
required by the Pitkin County Land Use Code for non-residential space (one parking
space for every 400 sq ft of )'and on using the City of Denver code requirements for
space not specifically identified by the Pitkin County Land Use Code (one parking
space per 600 square feet).
For example:
Current hospital 64,617 / 600 =107 have 161
Addition 5,000/ 600 = 9 ( 9)*
Assisted Living Facility 27 room " 1 = 27 have 29
Medical Office Building 20,657/400 = 52 (63)*
Affordable Housing 15. * 1 = 15 (24)*
TOTAL NEED 210 HAVE 190
Therefore, 20 additional parking spaces would need to be added, not 96* as proposed.
Printed on Recyc ed Paper 3
A condition of approval should be that the applicant must provide a PMlo,
mitigation program containing specific, enforceable control measures, which
plan must be approved -by the Environmental Health Department. The plan
must include documentation showing that the proposed mitigation measures
will fully mitigate or offset all PMlo increases caused by the project in the
nonattainment area.
Activities such as road building and landscaping require a Fugitive Dust Plan. This
plan would need to include, but is not limited to, fencing, watering of haul roads- and
disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been
carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from
crossing the property line or causing a nuisance.
A condition should be approval by the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health
Department of the fugitive dust control plan, containing enough measures to
ensure that dust does not become a nuisance or blow onto adjacent property.
The application states that there will be no fireplaces in any of the proposed new
buildings and additions, including the employee housing units and the Medical Office
Building
A condition of approval should be that the affordable housing units include
in their deed restrictions or their covenants that no devices other than
decorative gas fireplace appliances may be installed, as represented in the
application.
The application refers to a future underground parking garage. A registered engineer
specializing in ventilation system design should be consulted to ensure that ventilation
is adequate to prevent carbon monoxide from reaching high levels inside the facility or
in the nearby areas outside it.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Section 2-7:
"It is the oolic, of the Countv to ensure that no use or development of land is permitted which is in violation of the laws of the
Count,, the State of Colorado, or the United States of America."
This Department is not aware of any issues of concern regarding other environmental
health laws.
Printed on Recycled Paper 4
To: Ellen Sassano, Planner
From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
Subject: Aspen Valley Hospital Parcel ID #2735-123-00-011
Date: July 2, 1996
Ellen,
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection
District. This includes -but not limited to the installation of approved fire sprinkler systems and
fire alarm systems.
If you have any questions please contact me.
m
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Ellen Sassano, Planning
FROM: Joanna,S. Schaffner, Zoning Officer
DATE: July 24, 1996
RE: Aspen Valley Hospital District Master Plan Amendment
Parcel ID## 2735-123-00-011
I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the
following comments.
ZONE : ' Public, PUB
This parcel contains 19.1 acres.
SETBACKS: The required setbacks for in the PUB zone district are:
100 foot major road setback as measured from the Castle Creek
Road right-of-way
30 foot front yard setback
10 foot side yard setback
10 foot rear yard setback
All proposed structures lie outside of required setbacks.
FLOOR AREA: The floor area ratio in the PUB zone district is 500.
The following numbers are represented by the applicant and have
not been verified by zoning staff. The numbers are not consistent
throughout the application. It is believed that these numbers
represent square footage and not floor area.
Loc Size: 19.1 acres (831, 996 sq ft)
ExiSting:
64,835 sq ft Hospital (including physical therapy,
MRI, CT Scanning, and the ambulance
garage/paramedic quarters)
4,000 sq ft Senior Center
],5 , 560 sa ft Assi iv' na Faci 1 i ry (ALF)
84,395 sq ft- Total existing square footage
7,740 sq ft ALF approved addition (not built)
Proposed:
5,604 sq ft Hospital addition
10,283 sq ft Employee Housing (15 units)
27,320 sq ft Medical Office Building (MOB)
43,207 sq ft Total proposed
The following improvements are 'not contained on the hospital
parcel and are not included in the floor area for the hospital
parcel.
15,500 sq ft Health and Human Services
13,000 sq ft Mountain Oaks (22 units) ---
3,500 sq ft Administrators Residence
32,000 sq ft Other "campus" structures
Totals:
84,395 sq ft Existing
7,740 sq ft Approved for future (ALF)
43,207 sq ft Proposed (Hospital, Housing and MOB)
17,500 sq ft Proposed (approximate parking structure)
32.000 saft Other __"campus" structures
184,842 sq ft total proposed build -out for campus
The subgrade parking garage is not exempted _from floor area
calculations.
The existing and proposed floor area are well within the floor
area allowed for this site.
SIGNS: The application states that proposed signs will be
consistent with the existing signs on the site. It should be
noted that some existing signs received variance approval from the
Board of Adjustment. Variances should not be assumed for proposed
signs.
It has been brought to our attention that the signs currently on
the site do not c.lea-ly direct traffic to the hospital or to the
Health and Human, Service Building. The applicant may wish to
propose a sign plan which alleviates confusion of motorists
visiting these two facilities. A sign plan should be reviewed by
staff to ensure compliance with Section 3-110.130 of the Land Use
Code.
OPEN SPACE: The
through the Master
define Open Space.
amount of required Open Space is determined
Plan process. The Land Use Code does not
PARKING: The amount of required parking is determined through
the Master Plan process.
The standard for commercial development in other zone districts is
one parking space for every 400 square feet of non-residential
space. Also, for multi -family development, one parking space per
bedroom is required, although this standard may be reduced by
Special Review.. According to these two standards, a total of 97
new parking spaces would be required.
15 spaces for 15 one -bedroom units
14 spaces for the hospital addition (5,604 sq ft / 400)
68 spaces for the MOB- (27, 320 sq ft / 400)
97 new spaces
There are 31 existing parking spaces- at the ALF. The applicant
proposes 43 parking spaces in the garage and 15 additional space --
I
Proposed parking at the hospital location is unclear.
HEIGHT: Sufficient information has not been submitted to
determine compliance with County height regulations. However, a
cursory review of the proposed elevations indicate that the
proposed MOB is too tall in several areas.
The application states. that the MOB "will not exceed `28 feet above
the existing foundation in . compliance with Area and Bulk
Requirements for Pitkin County." Height is not measured from the
Foundation (it is unclear as to what "existing foundation the
applicant is referring)
GRADING: The applicant should submit a _degrading plan which
shows -the extent of the proposed change of grades. The applicant
has submitted a proposed grading plan, but this does not compare
existing with proposed.
1. The applicant should submit a more detailed prof ile of the
proposed cut into the hillside where a parking lot is
proposed for future development. Will retaining walls be
necessary? What type of landscaping is proposed for this
area?
2. Will the parking garage contain an elevator for those unable
to climb stairs? (Physical therapy patients, handicapped
persons, wheelchairs...)
3. The applicant should submit a more detailed plan. of the
proposed new entry. How high are the proposed retaining
walls at the proposed entry and the front of the MOB
building? If they are greater than 30 inches in height, they
must comply with setback requirements. They are presently
proposed within required setbacks. No landscaping is
proposed to screen these walls.
4. If the morgue is to be eliminated, where will the newly
deceased be stored?
5. Specifically, where will construction be staged from? Where
will construction workers park? Where will excess fill be
deposited?
6. _ Although this site is not mapped in the Scenic Overlay, it
is reviewed for scenic impacts. pursuant to Section 3-60
of the Land Use Code.
7. Another access drive across the bike and pedestrian path
should be discouraged. It is possible to realign this drive
to avoid possible pedestrian/vehicle conflicts?
/
i
I
-'---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - '
PARCEL B, ;' I
R-30 ZONE f; I
S." ACRES i !;
EXISTING �1 ;
NORDIC PATH ,
•-.. PARCEL A ,
_P-U B ZONE -
I / 3.96 AZRE-S - -
• NOT'9VNED BY
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL
/HEALTH AND HUMANjA
:.1j � /• SERVICES BUILDING
1
!
!
1
�1
l
1
,
\) J
8030 FPa
8020
CASTLE RIDGE
PHASE I AND PHASE II
SCALE, V - 60'-0•
.S
MEADOWOOD SUBDIVISION
-
J
EXISTING
AMBULANCE
GARAGE i� 1 �' �' - - - - - -
3740 SF
NOT VVNED BY \'\
' I I ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL
PUB ZONE _ _7960
1910ACRES
I
ASSISTED LIVING CENTE
SCAPED "-- - --- ADMINISTRATOR'S
2 ,'
A OVER - EXISTING BUILDING - -- �. '
\\ RESIDENCEx.
,
!
• ! I! _f � ,� ! � —'� '� Eby �
'RESERVED FOR
CASTLE CREEK ROAD
- 7970
- - - - 79%
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL
FIVE YEAR DFVFLOPMFNT PLAN
EXISTING
HOSPITAL
HOSPITAL
ADDITIONS
NQBlHOUSING
ADIW TRAT➢R'S
RESIDENCE
AMBLLANCE
GARAGE
TOTAL
BU LDING
64,617 S.F.
5,603 S.F.
37403 S.F.
3,117 S.F.
3,740 S.F.
114,680 S.F.
PARKING (OPEN)
161
9
87
2
3
262
PARKING (GARAGE)
2
0
0
2
3
7
EXISTNG SITE - 19.1 ACRES = 831,996 SO. FT.
EXISTING FLOOR AREA RATIO = .078
(HOSPITAL ONLY)
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO = .156
(HOSPITAL, EMPLOYEE HOUSING, MOB
ASSISTED LIVING, AMBULANCE
GARAGE L ADMIN. RESIDENCE)
ASSISTED LIVING CENTER
BUILDING
EXISTING
ASSISTED LIVING
CENTER ADDITIONS
14,841 S.F.
C S.F.
PARKING (OPEN)
29
(2)
PARKING (GARAGE)
0
O
EXHIBIT D - 2
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL
ASPEN, COLORADO
FIVE YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FISHER, REECE 6 JOHNSON, ARCHITECTS, P.C.
PARKING
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TOTALS
■ 46 SPACES SHARED WITH HOSPITAL
PHASE I AND PHASE II DEVELOPMENT PLAN
JUNE 14, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner
RE: 305 S. Galena Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing
DATE: August 20, 1996
SUMAIARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to permit short-term rental of six
existing residential dwelling units on the second floor of the Aspen Block Building. The application packet
is attached as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use with conditions.
APPLICANT: Terry Butler, represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION: 305 S. Galena St., Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8; East 6' of Lot G and all of Lots Hand I, Block
8913 City and Townsite of Aspen
ZONING: CC, Commercial Core; Historic Landmark
STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 26.28.140(C)(8) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Commercial Core zone district, residential dwelling units which are located above street level commercial
uses in Historic landmarks may be rented for periods of less than six months subject to 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: The AACP does not address this issue. Short-term rental is consistent with the intent of the
CC zone district, which states, "Hotel and principal long-term residential uses may be appropriate as
conditional uses."
B. 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 proposed use is consistent and compatible with surrounding uses. Other commercial
buildings in the immediate area have short and long-term residential uses on the second floor (Brand
' Building, 81611, Aspen Drug).
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: The six units are currently rented long-term (six month minimum leases). No additional
services will be offered, no changes are proposed to the units, and no additional impacts will be created by
short-term rental of the units. Parking for the units is accommodated in the City's residential parking permit
zones since the units are located in the Commercial Core.
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: No additional infrastructure is required to accommodate the use.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased
employees generated by the conditional use;
RESPONSE: The use will not generate additional employees, therefore, affordable housing mitigation is
not required.
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 use will comply with all applicable requirements.
STAFF RECOMIVIIJNDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use review with the
following conditions:
1. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings
with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECONEVIENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use review to allow short-term rental
of six existing residential units at 305 S. Galena St. with the conditions as outlined in the Community
Development Department Memo dated August 20, 1996".
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Packet
F
VAN N ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
July 19, 1996
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 305 South Galena Street Conditional Use Review
Dear Suzanne:
Please consider this letter an application for conditional use review to permit the
short-term rental of six (6) residential dwelling units which are located at 305
South Galena Street in the City of Aspen (see Exhibit 1, Pre -Application Confer-
ence Summary, attached hereto).
The application is submitted pursuant to Section 26.60.020 of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations by Terry Butler, the lessee and manager of five (5) of the units in
question. Permission for the Applicant to apply for the requested approval has
been provided by James E. Cox Properties, the owner of the building in which the
units are located (see Exhibit 2, letter from Robert J. Snyder and Exhibit 3, Quit
Claim Deed). Permission for Vann Associates to represent the Applicant is
attached as Exhibit 4. An executed application fee agreement is attached as
Exhibit 5. A list of property owners located within three hundred feet of the
project site has been requested from the title company and will be provided prior
to the required public hearing.
Project Site
The six residential units are located on the second floor of the Aspen Block
Building, which has been designated as a historic landmark by the City. The
building occupies the easterly six (6) feet of Lot G and all of Lots .H and I, Block
89, in the CC, Commercial Core, zone district. The building's lower floor is
occupied by various retail commercial tenants.
The residential units are referred to as Units #1, #2, #3, #4, #6 and #8, see
Exhibit 6, Floor Plan). The units are defined as dwelling units for regulatory
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen. Colorado 81611 9 970/925-6958 • Fax 970/920-9310
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
July 19, 1996
Page 2
purposes as all of the units contain both kitchen and bath facilities. The bedroom
mix consists of two, 1-bedroom units, two, 2-bedroom units, and one, 3-bedroom
unit. Access to the units is provided from the Galena Street sidewalk via an
interior stairway.
Proposed Conditional Use
As the attached letter indicates (see Exhibit 7), the Applicant holds the master
lease to five of the six residential units in the Aspen Block Building. She present-
ly resides in one of the units and has historically sublet the remaining four units
within the City's long-term residential rental inventory. Recent rent increases b
the building's owner and the opening of Club 81611 in the adjacent building, y
however, have significantly reduced the units' attractiveness within the long-term
rental market.
To respond to this situation, the Applicant would like the flexibility to periodically
rent the units short-term. No physical changes are proposed to the units and no
additional services will be offered to the tenants. Units which are not rented
long-term will simply be available for lease for periods of less than six (6) months
(e.g., daily, weekly, monthly or seasonally). In addition, the Applicant is request-
ing permission to rent the sixth unit short-term in the event that she should
acquire the master lease to Unit #8.
Review Requirements
Pursuant to Section 26.28.140.C.8. of the Regulations, residential dwelling units
which are located above street level commercial uses in historic landmarks in the
CC zone district may be rented for periods of less than six months subject to
conditional use review. The specific review criteria for conditional uses, and the
proposed use's compliance therewith, are summarized below.
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."
To the best of my knowledge, short-term units located within historic land-
marks are not specifically addressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan. The pro-
posed conditional use, however, is consistent with the intent of the property's
underlying zone district.
2. "The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surround-
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
July 19, 1996
Page 3
ing land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activi-
ties in the vicinity of the parcel proposed for development."
The Applicant's proposed conditional use is consistent and compatible with
existing land uses in the immediate site area. While the area is predominant)
commercial in character, residential dwelling units have historically been located
above street level commercial uses. Both long-term and short-term residential
uses presently occupy the second floors of neighboring commercial buildings (e.g.,
the 81611 building, the Aspen Drug building, the Brand Building, etc.).
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."
No changes are proposed in the units themselves or the day -to day opera-
tion of the Applicant's rental business. As a result, the proposed conditional use
will have no adverse affect on pedestrian and vehicular circulation. No obnoxious
noise, vibration or odor will be generated which adversely affect surrounding
properties. Parking for the units is provided via the City's residential permit
parking program. As legal dwelling units located within the commercial core the
units are entitled to residential permits which permit on -street parking in one the
City's four residential parking permit zones. Trash facilities are present) rovid-
ed in the adjacent public alley. y p
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."
The proposed conditional use will have no adverse impact upon the above
public facilities and services.
5. "The Applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incre-
mental need for increased employees generated by the condition use."
As no changes are proposed in the day-to-day operation of the Applicant's
rental business, no increase in employment is anticipated. The units are leased
furnished and presently provided with daily maid service.
6. "The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards
imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
July 19, 1996
Page 4
applicable requirements of this chapter."
The proposed conditional use will comply with all applicable requirements
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. No additional requirements are believed t
imposed on such uses by the Aspen Area Community Plan. o be
Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to call. Your prompt attention to this matter, and its timely sched
for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, would be since el a uling
ated. y pprecl-
Yours truly,
VANVASSOCIATES
rsunz g �ann, AICP
SV:
Attachments
cc: Terry Butler
C:\bUS\CitY.aPP\app32196.cu
JUL-12-1996 09:21 FROM ASPEWPITKIN COM DEV TO
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Suzanne Wolff DATE:
305 S. Galena Conditional Use Review
NTATIVE: Sunny Vann Phone/Fax: 925-6958/920-9310
Tem, Butler
-9-9209310
i
7/12/96
i
P.01
TYPE O� APPLICATION: Conditional Use Review
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Commercial Core requires Conditional u* review to allow
short-ter4'n rental (less than 6 month minimum lease) of residential dwelling units above street -,'level commercial
uses in historic landmarks. 6 existing residential units are proposed to be rented short-tenn.
The appliicant shall respond to the following items and provide the following reports;
Land U'e Code Section Comments
26.60.00, Conditional Use review standards
i
Review by: P&Z only Public Hearing: YES
'
S �
Plaiumg Deposit: $1050 Referral Agency Fees: $0
TOTAL DEPOSIT: $ 1050 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $175/hour)
i
i
pply, submit'the following information: j
i
l . Proof of ownership
Signed fee agreement
3 Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant, !which also stages 6e
name, address and telephone number of the representative. j
4. Total deposit for review of the application I �
5. 110 copies of the complete application packet and maps. i
6. S�tunmary letter explaining the request (existing conditions and proposed uses), inclwdi street address
aPd legal description of the property. ! �
7. t�n 8 1 /2" by 11 " vicinity reap locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
a. List of adjacent propertyowners within 300 feet of the subject property with addresses.
I
i
I
EXHIBIT 2
Robert J. Snyder Realty Services, Inc.
305 South Galena Suite A
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970-925-2450
970-544-0996 (fax)
July 15, 1996
City of Aspen Community Development Office
Hand Delivered
To Whom It May Concern;
As authorized agent for James E. Cox Properties, owner of the Aspen Block
.Building located at 305 South Galena, we grant Terry Butler Corporation c/o
Terry Butler our permission to apply for approval from the City of Aspen the
right to sub -lease for periods less than six months, apartments #1, #2,
#3,#4,#5,#6 and #8 in the event that The Terry Butler Corporation should
assume the existing leasehold for that unit at some date in the future.
Sincerely yours,
Robert n r
Authorized Agent- James E. Cox Properties
THIS AGREEMENT, m
between JAMES COX PROPER
under the laws of the State of Co]
E. Cox, Esq., P.O.. Box 111, Marti
Owner, and Robert J. Snyder Rea
existing under the laws of the Stat
South Galena Street, in the City of
"Agent".
That the parties hereto
1. Appointment and Ac
appoints the Agent, and the
appointment, on the terms and
renting and managing agent of 1
Block Building,, and known by th
Colorado, hereinafter referred to a
2. Services
following services:
(a) Moving of Tenants.
so far as possible, arrange the
minimum of disturbance to the
to other tenants.
(b) firing and Firing of N
and supervise, all persons neces;
order properly to maintain and o
persons shall be the Agent's an(
discharged, all persons unnece
opinion, should no longer be
compensation insurance on all o
connection with the Building.
le t1usY a of 1994
_...r
ES, a joint venture, organized and existing
rado, having it principal office at C/ O James
,z, California 94553 hereinafter referred to as
r Services Inc., a corporation organized and
of Colorado, having its principal office at 305
,spen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the
agree with each other as follows:
.!..pit nce. The Owner hereby employs and
Agent hereby accepts employment and
3nditions hereinafter provided, as exclusive
e building commonly known as The Aspen
street number 301-309 South Galena, Aspen,
the 'Building."
The Agent shall perform the
pervise the moving in and out of tenants, and
ys and times thereof so that there shall be a
erations of the Building and of inconvenience
intenance Employees. Cause to be hired, paid
try, in the Agent's opinion, to be employed in
aerated the Building, and, in each instance, such
not the Owner's employees; and cause to be
;sary or undesirable, which in the Agent's
employed. Agent shall carry workmen's
its employees who perform work in,, on or in
(c) Collection of Rents. Bit tenants for rent and other tenant charges, and
use its best efforts to collect su rent and other charges, and when and as the
Agent shall deem it proper and a pedient, serve notices upon tenants to quit
}
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement the
j day and year first above written.
R: JAMES E. COX PROPERTIES
f
ames E. Cox
GENT: ROBERI` J. SNYDER REALTY
S VI S, INC,.
Ro nyder, President
tilLVIA OF EXHIBIT 3
PXTK N COU TY REC DOC CLERK LERR & RECORDER 6. eie
QUIT CAI DEED
JAMES E. COX
whose address in 3284 Surmont, Lafayette, CA
94549
County of Contra coo
ta . and State of
C-ftlifOrnia
far the considers ion of
i I I
TEN AND 00/ 100----------------- D011ar3, in hand paid,
hereby sells) and quit clairn(Ig) to JAM F. I A
COX AND IYANCy C:OX
whose add ramtis 3284 Surmont, Lafayette, Callfornia 94549
County0f Contra Co to
and
State of Ca
Property, in the "fornla thef'0110wingregLI 11
COWAY of FlTrm; and $tAte Of Colorado, to wit: THE EASTERLY 6 FEET OF LOT ALL OF LOTS H AND
4:� BLOCK 89,
71T CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
li
also "Own as street and number
with all it4APPurtenances
Signed this 1rt day of August
CALjP0WqjA
ISTATR Or ancomm.
0ountyal Contra Costa
The l0reArolne instrument was acknowiedKod be
9 S -by .TAMES E. Cox
Ur CO3brniaftion expires
LAU" q.
QU" CLAIN DEIM Whort ftna)
amdeme I'wi2lins.
,19 9
ore the this eat dayor August
li
ywlmmry rmwlt -
i it
11
13M) 292-2300
r
1.7
EXHIBIT 4
July 16, 1996
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Ms. Wolff. -
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Planning
Consultants, to represent me in the processing of my application for conditional use
approval to lease the Aspen Block Apartments for periods of less than six (6) months.
Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on my behalf with respect to all matters reasonably
pertaining to the aforementioned application.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
erry Bul r
305 South Galena, #4
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-6562
SV:cwv
c: \bus\city. Ltrutr32196.Sw 1
EXHIBIT 6
11 C3
v
w
IZZ
Z
!- --
-
�v3 N j1► >I
-z.
l� Svc
c
i
N�1.
ra
�
d
�
�
EXHIBIT 7
July 10,1996
Vann Associates
Mr. Sunny Vann
230 East Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Sunny
I am interested in changing the status of my long-term apartments to
short-term rentals. I hold a lease on 5 units on the 2nd floor of the
Aspen Block Building, which is owned by Jim Cox, and managed by
Rob Snider. I have lived here in this building for the past 8 years and
acquired the leases one by one over the past five years. I have a 33
year lease on 5 out of the 6 units. By managing each of these units
over the last few years and I am in a practical sense the landlord of
these particular units. Each residential unit contains a full kitchen,
therefore I do not plan on offering any food or beverage service.
I am not planning on running it as a lodge or hotel, only to have the
flexibility to rent for periods of less than 6 months at a time. Because
of the location of the new sex club 81611 next door, it is not possible
to rent long term any longer. This increased flexibility will help me
to deal with the major rent increase I am facing, with the recent
property tax levy, and our new neighbors.
There will be very little change in the day to day operation. I am not
planning any physical changes to the building, nor am I planning on
any additional services. There may be times however, when I will
lease an apartment for one month or even two weeks. I do not think
that there will be any noticeable increase in use of the building.
Thank you for your help with this matter.
Sincerel
i
Terry But er
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before
the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the
application for conditional use review for 305 South Galena Street
was given by 1) posting of notice containing the information
required in Section 6-205.E.2., which posting occurred on August 9,
1996, in a conspicuous place on the subject property and that the
said sign was posted and visible continuously from that date, and
2) mailing Notice of said development application to all property
owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property,
which mailing occurred on August 9, 1996.
Applicant:
K'?
The foregoing Affi ayyat of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this day of August 1996, by Sunny
Vann, on behalf of TERRY BULTER.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: aD) )Qq6
-�
:�
:. tip -s
�' •
0F
. ,�,/II1 /. M .11
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 305 S. GALENA CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
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 Terry
Butler requesting Conditional Use Review approval to allow short-term rental (less than 6 months)
of 6 existing residential dwelling units. The property is located at 305 S. Galena, and is described
the easterly 6 feet of Lot G and all of Lots H and I, Block 89, 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 August 3, 1996
City of Aspen Account
cent J .
r. esident
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR
Higens ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX
300' OWNER'S LIST
Christina Davis
Vice President
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list
of property owner's within three hundred feet of LOTS H & I, BLOCK 89,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, as obtained from the most current Pitkin
County Assessors Tax Rolls.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES TAX SCHEDULE NUMBER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO
401 COOPER PARTNERS
GUIDO PAUL MEYER
ASPEN GROVE ASSOCIATES
6/0 FLEISHER CO.
P.O. BOX 17799
P.O. BOX 3421
200 E. MAIN ST.
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
LINDNER
AMELIA L. KOPP
B & K ASSOCIATES
ERIKA LINDNER
ROBERT L. ZUPANCIS
308 SO. MILL ST.
6655 N. CANYON CREST DR. #4117
34425 HIGHWAY 82
ASPEN, CO 81611
TUCSON, AZ. 85715
ASPEN, CO 81611
ALAN J. GOLDSTEIN
ASPEN SPORTS, INC.
BERT BIDWELL INVESTMENTS CORP.
C/O GOLDSTEIN MANAGEMENT
408 E. COOPER
P.O. BOX 567
150 METRO PARK #2
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
ROSCHESTER, NY 14623
BRUCE E. CARLSON
RYANCO PARTNERS
TED A. KOUTSOBOUS
P.O. BOX 3587
ATTN: PAT SMITH
419 E. HYMAN
ASPEN, CO. 81612
715 W. MAIN ST.
ASPEN, CO. 81611
ASPEN, CO. 81611
RED ONION INVESTORS
STEFAN KAELIN
ROCKY MOUNTAIN EQUITY &
C/O CHARLES ISRAEL
557 NO. MILL ST.
MORTGAGE
418 E. COOPER
ASPEN, CO 81611
418 E. COOPER
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO. 81611
Ar"-ADES ASSOCIATES, LTD.
517 E. HYMAN ASSOCIATES
DIKRAN A.S. DINGILIAN
".ARK SMYTH CO.
517 E. HYMAN
160 W. 225 STREET
. MAIN ST.
ASPEN, CO. 81611
NEW YORK, NY 10463
ASPEN, CO. 81611
RICHARD W. VOLK
HEINZ WOLF
LEONARD WEINGLASS
C/O FLEISHER CO.
ELAINE WOLF
C/O PEP'S
200 E. MAIN ST.
1221 MYRTLE AVE.
534 E. COOPER
ASPEN, CO. 81611
SAN DIEGO, CA. 92103
ASPEN, CO 81611
ANDRE ULRYCH
W.T. RAY, JR.
GREENWAY COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 2202
J. B. SPEED
HAROLD J QUINN, JR.
ASPEN, CO 81612
50 SCOTT AVE.
666 TRAVIS ST. STE. 100
COOKEVILLE, TN. 38501
SHREVEPORT, LA 71101
JOHN H. CHEEK, JR.
TENNESSEE THREE
PORTER RODGER, JR.
P.O. BOX 564
101 BROADWAY
CAROL L. RODGERS
ASPEN, CO 81612
NASHVILLE, TN. 37201
1300 S. MAIN ST.
SEARCY, AR. 72143
ASPEN COOPER, J.V.
MARY C. JENNE
FITZGERALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
MARJORIE F. MOCH
P.O. BOX 446
C/O FLEISHER CO.
UNIVERSITY #123
HOLLY SPRINGS, MS. 38635
200 E. MAIN ST.
ER, CO. 80210
ASPEN, CO. 81611
TOMKINS KERN AND COMPANY
e a
LESTER TURNER
DOUGLAS S. TOMKINS
C/O ELIZABETH KERN
101 BROADWAY
C/O ASPEN ART SUPPLY
3135 D LAKESIDE DR.
NASHVILLE, TN. 37201
520 E. COOPER AVE.
GRAND JUNCTION, CO. 81506
ASPEN, CO. 81611
CRT P. MORRIS
LAWRENCE G. WOLF TRUSTEE
THOMAS A. KERSHAW
415 E. MAIN ST. STE. 210
22750 WOODWARD AVE. #204
WILLILAM F. SWEARINGEN
ASPEN, CO. 81611
FERNDALE, MI. 48220
84 BEACON ST.
BOSTON, MA. 02108
HAROLD PAUL CALDWELL, JR.
WILLIAM A. VAN ORSDEL
MOUNTAIN RESORT TRUST
MARTHA B. CALDWELL
1776 W. LAKES PKWY
C/O REESE HENRY & COMPANY
1108 NORFLEET DR.
WEST DES MOINES, IA. 50398
400 E. MAIN ST.
NASHVILLE, TN. 37220
ASPEN, CO. 81611
SJA ASSOCIATES
PITKIN COUNTY BANK & TRUST CO.
G.E. BULLOCK TRUST
520 E. DURANT AVE. STE. 207
534 E. HYMAN
C/O SUZETTE GOODMAN
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO. 81611
7601 SCOTT HAMILTON DR.
LITTLE ROCK, AR. 72209
MAURICE BERIRO
KANDYCOM, INC.
WALTER F. HAMPEL, JR.
517 E. HOPKINS AVE.
766 SINGING WOOD DR.
290 HEATHER LN.
ASPEN, CO. 81611
ARCADIA, CA. 91006
ASPEN, CO. 81611
i ^"4A ALTA CORPORATION WHEELER BLOCK BLDG. LLC RANSOM B. WOODS, JR.
,OX 8105 C/O TKG JUSTINE F. WOODS
_AS, TX. 75205 1001 CHERRY ST. STE. 308 P.O. BOX 12288
COLUMBIA, MO. 65201 ASPEN, CO. 81612
DUVIKE, INC. HARLEY BALDWIN LINDA H. JEMISON
P.O. BOX 2238 205 S. GALENA RICHARD H. JEMISON
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO. 81611 1524 CANYON ROAD
SANTA FE, NM. 87501
L & E MEYER PITKIN CENTER, LTD. ELKS LODGE 224 -
G & D FREEDMAN P.O. BOX 4948 210 S. GALENA ST. STE. 21
P.O. BOX 1247 ASPEN, CO. 81612 ASPEN, CO. 81611
ASPEN, CO. 81612
INDEPENDENCE COMPANY MASON & MORSE, INC. BIRKWOOD ASSOCIATES
C/O ROBERT GOLDBERG 514 E. HYMAN P.O. BOX 3421
1875 CENTURY PARK E. STE. 1300 ASPEN, CO. 81611 ASPEN, CO. 81612
LOS ANGELES, CA. 90067
ANGELINE M. GRIFFITH WILLIAM L. COMCOWICH, TRUSTEE GOLDEN HORN BLDG., LTD.
WALNUT ST. 420 WEST MAIN ST. P.O. BOX 4947
�N, CO. 81611 ASPEN, CO. 81611 ASPEN, CO. 81612
• 1 4
SABBATINI SPORT, INC.
WENDELIN ASSOCIATES
FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS, INC.
"230 SO. MILL ST.
150 METRO PARK
210 SO. MILL ST., STE. 201
ASPEN, CO. 81611
ROCHESTER, NY. 14623
ASPEN, CO. 81611
'N ART INVESTMENT, INC.
DAVID DENSON
HILLIS OF SNOWMASS, INC.
1450 SIERRA VISTA DR. #8
KATHLEEN DENSON
170 EAST GORE CREEK
ASPEN, CO. 81611
170 EAST GORE CREEK
VAIL, CO. 81657
VAIL, CO. 81657
PETER GOLDSTEIN
T. MICHAEL KANTZER
MOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES-808
ALAN GOLDSTEIN
6501 VISTA DEL MAR
C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS
150 METRO PARK #1
PLAYA DEL RAY, CA. 90293
170 GORE CREEK DRIVE
ROCHESTER, NY. 14623
VAIL, CO. 81657
MARGARET M. DOLE KEVIN D. ERDMAN
C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF VALERIE E. ERDMAN
CEDARIDGE 31 MADRONE AVE.
P.O. BOX 8465 SAN ANSELMO, CA. 94960
ASPEN, CO. 81612
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 Developmentp , Plan approval from the HPC in
1995. The HPC also approved demolition of the existing non-contributingstructures
from the minimum on the site. In addition, separate applications for variances
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 g
p � sq.ft., an FAR of
0.86 :1. Total area approved for the project is 5,350 sq. ft., including 1615 s .ft. of
affordable housing. sq
.ft.
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 able
which extends out over the front porch to protect the entryd reduce g
ance 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.
1
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).
2
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.B):
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.
3
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 Aspens 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.
8. "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.
C:l
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.
Q
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,
9
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
%W "Ou Pe �. I a am...
J project Name
Pmj ect I 3-tic n
Ate,
(indicate stet ate; -lot & block rxmber, . legal use
apLxrnri ate)
3) Present Zot� �`- C� �-� 4) Lot Size
5 li 's Name Address & Phor e
EXHIBIT I
6) Pepreseirtative's Name, Address & Pig
7) Type of Application (please cbeck all that apply)
Cbndi ti t Use SPA CcrKxptLial His' is Dev.
p ,
Special Review Final SPA Final. His--41Cri c Dev.
St z . Margin Final FM
Y Vier Plarye Subdivision
CorOominitm,i zaticn
8) Descriptim
a�����
property) - -
bfjnor Fiis` uric Dev.
Historic Designates
QQS otmerit ZA
of Existing Uses (nmber and tM:>e of J
sq- ft_ ; nL=ber of any granted try the
/ * 44,�
/,Z,: I V el- --�
9) Descziption of Development Application
v
F'ave you at -tamed tree fcllowin -
to Attachment. 2, Minizim Submiss iczt OD&-,P-,its
-�PesperLse to Attachment 3, Specific Subm issic
�/ Re:sp� to Attachment 4, Review S` for Your Application
f my 29, 1996
Mr. Stan Clauson
Director of Cotnmunity
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr, Clauson:
Development, City of Aspen
EXHIBIT 2
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.
T 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 923-8080 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 87611
970-925-1230 • Fax 970-920-1582. 1-800-329-7230
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
EXHIBIT 3
Order Number.- o o o.22 9 a c
a a
J. Effedive date: June 22, 1996 at 7.3 0 A. M .
. ,Policy or ,Policies to be issued: Amount of kuurance
(a) AJ-, T.A. Owner's (stanciard)
Proposed Insured.'
Jax .r . R.APPAPORT
(b) A.L. T.A. Mortgagee's (standard) $
Proposed Insured:
(c) Leasehold
Proposed Insured:
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to i7Z this (,O' mitment and covered herein is
fee simple
`. ride to the fee estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in:
STAPE LZXZ'TZD L.ZAB.ZZjTZ Co",Ayy
Tate land referred to in this Commitment is described = follows:
THZ LEAST I Q FEET OF LOT R ANA ALL OZ LOT S,
.BTACR 18
C.zr+ AND =WNSZTE of AsPEx
COUNTY OF PZT?{?2T r STATE OP COLORADO
STATZVENT OF CAGES
77ese dzarges are due and payable before a
Policy can be issued,
2992 Owners Premium $
Tax Gertif1cate $
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN jVC,
620 -E. Hopk =, Aspen, Co. 81612
utho Ca
MUD ULE B
Section 1
Order Number: 00022980
REQUIREME=
the following are the requireme= to be complied with;
Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the fudl consideration for the estate or
interest to be insured,
Item (b) Proper lnstrwnent(s) creating the estate or interest to be iTT ured must be =ctued and duly filed far
record, to wit.,
1. Release of Deed of Trust dated Jane .1.5, 2990, 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 .Tone .29, 1990 -in .gook 6.24 at Page 204 as Reception No. 324049
NOTE: Assignment of Rents recorded June 29, 1990
in Book 624 at Page 206 as Reception No. 324050 , given in connection with the
above Deed of TXVZt.
2. Release of Deed of Trust dated Jane .29, 1990, executed by David B. Stapleton
and Don N. Stapleton, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an
.indebtedness of $81 e 250.00, in favor of Segrid Stapleton, recorded July 31 2990
s.n Book 624 at Page 311 as Reception No . 324109
_
3. Re3ease of Deed of Trust dated AprI2 24, 1995, executed by Stape Limited
LLab-i2.zty Company, to the Public Trustee of Pitkan County, to secure an
indebtedness of ,r,50, 000.00 , in .f$vOx of Pitk.in County Bank and Trust Company,
recorded Apz!2 .27, 1993 in Book 779 at Page 472 as Reception No. 380812
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.
389706, given in connection with the above Deed of Trust.
4. A Deed of Trust dated Tx
uns 6, 1996, executed by Stape Limited Liability
Company, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of
$10400.00, .in favor of Pitkin County Bank and Trust company, recozded June 21,
1996as ReoePtion No. 393551.
.5. The following is required w;;th respect to Stape Limited Liability company, a
Limited Liability Company:
a . Certificate issued by the Secretary of State in wlijch said Cert.zficate is
filed, evidencing that said Limited Liability Company is in good standing.
b. Copy of the Operating Agreement of said Limited Liability Company.
c. Cosy of the Articles of organization Qf said Z mited Liability Company.
NOTE: Z.' any Managers are themselves partnerships trusts, limited liability
companies Or corporations, additional xequlrements wi.22 be necessary.
Continued on next page
,1-
Continuation of Schedule B - Section 1
Order Number: 00022980
.NOTE: .Addi,t,4ona.Z r0clUIrOments may be necessary based upon review of the
Ope.rat.ing Agreement.
6. A. Certificate of non -foreign status, du.Zy executed by the se2jerpursuant
to Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code AND
8• S$tIsfactory evidence of the sellers) Coloratdo residency (or
i.ncorporatiors) pursuant to Colorado IfOuse Bill 92-1270.
NOT . Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Cods requires withholding of to
from sales proceeds if the transferor (serer) is �t foreign person or entity.
Colorado House Bi1.Z 92-I270 may require wd.thhoZding of tax from sales proceeds
if the sellers) is not a Colorado resident. DetalZed information 4nd Forms
are 4aailabZe from Stewart Title.
7. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, fuzhished by the
office of the Director of Z. nance, City of Aspen, that the ;q t
folZo�ri.a.Yes 'ha
been paid, or that conveyance is exempt .from said taxes;
(2) The "Wheezer' AQ42 Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant is O.rd trance No. 20
(Series of 1979) and (2) The "Rousing peal Estate Transfex Tax" puzsuant to
Ordinance No- 22 (Series of 1990) .
�. Dead executed by all current Managers of Stage Z.iimited iiabiZity Company, a
Z.zmited ZiabjZity Company, vesting fee titZe in purchsser(s) .
V�z
-S4:,,151ED U.LE B
Section 2
Order Number; 00022980
-- policy or policies to be issued will contain exception., to the following unless the scone are disposed o to the
satisfaction of the Company, .f
1, Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown b;• ze public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the pubes records,
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage to area, encroachments, and arsy facts which a correct
survey and inspection of the premises would disclose 4=d width are not shown by the public records,
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for serrices, labor or Inar er cl heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public records,
S. Defects, liens, encwn.brances, adverse claims or otr-er rra=ers, if arty, created, first appearuxg in the public
records or attaching subsequent to the effective date 1' reQF; bur prior to the date the proposed insured acires
of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage r.:erean covered by this corrtmitnwnt. qu
6, Unpatmed mining claims; reservations or e-xceptions in roienxs, or an act authorizing the issuance thereof;
water rights claims or title to water,
7. Any and a1X .unpaid taxes and asaessments G-=d any unredeemed tax soled
8. Exceptions and reservations as set Earth _n t2e Act authorising the issuance of
the Patent for the City and To:m,site of ;-zPe= r9corded lurch 1, 1897 .in Book
129 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156.
9 Terms, conditions, obligations and restrict__] ,3 a$ set forth i.II City or' Aspen
Oz-dinance No. 60 (Series of 1976) de.isgnzt ;_ an hsstorzc distrwct, recorded
December 9, 2976 in Book 321 at Page 51 as Reception No. 189906.
10. Terms, conditions, obligations and z'estrict ons as set forth ij Cftp of Aspen
Ordinance No.3 (Series of 1994) granting a GLtQS exemption for developument of
off ot'dabl a housing and vested rights statrecorded March 16, 1994 .fn Book
744 at Page 624 as Reception No. 367932.
NOTZ: Provided that Stewart Tit.Ze of Aspen, Snc_ records the dccutuents of
conveyance in the proposed transaction the sracus of title v!l1 be updated from
the time of this coratitment to the 'time o sand recording. .If said update
reveals intervening liens or changes In the status of said title appropriate
actions) will be taken to disclose or el'== ^gte said change pr=or to the
recording of said documents.
MOTE: Pai.icles issued hereunder will be sub -'act to the terms, conditions, and
exclusions set forth in the ALTA 1992 Policy f arm. Copies of the 1992 form
Policy Jacket, setting forth said terms, ccr_d= tons and exclusZens, vjZZ be
made available upon request.
EXHIBIT 5
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
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
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 P
LOT Q, W 20' LOT R, BLOCK
18
1
BRIAN & SUZANNE 0`NEIL
700 WEST HOPKINS, #11
11995 SW 222 STREET
MIAMI FL
33170
BURTON D. OLSHAN 1/2
LITTLE VICTORIAN, #3
KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 1/2
5408 OLD LEEDS ROAD
BRIMINGHAM AL
35210
BURTON D. OLSHAN 1/2
LITTLE VICTORIAN, #4
KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 1/2
5408 OLD LEEDS ROAD
BRIMINGHAM AL
35210
BURTON D. OLSHAN 1/2
LITTLE VICTORIAN, #5
KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 1/2
5408 OLD LEEDS ROAD
BRIMINGHAM AL
35210
BURTON D. OLSHAN 1/2
LITTLE VICTORIAN, #7
KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 1/2
5408 OLD LEEDS ROAD
BRRMINGHAM AL
35210
HUNTINGTON TRUST CO.
SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #101
NA TRUSTEE
REAL ESTATE DEPT. HC-1011
P.O. BOX 1558
COLUMBUS OH
43216
HUNTINGTON TRUST CO.
SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #102
NA TRUSTEE
REAL ESTATE DEPT. HC-1011
P.O. BOX 1558
COLUMBUS OH
43216
HUNTINGTON TRUST CO.
SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #4
NA TRUSTEE
REAL ESTATE DEPT. HC-1011
P.O. BOX 1558
COLUMBUS OH
43216
ANDREW C. DOLAN
LOTS A & B, BLOCK 18
170 SANCY POND ROAD
LINCOLN MA
01773
CHARLES L. HALL
LOTS G-I, BLOCK 18
NANCY W. TATE
P.O. BOX 1819
ASPEN CO
81612
CHERYL BARKER SHONK
700 WEST HOPKINS, #8
710 W. HOPKINS AVE #8
,
ASPEN CO
81611
2
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY
LOTS K & L, BLOCK 18
C/O ASPEN/SNOWMASS, INC.
4 734 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN CO
81611
EE-
BETSY M. REID
700 WEST HOPKINS, #6
59 FALLON DRIVE
NORTH HAVEN CT
06473
CITY OF ASPEN
WEST HOPKINS TOWNHOMES
120 S. GALENA
(EMPLOYEE HOUSING)
ASPEN CO
81611
S
LINDA LEE BLOMQUIST
A-1
KURT IAN BEEREBOOM
724 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
I NIKIFOR BUDSEY, II
A-2
SUSAN WABISZEWSKI
728 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
JEFFREY T. HANLE
B-1
KELLEY J. HANLE
126 S. 7TH STREET
ASPEN CO
81611
MARK L. PEARSON
A-3
LAURA B . HO LMES
732 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
MIA VALLEY
C-1
740 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
MARY E. WOLFER
B-2
130 S. 7TH STREET
ASPEN CO
81611
BENJAMIN H. DODGE
B-3
NANCEE L. HOLOBAUGH
134 S. 7TH STREET
ASPEN CO
81611
DANNY ABBOTT
B-4
PO BOX 2265
ASPEN CO
81612
ROBERT M. NEVINS
A-4
WENDY S. NEVINS
PO BOX 11482
ASPEN CO
81612
3
TONYA M. TERRY
PO BOX 5633
SNOWMASS VILLAGE CO
81615
DAN B. LEVINSON
LYNNE LEVINSON
P.O. BOX 2012
ASPEN CO
81612
DAVID KRUIDENIER
ELIZABETH S. KRUIDENIER
3409 SOUTHERN HILLS DRIVE
DES MOINES IA
50321
DEBBIE KLEIN
A COLORADO CORPORATION
546 MCSKIMMING ROAD
ASPEN CO
81611
DONALD R. MCGILL
11800 OLD KATY ROAD
HOUSTON TX
77079
DONALD L. YOUNG
617 W. MAIN
ASPEN CO
81611
SANDRA K. ALLEN
1570 SILVER KING
ASPEN CO
81611
EDGAR F. BARBER
P.O. BOX 9678
ASPEN CO
81612
GALE M. PARKER
P.O. BOX 1490
ASPEN CO
81612
MANGONE PARTNERSHIP LP
COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
12687 W. CEDAR DRIVE, #100
LAKEWOOD CO
80228
GRAEME MEANS
210 S. GALENA
ASPEN CO
81611
HISPATEL CORPORATION
A DELAWARE CORPORATION
550 BILTMORE WAY
CORAL GABLES FL
33134
C-2
LOTS E-G, BLOCK 25
LOTS A-C, BLOCK 24
617 MAIN ST. PROF., #A
LOTS M & N, BLOCK 25
617 MAIN ST. PROF., #E
617 MAIN ST. PROF., #H
700 WEST HOPKINS, #15
700 WEST HOPKINS, #9 y
VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 1
LOTS E & F, BLOCK 18
SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #E
2
P
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 HAFT
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
a
MARY LOU SABATASSO
225 NORTH 6TH STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
JOAN SHAPIRO—HYKES
205 S. MILL STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 4
700 WEST HOPKINS, #2
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
605 W. MAIN ST., #OOA
ASPEN CO
81611
MARTHA W. MADSEN
APARTMENT 9
608 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
MARTHA W. MADSEN
APARTMENT 9
608 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
MARY E. HAYES
209 EAST BLEEKER STREET
ASPEN CO
81611
M&B COMPANY
C/O GARFIELD & HECHT, ATTORNEYS
601 E. HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
MERLE ELLEN JABLIN
P.O. BOX 778
ASPEN CO
81612
NANCY J HADDAD
P.O. BOX 11453
ASPEN CO
81612
NANCY JANE MANGHAM
5333 COLLINWOOD
FORT WORTH TX
76107
SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #A
p
LOT S , BLOCK 25
LOTS Q & R, BLOCK 25
LITTLE VICTORIAN, #6
VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 5
700 WEST HOPKINS, #14
700 WEST HOPKINS, #3
LOTS C & D, BLOCK 18
0
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 J. FLEISHER,
1/2
LOT
A, BLOCK 25
I.F. ASSOCIATES 1/2
SUITE 1505
Ill 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 f
S. MICHELLE DUNSDON
617 MAIN ST. PROF., #D
DAVID A. BORKENHAGEN
P.O. BOX 2225
,
ASPEN CO 81612
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
LOTS D-I, BLOCK 12
BAVARIAN INN
515 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
SEVENTH & MAIN VENTURE
LOTS A-C, BLOCK 19
A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
P.O. BOX 10147
ASPEN CO 81612
SHADOW MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES 1989
SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #2
SUITE 201
121 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
SHADOW MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES 1989
SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #3
SUITE 201
121 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
SHEILAH JUDITH BRYAN
700 WEST HOPKINS, #13
P.O. BOX 976
ASPEN CO
81612
SHERIE MATILDA LE BLANC
LITTLE VICTORIAN, #2
SUITE 2
634 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN CO
81611
SKANDIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
COMMON AREA
C/O CASTLE CREEK MANAGEMENT
ATTN: RON KINNELL
P.O. BOX 542
ASPEN CO
81612
SMB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
COMMON AREA
(NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE)
SUSAN TAN
SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #C
1340 GATEWAY
SNOWMASS CO
81654
KIMBERLY DAWN DAILY
700 WEST HOPKINS, #5
P.O. BOX 10898
LOS ANGELES CA
90034-0385
SUZANAH V.K. REID
700 WEST HOPKINS, #1
P.O. BOX 10443
ASPEN CO
81612
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
y
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
9
ROBERT HIRSCHFIELD LOTS 0 & P, BLOCK 25
SHERI HIRSCHFIELD
5895 SW 91ST STREET
MIAMI FL 33196
u
ka-
EXHIBIT 6
m
RESOLUTION NO.
(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 (41000) 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 ne.t 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: cB , 1994.
lv
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 , 1994.
Kathryn S l/ Koch, City Clerk
4
36(9322 B-744
SILVIA DAVIS
s- 4
P-6214 03/16/94 11:t76A PG 1 OF 5 REC DOC
F' I TF-:: I N COUNTY CLERK; of RECORDER CJ . 00
ORDINANCE 3
( SERIES OF 19 9 4 ) EXHIBIT 7
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/off ice 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
36 i 93� B- i 44 P - 6 5 �� / 16/94 11 : c_�6A PG OF 5
a site specific development plan as represented in the GMQS
application; and
WHEREAS.. the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning
Off ice's recommendation for the GMQS Exemption does wish to grant
the exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
Or 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 -meet 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.
36 932B- r' 44 F-6^6 c_j',/ 16/94 j. 1 : t-�6A RG 3
. OF 5
Section 2:
Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council
does hereiby grant the applicant vested rights for 702 West Main,
East 10 feet of Lot R and all of Lot S. Block 18, 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,
36 r 9�� E�- r 44 F'-627 03/ 16/94 1 1 : 06A PG 4 OF
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. i
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
prior ordinances.
Section 6:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 4,F'
day of 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Ha 1, 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 day of
1994.
ty.;..ys. •'' John Bennett, Mayor
AT(
s�,thryn Sh, C.ty Clerk
° 0 A k�
FINALLY, adopted, passed and appro ed this c:>I� day of
1994.
Johrl Bennett, Mayor
ES •
K akt b-1- S,. K Koch, City C
j
I-
'l *' C)//?,a 11: 06A PG 5 OF 5
36 7?32 B-744 P-628 0 7 1/
5
EXHIBIT 8
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPNIENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and -C774Y
(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 1995) 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 vreater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification by the CITY when then 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 agree 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.
5, Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consid6radon of *the CrIT's
waiver of its ritht to collect full fees- prior to a determination of ap lication,
Completeness, APPLICANT shall a an initial deposit in the amount � � 2 boo
which is for %� hours of PlanningstafjF time and ual recorded costs exceed
the butial deposit, APPLICANT
aR a additional monthly billings to CITY to
reimburse the CST Y for the roc=in of the application mentioned above,
inolu(Iin post approval review.
Such riodicpayments shall be made within 30
days of te billing data. APPLICANT Author agrees that failure to ay such
accrued costs shall be rounds forsuspension of processing.
� .
I'Y OF ASPEN
By:. -- �..� *�
S lau s"
CO nunity Development Director
2
Date: % gj6
ili ng Address:
I
9 July 1996
Ms. Cathi J. Rowley
Broker Associate
Coates Reid & Waldron
720 E. Hyman Street
-open, CO 81611
AWAvis1 1
Re: Request for interpretation --Veterinary Clinic
Subject property--702 W. Main Street .
Dear Ms. Rowley:
EXHIBIT 9
AL
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" permittdd 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.
1 j0 SOUTH GALENA STREFT • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-:9 = PHOVE 970.920.5090 - FAx 970.920.5-I59
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 DEVELOP_[ENT DEPARTMENT
CODE INTERPRETATION
JURISDICTION: City of Aspen
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION(S): Section 26.2 8.180, 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: ,U L.— �1 tp
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 bean allowed use in the Office zone district.
,, e7-31-1996 11:23AM FROM GATES HAFEN COCHRANE 3034441759
al
July ,31, 1996
MEMO: Joe Wells
Joseph We115 Land Planning, Inc.
FKOM: Mario K. Hafen AiA
Gates Hafen Cochrane Architects, P.C.
RP: Aspen Veterinary Clinic
702 West Main atreet
Aspen, Colorado
A5 design experts specializing in the design of veterinary medical and
boarding facilities, we have often encountered neighborhood oppooition to
proposed projects based on the perception that veterinary facilities are
noisy and smelly. This i9 a real concern, but this perception is 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 atreet, are
of a new generation, The practice of.veterinary medicine has undergone
significant changes in the last ten years, Priven L7yy advances in rr�edicai
-t•dchnology and more stringent client expectations, the presont-day
veterinary facility 15 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.
N015E A13ATEMENT
In looking qt she 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
ourrounding environment in which the noise will be perceived.
EXHIBIT 10
Gates
Hafen
Cochrane
Inventivc. Personable_
Architecture.
1245 Karl Strcct
,l'3ouldcr, CO 80302
1-800-332-4413
Local 303-444-4413
Fax 303-444-1759'
Gatcs Halcn Cochrane
Architects, PC.
7-31-1996 11:23AM FROM GATES HAFEN COCHRANE 3034441759 P.2
The Noise 5ouroe
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 pound level was 95 AM, and the
average 5ound level within the facility wa5 65 dDA. A5 a paint of
comparison, the level of normal conversation is between 45 and 50 dl3A.
The facility for the Aspen Veterinary Clinic would actually be smaller than the
one in Lafayette, 5o the 0ound 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
techniclue.5 that can be used to mitigate noise in the newer, enclosed
facilities: Sound absorption and sound isolation.
In the newly -designed facilities, we, typically speeify the installation of sound -
absorbing ceiling materials. Most of the acoustic ceiling tiles and baffles we
use have a .75 NKC (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
NKC of 1.0. t3a5ed on preliminary sound absorption 5tudles using both wall
and ceiling panels, we anticipate a reduction in the Sound level of
approximately 10 to 12 decibe15 measured in the actual animal holding space.
Additionally, because the facilities are enclosed, the Surrounding wa115 and
roof can. be used to encapsulate and isolate the Sound from the surrounding
areas. On past projects, exterior wa115 with Sound Tran5mis5ion Coefficients
(5TC) of 47 to 58 have routinely been constructed. This means that the wall
was able to 5crcen out 47 to 58 decibels of the Sound that was attempting
to pass through.
7-31-1996 11:24AM FROM GATES HAFEN COCHRANE 3034441759 P.3
Turning back to the project in Lafayette, sound rneasurements taken 10 feet
from the outside wall of the facility gave a maximum reading of 65 d i3A,
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 d15A, Thi6 means that the specific wall construction,
which was a metal "sutler" type building, was able to attenuate (reduce) the
average noise level from the barking dogs by 55 d5A. In contrast, we have
been investigating exterior wall conotruction assemblies in the animal areas
of the proposed facility with a much higher 5TC, in the range of 56 d 5A.
These assemblies would combine concrete block, multiple layers of drywall,
and a barium-Ioaded vinyl sound barrier. An 6TC 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, wound is not "additive", i.e.
when you combine the. sound of passing traffic at 65 d0A and a barking dog
at 40 (OA, you do not get 105 d5A. Therefore, it is possible to use
background pound to mask other incidental sounds. This is why Muzak is
often used in office environments to mask the cacophony of office equipment
nolses and voiced.
In our Lafayette example, the facility was located on a busy highway where
the outside average background noise wad 60 d5A, and the noise from the
barking dogs by themselves was 40 d 5A, 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
repotted "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 pro posed 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
de943ning a total sound barrier that will not allow sound to encroach on
adjacent residential structures.
7-31-1996 11:25AM FROM GATES HAFEN COCHRANE 3034441759 P.4
P
COOK Al ATEMENT
The key to controlling odor in veterinary facilitles iir:, 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 wasted, odors can, for the most part, be eliminated. Likewise, if
the technical design of the facility makes use of durable and easily -cleaned
sur>+aceo? and materials, bacteria or waoteo will not be able to collect and
cause odors.
Animal Housing
A!r2 io typical of all of our etate-of-the-art veterinary facilitles, the animal
housing for the Aspen Veterinary Clinic will be individual stainless steel cages
with high-performance epoxy-paintod walls and acrylic resin flooring. In this
type of housing, the materials are virtually indestructible. Hot and cold
water is provided for daily cleaning.
pispoeial of Warnes
Proper waste disposal also minimizes odors. This includes a sy5tem of
regularly scheduled pick-ups for "hazardous biological" wastes such as
"sharps",disposable items, and tissue.
Lastly, the facility includes a ocreened, 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,
CQNCLU5ICN
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 hurnan 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.
]LT.. 15 -
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 alt 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 COMAHNTS: 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 COMAMNTS:
q 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. "
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.
2. 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/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.
S. 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/I 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...."
B. 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.
4
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 RECOM HNDATION: 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:
1. 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.
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.
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.
S. 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:
"A" - Application Packet
"B" - Referral Comments
! _ Exhibit B
Efi
F-
MEMORANDUM
To: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department
From: Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health Officer Nk,r'
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/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
Rappaport land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
NO_I_SE_ ABATEMENT: Section 18 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant
source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to
the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors. .....Accordingly, it
is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at
various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those 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 be aware of this and take
measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels.
I
Other Issues:
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.
0
N
cc
W
UJ
0
71 W
0
0
U
ti
I
z
W
15;
18.04-020
(gg) Sound pressure level. Twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio,
of a sound to the reference pressure of twenty (20) micronewtons per square meter (20 x 10_6Nemec
and is expressed in decibels (dB).
(hh) Steady noise. A sound pressure level which remains essentially constant during the Period o(
i.e., does not vary more than six (6) dB(A) when measured with the "slow" meter characterLstk
level meter.
(ii) Use district. Those districts established by the City of Aspen Zoning Ordinance (-ntlt2
2)
established by this chapter. (Ord. No. 2-1981, § 1; Ord. No. 36-1989, § 1: Code 1971, § 16-
18.04.030 Noises prohibited.
(a) General prohibitions. In addition to the specific prohibitions outlined in subsection (b)'I
sections 18.04.040 and 18.04. 100 of this chapter, it shall be unlawful, with penalties provided Id _' M be ad
Municipal Code, section 1.04.080, for any person to make, continue, or cause to made
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 dA
(1) Horns and signaling devices. Sounding of any horn or signaling device on any truck;
motorcycle, emergency vehicle or other vehicle on any street or public place within the City of A
as a danger warning signal, or the sounding of any such signaling device for an unnecessary and U='
period of time, which period is deemed herein to be any time after which the danger being
is clearly passed. television sets, musical instruments, tape players, record players and similar li�
(2) Radios, (a) Using, operating or permitting the use or operation of any radio receiving set, musical
Op
television, phonograph, tape player or other machine or device for the production or repmducd
except as provided for in section 18.04.0 30(b)(3) below, in such a manner to violate section I
(b) The operating of any such device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 am. in 21A
as to be plainly audible at twenty-five (25) feet from such device when operated within a veWCWP
a public right-of-way.
(3) Public loudspeakers.
(a) Using or operating a loudspeaker or sound amplifying equipment in a fixed or moves
or mounted upon any vehicle in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, mall, park, place or public pM,
the purpose of commercial advertising, giving instructions, directions, talks, addresses, lectures Or Me
music to any persons or assemblages of persons in such a manner as to violate section 18.04.00
permit as provided in section 18.04.070 is first obtained. is participating in a parade for whkt
(b) This subsection does not apply to any person who
permit has been issued by the city.
(4) Animals. Owning, keeping, possessing or harboring any animal or animals, including b�
t) ID t�- "g
by frequent or habitual noisemaking, violate(s) section 18.04.040. The provisions of this section
1
to all public and private facilities, including g any animal pounds, which hold or treat animals-
(5) Engine idling.
272
Cd
18.04.040
, eC�
18.04.040 Use district noise levels.
N Maximum permissible sound levels. It shall be a violation of this _chapter for any'`p
permit to be operated any stationary source of sound in such a manner as to createy
U
a ninetieth percentile sound pressure level (L90) of any measurement period (which shaU'
(10) minutes unless otherwise provided in this chapter) which exceeds the limits set ford
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.
r
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 use
of the most restrictive use shall apply at the boundaries between the land use categories. Tl
° not apply when the least restrictive use is a floating industrial district, in which case the lv
the industrial district shall apply, notwithstanding the boundaries of the more restrictive use
temporary nature of the industrial use. If an area is zoned SPA, the use category will be' c
predominant existing uses within that area. (Ord. No. 2-1981, § 1; Ord. No. 36-1989, § 1:
18.04.050 Sound level measurement. +s
Sound level measurements shall be made with a sound level meter using the "A"-W6
accordance with standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute or other re2
tested and adopted by the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department. (Ord. No. 2-1981
§ 16-5)
18.04.060 Exemptions.
The following uses and activities shall be exempt from noise level regulations:
(a) Noise of safety signals, warning devices and emergency pressure relief valves, ex
>r
for in section 18.04.030(b)(1).
(b) Noise resulting from any authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an ea
acting in time of emergency. '
(c) Noise resulting from emergency work, as further provided for in section 18.041
(d) Noise resulting from activities of a temporary duration for which a permit has b
the director of the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department in accordance with secs On':
(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=a
or special circumstances may be made to the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Dept0,
w granted by the director of the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department or an authori?
W shall contain all conditions upon which said permit has been granted, including, but not limite
Q po pe ;{
co
i
t Q '1-7 A
a
i
PUBLIC NOTICE
DATE
TIME
PLACEDs'
PURPOSE.&U/c
y
d� zk
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE,
130 SOUTH GALENA, ASPEN. CO (303) 920-5090 (
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin
State of Color o
I,
. 799P�
sse
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
SECTION 6-205.E.
being or representing an Applicant to the City of* Aspen, personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements
pursuant to Section 6-205-E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in
the following manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto,
by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners
of property within three hundred (300) -feet of the
subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on
the �Z�/day of 1996(which is 720
days
prior to the public hearing date of
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous pl�/Ce on the subject
property (as it could be seen from the nearest public
way) and that - the said sigh was po:sZtd, and visible
cont inuouslfrom the daof Lf 1996•
to the day of 99, (Must be
V
posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing
date) . A photogr
hereto.
(Attach photograph here)
gn is attached
WITNESS MY HAND AND FILIAL SEAL
;A; _I 1 ILA
My e
fission S 10 n
—P A
M =ANAI�Lefflw
f
SENT BY:KRABACHER & ASSOCIATES; 8-19-96 ; 14:21
-j 303 920 51194 2
LAW OFFICES OF
B. JOSEPH KRA13ACHER
nad Amociatea N.G.
Jerome Professional Buil&nq
201 N. MILL STRPF,, j', SUITE 201
A.SPL'N, COLORAT)O 81611-3206
D. loseph KrnFwrher'
Glarus H. Sandom*
Moscow Office
Micbael G. Tupaivv"
9 Krasnoprcietar*aya
bfickoW V. prokhorov^
TU (970) 915.6300
Suite No. 3
Igor .d,
Fax: (970) 925-1181
10::330 MOSCOW
RUSSIA
' Admitted in !u only
—Iftcmct addn+ma:
Admimed in Rwaiq .oely
krAha�fNi6+� °P��+B
August 19, 1996
Via Telefax to 920-5I19
David Hoefer
Assistant City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
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 Cottitnission 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 far 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:KRABA%giER & ASSOCIATES; 8-19-96 ; 14:22 ; 303 920 5119;* 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 cctodify 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?
It 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 OFFTC RS OF 13. JOSEPH KRASACHER
AND ASSOCIATES P.C.
By:
B. JosetKcher
cc: Stan Clauson
BJK\ch
krabache\1hoefer.I
SENT BY:KRABACHER & ASSOCIATES; 8-19-96 14:21 ;
LAW OFFICES 01.
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
and Asanciatea Y.C.
Jerome Professional Building
201 N. MILL STRF,FT, SUI'I-E 201
ASPEN, COLORADO 91611-3206
R. JoWh Krabacber"
Curtis B. Sanders"
MLchael G. Topah>v ^
NickoW V. Prokhorov^
Igor B. Powbkin"
• Adoiiued in U5 only
^Admltted in Rkwia only
Tel; (970) 925-6300
i-nx (970) ni-I IS
umaiilAuLwmi address:
trnbwchaGtUu:eC+u•ora
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
Date: August 19, 1996 FAX: 920-5119
PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO:
Name: David Hoefer
Assistant City Attorney
From: S. Joseph Krabacher
Re: 702 West Main Street
-303 920 5119;# 1
MOAo Ca v Office
9 Kraanoproletankaya
Suite No. 3
1.03330 MOSCOW
RUSSIA
Total number of pages D(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 REPRODUCTT.ON BY UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS
IS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY.
Documents Transmitted: Letter of today's date.
RYANCO, INC.
715 MT PAS IN T SURE 2M
MTM COLORADO 8160
WARREN R RYAN
PM=.NT
SUSAN 13RLla R
51 RY MAN
15, 1996
Suzarme Wolff
ASPEN/PMCIN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen., Colorado 8 1611
Re: proposed Veta nary Clirdc.
?02 West Main Street
Dear Ms. Wolff
'pia Fax 920-5439
US. Mail
TF.LEPfiM M925-3
FAC$�dIL$ 9709Z5.Z9D�
f am writing this letter to express sty oppOsittion to anY cbauge in zoWng that would
allow a veterinmy clinic on Main Street.
As a busznessnnan who has maintained an office in the 700 block of Main Street for
approximately mat.ely siy. ye= f would oppose the suggested use. It was i nt=ded and
approved for use as an office bWlding which l feel woWd me more in duracter vht- t
the overall nature of the neighborhood..
The office zone district is a residential district, this use is not appropriate in a
residential district.
The 6irdc would kennel pets with the attendant noisy, odors and. -vraste. This is
unsuitable for an office/residential district.
E
Warren F. Ryan
Pre ident
WFR/fh
Dictated but not read.
k
07-*IHA.d 1AdTL : af,ST'ST '`rH
VI,A. FAX 920-5439
Nis. Suzahrie Wolf
Aspen/Pi6in Conitnunity Development
130 south Cralena� Third Floor
Aspen,. CO 81611
RE: 702 West Main Street
Proposed Veterinary Clll m
De?tr Ms. Wolff-'
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed changc of zoning that
would allow the office buildi ag at oorner,of Main Street and Six.th Sheet' to become a
veterinary. clinic., The office. zone district is a residential district and w as a* veterimU
cl'ic is not appropriate an a residential dikrict.
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 offim use,
very truly your-%
Y -
ames K. Daggs
TOTAL P.01
061'08/1996 18: 22
2145068641
WOOD HELENA
PAGE 02
Helena Wood.
9071 World Trade cn l:cr
Dallas, TX 75258
Suzanne Wolff
Aspen/Pitlkin Community Development
130 South Galena, Tbiril Floor
Aspen, CO81611
8/19/96
Dear Ms. Wolff,
1 am contacting you in response to the proposed ap'plication to build a
4000 square foot building to house a veterinary clinic on -the cornier of Main
Street and Sixth near tho 'west end. 1 am totally opposed to the amendment
to add a veterinary clinic as a conditional use of the office building at 702
1. lain Street.
Sincerely,
Helena Wood
CUNNINGHAM BROKERAGE COMPANY
121 SOUTH GALENA STREET, SUITE 201
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,
unningham, P esi nt
for hadow Mountaisso fates 1989
and as Managing Ang nt
for S.M.B. Condom'ni Association
IMC:ljh
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy DirectorP.IA
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site) Planned I)ait Development (PUD)
Conceptual Review - Continued Public Meeting
DATE: August 20,1996
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission has held several public meetings (03.19.96, 04.09.96, 04.23.96
and 05.15.96) to review the conceptual PUD Plan application for Lot 5 ("The Grande Aspen Site") of the
Aspen Mountain PUD. At that time, staff prepared several staff reports detailing the project and
compliance with applicable criteria. At the August 8, 1996 meeting regarding Lot 3 ("Top of Mill"), staff
indicated that a draft of proposed conditions for Lot 3 would be prepared by staff for review by the
Commission. The intent of staff is to allow the Commission an opportunity to review the proposed
conditions, and that a joint resolution would be prepared for approval on September 3, 1996.
PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW: The project is being processed as a four -step application, with reviews
occurring at different steps. Staff has summarized the timing of specific requests below.
Step 1 - P & Z Step 2 - Council Step 3 - P & Z Step 4 - Council
Conceptual PUD
Conceptual PUD
Final PUD
Final PUD
Text Amendment
Text Amendment
Rezoning
Conditional Use
8040 Greenline
Rezoning
Viewplane
March - August 1996 September 1996 Not Scheduled
Not Scheduled
Notes: Italics represent public hearings
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Sunny Vann and John Sarpa
LOCATION: Lot 5, Aspen Mountain PUD. Lot 5 is located on Dean Street south of the ice rink between
Mill and Galena Streets, and extending south to the Alpenblick condommiUDIs. The parcel includes a
portion of the Dean Street right-of-way, which was vacated in connection with the original PUD approval.
ZONING: L/TR PUD, (Lodge/Tourist Residential, mandatory PUD review)f A small area of the vacated
Dean Street right-of-way is zoned CL, Commercial Lodge.
1
The project's public aspect is reduced by the applicant's intent of only using free market allocations and
abandoning plans to use 50 hotel/lodge credits approved with the original PUD.
The possibility of animating the mall by including first floor commercial development was rejected by the
Planning Commission, in part due to the necessity to compete for additional GMQS commercial allocations.
The applicant and staff have conceptually discussed the potential of modifying the prior PUD agreement to
allow for an expansion of commercial uses or pedestrian amenities on the Ice Rink site, which in from
staff's perspective is extremely underutilized. Staff would suggest that these discussions continue, and any
proposed changes to the PUD agreement in regards to the Ice Rink be included within the Final PUD
submittal.
3. Rezoning Request for Lot 3• A point introduced by Joe Edwards, attorney for an adjacent land
owner, is in regards to the proposed text and map amendments necessary for the project's proposed density
on the Mill Street site. Both the applicant's attorney and the City Attorney will be available to address these
issues at the continued hearing. Staff would point out the there is precedence for rezoning within the PUD,
specifically the rezoning that took place for Lot 6 to develop the Ice Rink. In addition, the portion of the
PUD agreement cited by Mr. Edwards in his August 13, 1996 letter on page 1 reads in full as follows (see
letter attached as Exhibit A):
5. Any and all development applications for Lot 3, S and 6 shall comply with the provisions of all land
use and building regulationseffective at the time of application except to the extent that the provisions of
the P UD agreement pertaining to the developments of Lot 3, S and 6 supersede then existing regulations.
The agreement also includes the following clause immediately following the above citation:
6. The provisions of paragraph 5 above notwithstanding, each of the obligations, commitments and
representations made in the P UD agreement by Savanah and the City of Aspen, including the parameters of
development activity contemplated in the PUD agreement for each component of the Project, shall survive
this amendment and the enactment of subsequent legislation initiated by the City in any manner inconsistent
with such obligations, commitments and representations.
In addition, Mr. Edwards has questioned the application from the point of view that the rezoning request
should be addressed at the conceptual PUD level. Staff notes that the Aspen Land Use Code specifically
defines that a rezoning request shall be consolidated with a PUD approval at the THIRD step of a four -step
process.
4. Proposed Conditions of Approval For Lot 5
1. All representations of the applicant, either contained in the application or stated in meetings before
the Planning and Zoning Commission are considered conditions of approval.
2. The applicant shall continue to re -study the height and bulk of the Dean Street Building to reduce
the visual impact of the structure. Options to be considered include reducing density or reducing the square
footage of each individual unit.
3
FILE'COPY
C�F.BU=INCx Exhibit A
SM MAW ffrR=. 9= 201
CARMMAUIJ. Mz
'IHOMAS c SILL ZSLE'HOM
air F. �DW .ram, P c, 070) .W
jaSSPn F- MWMM ,, M; P C FAIL.$
THOM AS 1, AI D!Rn Div �!d} �f�•5131
August 13, 1996
John TrWorcesterr ' Esq.
City Attorney
130 South Galena, Street •
Aspen, CO 81611
P.O.- Savandh Application for Top of Mill loxpment
Lear John
I represent Michael Teschner, the owner of the small house at the
top Of Mill Street above the Fifth Avenue Condominium mr.
Teschnor is appalled by the ring of 1.7 enormous homes thAt. is
proposed for the flop of Mill site by the Savan.ah application for
rezoning ref -that peel..
Sava.nah's applica.ti.= violates prior agreements with the City. The
only mention of Top of Mill (or Lot 3) development in the rirut
Amended PUD Agreement Is an indirect reference in Section F,, which
l i m�i ted development oxi the Gran.+d Aspen (or Lot 5) to not more than
47 residential units between Lot 5 and Lot 3. A copy of the
relevant pages of that Agreement are attached as Exhibit A. The
Amendment to the PUD Agreement dated June 11., 19 9 O r ixi Paragraph 5..
provides that "Any and all develoRMent applications for Lets 3, 5
and 6 shall comply with the grovi.slons of all land use and building
regulations effective at the time of the aL,olication... " (emphasis
added) . A copy of the relevant pages of that. Amendment are
attached as Exhibit B. The primary land use regulation is zoning+
The zoning on the Top of Mill parcel (Lot 3) in effect throughout
the negotiations for the .PUD Agreement and a-11 its snbseTient
amendments and in effect today is a combination of conservation, R-
15 PUD and L/TR ( formerly L-2) . A copy of the honing map in 191,84
and the zoning map of today is attached as Exhibit C, and the pnly
change was to rezone the ski club parcel from P (Public) try R-15.
john Wo=ester,. Esq.
August 13t 1996
Page 3
amended,, Mr. Taschner requestg that the applicant be dixected to
resubmIt. a d0velopment application that does comply with the zoning
requlatlons as they now exist.,
Very truly yours,,
E! 5 EDWARD & ADKISONF L.L.C.
e
JE2.-caw
Enclosures
cct City Council Xembers.(with enclosures)
Plazminq Commission Members (with enclosures)
Michael Teschner
teschaar%lwarcest.01
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, HUGHES & K.NEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
LEONARD M. OATES
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
TED D. GARDENSWARTZ
DAVID B. KELLY
OF COUNSEL:
JOHN THOMAS KELLY
John Worcester, Esq., City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
August 20, 1996
Re: Savanah Limited Partnership
Dear John:
AREA CODE 970
TELEPHONE 920-1700
TELECOPIER 920-1 121
In response to Joe Edwards' letter to you of August 13, 1996, please be advised that Savanah's
application for the development of Lots 3 and 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD does not violate prior
agreements with the City for the following reasons, among others:
1. The language referred to by Edwards, which is contained in the first Section M
Amendment to the PUD Agreement provides, in its entirety, that development applications for Lots 3, 5 and
6 of the PUD shall comply with provisions of land use and building regulations in effect at the time of
application, "except to the extent that the provisions of the PUD Agreement pertaining to the
development of Lots 3, 5 and 6 supersede then existing regulations." The ability effectively to achieve
the best site planning for the property - i.e., planning that accommodates both the 47 residential units for
which Savanah bargained in connection with negotiations to downsize the Ritz -Carlton Hotel (Section E of
the PUD Agreement) and the legitimate planning concerns of the City, plainly implicates the language quoted
above (which was conspicuously absent from Edwards' letter) and authorizes Savanah to request a rezoning.
It is noteworthy (and of obvious precedencial significance) that in connection with the development of Lot
6 the property was rezoned to P-Park to accommodate the uses planned for that parcel.
2. Interestingly, the language referred to by Edwards actually grew out of a dispute
between the City and Savanah as to what building code provisions applied to the Ritz -Carlton Hotel when
construction bogged down - particularly the applicability of certain City adopted amendments to the Uniform
Building Code - and the need to settle that issue, which Savanah had joined in a Rule 106 action brought in
response to the City's finding that Savanah had fallen behind on construction schedules.
3. Section M of the PUD Agreement clearly provides that Savanah enjoys the right, at
any time, to petition the City for an amendment to any provision of the Agreement including, obviously
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C.
John Worcester, Esq. City Attorney
August 20, 1996
Page 2
previously adopted amendments. Indeed, that has been done on, I believe, six previous occasions. Given
this, it is obvious that Edwards' objection raises a red herring issue at best - i.e., to the extent necessary (and,
for the reasons expressed above, we by no means think it is) Savanah's application can be considered a pro
tanto request for an amendment of the language upon which Edwards relies.
Edwards also questions the appropriateness of Savanah's request for a Code amendment to deal with
the effects of the provisions of the Code pertaining to property lying in multiple zone districts. As you know,
when the PUD Agreement was being negotiated and drafted, the City was in the midst of rewriting the Land
Use Code. It was in the Code rewrite that the provisions pertaining to property lying in multiple zone
districts were first adopted. Anticipating the likelihood that the Code rewrite would contain provisions
frustrative of what the City and Savanah had bargained for and agreed to over some 18 months of intense
public debate, the parties (Savanah and the City) agreed, where necessary to "grandfather" the old Code.
See e.g., the first full Recital on page 3 and Section 0.3. on page 54 of the PUD Agreement. In Savanah's
application for the development of Lots 3 and 5, rather than asserting the grand -fathering language and
requiring us all to go back and dig through old codes Savanah simply proposed the Code amendment, which
we continue to feel is a far sounder approach.
Finally, Edwards has also questioned the propriety of consideration of a rezoning request at the time
of consideration of the development proposal. There is clear authority for this in the Code and, as a practical
matter, it is the only prudent way for the City to proceed. Considering a rezoning request in the absence of
a site specific development proposal, or vice versa, is fraught with danger and uncertainty for both the City
and the applicant.
I hope you will agree that Edwards objection and his strident attack on the P&Z (and a certain
member in particular) is entirely unfounded and an unfortunate diversion to the real mission of the P&Z here:
determining whether, on balance, the proposal that Savanah has put on the table is a reasonable
accommodation both of the City's legitimate planning concerns and Savanah's right, assuming geologic and
environmental carrying capacity, to construct 47 residential units on the properties. While Edwards'
suggestion that everything should be built on Lot 5 makes good rhetorical copy, it hardly conduces to sound
land use planning.
Sincerely,
OATES, HU(IE, &�`kiqi EVICH, P.C.
LM
RWH/cjh
C:\OFFICE\WPWNIWPDOCSIRWH%CLIENTS1SAVANAHIWORST820.LTR
Robert W. Hughes
Blaich Associates
Design Management Consultants
319 North Fourth Street
Aspen, 81611, Colorado, U.S.A.
Tel. 970 - 920 9276
Fax 970- 920 3433
August 16, 1996
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS
We have been asked to review the enclosed copy of the (DEPP)
Downtown Enhancement & Pedestrian Plan draft goals and to respond
by August 30th. to Tim Malloy, Director of Long-range Planning.
The next step for the DEPP will be to select a consultant to carry
out the goals.
I would hope that we can add it to Tuesdays agenda.
Bob Blaich
DEPP Member
W
v� �.. O
O Q .2 J o aA c�
o: 0 0 0 3 o� a) c=� a E
�� d � 0 0 E E � o�n � o o o
:E -- o
.,
aoi v, a d = s aA .'o+ ,00 > .V. a o o
a.c cz o o W a, '3v a U) E �cl in
a) 0 5 cd cod 00 °� C a) yd W C so.,CZ o
cz En t4 to W�m--0,Ln 0Ec�as-io Cao�3o
S c p• ' -0 a ai C A A ooi �� 0 3 Cl)
o h o
�Q �O>cOca� C7ta C7a
Ica m any^c� c I cavoo
d oo o a>i a0i U _b a) a C o � � 0) c Cl)o� � s. o a) ca
U) o a) s c o E �' C� A a ai
n) " o a) 3 a) ca on Q cn o Q o
cz oc� ti' O0v 3tnoa2iQExV) a
a - o a'
cn Lam. o V) O '«. N i. v O 00 Q) .�
o �' o c7 0 o' o A o ca n) `n 3 ni o 3 °�' o
Cd cuoA:� c n o" ao': o
�y 3 CU
cz aU— U�fl• 0 v ono v tn0 C0 Q p C ai v°i 0
i;Cd ocz
Cy ��ao)o Ol 3a L)'o Na)L) �,� �ocA^x d4o�
cyd . cz C .r r~ x c) t] cz 4. o C C7 c) G v
oycao3 ~ �' aoU))�oa)a) s°'."3�oa000� �w.?_c ooOktn�o
y o p o x a) a) a� o 0 o� i~ y� °' o o c a° �, y 3 0
Q'� °"q Qv o o rn� m o o a) o ° o antra �v°' �cz 3 c
o aoisf " C. sfR;""o v a)v o� a>i toi as �'y o'�.o¢ cu o �v
c. a) cd o N o y, o o °> to in C a) o N cZ = _" u y
CZ >~ x o vyi o s. v) any o 00 o h> O O o �= x cz o v to o
.s= yNS.:.RjL.0 to�N cz as oho oQ >as �"� oc�m_ QCUcis
x°w��'>nti a, 0004r. i� ooxr.a"i°'"'o0C r,r Eoc:sa�i�Ca
C7 ° o an °) v, : + voi to U o CIS° p a4 O A +C+ �' W °' A ^ Co N v > 1.- w cam.
0uto�-ooaito0 Cna vo)E 0 `"3 a)o`"3 d 5 V)0cza)ic�o
�,
E+Ivaa)ooC� E a ai�U yso.0 "a�ioba so. a �.oaoioQoo'er
rn S H on a o 9, o s>' -� a) a) 3 a) 'cit m v, x a) a) M >, a)
.� _, o y s. v1 > o— N o v a) 0 ca n •.,
coQ 3 aoa) r. a)•- ID a a `n c d m a) o x a) �.. 0 0 3.'"� °) 0 .? o o a^oi
ti a) 0 a) > .° •� a y ^ ai d : .... x 0 1~ °�' ,� a0 a d F.
o toa o c o v vc�i � O� I a) 0 a >cvi 7U co z v 10 m R 0
aoI as.).�'.�p, a� o ooA o v 3 �'' c c a`ni o.N CU °'� `� a�"i.c to U
0 0 o i. q �•. Co a�;Z 0 a) o cz N. ca cn o aoovf-tv y o ca G" 0
w sO a) f1� o p ca aoi txn E� Q V boo
m v °" 3'' `�o 0 o•n a a�'cn"?o 0 ac, a o O 0
a) d, o ��.c «f av a co o rNo N y rn 3
s p CLOao�yc.rc.$o>0aoo
$$cri y 00,c'oO0
to
:+ oU a)oEc «sctn
cz
�3 0 aia�iaa'"i I +`"+,03 a"i'yG'coccz o�a��c I �"'
z iti m> o �� Q 9, a z— E an a) N s o. F' .� C ctt O o)
CIO IL)
oo'oy°'00 Vo c0o0cai �000CZ
c� to �. E o" o avid rn r4v c� �^ 3 0 o
-p 3Q ao A o o CZ o o U o o� o 0 0 Zw ova c
o a o x c a) cri o o c d y o to E 0 0 3
cz �"' O 'O fCS O a+ O L. W f. N a) O .�.� .'� b4 E+' C —= .+ to y
-+ 03
na"I o:� �. .� o�caonT+IOCo�aoow U �acaa)oyoa) 04wo
a s.. U cu 0 o = .a = o ... 4] O O (D tr) ..+ 0. U x sue. co W cz a)
H �.2000oW d�°�''o�b `�a)= �°`cc°`a=o=;_M
❑ a) o cr a) v a o . o ,o, �, >, as v,
0 U z o o C. 6 o M to c. a) cn o U d o a a) c1 3 cu
cv�� ca�00003a)a) cM oa�oops.o a)i��ncCCC�o> C
p a) i E o N s. o �D 0° ooE-" you. o oLO
U xU owl o�+�+ OCw so.wt�n avN"�A Stool caC7
04
c� 0 a) a/ dQ �.i: vi •S-.� `' `'ii 'O�, S••• .a = - = a) .c `L$ •d ,�O" a�+� r-•• C
a>) A,o Yb a ao) v r. �`� o 0;, ao� �t 0 0 0 sx. aa)i 0
p, > tnb.. o v 3x - 0 0 >v v to C r--v 0 a Qx
�1 3 a
�4 co 4: N N s0 N '� N y O as : V y �,'s o a vi y Q) q O
3 0� o �m 0 CZ " o o o a� via `� 3 > ca oo a°i
Uocz b o c� o O ai o 0 axi Y C '� cZ > 0 wn U •0 � 0�
c� a) a) >' o bzU o > Q) U) o a) C c•' >,a) a a) o p fir. to a)v
�'- c. s~ � - ac") ao) >, ^noV a) U) - > o o"CL)= �- o s`, 0 3;�
a)a)o �>>octi5."o-Q i czCL) �ox.F�ac°uocoic� >;oy�a
a, gx o 03.. t� ° o �." U.o o a) �,ox' tones o W oL c) cu
3 f3, a) .� O o N 0 v o o. s. CZ $. to U N 'N o o .�
yc�•vc"cn y 0oocck>>,2�30. cu s°.v)ic�
'~ o co 3 °' c� o c.o o �C n CZ
.c
cz m cso.Gq a)o'^. ai °a°>,C-) oxca�'0>,`r'�n)�o�o
s.Q.>,a)c�co o c a^oit,o4)'o� vi�a)�w c�.� aoiy
0 a; Gv•�w0�+ a>)y.c)�y�o�an0°
p ti��v:�tno�o�w�s;a)ooAaAtoa�dc.•o
ow p: d> o% ti a o 0 0 0•o a) ay o coQ a) 0 41
a a) " cti c� F a • Q o Oo c. a) . E of E" ~ o � E
Qi o «S a y v H >, c. '� a s~ a •o v 3 Q o w h .o
o" ao)0o °)�.3.o avi ,[doai3 a abi��So cc boo y�v c_4 �,^tn oq cnov,
i~30 0>10°�>o y;= °cn0 3, C-= s..0 �boA oa) 3:—= aga0i caaaiooa)C a)o0�o
V .-r 0 ao y a� � i~ . , v, o c� >1 a) j ca a ~ 0 o � o 0 � o cn 1...2 > :. o i. U, o v, a
V2 a v� w MEn s°'. aA0 n oQ Q) .rccyw v 3 0 o o >' a) aaL) �o� ai �; via o ; 03 v ai cz= a)v o CU
La ¢oo a 0ca y 0 cti:3 a)a a°i°.,o�s: vox oc. o.. �aqo ono�r aoL) I=
qo�. ,_. w s. eEc� 0a��o� cnay3y�o c�^GE wr-"Qa o ocnocczco a�ca�
U O zoasr~ co s. C o� `ns.`' Uc�Oviov~���Cc��c�i ac y�oo� od) UO :3 ofl`ny; oaoi
(/1 w �� a)3� 0CZ0>104.>,�.r.�U�ooUR:a)410CW 0x�.a)'ti�000a)��o a)Eov(1)C's to
fy v v q oA U N w RS o ,� q v +-+ > > v w>, to .o y a) C cC
c o ca � " y ato=— id x a) �zx ao a... vim= � w Cl) =V9v 0 I �, O.14 Oo 3. c� a)
F caj C�iv 3 0 0 v•- aWi 0 o °gabai.o o dU a� ai o 0 ow a i~ o iv °' o `n ° a a°ivG� vi w o a�i ^ °o 00
f.J.� cu W.0 '~ >cno.� a�y'v�yoro0bd4,0 �E c� x•oc�o.^ 3 '"v�oa-- coa'W E
cfs ov.. v,..,c.0 y v,00 aqa)> 3 C7 3«S.�U a) 0) oar waCi� >o
U ..>(L) .n cis rn a) aq coca^'Nho'. Sao" .,C qo�o-CUB v- c o cz3cz
G? 0> a) v ca a) u m W .0 o o s. cn va a s cn a) er .� tz, U 3 al n a o a� A
Z s.crs �Q$ro.o vio«S��pa aHco.�.Nto s. oM oda)... .+c)a'a)cn so.o Av a)'� c.Cv
co .Coo a) o do coo vaS 4. aSa � r,rn. " v o�c> «s a)oN
N .�.., �..� t� o>,> E �� s~v o a? n ano�vi E� v)v m ., o a'o cz a)o aA> y an 0...
a .�'C c. >'C cc�. o cvs co . N Ev cd M�i:s o aC O R.'•� Imo. N ftS; , 'O'er' Av N '� s.;,�" C V)== y (L) 0,
U o�° o o v'�.o-5 a� d o a� A p a �� a) o 0 0 0^ Sit=, o. o to �b ° a0. i �� a °'° ox
U>' 'oa>UCScau'_ �cc°�c"ti�vaiac,aai�p"ooa�oa°'iow�~❑�3 ooaco.� Io�o
Aq a) y > a a) �•' co. c0 to w m . 0 .o O o s-' ❑❑ 9 V «s to o ca "", ° � P4 U «i ca O y .a O
�-► F w �?� a)>o s. o vb� t°)n a a) o o"' >z +'"w cv a) s~ ❑ c 0 . ° o ao0 0 o 0, a) aiC7v
a °� a`"i .o N >; c x a `� so `� °A au o �i t .' o y ° �C OA v`�i o a°'i v c a`i o a`'i y o o °' w o
A.4 i~ o� 0 3 c�Q `�� o coi ctjQ aoi o a a•. o [ 0>" o-. ° d3 0 > ay Eye a) m o.�
$ w a) w r. w > s..8 ap - to «f ..„ o c. 3 0 cu apQ o rn a a'y >
to w .. v) o E5, c. _ .. ,, ti v w _ c� w d':y : _ . >o a~i b0o >°, y a .. � A .o a `n) :: o - " U 6 o ,-
v.
Goals and Tasks
Goal:
1) Improve the downtown core as a place which inspires and
accommodates a wide variety of activities and events year round
including arts, music, performing arts, recreation and shopping.
Tasks:
a) Analyze current and past special events and activities for
appropriateness of use and identify any use patterns, conflicts, andlor
opportunities that those events create.
b) Analyze use patterns in the downtown area to determine which
areas are used or underutilized for the arts, music, performing arts,
recreation, shopping, dining, and relaxing.
c) Determine scope of projects and time frame that the City of Aspen
already has planned for the downtown area and make recommendations
regarding changing the City's priorities.
d) Obtain input from various user groups (via a survey or other
methods), including individuals (locals and visitors), businesses and _
organizations to determine if their needs are currently being met in the
downtown area. Ask valley residents who no longer use the downtown area
what would bring them back. The survey should include questions designed
to determine what commercial uses may be missing or in excess in the
downtown area.
e) Identify and develop criteria for judging quality of performance
spaces or exhibition space in the downtown area, especially in relation to
existing regulations regarding outdoor performances.
0 Prepare analysis of different types of outdoor markets in different
cities, including operations, products, scheduling, etc. For examples what
tends to work best in mountain resorts.
g) Develop recommendations regarding needed public facilities such
as restrooms, phones, etc.
b) Development an inventory of alleys and other locations for pocket
parks with the strongest potential for activities and improvements. Consider
both public and private spaces.
c) Make recommendations regarding how alleys can be made
pedestrian friendly, clean and safe.
Goal:
4) Preserve and enhance the downtown core as a physically
attractive place.
Tasks:
a) Analyze current streetscape/lands cape, in the downtown area to
determine strengths and weaknesses.
b) Make recommendations regarding,improvements, both
aesthetically and functionally, to the streetscape/landscape in the downtown
area including width of sidewalks, placement and type of furnishings,
lighting, gardens, fountains, signs and other public facilities such as
bathrooms, pay phones, etc.
c) Review City of Aspen maintenance practices and procedures. For
example, the City removes snow from the streets at great cost, yet snow in
the downtown core may add charm to the area.
Goal:
�) Make the downtown core more pedestrian friendly and minimize
the sense that automobiles dominate the downtown area.
Tasks:
a) In light of this goal, analyze options for vehicular parking and
circulation in the downtown core. Research potential operational
methodology relating to time of day and season that traffic could be
restricted or prohibited.
b) Identify locations that are inaccessible to the physically
challenged (handicapped, elderly) and recommend highest priority for
improvements.
b) Review City of Aspen/CDOT "Entrance to Aspen" proposal from
the perspective of the downtown area.
c) Analyze Rubey Park in relation to transit and pedestrian
movements to and from the area. Do the same for the City parking garage.
d) Review current City of Aspen Bikeway Plan and identify further
measures to integrate bikes into the downtown area.
Goal:
8) Work with other appropriate Citizen committees and volunteer
boards to take maximum advantage of the knowledge and experience of
these groups and avoid duplication of purpose and work product.
goalsldoc