HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20031111ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
MINUTES - NOVEMBER It, 2003
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST............................................................ 2
PARK PLACE, 707 EAST HYMAN - GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORING. 2
1
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
MINUTES - NOVEMBER 11, 2003
Eric Cohen opened the special meeting of the Aspen/Pitkin Growth Management
Commission at 5:10 p.m. in Rio Grande Place meeting room. Commissioners
present were Eric Cohen, Roger Haneman, Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson, Dylan
Johns, John Rowland, Steve Skadron, Peter Thomas, Peter Martin, John Howard,
and Michael Augello. Dylan Johns stated that he had to excuse himself at 6:00
p.m. Jasmine Tygre was excused and Paul Rudnik, Joe Krabacher, Steve Whipple
were not in attendance. Staff present: Chris Bendon, Community Development
and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
The commissioners discussed the manner in which the hearing should be held
pertaining to the number of voting members from the city side and the county side.
There were 4 county and 7 city board members present. Ruth Kruger suggested
the city take the lead since it was a city project and the city P&Z had 4 previous
public hearings on this issue. Peter Martin stated the issue was debated in the past
and he thought that it was decided to have equal voting members. The county
members deferred to the city chairman. It was decided that all of the city
commissioners would score and vote.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None stated.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PARK PLACE, 707 EAST HYMAN — GROWTH MANAGEMENT
SCORING
Eric Cohen opened the public hearing for Growth Management scoring on 707
East Hyman, Park Place. Public Notice was provided with the proper mailings.
Chris Bendon explained there would be two scorings (initial and final) that
correspond to criteria and must reach a minimum score even though there was no
competition because it was the. only project. There was a resolution with a set of
conditions that would be voted on regardless of the outcome of the scoring.
There were four main categories for scoring (A) Quality of Design — Architectural
design; Site design; Energy conservation; Amenities; Visual impact; Trash and
utilities access areas with a range of 0-3 for 40% of the score. (B) Availability of
Public Facilities and Services — Water supply/fire protection; Sanitary sewer;
Public transportation/roads; Storm drainage; Parking with a range of 0-2 for 40%
of the score. (C) Provision of Affordable Housing — 10 Points for the first 60% of
2
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
MINUTES - NOVEMBER 11, 2003
the Employees Housed; 1 point for each additional 8% housed over 60%. (D)
Bonus Points with a maximum of 4 points.
Scoring Categories
A - Quality of Design. 18 points avaialble.
B - Availability of Public Facilities and Services. 10 points available.
C - Provision of Affordable Housing. 15 points available
D - Bonus points. 4 points available.
Minimum Scoring Thresholds
A - 40% of available points
B - 40% of available points
A+B - 60% of available points
C - 60% of available points
D - no minimum.
Bendon explained that sections A and B were combined for the scoring and the last
category was for bonus points, which were not used in scoring.
Stan Clauson presented the video and power point for the Park Place project.
Clauson noted there was a system in existence in Washington, D.C. with others in
Asia and Europe. The ability to store vehicles in a relatively compact place,
environmentally it was good because. the vehicles were not running in the building.
The retrieval time was important with minimal queuing. Clauson provided site
plans and explained the neighboring buildings and proposed setbacks in a mixed -
use office zone.
Clauson explained how the system worked within the building. Jeffrey Halferty,
project architect, stated there was a combined used of the parking system, office
component and 2 nice spacious employee units. The building was a concrete shell
with brick veneer and aluminum clad windows and doors with the capacity to store
a lot of vehicles. The efficient design was chosen to' incorporate the fully
mechanized parking system without light pollution or car emissions. Halferty
noted the architecture related to the street context using material pallets that were
on the Benedict Commons or Hannah Dustin providing some architectural
character, which will be residential in looks and an asset to the block adding a
sidewalk and curbscape with trees to soften the building.
Clauson stated the P&Z concerns for noise, traffic and queuing and employee
generation were responded to by the materials in the packet. Clauson said the
noise level in the Washington D.C. garage was within the City of Aspen Noise
Code. From the exterior of the building there was virtually no audible noise
3
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
MINUTES - NOVEMBER 115 2003
outside the building because the interior building lifts were small electric motors
with elevator technology that move the cars in place. Clauson stated the building
will be constructed in such a way that they will remain within those noise
parameters. Clauson said the Washington D.C. garage was part of a residential
structure.
Clauson spoke about the employees at the other parking structures and this
particular garage would have employees to operate the system but the 2 affordable
housing units fully mitigate the employee housing requirements with one 2-
bedroom unit and one 3-bedroom unit; he said that the housing board agreed with
that mitigation. Clauson provided history of previous parking proposals as well as
an operational prospectus for this facility that included 19 dedicated public parking
spaces. There were 99 spaces in this facility; 80 privately owned spaces with a
program requiring those owners to make the spaces available to the general public
whenever they were not using the space and when they were out of town it went
into the pool that reverts to the general public.
Peter Thomas asked how the operational process worked and what would prevent
someone from parking their car in this garage year round. Clauson replied that
nothing prevents a constant user of the space; the system asks to report when the
space will become available. Clauson said that the system automatically knows
when the vehicles are there or not for a certain period of time.
John Howard questioned the validity of the garage hours but understood the desire
by the neighbors to have the garage open less hours. Howard said that people
going to dinner and a movie or a nightclub would not be able to get their car back.
Clauson answered there was considerable discussion with the City P&Z about the
hours of operation and accessibility; the issue was really daytime accommodation
for cars. Clauson explained the queuing and take up rate and efficiency of the
ingress and egress.
Public Comments:
1) Ron Erickson, public, applauded the applicant for coming in with a private
project that served the community needs. Erickson said it was a step in the right
direction and it should be viewed positively.
2) John Fightlin, public, asked if the county reviewed all the information from the
previous city P&Z meetings and if tonight's decision was a yes or no decision.
Bendon responded that this was a separate board from the city P&Z; all of the
information was, provided. This was a decision by the GMC tonight and would go
0
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
MINUTES - NOVEMBER 11, 2003
onto City Council. Fightlin said that he took exception to the traffic studies and
there was a lot of traffic and problems with snow removal and the congestion of
the street. Fightlin said that there was a problem with moving cars through the city
to get to this facility and it could be full; he thought the concept was good but
better suited in another part of town.
3) Scott Brown, public, stated he lived across the street and agreed with Herb
Klein's letter. Brown said there were currently 15-20 cars parking on that property
per day now and there were only 19 available public spaces. Brown said the issue
of queuing was a problem with loading and unloading.
4) Hanna Pevny, public, strongly supported the project.
5) Fred Martell, public, said that public parking was needed but this was not the
solution; he spoke of the costs of the spaces and said there were many unanswered
questions with only 19 available spaces.
6) Katie Bartlett, public, lives in Benedict Commons; she spoke about the traffic
problems on the street and streets being blocked with delivery trucks. Bartlett
stated that this garage would not serve the community and questioned the noise
from car alarms.
7) Mike Hoffman, public, stated that he represented Bell Mountain Homeowners
and this garage was not a community benefit. Hoffman spoke of the zero lot lines.
8) Mark Tye, public, said parking was a problem and an issue -affecting people in
a negative way. Tye said he could empathize with the neighbors but living
downtown was a choice with the drawbacks of noise and congestion.
9) Carl Hecht, public, said there were a certain number of cars driving to town
and need a place to park; this garage would provide 80 — 99 more parking spaces.
10) Sam Alexander, public, stated this was primarily a residential area and noted
the private ownership may not rent out their private parking spaces and wouldn't
benefit the public at all.
11) Gary Snyder, public, stated that he was in the tourism business in Aspen and
one of the major problems in Aspen was parking. Snyder complimented the
applicant on the aesthetics of the building and did not think that there would be a
5
ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
MINUTES - NOVEMBER 11, 2003
noise issue. Snyder said the applicant explained the way the spaces would be
available to the public.
12) John Westownsend, public, said this project should be approved because it
was a community benefit.
Bendon stated there was a letter submitted from Barney Wyckoff.
The scori
Eric Cohen, Chair 11 7 18 14 12 7 19 14
Roger Haneman 12 6 18 14 12 6 18 14
Ruth Kruger 13 8 21 14
i
13 8 21 14
Jack Johnson 11 6 17 14 12 7 19 14
John Rowland 8 7 15 14
E
8 7 15 14
Steve Skadron 10 5 15 14 10 5 15 14
Peter Martin 11 8 19 14 12 8 20 14
Mike Augello 9 7 16 14 10 7 17 14
Peter Thomas 8 7 15 14 8 7 15 14
John Howard 9 7 16 14 9 7 16 14
Average Score 10.2 6.8 17.0 14.0 0.0 10.6 6.9 17.5 14.0
Threshold 7.2 4.0 16.8 9.0 7.2 4.0 16.8 9.0
Pass/Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve GMC Resolution #1, 2003 finding the
Park Place Commercial Parking Facility located 707 East Hyman met the
necessary threshold scoring for development allocation with the additional
conditions: the window casements shall be color coated or not mill finished and a
walkway between the parking garage and the Hannah Dustin building shall be
provided to permit project residents access to trash receptacles in the alley.
Seconded by Peter Martin. Roll call vote: Ruth Kruger, yes; John Rowland, yes,
Roger Haneman, yes; Michael Augello, yes; Jack Johnson, yes; Eric Cohen, yes;
Peter Martin, yes; Steve Skadron, no; John Howard, yes; Peter Thomas, yes.
APPROVED 9-1.
Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
6 atal)
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk