HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20030819 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2003
4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES ROOM
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PARK PLACE (707 E. HYMAN) CONSOLIDATED
CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD, CONDITIONAL USE, AND
GMQS EXEMPTIONS FOR AH, Chris Bendon
B. LOT 2, ASPEN ELECTRIC SUBDIVISION INITIAL CITY
ZONING, Sarah Oates
V. BOARD REPORTS
VI. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director \A'
FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer-S �
RE: Amendment of the Official Zone District Map to Zone the Annexed Portion of
Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2
DATE: August 19, 2003
APPLICANT /OWNER: City.of Aspen, Applicant/
Alain Degraeve, Owner
LOCATION: Annexed Portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivison (see Exhibit `B" for snap)
PROPOSED ZONING: R-15 PUD
SUMMARY: Zoning to R-15 PUD a recently
annexed portion of the Aspen Electric Subdivision,
Lot 2. The remainder of the parcel is already
located in the City of Aspen and is zoned R-15
PUD.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting to assign
zoning to the portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivision, Lot 2 annexed into the
City in July 2003 (see Exhibit "B" for
location), to R-15 PUD. The above -
described portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivision, Lot 2 must be zoned
pursuant to state statue within 90 days
of annexation. The area aimexed must
be given a City zoning designation.
REVIEW PROCEDURE
Rezoning (Two Step Review). City
Council may approve or deny an
application for amendments to the
Official Zone District Map for zoning,
after considering a recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, a recommendation from
the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Rezoning:
The Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 is a parcel of land which, until recently, was
partially in the city and partially in the county. The parcel is located at 210 Sesame Street,
a private road at the base of Smuggler Mountain. City Council annexed the county portion
on July 14, 2003.
As the city is required to provide a zoning designation for a . newly annexed property., staff
finds the R-15 PUD Zone District supports the proposed use of the parcel and is consistent
with the adjacent parcels and the portion of the property which is located in the City of
Aspen. The R-15 zone district is a moderate density zone district which allows for single-
family and duplex use. The PUD designation was given to properties with steep slopes
prior to our slope reduction requirement. As staff would like to remain consistent with the
surrounding properties, we are recommending the PUD overlay despite the fact there is no
PUD associated with the parcel.
STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set
forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, to approve an amendment to the official zone
district map. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a
recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed map amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve.the proposed
resolution recommending that City Council approve the proposed map amendment.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003, recommending that City Council
approve the proposed amendment to the Official Zone District Map to zone the newly
annexed portion of Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 (as shown on the attached map and
legal description) to R-15 PUD. "
Attachments:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Annexation and Rezoning Map
Exhibit C -- Legal Description of Annexation and Rezoning
2
RESOLUTION N0. _
(SERIES OF 2003)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT
MAP REFLECTING THE ZONING OF THE NEWLY ANNEXED PORTION OF ASPEN
ELECTRIC SUBDIVSION, LOT 2, 210 SESAME STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel 92737-074-20002
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is required to establish zoning for all anulexed lands in the
city; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department developed an application to zone
the newly annexed portion of the Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2, as described in Section 1 of the
Resolution, to the Moderate Density (R-15) Zone District with a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Overlay; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, and zoning in
the vicinity of the subject property, the Community Development Department recommended
approval for the proposed rezoning to R-15 PUD; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets
or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is
consistent with .the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 shall be subj ect to the dimensional
requirements of the R-15 zone district; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 19, 20,03, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved, by a _ to _ - vote, to amend the Official Zone District Map
to zone the newly annexed portion of Aspen Electric Subdivision, as described above, R-15 PUD;
and, _
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Sectinn 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use
Code, the Plaiming and Zoning Commission recommends that City Council approve the application
to rezone the newly annexed portion of the Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 to R-15 PUD Zone
District legally described as:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of the said "Mascotte Lode iVhich point is also the
most easterly corner of Lot 2, Sunny Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado, thence along the following courses.
S.80 °21 ' E. 37.50 feet;
thence S.34 °27'E. 26.25 feet;
thence S.45'24' 49"W 156.89 feet;
thence N.21 °02'W. 156.89 feet;
thence along the easterly boundary of said Lot 3 N. 45 024' 29" E..
(N.45'21 'E.) 116.62 feet more or less to the point of beginning.
Call in O from Plat of Sunny Park North Subdivision Plat. All other calls
from Siegel-AI[ascotte Lode Lot Line Adjustment Plat.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Section 2
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This resolution 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 salve shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Conunission of the City of Aspen on this 19t" day of
August, 2003.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
f
`t` 1_
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
REZONING TO R-15 (MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT WITH AN PUD
OVERLAY
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Conlllllssion shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of
the Land Use Code. The City is required to rezone a property following aimexation and the
R-15 PUD Zone District is compatible with the proposed use.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan. The property is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and, neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts
and land uses. These uses include single-family, duplex and multi -family uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have an effect on traffic generation or
road safety. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not r
limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities. There
will be no increase in development rights due to this rezoning. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in adverse impacts
on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application will not affect the Community
Character within the City of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Staff Finding
City Staff supported the aimexation and subsequent rezoning because administering a
property that is wholly in the City is more straightforward than one which is partially in two
jurisdictions.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the 4
purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest.
M
E
� &J �-
E
Attachment "A" to Petition for Annexation of Territory to the
City of Aspen.
(Legal Description of Area to be. Annexed)
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of the said "Mascotte
Lode" which point is also the most easterly corner of Lot 3, Sunny
Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado,
thence along the following courses:
S.800211E. 37.50 feet;
thence S.340271E. 26.25 feet;
thence S.45024149"W. 156.89 feet;
thence N.210021W. 61.29 feet to the easterly boundary of said Lot 3;
thence along the easterly boundary of said Lot 3 N.45024129"E.
(N.45021'E.) 116.62 feet more or less to the point of beginning.
Call in O from Plat of Sunny Park North Subdivision Plat. All other
calls from Siegel-Mascotte Lode Lot Line Adjustment Plat.
County of Pitkin, State.of Colorado.
-3-
aFll-
IFAMIlim"11-2
77-A.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: All aJoyce ie�C y g , Co muility Development Deputy Director
FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Planner
RE: "Park Place" (707 E. Hyman Avenue) — Public Hearing
Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning,
Conditional Use, GMQS Exemption
DATE: August 19, 2003
PROJECT:
``PARK PLACE" COMMERCIAL PARKING GARAGE
REQUEST:
Approvals to subdivide the parcel and construct a 99 space
Commercial Parking Facility with two (2) affordable housing
units on the eastern parcel currently developed with' an "A -
Frame" structure.
ZONING:
Office (0) Zone District
LAND USE ACTIONS:
Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, Conditional Use,
Subdivision, Rezoning to include a PUD Overlay, and
GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing.
(A GMQS scoring application for Commercial
Development will be submitted upon the September 15
deadline and is not part of this review.)
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with Conditions
SUMMARY:
Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC, is
requesting land use approvals to construct a 99 parking space commercial parking facility
with an accessory office and two (2) affordable housing units.
The parcel is 12,000 square feet consisting of Lots A, B, C and D of Block 105, City and
Townsite of Aspen, and is located in the Office (0) Zone District. The property is
currently developed with an "A -Frame" structure, 707 East Hyman, and the "Haimah-
Dustin" building, 300 So. Spring. Both are currently office buildings. No changes are
proposed for the Hannah Dustin Building. The comiercial parking facility is proposed to
replace the A -Frame.
The parking operation is proposed as an entirely automated system. Cars are placed on 3
"pallets" and then mechanically moved ' within the building. No internal ramping is `
Park Place Page 1
involved and drivers do not actually enter the parking area. A small office houses an
attendant who aids patrons with the system.
A CD has been included in the application and can be run on any computer with a CD
drive. This will also be played at the hearing. A representative of the parking system
manufacturer will make a presentation at the hearing and will be available for questions,
etc.
Staff has reviewed this application against the applicable criteria and believes all criteria
have been met. Staff is recommending approval, subject to conditions outlined in
proposed P&Z Resolution No. , Series of 2003.
MAIN ISSUES:
Sketch Plan Review: A parking garage concept (on 'the A -Frame property only) was the
subject of a "sketch plan review" with City Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission October 21, 2002. This review process allows a potential applicant to
identify plaluling issues with the City's boards and neighbors of the site in a public
hearing format. The proposed operation has significantly changed since the sketch plan
review.
The planning issues identified were: Compatibility of the use with surrounding uses and
properties, lighting of the facility, height and aesthetics of the building, hours of
operation, noise, traffic generation and air pollution, employee generation, and potential
future uses of the building. The two boards expressed concerns over these issues on "first
blush" and indicated to the applicant that these issues would need to be addressed in all
application. The two boards indicated acceptance of the project being reviewed as a
PUD, potential flexibility with employee generation calculations, and potential ability for
the project to gain multi -year allotments in growth management.
Aspen Area Community Plan: The 2000 AACP endorsed the following policies and
goals that have applicability to this project:
• Limit traffic on Highway 82 into Aspen to 1993 levels.
• Reduce internal flow of traffic within Aspen.
• Hold the supply of public parking within the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary to 1998 levels, with the exception of affordable housing parking.
• Reduce automobile congestion in the downtown core, particularly in the evening
and on weekends so as to foster economic sustainability.
• Manage the supply of parking to limit adverse impacts of automobile use and to
conserve land in the Aspen area.
• Provide a wide, range of flexible transportation management tools and tecluliques
to reduce single -occupant automobile use.
The Economic Sustainability Report (a follow-up to the AACP) recommended the City
"continue to reinvest in Aspen's infrastructure through collaboratively exploring t
public/private and interagency partnerships for certain projects and moving forward on
Park Place Page 2
other that have already been approved. These include: 1) The Entrance to Aspen as
approved in the CDOT Record of Decision; 2) Possible additional and more convenient
parking; and, 3) A gondola interconnect. for the four ski.areas."
Recent projects and planning efforts also affect this discussion. The Rio Grande Parking
Garage was originally planned for an additional level below grade. This unbuilt level
would have accommodated and additional 80 cars. The Independence Place Plaza project
("Superblock") was planned in this general area as an outgrowth of the 1986 parking
study referenced in the application. 228 parking" spaces were contemplated for the IPP
proj ect.
The "hold public parking" statement in the AACP seems to not support this (or any)
additional parking. At the same time the "reduce congestion," "transportation
management," "add more parking," and recent planning activities seem to support this
concept of additional public parking.
Staff believes parking, especially public parking, is an infrastructure necessary for the
success of the downtown shopping district. This parking garage will add capacity and
relieve some of the demand on street parking, valet parking, and the Rio Grande facility.
Staff believes the proposal complies with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Parking Facility Use: A Commercial Parking Structure is a conditional use in the Office
Zone District. The criteria for reviewing a Conditional Use concentrate on the proposal's
compatibility with surrounding uses, considering both physical and operational aspects of
the proposal, and the proposal's infrastructure demands and employee housing demands.
Staff believes this parking facility, due to its proposed operation style, is compatible with
surrounding uses and in conformance with the Conditional Use criteria. (See Exhibit A
for full criteria and responses.)
Traffic Generation: There is a question of whether this facility will attract more auto
trips to town ("build it and they will come") or will this project ease parking frustration of
people already coming to town. Staff suggests its likely a little of both — this facility will
add to the inventory of parking and provide some relief to the "circling phenomenon."
Parking demand is primarily a function of downtown destinations (restaurants, shopping,
skiing, etc.) and parking serves that demand. At the same time, additional capacity may
attract some additional auto trips that would otherwise be either discouraged from
downtown or be handled by other transit modes.
The City's Transportation Department believes additional traffic will occur on this block
of East Hyman but does not foresee the increase to cause a degradation of intersection
service levels. No physical improvements will be necessary to accommodate this
proposal.
The Environmental Health Department has raised a concern about additional trips
causing air quality impacts and has asked the applicant to mitigate such additional trips.
The City has no impact mitigation requirements for trip generation and no requirements `
have been proposed. However, one of the most -touted transportation demand
Park Place Page 3
management strategies is the application of market rate fees to parking. Certainly "free
parking" attracts drivers. Paying a fee, especially a daily fee, for parking will act as a
deterrent. Also, the applicant is interested in paving the alleyway and doing so is
typically viewed as an air quality mitigation method.
Traffic Queuinba. The proposed project can queue up to four cars at a time and parking
each car takes approximately 36 seconds (plus time for exiting the car, etc.). There may
be times when a patron must wait a few minutes for service. An occupied car waiting for
a position to open -up is adequate, although not a desirable scenario: Staff is concerned
about the parking garage operator allowing patrons to leave cars un-occupied within the
street, blocking traffic, etc.
This issue could be addressed through a condition of approval although staff is interested
in the parking manufacturer's comments on this topic. Also, staff is interested in peak
demand expectations and how many patrons might be expected at one time. For
example: Just before the mountain opens on a significant "powder" day or just after the
4t1' of July fireworks.
Pedestrian Improvements: The site currently provides a sidewalk along Spring Street
and essentially no pedestrian provision along Hyman Avenue. The proposal would
complete the sidewalk provided along the Benedict Commons for the remainder of the
block.
Sidei4�alk along Benedict Commons
Existing condition along subject
property
Diniensional Requirenients: The dimensions of this project are proposed to be
established through adoption of a PUD (Plantied Unit Development). Following is a
comparison of the prop0osed dimensions and those allowed in the Office Zone District.
'c
Park Place Page 4
secondary)
Side Yard Setback
3 ft. (west)
0 (east)
5 ft.
5 ft. (east)
Rear Yard Setback
0 ft.
10 ft (existing)
15 ft.
Maximum Height
35 ft.
28 ft. (existing)
25 ft:
Percent of Open
No
No Requirement
No Requirement
Space
Requirement
Allowable FAR
1.29:1
Same as Office zone
.75:1. May be
requirement
increased to 1:1'
through Special
Review
Residential Off-
3 total
N/A
Minimum: Lesser of 1
Street Parking
/bedroom or 2/unit.
Commercial Off--
96 spaces
3 along alley (loss of 3
3/1,000 s.f. net leasable
Street Parking
surface spaces on
space.
north side)
Distance between
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
Buildings on the lot. .
Staff believes the proposed dimensions are appropriate. Both the neighboring Benedict
Commons Building and the Aspen Athletic Club building across the street exceed a 1:1
FAR with the Aspen Athletic Club Building
having an FAR of approximately 1.82:1. The
Benedict Commons building has a 6.5-foot
setback along the Hyman Avenue property line.
The 35-foot proposed height of the parking
facility is measured to the top of the flat roof. The
adjacent Benedict Commons building was
approved for a 30-foot height limit and certain
ridgelines are developed to approximately 34 feet
(measured at the midpoint of the sloped roof).
The portion of the building closest to Hyman
Avenue has been restricted to 26 feet, reducing
the appearance of massing on the front fagade.
The proposed east side yard setback of 5 feet
meets the requirement of the Office Zone Districts
and mirrors the 5-foot setback of the Benedict
Conunons building.
The proposed west side yard setback (between the
proposed parking garage and the Hannah Dustin
building) of 3 feet is less than the Office Zone
requirement. The proposed setback for the
Halulah Dustin building is 0 feet. The City's
Building Department has suggested the proposed
property line be repositioned such that the parking
Neighboring Benedict Commons Building
Bell Mountain Townhomes across the
alley from subject site.
Park Place Page 5
garage has a 0-foot setback. This would prevent the east facing walls of the Hannah
Dustin Building from having to be retrofit as "fire walls." If this route were pursued, the
minimum lot size of the parking garage structure would, need to be varied.
The Hanriah-Dustin building is not proposed to be altered. The dimensional requirements
that are proposed to be established through the PUD reflect the existing dimensional
conditions of the building.
Employee Generation & Affordable Housing: According to the applicant, this project
will generate approximately 5 FTE (full-time equivalents) plus a potential part-time
boold<-eeper/manager. The City requires mitigation for 60% of the employees generated.
The applicant has proposed two affordable units — a Category 1 one -bedroom unit and a
Category 3 three -bedroom unit. These units house 4.75 employees, in excess of the.
City's requirement. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has reviewed this
proposal and has recommended approval with a series of conditions. These conditions
require an audit of the operation to determine actual employee generation and a legal
mechanism to guarantee the rental units remain affordable '(considering the Telluride
decision).
Employee generation and mitigation will also be reviewed with the forthcoming growth
management application.
Floor Area: A question has been raised regarding whether or not the internal parking
"shelves" should be considered floor area. These internal shelves do create separate
levels but those levels do not provide traditional useable spaces. The City's PUD allows
dimensions to be determined for a specific project and staff recommends this floor area
question be resolved through the PUD.
Staff believes the individual parking platforms should not be considered Floor Area for
the purposes of this development proposal. For the current plan, the floor area question
may be academic but could be important if the use is terminated and the building
converted. Describing the parking shelves not as floor area would require a PUD
amendment to later retrofit actual floors within the structure and would require additional
net leasable allotments from the growth management system.
Subdivision: The subdivision request is to divide the lot into two properties and is also
necessary for the creation of multi -family housing. The site is flat and contains no
geologic hazards or other reasons to recommend denial is suitable for subdivision. Staff
believes that the proposed subdivision application complies with all of the standards.
Growth Managefnent: The proposed parking garage requires a GMQS scoring approval.
GMQS applications, however, may not be reviewed by the City until after the September
15t" application deadline. This is to ensure a fair scoring process occurs if more than one
application is submitted.
R.
This review and approval (if granted) will be conditioned upon a successful growth
management scoring.
Park Place Page 6
REVIEW PROCESS:
The Applicant is requesting approval of the following' land use requests to develop the
proposed parking facility:
➢ Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD (to approve the dimensions
of the new parking facility building)
➢ Subdivision (to split the parcel and for the two AH units)
➢ Rezoning (to add a PUD Overlay)
➢ Conditional Use (to approve the parking garage use. Combined
with PUD review)
➢ GMQS Exemption (for the two AH units)
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall provide a recommendation to City Council
on all of the land use requests. The P&Z may recommend approval, approval with
conditions, or denial at a duly noticed public hearing. (The Conditional Use request has
been combined with the other requests to be finally decided by City Council.)
The project also requires a growth management allotment and applications for GMQS
scoring may not be submitted until September 15t". Any actions on the pending requests
will be conditioned upon a successful GMQS review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable review standards. Staff believes that
the proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate and. compatible with the
immediate vicinity. Additionally, the City of Aspen Parking Department Director has
reviewed the application and believes that the proposal will take some pressure off of the
on -street parking spaces within the downtown area. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Plamling and Zoning Commission approve the proposed resolution recommending that
City Council approve the proposal with the conditions that are set forth therein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. ' ` , Series of 2003, recommending that City Council
approve the Park Place Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, Subdivision, GMQS
exemption, and Conditional Use for a commercial parking structure."
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B — Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C — Application
T�
Park Place Page 7
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2003)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CONCEPTUAL
AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW, CONDITIONAL
USE REVIEW, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS WAIVERS, SUBDIVISION
REVIEW, REZONING TO INCLUDE A PUD OVERLAY, AND GROWTH
MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR A
COMMERCIAL PARKING FACILITY AND OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON
LOTS A, B, C, AND D, BLOCK 105, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
(the Project) from Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, John Cooper Managing Partner, owner
and applicant, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC, for combined Conceptual
and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, Rezoning for a PUD .Overlay,
Subdivision approval, Conditional Use approval, Residential Design Standards waivers,
and Growth Management Exemption approval for affordable housing for a proposed
commercial parking facility housing ninety-nine cars, two affordable housing units, and
an accessory parking attendant office, and an existing office building; and,
WHEREAS, the parcel of land is described as Lot A, B, C, and D, Block 105,
City and Towntsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, also described as the Hannah -
Dustin Condominiums according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 17 at Page 78
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and is currently developed with an "A -Frame"
structure, 707 East Hyman Avenue, generally located on Lots C and D, and the "Hamiah-
Dustin" building, 300 So. Spring Street, generally located on Lots A and B. Both are
currently office buildings. Minimal changes are proposed for the Hannah Dustin
Building and site. The commercial parking facility is proposed to replace the A -Frame;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.304, 26.310, 26.410, 26.425, 26.445,
26.480, and 26.710 of the Land Use Code, land use applications requesting land use
review for Rezoning for Plaluled Unit Development Overlay designation, Conditional
Use, Planned Unit Development Conceptual and Final plan adoption, Residential Design
Standards waivers, and Subdivision approval, may be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after
considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning
and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, the appropriate referral
agencies, and members of the general public; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(B)(1) and for the purpose of
providing clarity and reducing duplication the Community Development Director, in
consultation with the applicant, has modified the Conditional Use Review and Residential
Design Standards variance procedures for this project such that the Planning and Zoning
P&Z Resolution No. _,
Series of 2003. Page 1
Commission, at a public hearing, shall make a recommendation to City Council and City
Council, at a public hearing, shall be the final decision -making body; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445.020 *and notwithstanding the parcel
being less than 27,000 square feet in size the Community Development Director has
allowed this project to be reviewed according to the City's Planned Unit Development
process considering that this project may have the ability to further goals of the Aspen
Area Community Plan and that the procedures and review standards of the City's Planiled
Unit Development process best serve the interests of the community in reviewing the
proj ect; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445.030(B)(2) the Community Development
Director has permitted the consolidation of Conceptual and Final Planned Unit
Development review considering the limited extent of issue involved; and,
WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City
Water Department, City Engineering, the City Parking Department, the City
Transportation Department, the City Zoning Officer, City Parks Department, the Aspen
Building Department, the Environmental Health Department, and the Community
Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with
conditions; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 19, 2003, the
Planning and Zoning Commission considered the noted recommendations and comments
from the general public and reconu-nended, by a to vote, the City Council
grant approval for the Rezoning for PUD Overlay designation, Conceptual and Final PUD
Development Plan approval, Conditional Use approval, Subdivision approval, and growth
management exemption approval for affordable housing for the proposed commercial
parking facility and existing office building, subject to conditions of approval listed
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that City
Council should approve the Park Place commercial parking facility and office building
project, as proposed in the land use application; with the following conditions of
approval:
Section 1: Rezoning
The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be., upon filing of the
Subdivision plat and Final PUD Plans, amended by the Community Development
Director to reflect the following property as designated with a Planned Unit Development
Overlay zoning designation. No . change to the underlying "Office" designation shall
occur.
Lots A, B, C, and D, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado.
Section 2: Growth Management Approval Contingency
The Subdivision and Planried Unit Development approvals granted by the City shall not
be considered valid until the project obtains all growth management allotments and t
approvals. The City shall not accept or approve final Subdivision/PUD plats,. plans, and
P&Z Resolution No. ,
Series of 2003. Page 2
agreements unless all growth management allotments have been awarded by the City of
Aspen.
Section 3: Residential Design Standards
The project, as depicted in the Final PUD Plans, shall be exempt from the City's
Residential Design Standards.
Section 4: Approved Project Dimensions
The following approved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans:
Dimension:
Parking Garage Lot:
6,000 sf.
Hannah Dustin Lot:
Minimum Lot Size
6,000 sf.
Minimum Lot Width
60 ft.
60 ft.
Front Yard Setback
6.5 ft.
0-1Oft. (as shown on final PUD
Plan) (west = primary)
6.5 ft. (north = secondary)
Side Yard Setback
3 ft. (west)
0 (east)
5 ft. (east)
Rear Yard Setback
0 ft.
loft
Maximum Height
3 5 ft.
28 ft.
Percent of Open
No Requirement
No Requirement
Space
Allowable FAR
1.29:1 (The parking
Same as Office zone requirement
"shelves" shall not be
counted as FAR, only the
building shell and
traditional floors.)
Residential Off-
3 total
N/A
Street Parking
Conuinercial Off-'
96 spaces
3 along alley
Street Parking
Distance between
10 ft.
10 ft.
Buildings on the lot.
Section 5: Parking Spaces and Parking Garage
Parking spaces within the parking garage shall be used for parking vehicles and not used
for storage or other similar non -automobile related purposes.
One parking space shall be allocated to each of the two on -site affordable housing units.
If the residential units are transferred separate from the remaining property interests, the
P&Z Resolution No. _,
Series of 2003. Page 3
parking space allocated to residential unit shall be conveyed in fee as part of the
ownership interest in the residential unit.
i ij_%� remaining 96 parking spaces may be sold, transferred, or leased by the owners
thereof on a daily or long-term basis. Parking spaces . may be used to satisfy parking
needs of future commercial expansions on- or off -site and may be sold or leased to third
parties for use as remote residential parking.
The parking garage and parking spaces shall be considered an approved commercial i.
parking facility and an approved remote parking facility as such terms are used in the
City's Land Use Code. Parking spaces may be physically reconfigured, with approval
from the Community Development Director, to accommodate additional or fewer parking
spaces such that a total change of no greater than five (5) parking spaces, from that.
depicted on the Final PUD Plans, occurs. Physical reconfigurations reducing parking by
more than five (5) spaces shall require a PUD amendment. Conversion of extra parking
spaces to non -parking uses shall require a PUD amendment.
Section 6: Affordable Housing Units
The Project shall include one (1) one -bedroom Category One affordable housing unit and
one (1) three -bedroom Category 3 affordable housing unit as described on the Final PUD
Plans. Each unit shall have one (1) associated parking space within the parking garage.
The two affordable units shall be exempted from the Growth Management Quota System
and counted towards the growth ceiling for affordable housing.
The affordable housing units shall be either transferred as "for -sale units" to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA)
Guidelines or, if the units are to be rented, a legal instrument permanently ensuring their
affordable status acceptable to the City Attorney shall be provided. The City shall accept
a nominal property interest (1 / 10 of 1 percent undivided - interest) . or other reasonable
means of assurance.
Residents of the affordable housing units shall meet the minimum occupancy and all
other qualification criteria in the APCHA Guidelines, as amended. The rental structure of
the affordable units shall not exceed a maximum rental rate of Category 2 for the one -
bedroom unit and Category 3 for the three -bedroom unit as such rates are defined in the
APCHA Guidelines, as amended from time to time. Rental tenants shall be qualified by
APCHA.
Section 7: Imnact Fees
Park 17npact Fees of $5,754 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project shall include
an adjustment to this impact fee according to the following schedule:
Park Fees: 1 one -bedroom @ $2,120 per unit = $2,120
1 three -bedroom unit @ 3,634 per unit = $3,634
$5,754
P&Z Resolution No.
Series of 2003. Page 4
School linpact Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land
divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City of
Aspen verifies the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project to be
2,961,700 based on information from the Pitkin County Assessor. This represents
$10,750,870 per acre. One-third of this value divided by the proposed 2 units results in a
$1,791,823 per acre standard for calculating the impact fee. The subject subdivision is not
conducive to locating a school facility and a cash -in -lieu payment shall be accepted.
School Impact Fees are follows, payable at building permit issuance:
1 /3 land
value per
unit per
acre
Land
Dedication
standard
(acres)
Per unit
Impact Fee
Number
of Units
One bedroom
$1,7915823
.0012
$2,150
1
$2,150
Two Bedroom
$1,791,823
.0095
$17.1022
0
0
Three Bedroom
$11791,823
.0162
$29,028
1
$29,028
Four Bedroom
$1,791,823
.0248
$44,437
0
0
Total:
$31,178
Amendments to the project shall include an adjustment to this impact fee according to the
above schedule.
Section 8: Landscape Plan
The proposed landscape plan shall provide a number, type, and quality of plant material
acceptable to the City Parks Department. Sufficient mitigation shall be provided, in a
form acceptable to the City Parks Department, to offset the removal of existing trees on
the site. The Landscape Plan sheet(s) of the Final PUD Plans shall include an acceptable
tree replacement and mitigation plan with a signature line for approval by the City Parks
Department.
Tree removal mitigation shall be based on the valuation of existing trees to be removed.
Tree Removal permits shall be obtained. New trees to be established within the Project
shall be credited towards this valuation. The Parks Department recommends removal of
the Spruce tree rather than relocation.
The Subdivision/PUD agreement shall include provisions guaranteeing the successful
implementation of the landscape and ongoing maintenance.
Section 9: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
The building permit application shall comply wit all requirements of the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District. Following are specific requirements applicable to this
proj ect:
1. If a back-up generator is used, compliance with fuel tank requirements will be
necessary. ,
P&Z Resolution No. _,
Series of 2003. Page 5
2. Containment systems for glycol and hydraulic oils used for the car handling
system are necessary.
3. ACSD will need to review drainage plans to ensure that no storm water can enter
sanitary sewer.
4. If water is used to clean the garage, there will need to be floor drains. Floor drains
will be connected to the sanitary sewer and will require an oil/sand separator. In
case of a fire, the drains and oil/sand separator must be sized to accommodate fire
flows.
5. The Project must adhere to the rules and regulations of the District and pay
applicable fees.
Section 10: Proiect' Name
The Project shall be renamed to avoid emergency service confusion. A new name shall
be reflected on the Subdivision/PUD plans and agreements.
Section 11: Subdivision & Final PUD Plans
Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building
Permit, the applicant shall record a .Subdivision and a Final PUD Development Plan.
The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community
Development Engineer and also shall include the following items:
1. The final property boundaries and disposition of lands with appropriate property
descriptions.
2. Easements and signature blocks for utility mains and transformers with signature
blocks for utilities not provided by the City of Aspen. Easements for electric
transformers. Transformers shall be located outside of the public right-of-way. An
easement to access the mechanical equipment on the east side of the Hannah Dustin
building maybe necessary.
3. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey
description data describing the revised parcel boundaries to the Geographic
Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final
building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS
Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The Final PUD Plans shall include:
1. An illustrative site plan with dimensioned building locations. Adequate snow
storage areas shall be depicted.
2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements
with an irrigation plan.
3. Design specifications for any .improvements to public rights -of -way with profiles
and drainage designs for any road/alley improvements.
4. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character of
each building depicting materials, fenestration, projections, and dimensions and
P&Z Resolution No. _,
Series of 2003. Page 6
locations of elevator shaft heads, skylights, mechanical equipment, etc. Mechanical
equipment shall be screened from pedestrian view.
5. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies.
The City Water Department prefers one fire tap and one domestic service.tap.
6. A grading/drainage plan with any off -site improvements specified. Any off -site
improvements done in coordination with the City Engineering Department and costs
shall be prorated with other properties receiving such benefit.
7. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150.
Section 12: Subdivision/PUD Agreement
Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building
Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision/PUD Agreement binding this property to
this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in
Section 26.445.070, in addition to the following:
1. A methodology of determining actual employee generation of the Project after one
complete year of operation and the manrier of providing mitigation of any additional
employee generation. The project is providing housing for 4.75 employees.
According to the City's requirement of providing mitigation for 60% of the
employees generated, this housing mitigates a total generation of 7.9 employees.
Additional mitigation shall be required for any actual employee generation in excess
of 7.9 employees. The methodology shall include an audit process and timeline, a
method of selecting an auditor, the method of determining acceptable mitigation if
additional employees are generated, and be acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority.
2. A traffic management plan describing construction hauling routes and methods to
shuttle workers to the construction site. The City prefers the applicant use East
Hyman Avenue to Original Street as the primary hauling route.
3. Geologic and soils report describing ground water issues and methods of
construction to be used to avoid adversely affecting neighboring properties and
rights -of -way. Water rights may need to be obtained if dewatering operations
remove groundwater.
4. In addition to the financial securities for improvements required by Section
26.445.070, the applicant shall provide to the City of Aspen a letter of credit, cash to
be held in a City account, or other financial security executable through the period
of construction and acceptable to the City of Aspen, to recover the construction site
to a safe condition, including but not limited to, filling -in excavated areas if
construction is discontinued. The securities shall be specified in the
Subdivision/PUD agreement and payable upon building permit application.
5. An agreement to return the section of East Hyman Avenue to its intersection with
Original Street, or other primary hauling route, to an acceptable condition after
construction, as determined by the City Engineer. Subsurface work may be
necessary. Curb and gutter work may be necessary.. A final two-inch overlay may r
,c
be necessary.
P&Z Resolution No. _,
Series of 2003. Page 7
Section 13: Buildina Permit Requirements
The building permit application shall include/depict:
1. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance has been
read and understood.
2. A signed copy of the Ordinance granting final land use approval
3. Payment for Parks and School impacts fees as specified herein. Financial securities
as required in the Subdivision/PUD agreement.
4. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Enviroiunental Health Department
which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt
fencing, as -'needed cleaning of adjacent rights -of -way, and the ability for the
Environmental Health Department to request additional measures to prevent a
nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris
from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction.
The applicant shall provide phone contact information for on -site project
management to address construction impacts.
5. A construction noise suppression plan approved by the Environmental Health
Department which includes the ability for the City to request additional measures
to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall provide phone
contact information for on -site project management to address construction
impacts.
6. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction
phases affecting city streets and infrastructure. Street and alley closures shall be
specified with provisions to maintain access to neighboring properties. Any street
or alley closures shall require noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, the
City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City. Parking Department,
and the City Engineering Department. (Estimated schedule to .be distributed to
above agencies.)
7. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City
Building Department. The plan shall demonstrate continuous emergency access to
the site and neighboring properties and requires payment for street parking used -
during construction.
8. Tree removal permits for any regulated trees to be removed. The Parks Department
reconunends the Spruce tree be removed rather than relocated.
9. Structure must meet the energy code for the commercial area (com-check) and for
the residential area (res-check).
10. Adequate access to the mechanical room must be shown.
11. The requirements of the efficient building program for the residential units shall
be fulfilled.
12. Disability access to the bathroom and the vehicle pickup area must be defined. }
t
13. One fire sprinkler system is needed for the entire building.
P&Z Resolution No. _,
Series of 2003. Page 8
Section 14: Construction
1. No soil nails shall be used within public rights -of -way or utility easements. The
City recommends soil hardening for these areas.
2. Building foundation footers shall not extend into the right-of-way.
3. Vehicles and material storage shall not block the alleyway.
4. Root barriers shall be installed around new trees to prevent future buckling- of the
sidewalk
Section 15: QueuinjZ Vehicles alontZ Hyman Avenue
The parking garage operator shall .not permit or encourage patrons to vacate their cars
until those cars are fully located on -site within the designated entry/exit parking bays.
The City may enforce this provision by appropriate means including, but not limited to,
temporary or permanent revocation of the conditional use approval.
Section 16: Condominiumization
Condomin iumization of the Project (after redevelopment) to define and redefine separate
ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to
recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of
condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community Development Engineer.
The Project developer shall have the right to condominiumize the affordable residential
units under a separate condominium regime independent of other portions of the Project.
Section 17-
All material representations and commitments made by the developer. pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning
and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,
unless amended by other specific conditions.
Section 18:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
P&Z Resolution No. _, .
Series of 2003. Page 9
APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on August 19, 2003.
4`
�t
I'€
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
CAhome\Current Planning\CASES\Park Place\PZ Reso.doc
P&Z Resolution No.
Series of 2003. Page 10
EXHIBIT A
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Final PUD
Section 26.445.050 of the Regulations provides that development applications for Final
PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with many objectives of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
The 2000 AACP endorsed the following transportation policies and goals that have
applicability to this project:
• Limit traffic on Highway 82 into Aspen to 1993 levels.
• Reduce internal flow of traffic within Aspen.
• Hold the supply of public parking within the Aspen Conullunity Growth
Boundary to 1998 levels, with the exception of affordable housing parking.
• Reduce automobile congestion in the downtown core, particularly in the evening
and on weekends so as to foster economic sustainability.
• Manage the supply of parking to limit adverse impacts of automobile use and to
conserve land in the Aspen area.
• Provide a wide range of flexible transportation management tools and tecluliques
to reduce single -occupant automobile use.
The Economic Sustainability Report (a follow-up to the AACP) recommended the City
"continue to reinvest in Aspen's infrastructure through collaboratively exploring
public/private and interagency partnerships for certain projects and moving forward on
other that have already been approved. These include: 1) The Entrance to Aspen as
approved in the CDOT Record of Decision; 2) Possible additional and more convenient
parking; and, 3) A gondola interconnect for the four ski areas."
Recent projects and planning efforts also affect this discussion. The Rio Grande Parking
Garage was originally planned for an additional level below grade. This unbuilt level
I
ould have acconunodated and additional 80 cars. The Independence Place Plaza project
("Superblock") was planned in this general area as an outgrowth of the 1986 parking
study referenced in the application. 228 parking spaces were contemplated for the IPP
proj ect.
Park Place Exhibit A Page 1
The "hold public parking" statement in the AACP seems to not support this (or any)
additional parking. At the same time the `.`reduce congestion," "transportation
management," "add more parking," and recent planning activities seem to support this
concept of additional public parking. Staff believes parking, especially public parking, is
an infrastructure necessary to the downtown shopping district. Staff does believe the
parking garage proposal complies with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The Applicant has appropriately proposed to develop affordable housing well within the
Urban Growth Boundary and in close proximity to the Commercial Core of the City as is
consistent with the housing policies that are set forth in the AACP. In addition, the
Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan states that citizen housing should be provided
within the metro area and in close proximity to public mass transit as the proposed
development is. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of
existing land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The immediate vicinity is comprised of commercial, mixed use, and multi -family
residential buildings. The proposed parking garage will support these uses and the uses
of the immediately adjacent downtown core. Staff finds this proposal consistent with the
character of the surrounding area.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
Staff Fielding
Staff does not believe that the proposed development. would adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is
exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the
proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, .
final PUD development plan review.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has concurrently applied for a commercial GMQS allotment to construct
the proposed commercial square footage. This request cannot be reviewed until after the
application deadline of September 15t". This will occur prior to or as a condition of final
PUD approval. Additionally, the Applicant has requested a GMQS exemption to
construct the affordable housing units proposed within the development. Staff believes
this criterion is being. met.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements
for all properties within the PUD ... The dimensional requirements of the ;.
underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate r
dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional
Park Place Exhibit A Page 2
requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing
development patterns shall be emphasized
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of, and compatibilioJ with, existing and expected
future land uses in the surrounding area.
b) Natural and man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding
area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant
vegetation and landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and
the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circulation, parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed height is appropriate given the heights of the surrounding
structures. The parking garage facility is proposed at a height of thirty-five (35) feet to
the top of the flat roof. The existing buildings that surround the site of the parking garage
are built to a height of between thirty (30) and thirty-five (35) feet tall. Therefore, staff .
believes that the proposed height is compatible with the surrounding buildings.
Additionally, the proposed FAR of 1.29:1 is compatible with the neighboring buildings in
that both the neighboring Benedict Commons Building and the Aspen Athletic Club
Building that exists across the street contain greater than a 1:1 FAR, with the Aspen
Athletic Club Building containing a 1:1.82 FAR.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and
quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the
character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed dimensional requirements for the parking facility
structure are compatible with the surrounding properties. Several of the surrounding
structures are built to a height similar to that of the thirty-five (35) feet proposed for the
parking facility. Additionally, the PUD that would consist of both the existing Hannah -
Dustin Building and the proposed commercial parking facility would provide a quantity
of open space equal to that of the neighboring Benedict Commons PUD.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. s
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and .c
general activity centers in the city.
Park Place Exhibit A Page 3
Staff Finding
The Applicant has proposed to incorporate the required parking spaces for the affordable
housing units within the parking facility. Therefore, staff has proposed a condition of
approval that requires the Applicant to designate three (3) of the parking spaces within
the parking facility for the affordable housing units.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there
exists. insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if:
it) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensurefire protection,. snow removal,
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding
The infrastructure capabilities are sufficient to accommodate this proposal.
S. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there
exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the
maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water
pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding
No natural hazards or other conditions exist that would dictate such a reduction in
allowable density.
6. The maximum allowable density within. a PUD may be increased if there
-exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such
increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding
development patterns and with the site's physical constraints.
Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified
Park Place Exhibit A Page 4
in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those
characteristics mitigated
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
Staff Finding
Staff believes the ' proposed density is appropriate for the site and for the character of the
immediate vicinity. Sufficient transportation infrastructure is a community goal
expressed in the AACP and is necessary for continued economic health of the downtown.
None of the physical characteristics of the site limit the allowable density (criteria 4&5)
and the proposed density of compatible with the surrounding development pattern.
B. Site Design:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces,
is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the
adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The
proposed development shall comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique,
provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past,' or contribute to
the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate
manner.
Staff Finding
No such characteristics of the site exist such that a change in the site plan would- be
necessary.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
Staff Finding
No significant open space or vistas exist that would dictate a change in the proposed site
plan.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the
urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest
and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding
The sidewalk improvements are needed in the area and positively contribute to the urban
context in which this site is located.
4. Buildings and access. ways are appropriately arranged to allow
emergency and service vehicle access.
Staff Finding
Proper emergency access will be maintained with this proposal.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Park Place Exhibit A Page 5
Staff Findinf
This criterion has been met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a
practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact
surrounding properties.
Staff Finding
The City Engineer and the applicant have reviewed drainage requirements and believe
this criterion is satisfied.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are
appropriately de -signed to accommodate any programmatic functions
associated with the use.
Staff Finding
No programmatic needs of the uses direct the design of spaces between the buildings.
C. Landscape Plan:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed
landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels,
and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The
proposed development shall comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces,
.preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample
quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen
area climate.
Staff Finding
The proposed landscape improvements will significantly improve this site. The existing
surface parking along Hyman Avenue detracts from the streetscape and provides no
pedestrian accommodation. The proposal will amend this situation and complete a
needed link in the pedestrian network.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in
an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other
Landscape features is appropriate.
Staff Finding
No predominant site features or landscape features exist that would require preservation
through the construction phase.
D. Architectural Character:
It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety,
character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the
City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is
Park Place Exhibit A Page 6
based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibilioJ of the
building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale,
orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other
attributes, which may significantly represent the character of the proposed
development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan
and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of
the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development
shall:
1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city,
appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the
property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the
intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and
cultural resources.
Staff Finding
The architectural character of this proposal is adequate for the proposed use and for the
immediate vicinity. The residential uses along Hyman Avenue provide some relief and
architectural interest to -the building.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by
taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation
and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems.
Staff Finding
The proposed mechanical system provides an extremely efficient method of car storage.
The system requires no internal ramping and no mechanical exhaust/venting. Staff
believes the proposal, even considering the mechanics of the system, will require less
energy and less land area than a conventional ramped and mechanically vented garage.
3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe
an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding
The flat roofs essentially mitigate this concern. Some maintenance along the north side
of the garage will be necessary, but within reason.
E. Lighting:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development
will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and
general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous
interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site
features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate
manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting
Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD
documents. Up -lighting of site features buildings landscape elements '
h b a � b� p � c i
and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for
residential development.
Park Place Exhibit A Page 7
Staff Finding
The applicant has indicated full compliance with the City's lighting code will be
achieved.
F. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area:
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or
recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed
PUD, the following criteria shall. be met
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open
space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed
development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural
landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the
property's built form, 'and is available to the mutual benefit of the
various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation
areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or
dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a
similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for
the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas,
and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future
residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Staff Finding
No such common space has been proposed.
G. Utilities and Public Facilities:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose
any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the
public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed
utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply
with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the
developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for
the additional improvement.
Staff Finding
The applicant will be required to provide service upgrades as necessary. An electrical
transformer may be necessary. No City utility agencies have requested oversizing.
Park Place Exhibit A Page S
H. Access and Circulation (Only standards I & 2 apply to Minor PUD
applications):
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily
accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides
adequate pedestrian and recreational ,trail facilities and minimizes the use
of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development
shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate
access to a public street either directly or through and approved private
road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding
Proper access is maintained to all lots and structures with this proposal.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding
the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access
to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated
public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and
maintenance.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted
specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate
manner.
S. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained
under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to
ensure appropriate public and emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or
for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding _
Staff does not foresee this proposal creating undue congestion on the existing road
network. The number of expected trips is not expected to 'necessitate infrastructure
improvements. The ability to stage up to 4 cars should alleviate queuing issues within
Hyman Avenue. Staff has included a condition requiring the operator to not allow cars to
be left unattended within the right-of-way.
No trail/bike path recommendations of the AACP or historic use patterns affect this site.
This entryway has been properly designed. Staff believes these criteria have been met.
L Phasing of Development Plan.
The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not r
create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners
and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of
Park Place Exhibit A Page 9
the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the
adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with
the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a
complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent
practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later
phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -
lieu, construction of any facilities to. be used jointly by residents of the
PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any
mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective
impacts associated with the phase.
Staff Finding
No phasing has been proposed.
Subdivision
REvIEw CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.480 of the. City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent. with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of
existing land uses in the area.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Staff Finding
See comments under PUD Section..
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this Title.
Staff Finding
Staff finds this application in compliance with applicable regulations of the City,
considering the proposed conditions of approval.
B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision `` r
Park Place Exhibit A Page 10
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed
to create spatial patterns that.cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature
extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
The land is suitable for subdivision. No natural hazards exist that affect the division of
this land.. The proposed subdivision provides an efficient use of land with no
unnecessary public costs.
C Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided
for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See,
Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to
the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with theAspen
Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or
the goals of the community.
2. % The Applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested
and provide justification for each variation request, providing design
recommendations by professional engineers as necessary.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has consented to install the required subdivision improvements that are
applicable to this proposal as is detailed in the application. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which
is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in
compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota
System.
Staff Finding
The new dwelling units are affordable according to the City's regulations and is in
compliance with the Citys growth management regulations.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication
Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630.
Park Place Exhibit A Page 11
Staff Finding
School Impact Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land
divided by the proposed number of residential units on a -per acre basis. The City of Aspen
verifies the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project to be 2,961,700 based
on information from the Pitkin County Assessor. This represents $10,750,870 per acre.
One-third of this value divided by the proposed 2 units results in a $1,791,823 per acre
standard for calculating the impact fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating
a school facility and a cash -in -lieu payment shall be accepted. School Impact Fees are as
follows, payable at building permit issuance:
1 /3 land
Land
Per unit
Number
value per
Dedication
Impact Fee
of Units
unit per
standard
acre
(acres)
One bedroom
$1,791,823
.0012.
$25150
1
$2,150
Two Bedroom
$1,791,823
.0095
$17,022
0
0
Three
$1,791,823
.0162
$29,028
1
$29,028
Bedroom
Four Bedroom
$1,791,823
.0248
$44,437
0
0.
Total:
$31,178
Amendments to the project shall include an adjustment to this impact fee according to the
above schedule.
E Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been
granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter
26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable
Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth
management approvals if the newly created parcels) is required to obtain such growth
management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to
the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2)
Staff Finding
The City cannot review the GMQS application until the September 15, 2003, application
deadline has passed. This is to ensure all applications for the year's ,allotment are
reviewed and scored concurrently. The subdivision review is subject to successful
GMQS review and the entitlement cannot be perfected without growth management
allotments. Conditions of approval have been included to address this issue and staff
believes the criterion has been met.
Conditional Use
26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. t
When considering a development application for a conditional use, the appropriate
review board shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable.
Park Place Exhibit A Page 12
1. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone
district in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other
applicable requirements of this Title; and
Staff Finding
See comments under PUD Section.
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; and
Staff Finding
The proposal is expected to compliment uses and activities within the downtown vicinity.
The proposed use and operating characteristics are compatible with the development
pattern and character of the immediate surrounding uses.
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; and
Staff Finding
Staff expects off -site impacts will be minimal. The proposal is not expected to generate
noise, trash, odors, vibrations, or have service deliveries that would be unexpected in this
mixed -use area. Traffic and pedestrian circulation are improved with the proposal.
Visually, the parking garage use has been masked with residential development along the
Hyman Avenue fagade and will have appropriately -designed parking entrances along the
street. Staff believes this design is sensitive to the surrounding properties and more than
adequately minimizes the affects of the parking garage use.
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; and
Staff Finding
Sufficient infrastructure exists to accommodate the use.
S. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental
need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and
Staff Finding
The applicant is providing employee housing to accommodate the use. The
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has reviewed the proposal with their Board
and has found the application providing employee housing in excess of the City's
Park Place Exhibit A Page 13
requirements. An audit condition has been included to ensure adequate housing is
provided in the case where current employee projections are exceeded.
Rezoning
Note: Requiredfor PUD Overlay. No change to underlying Office Zone'is proposed.
Section 26.310.040, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed PUD Overlay is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent
any potential conflicts. The parking garage concept is unique and the PUD review
process allows a broader discussion on the merits of such a proposal. The PUD Overlay
also allows for the parcel to be split and the existing Hannah Dustin building to remain
unaltered.. Staff believes the PUD Overlay is appropriate and desired and is
recommending approval.
B. Whether. the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
Please refer to comments related to the AACP under the PUD section. In summary, staff
believes this application is in compliance with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding:
No change to the underlying zoning is being proposed, only a PUD overlay. The Overlay
provides for a greater discussion and involvement of neighboring property owners as to
the compatibility of the proposed development. Staff believes the proposal meets this
standard.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding:.
The PUD Overlay will not be increasing the allowable density of the parcel as the Office
Zone District provides for the density being contemplated. A parking garage is a
conditional use in this zone district and effects of traffic generation and safety are being
addressed through the conditional use review and the PUD review.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to
which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such }
facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage
Park Place Exhibit A Page 14
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The utility and infrastructure needs for the project have been addressed -in the PUD
application. Because of the location of the development and existing capacities, no
significant Lip -grades are required to accommodate this development. Improved electrical
service will be required and the upgrades will be paid for by the applicant and are not
expected to be borne by the general public.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
Staff believes the proposed zoning overlay and the proposed development do not
represent adverse impacts upon the natural environment. Sufficient criteria to evaluate
potential impacts on the natural enviromnent are included as PUD criteria and the overlay
actually ensures the community a greater degree of scrutiny.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The overlay requires a greater degree of review than would otherwise be required and
compatibility issues regarding proposed heights, FAR, and the proposed parking garage
use can be more thoroughly evaluated with the PUD overlay.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Staff Finding:
There has been a philosophical discussion in the past several years with respect to
growth, affordable housing, preservation of rural lands, and .the advantages of density
within compact communities. Generally the current concept encourages higher densities
within traditional townsites and preservation open and rural lands between city centers.
This shift in philosophy can be seen in the Interim Citizen Housing Plan, the 2000
AACP, and in the reports and discussion of the Infill Program. This shift requires new
thinking in relation to housing the automobile and private sector involvement in serving a
strengthened market for convenient parking. At the same time, significant anxiety exists
concerning increased building mass and intensity of land uses.
Staff believes these conditions supports this overlay as it requires a more rigorous review
and balancing of these issues.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
title.
Park Place Exhibit A Page 15
Staff Finding:
The additional review and involvement of the neighborhood is in the public interest. The
overlay does not grant the applicant any additional development rights or reliance. Staff
believes this standard is met.
Residential Design Standards
This application fails to meet several of the Residential Design Standards. The
practicability of applying these standards to such as development is difficult and staff
believes the proposed development creates constraints and conditions not favorable to
reaching compliance with all the standards.
The following standards are not being adequately addressed:
Secondary Mass — Requires- a portion of the. FAR be detached from the main
building.
Porch — Requires a porch be developed on the front fagade.
One Story Element — Requires 20% of the front fagade to be one story in height.
Staff believes that compliance with these standards would detract from the project and
that the combination of uses within, the project dictates the architecture of the building.
Staff believes the proposed architecture is appropriate and adequately provides a
residential aesthetic on Hyman Avenue fagade on the upper levels of the building.
Staff recommends the residential .design standards be waived for this project and the
architecture of the building be guided by the PUD standards.
GMQS Exemption for AH-
Section 26.470.070(J), Affordable Housing GMQS Exemption
Section 26.470.070(J) of the Regulations provides that, "All affordable housing deed
restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing
designee shall be exempt [from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures]."
Review is by City Council. The section goes on to state that,
The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall
include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the
proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of
dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed,
specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the
dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed
price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted.
Staff Finding
.f
The Applicant is proposing a total of two (2) affordable housing units that are to be deed
restricted as a Category 1-one bedroom rental unit and a Category 3 - three bedroom
Park Place Exhibit A Page 16
rental units. Staff feels that there certainly still is a need for the development of
affordable housing in that use are still under the projected need of 800 to 1300 additional
affordable housing units that is set forth in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan's
Housing Policies. Staff believes the. proposed site is located in an appropriate location
for the development of affordable housing in close proximity to the commercial core and
well within the Urban Growth Boundary as is mandated by the AACP. Additionally, the
Housing Authority has reviewed the proposal and has indicated that units are consistent
with the requirements of the affordable housing guidelines with respect to the size,,
layouts, and Categories proposed.
Staff has included a condition requiring the developer to provide sufficient assurance to
the City that these rental units will remain affordable considering the State Supreme
Court's ruling in the Telluride affordable housing case. This has been accomplished in
the past with other developments proposing rental affordable housing and is expected to
be satisfied in this instance. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Park Place Exhibit A Page 17
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review Committee
From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer,
DRC Caseload Coordinator
Date: July 7, 2003
Re: Park Place Private Parking Facility
Attendees:
James Lindt, Community Development Department
Chris Bendon,Comm unity Development Department
Nick Adeh, Engineering Department
Denis Murray, Building Department
Brian Flynn, Parks Department
John Niewoehner, Community Development Department
Tim Ware, Parking Department
Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer
Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health
Stan Clauson, Planner Representing Applicant
Brain McNellis, Planner Representing Applicant
Peter Fornell, Applicant
Jeff Halferty, Architect for Applicant
At the July 7, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project:
Park Place Private Parking Facility: A private parking facility is proposed for 300 South Spring
Street near the intersection of Spring St. and East Hyman Ave. The proposed garage will
accommodate approximately 99 parking spaces and will have seven levels including three below
grade. Besides the parking area and garage office, two apartments are planned for the second
and third floors.
This was the second DRC meeting for this project. The first DRC meeting was October 9, 2002.
These minutes are not meant to duplicate comments. from the October DRC.
DRC COMMENTS
1. Engineering Department:
• Due to past bad experiences, the City does not allow soil nails to extend into ROW or
utility easements. Investigating the use of soil hardening techniques is recommended.
• Street Impact Fee: At the time of the building permit application, a street impact fee will
be accessed that accounts for the construction wear and tear on the streets.
The Engineering Department supports the Applicants plan to pave the alley as long as
the alley improvements are engineered to accommodate drainage.
• Traffic Management Plan: At the time of building permit application,, a traffic
management plan needs to be submitted that defines the construction hauling routes
and methods to shuttle workers to the construction site.
• Are there ground water issues? Groundwater could potentially increase the cost of
construction and operation. Dewatering operations cannot pump groundwater out of
the aquifer unless adequate water rights are obtained.
Page 2 of 3
July 7, 2003
Park Place
• Extensive geologic and soils are required to determine to determine whether
groundwater issues exist and how the building can be constructed without adversely
affecting adjacent properties and the ROW.
• Building foundation footers cannot extend into the ROW.
• Vehicles and material storage cannot block the use of the alley by emergency vehicles.
2. Zoning
• There are questions regarding the floor area of the structure. The racks that support
the cars are not real building floors but neither is the building an open shell. This is a
question for P&Z to settle. The PUD can be used to define the floor area.
• The applicant should use the PUD to request that the project be exempted from the
City's residential design standards.
• Parks and school impact fees will need to be paid for the affordable housing units.
• The project needs to be renamed. There are too many places in Aspen with a similar
name.
3. Parking Department:
Prior to the start of the project the City needs to know the frequency and duration of
street and alley closings. How will the project construction adversely affect the
neighboring properties' access and parking?
The traffic management plan must describe how emergency vehicles will have
continual access to the construction site and adjacent properties. In addition, parking
spots on the street must be purchased for construction vehicles including worker's
vehicles.
4. Parks Department:
• Root barriers are to be placed around new trees to prevent future buckling of the
sidewalk.
• Parks Dept, recommends that the spruce tree be cut down instead of trying to
transplant it.
5. Building Department:
• Structure must meet the energy code for the commercial area (com-check) and for the
residential area (res-check).
• No access is shown to the mechanical room.
• Must fulfill the requirements of the efficient building program for the residential units.
• Disability access to the bathroom and the vehicle pickup area must be defined.
• One fire sprinkler system is needed for the entire building.
• As part of the lot split, it is advisable that the parking garage have the zero lot line
setback instead of the neighboring building.
7. City Water Department: no comments at this time
8. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; (by phone)
• Will there be a back-up generator? If so, there will be fuel tank issues.
• There will need to be containment for glycol and hydraulic oils used for the car handling
system.
r
• ACSD will need to review drainage plans to ensure that no storm water can enter �. y
sanitary sewer.
Page 3 of 3
July 7, 2003
Park Place
• Will the garage be broom cleaned or cleaned with water? If water is used, there will
need to be floor drains. Floor drains will be connected to the sanitary sewer and will
require an oil/sand separator. In case of a fire, the drains and oil/sand separator must
be sized to accommodate fire flows.
• Project must adhere to the rules and regulations of the District and pay applicable fees.
9. Environmental Health:
• The applicant needs to providea construction noise suppression plan.
• The Environmental Health needs to refine the expected trip generation numbers based
on an improved understanding of the project. Preliminary estimates determined that
garage would generate 952 trips per day. Vehicles trips cause air pollution.
• The paving of the alley and the construction of sidewalks will help mitigate for the
impacts of the vehicle trips resulting form the project.
/DRC/ParkPlaceDRC#2
MEMORANDUM "
TO: James Lindt, Community Development
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: July 16, 2003
RE: PARK PLACE PUD1707 E. HYMANA VENUE REFERRAL
707 E. Hyman; Parcel ID # 2737-182-27-001
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide four lots and develop a parking structure
on two of the lots.
BACKGROUND: The structure will be located at 707 East Hyman Avenue where - there is
currently an A -frame. The structure will accommodate 99 vehicles, contain a small office space
and two deed restricted affordable housing units with a total of four bedrooms. Parking for the
office and the residential units will be included as part of the conunercial parking facility.
According to Section 26.425.040E, Conditional Uses, the applicant commits to supply affordable
housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use.
The applicant states that the facility will employ an average of five employees a year (a supervisor
and a parking attendant at low season and a supervisor plus two parking attendants at high season X
two shifts daily). There could also be the potential for a part-time boold�,-eeper/manager. Therefore,
there could be a total of six employees. Sixty percent of the six employees would be a mitigation
requirement of 3.6. The applicant is proposing to construct a one -bedroom unit in addition to a
three -bedroom unit. These units mitigate 4.75 FTE's.
The applicant is proposing that the one -bedroom be deed -restricted at the Category 1 rate and that
the three -bedroom be deed -restricted at the Category 3 rate. The square footages for the units are as
follows:
One -bedroom 675 square feet
Three -bedroom 1,682 square feet
The minimum square foot for a Category 1 one -bedroom is 600 square feet and 1,200 square feet
for a Category 3 three -bedroom unit. The applicant exceeds the minimum square footages for the
units being proposed.
RECOMMENDATION. • The Housing Board met on this issue on July 16 and approved the
application with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall mitigate housing fora total of 4.75 new employees based upon the
applicant's needs. However, the applicant shall conduct an audit immediately after one
full fiscal year of operation for the proposed parking structure under the following terms: c`
• The applicant shall retain an auditor and shall gain prior approval from the Housing
Office Operations Manager for the selection of the auditor.
• The applicant shall be fully responsible for all fees associated with retaining an auditor.
Should the audit show an increase in the number of employees, over six FTE's, the applicant
shall return to the Housing Authority under the following terms:
• The applicant shall provide deed restricted, affordable housing for any additional
employees of the new facility.
• The applicant shall abide by the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines in
effect at the time of the audit.
2. The applicant shall deed restrict the studio unit to a Category 1 and the three -bedroom unit
to a Category 3.
3. The rental structure for the units shall not exceed maximum rental rate for a Category 2 unit
and a Category 3 unit as specified above.
4. The employees to be housed in the deed -restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria
contained within the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines.
5. The tenants shall meet the minimum occupancy requirements for the units proposed.
6. The applicant shall agree to a structured deed restriction for the units such that 1/IOth of 1
percent of the units is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/PitIdn County Housing
Authority, or the applicant may propose other means that the Housing Authority determines
acceptable.
7. The deed restriction shall be filed concurrently with the Certificate of Occupancy and shall
state the following conditions for the units:
a. The deed restrictions on the affordable housing units shall be in perpetuity to the
rental price terms as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing
Guidelines. in affect at the time of Amended Approval of the Master Plan.
b. The unit rental prices shall be no greater than allowed under the Affordable
Housing Guidelines that are in affect at the time of Final Plat Approval.
C. The Housing Office shall qualify all tenants under the Affordable Housing
Guidelines.
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Lindt, Plaimer
FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer
RE: Park Place —Commercial Parking
DATE: July 8, 2003
The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot totaling 12,000 square feet into two 6,000
square foot lots which comply with the minimum lot size for the underlying Office (0)
zoning. The applicant .is proposing to maintain the Hannah Dustin office building on
Lots A and B and build a parking garage on Lots C and D.
Dimensional Requirements:
The applicant is requesting variances from setbacks, height and floor area requirements.
These variances will be handled through the PUD process. Due to the unique
configuration of the parking spaces, the FAR should be defined and established through
the PUD. Also, if the applicant shifts the lot line for UBC requirements, the minimum lot
size for the RMF zoning must be varied as well.
Residential Design Standards:
As all residential development in the City of Aspen must meet the Residential Design
Standards, the applicant should request to be exempt from these standards for the
proposed affordable housing units.
Impact fees:
Park impact fees and school impact fees will be calculated and must be paid at the time of
building permit issuance.
Lighting Code:
All exterior lighting must comply with Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code.
Trash and Utility Service Requirements:
Per Section 26.575.060 of the Municipal Code, all utility/trash service areas must be
fenced, a minimum of fifteen (15) linear feet shall be reserved for box storage, utility
transformers or equipment, or building access, and a minimum of five (5) linear feet shall
be reserved for trash facilities. The applicant has not met this requirement but it may be
varied via the PUD.
Subdivision and Project Name:
Due to life, health and safety issues, the project and subdivision name must be changed.
There are already several subdivision within the City and County which incorporation
"Park Place" into their name and the emergency service require that new projects have
distinguishable names to avoid confusion during an emergency.
To: James Lindt, Planner
From: Jinx C ap arrell a
Electric Department
RE: Park Place PUD — 707 E Hyman Ave.
Date: July 14, 2003
I have to talk to someone about the electrical needs at this
location. It seems they want 3 phase and a voltage of 277/480.
We do not have that voltage there at the site.
They will have to buy a transformer of that voltage and
provide an easement for the transformer. Depending on the size of
the transformer they may have to buy two of them — one for the
service and also a spare.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Paul Smith * Chairman Frank Loushin .
Michael Kelly *Vice- ,Chair : ' 'Roy -Holloway
John Keleher * Sec/Treas Bruce 1Vlatherly; Mgr
July 15, 2003
James Lindt
Community Development
13 0 S Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re- Park Place PUD
Dear James:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient collection system and
treatment capacity to serve this proposed project. Service is contingent upon compliance with -the
District's rules, regulations and specifications -which are on file at the District office.
The applicant will be required to submit a detailed drainage plan for the District's review and
approval. All clear water connections such as outdoor floor drains, roof drains, and perimeter
drains are strictly prohibited. Sand and oil separators will- be required for the parking garage -
plumbing plan and must be reviewed and approved by the District prior to construction. In order
to protect the public collection system, all plans for soil nailing in the alley -must be approved by
the District prior to final design approval. A containment plan will be required for the use and
storage of glycol and hydraulic oils. A tap permit can be completed as soon as detailed plans
become available. The tap permit will estimate the total connection fees for the project: All fees
must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill St., Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970)925-2537
LAW OFFICES OF
HERBERT S. KLEIN
hsklein@rof.net
LANCE R. COTE
cote@rof.net
MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI
madhu@rof.net
* also admitted in California
HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
August 13, 2003
Via Hand Delivery
City of Aspen Plaiuling and Zoning Commission
c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Park Place Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Conditional Use, etc.
Dear Chris and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
201 NORTH MILL STREET
SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Telephone (970) 925-8700
Facsimile (970) 925-3977
I am writing to you on behalf of the 700 E. Hyman Condominium Owners' Association (the
"Association") concerning the Park Place Commercial Parking Facility application for a parking
structure to be located at the corner of Spring St. and Hyman Avenue. The Association has serious
concerns about the adverse impacts that this project will have on the neighborhood and the City at large.
The 700 E. Hyman Condominiums are located directly across Hyman Avenue from the proposed parking
structure.
Among the Association's concerns are the following issues:
1. Traffic Impacts. The application is devoid of any traffic study demonstrating that the traffic
generated from a 99 space parking garage would not adversely affect the neighborhood. The proposed
garage (to be constructed on a small 6,000 sq. ft. lot) will use an elevator to shuttle cars in and out of a
6 story building (3 floors below grade and 3 above grade). We can imagine the line-up of cars waiting
to enter while the elevator makes its rounds and cars are pick-up and dropped off. The application
indicates that this small site only has the capacity to queue four cars at one time. The location of this
garage near the intersection creates questions about the potential for grid -lock, snarling traffic and
blocking turning movements. The impacts of adding a large number of vehicle trips per day to this
location needs to be evaluated before any decision on this project is made.
At the sketch plan review with the City Council, this concern was articulated and the applicant
Beard that a traffic study was necessary. The applicant has ignored this and simply states that the garage
will not generate traffic since the traffic is already coming into town. However, its position misses the
point. This facility will be a traffic magnet. New traffic, not presently heading for this neighborhood,
will be drawn to this intersection. How many cars? We do not know. Will there be more cars than at
present? Absolutely! s
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
August 13, 2003
Page 2
Furthermore, with the project's primary intent of selling parking spaces, we have no idea how
many spaces will be available for the public. One can easily imagine many vehicles lined up to park, but
only a few spaces available for public use. Traffic circulation issues are of great significance in both
PUD standards and a Conditional Use evaluation. The application is completely silent with respect to
these concerns.
2. Environmental Quality. The noise and fumes from so many cars and resulting congestion
is likely to degrade the environment in this block which is composed entirely of residential and office
uses. High turnover retail uses are not present on this block and it has a quieter environment than the
commercial core blocks to the west. Traffic on this block is mostly through traffic and not the result of
destination uses present on the block. Placing a parking garage in this location will certainly increase
air pollution, noise and fumes and their concomitant adverse health affects. Presently, there is no late
night activity on this block. The parking garage will generate its adverse affects morning, noon and into
the night.' How much noise does the elevator make? How much exhaust will the cars waiting to get in
and out and backed up at the intersection generate? The residents of this block should not have to bear
this burden. Nothing in the application addresses these concerns. No air quality studies are present. No
noise studies. Only the applicant's glib statements that these problems do not exist.
3. Use of PUD Variations. The application seeks PUD designation so that underlying (0)
office zone district requirements can be modified to accommodate the unique needs ofthis development,
like greater lot coverage, floor area and height. Neighborhood compatibility of the proposed use and
structure should be the paramount concern in any decision to grant the flexibility that PUD designation
allows. So too must the application be exemplary and provide an overriding public benefit to justify the
variations. It must be supportive of and further realization of community goals.
At this point, we cannot imagine how this use could be deemed to be compatible with the
adjacent and nearby residential and office uses. The application touts compatibility with the
neighborhood of this single purpose monolith. We fail to understand how the applicant can make this
assertion with a straight face. The neighborhood consists of residential and limited office uses. The
parking garage will utilize half the length of its frontage as driving lanes and staging areas, blocking
pedestrian use of the sidewalk. Cars lined up to get into the facility will further diminish the pedestrian
and residential experience.
The application attempts to justify this project's eligibility for PUD treatment because 18 years
ago a parking study was done that favored a "super block" project that would have included some of the
block that is on the other side of the alley from the proposed parking structure. That project was an
Y
'It is curious that the application does not address hours of operation. We must assume
that this operation will function 24x7.
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
August 13, 2003
Page 3
integrated development of City Market and the Bell Mountain Lodge properties. The existing City
Market parking lot would have been incorporated into a new structure and a variety of uses would have
been included in the development. The study proposed a 300 space parking facility that accessed from
Original Street. That project did not happen. It is specious to assert that this parking structure is what
was intended to be developed in that project or that the former study has any relevance to the current
proposal. We also note that the study assumed that 20,000 square feet of new commercial space would
be built annually and drove increased demand for parking. We do not believe that anywhere near that
amount of new commercial space has been constructed.
The PUD variations are sought so that this small lot can contain a large parking structure. An
additional floor of height and almost twice the allowable FAR than what is allowed in this zone district
(the Office zone has a .75/1 FAR - the application seeks 1.31/1) is sought. Based on the plans submitted,
the gross square footage is about 16,000 square feet on a 6000 square foot lot! If this was an office
building or a residential use, both of which are allowed by right, it is highly unlikely that any variations
in height or FAR would be granted. Why then should a conditional use such as this be entitled to more?
Also of great concern is that if this experiment in automated parking fails, what becomes of this
building? What other uses and impacts will be created in the neighborhood when it is converted to some
other use. What mitigation will the City be able to impose to address those impacts? The application asks
the City to take a leap of faith, but provides absolutely no information about the economic viability of
this use.
Questions arise as to the fiscal impacts to the City. If many spaces are sold, the public will have
little opportunity to use these spaces. If few are sold, will the parking rate schedule be competitive with
the City's? Will the parking structure survive? If it is able to compete with the City, will it divert funds
to the private sector that now help to provide free bus service in town and subsidize the Rio Grande
Parking Structure? What about the loss of sales taxes that might otherwise be generated from
commercial uses of this property? What does the application say about these questions? Nothing.
4. This is not Infill. The application argues in several places that this project "furthers the goal
of infill." This analogy to infill development is misplaced. The infill program is intended to provide for
a mix of uses that will revitalize downtown. The proposed development is a parking garage (albeit with
a few required affordable housing apartments). It is ironic that the poster child for the infill program was
an undesirable use, e.g. a parking lot, and now the infill program is used as a justification to create
another parking lot - and worse, a large parking garage. If the City rezones this block to C-1, as is
suggested in the infill report, it is with the intention of fostering a mix of uses that generate sales taxes
for the City and vitality for the core. The argument that this garage will take away so much business
from the other, undesired parking lots, so they can be developed for commercial uses makes no sense. X
It is not supported by any information to support its theory. It is the current code requirements and `�
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o Mr., Chris Bendon, Senior Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
August 13, 2003
Page 4
exactions that make these parking lots unable to be redeveloped, not parking demand. If there were fewer
people willing to pay for parking on them, they could still not be economically redeveloped. All we are
getting here is another parking lot!
Summary. While we agree that people need a place to park their cars, this proposal is simply not
compatible with the other uses on the block. Ironically, this development proposal perpetuates the
current reality that the highest and best use for downtown property is parking. The proposed
development could generate somewhere around $5-6 million in sales of parking spaces with no
corresponding public benefits. Its suggested community benefits are speculative and based on an
untested concept - that purchaser's of parking spaces will rent them out to the public when not used by
them.
The City should not permit this incompatible use, with its significant off -site impacts in this
neighborhood. If the developer wants to experiment'with downtown development, then perhaps a true
mixed use project would be more appropriate here rather than a parking garage.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Very truly yours,
HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By:
Herbert S. Klein
sg\700 E Hyman Condo Assn\bendon-10
713863 727 WILLIAMS DEVELOMENT PAGE 02
P4---Z- 6//9/05
*11 Mountain Homeowners ,association
700 B, Cooper #1
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Ph: 970,429,7478
August 197 2003
1
c
Chris ,13endon
Planning and Zoning Co
City of Aspen
,Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Planning.
Dear Mr. Bendon:
I am the President
Cooper. As you may lino
with each dwelling. Wei
and ,Zoning Commission
property. As we further i
behind the Bell Mountain
concerns related to this col
ission
Zoning Commission Approval for Construction of Parking Facility
)f the Horreowners Association for the five units located at 700 East
i, these five units also have additional qualified residences associated
uderstand that a developer has requested approval from. the Planning
o construct a rmlti-level parking facility behind our condonwi ium
uierstand, the parking facility would be located adjacent to the alley
property and rise several stories above the alley. We have several
struction among which include the following:
X . It is highly ;'kely that .a. parkzng facility will emit noxious and offensive odors that
would drifi :away from the parking facility onto the property of Bell Mountain
causing pot ntial harm to the occupants of Bell Mountain. ,
2, The parkinj ` facility would increase traffic in the area around the Bell Mountain
property to the considerable detriment of the Bell Mountain residents and the
other reside 'its of the properties around the Bell Mountains property.
3. If the acre to the parking facility incorporates any portion of the alley, it is
likely that s ver' a traffic jams and disturbances will result because the alley is only
twenty feet 1 ide and. is tin used as a. holding area for the City of Aspen trash
puling tru ,
4. We have Zelstreets
�n no traffic study to depict how the parking facility would impact the
usage of around the Bell Mountain property.
S. We believe ' t the construction of such a large facility would have a tendency to
alter both in water and snow run-off adversely affecting the Bell Mountain
property po ntially causing erosion subsidence, and other subsoil damage to the
98 0115, 98W 51196965, 01
08/19/2003 03:45 713868727 WILLIAMS DEVELOMENT PAGE 03
-- -- --— �•••••� T....� rvi a vvv %0 vz i•AVL si .a I A.b&A L'QA
y
Chris Bendon
August 19, 2003
Page 2
B
Bell Mouin property,
6. Parking to 99 vehicles in any facility is likely to increase the risk of fire and
explosion , to the other residents surrounding the proposed parking deck. In
addition, not only are. potentially hundreds of automobiles located in close
prox�irnk r h' eP Te,gidenres, but these same automobiles will be elevated several
stogies in `he air, making their potential fire and explosion risk even more realistic
to the resiOcnts of Bell Mountain.
7. We antici ate that the construction of such a facility will damage the valuation of
the Bell ountain properties to the detriment of thle Bell Mountain owners as it
was neve anticipated that such a major land use change would be authorized so
close to Bill Mountain.
S . The cons ction of the parking .facility will likely cause the loss of views from
the rear o tthe Bell Mountain property, all to the detriment of the owners.
We certainly hoe that these concerns that Bell Mountain has raised to this proposed
development will be c sidered by the Planning and Zoning Commission in weighing its
decision whether to grarTthe night to the applicant to construct this facility,
Should you have 'ray questions, please calt me at the above referenced phone number.
Very truly yours,
Bell Mountain Homeowners sociation
A
0i
980115 990a5/106965,01
�r