The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.707 E Hyman Ave.A079-02 CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY A079-02 2737-182-27001 Park Place Sketch Plan Review 707 E. Hyman Chris Bendon Sketch Plan Review Peter Farnell Alan Richman 10/21/02 SKETCH 08/04/04 D Driscoll alark Plac~Eketch Plan Reviel~ -707 E. Hyman A Je 2737-182-27-001 A079-02 C aâ‚¬ od> 12-~Dâ‚¬- Z - -/---*...."/71771/I'lict.1 E-7-â€¢!~ 1 i .. 27--37 - 19 2- 27- 0of 1 1 1 j AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 300 s , s 94, n ~ le 1 2 14 6.-1 4 ' Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 0 CU hc- 1 \ , 200.1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, ALA vL 2...LLLNA- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made o f suitable, waterproo f materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 1 0 day of , 200 1 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. b . Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) o f the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the propeMy subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses ofproperty owners shall be those on the current tax records o f Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text o f this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal o f this Title and enactment o f a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement o f an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description o f, and the notice to and listing o f names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 27 Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this (b4~ay of 6+ 414 7 ,2002Â£'by Ala,F Riolwm-~ ' jetiof /1.43,1%1 WITNESS Wi' MAND Al?940FFICIAL SEAL lat u t r My commig~11 44 1149-/U ae.\ .y. 2 - t Public 0~3Ift Rk) ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL i UBLJC NOT#CF DATE TIME PLACE RPOSE l 3 -- 1140331&22> RO I.A P. A 1 0 (m'4.9- .r I t - 1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: PARK PLACE PARKING STRUCTURE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, October 21,2002 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, introducing a sketch plan for a private parking structure that is proposed at 300 S. Spring Street and 707 E. Hyman Ave. to replace the existing A-frame residence. The property is described as Lots A-D, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Helen Kalin Klanderud. Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on October 5,2002 City ofAspen Account G:/planning/aspen/notices/moorerezone,doc 4620 TOREADOR LTD 610 EAST HYMAN LLC AJAE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 16507 O/0 KRABACHER LAW OFFICES PC A COLORADO PARTNERSHIP AUSTIN, TX 78755-0507 201 N MILL ST STE 201 1501 N PIERCE STE 112 ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207 ALEXANDER THOMAS L APPEL ROBERT ARTLA LTD PARTNERSHIP 715 E HYMAN AVE # 27 APPEL HELEN IN JOINTTENANCY VVM C KING ASPEN, CO 81611 700 PARK AVE 18-A 31 WINDING WAY NEW YORK, NY 10021 VERONA, PA 15147-3853 ATHLETIC CLUB MGMT SYSTEMS INC BAUM ROBERT E ASPEN RESIDENCE BARTLETT KATY I 720 E HYMAN AVE TRUST SU[TE 001 PO BOX 1518 715 E HYMAN AVE #18 ASPEN, CO 81611 STOCKBRIDGE, MA 01262 ASPEN, CO 81611-2066 BELL MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION BELL MOUNTAIN QUALIFIED BERMAN PETER J COMPANY LLC RESIDENCES BERMAN ROCHELLE L 720 E COOPER AVE CONDO ASSOCIATION LLC 10021 ORMOND RD ASPEN, CO 81611 320 S SPRING ST POTOMAC, MD 20854 ASPEN, CO 81611 BERSCH BLANCHE C BERSCH TRUST BISCHOFF JOHN C TRUSTEE OF BERSCH TRUST 9642 YOAKUM DR 9642 YOAKUM DR 502 S VIA GOLONDRINA BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 TUCSON, AZ 85716-5843 BOGAERT FAMILY TRUST BRADLEY MARK A BROWN SCOTT M REV TRUST 50% PO BOX 300792 PO BOX 1938 320 N 7TH ST ESCONDIDO, CA 92030 BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 BRZOSTOVVSKI ROBERT BUCKHORN ARMS LLC CALG[ RAYMOND D & ANNE A 715 E HYMAN AVE - APT 20 730 E COOPER AVE 134 TEWKESBURY RD ASPEN, CO 81611-2096 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCARSDALE, NY 10583 CAMERON JAMES 77.5% CARR WILLIAM F TRUSTEE CHATEAU ASPEN UNIT 21-A LLC 4504 BELCLA]RE AVE 64 DOUBLING POINT RD BLDG 421-G AABC DALLAS, TX 75205 ARROWSIC, ME 04530 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHOOKASZIAN DENNIS CHOOKASZIAN KAREN M CITY MARKET INC 1100 MICHIGAN 1100 MICHIGAN CITY MARKET 16-ATTN SHELDON REAL WILMETTE, IL 60091 WILMETTE, IL 60091 PO BOX 5567 DENVER, CO 80217 CLEMENT FAMILY TRUST CLEMENT KENNETH L & CHRISTINE D COATES NELIGH C JR COLEMAN FAMILY TRUST TRUSTEES 720 E HYMAN AVE 278 ALTA VISTA AVE PO BOX 709 ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 BIG BAR, CA 96010 r -*. I. ..~. COORS PHYLLIS M QUAL PERS RES COLOSI THOMAS W COOPER SPRINGS LLC TRUST 715 E HYMAN AVE APT 6 393 N COLUMBIA AVE C/O WILLIAM SCOT-T COORS TRUST-EE ASPEN, CO 81611-2099 COLUMBUS, OH 43209 15481 W 26TH AVE GOLDEN, CO 80401 CORTRIGHT KEVAN J 1/3 CRAFT LESTER R JR CURRIE VICKIE 3806 PHEASANT LN 2026 VETERAN AVE 5847 BELMONT AVE WATERLOO, IA 50701 LOS ANGELES. CA 90025-5722 DALLAS, TX 75206-6803 DALY FRANK DAILY CONNIE M DALY CAROL CENTER DALY ANNETTE - JT TENANTS 715 E HYMAN AVE #14 155 LONE PINE RD Cd 1 1555 ASTOR ST 44W ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60610 DAMSCHRODER TIMOTHY R & ROBIN S DEVINE RALPH R DODEA NICHOLAS T 2297 TRILLIUM WOODS DR 715 E HYMAN #13 715 E HYMAN AVE #19 AN N ARBOR, MI 48Â·105 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN. CO 81611-2063 DULDNER KURT P EDGE OF AJAX INC EDGETTE JAMES J & PATRICIA 708 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 2202 19900 BEACH RD STE 801 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 JUPITER ISLAND, FL 33469 EGGLESTON ROBERT H JR ELLERON CHEMICALS CORPORATION ETTLIN ROSS L 434 WEST HALLAM 720 N POST OAK RD STE #230 715 E HYMAN AVE # 7 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77024 ASPEN, CO 81611 FERRY NATALIE FIGHTLIN JONATHAN D FLINT MARILYN PO BOX 166 715 E HYMAN #46 816 E HYMAN AVE GLENCOE, IL 60022 ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 ASPEN, CO 81611 FURNGULF LTD FLOWERS JUDY R FLY MARIE N A COLO JOINT VENTURE 715 E HYMAN AVE #1 7447 PEBBLE POINTE 616 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 W BLOOMFIELD, MI 48322 ASPEN, CO 81611 HABER WILBUR A GARRISON LELAND M TRUSTEE GOFEN ETHEL CARO TRUSTEE HABER SANDRA 4802 E SECOND ST SUITE 2 455 CITY FRONT PLAZA 20409 KISHWAUKEE VALLEY RD LONG BEACH. CA 90803 CHICAGO, IL 60611 MARENGO, IL 60152 HAYLES THOMAS HELLINGER PROPERTIES LTD HENDIRCKS JOHN AND BONNIE 1/2 INT 715 E HYMAN AVE #5 1849 WYCLIFF DR 254 N L.AUREL AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ORLANDO, FL 32803 DES PLAINES, IL 60016 55 . .. 22, 1, u C -* U . rf:&p . #Il .- rbi. HENDRICKS SIDNEY J HOFFMAN JOHNS 111 HUNKE CARLTON J UVING TRUST 6614 LAKEVILLE HWY 715 E HYMAN AVE #16 4410 TIMBERLINE DRSW PETALUMA, CA 94954-9256 ASPEN, CO 81611 FARGO, ND 58103 HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES LLP JOHNSON BARBARA WEAVER LIVING HUNT SARAH J 0/0 M & W PROPERTIES TRUST 715 E HYMAN AVE #22 205 S MILL ST STE 301A PO BOX 3570 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAS CRUCES, NM 88003 JOYCE EDWARD KANTAS NICOLETTE KASHINSKI MICHAEL R 11 S LA SALLE ST STE 1600 715 E HYMAN AVE #15 0343 GROVE CT CHICAGO, IL 60603-1211 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 KELLY SIMON P TRUST 50Â°/0 KIEFER KAREN B TRUST 1/4 KOPP ROBERT L 50% CO/THE BUCKHORN ARMS LLC 2130 NW 95TH ST 34425 HWY 82 ATTN: JOHN HOFFAMN 111 732 E SEATTLE, WA 98117-2425 ASPEN, CO 81611 COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 LAZY J RANCH LLC LANDIS JOSHUA B LANDRY ELIZABETH J C/O W R WALTON 715 E HYMAN AVE #4 PO BOX 3036 PO BOX 665 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEGNAME RUDI LEMOS D&J 1/3 INT LIEB MADELINE TRUST 202 STANFORD AVE PO BOX 321 800 E HYMAN AVE #A MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 LONG GERALD P & PATRICIA D LOUDERBACK JACQUELINE M & JOHN MARTELL FRED & BARBARA TRUSTEES 719 E HOPKINS AVE 702 E HYMAN AVE 490 WILLIAMS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80218 MOEN ELIZABETH A MAYLE KENNETH D MIKI MOEN DONNE P 715 E HYMAN AVE #3 PO BOX 566329 8 CABALLEROS RD ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 M[AM[, FL 33256 ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 MYSKO BOHDAN D NATTERER HELEN MONGE EDWARD P & VICTORIA L C/O ABERCROMBIE & ASSOC 57 BURNBANK ST 23284 TWO RIVERS RD #11A 418 E COOPER AVE NEPEAN BASALT, CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81654 ONTARIO K2G0H2 CANADA, NELLE CHAD NELSON BRYAN LEE NETHERY BRUCE 13316 BEACH AVE 715 E HYMAN #21 715 E HYMAN AVE #25 MARINA DEL RAY, CA 90292 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 6 '00*Â· / Xâ€¢. M=FAÂ·A , Â·A ..Â·fr L J NIELSON COL STEVE & CAROL D NOONAN JOHN C PATIO BUILDING COMPANY LLC 501 S FAIRFAX 715 E HYMAN AVE #9 PO BOX 1066 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF PETERSON CHRISTY POPKIN PHILjP G ASPEN LLC 62 LAKE SHORE DR PO BOX 7956 601 E HOPKINS 3RD FLOOR RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270-4054 ASPEN. CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 RED FLOWER PROPERTIES CO/ A ROARING FORK PROPRIETARY LLC ROGER RICHARD R PARTNERSHIP 2519 E 21ST ST 4300 WESTGROVE 545 MADISON AVE TULSA, OK 74114 ADDISON, TX 75001 SUITE 700 NEW YORK, NY 10022 ROSS JOHN F RYERSON GEORGE W JR SAHR KAREN M 7600 CLAYTON RD 715 E HYMAN AVE #17 715 E HYMAN AVE #8 ST LOUIS, MO 63117 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAKSON DREW SCHEINKMAN NANCY SCHMIT CHAD 63.6% P O BOX 1625 715 E HYMAN AVE #23 805 E COOPER AVE #12 CARBONDALE, CO 81623-4625 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHNITZER KENNETH L & LISA L SEGUIN MARY E TRUSTEE OF TRUST SHARP TERRI L 4023 OAK LAWN AVE 4944 CASS ST #1002 715 E HYMAN AVE #12 DALLAS, TX 75219 SAN DIEGO, CA 92109-2041 ASPEN, CO 81611 SIMMONS RICHARD P & DOROTHY P SHERWIN GREGORY SHUMATE MARK SIMMONS BRIAN P & AMY P 2990 SHADOW CREEK DR 1267 STILLWOOD DR 1500 LAKESHORE DR APT 18 A BOULDER, CO 80303-1751 ATLANTA, GA 30306 CHICAGO, IL 60610 SPRING STREET PO SMART EDWIN J STETSON SUSAN C/O GULFCO LTD PO BOX 799 715 E HYMAN AVE #11 616 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 ASPEN, CO 81611 STRIBLING DOROTHY & TAYLOR E NORRIS 1/2 TREUER CHRISTIN L WACHOVIA BANK NA FL0135 602 E HYMAN AVE #1 981 E BRIARWOOD CIR N PO BOX 40062 ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLETON, CO 80122 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32203-0062 VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC VOTIS GEORGE T VICENZI HEATHER L C/O GARFIELD & HECHT PC GALT INDUSTRIES C/O 715 E HYMAN AVE #10 601 E HYMAN AVE 767 5TH AVE 5TH FL ASPEN, CO 81611-2063 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10153 7-â‚¬L. ' ,;156 ".... 1 '21 ;4- '.0 WAVO 1998 TRUST' WALLEN MERT WALLING REBECCA C/O WM VAN ORSDEL 36 OCEAN VISTA 350 BLANCA AVE 443 SW 6TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TAMPA, FL 33606 DES MOINES, LA 50309 WEIGAND N R WHITTENBURG J A ill WILLOUGHBY MARIAN V TRUST WEIGAND M C 620 S TAYLOR 12322 RIP VAN WINKLE 150 N MARKET AMARILLO, TX 79109 HOUSTON, TX 77024 WICHITA, KS 67202 WOODS FRANK J 111 YERAMIAN CHARLES 205 S MILL ST STE 301A PO BOX 12347 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 L'as :- . e.,a. Â® H CA:' ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: -7(77 61. P-ki i,tic; 41 , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: '.- / . ,200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 41 I, ~ J r} 144 @p 7% L- 1 u frÂ¥ r (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ./\ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City ofAspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attacked ht, eto. . Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, whidh was made of suitable, waterproofmaterials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hear\ng. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records o f Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part o f a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners o f real property in the area o f the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. C 441.tu A - 0,Signature 24 The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" wasagnowledged bef~re me this 1 day of c.221-' , 200_g by O ,--15 1.0 0377 - PUBLIC NOTICE WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL RE: PARK PLACE PARKING STRUCTURE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, October 21, 2002 at a My commission expires: 9~5==3> ~4102> B meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m, before the Aspen City Cound, Council Chambers. City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.. Aspen, introducing a sketch plan for a private parking structure that is proposed at 300 '9 41 S. Spring Street and 707 E. Hyman Ave. to replace ' P,Â·,.t" the existing A-frame residence. The property is Notary Public /30 .., LA Hh described as Lots A-D, Block 105, City and Town- .......t\(h site of Aspen. O For further information, contact Chris Bendon at k / the City of Aspen Community Development De- ./.- . 8.. f.?AH .: ~ partment, 130 S. GJena Stâ€ž Aspen, CO (970) 920- R 4 - 04*T- ~ 5072. chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us. ts I s/Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor trt....O Aspen City Council . 0 Published in Ohe Aspen Times on October 5, 4 2002. (9450) al 4 0,4..2.BC'64~ 4 ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL CASE NUMBER A079-02 PARCEL ID # 2737-182-27001 CASE NAME Park Place Sketch Plan Review PROJECT ADDRESS 707 E. Hyman PLANNER Chris Bendon CASE TYPE Sketch Plan Review OWNER/APPLICANT Peter Fornell REPRESENTATIVE Alan Richman DATE OF FINAL ACTION 10/21/02 CITY COUNCIL ACTION SKETCH PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 08/04/04 BY D Driscoll PARCEL ID: ~2737-182-27001 DATE RCVD: ~ 10/1/02 # COPIES:F-- CASE NO|A079-02 CASE NAME:~Park Place Sketch Plan Review PLNR:~Chris Bendon PROJ ADDR:~707 E. Hyman CASE TYP:~Sketch Plan Review STEPS1 OWN/APP:~ Peter Fornell ADR~402 Midland Park Plac C/S/Z: |Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:~544-0745 REP:~Alan Richman ADR:~PO Box 3613 CISIZI ~Aspen/CO/81611 ' PHN~ FEES DUE:~None-Sketch Plan FEES RCVD:~ None STAT: F REFERRALS| REF:| mi DUE:| MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED 1 - DATE OF FINAL AC-rION:| ~..2.1.03- REMARKS 1 ek.<47* 7,Ah FeÂ»J -i - CITY COUNCIL: D PZ: BOA: CLOSED:~ BY: ~ DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK,PG):~ ADMIN: 22,&*a To: Chris Bendon Fax: 920-5439 From: Peter Fornell Phone: 379-3434 Fax: 920-4432 Date: October 23,2002 Number of pages: 5 including cover Re: Copy of memo to Council and P&Z Dear Chris, The following attached letter was delivered to the City Clerk for delivery to those mentioned on the cover. I thought this may also be of interest to you. Thanks for all your help. Peter t'd It09'ON Ad?0:8 1003 'El'100 To: Mayor Helen Clanderud, Aspen City Council members, Aspen Planning and Zoning officials. From: Peter Fornell, applicant for Park Place Date: October 23,2002 Re: 0~t. 21 sketch plan review Dear cstccmed members, First, thanks again for your time Monday night. I appreciate your decisions to consider our three threshold questions, PUD application, GMQS inventory from prior years and the formula for employee generation. I intend to proceed to conceptual PUD as soon as all our required studies have been completed. There were some points I had hoped to make that night that time did not permit. I would like to memo those thoughts to you. The public nature of the sketch plan process allowed the voice of opposition free from response to or clarification of their concerns. The project was described as a "private parking garage". This was only to infer that no public funds would bc necessary for the project. The percentage of spaces available for the public to use this facility will be an exact correlation to the percentage of vacancy of the homes of those owners who purchase these spaces. We all know that the lights of most of the houses on Red Mtn., Starwood, Owl Creek, etc. are dark most of the time. Such an owner of a space will certainly put his space up as available. The representative of 700 E. Hyman townhouse owners assoc. continually referred to the area as a "neighborhood". West End is a neighborhood. Mcadowood is a Ikighborhood. Mtn. Valley is a neighborhood. The area they refer to on their block contains a 6000 sq. ft. office, a gym, dental and legal practices and the largest property management company in town, with 24 hour 7 day per week check-ins for short term rentals. Additionally, there is constant activity from the property management company' s maintenance and housekeeping vehicles. This is not a neighborhood, this is downtown Aspen. Each homeowner at this location purchased their property knowmg fully that their property is located in the office-zoning district. I've never seen a neighborhood zoned office before. We are all aware that the reason 2~d homeowner resort residences were developed there was in response to the lesser mitigations of residential to office use according to the zoning at the time. This group objected to the Benedict Commons Bldg and I expect will object to any project in their part of downtown. E 'd [?09'ON AdVOTE 1001 081'100 Two newly formed groups, the Downtown Improvement Group and the Economic Sustainability Committee both note additional downtown parking as an essential part of the infill mix. Finally, I refer to an article in the paper menlorializing a council meeting wherein the main topic was parking and how to facilitate it. It should also be noted that we anticipate the property to generate 7 employees not 1 or 2. This plan mitigates 150% of the anticipated employee generation on site. I believe that this is an important part of the infill and downtown re-vitalization and look forward to your review of the proposal at conceptual PUD and our opportunity to fine-tune it to the goals of the City. Sincerely. .7 i / 3 2% /â‚¬1'VE- Peter Fornell Applicant, Park Place 8 d 1409 ON Ad#0:8 3002 '82 miwimm....w e v 3 Iui-viu lilall *&31;1*@mi~ By Troy Hooper ing alone at the time of.the crash. . "I had a witness say he' watched him fall and ~ A 36-year-old man died Thursday night after when he did, he went forward and landed on his Â·9,022/2.1%9= taking a violent tumble while skiing at Aspen head," Pitkin County Sheriff's Deputy Mario , 3,~ Highlands earlier in the day. Strobl. said. "He described it as an awkward, Authorities identified the man as Thomas H. twisting fall ...the guy went head over heels." 6~ ' Yeakle III, of Dallas, Texas. ' Yeakle died of cardiac arrestÂ·caused bybrain Yeakle was on Bob's Glade run, -a double- injury at 8:43 p,m. inside Aspen Valley ~,5, 2* black diamond accessed by the Exhibition lift Ho$pital, a nursing supervisor said. He also had P~ 1+ on the lower half of Aspen Highlands, when the back and neck injuribs, the supervisor said. , f.~ -1- crash occurred. He is believed to have been ski- See SKHER on page 4 I Suit alleges Snowmass conference 298@Â·violated open-meetings laws . immigration lawÂ·s should be tightened, not i Â£'f. q By Rick Carroll ~ 4 ,*~ Ampen DIN Newe Sta#~/ritar . relaxed. ~.1 The five-county organization known as the The lawsuit alleges the summit did not comply 1~ Rural Resort Region is being sued for allegedly with the Colorado Open Meetings Act and it breaking open-meetings laws at its immigration seeks relief in'the formÂ·of two injunctions to sym- ~ summit held last September in Snowmass Village. bolically nullify the meeting where no official actions were taken. ~ Six plaintiffs, including Aspen City Filed Thursday in Pitkin County District Court, ~ Councilman Terry Paulson and Aspen resident the suit Also seeks legal fees and attorney's fees.. ~ Michael *Garry.,are asking the court to nullify The Rural Rehoft Â·Region -comprised of m.----!--IM what happenedÂ· at the summit, during .which boards-ofÂ·county-corhmissioners *omÂ·Pitkin, sch/AspeA,baily News' 1 members endorsed the relaxation of federal immi- Eagle, Lake, Gaufield and Summit counties - entertained the- \ gration laws. held irs annual meeting Sept. 19-21 ar the Say Ski Week \ Paulson and MÂ¢Garry support limited growth and have been outspoken about their,feelings that . Â·See SNOWMASS on page 4 Ts eyes T Downtown revitalization turns % B urking woes ~ up the hea$ gn Aspen parking VreiLL m 11>11'.1. 's an. opportunity for a revenue I By Bernie Grauer / /Â» i.'di Several parking solutions, including ir' ~~'9. eforthe' city. Ifs an opportunity for ~ Ampen oacY New8 Stalf Writer bullding an additional' Darking::gangÂ©. 3 0 ,ty to prOVide a better, more opti- 1 Downtown Aspen.parking has resur- are being talked about openly, but one 1 package for downtown and ifs an | faced as a potentially contkntious issue, tantalizing possibility, hlrnessing private trinity to maybe encourage other ) now that the City Council has started on development, is making progress behind 1 of iransportation." ~ inner-city zoning redorms that would ,%0 Scenes. t many downtown merchants fear customers than bringthemin. ~ encourage commercialÂ· and residential A group Qf private parties is talking parking would do more to drive infill or redevelopment. .. with the city about Â· An Â· in.town Commer- Both city planning st#fianÂ¢Â·muncil, cial and residential development that was here When they took down all ~ members agreeÂ·that re~alizatia=iLL could provide a. significantÂ·.amount of bring more people with more cars into ' See PARKING on page 9 See GLENWOOD on page 8 ~ town-Â· - 2 2:'Irl' 4///~jAY W//TY,-TRK'Ell : 3 Local .........3 1 return to Snipers and motion sensors ~ Taking Issue: 41: Ir 1 411!* 1 -90445*046*6 3 Movies .......4 anche victim ready at.Winter Olympics Seeing Dominica, 7..i#149#536,1:am D State 10 condition. ~ the nature island lih~ D National .:::.11 2 Sports .......18 3 Page 18 ~ Page 6 O Horoscope ...21 talÂ·f;>.24.:~;Ek)3*t:4Â·~,i:)10#24'%Â·4~~~aÂ«3â‚¬9*j:922?tt?423931'1517.f#i*trb~.1jt#t'r/I~14.*5Â£u-3~*?fc~~9'jffif D Comics ......22 'Â·f.Â·;:N%'1'i'~;).~' :')'tÂ·*Â·aÂ·!.,Â¢.40. 4.Y ;,â€¢ D Â·Â·6'4f,Â·Â·.JÂ·.t:ttt *!ffft,1>~ 9Â·~t~.1,6 :.3,1 ]P 'Â·47 ~03;i )1>,;r,liÂ·i:t f(F:=A,L.;7' :)12308/':.El?.~12Â·1 i:,Â·.4'Â·ftki,Â·t'.14?fi.,40'~ ~:fÂ·.1 Â·y'Â·j; 7 .Â· :, . Â·#2] i., (19)Â· f di.Â·...[ f 0 9 ON. -l- - Wd?008 ZOOZ '81'100 * ASPEN DAILÂ¥ N LOCAL INFILL RI New parking garage discussed PARKING from page 1 Hershev. At $45.000 pcr space..iumulti View at: www.aspei cost about $90 million for 2,00 â€¢pgreg extra parking - enough to meet much - "Prohibiting people from having cars Â· Â· (Departments, Community Deve! of the demand that an estimated 200 -1 town just doesn't work" Hershev neril residences would create, Aspen said. Copies are also available at the City Councilman Tpm McCabe said --Un the other hand, downtown resi- Community Development Departmer dents have less of a daily need for a and. at the Pitkin Coon Thursday. vehicle, so a remote parking lot at tte "I'm very excited and hoptful," he said. "But I can't talk about it until the city golf course or another location private parties have worked out the ought work. details among themselves and are ready to come out in public with it" "As a City Council A few months ago, council members approached a number. of private parties member, this public- around town to gauge the interest in private project is the next downtown redevelopment, if restrictive zoning regulations were eased, McCabe thing that i find ~ THE CITY OF Af said. Some positive responses led to the exceedingly exciting." possibility of the Â·city ind developers working together toward a common 1 i ... Tom MeCabe goal of city-center revitalization. City Councilman l ~9415- If the council could take some risk - out of the development approval -~ "I can guarantee resistance to infill, . .111 8 - process and identify some public goals, U,en both parries could benefit, he sald. hodi rnsidents iround tow~ not wanting â€ž - /044 The changes in city land-use rules con_ more parkiÂ® in their Â·neighborhoods, tained in the Infill Report presented to -Hyrshev s.8.4 - the.council Tuesday would reduce The city provides downtown resi- 1= If â€¢1 . mil dents with permits that allow them to i MA'|-1 4 -i'G'. r-f development risk. The changes include allowing taller, park overnight in residential neighbor- .* 11311!*.. f :,Â·* 4~4~*Et bigger buildings with more usable heods, Since no overnight parking is P 4 +A *11.12-1 +19 -rk space, reducing parking and urban allowed downtown, said city planner iÂ· Atjj6%121,&4&4.L open-space requirements and streamlin- Chris Bendon. More people living downtown in ing the city approval process. . ! 1 "As a. City Council member, this new infill projects will in fact reduce ?,2 932#1417 977 public-private project is the next thing the overall demands on parking and . â€ž ~447 .3 that I find exceedingly exciting,â€ž transportation. sid Charlie. Tarver, co. 1,1 7.7 1,30 4 McCabe said. "As politicians, we some- chairman of the Infill Report. .' 1-* 1 "Indreased urban density means that times have to bite our tongues as these residents will not need their cars or pub- things are being worked out." . Councilman Tim Semrau and Mayor lic transit as much to meet their needs Helen Klanderud also have been work- - they can walk," Tarver said. ing on the .mystery project, he said. Encouraging free-market develop- Semrau declined to comment Thursday ment may mean that projects will and Klanderad could not be reached for include some parking on site as an Comment. inducement Â·to live in town, he said. , One obvious solution that was sue_ New downtown development would ' 'gested Tuesday, another citv parkinl also provide an opportunity for the city 22Â£f, would be exceedingly expent to charge developers a fee in lieu of on- SIVe, according to Councilmap Tony site paking. (20) - ~1* 1.-,rd#.YMEL+Fl~Â£4~~ - '#49/5 0 1 & 41 48 ('.6.9, Â·'Ii,V; L.lil-,4.. 9.1,1,41Â· "T,ACk 1,14 1 1. 1. y " " t'Â·Email:'ear61@Â¢*91, 1 ~ 122 INESP'*A@*%Â¢~*f#t **SgE 41.1-1 1. C . # /1/"/:Il 1 11* 4;eÂ»97/ /6 % 4, b. ./0 J up y MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Helen Klanderud and City Council Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director~/ FROM: Chris Bendon. Senior Long Range Planilell~,~M RE: "Park Place" Sketch Plan Review - Public Hearing DATE: October 21. 2002 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: A "Sketch Plan Review" of a project allows a potential applicant to realize the issues needing to be addressed in an actual land use application prior to submission. Typically, potential applicants hold pre-application conferences with the City's planning staff in which issues are identified. Prior to this provision of the code being adopted, boards would hold informal "work sessions" to educate a potential applicants. The sketch plan review process allows this pre-application to involve a broader audience as a public hearing - allowing City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and neighbors to all identify issues that should be addressed in an application. Sketch plan review is not an approval hearing, it is only an opportunity to inform a potential applicant of planning issues. In fact, the legislation for this process prohibits the potential applicant from relying on specific direction. There will be no vote at the conclusion of the meeting. Staff strongly urges the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to identify issues and offer advisory suggestions but refrain from stating specific opinions. This is especially important considering the likelihood that neighbors will want officials to state specific opinions. For example: Okay to say - "Architectural compatibility with the surrounding buildings is an important concern. You should strive for a building that 'fits' with the area." [Identifies an issue and gives general direction.] Not okay to say - "If you paint it blue, I'll approve it." IGives specific direction.-] Planning staff and the City Attorney will be able to answer additional questions regarding the sketch plan review process during the hearing. PROJECT SUMMARY: The property is located on the southeast corner of South Spring and East LIyman, the "Hannah Dustin" Building and the adjacent "a-frame" structure. The proposal is currently limited to the a-frame site, approximately 6,000 square feet, and does not contemplate changes to the adjacent office building. 1 The proposal includes a parking structure accommodating approximately 96 cars. on multiple levels accessed via a lift system, and operated by a valet service. The structure is accessed from East Hyman Avenue. The proposed building includes four affordable housing units and an office for the valet service. The proposed use is allowed as a conditional use currently in the Office Zone District. The attached application more fully describes the project idea with supplementary graphics. The applicant will also present the project at the hearing. THRESHOLD POLICY QUESTIONS: The applicant is seeking advice in three policy areas, described in the application. Following is staff' s direction on these three threshold questions: 1. PUD Designation. The Planned Unit Development provisions of the Land Use Code allows the City to establish specific physical dimensions for a project meeting a higher standard of review. Compared with the Growth Management review (which would remain necessary), the PUD process is more rigorous requiring public hearings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council twice each (conceptual and final). Properties of at least 27,000 square feet (one half block) are automatically eligible for this process. Smaller properties, such as the subject property, may be allowed into the process if the Community Development Director believes an opportunity to promote the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and that the interests of the community will be best served through the more elaborate process. In this case, staff believes there exists the opportunity to promote goals of the AACP. Goals related to the Transportation, Affordable Housing, and Economic Sustainability sections of the AACP could be promoted through this type of application. Moreover, the additional scrutiny, more rigorous criteria, and additional public and neighborhood input can only improve such a project and does not guarantee an outcome. 2. GMQS Allotments. The current Growth Management Quota System limits the amount of development per year for each zone district. Changes to the Land Use Code based on the Infill Report may eliminate the per zone district allocation and merely limit the overall growth rate - a far simpler system. The applicant refers to potential code changes that may be adopted by the City prior to a final plan being submitted. Short of a code change, the annual allotment not used in previous years may be sufficient to accommodate the proposed project. In any case, staff believes the (ja_should be open to- consider a multi-year allotment for ADv quality project including one that may be proposed on this site. 2 3. Employee Generation Standards. The City's employee mitigation requirements are in the process of being updated. (City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission may recall a joint work session in July of this year.) These generation standards are being finalized based on the actual employment information from roughly 100 Aspen businesses and will be incorporated into the revised GMQS section of the code along with other Infill Program amendments. As accurate as these new standards may be, staff believes the City should be able to accommodate atypical development proposals. This is a long-standing philosophy of the City - the ability to consider the spegic circumstance of a particular proposal_. Without tiffs type of flexibility, projects such as thejpis Theater redevelopment would have been prohibited by a one-size-fits-all approach. Staff bAieves the City should remain open to the notion that this type of development may not fit the typical employee expectations of the Office Zone District. ATTACHMENTS: A - Sketch Plan Application B - Letter from neighbor' s attorney 3 KLEIN-ZIMET- Gihip 2 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET MILLARD J. ZIMET* SUITE 203 MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 925-8700 *also admitted in New York FAX: (970) 925-3977 October 16,2002 REr, h Via Hand Delivery Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street COM*~N / piÂ·Tfii, ' : 1 Aspen, CO 81611 , r DEVEZg 2 Re: Park Place Sketch Plan i Dear Chris: I am writing to you on behalf ofthe 700 E. Hyman Condominium Owners' Association (the "Association") concerning the Park Place Sketch Plan 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. 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 Impact. The sketch plan application is devoid ofany traffic study demonstrating that the traffic generated from a 96 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 location of this garage near the intersection creates questions about grid- lock at this location. The impacts o f adding a large number of vehicle trips per day to this location needs to be evaluated before any decision on this project is made. 2. Environmental Ouality. 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 east. 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 sketch plan application addresses these concerns. No air quality studies are present. OCT 1 e 20uz -911PITKIN Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City o f Aspen Community Development Department October 16,2002 Page 2 3. Use of PUD Variations. The sketch plan seeks PUD designation so that underlying (O) office zone district requirements can be modified to accommodate the unique needs of this development, like greater lot coverage and greater floor area. Neighborhood compatibility of the proposed use and structure should be the paramount concern in any decision to grant the flexibility that PUD designation allows. At this point, we cannot imagine how this use could be deemed to be compatible with the adjacent and nearby residential and office uses. 4. This is not Infill. The analogy to infill development that is suggested in the sketch plan application 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 studios). 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 touted as ajustification 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, is it not with the intention of fostering a mix of uses? Those that generate sales taxes for the City and vitality for the core? Since this block contains recently constructed affordable housing, the condominiumized Aspen Athletic Club building and its office and athletic club uses, and the 700 E. Hyman Condominiums, all rather new and thriving properties, it is unlikely that any other parcel on this block will be redeveloped under the infill program. Perhaps the City should reconsider whether infill regulations and a rezoning to C-1 is appropriate here. 5. GMOS Multi-year Allotment. The sketch plan application seeks a multi-year allotment and accelerating the submission date for a GMQS application for this project. The standards for a multi-year allotment are set forth in section 26.470.100 (D). Generally, only superior projects that are compatible with the neighborhood and address important community goals are eligible for them. We think it is unrealistic for the applicant to be suggesting a multi-year allotment for this project, given its impacts.' Likewise, the City should not change the submission date just to accommodate this application. This change would affect not only the applicant, but other property owners who are planning to submit GMQS applications, which usually take many months to plan for and prepare for submission. 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 and unfortunately, its concept perpetuates the current reality that the highest and best use for core property is parking. The proposed development could generate somewhere around $3 million in sales of parking spaces with minimal "social capital" requirements due to its unique use and the relaxation of exactions that are sought. Its community i We also note that the calculations o f leasable floor area discussed in the section o f the application dealing with this GMQS issue are understated. The calculations o f the applicant are based on a parking space size that is less than the minimum required by the City land use code (8' x 16' vs 8.5' x 18'). This results in a net leasable amount that is over 15,000 sq. ft. Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department October 16, 2002 Page 3 benefits are speculative and based on an untested concept - that purchaser's ofparking spaces will rent them out to the public when not used by them. Is this the City's vision for its future? Are we going to timeshare parking next? We certainly hope not. The City should not permit this incompatible use, with its significant off-site impacts in this neighborhood. If the developer wants to use this property for infill 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, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION j 31:1 By: herbert S. Klein sg\700 E Hyman Condo Assn\bendon.It 1 ~@/b #i 4Â»-'Fl,+~ 94/4. ehOLAZI 'Fdo (ll -1~4.Zp f'16 - 11 *00 -4 4*A m *4 -IC)kff Pe-47 -0-1+ior 40 appith:ittiâ€ž - 44- p +19 - \loluv*af 4 fr'Ga.j- ~ . ~01 Ap dacessd 1,4 -ti,e: 14c.44 1 4-f/Â°li~464 -lds.4*1 1929 -1'601- nawt + 625 d - - .Allt,0:5 yul,lic 464.k *70 14,41*rs Â·6 14*Rt 1 96VES. 9'p *LA hearÂ£12 - - - Ap phcat can-1- ray 4&*k. - 10647 *A beliÂ» pl- 1- ~wÂ·[ _ Rt>al et- 7,22, 44Â£ Guwj up,â€¢\ A-pt,62,21:.a~ Ak AA V'Vt,1 Â£41 dua -1'ke 414-6- / 7,9201- 4 *r BA _14=luc _3 -fl,Â«96Â£6( CA-62.u -le@rÂ«i Â·10hl jPKA< ~ _ _6 4 - 4{Afh PyÂ£ 4 3 44*i . Ul fi r Mcipp - -DimAA # 3 644 i Am 4Â¢r [93 46 * 6(614% Undkk:#vb 14 1- 11*k# 0949. Mph.4 044 fmwh,-t- - *Per FÂ¢4'1> 6'It *iket Â£094 6-10(-21 - 4-60Â»;9 - GkfiNÂ«- wwk> 42-0, k-'bv~ cle.*l,p.-4- ' 12UAawlc-., 90Â«_- Aell~ 34 - 4Â·"~ 44 ak&1,42 p'WW.7 -- EAL _ Â»P divyzt-W - p'411 0 + 4 6,~010Â¥ee,S. 14*bu P hvÂ¥5 4- O. lA Â£625 4 beaeR1- 7 b 61..c, E Av rpalvic- __ lit 111 ACSHAURCe Â£*cumÂ£* al- 86 ribki Â»i w Aul-1. 6\3004Â£10 i l,14 J- 0. iIi - - "904 -MA pvweu \1*Jt,1-11 - 1-{i U -6 41*ed Use.. Â£9 -twh .1/4 -\Asu k zi 1,4 1- ose 4- 4-01â€¢ si-ki_ <Wa@,d fic AMF- 11,1. 960 ft; 20,1-2,5 . - 13 e.+ - 12*re'l Joes 4 12 +0-546 A.(-2-09 E-KL - (31\Ater 42- 1)013 coRGIol~61 6/145 - DE ~6,~10 - ok-. 3-Act_ - 4.- _ 0,~ 4&< 5 - 120* - &90*Â·Â·6 diwd t,g pdolil, pe,{44Â· A fi)Ob. 6.45. 5k E-fl- ok. 6.AdIA /55 oes at Gku.,14. 94*4- POD -4- . _ ~45 - OK- 2101, ok. 111 1 7-~ - "De -42 v.eed a,wollo-- fc,E.2-) 2547,1/,Â· 0%Â»zÂ» Â«4Â¥6/ . 1WU wwck O Ki> al~, k. us , rubt L . - EwpIVee. ~.aÂ« . ri-n 14- bW,6 - 1476'7 Zomh-#6(â‚¬ . 4 Â°-rrmof.*c, 42,-- ~pur>. Thsr- 6046 + __AUL- M - 12~il - eL 11~7 -_f th b lusk 6 2Â»646_k Que.'.64 V.' GAA.C~M - _ GU. 64_ CA# I Tor) - ts 30Â°4 fwneS Â· 61'A&9- a k t~ 1 - ok-. -1<M. 1 * 6 lus 6 - Ekcarks. Noes -4- Ad a,â€¢â€¢-UJ,(e, _ kle,yLL,Lo; Ce>v,-~46,0 4 Futwe- ok.me - 1- -4* 0:IVULv'~ 6,l 1,0 $ POD - 6/- 9-4 vt-SUM+24- - 1,UNâ‚¬. 9"A&5 - DIP- ptâ€¢/El i - 2--LL - 62. Hole- - tÂ·-6 pre 6 1.- 4 PLC g-=r- 4-1 I Wot 4 05Â£-5 - a Lue 7 4 7--4-, - poup- e.4- u'nizj Uâ‚¬- 1 C3 Â«nl 0*15 - o. C pat-- AG+*uak. GUId. 04/~y wl 24-04\ MA)94- ke lÂ» 6~ 1 U A \11â‚¬01 1- I 2%56<1>,4 t f. 1 1.. Vori FY*Â£ I Plc*i'6# 1, 4 Â· -Emk 5 1-vel~, 4,11% f 7 70541 0 Atout 'Rubmw E= 3613 A*4t, 66,46 91612 746*te<79% (970)920-1125 aredtu,taWÂ»+44.,tet September 30,2002 Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: PARK PLACE SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION Dear Chris, This is an application requesting that the Aspen City Council and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission conduct a joint sketch plan review of a proposal to develop a private parking facility in downtown Aspen. The application is being submitted by Peter Fornell, a 20 year local resident, who along with an investment group is under contract to purchase Lots A, B, C, and D, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen, located at the corner of Spring Street and Hyman Avenue. Lots A and B are improved with the Hannah Dustin Office Condominiums, and are not part of this application. Lots C and D are improved with a small A-Frame residence, and are the subject of this application. Together, Lots C and D comprise 6,000 sq. ft. of land, zoned O (Office). A letter signed by Alan Goldstein, the owner of the property, authorizing Mr. Fornell to submit this application, is attached as Exhibit #1. A letter from Mr. Fornell authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services to represent him in this process is attached as Exhibit #2. Sketch plan review is a process authorized by Section 26.304.060 B.2. of the Aspen Land Use Code, which states: "If the Community Development Director, in consultation with the applicant, determines that a proposed development application may be complex, have the potential for significant community interest, involves a public facility, or the proposed project would benefit from additional community input, the Community Development Director may schedule a joint meeting with the City Council and either the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, or both, for a sketch plan review." Mr. Chris Bendon September 30,2002 Page Two The applicant concurs that this project should be subject to sketch plan review before a conceptual submission is prepared for this property. There are several relatively complex issues that we have identified in the early planning for this property which we would like to review with the Council and P&Z. These "threshold issues" are listed at the end of this application letter. We are also very interested in obtaining additional community input regarding this project, including ideas the Council, the P&Z, and the public may wish us to consider including in our conceptual land use application. To facilitate this discussion, this application includes a very simple description of the applicant's concept for this project. This is supplemented by a basic graphic presentation of what the project might look like, including a site plan, an elevation study, and floor plans. These drawings are meant to be preliminary and illustrative, and we expect them to evolve as we move forward in the land use process. Finally, the threshold issues are identified, so we can get responses from Council and P&Z at the public hearing, which you have scheduled for October 21. Some additional graphic material will be presented at that time. Project Description The Park Place project is intended to serve a persistent need in Aspen's core area - the need for long term, off-street parking. Parking a vehicle in the commercial core can be a difficult and frustrating experience. Past studies the City has conducted of parking patterns indicate that many of those parking on- street are business owners, employees, and others who want to park their cars for longer periods of time. But from a public perspective, on-street parking spaces are intended to turn over frequently, so they can be used by customers coming downtown to shop, dine, or do business. To encourage the turnover of these spaces, the City has adopted a pricing schedule that increases the cost of parking for each hour the car is stored in the same space. The inventory of off-street parking spaces in the commercial core is limited. The public parking at the Rio Grande garage is essentially full. The remaining off-street parking in the core is provided by private lots and other spaces associated with various commercial buildings. These spaces are locked up long term by building owners and renters. Although these spaces may not be used full time by the owners and renters, they are generally not available for short term rental, because there are no attendants managing the lots. So these spaces are underutilized, and may sit empty even when on-street parking spaces are full. Park Place is intended to fill this gap in the parking picture in downtown Aspen. Park Place will make approximately 96 off-street parking spaces available in an ideal location. The property is located only a couple of blocks from the Silver Queen Gondola and from the center of the business district, so it can provide walking-distance proximity to all of the core area's attractions. Mr. Chris Bendon September 30,2002 Page Three The parking will operate in the following manner. The spaces will be available for purchase. When the owner of the space wants to use the space, that will be their right. However, when the owner is out of town or otherwise does not want to use the space, the owner will notify the management of Park Place, and the space will become part of the daily rental pool, generating income for the owner. This will help to reduce the demand for on-street parking in two ways. First, some people who are parking on-street all day, such as local business persons, will purchase a space to satisfy their parking needs, freeing up on-street spaces. Second, daily rentals to the public will allow for longer term tourist and day-skier parking, freeing up on-street spaces that these visitors would otherwise occupy. Since the goal of Park Place will be to attract cars that intend to park for longer periods of time, the cost schedule for users will be the opposite of that for on-street parking. Where the City charges more for the fourth hour than it does for the first hour, the rates at Park Place will drop for longer stays. This will encourage people to park on the street for a short stay and to park in the garage for a longer stay, so the two parking schemes will compliment each other. As shown on the accompanying floor plans, the street level of Park Place will have room for 15 cars. This level will function solely for acceptance of vehicles that want to enter the garage. Once the car enters through the entry door on Hyman Avenue, it will be stored in one of these spaces. As time permits, the vehicle will then be transferred, by elevator, to a vacant space on another level. This will ensure that there is never a queue on the street, because as many as 15 cars can be accommodated at once on the ground floor. Delivery of cars to departing customers will be secondary to acceptance of new vehicles. There will be an on-site office that will provide a comfortable place for customers to wait for their car to be delivered, and to conduct the parking garage business. Customers will be encouraged to call ahead, so their car is ready when they come to pick it up. We believe this project will help to support the City's goals for infill development. As pointed out in the City's infill studies, one of the factors preventing infill development is that there is greater value in using vacant lots for commercial parking than there is for new development. Attended, covered, ownership parking, with its income generating potential for owners, can be expected to put pressure on the existing surface parking lots. As demand for surface spaces drops, the owners of these lots may look to other uses for their property. Park Place will also add to the vitality of the downtown area by making it easier for customers to approach the downtown area. We have all joined in the parking shuffle around town, with persons driving around the block or double-parking because they can't find a vacant space, and with employees leaving work to move from one space to another to avoid the higher rates. Providing a new off-street option for long term parking will help to solve these problems, freeing up existing spaces for the short term needs they can best serve. Mr. Chris Bendon September 30,2002 Page Four In summary, Park Place provides the opportunity for a significant level of off-street parking to be provided in the downtown core, at no cost to taxpayers. We believe that the project will be consistent with the City's goals, as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Infill Study. However, because the timing of this project is slightly ahead of the implementation of the City's infill code amendments and downtown rezoning, there are aspects of the adopted Code that pose challenges to accomplishing this project as planned. This is the reason that we would like to discuss the following threshold questions with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission during our Sketch Plan presentation. Threshold Questions 1. PUD Designation. As the City has learned in the process of formulating the infill code amendments, the dimensional standards in the City's commercial zones are relatively inflexible, and have become a barrier to the type of development the City is seeking to encourage. Therefore, our initial threshold question is whether the City would be willing to consider a PUD designation for this property, to provide some flexibility in the review of the proposed site plan and building design. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Code, a PUD application may only be submitted for a parcel of less than 27,000 sq. ft. under the following circumstance: "The Community Development Director determines the development of the property may have the ability to further the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development process will best serve the interests of the community". Following are some reasons to support the PUD designation: The City of Aspen Infill Report, dated January 22,2002, includes this property within the "Eastern Periphery Commercial Area" that is proposed to be rezoned from its current Office (O) zoning designation to Commercial (C-1). The Report states that this area "can support a higher intensity of development. Directly adjacent to the existing C-1 zone, this would be a proper location for periphery retail, lodging, and mixed use buildings." Designating this property PUD will provide the flexibility for the City to look at this property in light of its infill objectives, even while the complete package of infill code amendments is being debated. Furthermore, as you pointed out to me, there is very little to lose and much for the public to gain by subjecting this project to PUD review. PUD offers the City a more detailed review procedure and standards to apply to this project than it would have without the PUD review. While the PUD designation allows the applicant to request flexibility in the application of the City's zone district standards, it does not guarantee that the flexibility will be granted. Mr. Chris Bendon September 30,2002 Page Five Assuming that the City supports use of the PUD process for this project, we would then ask the Council and the P&Z to help us to establish the appropriate dimensional standards for this parking facility. In an effort to use this property efficiently and to create a significant amount of parking, the applicant would like to achieve three stories of parking below grade, and three stories above grade. The three stories above grade can be built to comply with the 25' height limit of the Office zone district (and be substantially below the current 40' height limit of the C-1 zone district). However, the maximum floor area and setback requirements for the property would need to be established by the PUD plan to accomplish this project. The maximum allowable floor area in the Office zone district is 1: 1, provided on-site affordable housing is provided. The Office zone also requires the following setbacks: Front yard: 10' Side yard: 5' Rear yard: 15' A 1:1 floor area ratio would allow little more than a single story of above grade parking to be built. Such a project is simply not economically feasible, nor is it an appropriate use of this in-town property. The cost of building the below grade structure will be significant, and it requires more than a single-story of above grade parking to be built. Four on-site studio affordable housing units are planned (two on the second level and two on the third level), to mitigate the employees that would be generated by this project. If the applicant were unable to build these units on the upper stories, the applicant would have to find an off-site or cash-in-lieu solution, adding another economic burden to this project. The City's proposal to rezone this property to the new C-1 zone district begins to respond to the realities of developing parking on this property. It would allow a maximum commercial floor area of 1.5:1, plus an unlimited floor area for affordable housing. Moreover, both the existing and the proposed C-1 zone districts do not have any required setbacks, to encourage more intense development and to bring the building up to the street front. The building has been designed to comply with some of the dimensional standards of the underlying Office zone district and some of the proposed C-1 zone. The building height would be 25', which is well below the 40' allowance of the C-1 zone district. The building would be set back 5' from each side property line, as required in the Office zone, but would have a 0' setback from the front and the rear property lines, as permitted in the C-1 zone. The 5' setback on the west recognizes an existing encroachment of a walkway behind the Hannah Dustin building onto Lot C. The 5' setback on the east side matches the 5' setback that the Benedict Commons building has from its property line, and respects the residences there. The 0' front setback still allows the applicant to install a sidewalk and planting area in the City's R-O-W. Mr. Chris Bendon September 30,2002 Page Six The building's proposed commercial floor area would be approximately 2.25:1. An additional area of approximately 0.25:1 is dedicated to the 4 affordable housing units. The floor plans illustrate that the applicant has designed the facility to use space in as efficient a manner as possible. The project is predicated on using an elevator to move cars from floor to floor within the building, to minimize the use of floor area for circulation. A separate entryway next to the elevator ensures that cars can enter the facility, even when the elevator is taking a car to or from another level. The threshold question for this project is whether Council and P&Z believe this building can meet the test of being compatible in scale and massing with surrounding buildings. We would request your initial reactions to our proposal, so we can determine how and where we should refine this design. 2. GMQS Allotments. As a private commercial development, this project will be subject to competition in the Growth Management Quota System. This raises a key question with respect to the size of the available annual quota. As presently designed, this project would develop approximately 13,000 sq. ft. of net leasable space. This has been calculated as follows. According to the definitions section of the Code, net leasable space is the areas within the building that are designed to be leased to a tenant, these being the areas within the parking spaces and the proposed office space. Circulation corridors and mechanical spaces are specifically excluded from the definition of net leasable space. Assuming 96 parking spaces would be developed, and each space is approximately 8' wide by 16' long, there would be about 12,300 sq. ft. of net leasable space in the parking spaces. The area dedicated to the office is approximately 500 sq. ft. Therefore, a total of approximately 13,000 sq. ft. of net leasable space is planned for this property. The annual quota in the Office zone district is 4,000 sq. ft. of net leasable space. Given the fact that it has been several years since the City last awarded an allocation in the Office zone district, and given the fact that this is not the typical type of high impact/employee generating commercial space, would the City be willing to a consider a multi-year allocation to this project? Alternatively, is there some other action that the City may be contemplating as part of its infill code amendments that could resolve this issue? Based on our discussions with staff we anticipate that the GMQS application for this project would occur at the final stage of review. Commercial GMQS applications are due for submission on September 15 of each year. If this project were to be warmly received by the community, is there any way to shift this date forward to allow this project to be considered in a more timely manner? Mr. Chris Bendon September 30,2002 Page Seven 3. Employee Generation Standard. The applicant's intention is to develop four on-site studios, to provide housing on-site for at least 60% of the employees generated by the project. The employee-generation standard in the Office zone district is 3.0 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable space. We believe there should be little question that this standard is not applicable to this type of project. However, we are unable to find any provision in the City Code that would allow consideration of the actual employment program for the project, as opposed to this generic standard. In the past, the City has been willing to evaluate the employee generation characteristics of a unique project such as this based on its actual level of employment. For example, during the review of the Isis Theatre project, the City took into account the fact that the theatre would not generate employees at the rate of 3.5 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable area. It instead looked at the actual planned employment for the facility, and required the project to be subject to an audit two years after it began operation to confirm the employment representations. A similar approach was used many years ago, when a storage warehouse type of project was proposed in town. It is our recollection that in the past, the City Code contained language that provided for this type of project-by-project look at employee generation. Would the City be willing to consider re-introducing this type of flexibility into the Code to apply to a project like this? We recognize that these may not be the only threshold questions that need to be addressed to ensure the success of this project. We would welcome the discussion of other questions about this project that are of importance to the Council, Commission, staff, and the public. We look forward to meeting with these groups on October 21. Please let me know if there is anything else you require to allow us to move forward with that hearing. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES Alan Richman, AICP EXHIBITS -- C .61 EXHIBIT #1 To whom it may concern, I, Alan Goldstein am the owner of the Property located at 300 S. Spring. I am currently under conuact to sell the Premises to John Cooper and RAS Investment Co. This letter is to provide my consent to allow the buyer ro make application for future development On the property. Any application may be made by Peter Fomell broker or the buyer with my peImission. Agreed and acknowledged: /0 1 9t4 Alan Goldsteit - W.121Â·7 7 nA7 TOTAL P EXHIBIT #2 Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: PARK PLACE SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION Dear Chris, As the attached letter from Alan Goldstein demonstrates, I am the broker for an investment group that is under contract to purchase Lots A, B, C, and D, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen. We hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services to act as our designated representative with respect to the sketch plan application being submitted to your office for this property. Alan Richman is authorized to submit this application to the City on our behalf. He is also authorized to represent us in meetings with City staff and the City's review bodies. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number are included in the land development application. Sin~~ I- U.6.4/r=2/ Peter Fornell 402 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 544-0745 EM DRAWINGS 300 South Spring Street Vicinity Map 3 \>< 1 411 111 41 1.0 1 /0 J /- ,~1 11 L , E HOPKI E HYMAN AVE 1 k /00/- Nymen -- ~ f f /1 )- < -28 I F /I*/l~ L E COOPER AVE ----Tilill'll../.--- 7 ~ / ./.il fJhAN- /L--%-4 ly.. Ii- -le~,~- e. plt>[ 2/,4+ 1 0 - ="'"---'""'- - - -"-"--'-4 -4 3 4-L,.t=ZL 1 1 . L i i 1 51 1 i ! 1 - 1 9 +Fr~ 4 Pri UL *tv*,2 - 1. - , 1 1% 't ' 'ka- - 2 1 13 i r ;1 1 i , 1& 4 - 14â‚¬W AM,Â« 1-*1 -- -. ...1 . r t T 5 7 ---2.41 j ~. 2 <Trri~ r , 164 , 9 1 i 1 2,2,1 6,4, 1 1 . i - .1 : 1 1 1, - - .1 , I 12 . 8.1,EVArrotk-- Â»+9 7--44,4/ . /-Mi 4 +ret 4 N N liA~ , -j}1Â¢W 1 -0 - - - B-. .--f -' 1 W I AgNAAL Pnvt,wAO,J 41-uj 4.- 4 1 [tyUMUL -Â·r- + 1 4 1 1 1 Aâ€ž 14 1*j j i LOPM E. Urkul -Ave PA-ELMÂ¢E-, edÂ¢0, PtÂ«n Â· . PrIA w t 306-0 Â·nâ€¢Asw unkrrr AMEA --Â· /-/- GARAGE 15 CARS --- //// /1 STA-ZAAE PECUANICAL m 89 PRET t,Â·-4Â· 191 551 aa MET 01-91 Al.A 11 - ~PARK PLACE er,e=t I LEVEL- 4 ...I.. NORTW *11 i MONARON *TI,iii *â€¢P/â€¢.â€¢a /1/11 L 60-0 1 4 - - /// /// GARAGE 15 CARS ////0// 4 5'.C" . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 0TAII(*02 MECNANICAL. 7 1-71 89 â€¢MET li I 1 99/3 11 4, SIUX) AP,-TrÂ·ENT STUDIO APA#frrENT 31* Ba FEET 311 Sa FEET 1 == 1 7-7 - 1 6% 11 ./.--1/.-- - . ~ PA,8< PLACE THIRD LEVEL NOIETW Ill & MONAROH 'TI'- a////.â€¢/ /1/11 ill * r il Se_ PrET - h\N GARAGE 13 CARS --- STA~CAZE /1/cliedcAL m SU PEET 'i ...1. 12'-0. / 6 ITI.DIC A-ARTMENT 2 -LZ)10 .P//ITIMENT 314 8a MEET 311 8,1 MEET vEWIa* ELM*.0,1 aa,â‚¬ ...I 1 11. ~ PARK PLACE BECONO LEVEL l.If/., ...I.. WORTH *18 & MONARON ITII â€¢0/â€¢â€¢./4 01/11 1 I 1 -NX- 1 -N- --1 1 : ' , 1 1 : 1 1.- - GARAGE --1 1 17 6,2:les 3.0. t 1 l I STA~:â€¢108 PIEe:34-CAL m ia FEET 4 1 1 1. 1 1 9 1 erolutle reoj*dicAL r. 'al la PECT VE TOR 3, ea 11 1 . I ~~'\ PARK PLACE LOUER LEVEL 1 1.1/... NORTH 21â€¢ a â€¢Oâ€¢ARON ITII- â€¢/,0/.// /1/11 .... tal - GARAGE ~---- 13 CARS -- ~Â·ECIAANICAL m ea PEET rr-* Flf' *TOMAGE rile-Al#CAL 4- 20 FmT .54 Taa '-~\ PAR< PLACE L-2 1 LCXLER LEVEL 2 4 ...l.. NORTU 111 a MONAROH ITIIII a//â€¢â€¢./1 /1/11 1.-2 . 6.-0. I I 1 %-< l I 42 \Â«\ 1 - GARAGE 3-- -, Il CARS I 5-#. t 1 ---- 1 1 STAInt:Aee tÂ·*CUANICAL rn ed PEEr 1 . U L / 1 870..8 recw.NICAL e. 400 80 0117 Ve)41 TOR 52 AG 1 1 CD PANe< PLACE LOWER LEVEL 3 NOIRTU *11 1 MONAROH ITI'll ........ ./.11 . 6 1 1 - 1) 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ....2 ELEVATOR ~ enolo â€¢pARâ„¢err 1 1 1 1 1 j -1 - r 1-'-'--- t 1 '14 8.Ov ./*ME vaw,CLE ELEVATOR i ~ r -- -~ -1,1 1 , 1 . Svv.PANâ„¢- 1 - j- --1 -1 - - 1 01 VEHICLE ELEVATCT 01,0.1.-A . F- - -- 4 - 1 .1.- - - - - (D PARK PLACE W I NCE I CLi= VA I 'LAN MEMORANDUM TO: Development Review Committee 110. RPY From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: October 10,2002 Re: Park Place Private Parking Facility Attendees: Scott Woodford, Community Development Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Nick Adeh, Engineering Department Richard Goulding, Engineering Department Denis Murray, Building Department Brian Flynn, Parks Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Allan Richman, Planner representing Applicant Peter Fornell, Applicant Jeff Halferty, Architect for Applicant At the October 9,2002 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 and East Hyman. The proposed garage will accommodate approximately 96 parking spaces and will have six levels - - three above grade and three below grade. The cars will be moved from street level to other garage levels via a vehicle elevator. Each parking space will be owned by an individual. If the owner notifies the garage that they are not using the spot, the spot can be rented. Besides the parking area, four studio apartments are planned for the second and third floors. DRC COMMENTS 1. Engineering Department: â€¢ Nick commented that there will be two curb cuts for the garage - - one for the elevator and one to drive in the garage. This is possibly a shorter curb cut that is currently there. â€¢ Per City standards, the parking spaces must have a dimension of 8-1/2'x18'. â€¢ Roof drains will need to be directed to dry wells or the City's storm water collection system. Floor drains cannot be discharged into the storm drains due to the potential for contamination. â€¢ The excavation will be 30+ feet deep. Due to past bad experiences, the City does not allow soil nails that extend into the ROW or utility easements. Investigating the use of soil hardening techniques is recommended. â€¢ 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. â€¢ 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. â€¢ Are there ground water issues? Groundwater could potentially increase the cost of construction and operation. 2. Community Development Engineer: â€¢ Cars should not back out of garage, over the sidewalk, and into the street. Cars must turn around inside the garage. Page 2 of 3 October 9,2002 Park Place 3. Zoning: No comments at this time. 4. Housing Department: No comments at this time. 5. Fire Protection District: â€¢ Is there going to be an emergency generator? What happens if the electricity fails with the lift is going up? â€¢ There are numerous life safety issues related to access and ventilation. â€¢ Sprinklers, alarms with notification, fire doors, staircases, standpipes, firewalls, hose bibs, illumination devices, and roof access will be required. â€¢ A firefighting plan is need that addresses issue that includes fire fighter and occupant safety. â€¢ In terms of occupant safety, the use of carbon monoxide monitors is strongly recommended. 6. Parks Department: â€¢ Parks Department would like to see landscaping installed in front of the garage and the neighboring property to the east. (Neighboring property to east has the same owner.) 7. Building Department: â€¢ A people elevator is needed. â€¢ Apartments need additional ways of access. â€¢ Ventilation needs to be addressed. 8 City Water Department: â€¢ Soil Nails: Said Phil, "I see that Engineering's comments on Park Place included soil nails, which is our primary concern on this project. It indicates that the excavation for the proposed parking garage could be more than 30 feet in depth. Since we have had negative experiences with soil nails disrupting essential city services (water and electric), we would require mitigation of these impacts if the project proposes the use of this technology and extends into the public right of way (streets and alleys). Since the extent of damage can't be accurately projected in advance, it would be our recommendation to require replacement of these public facilities in the area fronting any such encroachment in the ROW at the developer's cost. Detailed review of the construction plans would be necessary to determine the precise scope of any such required replacement. The replacement should include restoration of the right of way surface to pre-development conditions." 9. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; â€¢ Will there be a back-up generator? If so, there will be fuel tank issues. â€¢ 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. 10. Environmental Health: â€¢ The Environmental Health Department's initial concerns or comments for the Park Place parking garage is the following: Page 3 of 3 October 9,2002 Park Place "Although the trips generated by the four affordable housing units are greatly reduced due to its proximity to a transit stop and a grocery store, there will be a significant number of trips generated by the private parking garage serving up to 96 cars. Mitigation will be necessary. The Department recognizes that charging a daily rate is better than owning and would encourage the applicant as a mitigation measure to just have it as a daily parking garage and not owned. By having owned parking spaces that when not used by one driver can be open to other drivers that will then pay the owner of the space (driver who is out of town) seems to be in opposition of the AACP as well as the Ecological Bill of Rights. Both represent the community's desire to protect our air quality by reducing traffic in town. The applicant targets business owners and their employees that are having troubles finding a parking spot in town. The City's Transportation Options Program (TOP) targets local business owners and their employees not to drive by themselves but to use mass transit options, which would resolve the above parking issue. The applicant fails to recognize Aspen's efforts in reducing traffic in town." 11. City Community Development - Planning: No comments at this time. 12. City Electric Department: No comments at this time. 13. Holy Cross Electric: No comments at this time. 14. City Attorney: No comments at this time. 15. Streets Department: No comments at this time. 16. Historic Preservation Officer: No comments at this time. 17. Pitkin County Planning: No comments at this time. 18. County and City Disaster Coordinator: No comments at this time. 19. Transportation: No comments at this time. 20. Parking: No comments at this time. /DRC/ParkPIace KLEIN-ZIMET Gilip E PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET MILLARD J. ZIMET* SUITE 203 MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 925-8700 *also admitted in New York FAX: (970) 925-3977 October 16,2002 Via Hand Deliverv Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner OL i *CIVEE 923 City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street CO#UASPEN:j'. Â£ - 9 NITKDEW\/A. Aspen, CO 81611 Clop. MENT %6 0 Re: Park Place Sketch Plan Dear Chris: I am writing to you on behalfofthe 700 E. Hyman Condominium Owners' Association (the "Association") concerning the Park Place Sketch Plan 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. 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 Impact. The sketch plan application is devoid ofany traffic study demonstrating that the traffic generated from a 96 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 ofa 6 story building (3 floors below grade and 3 above grade). We can imagine the line-up ofcars waiting to enter while the elevator makes its rounds and cars are pick- up and dropped off. The location of this garage near the intersection creates questions about grid- lock at this location. The impacts o f adding a large number of vehicle trips per day to this location needs to be evaluated before any decision on this project is made. 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 east. 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 sketch plan application addresses these concerns. No air quality studies are present. RECEWE 6Â®9& 1 p\IP-mierf Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department October 16,2002 Page 2 3. Use of PUD Variations. The sketch plan seeks PUD designation so that underlying (O) office zone district requirements can be modified to accommodate the unique needs of this development, like greater lot coverage and greater floor area. Neighborhood compatibility of the proposed use and structure should be the paramount concern in any decision to grant the flexibility that PUD designation allows. At this point, we cannot imagine how this use could be deemed to be compatible with the adjacent and nearby residential and office uses. 4. This is not Infill. The analogy to infill development that is suggested in the sketch plan application 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 studios). 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 touted 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, is it not with the intention of fostering a mix of uses? Those that generate sales taxes for the City and vitality for the core? Since this block contains recently constructed affordable housing, the condominiumized Aspen Athletic Club building and its office and athletic club uses, and the 700 E. Hyman Condominiums, all rather new and thriving properties, it is unlikely that any other parcel on this block will be redeveloped under the infill program. Perhaps the City should reconsider whether infill regulations and a rezoning to C-1 is appropriate here. 5. GMOS Multi-vear Allotment. The sketch plan application seeks a multi-year allotment and accelerating the submission date for a GMQS application for this project. The standards for a multi-year allotment are set forth in section 26.470.100 (D). Generally, only superior projects that are compatible with the neighborhood and address important community goals are eligible for them. We think it is unrealistic for the applicant to be suggesting a multi-year allotment for this project, given its impacts.1 Likewise, the City should not change the submission date just to accommodate this application. This change would affect not only the applicant, but other property owners who are planning to submit GMQS applications, which usually take many months to plan for and prepare for submission. 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 and unfortunately, its concept perpetuates the current reality that the highest and best use for core property is parking. The proposed development could generate somewhere around $3 million in sales of parking spaces with minimal "social capital" requirements due to its unique use and the relaxation of exactions that are sought. Its community 1 We also note that the calculations of leasable floor area discussed in the section of the application dealing with this GMQS issue are understated. The calculations of the applicant are based on a parking space size that is less than the minimum required by the City land use code (8' x 16' vs 8.5' x 18'). This results in a net leasable amount that is over 15,000 sq. ft. Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department October 16, 2002 Page 3 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. Is this the City's vision for its future? Are we going to timeshare parking next? We certainly hope not. The City should not permit this incompatible use, with its significant off-site impacts in this neighborhood. Ifthe developer wants to use this property for infill 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, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION i 2/ / - 071-4* By: Meri,ert S. Klein sg\700 E Hyman Condo Assn\bendon.Itl Page 1 of 1 X-Sender: saraho@comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 16#~~E ~ . I; ff Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:58:40 -0600 - -,1.4. E To: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us From: Sarah Oates <saraho@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Park Place referral Cc: johnn@ci.aspen.co.us Chris- I can't make the DRC on Wednesday because of the defensive driving refresher course. Anyhow, my only comment is that they are proposing 8' x 16' parking spaces which are smaller than required per code which is 8 1/2' x 18'. I'm not sure in a project like this if the spaces have to comply with our requirements but it was just something I noticed. Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920-5441 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\eud20.htm 10/8/02 GR~ 5 - E-f L MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: ............. City Engineer 1 ......... Community Development Engineer Zoning Officer 4............ Housing Director Parks Department Aspen Fire Marshal City Water Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Building Department Environmental Health Electric Department Holy Cross Electric City Attorney Streets Department Historic Preservation Officer Pitkin County Planning County & City Disaster Coordinator Transportation Police Transportation Parking FROM: Chris Bendon Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone-920-5072 Fax-920.5439 DATE: October 4,2002 RE: DRC Meeting: Park Place Private Parking Facility: A private parking facility is proposed for 300 South Spring Street near the intersection of Spring and East Hyman. The proposed garage will accommodate approximately 96 parking spaces and will have six levels - - three above grade and three below grade. The cars will be moved from street level to other garage levels via a vehicle elevator. Each parking space will be owned by an individual. If the owner notifies the garage that they are not using the spot, the spot can be rented. Besides the parking area, four studio apartments are planned for the second and third floors. DATE OF DRC MEETING: October 9, 2002 (1:30 pm in Sister Cities Room of City Hall) /DRC/DRCtemplate MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission 4l FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Plannet AA lAA RE: "Park Place" Sketch Plan Review DATE: October 1,2002 SUMMARY: A "Sketch Plan Review" of a project being referred to as "Park Place" has been scheduled for October 21St (5 p.m.) with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. There is not an application submitted yet, only a brief description of the idea and a request for this Sketch Plan Review. Information will be distributed on the application prior to the 21St hearing. The property is located at the corner of southeast corner of South Spring and East Hyman, the Hannah Dustin Building and the adjacent A-Frame structure. Sketch Plan Review is a process in the City's Land Use Code that allows a developer to determine "threshold issues" which should be addressed in an application prior to the application being submitted. This review process formalizes what previously occurred during "work sessions" and allows public to more fully participate. Typically. staff and potential applicants hold "pre-application meetings" in which the various procedures, submittal requirements, fees, etc. are discussed. Staff is also able to answer questions and advise an applicant on certain issues that should be addressed in their application. Staff suggests certain projects that are good examples or poor examples. certain development approaches that have been well received, certain issues that should be expected to come-up during a review, etc. These pre-app meetings help an applicant formulate their application. Sketch Plan Review is similar to holding a pre-application meeting in public. Identification of important issues prior to application submission allows an applicant an opportunity to address those issues within the application. This process also allows neighbors and the review boards the opportunity to identify key issues that should be addressed iii an application. ATTACHMENTS: A - Sketch Plan Provisions 1 26.304.060 :~ 2. Sketch plan review. U the Community Development Director, in.consultation with the ap- plicant, determines that a proposed development application may be complex, have the poten- tial for significant community interest, involves a public facility, or the proposed project would benefit from additional community input, the Community Development Director may schedule a joint meeting with the City Council and either the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, or both, for a sketch plan review. A sketch plan review may be held either before or after an application is submitted and determined to be sufficiently complete by the Director of the Community Development Department. If it is scheduled after an application is determined complete by the Community Development Director, the sketch plan review meeting shall be conducted prior to ally other land use review proceeding required by this Code. A sketch plan review meeting shall be noticed by publication, mailing and post- ing, (See Section 26.304.060(E)(3)), and the joint meeting shall be conducted as a public meet- ing. The minutes of the joint meeting shall become part of the formal record of the proceedings before the City Council and the decision-making body which has been invited to attend the joint meeting with the City Council. A quorum of the City Council shall not be required to conduct a sketch plan review hearing. The Community Development Director may invite par- ticular members of the public (stakeholders) to attend and participate in the sketch plan review hearing. At the conclusion of the public meeting, the members of the City Council, decision- making body invited to attend the joint meeting, and stakeholders (if invited to attend) may of- fer the applicant advisory suggestions regarding the proposed application, but shall not make any decisions regarding the application for development. Applicants shall not be entitled to rely upon any decisions, comments, or suggestions made by the members of the joint public ~~ meeting as no attempt shall be made to approve a development proposal even on a conceptual C level at a sketch plan review. C. )#eneral Â¥Aring pryâ‚¬dures. The fo~ng general proce~fes shall apply>~ the condl~ of alMearings Fegarding thâ‚¬review of a dev.~opment applicatiyâ€¢* decision-m*6g bodies. ~,/ 1 i 'll j./ Oath or,6#innation. Thg,e~rperson of the,Ecision-making>ddy or the ~,for may re- /quire thyfestimony and ymence shall be *efi under oath o~fraffirmation~ the body c~ ductipÂ¢'the hearing. / 1 1 1 It Â¢~ Rights of allj4rsons. Any perÂ§dn may appear atyfublic hearin*.â‚¬dd submit evj#Ace ei- ther individuatfy or as a repre,dative of another,person or an Orginization. The tRailperson of the de~on-making bo,Sly'or the Mayor may,6quire anyone,,p*resenting anp{Ar person CE an orgyizatlon to preyrf written evidenceyf their authorityâ‚¬o speak on be*lf of the perjA or t]~brganization jp/tegard to the matty'Under considep~fion. Each pers#6 who appeght a pl#ic hearing sh#[ be identified and,)f'appearing on *half of another,~rson or an gpganiza- tion, state the DAe and mailing addrEss of the persoybr the organizati611. 1 11 3. Due pÂ¢der of proceedings~fhe decision-Ingling body cond~ng the he*4may exglfde testigâ€¢fy or evidence that,/finds to be iI;~ant, immater*br unduly re$titious. Vorder of pÂ¢oceedings shall be ~Pollows: (Aspen 400) 494